7.1: Introduction

Are 3-D Effects Creating Two-Dimensional Films?

Figure 8.1

In 2009, many moviegoers were amazed by the three-dimensional (3-D) film Avatar. Avatar grossed over $1.8 billion in theaters worldwide, $1.35 billion from 3-D sales alone. (Note: 3-D screenings contributed significantly to the film's success, particularly in international markets.) Avatar eventually became the highest-grossing film of all time, earning nearly $3 billion worldwide after re-releases. Following in that vein, dozens of other movie studios released 3-D films, resulting in lesser box office successes such as Alice in Wonderland, Clash of the Titans, and Shrek Forever After. Many film reviewers and audiences seemed adamant—3-D movies were the wave of the future.

However, could this eye-popping technology actually ruin our moviegoing experience? Brian Moylan, a pop culture critic writing at the time for Gawker.com (a now-defunct media site, argues that it already has. The problem with 3-D, he says, is that “It is so mind-numbingly amazing that narrative storytelling hasn’t caught up with the technology. The corporate screenwriting borgs are so busy trying to come up with plot devices to highlight all the newfangled whoosiwhatsits—objects being hurled at the audience, flying sequences, falling leaves, glowing Venus Flytraps—that no one is really bothering to tell a tale.”

James Cameron, director of Avatar, agrees. “[Studios] think, ‘what was [sic] the takeaway lessons from Avatar? Oh you should make more money with 3-D.’ They ignore the fact that we natively authored the film in 3-D, and [they] decide that what we accomplished in several years of production could be done in an eight week (post-production 3-D) conversion [such as] with Clash of the Titans.” Cameron makes the following point: While early digital 3-D releases such as Avatar (2009) and Beowulf (2007) were created exclusively for 3-D, many other filmmakers have converted their movies to 3-D after filming was already complete. Clash of the Titans is widely criticized because its 3-D effects were quickly added in postproduction. 

What effect does this have on audiences? Aside from the complaints of headaches and nausea (and the fact that some who wear glasses regularly can find it uncomfortable or even impossible to wear 3-D glasses on top of their own), many say that the new technology simply makes movies looks worse. The late film critic Roger Ebert often denounced the technology, noting that movies such as The Last Airbender look like they’re “filmed with a dirty sheet over the lens.” 3-D technology can cause a movie to look fuzzier, darker, and generally less cinematically attractive. However, movie studios are finding 3-D films attractive for another reason.

Because seeing a movie in 3-D is considered a “premium” experience, consumers are expected to pay higher prices. And with the increasing popularity of IMAX 3D films, many moviegoers were amazed by the 3-D film Avatar 3-D, tickets may surpass $20 per person. This gives 3-D films an advantage over 2-D ones as audiences are willing to pay more to do so.

The recent 3-D boom has often been compared to the rise of color film in the early 1950s. However, some maintain that it’s just a fad. Will 3-D technology affect the future of filmmaking? Although companies heavily promoted 3-D television and home theater technology around 2010, the trend failed to gain long-term traction. Most major manufacturers had discontinued 3-D TVs by the late 2010s due to low consumer interest. Director James Cameron, speaking in the early 2010s, expressed uncertainty about the long-term popularity of 3-D, arguing that “If people put bad 3-D in the marketplace they’re going to hold back or even threaten the emerging of 3-D.” What is important, he maintains, is the creative aspect of moviemaking—no technology can replace good filmmaking. In the end, audiences will determine the medium’s popularity. Throughout the history of film, Technicolor dyes, enhanced sound systems, and computer-generated graphics have boasted huge box-office revenues; however, it’s ultimately the viewers who determine what a good movie is and who set the standard for future films.