3D Yet Again
04/May/10 07:31 PM
OK, I promise that this
will be the last 3D post for a while. Since I left
this subject six weeks ago, the world has gone cuckoo
about 3D filmmaking and whether it should even exist.
1) Should any films at all be exhibited in 3D?
It’s a moot question. Scorsese is shooting his next film in 3D. Studios are making more money based on increased ticket prices. Electronics manufacturers are ramping up 3D TV. Lots of loot at stake and there are very few naysayers. In fact, some scripts are perfect for the format. And if the filmmakers have high integrity, and plan and shoot with a 3D workflow, then let technology be unleashed! Should most films be made in this format? No.
Roger Ebert v. James Cameron. Is there a middle ground? Will there be a victor or a draw?
2) If so, what kind of films should be shown/made in 3D? Are some genres more amenable than others?
Some animated, some science fiction and fantasy, some horror, some comedy...the key modifier is some. Storytelling must rule all decisions. Is the film more dramatic, funnier, more suspenseful if 3D is employed? I even buy that some films could simply “look cooler,” mostly in the CGI realm. Shots of things coming out at you or flying through clouds or over water are fine when used occasionally in already gimmicky films. Otherwise, let’s use 3D to enhance reality and draw us into a world and story that stands on its own. Just as music and sound mixing transport us to either a more realistic representation of our environment or a fantastical world we had never heard of before, 3D should work hand in hand with the other key elements of the film to boost the artistic intent of the director.
3) Should 3D films always be shot in 3D and taking 3D production standards into account? Or is it alright to convert a 2D film into 3D during post?
Yes, prep, shoot, and post in 3D! Not only does this process ensure that the finished product will not look awful, it forces the filmmakers to think about their intent in using 3D. Plan what you are going to enhance/feature using 3D. How will the story change using this format? Are script changes needed? Are we using the right DP, Production Designer, etc.? Exactly what workflow makes sense, rather than simply being expeditious?
All this said, I do believe that on rare occasion there might be the perfect project for post production conversion. It also depends on the capability of the post house performing the conversion....I wager there are at least 10 today and more by year’s end. Like all filmmaking, there are some that are cheaper, faster, lower quality. Studios, producers--if you want people to keep attending 3D screenings, use the best quality houses for post conversion. And use very sparingly.
4) What are the economic ramifications of 3D popularity? Is there an impact besides higher BO and increased studio revenues?
The obvious answer is higher revenue and possibly greater profits for the studios and other key players. To be realistic, it’s a complex equation. There are increased costs during prep, production, and post, depending on how you create the final 3D film. Exhibitors must spend in order to retrofit/build/enhance their facilities.
Since some theater capacity is being cannibalized by 3D conversions, 2D films have fewer screens to be shown on. Dramatic/indie/adult films especially are/will be impacted.
5) Should editors and editorial teams be studying 3D workflows? What resources are out there? When should we get involved in the 3D production/post process?
This question gets a separate blog entry. Lots to serve up. Stay tuned. Or DVR me.
Top questions:
1) Should any films at all be exhibited in 3D?
It’s a moot question. Scorsese is shooting his next film in 3D. Studios are making more money based on increased ticket prices. Electronics manufacturers are ramping up 3D TV. Lots of loot at stake and there are very few naysayers. In fact, some scripts are perfect for the format. And if the filmmakers have high integrity, and plan and shoot with a 3D workflow, then let technology be unleashed! Should most films be made in this format? No.
Roger Ebert v. James Cameron. Is there a middle ground? Will there be a victor or a draw?
2) If so, what kind of films should be shown/made in 3D? Are some genres more amenable than others?
Some animated, some science fiction and fantasy, some horror, some comedy...the key modifier is some. Storytelling must rule all decisions. Is the film more dramatic, funnier, more suspenseful if 3D is employed? I even buy that some films could simply “look cooler,” mostly in the CGI realm. Shots of things coming out at you or flying through clouds or over water are fine when used occasionally in already gimmicky films. Otherwise, let’s use 3D to enhance reality and draw us into a world and story that stands on its own. Just as music and sound mixing transport us to either a more realistic representation of our environment or a fantastical world we had never heard of before, 3D should work hand in hand with the other key elements of the film to boost the artistic intent of the director.
3) Should 3D films always be shot in 3D and taking 3D production standards into account? Or is it alright to convert a 2D film into 3D during post?
Yes, prep, shoot, and post in 3D! Not only does this process ensure that the finished product will not look awful, it forces the filmmakers to think about their intent in using 3D. Plan what you are going to enhance/feature using 3D. How will the story change using this format? Are script changes needed? Are we using the right DP, Production Designer, etc.? Exactly what workflow makes sense, rather than simply being expeditious?
All this said, I do believe that on rare occasion there might be the perfect project for post production conversion. It also depends on the capability of the post house performing the conversion....I wager there are at least 10 today and more by year’s end. Like all filmmaking, there are some that are cheaper, faster, lower quality. Studios, producers--if you want people to keep attending 3D screenings, use the best quality houses for post conversion. And use very sparingly.
4) What are the economic ramifications of 3D popularity? Is there an impact besides higher BO and increased studio revenues?
The obvious answer is higher revenue and possibly greater profits for the studios and other key players. To be realistic, it’s a complex equation. There are increased costs during prep, production, and post, depending on how you create the final 3D film. Exhibitors must spend in order to retrofit/build/enhance their facilities.
Since some theater capacity is being cannibalized by 3D conversions, 2D films have fewer screens to be shown on. Dramatic/indie/adult films especially are/will be impacted.
5) Should editors and editorial teams be studying 3D workflows? What resources are out there? When should we get involved in the 3D production/post process?
This question gets a separate blog entry. Lots to serve up. Stay tuned. Or DVR me.
Of interest:
- “Making 3D is easy, but making good 3D is hard.”
- “Bad 3D will sour consumers on the experience.”
- Jeffrey Katzenberg regarding quality.
- No glasses needed. Quality, cost probably not there yet, but once it is...
Comments
3D Debate Continued
23/March/10 03:06 PM
Since I last commented
about 3D and its permanence, artistry, and the like,
an amazing number of filmmakers, producers, studios
have all convinced themselves that 3D is indeed, THE
FUTURE. (Of course, AVATAR’s cash hoard helped.) But
what about 3D that’s been converted from 2D? Last
year, I toured a facility in Burbank that helped
pioneer this process, and was mildly impressed. The
sports footage they showed me was fairly well
integrated, but I can also imagine what happens
during a rush process. Apparently many of the
quickies end up with very distinctly visible layers
as the result. Certainly, if I plunk down my largish
wad of cold hard cash at a theater, I want really
good 3D. Preferably, for me,
I want 3D that doesn’t call attention to itself; I
just want it to enhance
the terrific movie I’m
watching, as an epic soundtrack would.
Here’s an interesting “conversation” between some huge directors and producers:
http://www.movieline.com/2010/03/michael-bay-avatar-producer-ensnared-in-great-3d-conversion-battle-of-2010.php
Here’s an interesting “conversation” between some huge directors and producers:
http://www.movieline.com/2010/03/michael-bay-avatar-producer-ensnared-in-great-3d-conversion-battle-of-2010.php
Academy Awards...The Numbers
25/February/10 11:38 AM
Interesting stuff...are the Oscars worth it? Do they
mean something? How are editors that have won been
affected?
(Courtesy http://www.businesspundit.com).
(Courtesy http://www.businesspundit.com).
TV's Golden Age
17/February/10 11:11 AM
There are many industry insiders as well as critics,
culture “experts”, and others that maintain that the
Golden Age of TV occurred during the (pick one) a)
1950s, b) 1980s, or c) 1960s. I beg to differ.
Certainly, great work appeared on the then little
square box during those time periods, as it has at
all times if one searched carefully enough. Highbrow,
lowbrow, and in-between; there is always
something worthwhile out there.
But, I do believe that we are now in a New Golden Age. Yes, of TV. I know, I know....reality TV, mindless game shows, franchised dramas that spawn copies after countless copies. Lots of crud, true. But, I submit:
LOST
MAD MEN
DAMAGES
CHUCK
GLEE
BREAKING BAD
FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS
HEROES (Season One)
THE COMEBACK (DVD-Watch it!)
DEXTER
TORCHWOOD
ENTOURAGE (Guilty pleasure.)
FLIGHT OF THE CONCHORDS
MODERN FAMILY
PUSHING DAISIES
WEEDS
30 ROCK
STUDIO 60 (I stand by it!)
And I’m sure there are more that I’m forgetting or have ended their runs. The key ingredients that bind these shows together are razor sharp writing, cinematic photography and editing, building and continuing stories, and superb acting. When I watch these shows, I feel like I’m watching parts of films, or even at times, entire features. Cable has created so many niches, that it’s possible to have great filmed entertainment alongside the lesser, mass consumed stuff. Bravo, New Golden Age!
But, I do believe that we are now in a New Golden Age. Yes, of TV. I know, I know....reality TV, mindless game shows, franchised dramas that spawn copies after countless copies. Lots of crud, true. But, I submit:
LOST
MAD MEN
DAMAGES
CHUCK
GLEE
BREAKING BAD
FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS
HEROES (Season One)
THE COMEBACK (DVD-Watch it!)
DEXTER
TORCHWOOD
ENTOURAGE (Guilty pleasure.)
FLIGHT OF THE CONCHORDS
MODERN FAMILY
PUSHING DAISIES
WEEDS
30 ROCK
STUDIO 60 (I stand by it!)
And I’m sure there are more that I’m forgetting or have ended their runs. The key ingredients that bind these shows together are razor sharp writing, cinematic photography and editing, building and continuing stories, and superb acting. When I watch these shows, I feel like I’m watching parts of films, or even at times, entire features. Cable has created so many niches, that it’s possible to have great filmed entertainment alongside the lesser, mass consumed stuff. Bravo, New Golden Age!
Congrats!
02/February/10 11:06 AM
Oscar time! Congratulations to the Editing nominees:
"Avatar" (20th Century Fox) Stephen Rivkin, John Refoua and James Cameron
"District 9" (Sony Pictures Releasing) Julian Clarke
"The Hurt Locker" (Summit Entertainment) Bob Murawski and Chris Innis
"Inglourious Basterds" (The Weinstein Company) Sally Menke
"Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire" (Lionsgate) Joe Klotz
"Avatar" (20th Century Fox) Stephen Rivkin, John Refoua and James Cameron
"District 9" (Sony Pictures Releasing) Julian Clarke
"The Hurt Locker" (Summit Entertainment) Bob Murawski and Chris Innis
"Inglourious Basterds" (The Weinstein Company) Sally Menke
"Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire" (Lionsgate) Joe Klotz
New Decade, Part 2
29/January/10 07:22 PM
So, to be exact, 29 days into 2010...and still:
Sundance is about swag.
I’ve never made it to Sundance, even though I produced a short in Slamdance in 2009.
The ability to smell a book beats an E-Reader by a furlong.
iPad. 4:3 screen! Do we live in 1986?
LOST last season starts Tuesday. Repeat. Hope for resolutions.
Sundance is about swag.
I’ve never made it to Sundance, even though I produced a short in Slamdance in 2009.
The ability to smell a book beats an E-Reader by a furlong.
iPad. 4:3 screen! Do we live in 1986?
LOST last season starts Tuesday. Repeat. Hope for resolutions.
A Month Into 2010
28/January/10 02:07 PM
A month into 2010 and...
It’s still not easier to find good food near post facilities.
Conan is enjoying a long vacation...relax, man.
Congress is, if possible, more broken.
Creating something from nothing is still very cool. CGI animation, a tasty meal indeed!
Not enough rain in LA. Dry skin. Nothing new...it IS a desert after all.
iPad?! No camera, front or back?! I told you so...
Four thru zero, tomorrow. Promise.
The Great 3D Debate
21/January/10 12:11 PM
So what about 3D? Is this a game changer? Will it
take over the industry? Will audiences expect films
like THE LAST STATION to someday
be shot/presented in 3D? Or will it remain a
niche? Or go away nearly completely, as it has
in previous industry cycles?
HD was the last tech innovation that transformed our industry. I think in 2009 it finally became a mainstream fixture. Consumers adopted it in droves and most content is being planned with an eventual HD release in mind. It makes sense. After all, TV certainly never reflected the images from film accurately. Even most content shot for TV looked crappy on TV. And of course film on VHS and even DVD was a horrific wound inflicted on filmmakers for years. So HD made sense and the evolving upgrade of the picture viewing experience will continue to go forward.
But 3D? Is it inherent in life? Well of course. We see in a resolution far greater than HD and we see and live in three dimensions. So should it be inherent in our visual entertainment? I don’t know the answer. Personally, I think 3D is fine and fun in certain films. Would AVATAR still be a compelling movie without the technical innovation? Would it have collected the BO loot that it has if not for the visual wizardry? Again, I don’t know. Will 3D at home, on your TV, be something you will harken to soon? Eventually? Only when you don’t need glasses anymore?
Or, is there another “innovation” that will catch the public’s imagination instead of 3D? Anything new coming up? Ultra HD? Films that allow each person to make true choices within the story, so that each person’s experience is personalized?
HD was the last tech innovation that transformed our industry. I think in 2009 it finally became a mainstream fixture. Consumers adopted it in droves and most content is being planned with an eventual HD release in mind. It makes sense. After all, TV certainly never reflected the images from film accurately. Even most content shot for TV looked crappy on TV. And of course film on VHS and even DVD was a horrific wound inflicted on filmmakers for years. So HD made sense and the evolving upgrade of the picture viewing experience will continue to go forward.
But 3D? Is it inherent in life? Well of course. We see in a resolution far greater than HD and we see and live in three dimensions. So should it be inherent in our visual entertainment? I don’t know the answer. Personally, I think 3D is fine and fun in certain films. Would AVATAR still be a compelling movie without the technical innovation? Would it have collected the BO loot that it has if not for the visual wizardry? Again, I don’t know. Will 3D at home, on your TV, be something you will harken to soon? Eventually? Only when you don’t need glasses anymore?
Or, is there another “innovation” that will catch the public’s imagination instead of 3D? Anything new coming up? Ultra HD? Films that allow each person to make true choices within the story, so that each person’s experience is personalized?
Blast Off
20/January/10 02:51 PM
Hey there.
It’s LA and it’s raining. A good day to reflect on top of mind kind of stuff. Career, the final LOST season, special elections... well, 2 out of 3 happy topics on a rainy day is pretty good.
Hmmm...career. I love the business I work in. Every morning I feel like a little kid, in line for Space Mountain! And I love working with enthused people. The kind that bounce off walls when they trim two frames or find the perfect song for a scene or just drink “too much” coffee.
I love mixing it up too. Cutting picture is a blast! Being an assistant is a blast! Compositing shots is a blast! Anything in post is a blast. Some people might say no, you have to do one job only, pick one. I say why, when you enjoy it all and are good at it all? Ultimately it’s about a great story, tight acting, and excellent craftsmanship. If you perform at 112% and can help tell the story that the director envisioned, then all is good with the world and you can go home at 2AM with a smile on your worn out mug!
It’s LA and it’s raining. A good day to reflect on top of mind kind of stuff. Career, the final LOST season, special elections... well, 2 out of 3 happy topics on a rainy day is pretty good.
Hmmm...career. I love the business I work in. Every morning I feel like a little kid, in line for Space Mountain! And I love working with enthused people. The kind that bounce off walls when they trim two frames or find the perfect song for a scene or just drink “too much” coffee.
I love mixing it up too. Cutting picture is a blast! Being an assistant is a blast! Compositing shots is a blast! Anything in post is a blast. Some people might say no, you have to do one job only, pick one. I say why, when you enjoy it all and are good at it all? Ultimately it’s about a great story, tight acting, and excellent craftsmanship. If you perform at 112% and can help tell the story that the director envisioned, then all is good with the world and you can go home at 2AM with a smile on your worn out mug!