Real 3-D feature release numbers: the 3-D Revolution of 1953 and 1983 vs 2010

"Mankind has for centuries been moving toward stereoscopic cinema (yet) the bourgeois West is either indifferent or even hostilely ironical toward the problems of stereoscopic cinema"
Sergei Eisenstein, 1946

House of Wax (1953)

A current trend is advertisement of 3-D stereoscopic movies billed as 'Shot in 3-D' and billed as 'Also available in 2-D', besides 2-D films now being called 'in 2-D with normal ticket prices'.  This is a worrying development but historically speaking a predictable one.  Everybody knows there have been two major 3-D film bubbles in the past; in 1953/54 and in 1983/84, but not many people actually know why these 3-D bubbles burst and did not herald the era of 3-D film making.  What makes it difficult to compare the historic bubbles is the wildly different technical abilities of the different years, the difference in marketing, in targeting and in public spending power.  There has also been a feature film production and theatre runtime inflation: in the 1950's many fewer films were produced overall and they were playing in cinemas for a longer period of time as well.

Taza, Son of Conchise (1954)

An updated version of the 3-D Filmography - the biggest and most accurate 3-D stereoscopic film list published anywhere - means a great chance to update the statistics.  After updating the 3-D filmography Gary Palmer, writer and editor of the list, made a very interesting remark about James Cameron's latest press statement which gave me the idea for combining the list, the statistics and the knowledge to come to a coherent image of what is going on with 3-D film and what may happen with it next.  What Gary pointed at was James Cameron saying he wanted the 3-D in Avatar - and in his future 3-D and 4-D films - to be unobtrusive and so much so that people will forget they are watching a 3-D film altogether (a bit hard with 4-D films, but there you go).  So then what is the point? 

When you pay a premium ticket price for a 3-D showing, you want to see 3-D and be reminded you are watching 3-D; I can't tell you how often I have heard people say they like this or that 3-D film, but were disappointed with the 3-D because it was too flat or 'was never used': coming out of the screen in an obvious fashion.  So that leaves us with the question: is today's 3-D content with its stereo window-inward quality really better than yesterday's 3-D that used much more of the negative parallax space and is this more subtle content the reason 3-D appears to have more staying power this time around?

Monsters VS Aliens (2009)

There is a lot of PR wah-wah about why today's 3-D is so much better than that of the 1950's or 1980's, but of course the complete truth is never spoken.  It would be too uncomfortable to discuss technologically sound 3-D projection in the 1980's or more grown up 3-D film content in the 1950's and so journalists keep on copy-pasting the original blurb put out by Real-D and James Cameron 3 years ago.  Shame on the critic who claims 'Piranha 3D' or 'My Bloody Valentine 3D' are better technically or creatively than 'House of Wax' or 'Dial M for Murder'!

Polarized projection: from 1952 onward

3-D Price Premium

There was mostly no ticket price premium for 3-D films in 1953 and 1983 and thus the studios had to carry the extra cost of their 3-D productions.  When attendance numbers went down, the 3-D revolution was over as quickly as it started in those two occasions.  Today, studios and distributors have merged, own the multiplexes in which their films are shown and have a strong presence in the TV and DVD side of distribution.  Because of this, the 3-D premium at the box office and the 3-D BluRay price premium is keeping today's 3-D revolution alive and well.  If 3-D ticket prices are forced down by lower attendance, 3-D movie production will be heavily reduced, or, more likely, the premium price for 3-D film viewing will become the standard for 2-D film attendance as well - a scenario where 3-D film production will go down as well because 2-D film will always remain cheaper to produce.

There may well be another reason for today's film studios' push for 3-D: it moves the bulk spending from post production back to the principal photography - back to the studios.  This is, because once shot or rendered, 3-D film can barely be 'fixed' in post - only very minimally so - before heavy distortion of the image occurs.  So the power is back in the hands of the DOP and camera makers.

3-D Filming in 1983 using the Arri 3-D lens adapter

3-D Film Favourites: Horror, thriller and Western

Not many people realize this, but in 1953/54 most 3-D films released were dramas and Westerns (30%).  This number was closely followed by action and western movies (20%) and horror and thriller movies (17%).  As the 3-D bubble collapsed in 1954, the same amount of 3-D movies as planned during the current stereoscopic craze were cancelled in 3-D and shot in 2-D.  In most cases, CinemaScope had little to do with this as these films were pretty much all still released in 1.85 format.  The real interesting question lies with the kinds of movies released in 3-D in this era and whether they were suitable for the 3-D process - and thus whether this might have had anything to do with the collapse of 3-D film in 1955.  I just don't buy the argument that it was purely technical issues with 35mm film projector synchronizing, alignment (weave) and the cardboard polarizing glasses.  This argument falls apart when the 1983/84 3-D boom is considered with its single lens / single film strip polarized colour film projection.

Polarized 3-D projection before Digital Cinema

In the current 4-year 3-D film release growth of 2008-2012 the emphasis of type of film lies heavily on animation (38%), followed by horror / thriller (22%) and sci-fi / fantasy (17%).  Of course the high numbers for animation have a lot to do with the current lower age and family-oriented target for film releases and the fact that CGI animation production finds a natural form in stereoscopic 3-D presentation - the step to go 3-D is relatively speaking most easy with CGI animation production.  In this way, animation has actually been a large driving force for the current 3-D cinema release trend, but the number of animation film releases in 3-D cannot, realistically, be put against other historic numbers, as animation production is completely different from what it was 30 and 60 years ago.  What is a real historic benchmark are the horror / thriller and sci-fi / fantasy film numbers (one can call sci-fi / fantasy the present day Western and romance / comedy has been moved into animation).  In these numbers there is a visible shift from horror / thriller to sci-fi / fantasy as the 3-D boom continues into 2012 - a shift to a much larger family audience (more movie tickets and 3-D BluRays to be sold) and a shift away from cheap thrills, towards grand spectacle.  However, grown up drama, war, documentary and comedy are still not in the 3-Dimensional picture and film makers continue the hundred-year trend of not taking 3-D film serious when it comes to content.

A note on 2-D to 3-D converted titles then: this is a practice impossible in the 1950's and 1980's.  16-26% of the 3-D releases of the years 2009-2012 are dimensionalized 2-D to 3-D conversions and although they wouldn't have existed as 3-D films before 2006 (Nightmare before Christmas), they are in the end still 3-D film releases.  Quality of the 3-D is not debated here.

The Nightmare Before Christmas (2006)

Scheduled 3-D stereoscopic feature film releases:

1953:
45 titles released (Total of 1,845, of which 2.5% in 3-D)
16 titles announced but not released in 3-D

Animation:  0
Horror / Thriller:  6
Action / Western action:  8
Documentary:  2
Sci-Fi / Fantasy:  2
Music/Dance:  4
Drama / Western drama:  16
War: 1
Adult: 1
RomCom: 5


1954:
19 titles released
24 titles announced but not released in 3-D

Animation: 0
Horror / Thriller: 5
Action / Western action: 5
IMAX / Docu: 0
Sci-Fi / Fantasy: 2
Music/Dance: 1
Drama / Western drama: 3
War: 0
Adult: 0
RomCom: 3


1983:
17 titles released (Total of 3,122, of which 0.5% in 3-D)
4 titles announced but not released in 3-D

Animation: 0
Horror / Thriller: 4
Action / Adventure: 3
IMAX / Docu: 0
Sci-Fi / Fantasy: 4
Music/Dance: 0
Drama: 2
War: 0
Adult: 3
RomCom: 1


1984:
7 titles released
1 titles announced but not released in 3-D

Animation: 0
Horror / Thriller: 2
Action / Adventure: 0
IMAX / Docu: 0
Sci-Fi / Fantasy: 2
Music/Dance: 0
Drama: 0
War: 0
Adult: 2
RomCom: 1


2008:
9 titles

Animation: 2
Horror / Thriller: 2
Action: 0
IMAX / Docu: 0
Sci-Fi / Fantasy: 1
Music/Dance: 1
Drama: 2
War: 0
Adult: 1
RomCom: 0


2009:
37 titles (21 minus animation) (Total of 6,522, of which 0.5% in 3-D)
Dimensionalized: 6

Animation: 15
Horror / Thriller: 8
Action: 1
IMAX / Docu: 3
Sci-Fi / Fantasy: 4
Music/Dance: 3
Drama: 0
War: 0
Adult: 3
RomCom: 0


2010:
77 titles (48 minus animation) (Total of 7,735, of which 1% in 3-D)
Dimensionalized: 20

Animation: 29
Horror / Thriller: 22
Action: 3
IMAX / Docu: 3
Sci-Fi / Fantasy: 11
Music/Dance: 5
Drama: 1
War: 0
Adult: 3
RomCom: 0


2011:
43 titles (28 minus animation) (Total of 3,933, of which 1% in 3-D)
Dimensionalized: 8

Animation: 15
Horror / Thriller: 6
Action: 5
IMAX / Docu: 1
Sci-Fi / Fantasy: 12
Music/Dance: 0
Drama: 4
War: 0
Adult: 0
RomCom: 0


2012:
6 titles (3 minus animation) (Total of 1,436, of which 0.5% in 3-D)
Dimensionalized: 0

Animation: 3
Horror / Thriller: 0
Action: 1
IMAX / Docu: 0
Sci-Fi / Fantasy: 1
Music/Dance: 0
Drama: 0
War: 1
Adult: 0
RomCom: 0

























So can we draw conclusions from these numbers?  One can say something about types of film and suitability for the 3-D process but a better perspective is gained when 2-D film genre releases are set against the 3-D numbers.  The numbers appear to be roughly equal in percentages, so one can state that 3-D film release mirror 2-D film releases for genre, or that most 3-D film producers decide to 'go 3-D' mid-production of a 2-D film. 

In absolute numbers, the number of 3-D releases has jumped up from 0.5% to 1% (no 3-D revolution yet) and when animation and 3-D conversion titles are subtracted from the present day totals, the number of 3-D feature films released in 1953 is still more than double that of today's 3-D resurgence on a year-by-year basis.  Does that really matter though if today's 3-D boom is a continuous one?  The infrastructure for incidental 3-D film release is now in place and unless all the Real-D, Dolby3D and Xpand projector adapters are all on hire or on short-term maintenance contracts, releasing a film, or parts of it, in 3-D will remain a real option for future film producers.

Alexander Lentjes is available as Consultant or Production member for your 3-D Stereoscopic animation or live-action television or feature film production.  More information and Contact details at www.the3drevolution.com/contact.html

3-D Film formats beyond Real-D, Dolby3D and Xpand 3-D

Digital 3-D projection is fantastic and the way forward for a prosperous future of 3-D, but despite all the huffing and puffing of the Avatar PR machine, 3-D film consumption at home is still 99.9% an anaglyph business. In recent weeks, anaglyph family member ColorCode 3D has been the main format chosen for 3-D TV broadcast in the US and the UK. While we are all familiar with the pro's and con's of the amber-blue di-chromatic system, it can still not be called much more than a clever rehash of the original stereoscopic format: anaglyph. But then, when it comes to 3-D, there has historically so far always been a constant re-invention of the wheel with few meaningful exceptions.

What can strike many as odd is that patents are granted time and again for 3-D display systems that do nothing new compared to long time existing systems. Sure, it is good for business when technologies are protected, but to lock away existing formats that have been with us for 150 years behind lawsuits and license fees may prove to be a crippling blow to an already fickle, unstable industry. What we need to do now is open up the knowledge and share the technology, or a 3-D industry will yet again not be able to establish itself properly and return to the small club of elites in the 3-D know.

Throughout the years, in 3-D feature film production, the 5 stereo encoding systems of Twin Strip, Side-by-side, Over-under, Lenticular and Anaglyph have been used and patented under many different names. 102 to be precise. Hosting the 3-D Filmography at the3drevolution.com, I have been able to compile the following 3-D feature film format names list for your reading pleasure. I personally love the crazy, wild names and I would hate to see the tradition of the invention of a 'new' zany 3-D process with every film release disappear. But, like with the non-use of negative parallax by 3-D film makers these days, the trend is getting more and more disappointingly dull: the '3-D' is mentioned as much as possible in advertising but just as that: 3-D. Or maybe 'Digital 3-D' (and, of course, Real-D and IMAX 3D), but no longer 'SpaceTerrorScopeVision 3-D'. Does it really remind people of bad 3-D experiences of the 1950's? I seriously doubt it. It is not like throwing a pick-axe at the camera in Real-D 3-D is any different as a film-going experience than seeing it hit the negative parallax barrier in StereoVision. I think the trend has more to do with the 'if it's digital, it's got to be good' attitude, regardless of the fact that two digital cameras will still need to be strapped together on a real world slide bar. And if you ask me, the act of aligning the cameras can and should still be called 'StereoCineScope-a-Rama' whenever possible, even when it doesn't sound very digital.

On to the list then. Some of the names refer to the technique in which the film was shot shot, some to the format it was printed in. Because, to give just one example, you can shoot over-under as well as printing in the format.


Glorious 3-D in Twin strip (dual source) format has been known under the name of:

3-D Video, 3Vision, Ciné Stéréo Télévision, Clear-Vision, Columbia 3-D, Depth Dimension, Dimension 3, Disney 3-D, Dual-Techniscope, Dual-VistaVision, Dynoptic 3-D, Fairall Process, Freddy Vision, Friese-Greene Stereoscopic Process, Fusion 3-D (Reality Camera System), Future Dimension, Hi-Vision 3-D, IMAX 3-D, Iwerks 3-D, Kwong-Tzan 3-D, Lipton Three-Dimensional Filmmaking System, Loucks & Norling 3-Dimension, Maurer 3-D, Metroscopix, Metrovision Tri-Dee, Miller Stereoscopic Process, Monogram 3-D, Natural Vision, Natural Vision 3-Dimension, NFBC 3-D, Norling-Leventhal 3-Dimensions, nWave 3-D, Paravision, Parkes 3-D, Parrish 3-D, Pathé 3-D, Plasticon 3-D, Plastigram 3-D, Pola-Lux 3-D, Porter-Waddell Stereoscopic Process, PSC 3-D, Ramsdell 3-D, Richardson 3-D, Sensorama, Showscan 3-D, Spacemaster 3-D, Stereo Base and Stereo-Cine.


Side by Side straight, rotated, anamorphic or in any other combination can also be called:

3D30, Bolex Stereo, Dudley 3-D, Elgeet Stereo, LazerVision, Nord 3-D, Optovision, Pola-Lite, Powell 3-D, Quadravision 4-D, Raumfilm-System, Shochiku Natural Vision, Sistema Gaultiero Gaulterotti, Stereokino, Stéréoscopic Lumière, Stereo 70, Stereovision 70 (Hi Fi Stereo 70, Triarama, Super Cinema 3-D), Tri-Delta Stereo, Western 3-D, Wolff 3-D and Wondavision (Deep Throw 3-D).


Over Under (above/below) has been recording and projecting 3-D film under the name of:

3-Depix, 3-Dynavision, ArriVision, Cinedepth, Cubic 3-D, ESI-3D, Fuji Vision, Future Dimensions, Hi Stereo Vision, Impact 3-D, McNabb 3-D, Optimax III (Dimensionscope), Plasztikus Film, Spacevision, StereoVision (Future Dimensions), StereoVision TenPerf 70, Super Touch 3-D (Real-a-Rama, Super 3D, Ultra-Cubic 3-D) and Z3D.


Checkerboard, lenticular and raster encoding is more something of a post production format, but one 3-D system manages to already shoot in it:

Cyclostéréoscope.


Anaglyph (di-chromatic), the grand daddy of them all, is also known by the name of:

3-Dimensions, 3D Plus, ColorCode 3-D, Cosmovision, DeepVision, HorrorScope (MiracleVision), Natural Vision 3, Smart Anaglyphic Fatigue Eliminator, Triangle 3-D, Trioscope and Trioviz.


And that's it. If your very own invented (or favourite) stereo format is in this list, but put in the wrong category, or does not feature in the list yet, please do contact me so that the misplacement can be rectified. The list aims to be correct and precise as possible - a challenge in these hairy days of Wild West 3-D reinvention and land grabbing!

Contact Alexander Lentjes by e-mail.
The 3-D Filmography can be found at: www.the3drevolution.com/3dlist.html

A future of 3-D through the eyes of Blue Alien Giants

A future of 3-D through the eyes of Blue Alien Giants

As published in this month's Veritas et Visus magazine

It is being heralded as the 3D movie that will single-handedly save the stereoscopic industry, or, rather, kick-start it into full gear and propel it into the common man’s cinema diary and living room. Avatar.

All stereographers talk about it with awe and expectation, while salesmen of 3-D hardware excitedly shout out its name. But what is Avatar? A high-concept science-fiction film of the purest kind. Space marines, alien planets, a war between man in spaceships and helicopters and exoskels with machine guns and a jungle-bound alien race of blue giants.

Some would describe it as effects for effects’ sake, but whatever the case, it doesn't sound like a broad audience movie. By all accounts Avatar should have been a niche market film, appealing to young men and even younger boys. Are our mothers and wives going to want to invest emotional energy into giant blue warmongering aliens? They have spoken in their billions and have said and unequivocal 'Yes'. Sci-fi is mainstream again in 2010, especially when it's in 3-D.

It would appear that the largest part of the cinema-going and movie-buying audience does not need to be convinced that wearing 3-D glasses is not stupid, annoying or even uncomfortable any more. At least not in the cinema. Dissing anaglyph glasses is still not the way forward though, because it is the diss that is remembered, not the difference between dichromatic and polarized image separation. Yes, glasses could be physically more comfortable, but that does not take away the psychological barrier most people experience when faced with the prospect wearing them over their TV dinner.


Honestly, you won't look like Nerd, nor will you go bald when you wear 3-D specs

So how can we remove this inbuilt reluctance and fear? By presenting the doubters and cynics with their favorite content in really well shot 3D and letting the power of word of mouth do its job.

In my opinion the key to a 3-D future lies in the romantic comedy, the costume drama and the psychological thriller. Taking real numbers as found on IMDB, less than 1 in 10 movies produced overall is a science-fiction or fantasy film (6%), 1 in 10 movies is a family film (including animation, 10%) while 5 in 10 movies are a romantic comedy / drama (47%), yet when it comes to 3D movies slated for a 2009 release, 3 out of 10 movies is a science-fiction / horror / action film (33%), almost 4 out of 10 is animation / fantasy / music (35%) and just more than 2 out of 10 is a documentary (24%). The remaining 1 out of 10 movies (9%) is reserved for music specials and naughty movies, while no romantic comedies of drama films are slated for 3D release. How can there possibly be proper penetration of stereo 3D as a mass-audience medium if the main types of cinematic story are not told in 3D? If Sandra Bullock and Meryl Streep don’t look good in 3D, don’t even bother trying to sell the 3D Ready LCD screens.



In terms of broadcast TV, cooking programs and reality shows will have to work with 3D to make financial sense. Again, sales men are focusing all their energy on sports broadcasts and thus targeting boys and men. But what is one football match in a sea of time-filling content such as that of The Apprentice, Strictly Come Dancing, As the World Turns, Oprah Winfrey and Jerry Springer? That is what the reality of a 3D stereoscopic future is all about. We all know a tomato will look fantastic in 3D and that bargain diamond ring on QVC’s home shopping channel will sell very well when it pops off the screen, but what about book reviews and embarrassing celebrity reality filler? I, for one, will not feel enticed to don 3-D glasses to watch animals do the funniest things – in 3-D. But perhaps I just don’t know what I’ll be missing yet...


Oh yeah - LOLcatz in 3-D. It's the future of entertainment!

On the production side of things the only way for a true 3D switch-over to happen is complete standardization and idiot-proofing of recording, playback and delivery hardware. Of course us stereo experts will all be out of a job when everything is standardized and built-in, so we can all enjoy long weekdays in front of the 3D television. Fixed interaxials for studio shoots, fixed minimum distances to the camera, no more convergence control and a pipeline that allows for previewing and editing in the final screen size of choice all the way. No more need for lookup tables and heated discussions over what to do or not do in 3D.



Producers want a straight off-the-shelve stereoscopic camera and pipeline solution and that’s what they will get. We will see a return to cameras with three fixed lens options as standard in the 1950s and 60s. But what is the bulk of 3D films to be produced with such standardized equipment going to look like? Creative 3D control will go out the window. On most productions, that should actually be a blessing though: watch one movie with divergence and vertical parallax and you will agree with this point.

Experience is everything in 3-D shooting and even then, with veteran stereographers at
the helm, eyestrain can creep in. Automatic, real-time vertical parallax detection and correction hardware will remove the strain of having to precisely align a 3-D camera rig before every shot. Miniature cameras and lenses will mean effortless, small and light 3-D rigs that don’t even
look like they contain 2 cameras or lenses. And to top everything off, image capture will happen with inbuilt retinal rivalry correction and will be dual-stream compatible all the way down the pipeline without you even noticing it.


No more heavy camera rigs in the 3-D future

Will you still be excited about 3-D in this future? Well no, because it will be a normal, every-day, run-off-the-mill format – unless we will shoot extraordinary content in it and produce visual stories that have never been seen or experienced before. And although Avatar may be breaking new ground in terms of VFX and live-action integration, it is its story and characters that are going to determine whether we will want to see more science fiction films about giant blue aliens in 3-D.


Blue Aliens are all the rage!

Get your $2 worth of 3-D

With film producers and distributors boiling down the Stereoscopic film equation to the $2 mark-up for a 3-D film ticket, audiences are starting to air their demands for $2 worth of 3-D entertainment...


The following article I wrote can be found in the excellent 3-D publication Veritas et Visus (3rd Dimension edition). I can highly recommend this online magazine for anybody working in the Stereoscopic industry, so do check it out: http://www.veritasetvisus.com/3rd_dimension.htm


...As the average 2009 cinema ticket price in the US is $7.20, that amounts to a mark-up of 22%. So a bit less than a quarter or a bit more than a fifth of the film’s duration should be using engaging, entertaining 3-D to keep the patrons happy. If you charge $2 more for 90 minutes of cinematic entertainment, you are going to have to deliver the extra 20 minutes of 3-Dimensional cherry on top.

When it comes to 3-D, that cherry is more often than not the in-your-face stuff: good old negative parallax, theatre space, the out-of-screen area. One look at the trailer for ‘My Bloody Valentine 3-D’ (2009) and it becomes clear how people equate the term ‘3-D’ with pick-axes flying at the camera and flames engulfing the theatre (even when flames are, in fact, 2D forms). Funnily, the trailer goes straight against the director’s own promotional words of how the 3-D is not used in a cheap and cheesy way like previous 3-D movies! Pretty much all promotional artwork for 3-D feature films throughout cinema history have featured objects jumping out of a cinema screen. It is undeniable that the two or three 3-D shots people remember when they come out of the theatre are almost always negative parallax shots so their importance in the bigger picture of a successful 3-D film experience is immense. That is not to say that a 3-D feature film should consist of an endless bombardment of negative parallax action - ‘Treasure of the Four Crowns’ (1983) is a very good example of what that looks like: throwaway fairground fodder.


Film poster of 'Treasure of the Four Crowns' (1983)

So far, storyboarders, designers, directors and cameramen have mostly underestimated the importance and complexity of a good negative parallax shot and underinvested in developing new grammar for this part of the visual language of stereoscopic cinematography. It could be because out-of-screen shots pose an almost impossible challenge for narrative visual storytelling: how can these objects coming out of the screen be used to enhance the story, action and character interaction without engaging with the viewer in first person? So far, only very few 3-D films have managed to have a decent negative parallax shot or two that is not out of place or totally obtrusive. A shot that comes to mind is Jared-Syn’s deadly arm in 'Metalstorm' (1983). The negative parallax in this shot serves a narrative function, is spectacular in slow-motion 3-D and doesn’t take the audience out of the movie. Suspension of disbelief is sustained. But no, it wouldn’t work for longer than the duration of that particular shot and later shots in the movie show the usual stretched arms holding guns, coming out of the screen. Not very intelligent use of out-of-screen space. But then most scenes involving theatre space in 3-D film scripts appear to have been written on the backs of beer coasters, with very childish visuals result.


Still from 'Metalstorm' (1983)

How would it fly with the audience if an actor of a play started talking to them or even waving a stick at them? And what if the actor were to walk into the audience and talk to the other actors on stage from there? It could be called ‘modern’, perhaps ‘abstract’, but in any case quite odd and probably not helping the flow of the story. It is this dilemma that 3-D film is facing and has always faced: how to make that oddity work in a serious, undamaging way. This is especially relevant as the discussed 22% of the film needs to pay off in the way people remember and love 3-D. And so far nobody has ever said that the deep scenery of a 3-D film has stuck with them for a long time.

3-D eye poking is very much like camera access, camera shakes, on-screen text and other camera-affirming techniques in cinema. It must be approached with the rules to these techniques in mind. The reason for using camera access, interaction with a camera, bumping into the camera, splatter on the camera lens and even showing a camera crew can be for comedic effect, to indicate the camera as a person, to talk directly to the audience in a medieval theatre style or to touch upon a documentary situation for heightened reality and closeness to the action. But with it comes the breaking down of the fourth wall and the illusion – disbelieve is unsuspended.


'Ferris Bueller's Day off' (1986) - constant camera access

A major issue is that the dimensionality easily distracts the viewer from the story and its characters and negative parallax pushes the viewer’s suspension of disbelieve to the limit. More often than not, these shots remind the viewer he is watching a movie and take the viewer out of it completely. The ability to lose one self in the story and character interaction gets dealt a heavy blow by objects sticking out into theatre space. By observing and analysing the negative parallax object, the brain switches sides from creative (left) to analytical observing (right): the worst possible thing that can happen when being told a story. It is especially wry when all a cinema theatre is trying to do is remove cues to the fact one is sitting in a chair watching a movie to enhance the cinema-going experience to its fullest potential. Paradoxically, by getting close to the viewer’s face, the 3-D movie reminds the viewer he is not actually part of the on-screen events. That which makes stereoscopic film great – the ability to get a film closer to the audience – can take away from the very factors that make for cinematic enjoyment.


'Dial M for Murder' (1954) - negative parallax fame

Basically, theatre space can be used a lot without a problem by movies that don’t take themselves too seriously, that are more of a realistic/documentary-style breed, films that are confident enough to use first-person and POV shots or those that are more or less glorified thrill rides. For movies that don’t want to sacrifice their serious nature, subtle negative parallax shots such as the scissors-grabbing shot in ‘Dial M for Murder’ (1954) may just about work, but they can’t fill a fifth of the available screen time with characters reaching into the audience. A solution to the problem may come from a recognition by producers, distributors, theatres and the audience that 3-D movies are a different medium altogether – neither film nor theatre, but volumetric narrative visual entertainment of its own. A new medium with new rules – where the fourth wall can be broken at will and where serious drama is followed by visual puns and an opportunity to examine objects and scenery in volumetric detail. Because an evolution of film won’t happen until old conventions and ideas are abandoned and new ones are fully embraced.


Pie-throwing in 'The Three Stooges - Pardon my Backfire' (1953)

Stereoscopic Fail Scarring the name of Digital 3-D Cinema

Scar 3-D (2007 / 2008)
Stereoscopic Fail Scarring the name of Digital 3-D Cinema


Scar 3D - promotional still

As Saw V is still running in cinemas and going strong, the public is clearly not tired yet of the old torture porn genre. But Scar 3-D (Scar 3D) just didn’t go anywhere. Released in 2007, it hit English theatres just two weeks ago in November 2008. Sadly, I have not yet been able to see Scar 3-D in my local 3-D cinema as they pulled it after only one week and it looks like other cinemas are pulling it faster than you can say: “3-D bubble”. As the movie was already out on DVD (in anaglyph 3-D), that makes for an odd situation of a film going from cinema to DVD to cinema to DVD, while never hitting any interesting boxoffice numbers. It must, then, have been a sly attempt by its distributor to cash in on the current good press 3-D cinema is getting. And by doing so, the press for 3-D cinema just got a lot worse again.

The fast removal from theatres should be a very strong indicator that this title should probably never have hit the cinemas. But because it did, it got seen by cinema reviewers and they have been giving it a 0% rating overall (Rottentomatoes average). Ouch! That is an epic 3-Dimensional fail.

"This is not our parents’ 3-D with silly red & blue glasses", journalists wrote. No, it is much worse than that: it is a non-existent entertainment shot and projected in digital 3-D. So what is the point of all the superior digital hoohah when the movie itself is painfully bad in the content department?

This is not just the failure of one movie. A 0% rating for a movie with good 3-D photography (judging from the trailer) says something about the use of 3-D for movies overall. The acting and drama in the trailer look like absolute dross, but the use of 3-D looks beautiful. Strong conclusions can be drawn.


Scar 3-D - 3D analgyph still

One of the four following statements must be true, partially or fully, for a 0% approval rating to happen to a 3-D movie with good stereoscopic camera work:

1) 3-D does not add ANY value to a movie, regardless of how bad it is and regardless of the quality of the 3-D photography.

2) No matter how good the delivery is of a movie (colour, digital, 3-D, CinemaScope), if the story, acting and / or direction is bad, it is a waste of time and money.

3) 3-D does not add extra revenue, audience draw or promotional value to a movie if the movie itself (story, acting and / or direction) is bad.

4) Scar 3-D has not managed to use 3-D in any way, shape or form that even resembles an improvement to the entertainment value of the film overall and the story, its characters and the direction in specific.


Scar 3-D - 3D analgyph still

These conclusions should not read as a major surprise. A colour movie is not better than a black & white movie just because it is in colour – that is absolute nonsense. Yet to current 3-D film producers and 3-D proprietors like James Cameron it comes as a shock. Wasn’t 3-D going to add the extra 2 Dollars to the cinema ticket price and wasn’t the audience prepared to pay this extra amount, regardless? You mean we are actually still having to make proper movies with real stories, proper acting and decent directing? Well snap!

This shock realization has happened twice before in cinema history, namely in 1953 and in 1983, when 2 or 3 decent 3-D movies were flanked by 100 exploitation titles. Surprise, surprise, 3-D has been having a really bad name ever since. The fallout of 3-D boom years has been devastating to the name of 3-D with film critics and the average film-going audience. Stereo 3-D film is barely just recovering from it all and already punters are booing stereoscopic 3-D when discussing the slate of 2009-2010 upcoming film releases planned to be in 3-D. Another box office 3-D bomb like Scar 3-D and the digital 3-D boom year may never actually happen. Because who wants to be associated with a medium that is used in sub-par film releases to draw the extra buck without delivering anything more?


Scar 3D - 3-D analgyph still

So what IS the hope for a prosperous 3-D film future? Let’s revisit the 3 statements of above.

1b) It is difficult to refute this statement, as the proper 3-D photography of Scar 3D did not add even 1% of a more positive review. Perhaps this is due to the fact that 3-D enhances, or enlarges what is presented on screen. So an enhanced bad trip becomes a really bad trip, while an enhanced dream of a picture will become pure heaven. 3-D really can do this, but keep in mind: stereoscopic presentation of your cinematic story amplifies and really exposes the quality of the presented imagery. A bit like super HD showing all the spots and wrinkles on actors faces, which can be a bitch when you were just going for an awe-inspiring high definition experience.

2b) More pleasant delivery of any material will at least take away the blame from the delivery format. Are your patrons walking out of the cinema after 5 minutes, well, at least it wasn’t because your film was in 2-D. But has 2-Dimensionality ever been a reason to stay away from a movie? Sure, movie critics will always find a reason to complain, so the better the delivery format, the more focus there will be on the content of the film. If the content is bad, the critic will write: “The 3-D didn’t help save the bad story”. If the presentation was in 2-D rather than in 3-D, the critic will write: “This movie was clearly shot to work in 3-D, because I couldn’t find any reason to like the story in 2-D”. Can you ever win with these guys? Well, perhaps by presenting a good film that is enhanced by great 3-D…

3b) Poor financial returns for some 3-D movies does not mean that Stereo 3-D cannot add financial value to a film release, as a good movie can benefit from the 3-Dimenasional addition, while really good 3-D, added to a really good movie, makes for big boxoffice success. But go figure, the key term here is ‘good’, not ‘3-D’.

4b) What does the budding 3-D film director need to do to make the 3-D add to the entertainment value of his picture? Enhance the volume of characters, flatten them out, create claustrophobic scenes, deep and wide vistas, poke scary and funny things at the audience, wow with geometric intrigue and dwarf or giantize scenery and characters? All that and more.