So who’d go and see a 3D film? You? Would you? I bet you would! Anyway here’s John Temke discussing the best way to justify 3D cinema to your friends and family. Illustrations are by Maks Andala.
Ask any regular cinema-goer about 3D and you get a universal answer; its shit and adds nothing to a film. True but let’s not raise our torches and pitchforks too callously. Especially while other evils like “Call Me Dave” and Michael Bay exist.
3D has come and gone in the world of cinema more than Michael Jordan in the world of basketball. It’s around for a while, wins a few championships then sort of disappears for a couple of years. Like the aforementioned, 3D is no longer a player. 3D has returned as the boss. This time 3D has discovered upon quantum leaping forward a good few years that the technology now exists to make a more personal 3D experience. To bring 3D to a person’s living room is relatively easy now. So 3D is set to be milked for all its worth with TVs and games consoles deciding it’s time to take on this “new” dimension. In the cinema world, where 3D first rose to prominence, it has set up shop with no imminent end in sight. Only one question remains; why?
The first reason, which is the root of any other reason, is money. They add an extra dimension; we pay extra to see it in an extra dimension. Ticket prices are slightly greater for a 3D film meaning it gets back more of what it spent to make. This means that a studio can take more risks with a 3D film. To overcome the risk factor (not to be confused with X-factor which can be overcome by not watching ITV); studios used to throw bigger names at risky projects with the hope that a greater audience would be drawn in by the name alone. 3D has replaced that role in a way. The main reason we are seeing this 3D return now is that the industry is suffering. Everyone has been hit by the recent global economic crisis. 3D has been the film industry’s stimulus package; bringing more money to the industry to stem this tide.
Speaking of tides, in the nautical sense, piracy is another big player in the return on 3D. Piracy costs the film industry billions of revenue a year. 3D films come out basically unwatchable when pirated in the cinema. This massively reduces the availability pirated new releases. If you can’t get it on the internet; you’ve got to go to the source. In theory, this means that the hardcore pirate will hop ashore to see the film as they can’t find it online. In reality, the casual pirate is the one less likely to view an illegal copy. You know, because casual pirates have much better morals… and nicer cutlasses.
3D at the end of the day is a gimmick, as much as it hates itself for being so. This is pretty much why the better versed in cinema loath it. Once again, it comes down to money. 3D brings in that non-regular cinema crowd and a lot of them. These are the people who try to sell the film to their boyfriend/girlfriend by reading them taglines found in reviews from obscure websites and local papers that litter the movie-poster. The sort of people who will spend on stale popcorn and flat coke what would easily get them a decent meal elsewhere. The people who make it an occasion, which there is nothing wrong with at all, have now been targeted. The gaining of their hard-earned cash has been set as an objective of the film industry and 3D is how they will go about it.
The cinema world has another problem, especially in America; TV. Quality of TV, in America where not everything is another bloody talent show, is pretty high. This means that people are more likely to stay at home and watch something like Sons of Anarchy (the best thing on TV at the moment) rather than trek to the cinema to see something like Yogi the-worst-CGI- adaptation-classic-cartoon bear. How do they overcome this? Our good old chum 3D of course. Also by not seeing that god-awful movie. Can you get 3D images at home? Not universally yet. So where do you have to go to get them? The cinema of course! Now give us all your money before we have to sell one of our 20-odd cars.
The bottom line is there; if you love film, you will ride out this storm. It has helped the industry survive this unstable period and without it the release schedule for the next couple of years may have been a little grim. 3D is an annoyance but higher brow projects are opting for 2D anyway. Hopefully it will die within the realm of cinema soon and it will be the next generation’s concern then. How do you kill 3D? I don’t know. Maybe there’s some sort of inter-dimensional gateway through which you must pass. Through a barren wasteland you must travel till you come across a giant mirror; propped up in the sand. And then you realise, to destroy 3D, you must destroy reality itself. Now that would make a good film… in 3D.
the illustrations are awesome! love them
More drawings by Maks Andala: http://maksandala.blogspot.com/
Hey John,
Interesting article, enjoyed reading it. Here’s a few ideas if you want to bounce them around.
You talk about 3d replacing the need for big names in risky projects, but I’m not sure I can agree here. For what 3d films don’t have big names? Sure, the industry is suffering, but the recession’s real affect on the film industry is felt by independent and art house film makers. As always, just with Politics in Britain, arts is one of the easier cuts to make. But surely these 3d films in question, being highly lucrative, are least likely of all films to have their budgets cut? 3d films reside within the elitist segment of Hollywood, where homogenised and family- orientated themes are employed.
Also, do you genuinely think 3d technology isn’t a progressive step for film? I agree that the perpetuated method now to make certain films 3d by default is tediously under-entertaining for the regular cinema-goer. Luckily we’re not at the stage where all films are 3d by default, and things should continue this way. But it marks a huge break through for the audio-visual field(excuse the pun), and does provide a new platform of experience for our generation. Avatar certainly didn’t win awards for it’s plotline or script. It was a visually stunning experience. This exact same debate happened, I’m sure, with the switchover from black and white film to technicolour. Yet over time, we realise that having the potential to use either is a true advantage (from Schindler’s list to Up). I’m sure this will too be the case for 3D.
Also, are you suggesting that the quality of American television is as such that it could potentially overwhelm the film industry, if say 3d hadn’t been invented? Sure, there is more cross over just now, with film director’s such as Shane Meadows’ ‘This is England’ or Scorcese’s ‘Boardwalk Empire’ taking to the small screen. But it is a reciprocal affair and always has been. Ricky Gervais now makes movies, as does Stephen Fry, and even Stephen Speilberg and Woody Allen started with television. Plus, since when did Americana television become overly palatable? Most of it is ten minutes of entertainment jam packed in to an hour, with at least 15mins set aside for ads. I understand why they might like it, considering two things. Firstly, they made it, they made the ads, and they generally regard their country as the best in the world: but they make most 3d films too, by which they are equally egotistical. Secondly, I submit that they’re not internationally renowned for their intellect, or, what they may call, ‘schoolings’, ‘learnings’ or ‘educations’. That’s not intended to be a sweeping generalisation, obviously there’s many exceptions, but surely as audience this make thems slightly easier to please.
You do raise some reasonable points and I will happily respond.
Yes of course the smaller indie studios are the ones hit the hardest though I do truly believe that 3D is helping the industry in a financial way. As for it replacing big names; I’d say to a certain degree it does. Piranha 3D would be a good example of this. Would piranha 3D have been greenlit without the 3D aspect? Probably not, there is no real selling point there. A remake of a film which had already been remade with no big names to carry it; without 3D Piranha would not only not been greenlit nor would it have been successful at the box office. With the 3D hook (excuse the pun) it gained a huge audience and a very high gross revenue.
You raise the point about Avatar which is very true and exactly how I describe it; a visual experience. There is a difference between a visual experience and an actually film if you get my drift. A true film is something which ticks all the boxes. A visual experience is just one piece of the puzzle. It’s like ordering a pizza and just getting a plate of cheese. Sure it’s nice cheese but you fancied some sauce and base with it. Colour films as with black and white films shouldn’t be viewed as defunct platforms simlpy because there is a new toy for the industry. I don’t feel that all films are suited for it. Black and white to colour was a more simple transition as it was toward something that felt more real but that isn’t the case yet with 3D. I feel it’s very distracting. Immersion is very important and with current 3D technology I am very aware that I am watching a screen as opposed to being involved in a story. This, I feel, is very important to turn a film from being just a film into being something more.
No I don’t think american TV would overwhelm film but it is most likely taking a nice chunk for the industry. I think you have just helped my point there as to it’s quality. The talent is of course cross platform but that isn’t my point. My point is the availability. TV is right there and free at the point of use whereas it is a journey to the cinema and not free. Catch my drift? As for the adverts; it’s not that bad. Yes 25% of american TV is adverts but that doesn’t affect the qaulity of the shows. It just means that the platform isn’t ideal. However, the american market has adjusted to this and is used to this and so doesn’t affect them. When we recieve american TV, it is put into a format more suited to us. The lines do show but it is nothing mayor. My article isn’t about the American ego but I would say that that has driven this change. Everything has to be bigger and better across the pond. Though the general american public are not the brightest bunch; can’t the same be said for us? Look at our own perception of the british people; binge-drinking football fans. Not exactly a high brow market either. American still produces such a higher standard of TV then us, maybe not so much comedy but that may just be a cultural thing.
I hope that you find these points interesting. I put on my fancy glasses for this; not something I usually as it reduces my usually quirk out-put by up to 80%. Excuse any typos or grammatical errors as my lovely editor has not finely combed it for any such horrors.
Thanks for the reply
Some interesting points there, and it raises some more too…
And yeah I mean I agree, the money made from 3d movies will invariably filter throughout the industry: indeed, it has always been a ‘top-down’ industry. 3D films may one day not need the assistance of big names, but I still can’t see how that is true currently, or why you have given Pirahnaas an example? For it is full of cult and Hollywood stars. I mean, to mention some of the cast: Richard Dreyfuss (total legend) starred in Jaws and Close Encounters of the third kind. He has worked in movies for 45 years and has won a Golden Globe, an Academy award and a BAFTA. Christopher Lloyd too has been in the industry for decades. He played Uncle Fester in ‘the Adams Family’, Doc Brown in all of the ‘Back to the future’ movies and Judge Doom in ‘Who framed roger rabbit?’. Elisabeth Shue starred in ‘Leaving Las Vegas’ and ‘Hollow man’ among others. Ving Rhames is unmistakable, thanks to his roles in Pulp Fiction as well as the Mission Impossible movies. And Eli Roth was in both ‘Hostel’ movies, ‘Inglorious bastards’ and ‘Death Proof’. Maybe these aren’t red-hot actors right now, like Johnny Depp in Alice in Wonderland 3D or Jeff Bridges in Tron – but there’s still a substantially respected and honoured celebrity cast that can pull a crowd with their names alone. Obviously the film is rubbish, but that’s beyond the point.
As for Avatar, it isn’t just a visual experience at all. Just because, like I said, the plot and script didn’t carry the film, there was still a plot, and a script. So it’s still a film. It’s not like the script or plot to Terminator 2 was any better, but at the time of its release the special effects were regarded as stunning. Yet for something to be solely visual, it surely must have to deprive, or at least not stimulate, your other senses. Yet you have an opinion on other aspects of Avatar other than the visuals. A purely visual experience could be induced, for instance, by turning all your lights off and watching your windows media player visualizer with no sound. Without exception, at least not yet, anything that you see at the movies is a movie. I agree however that it’s definitely more visual than it was, but how can you commit to saying its too visual? Anachronism for film is admirable and I totally get you man, it seems like a worrying turn in the trajectory of cinematic history, and who knows what connotations it’ll have in years to come. What it certainly isn’t like however, is receiving a plate of cheese from a pizza order. Indeed, its much more like receiving a plate of cheese when you already knew the plate would be made of hot dough and topped with hot tomato sauce.
I’d agree with you that American people have become accustomed to the amount of advertising they are bombarded with on a daily basis – much more than us. But that still doesn’t explain how the film industry could shrink and lose out to television ratings? Television isn’t free in America, even if you don’t factor the subjugation of the advertising in. It has also been private and commercial since television began, unlike Britain with the BBC, as it is founding father of capitalism – the American Dream. As technology grows, movies become cheaper to make and more widely accessible. For instance I saw a fantastic film the other day called ‘Primer’ – would highly recommend it to anyone who likes thought provoking cinema – anyways it was shot with two cameras and just a $7000 budget, yet it won two awards at Cannes (I think). As well as facilitating dates for young lovers, the cinema and its history is revered and celebrated as one of the most credible art forms, much higher up the list than television. This is because it is a public and social art form, as well one that is enjoyed individually, and because of the scope of depth that films can have. Television admittedly can have depth too, but a much more relinquishing scale as it has to please lots of people a lot of the time.
As with regards to British people being stupid football hooligans, well that just seems silly. Every Western country has its stereotypes – common, misguided notions that all have hide little cultural truths behind broad generalisations. For instance, the French are romantic but don’t wash; the Irish are funny, jolly drinkers and the Swedish are simply hot and horny. British people are seen as overly articulate with bad teeth, and Americans are fat and stupid. Sure England has a terrible reputation for hooliganism, but Scotland has one of the best for friendliness in international sport! But I’m not trying to say their television is bad, or ours is better. I mean in fact, I don’t even own a telly. I’m just saying it cant be so good that film suffers as a consequence.
Sorry also to hear that you cant maintain optimum quirk during ‘fancy glasses’ time – how do you get by?
may i ask why my comment has been taken down? is discussion not encouraged on this space?
Actually it just hadn’t been approved at that point. Apologies.
Ahh my apologies, didnt realise it pended for approval.
Unfortunately I can’t reply to your reply as wordpress won’t let me but I will reply here (I don’t think that sentence had enough “reply”s so- Reply reply reply reply). Sorry this is a little late. Ironically I was in the cinema so I didn’t have the ability to reply (if you’re wondering; I was watching NEDs for the second time. Loving that film. Gotta love an unlimited cinema card). I’m gonna reply in sections and take it piece by piece.
For the first point, i read this part of your reply during the adverts and had a rather good counter point which was well worded. Now my wording has left me so let me try to explain. The film Piranha for an example was because it had that mainstream target, the less cinema-prolific if you will. These are names that mean a lot to say you and me but to the man in the street they are nobody. When I say big names attached to projects I mean real big names. I’ll use an example of a pre-3D-return flick; the boondock saints. This in my opinion (not just the half irish speaking in me) a really good film. But for the studio it was a risk and they wouldn’t go ahead without a household name to front it. Enter Mr.Dafoe. When I say 3D replacing the big name; I mean 3D replacing the household-name. I hope this makes sense, I will admit that I am rather tired from a day of travelling so if I seem unclear I apologize now before I go on.
As for Avatar, I feel it truly is a merely a visual experience as that is what is carrying the film. Let me go back to the pizza analogy (I didn’t write the original one on the way to Pizza Hut or anything; hope you are enjoying a look into a day in the life of me). It’s like you order a pizza; the dough is all there, in fact the dough is awesome, but the sauce and cheese are spread really thinly and barely cover half the pizza. You also have your suspicions the cheese is “borrowed”. I think that covers avatar. It felt incomplete to me. Something was missing. I think it might have been soul. Yes the world was stunning but the characters were very cliché (a badass army commander? Buzhuh?), the plot was predictable and stuff. I really am tired. I may go back over avatar at some point having watched it only twice – once in the cinema and once under the influence. It is a beautiful film but soils itself in other departments. I could go on, I should just start writing articles defending myself as so far i’ve written more in defence then I did in the article (was so close to typing “lol”, curse you internet). Moving on…
I don’t think the film industry is going anywhere due to TV. I’m saying that the option is there and is taken by most. Think about how much TV the average person watches compared to how many movies. I’d say it’s a hell of a lot more. And so to grab that average person off their sofa; 3D is the key. You see the advantage TV has is not only access but following. A film is watched once whereas a show is watched over a course of a season. Once hooked then that is a new member to the following. They will branch out to other TV shows and so on and so forth. A film can be watched more then once but most people don’t. When it comes to dvds; I avoid many of mine for a long time to make them feel fresh when I re-engage with them. I hope I’m not the only one who does that cause admitting it feels weird but it’s what I do. A TV show doesn’t get like that as it is constantly progressing. I have gone completely off topic I think.
Yeah well that’s the public according to ITV. I used to word in a pub you see and that’s what I saw to an extent but it is just a stereotype. The british public is vastly diverse but your average brit is of working class. I felt your stereotype of americans was a bit off, what we see of the americans is mostly that stereotypical fat american side (not sides, spheres only have one side). I mean look at america in the olympics; they always do insanely well. This country is quite sporty. I think the real stereotype should be that they are one or the other. They are, for lack of a better word, extremists. If you are gonna do something, do it right. There is no middle ground for them. Though us brits are quite the opposite and love the middle. We love a bit of both worlds.
It’s funny, I own a couple of TVs but they aint hooked up to an aerial. I’m very selective with my viewing. I watch it all on 4OD or iPlayer (ah see what you did there BBC, apple cash-in). But what I go out of my way to watch is all american. I was addicted to prison break (until the 4th season murdered it), I love dexter, I’m heavily addicted to sons of anarchy, I’m weirded out by twin peaks whose boxset glares at me for not completing yet (summer project). I wouldn’t call how I watch them as TV. They are almost giant movies in their own right merely split into chapters. I feel a TV show, though it has to get that initial audience to continue, has much more time for development. Especially with character. Once again I am off on another tangent. I think what I’m trying to say is good TV could easily affect cinema; to what degree? I don’t know.
How do I get by? – Barely.
Feel free to reply, please ask more direct questions. I hate filtering. And in smaller chunks. Though this may just be tried me talking. I have been typing this for what seems like ages.
Hey michael, expect my next article in a bit later. I’m gonna go through it and cover all bases.
Neds is brilliant, Peter Mullan is a champion. Boondock Saints I really like also. But man, the green light had nothing to do with William Dafoe! A film is commissioned before it is cast – casting is part of production! Right? Sure, the director can have people in mind for a film but they don’t always get them! Will Smith turned down the role of Neo in the Matrix before Keanu Reeves got it. Plus William Dafoe isn’t any more A list than some of Pirahna’s cast – his films are mostly brilliant but he has purposefully avoided an A-list career. Sure he did Finding Nemo and Spiderman, but in general he’s dedicated himself to the artistic and exploratory side of the art. He co-founded the experimental theatre company and has done literally a million art house films! Absolutley loved him in Lars von Triers ‘Antichrist’.
And I thought we had both already established that all 3D films were for mainstream targets, whether cinematically prolific or not? And people are very familiar with those names, as they are with most 3D films – dude, Richard Dreyfus? Come on! Perhaps not so familiar in our generation, but to everyone above thirty he is an icon. It seems that are we aren’t destined to agree on this one.
Also, you mentioned that you felt Avatar was incomplete, yet ‘completeness’ has nothing to do with its qualification or validation as a movie. You cant say a film isn’t a film because you think it could have been better! Plenty of people would say they felt that some of the newer Coen Brothers films were ‘incomplete’ – because it’s the story tails off before you are spoon fed a conclusion – but the films end the way they are intended! I mean a lot of people will watch Miss Congeniality 12 before a Spike Lee film – its all subjective. So you take the good with the bad with worse – they’re still all films.
What do you mean by saying television is an option taken by most!? Sure most people watch television, and only some go to the cinema. Just as you get hooked on television series’, you similarly get hooked on actors and directors. Sorry to keeping mentioning the Coens, but I wouldn’t have to find out what there new movie was about before seeing it – I would just go. Also, you talk about television like something has changed – but what has changed? Why has television suddenly become able to affect movie attendance and sales any more than it has for the past fifty years? From all that you have written about this television angle, all I can get is that you are saying ‘people watch a lot of television’ – which they do, but this point seems completely divorced from the reality of cinema attendance and sales. Where’s the correlation?
All ideas are useful, even if they only serve for you to disagree, as they question you and help cement your thoughts. But you have got to forget this pizza thing dude – that’s what I was subtly trying to say in the last comment – it was a tragic analogy to begin with. Just make yourself a sandwich or something.
This, my friend, will be my last reply as I have things to do or should I say things to write. Neds is phenomenal. I swear the guy with the glasses goes to my college. I’m gonna have to look into this because me and a few guys noticed him around today and he’s the splitting image.
Anyway, all stalker-ish tendencies aside, maybe Boondock was a bad example as to me Dafoe is A-list. I could spend ages thinking of an example. But I remember reading an interview with Troy Duffy where he said it would only be greenlit if they could get a decent name behind it in the form of the detectives and that they approached many an actor until Dafoe took him on.
Please don’t mention Anti-Christ to me again; just the mere thought of it makes me go pale. Dafoe was great in it yes. The thing I didn’t like about it was the shift from something very psychological, symbolic and subtle to something overly gorey. That ruined it for me. The Fox still makes me laugh like a little girl. Not as much as the flying shark in Mega-Shark Vs Giant Octopus.
You see I’m not over 30 so some things like that are lost on me. Agree to disagree? Next!
I’m just anti-avatar and anti-cameron (both James and David). You see in the past couple of years, there are 3 films which majorly disappointed me: F, Transformers 2 and Avatar. I try to separate myself from hype but it always sucks me in to a degree. With Avatar, it got me to a degree and the film just didn’t live up to it for me. You see I don’t go to see a film for it’s visuals. I’m not overly wowed by visuals. A compelling story is what will really make me a happy man. It’s all subjective as you say. We have gone so off topic.
Wow there’s alot in the TV one. I think you answer your opening question yourself so I’ll skip that. TV I wouldn’t say has suddenly changed the game nor that movies don’t have a similar hook system with directors and actors. To use a phrased coined by thou; it’s subjective. Hell yeah I’m going to see everything, minus spy kids, that Robert Rodriguez releases but that’s because I’m this cinema goer. The same with yourself and the coens. As cine-fans that’s our hook, the hooks for the general public are much different. Actors and, more so, directors don’t register with them as well as they do with us. For example, if you did a survey and asked members of the public; “Would you rather watch a Martin Scorsese film or a film starring Brad Pitt?”. You can guess what the general public would be more likely to go for (oh bradley, your so dreamy). Yet ask cinebuffs the same question and it would go the other way ( I really wanna watch casino now). See my point? It’s that subjectivity. It’s the cine-knowledge you possess and the average person isn’t as well versed in cinema as say you or I. It goes the other way to, ask me a question about football players and I will go blanker then a sheet of paper.
I think I strayed massively there. I think on the TV front it also comes down to more choice. With 50-million channels (give or take a couple) there is always something on to suit you so why leave the house? That’s how TV has changed in such a way to challenge cinema more. But the film industry has grown too. I’m just gonna argue with myself here if I carry on. I’m moving on to your next point.
Hey! My pizza analogy was pretty good I thought. I would give a new analogy based on my food plans for this evening but I don’t know how fish-finger sandwiches relates to Avatar. Yeah, that’s right, fish-finger sandwiches. The frozen fish-fingers were on offer in tesco the other week so I stocked up. Oh no! I just remembered I’m out of ketchup!
So yeah, it’s been a nice wee debate. I hope you follow my articles and maybe we can debate again soon. I’ve written twice as much in debate then I did in the article. Hopefully I can be shorter and sweeter next time. Adiós
(Maybe one of my flatmates has ketchup….. hmmmmmmmm)
Ok cool, lets stick a bow on this puppy! So far you’ve gone on to say that every example you have given to illustrate your point has been a bad one. So it seems your arguments are more like ungrounded feelings.
Yes Dafoe is A-list in that people recognize him from Spiderman, as I said, but so is Dreyfus. I’m not over 30 either dude or anything near it, but I thought you may have seen some of his movies like I had, and thus understand.
Also, you can talk all day about what films you like or what aspects you do or don’t go for, but throughout this discussion you have changed your angle like 3 times on this. Bottom line being whatever you thought of Avatar, its still a film. Nobody cares if you don’t care much for visuals – whether that’s why you went to see it or not, it still will never validate you saying it isn’t a movie. Yes of course its all subjective, but the parameters of what constitutes a film being a film remains the same.
Naturally I agree with the point that you regurgitated from my point about subjectivity. But being a cine-buff is again irrelevant in all this, because different movies are continually being made for different demographs and artistic inclinations.
Sure I’ll look out for your next article – it’ll be the one with all the unsubstantiated points right? Ha, kidding on dude. Sorry if I seemed a bit like a heckler in all of this – its an interesting subject for any film fan, I’m sure you understand. Cheers for the debate. All hail film.
Hi John, I agree with what your arguing, in my opinion i think that 3D is just a scheme to bring back popularity in Cinemas aswell as more money by having a 3D ticket at a higher price.With people being able to download films free a few days after release in Cinema, the Cinema companies intellegently opted for 3D. I don’t think that 3D cinema will stay popular for long, im looking forward to films being shot in IMAX for example the new Martin Scorsese film currently in production.Although IMAX may not end up as popular as 3D, the experience is just as good.
Pingback: Cinema and Fetishism, or, The Commercial Value of Shit « Minimal ve Maksimal Yazılar