When the original Avatar hit theaters, it was lauded not only for its groundbreaking use of digital effects but also for its use of 3D. It was believed that 3D would be a major factor in all major film releases going forward, and while 3D was prominently used for a long time, the number of films shot in 3D that really took advantage of the technology has been few and far between.
James Cameron is still a major proponent of 3D. Speaking with The Town podcast, Cameron was asked why nobody else has been able to make 3D work in the way that he has. The director first took aim and the post-production 3D conversion process. Cameron has a blunt opinion on its quality, as compared to when other great directors filmed in 3D. He says:
They’re doing it through conversion, so your Marvel films typically are released in 3D through conversion. It sucks, I know. Other top filmmakers were experimenting with it, like Scorsese and Ang Lee, and so on that actually authored in 3D. And the result is that their movies, like Prometheus, and Life of Pi, and Hugo, look spectacular.
Cameron says that studios seem to prefer post-production 3D conversion to filming in 3D, because although it costs more than filming in 3D, and produces an inferior product, it gives the studios more control, including the ability to not spend money on 3D at all if they decide so later on.
3D can be an incredible benefit to studios. It increases ticket prices, which means more box office revenue for studios and theaters. A big part of the reason that both previous Avatar movies were as successful as they were is that a lot of people spent the money to see the films in 3D.
However, the biggest hurdle to successful 3D, in Cameron’s opinion, has nothing to do with the way the movie is filmed, and is all about the way the film is presented., Cameron doesn’t believe most theaters present 3D at its best because the projection systems being used aren’t bright enough. Cameron continued:
95% of theaters are inferior light levels. 95%, it’s not a trivial number. So you got a few premium screens, and you can bet that when we show it to the press, and we show it to the critics, and all that we make sure the light levels are there.
James Cameron has a great point here regarding something that is vital to 3D presentation that doesn’t get talked about enough. There’s a reason the brightness is one of our criteria when we write about whether it's worth spending the money on 3D. 3D glasses naturally dim an image, which makes the brightness of the screen all the more important. But brightness is also incredibly variable, as it all depends on the state of the projection system in your theater.
Most major releases are still released in 3D, but it's just not a big deal anymore. Other formats, like 4DX, have tried to make inroads but with limited success. Many thought 3D was little more than a gimmick when it started, and that sometimes seems to be the case.
While I’m not sure fixing projection brightness would make everybody more willing to spend money on 3D movies, it would be nice to have the confidence when seeing a movie in 3D that it will be bright enough. A lot of people will probably be springing for a 3D ticket to Avatar: Fire and Ash, hopefully they’ll see it in a theater that’s bright enough.
You must confirm your public display name before commenting
Please logout and then login again, you will then be prompted to enter your display name.
