3D films only in name

3D only in name

Hollywood studios have been cashing in on a current fad by coming out with 3D films every other Friday, but most of these give the viewer only a headache and not the immersive experience of a true 3D film,

Every other week, we have a big hype over a Hollywood film releasing in 3D, either live action or animated. The last one month saw Green Lantern, Cars 2, Transformers: Dark of the Moon, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II, The Smurfs, The Lion King and (this Friday) Captain America, all releasing in 3D. The ticket prices for a 3D film are higher (some multiplexes even charge extra for the 3D frames), and 3D shows for a film outnumber the 2D shows allotted to the same film. But few of these so-called 3D films live up to the "immersive experience" promise of their marketing campaigns. Firstly, many of these '3D films' are actually shot in 2D, then converted to 3D, which is not the same thing at all. A film shot in stereoscopic 3D requires a dual camera set-up, called Fusion Camera. Two cameras are placed next to each other to replicate the left and right eyes of a human being. This is more complicated and expensive than the converted stereoscopic 3D where graphic artists give depth to a film shot in 2D in post-production. Avatar was an example of a film shot with a Fusion Camera, and the results were there for all to see. Of the other films mentioned earlier, only Transformers used Fusion Camera technology, while the rest were filmed in regular 2D fashion and later converted. But the ads don't tell you that. Ranjit Singh (Tony), head of The Animation Society of India (TASI), says that most films that convert to 3D are doing nothing more than cashing in on the current fad. "At one point, sci-fi was fashionable; now everyone wants to show their film in 3D." Even Simba flops While he can't think of one live action 3D film that wowed him, Shrek Forever After was among the few animation films in 3D that provided a really immersive experience, according to Singh. "In animation, since everything is created from scratch, the camera set-up isn't that important. There are software applications that help you render animation images in stereo 3D. Even then, usually it's just one or two really good 3D shots, while the rest is nothing great." A couple of weeks ago, the classical animation film The Lion King was re-released in theatres, in 3D. This was supposed to add a new dimension to the most successful hand-drawn animation film of all time. "It's essentially the same film; all the hard work we put into the original has been preserved," the film's co-director Rob Minkoff told The Mag in a phone interview. "The 3D conversion gives that extra dimension of space, which makes it a heightened experience of watching the film," he said. But the new version came a cropper at the box office (in India, it was released only in PVR properties, where it was discontinued due to lack of audiences), and critics weren't impressed by the 3D either. "Other than the opening sequence, which was breathtaking in the original 2D version anyway, there was nothing that 3D technology brought to the film," says film critic Johnson Thomas, adding that as a story, The Lion King was still appealing, but watching it in 3D didn't make sense. Walt Disney did hit the jackpot with Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (released in 3D), with earnings of more than a billion dollars. But it was probably the global following of The Pirates franchise that brought about its commercial success, not its 3D which was panned. Many other films like The Last Airbender, Yogi Bear, Sanctum, and Gulliver's Travels met with a lukewarm response at the box office despite promising 3D nirvana. Distracting, nauseating Movie experts haven't been kind to 3D either. Film critic Roger Ebert says it is "distracting and nausea-inducing", and argues that it adds no value to the movie-going experience. Filmmaker Christopher Nolan has steadfastly stayed away from the technology in his films (The Dark Knight, Inception and now The Dark Knight Rises). Auteur Gore Verbinski didn't want to make the animated Rango in 3D because he felt "this isn't right". In fact, it's now believed that the technology can come in the way of a good viewing experience, because it makes images dull and the eyes get tired after a point. There's been concern about headaches too. "Unless you get a genuine 3D experience, which only films which are shot using the Fusion Camera give you, like Avatar and Captain America, there's no point in putting yourself through all the pain," says Thomas. Perhaps all this will get sorted out with new technology, where audiences will be able to watch 3D films with the naked eye (without wearing 3D frames). Until then, the headache and the higher ticket price just don't seem worthwhile. Even Simba can't make 3D work.