For at least the past year people have talked about the renewed interest in 3D films, and whether or not it is simply a fad or the future of filmmaking. While there is more evidence to suggest it is heading down the fad route than anything else, for the sake of discussion let's say that there is a future for 3D movies. That they will be with us for the long haul.
There are two schools of thought on how to best utilize the format. There are those who see it as an "enhancement," meaning it helps fully realize a world and makes you feel as if you are a part of it (Avatar, Up, How To Train Your Dragon), and those who see it as "spectacle," meaning "OMG there are things flying off the screen at me!" (The Final Destination, My Bloody Valentine 3D, Piranha 3D, any movie that has to include "3D" in its title) There has been some disagreement between these two camps, with Avatar director James Cameron proclaiming his dissaproval of gimmick-fare like Piranha 3D, and Pirahna Producer Mark Canton essentially calling Cameron a prentious prick in return.
Is Cameron being a bit dismissive? Sure. But I think he has a point. While overall Avatar is mediocre at best ("unobtanium"? really?) the 3D presentation of the world of Pandora was exhilarating. Not because there were beasties and what not flying at you off the screen, but rather because the added depth of perception, obviously worked over in great detail, made that world seem that much more real. Instead of watching images on a screen you felt as if the action was happening around you.
Movies like Pirahna 3D, go in the opposite direction. Instead of creating an overall sense of being in the moment, they are specifically calling attention to the fact there are 3D effects being used. It's less about how the 3D helps make the movie, story, or experience better, and more about the split-second adrenaline rush. It's the same kind of novelty gimmick that was used in the 80s, and the fad crashed and burned once the novelty wore off.
So is there a problem with this spectacle driven use of 3D? Potentially, yes, and it's already becoming evident. As that first link shows, ticket sales for 3D films have been in a fairly steady decline, starting even before Avatar became a phenomenon. As more and more movies utilize it, the experience itself become less novel, which forces the rest of the film (the story, acting, etc.) to hold the audience's interest. For movies like, say, Up, this isn't a problem because the 3D visual effects were never meant to take center stage. It was meant a way to enhance (there's that word again) the visuals without taking the focus away (at least not drastically) from the characters and story. A movie like Piranha 3D, however, is selling itself solely on the technology being used. The only reason to see the movie is because it is in 3D, not because it seems like a particularly interesting movie (how many people want to see Piranha 2D?) And it is here that I agree with Cameron, that these kind of movies "cheapen" the medium. Every time one of these gimmick movies come out, the novelty of 3D is lessened, and the interest in 3D goes down, making it harder for films that utilize 3D in more artistic or unique ways to find an audience.
And audiences are getting burned out on 3D. A lot of this has to do with films that "upgrade" to 3D in post production, which creates the most god-awful 3D effects you can imagine (Clash of the Titans, anyone?). But some of it also has to do with films like the upcoming Saw 3D, where the filmmakers use the technology to lazily inject some kind of intrigue into movies that aren't that interesting in their own right (just about any movie that sticks "3D" in it's title is guilty of this). It's a cheap, uncreative, and boring way to going about using the technology. Look at the 90s, after Cameron and Spielberg made their huge gains in CGI with T2:Judgment Day and Jurassic Park respectively. Both films were heralded for their advances in special effects, and what followed were a schlock of films that went all out on the CGI to try and attract audiences. But what they failed to realize was it wasn't just the special effects that made T2 or Jurassic Park good; it was the way they used them, as one of many filmmaking and story telling tools. The story and suspense behind Jurassic Park are why it holds up. Technologies change, and what is new and impressive today may not be tomorrow. But good stories can last forever.
So back to that first, central question: Is 3D the future of movies? Only if directors and producers learn some self-discipline. As I said above, 3D is a filmmaking TOOL, like CG, wipes, wide angle shots, close ups, and on and on and on. When used correctly, these tools can be very effective and emotionally powerful. But this doesn't seem to be the direction Hollywood is taking the medium. With the Saw and Jackass franchises offering up 3D entries by the end of this year, Hollywood seems to be embracing the shortsighted, quick cash in approach, which will most likely kill off the audience desire for 3D. This is a shame, because I do think there is a place for 3D films. Avatar used it beautifully, even if the story was lacking, and animation studios like Pixar seem to have a good grasp on how the technology can be used to create a panorama effect, bringing the audience into the imaginary world. But apparently Hollywood would rather use it to let Steve-O wag his genitals at us, but in 3D!
No comments:
Post a Comment