With box office receipts down from 2009 (1,412,7 million tickets sold) to 2010 (1,339.1 million tickets sold) and studio shipments of DVDs dropping 43% last year, those big Hollywood companies need to make their money somewhere else. So they’ve latched on to the latest gimmick in theaters, 3D films. By presenting their films in 3D studios are able to charge around 3 dollars more per ticket. But why do we need to see these movies in 3D?

Movie studios have been very good at creating a “must see” atmosphere for their biggest productions. They no longer screen movies, they launch events. They make us feel like the new summer blockbuster is THE movie to see opening weekend and if we miss it we won’t be current. Unfortunately for them there seems to be a new “event” every weekend during the summer months and around Christmas vacation. So while you might not feel the need to pay extra money to see Blue Valentine in 3D, you could not imagine seeing Thor (an event summer tentpole picture) in boring old 2D.

The latest 3D craze began when James Cameron released Avatar in December 2009. That film was truly an event and a reason to see it in IMAX and 3D. It was a well told story that was larger than life with fantastic visuals and exciting action. But more important than all that is the film was originally conceived as a 3D affair and was shot accordingly. After other studios realized the extra money they could be making on charging for 3D effects they began to switch 2D films over to 3D. But the films were never supposed to be viewed like that and it became obvious. Remember Clash of the Titans? It was one of the first movies to change to 3D during post production and it was very noticeable. The swirling cameras and jerky action did not translate well to 3D.

And then the backlash (at least online in the inner geek circles) began. Do all films need to be released in 3D? There were and are 2D purists and then there are people who enjoy the augmented experience of 3D no matter how cheap it may look on screen. We are now coming up on the true test of 3D. With a few more seasons of post produced 3D movies we will finally find out if audiences will embrace bad 3D or if the whole technology will be cast aside, because the audience is always right. I would predict by next summer we will know if 3D is here to stay and if moviegoers are willing to pay an extra 3 dollars for 3D or if the poorly produced 3D films have them turned them off all together to the whole gimmick. 3D is still in its infancy and viewers are still navigating between good and bad 3D, between what they will accept and what they won’t pay for.

If studios are so excited by 3D, why not make every film in 3D? If you can make more money from 3D tickets prices why are we not seeing more films in 3D? Historically it is only the action, horror and cartoon films that are featured in 3D. I’m not suggesting we turn Black Swan into a 3D movie but why not make big budget comedies in 3D? Something like Night at the Museum. Maybe if 3D becomes universally accepted and the online backlash stops it might go that way.
Only true tentpole event films should be in 3D, but with every studio claiming that their product is a tentpole feature we’ll keep seeing more and more movies released in 3D (with most done in post production). With audiences shrinking and studios losing more and more money they’ll grab the bucks wherever they can. So expect more marketing to create “events” out of releases and more 3D films at your local multiplex.

Episode 1 | Episode 2 | Episode 3 | Episode 4 | Episode 5 | Episode 6 | Episode 7 | Episode 8 | Back to Columnists