Hollywood's Corporate Delusion

http://www.digitalcinemareport.com/node/1007

·The Big Picture

The first big summer of stereoscopic 3D movies is underway and so far the early box office and critical returns are overwhelmingly positive. Audiences have flocked in big numbers to both Monsters vs. Aliens and Up and critics have generally praised both movies. But 3D itself still has its detractors. One of the most prominent and most vocal of these is the venerable film critic Roger Ebert. In a recent lengthy blog entry he called the 2D version of Up “the true film” and he referred to the whole notion of stereoscopic 3D as “Hollywood’s mass corporate delusion." Never in my wildest dreams did I ever imagine that I would take Hollywood’s side against someone like Ebert, a man I’ve respected for decades. But in this case “Hollywood” isn’t just the guys in suits who – right or wrong – many of us sometimes believe don’t really care about movies as an art form. In this case Hollywood is also the entire creative community, the people who are pouring their hearts and souls into understanding the possibilities of this new, immersive storytelling capability. In this case Ebert isn’t merely wrong, he clearly just doesn’t get it.

First a look at the numbers.

Dreamworks Animation’s Monsters vs. Aliens opened on 7,300 screens in 4,104 theatres nationwide and 2,080 of the screens were 3D. Those 3D screens, roughly a third of the total, accounted for more than half of the $58.2 million dollars earned at the box office.

By comparison, Pixar’s Up opened on 6,700 screens in 3,766 theatres nationwide and 1,534 of the screens were 3D.  The 3D screens represented under a quarter of the total and accounted for more than half of the $68.2 million the movie earned.

The premiums that theatres currently charge for 3D (and which they won’t be able to do in a very short time) obviously accounted for some of that revenue. But, anecdotally, the AMC theatre where I saw Up in 3D also had it playing in 2D. I spoke to the manager after the movie and he said most performances of the 3D version had sold out – for a three dollar premium – while ticket sales were weak for the 2D version.  

Both movies could have benefited from more 3D-capable screens and, in a situation that will get more pronounced before it gets better, Monsters could really have benefited if it could have continued to play in 3D in theatres after Up opened but, in most cases, theatres currently only have one 3D-capable screen. Carmike was the only chain that I was able to find that was able to have both films running in 3D in the same theatre on a widespread basis.

Ebert does raise one 3D issue that can’t be disputed. In most theatres the projectors can still deliver a much brighter 2D image than 3D image. Current stereoscopic 3D projection technology is not as bright as it should be or as it needs to be for 3D to move beyond this early phase. But no one understands this better than the projector manufacturers and they are all working on the problem. And they will solve it soon. It would certainly help their cause in that effort to have all the VPF agreements completed so that more money can start to flow into this business.

Ebert’s blog entry on Up and 3D is too long to quote completely here but you can access it on his website. 

For me, this is the most critical – and inaccurate – paragraph:

“There is also the annoyance of 3D itself. It is a marketing gimmick designed (1) to justify higher ticket prices, and (2) make piracy harder. Yet as most of the world will continue to use 2D, pirated prints will remain a reality. The effect of 3D adds nothing to the viewing experience, and I have never once heard an audience member complain that a movie is not in 3D. Kids say they "like" it, but kids are inclined to say they "like" anything that is animated and that they get to see in a movie theater. It is the responsibility of parents to explain this useful truth: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Every single frame of a 3D movie gives you something to look at that is not necessary.”

Ebert is wrong on every point. First, 3D is currently justifying higher tickets prices because of simple supply and demand. Period. When enough theatres have 3D screens, premium pricing will be a thing of the past. Second, 3D will, in fact, make piracy harder. Third, people don’t need to complain that a movie isn’t in 3D – a rather intellectually empty argument to make in the first place – but rather they’re choosing 3D over 2D in significant numbers and paying a premium to do it. See point one above.

Fourth, I won’t even deal with what kids like or dislike. If you’re a parent, you get that one immediately. If you aren’t, nothing I can say will convince you of anything.

Five, as for “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” I grew up in the Midwest, too, and this old adage is more appropriate when talking about aging cars than it is creative endeavors. For example, there is absolutely nothing wrong with Vertigo but I’d be willing to bet that if digital stereoscopic 3D was available when he envisioned that classic movie and created that signature shot Hitchcock would have at least considered incorporating 3D elements into it. He certainly wouldn’t have dismissed the idea out of hand. Much in the same way that he decided to shoot the movie in color and have the actors talk. The people he was trying to reach with his story had moved past the days of silent, black and white movies, an art form that Hitchcock understood as well as anyone.

The arguments that Ebert is making are the same arguments that were made a century ago by people who insisted that silent movies were the pure art form and talking pictures were – take your pick – a fad, a nuisance or an abomination. Utter nonsense. Why? Artists use all the tools at their disposal to tell their stories. In 2005 actor/director George Clooney shot Good Night and Good Luck in black and white because he felt that it enhanced the story he wanted to tell. And filmmakers still make silent movies when it suits their creative vision. The Triplets of Belleville from 2003 – essentially a silent movie – is just one recent award-winning example.

The transition to stereoscopic 3D is the same as the transition to sound, in that it is simply a tool that creative people can use to enhance their vision of the story they’re telling. And the creative community is beginning to embrace the immersive storytelling potential of 3D in a big way. And audiences seem to be saying, through the extra money that they’re spending at the box office, that they enjoy what 3D has to offer, especially when it’s an integral part of a good story. This is not a mass corporate delusion. This is the dawning of a new era in movies and everyone involved in the movie business from filmmakers to exhibitors and filmgoers to film critics has much to learn about stereoscopic 3D. This is the beginning of that education. This is summer school.