3D is the latest craze in Hollywood. In the wake of Avatar's record-breaking success, it seems every blockbuster worth its salt is set to get the addition of a third dimension. Alice in Wonderland's huge takings, as the first 3D film since James Cameron's behemoth, have apparently confirmed that punters have latched onto the stereoscopic experience. For now, it looks here to stay.But is 3D truly the future? The studio bigwigs certainly seem to think (and hope) so. It's their latest effort in the never-ending battle against public apathy towards cinemagoing - an attempt to get viewers, who may normally have been content to wait for the DVD release, off their sofas. A positive side-effect of the 3D is that it makes the films harder to pirate; you can no longer just record the film with a video camera (which would just produce a fuzzy, unwatchable mess).
Let's be honest, though: there's really one reason and one reason only that studios have suddenly become keen to embrace 3D. Simply, they can charge substantially more, often about 30% more, per ticket. Before Avatar, recent 3D films have mostly only found relatively small audiences (such as Zemeckis' mo-cap pictures and a few gimmicky horror flicks), but the Pandora epic proved that people will, in huge numbers, quite happily fork over more of their dough.
The question is, will this continue if the 3D output becomes regularly sub-standard? Avatar has its detractors, but few would argue that it doesn't make spectacular use of the technology, and is at least a very competently made film. Alice received questionable notices but the public at large didn't seem to care. Now there's Clash of the Titans, which has been the source of much controversy.
Clash has been released in so-called "3D" blatantly to cash in on the Avatar crowd. It was only decided ten weeks ago that the film would be converted to 3D. Not only does that mean that the filmmaker, Louis Leterrier, never shot the film with 3D in mind (there are requirements, such as a longer shot time and brighter colours, necessary for 3D to work properly), but also that the 3D conversion process has been a ropey rush-job. I've not seen the film, but by all accounts the 3D ranges from completely invisible (no visible difference when watching through the glasses or not) to god-awful, producing warped, unnatural effects. An that's when the action is discernable, as it is said to descend into a muddy blur quite often.
I'm not here to judge Clash or its 3D - I am not qualified to do so, having not seen it - but if such negative buzz is warranted, what can it mean for the future of 3D films? Will audiences continue to willingly pay the extra pounds/dollars/whatever for an experience that may be no better, or indeed actually worse, than the old 2D version?
Hollywood execs need to be careful to not over-saturate the market with 3D, or the novelty value will be completely lost. History is littered with attempts to introduce new technology to cinemas that have faded away after a scant few years, often due to the standard of the films rather than the technology. (There have been several previous 3D fads, for example, dating back to the 1950s.) A 3D film should remain an event, or that much-feared viewer apathy will inevitably start to creep back in.
Fundamentally, I'd like a choice between seeing a film in 3D or 2D. Having been wowed by Avatar initially, my second viewing was interesting: I still greatly enjoyed it, but began to think that I could take or leave the 3D. And Avatar is a film that executes 3D probably better than any film ever made. I believe that there are only a select few films which merit the added expense of the third dimension, and such films should be made from the start with 3D in mind, rather than having it imposed as an afterthought.
I do not share the opinion of some that 3D is simply a pointless gimmick. I do believe that, used correctly, it can enhance enjoyment and immersion, as it did on my IMAX 3D viewing of Avatar. But it's not always justified, and bad 3D is far worse than no 3D at all. If Hollywood is not careful, this cash cow could soon be milked dry.
No comments:
Post a Comment