Hollywood --
In today's New York Times, Michael Cieply writes about some pushback of the industry's massive attention to 3D technologies and also something predictable: The complication (ed. emphasis) behind "the industry's jump into the third dimension." Sorry, but we all saw this coming, right? At the NABshow in Las Vegas in spring 2009, the firstlings of 3D were showing up. This is a trade show (note previous posts here) that is largely technology-oriented with many engineers in attendance (IEEE and all that), so it's an appropriate forum for all of the breakout schwag and non-linear thinking.
In today's New York Times, Michael Cieply writes about some pushback of the industry's massive attention to 3D technologies and also something predictable: The complication (ed. emphasis) behind "the industry's jump into the third dimension." Sorry, but we all saw this coming, right? At the NABshow in Las Vegas in spring 2009, the firstlings of 3D were showing up. This is a trade show (note previous posts here) that is largely technology-oriented with many engineers in attendance (IEEE and all that), so it's an appropriate forum for all of the breakout schwag and non-linear thinking.
Then, this spring, 3D was even a larger presence at NAB, no doubt fueled by the excitement of the mega-success of James Cameron's latest blockbusting effort, "Avatar" released the prior summer. Owing to the fact that (at least recently), much of Hollywood's production community and decisions are motivated by the gaming industry, this could accurately be called a calculated success. (Good that Mr. Cameron's track record equals his brilliant mind).
"Gaming industry," you ask?? (well, you might if you're older than forty) while you are lamenting the lack of film fare that you might enjoy, and longing for the time when a communal experience at the movies was also a night out that didn't cost what it costs today. Yes, and because you are not tied-in to the idea of "Comic Con" in San Diego, where the younger demographics are catered-to in detail, you should simply understand that the disposable income in this world is largely commanded by our 16-to-28 year-olds. Hence, a fascination by Hollywood to the confluence of comic book heros and intimate audience participation. Did this start with Spiderman?? We can't know. We do know that Michael Bay is prepping / shooting / animating "Transformers 3." Enough said.
Effects, Action or Scale
While the studio execs and the exhibitors still salivate over their 3D options (10% of the screens in America are now digitally able, a requirement of the third dimension) we are left with a dizzying lack of attention to the rest of our demographics by Hollywood studios.
The similar and historical situation to the "conversion" of black-and-white classics to "colorized" versions may give us a clue to what may happen next. The auteurs are already complaining about the possibility of their work being converted to 3D without their permission or desire, and audiences are still discovering what they will pay the premium, 3D ticket prices for. As far as (DreamWorks' chief production executive) Stacey Snider's comment that "It’s naïve to think we wouldn’t be having [3D] on any movie that has effects, action or scale,” we ask, is it naive to think that a film we'd like to see has a story..??? Would "Breakfast at Tiffany's" be more sellable in 3D?? That point is made by Mr. Cameron who designed the specific "gee whiz" 3D shots into his "Avatar." We were all impressed, but we were supposed to be. To his credit, Mr. Cameron planned the effective use of the third dimension. It worked, and he went to the bank while the industry thought they'd gone to the races.
Planned, not Applied
What you'll see in the near future: Several rock concerts are scheduled to be produced in Imax 3D, where ticket prices can be expected to be greater than average. (Interestingly, this at a time when many artists are arguing with promoters to reduce their concert ticket prices). We've seen Sony demo material where the crewe procession of Brazil's Carnivale with its resplendent colour is attempted to wow us in 3D, but, note to wanna-be directors of 3D: it doesn't. The reason why it doesn't is because the best 3D scenes have LOTS of foreground v. background composition, and this needs to be planned not "applied." The gaming crossover properties can do this kind of planning, and likely admirably so for their audiences. But conversions for the sake of conversions and a chance at more box office revenue just won't do. We are not holding our collective breath for "A Cabin in the Woods," in 3D. Please give us compelling story. If there's some effects, action or scale involved, so much the better.
"Gaming industry," you ask?? (well, you might if you're older than forty) while you are lamenting the lack of film fare that you might enjoy, and longing for the time when a communal experience at the movies was also a night out that didn't cost what it costs today. Yes, and because you are not tied-in to the idea of "Comic Con" in San Diego, where the younger demographics are catered-to in detail, you should simply understand that the disposable income in this world is largely commanded by our 16-to-28 year-olds. Hence, a fascination by Hollywood to the confluence of comic book heros and intimate audience participation. Did this start with Spiderman?? We can't know. We do know that Michael Bay is prepping / shooting / animating "Transformers 3." Enough said.
Effects, Action or Scale
While the studio execs and the exhibitors still salivate over their 3D options (10% of the screens in America are now digitally able, a requirement of the third dimension) we are left with a dizzying lack of attention to the rest of our demographics by Hollywood studios.
The similar and historical situation to the "conversion" of black-and-white classics to "colorized" versions may give us a clue to what may happen next. The auteurs are already complaining about the possibility of their work being converted to 3D without their permission or desire, and audiences are still discovering what they will pay the premium, 3D ticket prices for. As far as (DreamWorks' chief production executive) Stacey Snider's comment that "It’s naïve to think we wouldn’t be having [3D] on any movie that has effects, action or scale,” we ask, is it naive to think that a film we'd like to see has a story..??? Would "Breakfast at Tiffany's" be more sellable in 3D?? That point is made by Mr. Cameron who designed the specific "gee whiz" 3D shots into his "Avatar." We were all impressed, but we were supposed to be. To his credit, Mr. Cameron planned the effective use of the third dimension. It worked, and he went to the bank while the industry thought they'd gone to the races.
Planned, not Applied
What you'll see in the near future: Several rock concerts are scheduled to be produced in Imax 3D, where ticket prices can be expected to be greater than average. (Interestingly, this at a time when many artists are arguing with promoters to reduce their concert ticket prices). We've seen Sony demo material where the crewe procession of Brazil's Carnivale with its resplendent colour is attempted to wow us in 3D, but, note to wanna-be directors of 3D: it doesn't. The reason why it doesn't is because the best 3D scenes have LOTS of foreground v. background composition, and this needs to be planned not "applied." The gaming crossover properties can do this kind of planning, and likely admirably so for their audiences. But conversions for the sake of conversions and a chance at more box office revenue just won't do. We are not holding our collective breath for "A Cabin in the Woods," in 3D. Please give us compelling story. If there's some effects, action or scale involved, so much the better.
Coming: A possible solution to the studios' inattention
Next: Comments and review of "The Help"
Michael Orton is a newmedia specialist and writer working in the west
