The 2D vs. 3D Argument

[Krakalakachkn]

Hollywood is in the midst of a conversion experience.

 

"Avatar," designed and shot in 3D, has set the gold standard for 3D movies, having grossed $2.7 billion worldwide. But a pair of films that were shot in 2D and then converted to 3D -- "Alice in Wonderland" and the new "Clash of the Titans" -- also have attracted sizable audiences: "Alice" has collected more than $730 million worldwide to date, and "Titans" bowed to $61.4 million domestically and added another $44 million overseas.

 

With audiences flocking to movies that are converted to 3D as part of the postproduction process, 3D conversions are fast becoming an accepted option for both studios and filmmakers.

 

Warner Bros.' "Titans" was shot in anamorphic film as a 2D release. But the studio later opted for 3D, and the film was converted in roughly 10 weeks -- a remarkably fast turnaround -- in order to meet its release date. The cost was reportedly around $4.5 million.

 

But some tech insiders, as well as a number of reviewers, suggested that the rush to convert doesn't always lead to satisfactory results.

 

The New York Times' Manohla Dargis wrote, "The 3D in the 'Clash of the Titans' remake, which was added after it was shot, has none of the immersive quality of 'Avatar' and instead segments the image into discrete planes, bringing to mind the unintegrated levels of a pop-up book."

 

Said Roger Ebert, a 3D skeptic: "One word of consumer advice: Explain to kids that the movie was not filmed in 3D and is only being shown in 3D in order to charge you an extra $5 a ticket. I saw it in 2D, and let me tell you, it looked terrific."

 

Some are concerned that such reactions might threaten to put the brakes on conversion -- and possibly even derail the runaway 3D train.

 

Prime Focus, the Mumbai-headquartered postproduction business that did the conversion, defends its work.

 

"There are a lot of different techniques," said Chris Bond, president of Prime Focus, North America, and developer of the company's View-D 2D/3D conversion method. "I invite filmmakers to come and test their material, and to see 'Clash.' We have a lot of creativity and artistic drive to make sure the results look fantastic. I think it looks great."

 

The debate is sure to underline the importance of quality control as the nascent process becomes more widely used.

 

Proponents argue that post conversion gives filmmakers more creative flexibility with cinematography during live-action production. That was the deciding factor for Tim Burton and his "Alice" director of photography Dariusz Wolski when they decided to shoot in 2D and then convert to 3D.

 

Others contend that quality 3D must involve the entire chain from production and post to distribution and exhibition, including the way films are shot and edited. CG-animated movies are computer-creations and lend themselves to conversions, but making over a live-action movie can be trickier.

 

"3D is a different medium and requires thinking a different way," Sony Pictures Imageworks senior stereographer Rob Engle said. "For instance, (the animated) 'Monster House' was originally planned as 2D, and in some shots they added camera shake. For the 3D version, we dialed it back -- because we were able to dial it back in animation. In live-action, you can't take out the camera shake. There are photographic styles that don't lend themselves as well to 3D."

 

The bottom line, he said, is "conversion is really hard. You are taking shots that were not intended as a VFX shot and making them a VFX shot. That is neither easy nor cheap. If you don't have the appropriate amount of time, money and technical and creative talent, you are going to receive a result that is not satisfactory."

 

Dave Walton, assistant vp marketing and communication at JVC Professional, cautioned: "No 3D is better than bad 3D. Those who view bad 3D can get headaches and nausea within a few short minutes. So conversion has to be accurate, and you have to pay attention to the brain's ability to process the images without fatigue."

 

Of course, money has a way of overshadowing such concerns.

 

"There is a bit of gold-rush mentality right now," Engle said. "Can we make more money (at the boxoffice) at a controlled cost?"

 

He added: "There is also a race to the bottom in terms of (conversion) pricing. All of the vendors are hungry for work, if you look at how many vendors are wanting to get their first feature under their belt."

 

An increasing number of businesses are offering a number of 2D/3D conversion techniques at a different price points -- essentially creating a high, middle and low end for the fledgling market.

 

At the high end, companies including In-Three in some cases might charge more than $100,000 per minute, depending on the complexity of the material and time spent making creative decisions with the filmmakers. In less complex assignments, though, its charges can fall well below $50,000 per minute.

 

At the other end of the spectrum is a stereo image processor that JVC plans to launch this month at the National Association of Broadcasters convention. Essentially a box that automatically converts 2D content to 3D, it will be available for purchase for $30,000.

 

But JVC's Walton emphasized that the converter is intended to augment, not replace, the other conversion techniques where the filmmakers are involved in making creative 3D decisions. "There is no magic box that will let you convert everything, but the JVC system will speed the process up," he said.

 

Prime Focus' View-D conversion process combines proprietary automated software with manual work that reflects filmmakers' creative decisions. In the case of "Titans," helmer Louis Leterrier was closely involved in setting the creative direction. Bond said Prime Focus charges $50,000-$100,000 per minute of material.

 

While much of Hollywood's current focus revolves around whether to give feature releases the 3D conversion treatment, the same discussion is starting to take place within the television world.

 

U.K. satcaster Sky launched its 3D channel Saturday, and in its technical spec, the company stated that it would not accept converted material. Still, Sky will consider such programs on an individual basis.

 

The 3D TV channels lining up on the launching pad in the U.S. haven't signaled own policies.

[Krakalakachkn]

Personally, I don't like 3D at all.  I was really disappointed with Avatar; I thought the only good 3D scene was with the dust.  Up is still the best film I've seen in 3D, and i liked it just as much in 2D because of the reduced price tag.  Charging $5 more to see 3D is just ridiculous, and theaters have just decided to raise their prices again...like the $17 drink and popcorn combo isn't too much already.

 

I just don't think 3D is that impressive and there's a reason it's died out during previous attempts.  Hopefully this is just another fad and fades quickly.

[Kaznen]

When Beowulf came okay I saw it in 2D and it was...okay, not what I was expecting.

 

But then I saw it in 3D and dear Lord was it awesome.

 

And Coroline was also a great movie, didn't see it in 2D.

 

I personally have no problem with 3D and have a nice little way of getting around the price hike. 

 

I hold on to my 3D glasses to one movie, after it is over stroll on into another theater playing the 3D movie.

 

Or you could pay to see a 2D movie and go to the 3D one instead.

[Red2111]

i saw Clash of the Titans in 2D and i think the way they filmed it ruined the film in points.  especailly in the fight scenes.  it seemed liek they were tyring to force it into a 3D type scene and had the camera shot WAY to close to the action.  you couldn't really see anything because of it  :-\

 

i have yet to see a 3D film, but when "The LAst Air Bender" coems out that will change  ;D

[Alaksuleiel]

I can't watch 3D, I got Simulation Sickness at Avatar, pity, before I started turning green it looked pretty awesome.

[Krakalakachkn]

Here's an interesting article on how the popularity of 3D is affecting how screenplays are written.

 

When Matt Pitts, a writer on "Fringe" and a former assistant to J.J. Abrams, recently began shopping his first film script to movie studios, he knew he had a marketable idea on his hands. The title of his screenplay, after all, was " Spring Break Zombie Cruise" and its storyline followed, well, just that.

 

But the prospect of flesh-eating creatures stalking beautiful young bodies wasn't his script's main hook. The element to catch a studio mogul's eye? A plan to shoot the project in 3-D. "In my mind it just added that extra ounce of fun," Pitts says.

 

Whether it's young writers trying to sell their first movie or established filmmakers trying to make their 10th, there's no savvier move these days than packaging your project as a 3-D film. Movie studios, even more than in two previous 3-D eras, have gone mad for the form, which in recent months has significantly boosted their box-office grosses. If you think we've already been inundated by 3-D with "Avatar" (which was shot in 3-D) and "Clash of the Titans" (which was converted later), get ready for a full-on deluge: nearly every big-budget holiday movie next year will be in 3-D, as will future films as diverse as the " Spider-Man" reboot, the Taylor Lautner action- comedy "Stretch Armstrong" and Martin Scorsese's children's-book adaptation "The Invention of Hugo Cabret."

 

But even as Hollywood goes z-axis crazy, many directors and writers are questioning the stampede. While they express a general enthusiasm for the form, they say executives don't always grasp all the complexities of adding that extra dimension. As the 3-D storm continues to gather, they point out that 3-D will affect much more than whether a filmgoer picks up a pair of glasses: It will change what films get made, and even the very nature of cinematic storytelling.

 

"You build sequences differently when you know things have to pop out and jump at you," says Kieran Mulroney, who with his wife, Michele, is writing the "Sherlock Holmes" sequel, which has been the subject of a number of 3-D conversations at studio Warner Bros. "I fear that if every movie becomes spectacle for the sake of spectacle, where does that leave the intimate conversation across the dinner table?"

 

Some high-profile filmmakers have been famously concerned about conversion, which takes footage that was shot in 2-D and turns it into 3-D. When New Line initiated several conversations about converting "A Nightmare on Elm Street" to 3-D, "we pushed back," says director Samuel Bayer. "This was shot in 2-D and was meant to be shown in 2-D." He added, "Just like I don't want to see a lot of great movies remade" — alluding to the other Hollywood vogue — "I don't want to see a lot of them in 3-D."

 

Michael Bay, whose company produced "Nightmare," has also been dubious of the conversion process, expressing skepticism about using it for his next "Transformers" picture. "The good 3-D movies will be the ones that are constructed that way in the first place," says Bay producing partner Brad Fuller. (In a script for a potential "Friday the 13th" sequel, for instance, a kill scene was written involving a body on a zipline because the idea of a body sliding full-speed toward the audience was deemed particularly effective in 3-D.)

 

But the concerns go beyond conversion. There is much that is technically tricky about shooting in 3-D, including the clunky size of the cameras, which can make shooting in small spaces difficult. That's the kind of aspect that directors — even those shooting in 3-D — worry that studios are missing. "A lot of the film community is underestimating how challenging this is," says Neil Marshall, director of the acclaimed 2005 horror hit "The Descent," who is now directing his first 3-D movie, "Burst," which will be produced by Sam Raimi and Lionsgate. "It's not just a gimmick you can slap on to sell a few more tickets."

 

Even if it can be pulled off, creative types know that audiences will see their work differently. To watch a 3-D film is to experience a movie at a higher pitch, with objects and people flying off the screen. Even within genres that lend themselves to 3-D, such as horror, filmmakers worry about the sub-genres that are more 3-D-resistant, like a subtle ghost story. In a 3-D-crazed era, they fear that these movies will get made the wrong way or not be made at all.

 

"3-D continues to speak to the elimination of the middle creatively," says Justin Marks, the writer on Disney's former "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" project and Sony's action film "Shadow of the Colossus." "If you don't have an action tentpole that can conceivably be thought of in 3-D, you may as well make small indie movies because the studios aren't going to be that interested."

 

Meanwhile, even the films suited to the immersiveness of 3-D could wind up assaulting audiences instead of pleasurably drawing them in. "I'm a little leery of what's to come," says Marcus Dunstan, who with partner Patrick Melton has written the past three movies in the "Saw" franchise and is writing the next one — which will, of course, be in 3-D. "Watching someone get punched repeatedly in the eye is going to be nauseating in 3-D." (And when a "Saw" creator is worried about nausea, you know it could really turn your stomach.)

 

Dunstan, who worked on one of the first of the modern 3-D movies, the 2009 remake of "My Bloody Valentine," also is concerned that a host of inferior movies get made simply because they can accommodate some 3-D shots. "When 'Pulp Fiction' came out, we suddenly saw all these movies with fractured narratives. We saw pale imitations. And I'm afraid we're going to see that with 3-D."

 

Dunstan and others remain, on balance, enthusiastic about the new possibilities 3-D opens up. If nothing else, they're willing to give it a shot — few filmmakers these days will stand on ceremony if a studio is prepared to greenlight their movie. As Marks says, "3-D can draw enthusiasm for a project the studios might not have otherwise paid much attention to."

 

It's of course understandable why studios are obsessed with 3-D. As television screens get bigger and studio releases hit DVD and video on-demand sooner, executives believe it's imperative to keep the theatrical experience one step ahead (even as 3-D blockbuster "Avatar" seeks to elevate the home-viewing experience with its Blu-Ray release last Thursday). They're drawn to the idea of a movie that puts a filmgoer practically inside the screen.

 

And creating opportunities for immersion is quickly becoming second nature to some screenwriters. "Just like a sitcom writer tries to have three laughs per page, I tried to have a 3-D moment every 8-10 pages," Pitts says of his method for writing the "Spring Break" film.

 

Those 3-D moments may be even trickier to pull off in other genres, but it hasn't stopped some from contemplating it. At least one major studio has said privately it would consider making a romantic comedy in 3-D. That represents a kind of dimensionality creep that particularly concerns some directors, who say movies in many genres are best watched at a remove. "I don't want to watch 'Precious' in 3-D," director Marshall says. "That's a movie that's hard enough to watch in 2-D."