George Clooney's 'The American' Wins … 
Danny Boyle Comes Back To Telluride Film … 
Weir's 'The Way Back' Has Telluride World … 
Paramount Reacts To Film Extra Seriously … 
Filmmakers Reveal That Hidden 'Machete' … 
'CSI' Creator Takes On Robert Ludlum With … 
EXCLUSIVE: Summit Walks Away From MGM To Go … 
Paula Patton Joins 'Mission: Impossible 4' 
Angelina Jolie Pass Puts 'Gravity' In Shaky … 
Apple To Offer ABC & Fox Shows For … 
3RD UPDATE: Hostage-Taking Gunman Killed At … 
Fox Orders Jamie Foxx Sketch Comedy Series … 
Deadline Hires Pete Hammond From LA Times … 
Conan's TBS Show Will Be Called 'Conan' 
SAG Notice Without Explanation: More Members … 
The chance to charge higher ticket prices has every Hollywood studio rushing to retrofit their 2D spectacles into 3D. Some directors are pushing back, concerned there's an imminent future of cheesy-looking 3D that will stunt the momentum created by Avatar.
“After Toy Story, there were 10 really bad CG movies because everybody thought the success of that film was CG and not great characters that were beautifully designed and heartwarming,” Avatar’s James Cameron told me recently. "Now, you’ve got people quickly converting movies from 2D to 3D, which is not what we did. They’re expecting the same result, when in fact they will probably work against the adoption of 3D because they’ll be putting out an inferior product.”
That certainly didn't happen with Alice in Wonderland, which is grossed huge and gave Disney leverage to shorten the window between theatrical and DVD. The next big test for retro-fit 3D comes with the April 2 opening of Clash of the Titans. The film is tracking well, but also building a buzz that it is an imperfect movie that will greatly benefit at the box office because of its last minute 3D conversion.
Hard conversion conversations are being had now at studios on films that include Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, The Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader, Gulliver’s Travels and The Hobbit. Executives are weighing competitive issues and the potential benefits of higher ticket prices against the $100,000 per running time minute that is being used as a rule-of-thumb conversion cost.
Not every filmmaker is as high on the conversion process as studios like Warner Bros seem to be.
“I shoot complicated stuff, I put real elements into action scenes and honestly, I am not sold right now on the conversion process,” says Michael Bay. Paramount and DreamWorks are pressuring him to allow Transformers 3 to be dimensional-ized after the fact, because there simply isn’t enough time to shoot with 3D camera and post the film between now and its July 1, 2011 release date. Cameron took his time on Avatar, and will do the same with the elaborate Fantastic Voyage remake he’s producing for Fox. His longtime 3D documentary collaborator, Andrew Wight, did the same when he produced the underwater thriller Sanctum. Conversions, on the other hand, are rush jobs done right before release dates.
Bay investigated shooting at least some Transformers 3 footage with 3D cameras, but found them too heavy and cumbersome for the fast pace action scenes he shoots. Bay feels the process of sending out 2D film for 3D conversion is more problematic and pricey than studios are admitting. Too often, companies selling 3D retrofitting services arrive with a sharp demo reel, but leave with a deer-in-the-headlights look when Bay gives them his own footage to convert, on a tight deadline.
“I am trying to be sold, and some companies are still working on the shots I gave them,” Bay said. “Right now, it looks like fake 3D, with layers that are very apparent. You go to the screening room, you are hoping to be thrilled, and you’re thinking, huh, this kind of sucks. People can say whatever they want about my movies, but they are technically precise, and if this isn’t going to be excellent, I don’t want to do it. And it is my choice.”
Bay uses the same top-shelf crews and visual effects teams on all his films, and he bolstered the quality of his Transformers 3 cast with Frances McDormand and John Malkovich. He objects to the idea of handing over his finished film to an unproven process--and people who haven't had time to develop a level of trust with him--with a release date bearing down on him.
Said Bay: “I’m used to having the A-team working on my films, and I’m going to hand it over to the D-team, have it shipped to India and hope for the best? This conversion process is always going to be inferior to shooting in real 3D. Studios might be willing to sacrifice the look and use the gimmick to make $3 more a ticket, but I’m not. Avatar took four years. You can’t just shit out a 3D movie. I’m saying, the jury is still out.”
Bay also disputes the $100,000 per minute conversation cost estimate. Try between $120,000 to $150,000 per minute, he said, with a top-shelf conversion of Transformers 3 costing $30 million.
In the end, Bay might have little choice but take the plunge if the film is to generate the highest possible global gross against competition like Pirates of the Caribbean, which is likely to go 3D. Fox is having the same discussions right now on The Voyage of the Dawn Treader and Gulliver’s Travels, and Warner Bros and New Line will start the debate on The Hobbit as soon as Guillermo del Toro, Peter Jackson and their co-writers turn in the script for the second installment within a month.
I’m told Fox is leaning toward conversions on both of its films, and who can blame them, even though the price tag could be more than $20 million? Narnia opens Dec. 10, sandwiched between 3D titles Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (November 19), Tron Legacy (December 17), and Yogi Bear (December 17). Gulliver’s Travels opens Dec. 22. Is it suicide to be the 2D holdout in a 3D family film holiday season?
The Warners discussions on The Hobbit are equally intriguing. Initially, del Toro favored a 2D shoot on film, insiders said. But Warners is sitting on a potential gold mine, looking at an extra theatrical and ancillary revenue cycle if the studio spends $60 million or so to convert the original Lord of the Rings trilogy. It will be an all or nothing decision on five LOTR films, because Warners will not convert LOTR then release a pair of 2D Hobbit films that look visually inferior.
Sanctum's Wight said the process of shooting with 3D cameras will become streamlined and the norm. He shot Sanctum in 3D, in underwater caves, on a $30 million budget, but then again, Wight helped Cameron road test the equipment on the deep sea documentaries they did together. Wight is concerned that inferior conversions will harm the market, but figures audiences will be savvy enough to smell stiffs using quick 3D conversions as crutches.
"Avatar proved people will pay a premium for value," Wight said. "It's like Heinz Ketchup. Once you've tasted it you'll go to as many markets as you need to find it when you run out. With Avatar, they tasted something really good, and they want more. People aren't going to say, well this movie looks like crap, but I'll go and hope the 3D is good. As a community, we need to do this right and have quality control, because the bad things out there diminish the value and the more good stuff out there, the more people will be inclined to go see these movies."
When I spoke to him during Oscar season, Cameron was also concerned about the 3D virgin directors who were thrust into big stereoscopic shoots, like (500) Days of Summer director Marc Webb on the 3D Spider-Man reboot. Cameron said he has volunteered himself to be a 3D crisis counselor to any director who asks, and he called for the DGA to organize seminars to help filmmakers understand the benefits and pitfalls of the technology. He could tell problems would abound when Avatar opened and the most effusive reactions came from studios moved more by higher ticket prices than artistry.
“This is another example of Hollywood getting it wrong,” Cameron said. “Sony says, we’re doing Spider-Man in 3D.’ The director doesn’t say, `Hey, I want to make the movie in 3D.’ The studio says, `You want to direct this movie? You’re doing it in 3D, motherfucker!' That’s not how it should be. I’ve tried for the last seven years to get filmmakers excited, and they all hung back while Pixar and DreamWorks did animation and me and a couple others did live action. We prove the point, and now filmmakers are being told to make their movies in 3D.”
Loading ...
The 3D trend is annoying…what’s so bad about a really beautiful 2D composition? Even the best 3D still darkens the picture and muddies the color ever so slightly. But now that the trend is for the big tentpoles to get the treatment, and the feat that you can’t compete without it, I fear we’re quickly reaching a point of no return.
That was one of problems I have with 3D. The glasses darken the picture and it doesn’t look as good. Avatar looks so much better without the glasses.
It’s not the glasses themselves that make 3D dim; it’s the fact that only one eye receives the illuminated image at a time, which means 3D seems about half as luminous. That’s why a reflective silver screen is needed to show 3D films.
Um, no.
The silver is because the polarized light needs to stay polarized, and the image needs to be as bright as possible because the glasses darken the image. Polarized filters darken things.
Does a room suddenly seem half as bright when you close one eye? No.
If you can find Dolby3d showing somewhere, go see it – it’s not any dimmer, because the technology doesn’t use polarization or red/green filters, so there is no perceptible loss of brightness or color range. I saw Avatar that way, and I couldn’t tell the difference with the glasses on and off, color-wise. Super awesome.
um no its also for increased light.
and dolby requires a high gain screen
They all require hi-gain screens, including Technicolor’s film based 3D product and Sony’s 4K solution. Dolby’s just doesn’t “have to be” a non-depolorizing silver screens.
Dolby’s looks the best in my opinon but it is also the most expensive to use – not so much for the installation but because of the special “Infintec” 3D glasses their system requires. The studios pay for everyone’s 3D glasses one way or another and they aren’t happy with the significantly higher costs associated with the Dolby installations.
The silver screen is required to reflect the polarized rays with as little diffusion as possible, not for brightness. But about brightness; the studios hopefully had the sense to at least attempt to compensate for polarized glasses. Although I imagine they can only do so much with the range of different projectors and screens available.
no its both the light loss of the glasses and one eye at a time (in most presentations, some newer setups have both eyes at same time)
I am so surprised that, in the six months that folks in our business have been wringing their hands about the advent of the 3D ‘event’ film, so few us have really reflected on the last time our industry experienced such a dramatic technological development — the wide-spread conversion to ‘talkies’ in the late 1920s and early 1930s. The same rush to up-date product to incorporate the new technology took place…with the same early compromises in quality. The end result, however, was a comparatively quick shift to the new technology by both film-makersand exhibitors. (Dudes and Dudettes, swing by the silent movie theater on Fairfax sometime and TRY to suffer through Griffith’s “Intolerance” or the first DeMille “Ben Hur.”)
For anyone who’s really interested in this issue, I recommend “Movie-Made America,” the EXCELLENT book by NYU Professor (and former L.A. Times reporter) Robert Sklar. This book (published in the 70s but up-dated ten or fifteen years ago) gives an overview of the major transitions our business has experienced: from silent films to sound films, from exclusively theatrical exhibition to television, from 16mm ‘home’ prints to VHS tapes…and on and on. In his book, Sklar convincingly argues that “the more things change, the more they stay the same.”
Working in the business we work in, it is sometimes very easy for us not to drink the studio-stirred Kool-Aid and a sense of historical perspective is very difficult to maintain, but here are some facts: in 1930 U.S. Steel was one of the largest corporations in America, Oldsmobiles were best-selling cars…and Warner Bros. is a perpetual contender for the highest-grossing studio. Now, the better part of a century later, U.S. Steel has virtually disappeared, GM no longer makes Oldsmobiles…and Warner Bros. is a perpetual contender to be the highest-grossing studio.
The more I think about this stuff, though, the more convinced I am that the proliferation of film-making technology and the radically reduced cost of that technology is making it increasingly likely that a new MEDIUM will emerge. What will it be? (If you know the answer, keep it to yourself until you figure out how to get a billion dollars to exploit…remember Philo Farnsworth and lament.)
As the owner of a comany that is involved in the more expensive end of this new technology (vfx), I’m very interested to see how this all plays out.
Stereo film making in the past has been a gimmick. James Cameron in my opinion has shown that this does not need to be the case, but only because his film was made at the hands of somone who is a truly remarkable visual storyteller. It was also made by someone who had 10 – 4 years (depending on which bit of marketing you read) to get it right. It was also made on a gigantic budget.
How many film makers out there do we really believe can make stereo movies to this calibre? Who has the drive, the budget and the schedule? In my opinion, not that many.
My concern is that I am forced to spend a LOT of money getting technically up to scratch to do this work in regard to hardware, software, training and r&d, only to find out that this is once again, another financially unsustainable gimmick. It is already putting my business under huge financial strain and therefore at risk of not staying open, in a market that is already harder than ever to survive in. It is a huge gamble for me and the people I employ.
For the record, for the next few years at least, there will be no ‘radically reduced cost of technology’ in regards to stereo vfx.
Hello to you all!
How wrong it can get…
ALL 3D-systems will steal light. Here are numbers of lightefficiency, when it says 15%, it means that you loose 85% of light. Industy standards call for 14 footlambert when t´s not 3D, when it´s 3D the standard goes down to 5 footlambert, which I think is very low. But, here are the efficiency for different 3D-systems:
Real D 15%
Real D XL 27%
Dolby 12%
Xpand 18%
Master Image 15%
The brightest system on the market today is Oculus3D, a system conceived of by Lenny Lipton, the man who invented the ZScreen, the invention that sparked the current wave of 3D.
They have published publicly 10 foot lamberts – and thus it is the brightest.
Exactly 3D makes the movie experience worse, except for avatar that was alright in 3D but 2D is so much better, the other day I was saying what the hell is with all the 3D shit!
It’s only fake when they do it with live action footage. With CGI they just have to push a button to render it in two angles and it makes it real 3D. Alice In Wonderland was mostly CGI. So that no doubt helped them get away with it. I don’t know how far they can go with it though.
“With CGI they just have to push a button to render it in two angles and it makes it real 3D. Alice In Wonderland was mostly CGI. So that no doubt helped them get away with it.”
This is so wrong. There is a lot more to this than just pushing a button. Also, Alice was converted to Stereo just like Clash of the Titans, They use “Cards” to create depth in the scene. It does not look great and like Mike says, looks fake.
You’re both right and wrong. Alice in Wonderland was primarily shot against green screen, with everything except the photographed talent CG (not including the real-world ‘bookends’). Generating 2 CG camera angles for each shot of “Wonderland” ranges from 2 to 4+ times the amount of effort required compared with standard CG (dependent on shot complexity and camera point of focus). But ultimately, you *do* just calculate those camera values and hit that button.
The live footage component is the *tricky* bit. It can be fixed by animating a 3d model in the exact location of the talent then projecting the live footage back onto that animated model (how principal characters were done in Alice). Projecting from both cameras (amazingly), gets you most of the way to accepting a 2d image as 3d with any glitches fixed with paint and roto. For less important live elements such as real crowds – yup, curved cards are used, and generally it’s not very noticeable.
The main thing to remember – Alice in Wonderland’s 2d to 3d conversion was not a cheap or quick process! It was painstakingly crafted by artists to get every ounce of stereoscopic 3d value possible from the filmed 2d footage, which lived inside a true stereoscopic 3d crafted environment.
Unfortunately … the wads of money made by Alice and Avatar has convinced studio heads (who barely understand the process), that there’s a quick, fast buck to be made. There’s a narrow window of opportunity to do cheap, quick and nasty 2d to 3d conversions before a) there’s a majorly embarrassing flop, or b) the public loses interest at getting nauseous in a movie theater and demands higher quality product a la Avatar.
Andy, I honor your expertise. After reading all of the partial truths and half-facts above, it’s refreshing to read your comment. 3D conversion from 2D can be a half-measure (without the time and money REQUIRED to do it right), that can often cost more than shooting with stereo cameras, and rendering, compositing and editing (yes, it makes a difference: Convergence angle changes are jarring for the viewer) in 3D. There is another factor here: The education of the audience. Think about how we see. There is learning involved. A skillful observer can refocus convergence quickly, but an inexperience one will miss the scene, and be taken out of the story’s “spell”. It will require a generation to adapt to this just like digital film making. And, just like DigiFilm, it is here to stay. This is a deep and complex subject. There will be many bad conversions, especially in the “archives”. Imagine Godzilla, in 3D. Ouch. Remember when Ted Turner colorized hundreds of black and white films when he bought the libraries? Bad news is coming for viewers on a whole new dimension.
Why does the word “bandwagon” keep popping into my head? 3D effects are never going to make a bad film good, and the public are soon going to get wise to movies that use 3D to paste over holes in the script. This time around a lot of money is being invested in the medium, both by exhibitors and studios, and it would be good to think that the momentum started by “Avatar” can be carried forward and not go the way of Cinerama, Todd-AO, and earlier 3D attempts.
Anyone remember “colorization ?”. That went well….
I totally agree. I find 3D to be hugely annoying. I watched Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix on IMAX, which had about 20 minutes of 3D footage. It was such a hassle, and those stupid glasses bug the crap out me. They also give me a headache. I understand a lot of people like 3D, but for some reason there is this notion that a “next step” has to be taken in film technology. In any event, the 3D experience doesn’t at all feel natural, much less “immersive.” And by the way, I’m no technophobe–one of those people who always stubbornly cling to traditional technologies and resist new ones. I’m totally sold on blu-ray, just like I was when dvd first came out. I am, however, still skeptical of the abilities of CGI. For all the talk about how stunning the work in Avatar is, the CG character still have that odd, overly smooth movement, like other film that has used them. And for the most part they (to me anyway) don’t look “in” the environment as much as human actors. I’m hoping though that someday they’ll get CGI just right. James Cameron made a comment that people went to see Toy Story not for the CGI but for the engaging characters and storyline. So, what then, Mr. Cameron, is the reason so many people saw Avatar–your comments suggest it HAS to be the visual, unless the populace actually really likes poorly written scripts and cliched and predictable story lines. James Cameron is really getting on my nerves.
great points
@Telepathos
What a grumpy person you are!
10% of the population cannot see 3D at all.
Cameron gets on everyones nerves..why do you thing Bigelow got the Producers award and the Academy…sympathy vote for being married to him…
Say what you will about Cameron and Bay, I have to applaud their steadfast willingness to ‘do it right’. Now if only someone would teach Bay what a decent script looks like, TF3 might be worth a look.
MCH
Who’d of thought that Michael Bay would have that kind of integrity? He’s totally right. A less powerful director wouldn’t be able to say no to the studio, but then that director probably wouldn’t have the power unless they could stand up to the studio.
3D question aside, the buzz I’ve heard from the Clash of the Titans weekend press screenings has been quite positive. I am more wondering if all this 3D talk will obscure the film itself, which is an eminently enjoyable popcorn flick.
still, the Titans billboards around town feature characters that look disturbingly/laughingly like Travoltoid in Battlefield Earth
“While you were still learning how to SPELL YOUR NAME, I was being taught to conquer GALAXIES!!!!”
this is the best quote ever–> michael bay: “People can say whatever they want about my movies, but they are technically precise, and if this isn’t going to be excellent, I don’t want to do it. And it is my choice.”
i am a big fan of the technical aspects of bay’s movies (minus the island or whatever it was called, with ewan mcgregor). transformers 2 is brilliantly choreographed.
“transformers 2 is brilliantly choreographed.”
Um.
Disney’s Rapunzel also comes out Nov. 24…This Christmas is going to be a crowded 3D market.
James Cameron is a freaking GENIUS…a person who is exceptionally intelligent or creative, either generally or in some particular respect. Michael Bay is his Hackamore, stepson…he’ll sell out.
Michael Bay’s a hack and James Cameron is a charlatan; they both suck.
You may think they suck but the public (remember them?) has made them the two most popular directors of all time.
That’s fine. I was simply refuting the idea that James Cameron is a genius. He is not.
Nice article Nikki!
Err… that was Mike’s article.
Does Cameron mean there were 10 really bad CG movies to come directly after Toy Story? Cause, if he did, that would include some of Pixar’s other films…
Great article mike.
Great article.
The highlight has to be Bay saying, “You can’t just shit out a 3d movie.” The subtext of which is, of course, “But you can shit out a 2d movie, which is exactly what I am doing.”
This is my favorite comment – EVER!
It is refreshing to hear some ‘pull back’ on the 2D to 3D conversion.
There are so many agendas driving 3D and few have anything to do with improving the audience experience. Studios want to protect their properties as it is currently much more difficult to copy 3D in the DVD marketplace, and the DVD/Home Video divisions have been suffering significant revenue decreases. Studios and exhibitors like the additional 3D revenue at the door, And, manufactures have a lot invested in home 3D development although neither current hardware or programming is up to speed. And until people DON’T have to wear glasses at home…this will be a slow grind.
Both Cameron and Bay are correct. The rapid convergence from 2D to 3D may not be the best way to go. Moreover, audiences may soon lose interest if the process does not enhance the experience as the novelty wears off.
Good story…Nikki, and “Thank You” Jim and Michael for not jumping on the ‘flavor of the month’ bandwagon.
Welcome to the 3-D bubble. Make no mistake, the 3D bubble will pop and pop big within the next five years. The question is: who will get left holding the bag? Theater owners? Studios? Home video?
Haha. Oh Michael Bay. You make me laugh. Technically precise…that’s a real knee stomper…
Excellent article!!!! Need more of these!!!! Filmmaker’s talking sense!
This article made me a fan of Michael Bay, haha.
As someone looking forward to a lot of those movies listed that are being converted in Post-Prod., it makes me worried that it’ll fuck up the film itself. But I guess it’ll be OK as long as the director isn’t shooting it to be a 3-D film (i.e. poking stuff out at you) so I can still have the choice to just watch it normally (2-D). God I hope this trend dies this year, and I feel bad for what James Cameron was trying to accomplish and pass on to people.
But seriously, quality control died a long time ago… everyone’s conditioned now to mp3 quality music (with over compression), taking photos with their cell phones (shitty quality) and watching movies and TV on their 13″ computer screens or, even worse, iPods and iTouches.
Play me out, Keyboard Cat….
Yet more evidence that the addition of Michael Fleming’s reporting to “Deadline Hollywood” was a stroke of genius. Now bring Todd McCarthy on board as a critic giving us an advance look at new releases and nobody will ever have to read a trade paper again (not that there’s much reason to now).
I second the idea of hiring Todd McCarthy.
Reviews are the only thing your site is missing Nikki. Then I can cancel my subscription to on-line Variety forever.
So true. Went to see ALICE IN WONDERLAND in 3D of course. Best I can is it was an OK movie for me, even if it’s making a pile of money. Unlike AVATAR it did not stay with me, and I think that’s the key to it’s success, AVATAR (no matter the criticisms that were thrown at it) STAYED with you.
If it weren’t for Johnny Depp’s performance as the Mad Hatter, this movie would have been a waste of my money, 3D or not.
Don’t waste Mimezine…
The really interesting test case is going to come with Batman 3 or whatever it ends up getting called. Last week WB announced that starting next year ALL of their tentpole films (including DC properties) were going to be released in 3D whether they were shot with 3D cameras or not. Chris Nolan, however, has said he wants to continue using IMAX cameras for the next installment that which would preclude him from shooting in 3D and it is tough to imagine him allowing the studio to upconvert the film in post production because A: it makes an inferior product and B: he’s a control freak. He is one of the more powerful directors in Hollywood so he has the juice to stand up to the studio.
On a side note; while despise Michael Bay’s movies as much as any other self respecting movie fan I have been developing a begrudging respect for him recently. About a month ago he stated he would make a matching donation to the Make a Wish Foundation for every DVD copy of Transformers 2 that was sold and now he sounds like he’s willing to dig his heels in and fight to make sure the studios don’t release inferior versions of his movies (in as much as “superior” versions of Michael Bay movies exist).
“People can say whatever they want about my movies, but they are technically precise”
thats all anyone can say about them. If only he could fit a good story in there.
Say what you will about Bay, but this statement was classy. You can’t shit out 3D. Do it for real or do not do it!
Alice was in inferior film bolstered by the newness of 3D. This effect will wear out, and will wear out SOON.
Tell me, Mr. Producer, do you want YOUR pricey pic being the first one slaughtered?
It will happen.
I think the real test will be how a theatrical 3D release affects the DVD market (and BluRay and PPV etc.). Will people want to see a movie they are told “must be seen in 3D” in 2D? Will 3D kill these ancillary markets?
“imminent future of cheesy-looking 3D”
Transformers is already cheesy-looking 2D.
why mess with the last and final HP movies. i hope to god that they are better than 6 was. now i am scared that they will make a mess of the final chapter, with the 3d.
please do the books justice, make the movies good and the heck with 3d.
I’d like to know what these “10 CG Movies” that came out after Toy Story that were awful were. I seem to remember pretty much every CG movie that came out after Toy Story being pretty good.
Oh I dunno, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_computer-animated_films
There’s always a trend of Dreamworks or someone else coming out with a movie to copy the exact them of the previous Disney or Pixar movie. Lots of studios jumped on the bangwagon without high quality animation of stories to match.
Saw “Clash” in 2-D and had a great time. Lots of fun action. But I also saw the reel of “Clash” highlights in 3-D and it looked less like 3-D than the regular movie did! I thought maybe my eyes weren’t doing their job until everyone agreed with me afterwards…
I was able to see 2D footage that was converted to 3D by one of these companies mentioned in the article. Long story short, it looked awful and cheesy. While yes, the images did seem to pop off of the screen, it still looked flat and lacked the depth that AVATAR has.
Those prices Bay quotes are silly season. We’ve been making money anywhere north of $50K/minute, on Class A features.
So the tent pole films go 3d…but what about the comedies, drama and Rom/Coms? Do I really need to pay $3 more to see Alec Baldwin in It’s Complicated 2, in 3d? I saw too much of him in 2d already.
The real issue will be if this variable pricing will stick. James Cameron was the seal of approval and earned the extra $3 for Avatar based on his previous films. But if I’m torn between a 3d and a 2d that’s cheaper, I’m gonna go for the bargain. So will most people.
loved this post. makes me want to go out and shoot something tomorrow
Wow, a lot of Michael Bay haters here. You guys crack me up. You do realize your whining is getting ridiculous, right?
Bay is probably the most powerful man in the movie business right now, he can pretty much direct anything he wants to direct, and you’re STILL wasting your time blasting him??
Pathetic. Just pathetic.
Michael, is that you?
Nothing else to say, bud?
Come one, come up with an insult. I’m sure you can.
Please retire the word “hater” from your vocabulary. And Michael Bay, while a heavyweight, is most certainly NOT the most powerful man in the movie business. Not even close.
Can you not handle criticism of a public figure? Especially one who creates such mediocre product?
good article, thank you.
Yeah, people will go see these 3D films, but after awhile, they will peter out just like old 3D.
Fact of the matter is, 3D gives you a headache. Period. And the more action, the more you also risk motion sickness, and general queasy feeling. And no, there are some things I DONT want to see in 3D…
I think Hollywood has found a new toy and it’s gonna out wear it’s welcome but quick if they learn to use it sparingly…
my 2 cents.
“We’ll show them cheesy movies, the worst we can make. Fa-La-La”
Excellent article! Very informative and interesting.
I’ve always been concerned about 2-D to 3-D conversion. The stuff I saw last summer looked like shit but was being peddled as if it’s the second coming.
The way it seems to me, there is no information in a 2-D film to reveal what’s behind any object, that “peeking out” of what’s behind the edges that is the difference between flat and depth.
So there are only two options, as I understand it: 1. some computer algorithm that extrapolates possible background information and then inserts into the scene behind an object, or 2. rotoscope/slice each object out of its single 2-D environment and merely paste it onto one of several new planes–making a multi-plane 2-D environment.
In the 1st technique, well… can we say “colorization”? Creating information that does not exist and inserting it so that it appears to be whatever is behind the object is likely to look like shit.
In the 2nd technique, having a variety of flat objects floating around on a variety of planes, hoping the audience doesn’t notice the lack of background information, is likely to look like shit.
If someone WANTS to kill 3-D (and clearly, many here do), then converting 2-D to 3-D is the sure-fire way to accomplish that.
I’m gonna bet that Cameron is going to painstakingly create his own algorithms and paint the “peeking out” edges in every element of every scene in TITANIC. I’m gonna bet nobody else will do anything nearly as intricate.
sweet jesus, am i actually going to have to agree with michael bay on something? yes, i am.
Dear Hollywood:
We the people know that you like to tack on 3 bucks to the cost of a ticket. We also hate you for it. We’re getting ticket fatigue. Wouldn’t it make more sense to be the cheaper, more sensible option in a crowded marketplace? I know I’d like a break in December and not have to pay $18 for a ticket to see every single movie in the most expensive goddamn month of the year. Yes, 18 a ticket. IMAX is tough to justify already, and then you fleece me for a gratuitous tip of $3 to wear your stupid glasses. I’m tired of it. I’m tired of all these movies ultimately being disappointing visually. I expect to be AMAZED if I pay roughly double for an IMAX movie in 3D than I would have paid for the 2PM Saturday Matinee.
I have not been amazed.
Knock it off. You impress nobody, you piss off everybody who just want to see a movie at 4PM when they have free time, but the only thing showing has $3 3D tax added, so they see it anyway and come out with an inferior experience.
I love Cameron’s quote in the last paragraph!
That said, he completely gets wrong the history of the new wave of 3D… “I’ve tried for the last seven years to get filmmakers excited, and they all hung back while Pixar and DreamWorks did animation…” Uh, Jim. Pixar and Dreamworks didn’t release their first 3D films until LAST year.
Let’s give credit/blame to Disney (CHICKEN LITTLE (2005), MEET THE ROBINSONS (2007) and BOLT (2008)) and Sony (MONSTER HOUSE (2006), OPEN SEASON (2006) and CLOUDY WITH A CHANCE OF MEATBALLS (2009)) for really pushing 3D animation. Heck, let’s even credit/blame Warner Brothers for the first big one… POLAR EXPRESS (2004).
While Pixar and Dreamworks may be big guns they are far from being the trend setting studios that Cameron claims.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows will be the only movie that will look amaizng in 3D.
1) I’m really impressed with Bay not jumping to make even more bucks with this 3D craze – character, you’re still around!
2) How much of the production share the 3D will devour, it’s anyone’s guess – I hope that most of the projects that will try to capitalize on it will crash.
To understand the Hollywood mentality, check Breughel’s painting “The Parable of The Blind Men” – sad, yet true: here’s the link http://www.art-prints-on-demand.com/a/pieter-brueghel-the-elder/the-parable-of-the-blind.html
3) Then, there are so many movies, past, present, and yes, future, that simply don’t gain from 3D – oh, the so called art stuff… and not only them… what about enhacing your “Leaving Las Vegas”, or “Being John Malkovich” or “Shakespeare In Love” with 3D?
I kind of pass -
I have to agree with Bay and Cameron in that converting the final result compared to shooting it in actual 3D is wholly different. As much I applaud Cameron on shooting Avatar in 3D, the whole thing is still rather… new, for lack of better word. Conversion to 3D is a whole other ballgame, and Bay has a point on his level of trust in the process if he hands over the final cut. ILM animation supervisor Scott Benza pointed out during a press junket that Bay letting ILM handle the underwater scene and Nemesis ship scene in Revenge of the Fallen was a big leap of faith on Michael’s part.
In short, I’d rather Bay “shoot it for real”.
No 3D!!
making TF3 in 3D will not make it the next highest grossing film like Avatar, that’s what a good script gets you.
I’m getting ticked off that soo many movies now are coming out in 3D.
I felt ripped off when I saw the new Alice in Wonderland in 3D, the 3D did nothing For that movie I felt.
I hate to break it to you but the same was said of color and at one point sound. Even though some of the first color films, probably would have been more technically precise in black and white, they advanced embrace of a technology that undoubtedly improved cinema for audiences and industry.
You don’t have to wear silly glasses to see color or hear sound. If I want a 3D experience, I’ll go see a play or take a freaking walk around the block; they’re not nearly as irritating experience.
I hate 3D. I do not have binocular vision and therefore don’t leave a 3D movie going ‘WOW! THTAT WAS AMAZING!’. Until the advent of the new glasses all I saw was a blurred picture now I see a 2D film with a dark picture.
I don’t know about you but I’d rather see a bright, vibrant 2D movie over a dark, washed out 3D that I am viewing as a 2D anyway.
How does 3D hurt you? Just go and see the 2D version and save a few bucks. Don’t try to ruin it for us who can appreciate a well 3D film.
And he invented 3D ? Please. he is just like many before him who jump onto the bandwagon with his Avaturd
So he should stop playing Big Brother and enjoy his billions…let others enjoy the ride
Another problem with 3d is the that not all the cinemas have the upgraded technology to show them. I expect a lot of cinemas some but not all to he left out of the blockbuster weekend releases becouse they don’t have have the projectors to support 3d and those cinemas that don’t have this tech are left out in the cold while thier competitors who have it will reap the benefits.
“Avatar” wasn’t a 3-D movie, it was a movie in 3-D. Cameron is apparently one of the few filmmakers who knows the difference. And if the picture is too dark, tell the theatre to show it at the proper lumen level.
These studios are getting it so wrong. Took my kids to see Toy Story in 3d – they got a headache and I haven’t taken them to see a 3d movie since. I saw Avatar in 3d and was unimpressed and won’t spend the extra money for 3d again. The value and the experience just aren’t there. It’s very similar to my experience spending the extra money to see Star Wars episode 1 in digital – I was very excited to “test it out”, but in the end, there just wasn’t enough bang for my buck to justify the difference in ticket price.
It will be nice when the power of moviemaking shifts back to the filmmakers from the now all-controlling studio execs
By the “D-team” who are shipping things to India I assume Mr. Bay is referring to Prime Focus : the company which has just finished the Clash 2d to 3d conversion.
Whatever the pros and cons and ultimate success of this process it might be worth pointing out that Prime Focus also worked on Avatar which Mr.Bay confusingly seems to regard as being the domain of the “A-team”.
Prime Focus? Never heard of them. Where in India are they? Sounds like a Z-team to me!
I completely agree. As an actor and filmmaker, I think it’s ridiculous how controlling the studios can be in adjusting a product that so many people believe in. For example, while “The Man Who Wasn’t There” looked beautiful in black & white, the Coen brothers were actually forced to shoot in color and then convert to B&W in the off chance it wouldn’t be successful. The studios did not trust the filmmakers. And while I understand that it is their money backing the film, they need to have faith in the process and trust in their team. “Avatar” was truly amazing, and to now see that studios think they can get the same results through conversion when a director did not shoot his film with 3D in mind is unfortunate.
I really enjoy 3D but if it isn’t impressive then I think it’s unnecessary.
I don’t care what technology they use, 3D is clunky, uncomfortable, and uninteresting. I’ll always watch the 2D counterpart. If I bother to see the film at all, that is. The 3D trend of money-spinning and needless spectacle over story has become off-putting enough to rule out 3D films altogether.
In our screening of Alice this last weekend a whole row erupted with complaints that the left lens of their glasses were bent and blurred. The 3D deal will continue to be messy and as the higher ticket market gets saturated empty seats is what studios will reap for their crap projects and remakes.
I never thought I’d say this, but Mr. Bay is my hero!
Im so glad i found people who hate 3d movies as much as i do. the 3d conversion is killing classic cinema with nothing to actually offer. it’s extremely uncomfortable watching a movie that was converted to 3d. only avatar deserves support because james cameron actually engineered and filmed with a 3d camera creating a huge gap between the movies that are only converted. otherwise, i’d say all this is just a huge marketing scam to earn higher profit for hollywood executives who are trying to avoid films being pirated. there needs to be a protest against this 3d SH*T!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I remember all the same kind of bitching when movies went from regular framing to CinemaScope, Todd-AO, VistaVision & Panavision. Well, it’s THAT time again, and 3D is here. Cameron’s right, though, that if a director just shoots the ‘2D’ movie that’s in his head instead for framing & composing specifically for 3D – the movie is going to look/suck bad. Even worse – the editing: you can’t edit in the 5-frame MTV kind of cuts (for a 3D film) that have become standard with so many action directors & editors. THAT will bring a hardstick headache to your audience FAST. 3D editing has to be somewhat slower. But watch how many editors who don’t know anything about 3D edit in the 5-frame smash edit………this industry is going to make a lot of people nauseous before the dust settles down & everyone learns how to REALLY work in 3D, like Cameron. Heeeaaaaven help us!
3D ended up being just a fad in the 50’s.
3D ended up being just a fad in the 80’s.
3D will most likely end up just being a fad in 2010.
megan fox in 3D gets my vote!
only joking (sort of)
3D should only be used when appropriate and shot with the proper 3D cameras not pushed through a magic box to make more money.
alice in wonderland was truly one of the worst movies i’ve ever seen, 3D or no 3D it was weak. no story, unendearing acting/characters, no action.
Wow, I never really cared for the whole 3D movie thing.
Lou
http://www.true-anonymity.pro.tc
Avatar is fully embraced and accepted by the way it was shot. Cameron spent many years developing the technology alone and the final product gets you the end result.
I can’t stand 3d movies and they look entirely fake and will avoid them at all costs. It’s a ripoff to the movie buff who gets excited about seeing a new cool movie in 3D and looks horrible. Spiderman 4 in 3D? And the studio is commanding that? Count me out.
I find the arguements against 3D compelling. I never experince the new 3d tech but hearing the pros and cons against it is interesting. I understand the drawbacks to it. I doubt if one could put a classic film which I don’t like to see change under no circumstances black&white otherwise be changed. I doubt it Kubrick’s 2001 was shown in 3d it may not get an audience reception but I would criticize the fact never screw with a classic film for example. But the drawbacks outweigh the benefits. Now I did learn from Bloomberg News that AMC,Regal want to charge seperate prices for 3d films. Now if the 3d tech doesn’t take off the chains would see s fall off of customers to other films and cinemas for that matter. So 3d tech and ticket prices at cinemas could emerge as a new controversary. Now has anyone in the industry explore that consquencial implication?
“A Streetcar Named Desire” in 3D! SEE Stanley pick the feather out of the air over Blanche’s trunk! SEE Stanley clear the table right into your lap! SEE Stanley scream “STEEEEELLLLAAAAA!” right into your face!
Let’s put conversion in perspective. Dual cameras alone do not necessarily consititute a distinctive 3D medium. All 3D movies so far carry a heavy 2D legacy.
Even movies shot in 3D are conversions of 2D shooting and editing techniques. This is true of both live action and CGI features, and their increasingly common fusion, as in Avatar.
Stereo 3D as a medium needs to consider the Z axis as a storytelling device, reinventing all techniques toward that purpose. Unfortunately, under the current studio dominance, it is unlikely that a true Stereo 3D auteur will arise through an Indie debut, as the studio’s blockbuster-and-3D-tariff greed seeks only to multiply megabucks into gigabucks.
There will be no parallel to Hurt Locker in the Stereo 3D movie list. There will be no cultivation of fresh talent with new approaches. As the studios see it, Stereo 3D is an A-list domain, and they don’t care if they get F-list quality as long as the revenues are there. This contempt for the audience will bite them in the ass.
Back to basics: movie makers need to be thinking about writing screenplays for Stereo 3D. That’s where it begins, with the visual concepts that can be shown properly only in Stereo 3D, not as a dual camera conversion of 2D techniques, and not as a computer conversion of a 2D feature, but as a vision in the mind’s eye that is distinctly and compellingly a story that needs to be told with Z Depth.
I suppose when color arrived, some people were complaining. But who speaks of the color today in a film review.
In a few years nobody will speak of 3-D. The technique will be ok and we will focus on the story. I was surprised to recently learn that the 50′ 3-D films were not shown with red-blue glasses but with polarised glasses. The synchro between the 3 projectors was the main problem of that era.
I started to like 3-D when I saw “Creature from the Black Lagoon” and bought a View-Master. Since 2003, I shoot some of my home movies in 3-D. I bought my first 3-D ready HDTV in 2008.
When I saw the IMAX 3-D version of “The Nightmare before Christmas” I was impressed.
Finally in 2010 full 1080 HDTV will give us a fantastic image and 3-D experience at home.
Despite the popularity of “Alice In Wonderland,” the 2d/3d conversion was subpar compared to Burton’s “Nightmare Before Christmas.” NBC looked like it was shot in 3d, and was meant to be so. 2d/3d conversion isn’t a bad idea, particularly with the new 3d tvs coming out. It gives people more viewing options. But on the big screen, each glaringly obvious “fake” attempt at depth frustrates the viewer and makes them wonder why they paid an extra 2 – 3 bucks for the glasses.
3D: when you notice it it’s distracting; when you don’t notice it you don’t need it.
i’ve been in the cgi industry for the last 10 years and watching ppl’s reaction to this 3d thing is highly entertening.
exemple : 10 years ago , “2d” cgi (so ironic) was the devil himself.BAH BAH i hate cgi crap bring back the good ol’reality.
well , guess what..you are officially screwed. Give us another 10 years and you’ll *never* make the difference unless we want to make it obvious. The whole thing started with a bunch of crazy geek back in the 70′ trying to render lambert shaded cubes dont forget dat.I think the 3d thing is gonna happend , and its got even stronger chances of success if you think its already doomed …
If you want to prove studios wrong, not pay the extra $3, show them that converting movies is wrong and that only films shot in 3D should be shown in 3D, then DON’T BUY A TICKET to a converted movie. The studios want the dollar to speak to them…make sure it says the right thing.
Disclosure: I work for a company that makes S3D production systems, 3ality Digital. Wanted to alert Mr. Cameron and others to the fact that there are already training opportunities for directors and other production folks on the “benefits and pitfalls” of the technology. We have our own program, called 3D IQ, and Sony, in association with us and the ASC, recently debuted the 3D Technology Center on the Sony lot, which is open to all comers. While conversion does have its place, we think you’ll see less use of it for new content as the industry builds a pool of people who understand how to work with S3D technology. I also totally agree with SMcQ’s comment that “movie makers need to be thinking about writing screenplays for S3D.” There’s a visual language here that is yet to be explored, although Mr. Cameron gave it a good start.
nerds
I have been interested in 3d cinema since about 1947 when I was ten years old. At that time the Russians were well ahead of the game. There had been a very successful exploitation of 3d in the Victorian era with stereo photography. The Russians tried but did not manage to develop a better technology, one which did not need red/green glasses. They had some success with polarisation.
Then Hollywood made a few naff 3d films. There are two very major points which no-one has mentioned in these comments. First, that there is a technology which is far more 3d capable than stereo vision, holography. The failure to develop a holographic system for public exhibition has led to the studios becoming impatient and going backwards to really old technology. Secondly, and it is very difficult to see how to get round this one (pun intended), a cinema audience is static and the third dimension can really only be appreciated when in motion.
It will be a while yet.
I don’t think M. Bay should cave it tothe push for 3D unless he can find a way to produce a excelant 3D movie up to his amazing standards! His previous movies have been amazing with out 3D!
But Harry potter & the half blood prince 3D scenes were so minimal that it had not felt worth the money I paid for 3D vs just going to 2D. My one question is movie makers going to do more teasing/overcharging with minimal 3D scenes or do more almost full movie 3D that people can be amazed/excited about.
Has Michael Bay ever tried to watch one of his own movies? A crappy 3-D process will ruin it!!????? Hahahahahahahah. Mr. Bay, your movie already was crappy!
^^^^^^^^^Wow, what a moron!
@ Patrick
Well for you instant if you made a movie I will say it would be crappy. IF you saw the gross list of 2009 TF 2 was the highest one. Now for the 3D I rather not do it. I am seeing one today and I haven’t done 3D yet. I am just hoping of the comments I read, the movie will not be headace.
Peace out
i love transformers
i love how people who have never made anything in their lives, can sit around typing that one of the top grossing directors makes crap, without any knowledge of the how the film industry and studio system works. Go on, make a film, idiots and then we shall see how much a studio wants to pay for your ‘talent’.
If you don’t know anything about a topic, it’s better to keep quiet otherwise people just think you are stupid.
It’s also very funny how people who also don’t know how the process works are so blindly squealing for Michael Bay. HE IS A BAD DIRECTOR his films are not good. The reason why they are successful is because they appeal to the lowest common denominator!!! Lets see how Michael Bay’s movies will stack up against the test of time. Because trust me Transformers may have done really well, but most of the longest lasting films of all time did horribly in the box-office.
Trust me Transformers will not live along side, “Casablanca”, “Wizard of Oz”, “Lord of the Rings”, EVERY Hitchcock film, or “ET”. Why? because it’s not a good film. It is not a film that should live through out history as a representation of our generation.
It was sub-par movie made to sell toys! That’s it! Stop trying to defend it by saying “you never made anything, what right do you have to judge?” We all have a right to judge! AND WE ALL DO IT!
James Cameron is also an incredible joke. He clearly ripped off Ferngully and then turns around and speaks horribly of animation.
It’s a joke how they are both acting like they are compromising their artistic creativity on this subject NEITHER of them have any shred of creativity in them.
Why anyone is asking these buffoons’ opinion on anything is a joke!!
alex1980, you need to pull your head out of your ass. Michael Bay, for the lack of a better word, sucks. the only thing he ever made that was fairly good was The Rock, but it was bolstered by top performances by Ed Harris, David Morse, Michael Biehn, Nic Cage, Sean Connery, William Forsythe, etc. Bay can do occasionally good action sequences, but that’s it. James Cameron is the king of action. on a side note, Avatar should have won best pic, or at least best director
—And then maybe the long rich James Cameron
can do something REALLY daring and make a 3D epic
about the unfolding revelations of gargantuan,indeed,
record-shattering ‘peacetime’ genocide in his ‘fave’
cheap labor source -and captive mass market franchise
slum —ACROSS the Pacific.
It’d be nice -esp. as millions continue to suffer and die
on this, the once again ‘mysteriously overlooked’ 60th
Anniversary of the urgently, eerily relevant —STILL
unfolding —KOREAN WAR…
-AMEN-
3D is terrible, not even good in Avatar, stop making these fad films
Haha Michael Bay and James Cameron are awesome. Now I know why some 3D films just look shit!
Avatar would have just been a average, semi hit, movie if it were not 3D.
Thats a fact. Anyone who has seen it in 2D understands that. The Movie depends on 3D –as it is an atmospheric experience and not a great movie. Its like a trip to the Planetarium–its about how you fell when looking at it..not about dialog or story content.
These are the types of movies that should use 3D. Im sure no one wants to see the French Connection in 3D so we can see Gene Hackmans toes in all their luxurious depth.
But look, if you tarts havnt figured out that most movies are for Kids…then you need smellin salts:) To say, its annoying or whatever…you missed the memo that the movie was not made for you…for Goodness sake, if it was they would make like 80 bucks.