There were quite a few 3D movies released in theatres last year, certainly more than any other year in recent memory. Along with the news that 3D televisions and even video games were in development, 3D was already on the horizon. Then of course came Avatar, and the great technical work and huge box office takings proved 3D cinema was both financially viable, and in big demand.
It was inevitable that production of 3D movies would ramp up. Alice in Wonderland came next, and scored huge at the box office, opening bigger than Avatar. The post-production 3D process however meant that the 3D work was hugely inferior to that seen in Cameron’s movie. Then just over a week ago Clash of the Titans was released. The once again post-production 3D conversion was this time rushed through by the lowest bidder, and was reportedly awful.
Clash of the Titans didn’t open nearly as big as Alice.Whilst the presence of Johnny Depp, and Tim Burton behind the camera will have boosted Alice’s box office appeal, and lower review scores will have also dented Titans’ chances, i think certainly some of the blame for this can be attributed to the disappointment felt by those that went to see Alice expecting it to match up to Avatar in the 3D stakes. After that experience, a lot of movie-goers were probably put off of paying out for Titans only to be disappointed once again. Unfortunately, the far superior 3D work in How to Train Your Dragon went unseen by many, as it has made far less than either Titans or Alice, although interestingly all three are currently continuing to make money.
The problem facing the 3D boom is the cynical attempts by studios to cash in on its popularity. By rushing through movies with ropey post-production 3D conversion, they risk alienating the audiences that were so wowed by Avatar’s revolutionary visuals. With 3D ticket prices rising, viewers expect a great 3D feast, and aren’t currently getting it. Studios need to start being careful, they can’t afford to let down the people willing to pay extra for the 3D experience. This audience will quickly become fed up of paying out huge amounts of money to see lazy conversion, and underwhelming 3D effects. The danger is that when movies are finally released with great 3D work, there will no longer be people willing to pay the money to see them.
The whole 3D boom comes at an interesting time. The 1990’s were a time of independent films, where well written, intelligent stories were pulling in the crowds. As a result big budget productions waned, as they weren’t so economically viable. Over the last decade, particularly last year, blockbuster popcorn movies have come back in a big way. Movies like 2012, Transformers 2 and other effects heavy productions made the lions share of the profits over the last 12 months. IMAX theatres reported record takings, and of course 3D movies like Avatar drew in huge audiences. This draws some parallels with the first time 3D was introduced to cinema audiences.
By the 1950’s, television had hit homes in a big way. For the first time, audiences could stay in with their families and be entertained by a visual medium, without having to pay for tickets. As you’d expect, cinema attendances suffered. To combat this, the industry went back to making big budget movies, historical epics and elaborate musicals, re-introducing spectacle to the big screen. Studios proliferated the use of technicolor and stereo sound, and wide-screen, CinemaScope and 3D were introduced. Film company bosses knew that to rival the power of television, they had to provide something that TV shows couldn’t. Now, of course, TV has been well established for decades, but in the last ten years television shows have increased in quality greatly. Shows like The Sopranos and The Wire have shown that writing in television shows can equal anything found at the cinema, and the likes of 24, Battlestar Galactica and Glee have shown that good production values, special effects and elaborate musical numbers can be enjoyed nightly from the comfort of your armchair.
Once again, studios might be trying to draw people out to theatres by providing the kind of big budget event movies, and cutting edge IMAX and 3D visuals that cannot be seen on a television set. The approach was only moderately successful fifty years ago however, and today’s audience will quickly tire of style if it isn’t backed up by a reasonable amount of substance. Ironically, with the imminent release of 3D televisions, and the news here in the UK that satellite company Sky have ordered over 15,000 3D televisions to give away to pubs for showing 3D sporting events, it seems that the movie industry needs to rush the 3D cinema revolution along so they don’t actually fall behind television for the first time.
Ultimately, with the list of movies set for 3D conversion growing all the time, and more and more directors considering shooting with 3D technology, it looks like 3D cinema is indeed here to stay. But that said, the movie industry cannot afford to take it for granted. More thought, not to mention time and money, needs to be put into making sure that 3D movies are up to scratch, and aren’t just attempts to cash in on Avatar’s success . If this doesn’t happen, the increasing number of 3D screens may find themselves losing out to the regular 2D ones, or worse, that audiences choose to stay at home and watch great 3-dimensional scripted television instead.
Bazmann – You can follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/baz_mann
