(This post was a collaborative effort between Entertainment practice members Meg Spooner and Sonja Olson.)
A few months ago we had the privilege of going to a press event hosted by DreamWorks Animation CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg on the future of 3-D. These presentations were held throughout the country in the months leading up to the release of Monsters vs. Aliens. He eloquently discussed how, to date, there have been two major revolutions in film – the emergence of sound in the 20s and the arrival of color in the 30s. While we’d be pretty quick to argue that CGI is the third, Katzenberg believes that, without doubt, 3-D is the next great achievement in film. He showed us three clips from Monsters vs. Aliens in InTru 3D, a technology that was developed in partnership with Intel, which was a far cry from “your father’s 3-D” of blue and red cardboard glasses. He is so sure of this that, moving forward, all DreamWorks animation films will be created and shot in 3-D.
Were we made believers in Jeffrey Katzenberg’s vision that day? Sort of. Did we feel like we’d have to wait and see how Monsters vs, Aliens performed both at the box office and for critics? Yup. Would we be interested to see how other studios are tackling 3-D? You betcha. We sat down after the DreamWorks Animation tentpole release and had a little chat about the state of 3-D….
MS: In such troubling economic times, where people are already forgoing entertainment in order to save a few bucks, why should they pay more to see a movie in 3-D? My local theater charges $3 more a ticket for 3-D than it does for equivalent showings for other movies, which it sells at $10.
SO: Whether you want to believe it or not, going to the movies is still cheap entertainment. With the cost of eating out on the rise and the price of concert tickets skyrocketing, a $13 movie ticket isn’t the worst thing in the world. Plus, with 3-D, you are paying for an experience, an event. Going to the movies used to be just that but we’ve become so desensitized to the act of going to the theater that introducing 3-D, or IMAX for that matter, makes the outing special again.
MS: That’s not even mentioning the fact that production costs for movies in 3-D are significantly higher, somewhere around $15 million more, according to Katzenberg. And of course, there is the added problem of converting theaters to digital projection systems that can actually handle screening in digital 3-D.
SO: Yes, 3-D movies cost more, but Katzenberg and Fox Filmed Entertainment co-chair Jim Gianopulos recently said that 3-D films have the ability to add an extra $1 Billion a year in box office revenues. A few numbers for ya… Monsters vs. Aliens earned $59.3 million opening weekend, with the 1,550 3-D screens playing the movie making up 58% of the entire gross, despite those runs making up just 28% of the total theater count. Coraline, a 3-D offering from Focus Features that we worked on, exceeded box office expectations in February and earned $16.8 million opening weekend at 2,229 theaters. That toon was available in 3-D at 1,005 theaters, which accounted for approximately 70% of the gross. My point: 3-D makes money.
MS: Speaking of costs, can we talk about those glasses? They bug me. Let’s set aside for the moment that most people wouldn’t be caught dead bringing a date to the movies and having to wear those things, I’ve seen tons of complaints online over the past few months while researching 3-D releases that they are uncomfortable. They give quite a few moviegoers headaches. For me it’s just a mild ache, but I’ve seen complaints of people who’ve had to leave because it bothered them too much. And that doesn’t even begin to address the issue of waste. Let’s say an average of 200 people are in each showing of the newest release of 3-D Movie “X.” Carrying out a conservative estimate of maybe sixteen showings for opening weekend, that’s 3,200 glasses required, for ONE theater, for ONE weekend. And those glasses aren’t built to last, they’re made cheaply for good reason and won’t last more than 4 or 5 showings. It adds up, and will add up in our landfills.
SO: OK, it’s a little difficult to argue this one but the glasses that I wore at Monsters vs. Aliens last weekend are quite acceptable. They’re sturdy, they didn’t give me a headache, and I took them home with me anticipating that I’ll be seeing another 3-D film in the near future. Katzenberg is reportedly working with Luxottica Group to create a transition lens so theatergoers’ glasses can changeover for the 3-D theater. It’s also believed that, in the not so distant future, 3-D technology will be applied to in-home entertainment products, which means everyone will want their own pair of specs. As long as permanent solutions are the goal – which they are – as opposed to disposables, I think industry leaders are headed in the right direction. If everyone has their own set of 3-D glasses, that will solve the nuisance of disposables.
MS: I’ll give you the fact that some of the strictly logistical problems could be greatly minimized or even go away entirely with the right advancements, but I can’t shake the knowledge that the 3-D films of the past have relied on gimmicks and sight gags. I’ve seen some that were great – I seriously enjoyed Monsters vs. Aliens – but how long before 3-D becomes a crutch? Older 3-D films have featured a sparse story that is strung together with gags, where someone reaches out through the screen or a spaceship goes soaring out over the audience. I don’t need that in my movies – I’m an adult, I like the rich stories and humor and animation. I thought Kung Fu Panda, for example, was just fantastic and I really don’t need 3-D added to that, I don’t think it would make it any better.
SO: The new 3-D isn’t meant to be a gimmick – it’s meant to replicate the human sense of site and cause the viewer to become more immersed in the film. Instead of being an observer, you’re involved. You can’t judge today’s 3-D based on past work, a la Captain EO. It isn’t debris falling on your lap or rockets flying at your face, it’s action happening around you. I think they key to avoiding using 3-D as a crutch is to produce films knowing that from the onset that they are going to be in 3-D. This worked for Monsters vs. Aliens. 3-D wasn’t an after thought; it was an integral part of the film all along and it showed in the quality of the production. It felt and sounded like a DreamWorks Animation film, but visually it was richer, which kept me more engaged.
MS: But isn’t it basically a craze, a trend? Ultimately it’s kind of cool but it doesn’t feel like something that will last outside of the kid’s movie genre. And I say this as an absolute animation fanatic, utterly convinced that animated movies are for adults as well as kids. Kids will like 3-D because it’s flashy and fun, and adults will enjoy it for a while because it’s novel, but will ultimately end up longing for the days when they could just go see a movie without having to remember their 3-D glasses and the aspirin.
SO: Ten films are going to be released in 3-D this year, 15 films are scheduled for 2010, and 20 more flicks are estimated to be in the pipeline. These new releases aren’t just animated films – they are live-action thrillers and even comedies. So get ready…big-budget, grown-up 3-D films are quickly heading to a theater near you, ready to suck you in.