While CLASH OF THE TITANS dominated the box office this weekend raking in some $61.4 million, the post-production move to make it a 3D experience reportedly caused a bottleneck of sorts. There are only so many theaters 3D capable. And with HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON working on its second week in release and ALICE IN WONDERLAND still making money, CLASH had to fight for theaters where its 3D version could screen. Of course, the movie had no problem finding screens with estimates clocking the release at 6500 to 6700 worldwide and over 3700 screens domestically.
But people I spoke with indicated displeasure with the higher cost of 3D tickets—some 15% higher than just a few weeks ago. And unlike viewers who took in ALICE on opening weekend, a larger percentage of viewers decided to take the advice of film critics and see the CLASH in the old 2D. On last week’s episode of The Film Fix, Jeff Marker and I agreed that this film really did not benefit from 3D. The pity is that CLASH just wasn’t a very good movie to boot. Industry folks need to be careful using CLASH’s performance as a harbinger of 3D’s future. Had CLASH received glowing reviews and been a better film overall, the focus of filmgoers on whether the effects were worth the higher ticket price would be less on the tip of everyone’s tongue.
This is the cycle gone round. Now we are seeing a time when effects alone are insufficient to ensure enthusiastic audience participation. It’s all about the story. And this is how it should be.
And the process of rushing CLASH into the 3D arena in post-production seems like a bit of cheat. This is especially true when audiences are forced to pay the same price for a CLASH ticket as they would have to pay for an AVATAR one. Ironically, given the recent price hikes in 3D ticket prices, a CLASH ticket cost more than one for AVATAR just a couple months ago. We’ll be able to tell our children and grandchildren that we can remember when the price of a 3D ticket was just $12 or even less. The cost of such tickets is quickly nearing the $15 range across the country.
Perhaps concerned about the future of their creative visions, filmmakers have commented on the post-conversion trend whereby a movie is shot in traditional 2D and later converted to the 3D variety. Apparently, depending on the complexity of the effects in the film, this process varies in cost from $5 to $30 million. Conversion involves a powerful computer analyzing the film to determine the spatial relationship of things in the film and bring closer objects closer and so forth. The illusion of depth is digitally created.
Students of film will remember the colorization controversy centering on Ted Turner’s decision to follow through with a colorized version of the classic CASABLANCA. That involved a costly process (running up a tab of almost half a million dollars) that made black and white films color. The result was so criticized that the colorization seems to have been abandoned. But with newer and better 3D coming soon to our television sets, perhaps no film will be safe from digital tinkering.
Years ago, I interviewed the president of Clearplay, a company that created digital scripts for movies on dvd that would edit out violence, sex, language and most anything objectionable. That process involved use of special filters that could be loaded onto a Clearplay dvd player thereby taking control of a dvd and creating “clean” versions of movies—like airplane and TV edits.
Now as 3D becomes more popular and technology races ever cheaper, it seems all but inevitable that older movies will see revivals as new three-dimensional products. My prediction last week that Woody Allen might jump into the mix is not as ridiculous as it sounds. Allen once directed an innovative film called WHAT’S UP, TIGER LILY? in 1966. Allen’s debut as a director was actually a conversion film of sorts—LILY took a Japanese action movie called INTERNATIONAL SECRET POLICE: KEY OF KEYS and re-dubbed it with a completely new and funny plot. Thus, it is certainly possible that someone would take one of Allen’s films and do something similar, like make it a 3D conversion. Or maybe Allen himself will see merit in the use of this new improved 3D technology. Or like we saw with Clearplay, a company will create a device that converts your old dvds from flat 2D to deep 3D for home viewing. I heard of no one who complained when dvd players were introduced that upconverted movies from standard definition to near HD quality.
Also consider how 3D is progressing—Panasonic announced a 3D camcorder, retailing for the cost of a decent Buick that shoots in the consumer AVCHD format. As the cost of 3D lens kits and cameras themselves begins to fall, filmmakers like myself might find it necessary to take the plunge. I remember just a few years ago that I was told that my feature documentary, CRASHING THE PARTY, needed to be in HD to be marketable. I shot the film on my trusty Panasonic DVX100 and was appalled that the format was being phased out as HD took over. Now, everything I shoot is in HD, although, I’m having fun with standard definition on projects by making that footage look like old film with filters and such preserving the 4:3 aspect ratio. It shouldn’t be long before a program is made available that converts your traditional 2D projects to 3D. What’s been called the “democratization” of 3D ought to be exciting to anyone with a video camera. Imagine your home movies in 3D? The pitch will sell a ton of 3D capable devices.
But the 2D vs. 3D performance of a movie like CLASH OF THE TITANS ought not to be considered a blow to the advance of the format. In fact, as ALICE continues to fall and more 3D capable theaters become available, this argument may just fall away. Hollywood, intent on showing an immediate return on their investment, needs to focus on story above all. Good movies usually make more money than bad or even ho-hum ones. And dressing up a pig, well, the dress no matter how elegant just doesn’t change things that much.
