A State of the Union on 3D Movies

As I sat in the darkened theater, geekily wearing my 3D glasses while waiting for The Green Hornet to start, I couldn’t help but be dismayed at what I saw on the screen: three trailers for three upcoming movies that were all in 3D. Yet none of them wowed me, even once.

It’s with this in mind that I am here to write about the current state of 3D. Sadly, for such a visual medium, things aren’t looking very good.

Not too long ago, the head of Dreamworks Animation, Jeffrey Katzenberg, heralded the arrival of 3D and James Cameron kicked open the door with Avatar. As a result, the past two years have seen a continual flood of 3D product in the theaters. Smelling the almighty dollar that comes with the premium 3D ticket price, studios have been frantically making their movies stereostopically or converting them after the fact. The problem is that for many of these films, 3D is an afterthought—a marketing gimmick. The money moviegoers shell out for those glasses isn’t worth it.

In a regular movie, a filmmaker must compose images within a rectangle shaped frame (the screen). With 3D, the flat screen becomes a right rectangular prism (the shape of the entire theater). In addition to the pictures on the screen images can be placed either in front of the screen (objects that pop out at the audience) or behind it (giving the frame depth, like a diorama). This is called the Floating Screen. And where and how a director uses the Floating Screen makes all the difference.

As I have written before, I am a fan of 3D—when it’s done right. Say what you will about Avatar, Cameron thought about the Floating Screen in every frame of that movie and he effectively used 3D to help sell the illusion of being on Pandora. Sometimes his use of 3D was obvious, like the phosphorescent floating plants, and sometimes it was subtle, such vines hanging off of the side of the frame or the depths of the canyons during the flight sequences.

There has also been a handful of other movies that have also used 3D very well. The floating lantern scene in Tangled was breathtaking in the third dimension. Jackass 3D used it to completely gross out the audience in ways that’s disgustingly easy to imagine. 3D made Gru’s nose feel extra pointy and helped a point-of-view roller coaster ride become more thrilling in Despicable Me. However, these and a few others are the exception to the rule.

In the wake of the visual abomination Clash of the Titans 3D conversion, a process where a movie that was shot in 2D is converted to 3D in post production, has shouldered a lot of the blame for the influx of sub-par 3D. While this may be true of some movies that were hastily converted in order to capitalized on the trend, it’s not always the case. One of the 3D trailers I saw recently was for Pirates of the Caribbean 4: Voyage of the Vague Title—a movie that was conceived in and shot in 3D. Yet as the trailer unspooled, it was clear 3D wasn’t really being utilized. The same went for the two other trailers. (Note to filmmakers: when the logo at the end of the trailer is the coolest use of 3D in your movie you’re not using it right.)

I had originally written that The Green Hornet was conceived in 3D, but shot in 2D and converted. However, this was not exactly the case. Somewhere mid-stream in the making of the movie it was decided to give it the extra dimension. Watching The Green Hornet, this is easy to detect this. There are a few very cool sequences that display stunning and innovative uses of 3D. However, for most of the movie 3D felt like an afterthought. Boring and useless. Now for a movie geek like me, those few scenes were worth the extra few bucks I paid. But I wish the whole movie had contained those touches. It could have been incredible.

Unfortunately Tron: Legacy was another huge 3D disappointment, especially for a movie that had been touted as having a revolutionary visual style.

And the list of mediocre 3D movies goes on and on.

If 3D is going to survive, filmmakers need to better utilize it. The decision to make a movie in 3D should not come as a result of studio executives who are looking to cash in, but as a creative decision meant to enhance the movie-going experience. 3D movies need to be conceived, shot and edited differently than their flat counterparts. (I can’t imagine what a headache-inducing experience Michael Bay’s next Transformers fiasco is going to be in 3D.) Also not every movie should be in 3D. Make them as special, event movies. Otherwise the risk of audience burn out is high.

I want to believe in 3D. But when I pay extra money for a 3D movie, I want there to actually be 3D, not just depth. 3D has the potential to be an exciting part of moviegoing, but only if it's done right.  As my friend recently said about the upcoming Spider-Man movie currently being shot in 3D, “If Spidey doesn’t swing out into the audience, than what’s the point?”

[image]