Digital Has Come Along Way: Death to a Career, Re-Birth of 3D Cinema

This week, I have found two significant articles focused upon the careers of two distinct filmmakers within Hollywood: James Cameron and Uwe Boll. If the latter name does not ring a bell, consider yourself lucky. Both men seem to inhabit highly contrasted positions in Hollywood as writer/producer/directors. James Cameron has won three Oscars over his illustrious career, having notably created the (arguably) most successful film to date: 1997's Titanic, for which he also received Best Picture and Best Director. Uwe Boll, on the other hand, has received two dissimilar, yet significant nominations in his career. Both were Razzies and both were for Worst Director in 2006 and 2007. He failed to win those awards for, what else, failure and has since cultivated a cult of hatred in the online film fan community. What becomes significant in my exploration of these two men is their relation to the contemporary digital film industry: Cameron, at the forefront of a potential 3D cinema revolution, and Boll who may quit filmmaking if an online petition receives one-million signatures. Ultimately, these two segments come to reflect current trends within the digital film community, and aspire to provide my personal insight on the status of both 3D cinema and the director/audience relationship.

(Please note: most links will take you a film's official website. However, some movies do not have official sites, and therefore you will be redirected to the film's IMDB page instead).

Uwe Boll Claims He is “The Only Genius in the Whole F’N Business”
Comment:
It has become, without a doubt, a new age in digitally modernized cinema when a filmmaker can put his career on the line based upon a web petition calling for his retirement. As a result, the filmmaker, Uwe Boll, has become a character as ridiculous as his own (mostly video-game adaptation) films. The German director of such cinematic atrocities as Alone in the Dark and BloodRayne has, for some time, become the laughing stock of the movie news blogosphere to those who must admit that Michael Bay, while far from becoming the next Elia Kazan, still shows talent in blowing up cars. Having never received above a 11% freshness on the premiere movie review site RottenTomatoes.com, Boll has been branded by film fans as one of the greatest hacks in the industry since Ed Wood. It must be noted here, that while none of Boll's films have received over an 11% freshness rating on RottenTomatoes, two have received a 4% (House of the Dead, BloodRayne), and his most negatively received film to date, Alone in the Dark has garnered Boll an astounding 1%.

Needless to say, the public remains astounded that Boll continues making numerous films. His IMDB page alone lists seven films which he has yet to release or will soon direct which range from the inspirationally entitled Zombie Massacre to the less than necessary BloodRayne 3. As a result to the harsh criticism Boll likely faces on a day to day basis, the German filmmaker took a stand and by way of the internet announced he would quit making movies if a recent internet petition received one million signatures. As of this morning, the petition has received 194,662 signatures. After threatening the future of his career to the excitement of film fans around the world, Boll followed up with a video response stating: “Look, I’m not a F**king retard like Michael Bay or other people running around in the business… or Eli Roth making the same shitty movies over and over again. If you really look in my movies you will see my real genius. You have to really wake up and see me what I am, the only genius in the whole f**king business.” That fact has yet to be proven.

What becomes most notable from this entire situation is that the internet has come so far and become such a significant resource to so many movie fans that one man's poor excuse of a directing career may ultimately end as a result of this online petition. Obviously, the film industry has changed with the digital revolution, and in time will continue to evolve, but there is something to be said when a man's career falls within the cross-hairs. Perhaps this is living proof that some miracles can come from a magical place called the world wide web.

James Cameron supercharges 3-D: Avatar Helmer Reveals the Art & Science of Stereo
Comment:
Thank you for this insightful post, which only confirms that the future of theatrical cinema will be (at least partially) in 3-D. I had previously written a post on my blog titled, "Immersive Entertainment: Tapping the Third Dimension," in which I approach this new 3-D renaissance from the business side. The juxtaposition of both articles reveal a significant investment both financial and creative factions of the film industry are willing to take with a new chapter of film production and exhibition. Not since the introduction of sound and color to motion pictures nearly eighty years ago have audiences and filmmakers alike stood affront the threshold of something as new and exciting as motion pictures in flawless 3-D. An experience of which filmmaker James Cameron has stated: “When you see a scene in 3-D, that sense of reality is supercharged. The visual cortex is being cued, at a subliminal but pervasive level, that what is being seen is real. All the films I've done previously could absolutely have benefited from 3-D. So creatively, I see 3-D as a natural extension of my cinematic craft.” As one of the most respected and technically savvy storytellers in Hollywood, Cameron has been on the cutting edge of 3-D since 2000, developing and filming “stereoscopic cinema” – a movement so fresh within the industry, that audience members have yet to experience it at the high frame rate level and picture resolution that Cameron views as a necessary standard of the future.

As long as the film medium has existed, its greatest artists have been able to straddle two worlds at once: that of the artistic and the technical. An art form driven by technology (unlike painting, a film needs machines to record and exhibit sound and image), digital modernization of motion pictures redefine the role of storytellers to one of not only great power, but great responsibility. James Cameron is of the latter – a man behind (arguably) the most successful film of all time, “Titanic,” who has made his career in pushing the technical envelope and now attempts to breakout of his twelve year fiction filmmaking hiatus with Avatar. If Cameron can recreate the wheel with his investment in the future of 3-D cinema, then Avatar (a sci-fi action epic right up Cameron’s alley) could be stereo cinema’s model T Ford.

Obviously, in an age where the average film production cost has risen to nearly sixty million per feature, it would be impossible for 3-D cinema to gain significant ground and become a theatrical exhibition standard without support from both groups. While my article focuses on Real D CEO Michael Lewis and his corporate penetration of the film industry from the point of exhibition, James Cameron’s interview becomes both technically complex (when he discusses the role a filmmaker may have on reconfiguring an image’s depth based upon convergence) as well as conscious of the limits to which 3D should be used (as a storytelling tool that envelops the audiences) rather than pure spectacle.

The eloquence of James Cameron throughout this interview, in both technological and filmic terminology, provides a reader with insight into both the physical science behind capturing performances in 3-D, and his own philosophy behind the filmmaker's relationship with this new technology. Cameron states: "The point here is that just because you're making a stereo movie doesn't mean that stereo is the most important thing in every shot or sequence.” Rather, Cameron knows, great storytelling of the future should never be an afterthought of 3-D cinema, but rather a partner of technical achievement, that, when left in the right hands will enhance the movie experience.

Immersive Entertainment: Tapping the Third Dimension

This year's box-office performance has been nothing exciting in what Variety's Dave McNary has deemed a "solid rather that spectacular" first quarter for Hollywood. While his March 27th article points to a modern theater-going slump, and states: "if were it not for the standout $64 million perf of tween concert fave Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus: Best of Both Worlds, 2008 would trail last year's total." That film was one of only two 3D pictures this quarter (the second was U2 3D) and has already shown the widespread popularity cutting-edge 3D image polarization technology has on audiences around the country. Ultimately, the imminent switch to 3D movies, which Hollywood insiders suggest, could be sooner than anyone would have expected. 3D cinema has become the potential next step for cinema as movie exhibitors, in competition with home theater technology, face the necessity to once again redefine the movie-going experience.

Thus far, the only company to spearhead an affordable modification of the 3D experience has been Real D. With the acquisition of a company called Sterographics in 2005, Real D took the reigns of technologies that had been in "the high-end 3D visualization market for about thirty years." Before Real D came on the scene, Sterographics had provided their technology for NASA, the US military, and various Fortune 5000 companies with the intent to recreate the three dimensional illusion which the human eye sees every day. Presenting a new age of 3D experience to Hollywood in an affordable way, Real D hopes to redefine the standard of a theater-going experience, which should double-handedly drive audiences back to the theaters and do away with piracy (one will only see a blurry image without the glasses). In an interview with ComingSoon.net's Edward Douglas, Real D CEO Michael Lewis illustrates the current status of 3D cinema as it emerges into the mainstream: "People have been using the word 'game change' or 'biggest thing since color and sound.'" Lewis and Real D have thus far appealed to both the executives and artists within Hollywood, who view 3D technology as audience attraction and more importantly, storytelling tool. Lewis states, "We spend a lot of time with filmmakers. [...] It's about them wanting to tell their story in a new way." Providing filmmakers with the tools necessary to not only shoot, but conceptualize storytelling in a third dimension, Real D and Lewis have come to bridge the gap that once held filmmakers and 3D at odds: "We provide a lot of visualization technology so they can actually see what they're producing. Eyewear, different things, while you're shooting, so you can see what's going on." To appeal to studio executives, who would ultimately make the final decision and greenlight new 3D projects in the works, Lewis focused to get their foot in the door by reinforcing the idea that if 3D is a wave of the future, then the future is now: "We spent a lot of time doing outreach with directors, producers, production personnel, and we do a lot of 3D 101 classes." While the prospect of this new technology sounds promising, the struggle for 3D to find its place in Hollywood has been a long and arduous journey.

Although the origins of 3D or steroscopic motion pictures date back to British film pioneer William Friese-Greene in the 1890s, cumbersome techniques and expensive technology failed to impact the theater-going experience. Hollywood found other technological modifications profitable, such as sync sound and color and 3D failed to permeate mass appeal because the images were often times blurry, rough around the edges, or layered out of sync; obstructing the storytelling rather than strengthening it. Most audiences were introduced to 3D movies was in the form of anaglyph images during Hollywood's Golden Era, which ranged from the end of silent pictures in the late 1920s to the introduction of television in the 1950s. The low-end anaglyphic process, in which an audience member would view two independently tinted imagines (often one blue and one red) through two color glasses (with each lens a different color, corresponding to the two projected images), was considered the most feasible of its time, but nevertheless fell into obscurity when the dual coloration became too much of a distraction for audience members. This process also required the use of two projectors to layer both colored images on screen and in sync, which cost exhibitors nearly double the price of using the common single projector per film reel. Rather than 3D, film studios and exhibitors looked to cheaper, more profitable modifications that would also strive towards a more immersive experience for audiences such as CinemaScope and THX surround sound. Unfortunately, like Smell-O-Vision in the 1960s, it seemed that 3D would merely remain an artifact of ancient cinema practices. That is, until someone could work the kinks out of the flawed anaglyphic technique.

Today, it is hard to imagine future movie theaters without a three dimensional component. Projections highlight the dwindling incentive audiences face as home theaters become bigger, better, and cheaper as the main driving force. However, such 3D developments may do more for the film industry than make it money - it could change filmmaking forever. Currently slated as the next major development with every studio on board, Michael Lewis states of Real D, "We have all the big blockbusters over the next couple of years. 30 3D films I think have been announced over the next three years or in production, and some of the big movies, but I think you will see an expansion to a much broader audience." Lewis also suggests that once young filmmakers get their hands on this new technology, an entirely new generation of depth oriented storytelling will emerge. The modifications Real D had to take in order to capitalize on 3D where others had failed came with a polarization process that separated each stereo image, while maintaining the image's true colors and sharp edges. Utilizing groundbreaking digital technology, Real D uses the same principals of anaglyphic projection but rather than tinting each image in either red or blue, one image is projected with normal light and the other is tinted in a polarizing filter that is also shaded on one of the lenses of the glasses. As a result, each eye picks up a different image and the brain combines them into a single 3D illusion. Real D and Lewis are far from complete in converting all theaters and filmmakers to the process, but believe a new trend has already begun.

While computer animation, such as Pixar's Finding Nemo, is created in a 3D digital atmosphere already, the transformation to 3D takes some time, money and conversion of techniques, but it is nevertheless profitable. Disney has already released the 2007 hit Meet the Robinsons in 3D along with a reissue of Tim Burton's The Nightmare Before Christmas, while DreamWorks Animation has announced a devotion to producing all animated films in 3D beginning in 2009. The hardest, and newest of all Real D 3D filmmaking remains in live action, which will debut its third movie (Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus: Best of Both Worlds and U2 3D being the first and second) Journey to the Center of the Earth 3D in the Summer - Real D's first live action narrative feature. That film, along with last year's Robert Zemeckis directed Beowulf has already received rave reviews purely based in the storytelling capabilities that Real D has been able to provide filmmakers. Thus far, such early films have been more revered in the spectacle they present than the stories, but this nevertheless excites one to think what could be expected from Academy Award winning writer/director James Cameron's Avatar in 2009. While great feats have been accomplished in the reemergence of 3D cinema in only a few years, Lewis suggests this is only the beginning for 3D and a new immersive experience: "Eventually, it will go to no glasses. We're working on that." I can't wait!