Can Spielberg, Scorsese, and Bay Save 3D?

[Mitch Henessey]

This article is a great read, and Brent Lang does make some excellent points...

The A-list cavalry is riding to the rescue of 3D.

It may be the format's last chance.

Increasingly squishy 3D openings -- most recently for the fourth "Pirates of the Caribbean” movie and “Kung Fu Panda 2” -- have left the movie industry panicked that the format ushered in so spectacularly by “Avatar” has lost its "wow" factor.

But before the technology is counted out entirely, there's a veritable Panzer division of directors -- from Steven Spielberg to Peter Jackson -- lining up to storm the 3D fortress.

Also read: 3D Slammed Anew After Format's Weak 'Pirates 4' Opening

Film critics and industry executives have high hopes that with these directors' reputations on the line, these will succeed where others have failed. Here's some of the big talents on the 3D horizon:

* Martin Scorsese is shooting the children's film "Hugo Cabret," slated for a on Nov. 23 release.

* Steven Spielberg's motion-capture animated "The Adventures of Tintin: Secret of the Unicorn" hits theaters on Dec. 23.

* Michael Bay has apparently matched the visual splendor of 'Avatar' with "Transformers: Dark of the Moon," according to the studio. It premieres on June 29.

* Jackson is currently filming "Lord of the Rings" prequel "The Hobbit" in 3D, with the first of the two-part series hitting theaters on Dec. 14, 2012.

(Story continues below chart)

“We need to have more directors who incorporate an understanding of how 3D works into their product," Vincent Pace, co-founder along with James Cameron of the technology company Cameron-Pace 3D, told TheWrap. "It’s an ingredient, like salt to a chef. Michael Bay’s on that path. Martin Scorsese’s on that path. They are embracing the technology. They are adding value to the show and weaving it in,”

Indeed, what seems to have been missing since "Avatar" is a film that has seen the format as more than a gimmick to rack up higher ticket prices.

Among other critically lauded auteurs currently developing or in production on 3D features are Ang Lee with “Life of Pi,” Ridley Scott with “Prometheus,” David Fincher with “20,000 Leagues Under the Sea” and Alfonso Cuaron with “Gravity.”

They'd better move fast.

Even with theater chains such as Regal doubling the number of 3D screens this year, more and more moviegoers are choosing to see films in 2D rather than 3D.

“Pirates 4,” for instance, made just 46 percent of its opening weekend gross from 3D theaters and “Kung Fu Panda 2” banked a measly 45 percent of its premiere weekend take in the format, according to a report from BTIG Research.

Contrast that to a year ago when films such as “Shrek Forever After” or “Toy Story 3” made 61 and 59 percent of their opening grosses respectively in 3D. Of course, the format does continue to do well abroad.

"It’s only a short set of data, but if the trend persists, we have to start asking more questions,” Tony Wible, an analyst with Janney Montgomery Scott, told TheWrap. "It might not be cyclical. It could be 3D is just a fad."

Even 3D companies themselves think that its time to take stock of the technology's role in the movie landscape.

“This is a gut check about what real value is being added by bringing 3D to the table,” Pace told TheWrap. “Much to my dismay, filmmakers have been concentrating on making 3D movies, but they haven’t been concentrating on what makes a good 3D movie. The wheel’s have come off the train a little bit.”

Instead, too many movies have been rushed into production to take advantage of the 3D trend without proper planning, or they've been saddled with sloppy conversion work, as in the case of the critically panned "Clash of the Titans."

One rare exception was "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1," which Warners halted 3D conversion on a month before it hit theaters, saying the work on the project didn't meet the studio's standards. The second part of the film franchise's finale will be released in both 2D and 3D when it opens this July.

The technology's boosters believe that the best way to arrest the catastrophic trend is the upcoming release of 3D movies from true visual stylists.

It can't be an accident that the 3D film that has drawn the biggest kudos for its use of the technology post-"Avatar" is "Cave of Forgotten Dreams," the cave-painting documentary from legendary director Werner Herzog.

Most of the films from the big-ticket filmmakers are still in their nascent stages, but individuals familiar with the projects of Bay, Scorsese and Spielberg (all of which have wrapped), say that from storyboarding to shooting, the three directors took great pains to map out how the added dimensionality could ratchet up the drama and action in their films.

The implication is that with their reputations on the line, these filmmakers didn’t rush their films into production to piggyback on a trend, but took the time necessary to create a strong production. After all, “Avatar” took more than three years to produce and film, and nearly a decade to plan.

“‘Avatar' worked because it was immersive, but 3D can go farther than that. If the filmmaker is incredibly visual, the depth it provides can be an incredible storytelling tool,” Steve Schklair, founder of 3D technology provider 3ality Digital, told TheWrap.

Without the bump in ticket sales, 3D may no longer be a worthwhile investment. It is commonplace for productions in the format to be bedeviled by delays and cost-overruns. For instance, “Transformers” cost $30 million to be shot in 3D and lost the first day of filming due to technical problems, according to an individual with knowledge of the production.

Still, for the present, at least, rising costs and production delays haven't dimmed studios' enthusiasm.

“Hollywood, in time-tested fashion, has found a way to not kill but taint the golden goose. They’ve taken away the special feeling that a 3D movie is an event and done so out of pure greed,” Leonard Maltin, former “Entertainment Tonight” film critic and film historian, told TheWrap.

Ginning up the excitement over the latest 3D release might require some heavy pruning by studios. Not everything, studio executives and theater owners say, needs to be released in the format.

“It costs too much money not to weigh if putting this film in 3D will get people to spend that money. The truth is there are very few movies where you can say, ‘Yes this will be qualitatively different in 3D and worth the higher ticket price,” a studio marketing executive told TheWrap.

That’s why Spielberg, Scorsese, Jackson and the rest of the film legends are so important.

Not only do their names above the title command attention, making a movie they direct an event in and of itself, but they bring with them the skill and the sensibility to make 3D a format that enhances a movie, not just inflates ticket prices. People want to see a 3D film from this bunch.

“I hope they don’t disdain it. I hope they embrace it and enjoy it and give us a pleasurable and stimulating experience. I hope they don’t do a subtle use of 3D, because a subtle use of 3D is just another way of saying 2D,” Maltin told TheWrap.

http://www.thewrap.com/movies/artic...ace-3d-can-auteurs-save-format-28038?page=0,0

First of all, Warner Bros. deserves a lot of credit for pulling the plug on the 3D version of The Deathly Hallows Part One. They didn't want to release a weak 3D version of the film. They wanted to give Potter fans a high quality movie. Good job, Warner Bros.

I haven't been too crazy about the 3D film frenzy over the past couple of years. Sure, I might watch a movie in 3D every now and then, but I never go out of my way to see a 3D film. You might find a couple of films out there that are truly entertaining in 3D, but most of the time, this gimmick can be a HUGE ripoff. I've seen a good amount of films that were released in 3D, and a lot these films didn't deliver when it came to the 3D effects. There weren't enough eye popping moments, and I just knew these certain films weren't shot in 3D, so I've decided to be very careful when I think about watching a film in 3D. I'm sure plenty of moviegoers feel the same way. Tickets are already expensive enough, and when you throw in the 3D, your trip to the theater can become even more expensive.

As far as Spielberg, Scorsese, and Bay go, they could help breath some life into the fading 3D trend. These men are big name directors/producers, and people will flock to see their films, but will they go out of the way to shell out some extra cash for 3D? I think it's hard to tell as of right now. I can't stand Michael Bay, but Transformers: Dark Of The Moon WILL make a ton of money, and some people will take a chance on the 3D version. Spielberg and Scorsese have legendary reputations, and their names always play a big part in selling a film.

With all that said, I still think the future of 3D films is pretty shaky. A lot of people aren't going to spend the extra money, especially if they feel cheated by previous 3D films. There are only a few entertaining 3D films I can think of:

Piranha 3D​

Alice In Wonderland (2010)
My Bloody Valentine (2009)​

Good 3D films can be rare, and most of the time, I usually chose 2D versions. Certain films can be fun to watch in 3D, but studios need to make sure their 3D films can deliver the effects people expect, because releasing shitty 3D films will only continue to hurt the chances of success.

 

[Dagger Dias]

I personally do not think they can save 3D because there are people like myself out there who will continue to boycott until it goes away. It is a stupid fad that I don't care for. I do not go to movies to see things coming out at me. I will always hate 3D no matter who directed the movie even if its someone like Spielberg, Scorsese or Bay that made the film.

 

[justinsayne]

I fucking hope not, I can't stand 3D, it's more expensive, and I have to wear stupid fucking glasses that give me a headache, fuck that. Plus when you take into account that most of the movies in 3D don't really need to be in 3D to enjoy anyway, and if anything it just takes away from the movie cause you too bust focusing on the surroundings instead of the story being told. I've never understood the appeal of 3D, and never will, if you need a gimmick like 3D to sell your movie, than chances are your movie prolly sucks anyway, and you should be looking into a new career path

 

[Smooth Sexual Chocolate]

3D is almost as big of a joke as the movie Avatar. 3D may have been a popular trend; but paying 15+ bucks for a movie ticket certainly isn't a trend that's going to stick around.

The only thing that's going to save 3D is cheaper tickets prices, and less shite films.

 

[JWGunslinger]

I couldnt agree with Dagger, there are so many people out there who do not want to see it saved or have anything to do with it that I would say no they cannot. Nearly everyone I talk to about 3D says they hate how expensive it is, the glasses suck and they give you a headache, why try to push to keep it around or expand it? Also is it just me or is the idea of a Scorsese movie in 3D sound horrible? I mean any 3D movie does but his movies dont feel like they would have any reason to be in 3D. In my opinion if there are going to be any movies in 3D they should be movies like Tron, that fits. But goddamn you dont have to turn everything into one of these frickin stroke inducing clusterfucks.

 

[Mitch Henessey]

Also is it just me or is the idea of a Scorsese movie in 3D sound horrible? I mean any 3D movie does but his movies dont feel like they would have any reason to be in 3D.

This is an interesting point. Scorsese's films usually don't have that flashy blockbuster feeling. The Aviator and Shutter Island are the only Scorsese films that come close to this type of feeling. Scorsese's films are usually character driven, so it'll be interesting to see if he can pull of a high quality 3D film.

I'm a HUGE Scorsese fanboy, and he is my favorite director of all time, but I'm not too thrilled about him making a 3D film. Spielberg should do just fine with this type of format, but Scorsese is going to have to step out of his comfort zone for this one.

 

[FunKay the Inevitable]

I truly hate 3D. It adds nothing to the film, it's extra expensive and I'm fed up of James Cameron trying to shove it down my throat. I watched Avatar in 2D on DVD and hated it. I doubt I wouldn't have hated it more though if I saw it in 3D. 3D is a fad, and it's a fad I don't like. That's why Christopher Nolan's next Batman film won't be in 3D and the same for the next Star Trek movie. People are realising this isn't a long-term solution, it's a fad and it's a dying one. Long let it remain dead.

 

[a0161613]

I'm gonna be unpopular with this one but here goes.

Avatar was decent in 2D but in 3D it was brilliant. Cameron created this incredible world that thanks to 3D, looked damn amazing and absolutely immersive. It's the only film that I have seen that used 3D well. Every film I have seen in 2D that was also available in 3D is a film that I can't imagine working well or benefiting from the added perspective.

Avatar was a great example of how to do 3D well. Pirates 4 was not.

I went to see Pirates the other week and was cajoled by the cinema to see the more expensive 3D showing because that and every other film was sold out. It was an OK film but the 3D actually made it a little worse because it did nothing for the film and I begrudged paying extra for it.

I agree 3D is a fad. Very few film-makers are going to capable of creating a film that will be able to the tech and benefit from it.

 

[Stuntz]

Im not a big fan of 3D but i did take the kids to see Rio in 3D and was happy with it. The mian problem with 3D is that the studios are throwing out shit movies with a 3D tag on it to ge the extra money in the box office. I dont mind the glasses and personally unless the movie is shit i dont get headaches. The only way to save 3D is to back off on it. The studios are constantly wanting to shove 3D down our throats it rediculous. When Thor came out, I sure as hell didnt spend my money on it because it was 3D.

Personal opinion is that they should keep 3D for the kids and maybe a couple other films a year, just to keep it alive, because I dont personally see it taking off like HD did. They tried the whole 3D thing in the late 70's and early 80's with no success, however the tech was a lot worse with the colored glasses and colors in the picture it never worked properly. Eventually I see Pixar/Disney dominating the 3D market with childrens animated 3D movies, because if its going to work at all this is where it needs to be done.

 

[Dowdsy McDowds]

Also is it just me or is the idea of a Scorsese movie in 3D sound horrible? I mean any 3D movie does but his movies dont feel like they would have any reason to be in 3D. In my opinion if there are going to be any movies in 3D they should be movies like Tron, that fits. But goddamn you dont have to turn everything into one of these frickin stroke inducing clusterfucks.

Completely agree with this. Marty's made his mark by being an actor's director, not by going with what is seemed to be popular at the time and by doing so has become pretty much a staple in peoples 'Top 5 Directors'.


Numbers - "Avatar was decent in 2D but in 3D it was brilliant. Cameron created this incredible world that thanks to 3D, looked damn amazing and absolutely immersive. It's the only film that I have seen that used 3D well. Every film I have seen in 2D that was also available in 3D is a film that I can't imagine working well or benefiting from the added perspective." (Apologies, haven't worked out the multi-quote thing and didn't want to do 2 posts)

You're right that Avatar benefited vastly from the 3D world Cameron created, but the difference between him and everyone else was that he spent over a decade creating the technology* to make Avatar's visual world a reality. Because of this scrupulous attention to detail, Avatar was a sensation, no doubt.

* - http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/digital/visual-effects/4339455

However, what I saw as the problem to all this was that where Cameron had crafted his vision and technology together, everyone else could take advantage of the technology but not apply it with the same level of thought. Avatar's Pandora took advantage of 3D because it's an alien world where the audience should feel as bedazzled as Sully is. Fine. But I don't trust Bay to use the same technology with such subtlety.

Wait a minute... why am I expecting subtlety from Bay? Eugh. It's been a long (and not the good kind) weekend!

 

[Dave]

3D is and always will be a dead cinema. Well, at least home cinema anyway. It is nice to see some movies in 3D and those are the ones that really take advantage of it. I enjoyed Jackass 3D because it said it was a 3D film and actually meant it. It followed through on it's promise and the 3D aspect of the film was quite successful in my eyes. Still, I don't think it comes down to which directors are using it. I think it comes down to how well the aspect can be integrated into certain movies and there is not a lot of them that are taking full advantage of the technology. For that reason, I doubt there is ever going to be a huge 3D buzz in the cinema or in people's homes.

I have never liked 3D and the more it is pushed down my throat, the more I push it away from myself. There has never been a good reason for me to pay extra to see a 3D movie when the technology is not being used to it's full potential. The best example I have seen of the technology being used well is Jackass 3D and that is saying a fucking lot about the movie world right now.

I guess the question it comes down to if the 3D cinema can be saved and at this point, I would say that there is nothing there to be saved. 3D openings are going down as we all know and we can only speculate on why that is. Personally, I have to think that they are charging too much for a technology that is not being used that well. With a lot of directors coming into the fold now, I should think that the numbers will be bolstered for a while but I doubt it will last very long. 3D, in my eyes, is an unsustainable technology that everyone is getting over. The last time it was used, the same thing happened and then it dies out until today. The same thing will happen these days and it will be no shock to me.