Because NCEA Media Studies Scholarship is very much about future gazing--understanding and speculating about significant shifts and trends in the production/distribution/consumption of the media--it is perfectly acceptable to question the inevitably of such changes. Three-dimensional (3-D) film, for the past 2-3 years, has been touted as the salvation of mainstream (Hollywood) film but, more recently, some doubts have started creeping in, in respect of placing so much faith in technology (not 'new' technology in respect that it is a revival of a similar attempt to rescue film from the doldrums, in the face of the spread of television in American homes in the 1950s).
There is American film critic Roger Ebert's broadside "Why Avatar is bad for the movies" as the cover story of Newsweek (May 10, 2010), where he opens with the following, "3-D is a waste of a perfectly good dimension. Hollywood's current crazy stampede toward it is suicidal. It adds nothing essential to the moviegoing experience. Fior some, it is an annoying distraction. For others, it creates nausea and headaches. It is driven largely to sell expensive projection equipment and add a $[US]5 to $7.50 surcharge on already expensive movie tickets. Its image is noticeably darker than standards 2-D. It is unsuitable for grown-up films of any seriousness. It limits the freedom of directors to make films as they choose. For moviegoers in the PG-13 and R ranges, it only rarely provides an experience worth paying a premium for." (35)
More recently, the US business source Bloomberg reports ('Hollywood Presses 3-D even if profits aren't jumping off screen' www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-15) that expected profits from 3-D films post-Avatar haven't really been forthcoming. and '2012 may see a smaller number as studios...become more selective'. The surcharge for 3-D films has helped cover added production costs but "attendance [in the USA?] has fallen 1.6 percent this year even as the 3-D surcharge has boosted revenue'.
So, does this suggest that 3-D film is not going to be the salvation the US film industry has been hoping for? Or only a partial solution? How longer will patrons be willing to pay extra for admission, if the quality of films decline? Is "Cats & Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore" the best we can hope for in 3-D releases?
For a savage attack on 3-D film, I recommend a recent piece (September 21 2010) in the Sydney Morning Herald by Dean D'Angelo, http://smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/
Geoff Lealand, Screen & Media Studies, University of Waikato
Hope this useful. If you have trouble opening the links, do a separate google search.
ReplyDelete"Hope this is useful", of course!
ReplyDeletePersonally, I can't see 3D reviving the Hollywood blockbuster in the long term. While it is true that the added dimension allows directors the possibility of amazing depth and detail onscreen (as James Cameron did with Avatar), too many audience members can't get over 3D as a gimmick. The rush of kids' movies in 3D and the surcharge on the tickets do nothing in aiding this negative view.
ReplyDeleteI wonder what will happen when a more abstract, arty film decide to "do the 3D"? Could this change EVERYTHING? Could you manipulate the effect to create something wonderfully abstract? At the moment though, I can't help but associate 3Dness with lame slash fairly predictable films.
ReplyDeleteIt would change, if a load of art house directors made some totally.. trippy films in 3D. Maybe then directors would take 3D seriously as a new element to their filmmaking. Unlikely to happen though, considering how expensive 3D technology is AND, of course, the lame factor that art house avoids.
ReplyDeleteIt all depends on how 3D is marketed over the next couple of years. Now is the time for 3D to step out of the gimmick, if it wants to survive in the future.
So far, 3D hasn't shown much promise (Cats vs Dogs 3D!! Jackass 3D???) but I keep hoping..there are rumours of Martin Scorcese having a go.
ReplyDelete