The last couple weeks, television commercials for ‘Clash’ have been airing that are downright stunning. There’s just one problem: The pristine 2D version we’re catching a glimpse of on TV looks far better than the dark, choppy 3D version we’re paying extra cash for in theaters.
Sure, 3D can be fun, if done well, but does every film need to be in 3D? Of course, considering the box-office take of ‘Clash of the Titans’ this past weekend, it’s pretty safe to say that the 3D debate is officially … well … it’s still officially up in the air.
‘Clash of the Titans’ grossed $61.4 million over the weekend, amid mixed reviews and a downright putrid assessment concerning the film’s 3D effects.
Unlike ‘Avatar’– the most successful film of all time at the box office and a movie that was filmed with 3D cameras — ‘Clash of the Titans’ was never meant to be seen in 3D. How did the up-conversion go over with critics and experts? Not well. Not well at all.
Moviefone co-founder Russ Leatherman (aka Mr. Moviefone) said he “was one of the very first on the 3D bandwagon, but I’m about to jump off. Because of pure greed, Hollywood studios [and theater chains] are about to kill the golden goose. There’s a huge difference between the immersive experience of seeing ‘Up’ or ‘Avatar’ in 3D or the lousy, suffocating experience of the retrofitted ‘Clash of the Titans.’”
The vitriol towards Clash’s 3D didn’t seem to help or hurt the final box office. ‘Clash’ was projected to haul in between $60 million and $70 million; it made $64.1 million over the weekend, right on target.
‘Clash’ was up-converted (there’s that word again) as a direct result of ‘Avatar’s’ box-office dominance. The question is, how long will the ‘Avatar’ 3D cash-grab last? What will it take for moviegoers to defer back to the superior (as in the case of ‘Clash’) 2D, while saving a few dollars at the box office?
And we’ve been here before. ‘Alice in Wonderland,’ a film that also did quite well at the box office, was, like ‘Clash,’ up-converted to less-than-stellar reviews. ‘Avatar’ director James Cameron, who now seems to be the go-to guy when discussing 3D technology, doesn’t believe these films should even be considered 3D. “It’s never going to be as good as if you shot it in 3D,” Cameron said recently, “but think of it as sort of 2.8D.” And even 2.8D, as Cameron notes, is only possible if the proper time — six months to a year — is spent on the up-conversion.
Until recently, 3D was relatively rare — in 2007 there were only two major 3D releases (‘Beowulf’ and ‘Meet the Robinsons’). Now, in 2010 alone, there are (give or take) 15 films slated to be released in 3D.
It would seem 3D is here to stay, unless it isn’t. Meaning: The first gigantic 3D failure — where audiences outright reject a sub-par product — will certainly make studios think twice about a costly 3D film shoot or up-convert. What industry insiders fear, though, is that a terrible up-convert, which doesn’t properly take advantage of the technology available, will unfairly saddle the industry with the perception of an inferior product.
It does appear that for the near-future, audiences will still flock to the theater to see 3D, but that won’t last long. Now that’s it’s becoming commonplace, it’s going to take some pretty mind-blowing effects to spark the interest that ‘Avatar’ did.
Speaking of ‘Avatar,’ director James Cameron, always a visionary it seems, appears to be temporarily jumping off the 3D bandwagon just as everyone else is jumping on — announcing that his re-release of ‘Avatar’ (called ‘Avatar: Home’) this summer, with 55 minutes of new footage, will not be released in 3D.
“The 3D distracts from that”! Wise words, it would seem. Though, 3D has yet to distract from the box office — at least not yet.
Jonathan C Rayos
CEO | Founder
FilmEmerge | FilmEmerge Foundation
http://www.filmemerge.com
