Prometheus

[Corvus T. Cosmonaut]

"(un)necessary"

Here's the reason I think it's unnecessary: for me, at least, and for some but not all others, it contributes less than nothing to the experience.

A few years ago Jeffrey Katzenberg stood before us at a NATO meeting in Hollywood and talked for a long time about how important and new and revolutionary 3-D was. This was the future, he said, and he rolled out the ol' comparison to sound and color. He said it would make films more powerful, engaging, emotional experiences, even in retrofit: he said specifically that, among a few other titles I don't remember, The Godfather and A Man For All Seasons would benefit and become better films by being (again, retrofitted) in 3-D. I was like, this guy has no idea, which seems silly because, you know, he's Jeffrey Katzenberg. But he really doesn't. Later on when new and old movies were receiving the ret-con 3-D and bombing in the box office, he talked about how they weren't doing it right, were lazy with the process, etc. Finally he came out and said he feels 3-D treatment in post would kill the new tech and advised against it. In interviews he never talked about the quality of the movies using the tech, just the tech itself and whether he felt it was properly utilized (mostly according to this metric, as far as I can tell: if it made good money, it was good work).

Something that's really hard to do because we can't un-see the seen and un-know the known and then after contrast independent, personal, fresh experiences, is to watch a movie in both formats. The best we're able to do is watch one and then the other and try to give each a fair shake. And I feel I've done this with a few titles, sometimes with the 3-D version first and others the normal, and I've come to the conclusion: 3-D means fuck-all for how much I actually like a thing. Again aside from the technical annoyances, I found Avatar no less visually splendorous in two dimensions after having seen it in three. Toy Story 3 was not more funny or poignant or wonderful or visually stimulating because its second review had an extra 'D'. The vertigo-inducing sequences in Up were vertigo-inducing in either format. And so on.

When a movie is done well enough to actually draw you in, the format becomes invisible. Great story doesn't need it, great acting doesn't care. And as a visual matter 3-D is unnecessary because our minds normally infer three-dimensionality. We don't need it to build out our sense of space, because we already recognize space in the film. It's useful in those moments where something's flying at the screen, but I don't know anyone sees these moments as better than cheap gimmicks...that tend to pull one out of the experience for an Oh right, I'm watching a movie moment, literally interrupting engagement with the material. So why do we need it?

NOW the technical problems come in. If I can watch great film with or without, why am I paying more and wearing these obnoxious glasses? If the action is mind-boggling in either case, why am I watching this dimmer version that has obvious judder during movement? If most of the features being released look awful and are poor movies besides, why do I want to keep dropping my money on them, sending the signal to studios that this is something I want more of? Higher frame rates and other tweaks may eliminate some of the image problems, but that still leaves us paying more to wear glasses for something utterly divorced from the actual quality of the feature. And even if Prometheus turns out to be the best argument yet for 3-D (I guess it's possible), supporting it here still only plays into the studio/exhibitor impulse that audiences want 3-D, beyond consideration of movie quality (trust me: I'm nearly blind from face-palming at their e-mails).

So I say it's unnecessary. So I say plenty of the time it's actually detrimental. I find most of the enthusiasm even now comes from the angle of what how it might be used in the future, the possibility that the 3-D grass will be greener. There's a lot of "Well, Avatar was pretty neat, but I'm looking forward to some great film artist getting his or her hands dirty finding out what this thing can really do." And I'm saying: I don't think so.

Hey, if it works for you, great. But I'm still calling it unnecessary.

...or James Cameron's passion.

Well, I'd take Cameron's enthusiasm with a bale of salt. Avatar didn't exactly have much meat on its bones, and Cameron's got a big vested financial interest in the success of 3-D: the Cameron Pace Group (a company he co-founded with Vincent Pace) makes its money selling 3-D equipment and software, and he's more or less going for broke on it with his future projects (Avatar 2, 3, and possibly 4).


EDIT: David Bordwell made a great blog post a few days ago covering a few of the same points, including the bit about the Cameron Pace Group. Bordwell's a reliably excellent writer on film (Ebert, for one, worships the guy; the blog, co-authored with Kristin Thompson, is called 'Observations on Film Art'). I came to discover his work through this excellent piece examining a shot from There Will Be Blood. Anyway, I thought I'd share:

Every spring the National Organization of Theatre Owners holds a convention and trade show in Las Vegas. It’s now called CinemaCon, but in earlier times it was known as ShoWest. The gathering assembles thousands of exhibitors from around the world. Directors and stars show up to publicize summer and fall releases. There are screenings, award ceremonies, display booths, and panels about everything from sound systems to popcorn pricing.

The convention is always an extravaganza, but in 2005 things were particularly stirring. Then fewer than a hundred US screens were digital. To ShoWest 2005 came three of the most financially successful directors in history: George Lucas, James Cameron, and Robert Zemeckis. Robert Rodriguez joined them, and Peter Jackson participated in a prerecorded video clip. Their mission: to sell digital cinema.

Cameron and company knew that the exhibitors needed a rationale for switching that would actually enhance their business. The killer app for digital screening, these directors and others had decided, was 3D.

(more)