Quality Control - poor quality of some of the latest 3D movies

http://www.digitalcinemareport.com/node/1889

 

In recent weeks the creative community and the movie-going public have voiced growing concerns about the poor quality of some of the latest 3D movies. This is particularly true of movies that were shot in 2D and converted to 3D. An article in The New York Times, quoting an online joke currently making the rounds, said, “If you can’t make it good, make it 3D.”  Meanwhile, considering the studio’s perspective, The London Telegraph said, “Hollywood's faith in the power of 3D movies to deliver a bright future of packed cinemas and spectacle-wearing audiences has been jolted by figures that show the high-tech format may already be floundering.” If we are to see the full creative and economic potential of stereoscopic 3D, it’s time for executives at the Hollywood studios to exert serious quality control.

The reaction to two recent movies begins to tell the story. USA Today film critic Claudia Puig wrote this about Step Up 3D, which was shot in stereoscopic 3D:

“Nobody goes to a dance movie for an intricate plot or clever dialogue. It's all about the moves.
Rhythmically, athletically and energetically, Step Up 3D does not disappoint. Fans of the first two movies in this series should be more than satisfied.”

Meanwhile, Chicago Tribune film critic Michael Phillips wrote this about the other movie, one of a growing number of features that was converted too quickly from 2D to 3D:

“According to The Last Airbender — the latest 3D offering in theatres, yet barely functional in 2- or even 1- — the world's separate kingdoms are built around fire, air, water, earth and impenetrable, rock-hard exposition. Bringing those first four to the screen no doubt intrigued writer-director M. Night Shyamalan. But the fifth keeps messing him up, as he struggles to find a rhythm for the quest involving a young leader's date with destiny.”

The result? Step Up 3D held its own and finished in third place its opening weekend and continues to generate decent box office in worldwide release. The Last Airbender, which cost an estimated $150 million to make has generated worldwide revenues of just over $180 million. 

The fallout from movie experiences like these has already begun to lead to at least two interesting developments. One seems positive at first but, in a classic example of the risks of unintended consequences, it may backfire.

The first development is that some talented filmmakers are on record saying they won’t consider shooting in 3D under current circumstances. This is troubling for those of us who champion 3D as a creative tool with amazing story telling potential. But it is also understandable. Many filmmakers are concerned about the fact that in some theatres movies in 3D are dramatically dimmer than are 2D movies. They’re also rightfully wary of the fairly steep learning curve that’s involved in making a good 3D movie.

Nick Allen wrote in The London Telegraph that “Christopher Nolan, the British-born director of The Dark Knight and Inception, refused to use the new technology in his latest film because he found the dimness ‘extremely alienating.’”

And this is how The New York Times’ Michael Cieply described a conversation among filmmakers in a panel discussion about 3D at this year’s Comic-Con:

“When you put the glasses on, everything gets dim,” said J.J. Abrams, whose two-dimensional Star Trek earned $385 million at the worldwide box office for Paramount Pictures last year. Joss Whedon, who was onstage with Abrams, said that as a viewer, ‘I’m totally into it. I love it.’ But Whedon then said he flatly opposed a plan by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer to convert The Cabin in the Woods, a horror film he produced but that has not yet been released, into 3D. ‘What we’re hoping to do,’ Whedon said, ‘is to be the only horror movie coming out that is not in 3D.’ A spokesman for MGM declined to discuss The Cabin in the Woods. But one person who was briefed on the situation — and spoke on the condition of anonymity because the studio was in the middle of a difficult financial restructuring — said conversion remained an option.”

The last thing this industry in general – and stereoscopic 3D in particular – needs right now is for the major studios and prominent filmmakers to do public battle over the issue. But that now seems increasingly inevitable.

Recognizing the audience’s unhappiness with converted 3D movies, some exhibitors have begun to lower ticket prices across the board and are reducing the premium for 3D. This is the second development but while it sounds positive it carries ramifications along with it. 

It’s good for their patrons but it could lengthen the time it takes the exhibitors themselves to amortize the technology investment needed to present 3D. More troubling than that, if other 3D-enabled exhibitors follow suit it could have the effect of eliminating the premium altogether and force the exhibitors who haven’t yet converted to 3D to delay – or worse – defer that decision. That could harm everyone in the business.

Hollywood is beginning to take notice. I’ve already seen television commercials for movies touting the fact that they were shot in 3D and not converted. This seems likely to continue and is a promising step. It could ward off demands from some consumer groups calling for a labeling system. While I don’t immediately see any harm in a labeling system it would, at best, prove unwieldy to instigate and manage. In the meantime, with the Internet and other channels of word of mouth, consumers are already doing a pretty effective job by voting with their dollars for good 3D movies and against bad ones.

Exhibitors need to be made aware that unlike film projection or even 2D digital projection 3D requires a greater attention to details.  And studio executives in Hollywood need to recognize the limits of 2D conversion. History suggests the situation will get worse long before it gets better. Sadly, many of these are the same people who just a few years ago saw nothing wrong when, thanks to poorly maintained and manned projectors, audiences were forced to pay for the privilege of watching films that were smudged and scratched and torn.