The film industry, over its entire lifespan, has introduced and pioneered many innovations that have shaped the way we view cinema today, from the inclusion of sound and Technicolor to computer-animated special effects and tapeless recording on HD and Red (4K resolution, equivalent to 35mm film) cameras. In the past year, since the release of Avatar, the inclusion of 3D technology in films has exploded onto the scene, where it’s hard to ignore its presence in theaters. Although the use of 3D technology in today’s cinema has the potential of enhancing the viewing experience, it is unfortunately being used in the wrong ways and slapped onto movies for increased ticket prices and box office profits.
There are two main methods to create 3D in films, and each method results in distinctly varying levels of quality. The first method is to shoot a movie with 3D cameras from the beginning of production, resulting in a film that is in 3D natively. Some examples of movies shot using this method are Avatar, Resident Evil: Afterlife, and most 3D animated films, namely Legend of the Guardians and Despicable Me. The other method is to shoot a movie in 2D, then in post-production converting the footage to 3D. Movies using method #2 include Clash of the Titans, The Last Airbender, and the upcoming movies for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Films using the conversion method come out in far less quality then those shot natively in 3D. If more films are made using the conversion method, the general public will grow to have a distasteful outlook on 3D. James Cameron, director of Avatar, in an interview with USA Today, mentions the following: “If people put bad 3D in the marketplace they're going to hold back or even threaten the emerging of 3D. People will be confused by differences in quality.”
No matter what method is used to shoot a film in 3D, there has been issues with how they are viewed. One of the most noticeable issues is in order to view 3D movies, the moviegoer has to wear glasses to experience the effect. Wearing said glasses can become uncomfortable after an extended period of time, as well as lead to eye fatigue. Another negative effect is how the glasses reduce the brightness of the image, making the original way it was meant to be viewed only possible by not wearing the glasses. As J.J. Abrams, director of Star Trek, points out, “When you put the glasses on, everything gets dim” (The New York Times). Until 3D technology gets to the level of sophistication where glasses aren’t needed, the glasses will be an Achille’s heel for the advancement of 3D cinema. 3D movies can only be enjoyable if it is viewed in the same way as the ones that have been filmed in 2D since the inception of cinema.
Probably the most daunting and, therefore, unfortunate aspect of the escalating usage of 3D in today’s films is for the increased profits major studios can reap from ticket sales of 3D movies. With most 3D movies slapping on between a $3 to $5 premium, Hollywood studios can generate more money from the 3D versions of films rather than their 2D counterparts. Because of this, studios are more inclined to convert movies into 3D during post-production solely for the purpose of more revenue. Because of Hollywood’s increasing desire to create more movies in 3D, big name directors and movies have been pressured, although not always successfully, to shoot or convert their films into 3D. For example, Clash of the Titans was shot in 2D, but Warner Bros. insisted during post-production the movie be converted to 3D. The studio insists the 3D is used to enhance the viewing experience, but many critics state that viewing it in the said way makes it barely watchable. Another movie considered to be made into 3D was the recent release Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, which is based on the Scott Pilgrim graphic novel series and directed by Edger Wright. The idea was quickly put to rest “partly to avoid straining what promises to be a young audience with high ticket prices, [and] partly because the already busy look of the movie might have become overwhelming in 3-D” (Cieply). Using 3D should be determined on the effectiveness of its inclusion in a film, such as the added depth of field evident in Avatar, rather than on the desire to make a quick profit and use it as a gimmick to get moviegoers into the theaters.
In conclusion, the positive impact of 3D in cinema has the potential of increasing the enjoyability of watching movies in ways that were not possible with 2D cinema, but as long as Hollywood continues to use it in a lackluster manner and for the sole purpose of increased profits, the future for quality 3D films is bleak.
-Written by Jonathan Earley
Opinion essay for college English course
