The Trouble with 3D

Costing just around $1 million for any production to use 3D technology, 3D is shaping up to be the spectacular equivalent of what the musical was in the 1950s. At this time the movies themselves did not matter as much as their musical selling point. If you’ve ever watched the awkward 14-minute ballet sequence towards the end of Singin’ In the Rain (1952) and wondered why it had nothing to do with the rest of the plot then consider the same prospect for the future of 3D and its inevitable blow to storytelling. Roger Ebert referred to this sequence as the moment “when the story line is suspended” while Gene Kelly’s co-director admitted that it’s “an interruption to the main thrust of Singin’ in the Rain.”

Debbie Reynolds and Gene Kelly in "Singin' in the Rain."

Last night I had a conversation with a couple of Hollywood screenwriters about the effect 3D will have on the industry. After some healthy discourse, we all arrived at the conclusion that not only is 3D detrimental to the quality of movies, it is even worse for screenwriters. As hard as it is to get a spec paid attention to around this town, it will be even harder for writers to adapt to what I will call the increasing “productification” of forthcoming blockbusters. No longer are scripts going to be the sturdy foundation for most movies. Rather it seems their purpose may be diminished to something less than even a blueprint. For all we know, 3D scripts of the future (and scarily today) may just be notes scribbled down on a notepad–only to later be doctored by writers-for-hire.

You know who else this is bad for? Movie-goers! Can you believe it? As if paying for a movie and popcorn wasn’t already taking its toll. Exhibitors raised the price of admission for Dreamworks’ How to Train Your Dragon by 8%! How much is too much? Well they’re about to find out. If you go out with your family to see a 3D film you will more than likely be spending over $100. In some cases, that’s more money than it would cost to go out to see a Major League baseball team play. But can we blame them? No, not really. After all, last year was probably the most profitable year for American movies ever. Now the people responsible for filling the wallets of so many people have to start being both stingy and picky. Won’t be long before execs start scrambling to recover their losses on DVD sales.

What is fundamentally alarming about the industry’s rapid adjustment to 3D is the fact that many of the movies that are being released in 3D were never even shot in 3D. So essentially you are paying for a product that is not quite what it’s advertised to be. You end up paying about six to eight dollars more just to experience the post-production tinkering on a movie that was never meant to be experienced in 3D. That’s like if an ice-cream vendor runs out of chocolate ice-cream and douses vanilla ice-cream in brown food coloring with the intention to sell it. It’s just not the same.

Films which need to be converted into 3D after-the-fact wind up costing production companies around $100,000 per on-screen minute. Avatar is the exception to this since James Cameron chose to integrate the 3D technology prior to shooting. Cynical towards the industry’s knee-jerk reaction of more 2D films being retrofitted after the game-changing success of his own film, Cameron remarks, “After Toy Story, there were 10 really bad CG movies because everybody thought the success of that film was CG and not great characters that were beautifully designed and heartwarming.” Sounds like Cameron is starting to feel like Oppenheimer (after he created the atomic bomb).

James Cameron is starting to suspect that shooting Avatar in 3D may have set a terrible industry precedent.

So who else should be worried about 3D? You guessed it. Directors. There seems to be a great deal of concern that studio execs are going to be making the crucial decision on behalf of directors when it comes to the 3D question.  In lieu of the prospect of Transformers 3 undergoing a 3D transformation, the infamous Michael Bay has even taken a purist’s approach:

“This conversion process is always going to be inferior to shooting in real 3D. Studios might be willing to sacrifice the look and use the gimmick to make $3 more a ticket, but I’m not.  Avatar took four years. You can’t just shit out a 3D movie.”

So if James Cameron and Michael Bay aren’t quite sold on 3D, will anyone pay attention? Will they even have a say five years from now? Only time will tell. In the meantime, it’s important to consider who else the 3D boom is going to affect (or sink). Independent filmmakers.

How will the indie market adapt? Tough to say. Hard to believe we’ll be seeing a 3D version of Precious anytime soon–though the way things are going such a preposterous hypothetical may certainly become a reality. While some may contend that indies can benefit from being the cheaper alternative, I fear that they may be considered second-class films.

It’s wrong to dismiss 3D as just “a phase” or even as an evil. There are tremendous possibilities to be found through 3D. But as it stands now, 3D is proving itself to be a monstrous threat to both filmmakers and the medium of film. It’s time for more traditionalist visionaries to stand up and denounce the current direction of 3D. James Cameron sought to enhance film through 3D. And now he’s fighting to stop 3D from ruining it.

Charlie Wachtel is a Senior Writer for  The Film Crusade and Founder of www.filmcrusade.com.