NY Times April 3, 2010
Growing Conversion of Movies to 3-D Draws Mixed Reactions
By BROOKS BARNES
LOS ANGELES — For weeks, Hollywood has sat in judgment of a last-second decision by Warner Brothers to convert its two-dimensional “Clash of the Titans” into 3-D after filming was finished. James Cameron cried sacrilege, Michael Bay said such quickie conversions resulted in “fake 3-D” and fanboy bloggers lambasted Warner and urged people to skip it.
But what about regular moviegoers — would they even notice anything amiss with the movie’s 3-D?
It’s no small question for Hollywood. With at least 70 movies in the 3-D pipeline — including many similar conversion projects — studios and theater owners are betting heavily that audiences will snap up increasingly expensive 3-D tickets. Mr. Cameron, whose “Avatar” sparked this fervor by racking up nearly $2.7 billion in global ticket sales, fretted to Deadline.com that Warner is “expecting the same result, when in fact they will probably work against the adoption of 3-D, because they’ll be putting out an inferior product.”
“Clash of the Titans,” a $122 million remake of the campy 1981 original, opened in wide release on Friday, and early feedback indicates that Joe and Jane Moviegoer don’t really see what all the fuss is about. Indeed, despite the negative media coverage of the film, box office forecasters say the picture is on track to sell between $60 million and $70 million in tickets by Monday — a very robust result.
“I thought the 3-D quality was really good,” said Eric Shimp as he left a showing of “Clash of the Titans” at the AMC Century City 15 in Los Angeles. Mr. Shimp, who works in the automotive industry, added, “The ticket prices are ridiculous, but it does leave you feeling like you’ve just seen a spectacle.”
Sharle Kochman, a cosmetologist, said as she left the theater that she thought the 3-D quality was on a par with “Avatar,” and Lauren Shotwell, a music executive, said she noticed none of the tell-tale signs of a 3-D conversion: blurriness, double images (called “ghosting”), flat backgrounds. “During the computer-generated parts the 3-D looked totally fine,” Ms. Shotwell said.
Twitter feedback was more mixed, with seemingly regular folks squaring off against the geekier variety. “ ‘Clash of the Titans’ in 3D was a great movie had fun,” wrote TaliaMenacho. Radharc countered: “Now that ‘Clash of the Titans’ is actually out I can finally say that whatever you do, see it in 2D. The post conversion to 3D isn’t too hot.”
Many directors are wary.
“The tidal wave of rush-job post-conversions to 3-D worries me, as it does a lot of filmmakers, because the results are often sketchy and nowhere near as immersive as in-camera 3-D photography,” said Shawn Levy, the director of “Night at the Museum” and the coming comedy “Date Night,” starring Tina Fey and Steve Carell. “Filmmakers have to resist the current frenzy for all things 3-D in order to first assess whether the movie’s tone and subject matter organically benefit from it.,”
It remains too early to tell whether audiences will rebel at 3-D (“Avatar”) and what some experts are calling 3-D Lite (movies shot the normal way and converted afterward). More tea leaves will be available next weekend. If interest in the 3-D version of “Clash of the Titans” drops sharply, analysts will view that as a signal of negative word of mouth. It’s entirely possible, of course, that audiences will complain about the 3-D when they really just didn’t like the story.
Another movie shot in 2-D and converted later — Walt Disney’s “Alice in Wonderland” — certainly did not suffer at the box office, selling about $663 million in tickets worldwide.
The worry, as Mr. Cameron noted, is that studios will quickly train consumers to be more selective when it comes to 3-D, especially as ticket prices rise. Last week, several large movie theater chains lifted 3-D ticket prices 15 to 25 percent. As a result, many moviegoers in cities like New York and Los Angeles will now pay $19.50 each to see certain 3-D screenings. Typically, theaters charge an extra $3 to $5 for tickets to 3-D movies.
Studios, eager to chase 3-D revenue as DVD sales continue to decline, are scrambling to release as many movies in the format as they can, lest the current appetite for 3-D proves as ephemeral as the last one. The film business became fascinated with 3-D in the 1950s, only to watch its popularity die as audiences balked at the bulky glasses and jerky, stomach-churning camera movements.
The latest 3-D technology is supposed to be new and improved; at least that is how Hollywood has sold it to audiences. Digital projectors deliver precision images, eliminating headaches and nausea, while plastic glasses have replaced the cardboard. Most important, say filmmakers, new equipment allows movies to be built in 3-D from the ground up, providing a more immersive and realistic viewing experience, not one based just on occasional visual gimmicks.
But nearly every studio is now considering shortcuts. At 20th Century Fox a 3-D conversion of the coming “Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader” is being weighed. Warner Brothers will convert both halves of its upcoming “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.” Mr. Bay has said that Paramount is pressuring him to give his third “Transformers” installment the treatment.
Conversion costs anywhere from $5 million to $30 million a movie, depending on the complexity.
Technology companies say the conversion process is being unfairly judged.
“I kind of rolled my eyes at first, but once I saw the tests I was really startled at how good this can look,” said Rob Hummel, chief executive of Prime Focus North America, which retrofitted “Clash of the Titans.”
“We’re not the only ones who think that,” he added. “Our phone is ringing off the hook with 911 calls from studios to do conversions.”
Prime Focus introduced its conversion technology in July. Although the process is complex and largely proprietary, it involves computer software that determines which objects are in front of others — Actor A is walking in front of Actor B. The image in front is then digitally brought even farther forward.
Jim Dorey, editor of Marketsaw.com, a blog devoted to the medium, ultimately thinks the quickie “Clash” conversion was a mistake. But unlike many technophiles he is not closing the door on the retrofitting process.
“If the right money is spent and you take your time, then native 3-D and converted 3-D can both be exceptional,” Mr. Dorey said. “Even when it’s not very well done I suspect most consumers will find it passable.”
