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.”







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