Why 3D Isn’t Dead, Just Changing

  • 66 Comments
 
Why 3D Isn’t Dead, Just Changing  

Much has been made by the press and people inside the industry about the “death of 3D,” as forecast by this weekend’s lower-than-expected take for 3D screenings of Pirates of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides: People didn’t want to watch Johnny Depp acting camp right in front of their faces! It’s the end of 3D cinema! It’s not, of course. But here’s the thing: If that is really the lesson that movie executives are taking away from the low box office last weekend, then the end of 3D really might be around the corner.

Just because Pirates‘ 3D haul was weak doesn’t mean that audiences are bored of 3D (If they were, wouldn’t 3D sales have fallen before this? The unrealistic alternative option is that audiences all across America suddenly decided on exactly the same weekend that they didn’t want to see any 3D movies anymore). Far, far more likely is that audiences just didn’t want to see this particular movie in 3d, which is an entirely different, and entirely understandable, thing. Think about it: What makes the Pirates movies fun – or, at least, as fun as they’ve been, which is an admittedly decreasing amount – isn’t the spectacle but the characters, which have been slowly turning into caricatures over the course of the first three movies. Increasing blandness + Little spectacle to earn the use of 3D = No real incentive for people to pay extra to see the movie in 3D.

(Admittedly, that doesn’t necessarily explain why IMAX earnings for the weekend were said to be “solid.” Perhaps people just like seeing pirate ships really, really big.)

The problem isn’t that 3D is over, the “problem” is that 3D as a novelty in and of itself is over. Audiences have had time to get over 3D as a gimmick, and now they’re at the point of picking and choosing which movies they want to go and see in 3D instead. Which is, in the grand scheme of things, great: It means that 3D just becomes another filmmaking tool, and not something that gets used everywhere and anywhere to artificially inflate the box office take of a movie. But watching the collective movie industry apparently have a nervous breakdown about the “failure” of Pirates in 3D suggests that they don’t agree that this is a good and necessary move, and that’s the real problem. The “right” next step for 3D is to keep making the movies, allow the audience decide what they want to see, and let the market correct itself. But what I’m worried is going to happen is that panicked movie execs, thinking that the 3D sky is falling, will just decide to pull out of 3D production altogether, and consign it to another fad, until someone like James Cameron comes along, makes Avatar 2 and the whole “OMG, 3D IS AWESOME” craze starts up again.

What we need is for 3D as gimmick to die, in order for 3D as… well, just part of filmmaking, to flourish. And in order for that to happen, people have to be okay with the idea that movies like Pirates of the Caribbean aren’t going to necessarily be smash hits with audiences every single time they get released. Not every film is worth the extra money and a pair of glasses, and you know what? That’s really okay.

  • Tonhogg

    If find it funny that when something visual is done people say that quality of the movie and story line are put in the trash can, especially now that it is applied to 3d.   Then if most of these are conversions how can that be.   Didn’t they already come up with the story line and such before the whole “let’s also make it 3d.”  See if they had just left that out the movie would still “be the same.”  Yet people argue that the movie itself (story line, character development, etc,) was worse because they sacrificed it to make it 3d.  It was already made before they did the 3d on most of these movies.  So that argument means nothing.  I don’t think people but much thought into that statement when they make it.

  • Awgyetvan

    Um, Div – “Pirates” was shot in native 3D, using the Cameron-Pace system. Love the enthusiasm, but would be good to have the facts straight.

  • Guest

    Agreed, 3d for 3d sake to sell more tickets or make it flashy is pointless.  If it’s used as a tool to actually advance the the story telling then movies should be made in 3d.  But to be honest, I’m not sure how you could tell a story better using 3d instead of 2d.  For horror movies it would just help the ‘shock’ factor.  Some of my favorite movies could not have been made better if they were 3d.  Think about it; LA Confidential, The Usual Suspects, Casino, Spanish Prisoner, or Little Miss Sunshine would not of had any improvement if they were in 3d or even the story.  Or how about District 9 or Children of Men (I actually didn’t like the story, but liked the cinematography)

    Thoughts?

  • Hub

    Oslo.

  • Matt Spatola

    Pirates 4 has made over $647 million worldwide in just 12 days. How the fuck is that ‘weak’? The supposed ‘articles’ on this blog are insane.

  • Zeovgm

    Do you idiots read the article before you reply?

    It says the 3D haul is weak. Not the OVERALL haul. The 3D haul WAS weak. That’s an unarguable fact.

  • Anonymous

    I dont feel like having a huge article like everyone else so long story short:

    3D blows.

  • Shoe

    3D doesnt look good on real life movies, its to much to focus on. its good on animated stuffe

  • Matt Spatola

    As an idiot who unfortunately and painfully reads articles on this site I would like to announce yes I did read it. However there is no denying that Pirates is making a shitload of cash; like I said over $647 million in not even two weeks. And yeah the percentage of 3D tickets might be lower than other movies. Pirates 3D ticket sales are 47/48% of total tickets instead of an average of 60% for other 2D/3D films. But there has never been a fourth film in a series in 3D before so its a hard comparison. 

    Still also no other 3D movie is making this kind of money. I’m sure it will close at around $800+ million when its all said and done. I’m guessing that will put it close to second to Avatar for 2D/3D films. 

    To somehow say that 3D is dead, or Pirates receipts are weak or that a special case like Pirates 4 which has no comparable situation or film for comparison is unarguable, well that is idiotic or uninformed.

  • http://twitter.com/studiojcomics J. Wichmann

    For what its worth hollywood needs to take a hard look at how they use 3D in film making.  James Cameron using 3D to enhance his films is awesome because the whole movie was made in 3D, so of course it looks amazing and is worth the extra $$ to see.  Cameron even spoke out about it after avatar came out that Hollywood ultimately will probably poison the format with misuse.
    Hollywoods (mis)use of the 3D post-conversion process is mainly what’s killing the format (IE Thor).  Having tech guys separate the backgrounds in random scenes and then billing the film as a 3D extravaganza is just plain false marketing on hollywoods part, and with the speed of communication these days it doesn’t take long for millions of people to post or twitter about saving your money and see the 2d version. 

    it doesn’t take a marketing genius to figure out that if you selling an overpriced but low rent product people aren’t going to buy it(with the exception of apple, but thats a whole other debate).  Sorry Hollywood, but my time and $$ is worth more than that!

  • RunnerX13

    I’m completely fine with 3D going away forever.

  • RunnerX13

    I actually haven’t heard “3D is dead” anywhere, in regards to the low performance of Pirates 4.  I’m not a fan of 3D, but I didn’t see the movie because I barely got through Pirates 1 on DVD.  And I didn’t see any movies this past weekend, because this was a gorgeous weekend, and I had much better things to do that didn’t involved sitting indoors.

  • RunnerX13

    Pirates 4 is reported to have cost $250 million to produce, and has grossed $163 million domestically; by many Hollywood standards, this is considered a bomb, despite what the film makes internationally.

  • RunnerX13

    Can we give you some type of “Making Sense” award?

  • Burgers

    Is your argument really: “I watched Thor and Pirates in 3-D, and since Thor was bad in 3-D Pirates must be?” 

    If that logic stuck, no one would be seeing anything in 3-D by now, since the vast majority have been, well, “meh”.

  • Jnessier

    What they really need to do if they don’t want 3D to die is to make the 3D better. In most 3D movies that I have seen since AVATAR the 3D has been downright lousy.  This conversion process, I am sorry to say, does not produce the same 3D effects as using a real 3D camera does. If it is possible to achieve similar results with the conversion process (as they claim!) then they are just not spending enough money on the conversion process. This is what is going to kill 3D!. Make no mistake about it if lousy 3D conversions continue (The latest Conan apparently is the worst 3D since Clash of the titans).  Also some films just should not be produced in 3D because of the inherant lack of brightness. Cameron (who is clearly one of the only really smart people in Hollywood) understood that when he made Avetar brighter than usual to account for the dimming effect of 3D.