By Scott Bowles, USA TODAY
The nation's largest gathering of movie theater owners has changed names, but the debate remains the same.
By Blue Sky Studios, 20th Century Fox
Soaring expectations: The 3-D animated Rio hits theaters April 15.
By Blue Sky Studios, 20th Century Fox
Soaring expectations: The 3-D animated Rio hits theaters April 15.
2-D or not 2-D?
That question ? whether movies are worth the multimillion-dollar investment to become three-dimensional ? has split filmmakers, studio executives and the 6,000 exhibitors who gather in Las Vegasevery year to talk show business.
Lately, though, business has been off. Last year marked the second-lowest attendance since 1995.
And this year pales compared with last. Revenues are at $2.2 billion, down 19% from the same period last year. Attendance is off more sharply; Americans have purchased 272 million movie tickets so far this year, about 20% fewer than the 341 million they purchased the first three months of 2010, according to Hollywood.com.
The numbers, and the ground that exhibitors must make up this summer, could provide a solemn tone to the normally jovial CinemaCon convention, formerly called ShoWest, which begins today. Where exhibitors once spent days sampling popcorn flavors and stadium seats, more attendees will be debating how to get moviegoers back into seats.
Many believe the key lies in the third dimension. Some of the summer's highest-profile films, including Rio, Transformersand the final Harry Potter, will feature 3-D.
"Quite simply, a filmmaker who can design and tell his story with 3-D tools can present an exceptional experience," says Jeffrey Katzenberg, head of DreamWorks Animation, whose studio will release Kung Fu Panda 2 in 3-D. "That's what the audience wants."
Others aren't so sure.
"The novelty has worn off," says Anne Thompson of the blog Thompson on Hollywood. "Filmmakers used it as a gimmick, and audiences got smart about it. That's why you're seeing dwindling returns."
Indeed, the luster seems to have faded from the technology, at least this year. The 3-D animated film Mars Needs Moms and Nicolas Cage's 3-D action picture Drive Angry were mediocre performers at best. Only one 3-D movie, Rango, has crossed $100 million.
Analysts also wonder whether the premium prices for 3-D, which routinely eclipse $15 a ticket, dissuade moviegoers.
"The investment hasn't been matching the return," says Brandon Gray, president of Box Office Mojo.
The result has been marked differences over how to affordably deliver 3-D movies, now viewable on about a fifth of the nation's 40,000 movie screens.
Some say studios should focus on cutting costs by converting more 2-D movies to 3-D. Opponents, many of them filmmakers, counter that the only worthy 3-D movie is one shot that way.
"The short answer is we did too much with technology that wasn't ready for prime time," says director Michael Bay, whose Transformers: Dark of the Moon was shot digitally, in 3-D and on traditional 35mm film.
"Studios are turning everything they can into 3-D without considering whether it should be done at all," he says. "We're already wearing the experience out."
Conversion controversy
That seemed impossible a year ago, when James Cameron's 3-D epic Avatar sailed past Titanicto become the highest-grossing movie of all time at $761 million. And despite last year's attendance slide, seven of the 12 top-grossing movies had 3-D scenes.
"We continue to see spectacular growth at the box office," Katzenberg says.
But Jeff Bock of Exhibitor Relations says that because more movies are featuring 3-D, they're claiming a larger share of the box office. "That doesn't mean people are showing up for the 3-D."
That growth has been a divisive issue for directors and studios, who differ on how great the public appetite is for the technology, particularly when a film initially shot on film is converted to 3-D. Converted movies such as Clash of the Titans, The Last Airbender and Piranha 3-D garnered barbs last year from fans and reviewers for 3-D that was dark, unfocused and devoid of much reason to exist.
Studio executives concede that the rush to convert pictures has made audiences savvy ? and skeptical.
"3-D has to be an additive," says 20th Century Fox chief Tom Rothman. "Fans know good 3-D, and the saying is still true: You can serve no wine before its time."
Yet those in the conversion business have been flooded with calls from studios looking to cash in on the 3-D craze and convert a movie in eight or nine weeks ? a rush job in the industry.
"We get a lot of 911 calls," says Barry Sandrew, founder of Legend 3D, a 3-D conversion company that worked on Alice in Wonderland and The Green Hornet and began as a color-conversion firm.
The steep conversion costs ? from $30,000 to $200,000 a minute to hand-draw on individual film frames ? has drawn fly-by-night competition, Sandrew says.
"Conversion companies are coming out of the woodwork," he says. "Studios are trying them out. More often than not, they don't work out that well."
And they can tarnish conversion's reputation, says Legend 3D president Rob Hummel. He notes that Avatar included several converted 3-D shots and says that when conversion is done well, "it's indistinguishable" from natively shot 3-D.
"It's an art form. You're not going to get a good 3-D conversion if you only allow eight or nine weeks for the process."
High hopes
But even there, filmmakers and studios disagree over what's acceptable technology. Katzenberg, who became an outspoken proponent after seeing 2004's The Polar Express, remains a skeptic of conversion.
While conversion quality "has gotten better, it's still not in the same league at all" with films shot in 3-D, which requires a minimum of two advanced cameras, he says.
"Movies that are conceived and authored in 3-D simply have a higher degree of quality."
Not always, Bay counters.
"Look, there are simply some movies that shouldn't be shot in 3-D," he says. "It doesn't add anything."
But when it does, Bay is a 3-D booster. No stranger to eight-figure film budgets, Bay says that studios need to make the financial commitment to 3-D instead of doing clean-up work.
"It's different, shooting in 3-D," Bay says. "You need more cameras. You need different sets. It needs to be a forethought. Right now, studios are treating it as an afterthought."
Directors also need convincing, Bay says. Several months before Avatar was released, Bay says, Cameron invited Bay to the Avatar set. Shot primarily with computer-generated backdrops, the set consisted of bare walls, green screens and rows of computers.
"I first thought, 'This is a fad. And a pain in the ass,' " Bay says.
Then he began shooting the third Transformers film in 3-D, with a reported budget north of $200 million.
"It isn't cheap, but it shouldn't be," Bay says. "What I love is you really can create new worlds. But you have to commit to it. Fans are right to be more skeptical of it now."
It's not just fans. Some theater owners, particularly those who run independent chains, balk at the idea of renovating in this economy. Most 3-D screens include stadium seating and digital projectors, which alone routinely run more than $100,000 apiece.
"I think down the road, we'll do it because everyone else will," says Ernest Reyes, manager of two Star theaters in El Paso County, Texas. "But it's not cheap, and you want to know this investment is worth the time and money."
It's a far cry from the exotic popcorn and plush seats of a few years go, Bock says.
"There's a lot riding on what happens next with 3-D. Whether they want to be or not, the movie industry is all in on this one."
Nikki Reed Jessica Simpson Ashlee Simpson Amanda Marcum Rachel Hunter
No comments:
Post a Comment