Now Playing In 3D: The Resurgence of an Old Medium
The American movie industry is in trouble. In a situation that increasingly mirrors that of Hong Kong’s cinema world, bootlegging and pirating practices are weakening box office performance and slowly killing Hollywood. At my job as a customer service rep for a video store, I’ve had a few customers tell me directly that they visit websites which allow them to view movies still in theaters for free on YouTube. I can only shake my head not only at the indirect implications of this practice (movie returns decreasing), but also at the direct detriment of the movie viewing experience caused by this “medium.” It may just be me, but if I really want to see a new movie, I’d rather pay $8.00 to see it on a huge screen with floor-shaking surround sound than watch it flicker in 320 x 240 resolution through the eyes of a shaky consumer camera for free. I realize, of course, that these are hard economic times, and not everyone has the disposable income to head to the theaters. Still, I only see about 10 or so movies in the theater a year (and that is a high estimate), and $80 spread over 365 days isn’t too hard on most wallets (that doesn’t factor in concessions, of course, but that’s completely optional anyway).
So what can Hollywood do to lure the American public back into the theaters? They can tweak the presentation of their films to create an even more immersive experience that bootleggers can’t replicate. To do that, the past few years have seen two trends reemerge: IMAX and 3D, both of which offer truer-to-life moviegoing. IMAX is somewhat difficult to implement; the bulkiness of the equipment (both for filming and for theater presentation) has so far prevented it from becoming the de facto standard for Hollywood filmmaking. IMAX theaters are becoming more prominent, but you will probably be out of luck if you don’t live close to a metropolis. Still, studios have begun remastering blockbusters for simultaneous presentation in normal theaters and IMAX theaters. Christopher Nolan even shot some scenes for The Dark Knight in the native IMAX format. Until a smaller and more efficient IMAX camera system is created, the only films shot completely for IMAX will continue to be documentaries, typically educational in nature. Every IMAX film I myself have seen fell under the “educational” category, as the only IMAX theater near me growing up was the Humphrey IMAX Dome Theater in the Milwaukee Public Museum (and as you can probably guess from the venue, they only show educational films).
Now showing at the Humphrey IMAX Theater: “NASCAR: The IMAX Experience”. Seriously.
So, the cheaper and less painful option is proving to be 3D. While 3D films in the past decade are now viewed as kitsch crap (let us remember such classics as Jaws 3D and Amityville 3D, the latter of which featured such horrific things as frisbees and boom mics being shoved into the faces of the audience), new films use the medium’s potential in more gratifying ways, rather than merely exploiting it as an advertising gimmick. And the technology has come a long way in the 21st century. I’m referring in particular to the RealD Cinema technology, the new standard of choice for movie studios. In comparison to”traditional” 3D systems, RealD reduces blurring (which occurs when the viewer’s head moves), decreases flickering, and only requires one projector (as opposed to two projectors running simultaneously).
Animation studios have been relatively quick to back the system (and in doing so, also the medium), and the recently-released film UP from Pixar marks their first feature crafted specifically for the RealD format. I first saw UP in 2D at the local Kerasotes theater with my mom. On an unrelated side-tangent, I would like to point out that Kerasotes seems to be trying with all of their might to inflict diabetes upon the general moviegoing population. They have a “combo meal” system set up for popcorn and drinks, where you can get two medium sodas and a large bucket of popcorn for a cheaper price than if you bought the aforementioned items separately. You can choose to “upgrade” your combo for more money, not unlike fast food restaurant practices. The difference is that Kerasotes’ five combo meals are all $11; the price change between them is only a few cents. So naturally, everyone who is getting a “combo meal” is going to go straight for the two extra large drinks and mega popcorn bucket. Even worse, they have unlimited refills on both soda and popcorn. This, combined with my lack of self-control, has led to me having a stomachache every time I leave the theater. But I digress…
UP, Pixar’s latest film, is, in my opinion, their magnum opus. I left the theater impressed by their ability to craft a story that can entertain both children and adults in equal measures simultaneously; this was the impression WALL-E had on me last year. While these two titles are great, I must admit that I don’t really care for the rest of Pixar’s filmography. Titles such as Toy Story, Monsters Inc., and Cars are rather standard kid’s fare, and I would like to think (and hope) that this was mostly due to Disney’s overbearing hand in Pixar’s early productions. Hopefully the relatively recent feud (and almost-breakup) between Disney and Pixar has scared Disney into giving the Pixar team greater autonomy. We all know that there is no creativity left in Disney’s own animation studios, who now resort to churning out direct-to-video sequels of old titles instead of creating new franchises.
After enjoying UP so much the first time, I knew that I had to take my experience with the film to the next level by seeing it in 3D. Luckily, at least one Marcus theater in Madison is equipped with a RealD projector, so my brother, my nephew, and I headed out one day to see it. Instead of the iconic red-and-blue specs, we were handed sunglasses with cartoonishly-rounded frames. When we sat down in our seats, I realized that I had not seen a 3D film since before I had glasses; in 2000, I saw Honey, I Shrunk The Audience and T-2 3D: Battle Across Time, and these were the only 3D attractions of any kind I had experienced. Thus, UP was not only my first time seeing a feature-length 3D film, but also the first time I had to figure out a way to watch a movie while wearing two different sets of eyewear at the same time. Eventually I somehow got them both positioned on my face comfortably. After being treated to some trailers which featured a plethora of random things “flying out” at the audience, the feature began, and things got decidedly less “in-your-face.”
UP refrains almost completely from using it’s allotted three dimensions to throw things at the audience. Instead, it offers the viewer a fake sensation of depth perception, so that you feel more like you’re watching a play than a movie. This is great because the film centers around South American scenery; cliffs, rainfalls, and forests are all gorgeously rendered and represented, and seeing the film in 3D greatly enhances the location. I read an interview with the creators of UP where they specifically pointed out that they wanted to avoid exploiting the 3D medium by constantly having things “pop out” of the screen. While I think it was a smart move on their part to avoid “cheapening” the film in this way, I also think that it’s alright to pepper a 3D film with props that penetrate the screen (and in a literal way, break the fourth wall). For one, the novelty of having things from a movie “enter” the theater and almost interact with the audience can greatly enhance a film and it’s message; you just have to make sure you have a story down first before you decide when and where to put these things in. I don’t believe a screenplay should ever be written that includes directions for where to employ 3D, much in the same way that writing a screenplay with camera directions is taboo in most screenwriting circles.
Another reason why I advocate using and abusing (within reason) the 3D format is because it’s a great way to combat piracy. While writing this post, I went to YouTube and relived Honey, I Shrunk The Audience in low-definition 2D. Even though I can’t recall my experience of seeing it in 3D, I can say with great certainty that it was probably very exciting in it’s native format, while in 2D it is most certainly not. I’m sure that the huge, imposing shrink ray machine being aimed directly at the audience makes for an unsettling but exhilarating viewing experience in three dimensions, but on YouTube it’s just another reason to look at the elapsed time of the film and sigh in boredom. My point is this: the more use you squeeze out of 3D, the less interesting the film will be when pirated in 2D. Sounds a bit detrimental to the home video market, doesn’t it? True, this mindset could potentially harm the viewing experience for people who are seeing the film after it’s theater release in legitimate ways (by buying or renting the DVD), but studios can also tweak the theater cut of a film before releasing it’s DVD and remove anything that would be extraneous in the eyes of a 2D viewer. Of course, utilizing double-sided discs, they can include both the original theater version and the home market version on the same DVD, so everybody wins, with the sole exception of the people pirating movies, who will lose. And frankly, it’s about time the pirates start losing again and Hollywood starts winning again.
