Friday 21st November 2014
Extension Task - 3D Evaluation

Contrary to popular opinion, 3D images have been around almost since the early still cameras were invented, as people realised that they could easily be adapted to produce stereoscopic images. The first major film 3D film release was Man in the Dark on April 9th, 1953, but it did not receive much of a positive response from critics nor the general population. However, since then 3D technology has improved massively.

It could be argued that watching a film in 3D has many advantages over 2D. For studios, 3D films generally make more money ($381m) when compared to 2D ($89.5m). In addition, 3D films are continuing to make as much profit as they ever did, with their returns to production budget remaining fairly constant, whereas 2D films have varied constantly in their returns, making them much less predictable than the 3D equivalent. This results in 3D films being less risky and more desirable to studios as it is more likely that a profit will be made, and it can be predicted that 3D films do have a future in Hollywood. The downside to this is that it does cost the studio much more to make a 3D film (average of $105m compared to $35.6m). Also, the fact that they can make so much profit can lead to the studios ‘forcing’ 3D onto directors, even if they don’t want their film made in 3D. James Cameron, director of Avatar, believes that “studios are forcing the technology on filmmakers in order to maximise profits”. Cinema operators now have an incentive to convert to the new technology that enables them to play the films with the new 3D technology. From both the studio and the audience’s perspectives, more cinemas are needed so that the problems of releasing too many 3D films at the same time are reduced.

For the audience, 3D gives a more immersive effect and even brings scenes to life, especially in action films where things can even appear to jump out of the screen. 3D would not have much effect in a romance as there is not much action to bring that effect, but it can give enhancement to genres such as action, sci-fi or fantasy. One of the most recent films in 3D was Alfonso Cuarón’s Gravity (2013), which received largely positive reviews even from Mark Kermode, a film critic who had previously said that 3D was dead. After the 3D release of ‘Gravity’, he was forced to take back his previous words, stating that Gravity “positively demands to be seen in 3D”. However, one of the reasons that 3D makes more profit in the cinema is because some films are not shown in 2D, even though it was supposed to be. For example, Pete Travis’ Dredd (2012) had many complaints when people wanted to watch it in 2D but were unable to. If anyone is wearing glasses, 3D films can be difficult to watch as people end up having to wear two pairs of glasses which can be uncomfortable and annoying. The 3D effect can also give people headaches, and it is more expensive to watch a 3D film at the cinema than it is to watch a 2D film. Also, whether or not people watch a film in 3D appears to be linked to the age of the audience - in 2010, 53% of the overall population aged between 2 and 18 had watched a film in 3D, compared with only 31% of those aged over 18.

Some people think that post-conversion 3D is terrible, and that films should either stay in 2D or shot natively in 3D. However, the 3D film that made the highest profit was James Cameron’s Avatar (2009). Many fail to realise that this film was mostly made first in 2D and then post-converted after the visual effects were applied. In addition, Titanic had a 3D post-converted release and that, too, received a positive response. On average, a 2D film has the ability to earn at least 41% higher revenues at the box office after being converted to 3D.

There have been many people who have given a positive review of 3D films: * Ridley Scott (Director) - " I'll never work without 3D again, even for small dialogue scenes. I love the process." * Sir David Attenborough - " When we first thought of making a film about pterosaurs in 3 dimensions, I thought it would be good but I couldn't have imagined it would be this good!" * Ian McKellan (Oscar-nominated actor) - "His screen showed the familiar 2D image but next to it was a large colour screen in full magical three dimensions courtesy of the spy-glasses that transform the blurred outlines on screen to the high definition exactitude of the 3D effect."

However, some people are not as optimistic about 3D films: * Christopher Nolan (Director) - "I find the dimness of 3D extremely alienating." * Nigel Floyd (Film Critic) - "3D is dark, small, strobey, headache-inducing, alienating and expensive. The question is, how long will it take people to realize and get fed up?" * Roger Deakins (9x Oscar-nominated cinematographer) - “You don't need 3D. It's more like an amusement park ride than a story. I like watching films like paintings; I don't want to be inside them, I want to look at them."

Others aren’t sure about 3D: * Steven Spielberg (3x Oscar-winning Director) - "Not every movie, in my opinion, should be in 3D. There's a lot of stories I wouldn't shoot in 3D."

To conclude, there are positive and negative aspects of making and showing films in 3D, and people have differing opinions on whether or not 3D will last as a cinema sensation. However, current box office trends suggest that 3D film will continue to make profit, but at the same time costing people more to watch and make.