The 3D Divide

Reports are coming out of Hollywood that many directors are scrambling to test 3D cameras and 3D conversions in the wake of the huge revenues generated by "Avatar" and "Alice In Wonderland". The sudden incentive to learn the cameras and technologies comes from above; studio heads are pressuring their directors to either film or convert all tentpole films in 3D. Established directors like James Cameron and George Lucas have fully embraced the idea of filming in 3D. Although Cameron is fully against up-converting 2D films in 3D, Lucas has already been tinkering with the "Star Wars" films for a 3D release for years. Some younger Hollywood directors are eager for the challenge as well, as evidenced by Spike Jonze producing the newest "Jackass" film in 3D. But for other directors, the challenges of 3D are producing a notable schism between their work and that of their contemporaries. Michael Bay has been the most vocal critic of the system. As Deadline reported today, Bay is refusing to let his upcoming "Transformers 3" be up-converted to 3D for next year's release date. This might be the single most intelligent statement Bay has ever issued. As he noted, the conversion process is incomplete, degrading the images rather than enhancing them. Said Bay: "I shoot complicated stuff, I put real elements into action scenes and honestly, I am not sold right now on the conversion process." Cameron believes that up-converting 2D films will hurt more than the films done in that fashion, but will also damage the 3D movement in general. Today Cameron said the following:

Now, you€™ve got people quickly converting movies from 2D to 3D, which is not what we did. They€™re expecting the same result, when in fact they will probably work against the adoption of 3D because they€™ll be putting out an inferior product.

I doubt that the 3D revolution will be stymied by inferior 3D products as Cameron suggests. Inferior CGI films that followed "Toy Story" did not cool the interest in those types of films, and I suspect that this 3D movement will continue on without let up despite some poor 3D in the near future. As the receipts for "Alice In Wonderland" show, people will put up with inferior 3D in order to feel the experience.

But while that is great for business and the directors currently working in Hollywood, what does it mean for the independent directors outside the system? The last forty years of filmmaking have been shaped, in large part, by the stylistic innovations and creative voices of independent filmmakers. Hollywood today operates much like baseball; the farm system breeds the talent capable of eventually running the major league team. Independent filmmakers scrape together the funds and equipment necessary to produce their films. If that film garners attention, that filmmaker receives a greater opportunity until he/she rises to the top of the heap. That's the way Hollywood has been able to discover talent without risking any investment for decades, and many terrific talents have emerged from that system. The new 3D technology puts some of that system out of business, at least for the foreseeable future. The expensive and cumbersome 3D technology employed by Cameron and others is financially and technically out of the reach of most independent directors. Even if an independent director shows a promising eye in 2D, that still doesn't guarantee that he will be as adept in 3D due to the complex cinematography required to utilize depth properly. But the real problem comes with the advancement of 3D cameras into the studio system. As the technology becomes ubiquitous among the Hollywood elite, the chasm between the quality produced by the haves will greatly outgun the quality of the have-nots. This puts a tremendous strain on independent filmmakers, who are already struggling to get their films seen in the marketplace against Hollywood blockbusters. In the near future, who will want to watch a cheaply-made 2D independent film while 3D extravaganzas are playing at the multiplex - or even at home? For independent directors, this new technology is pushing them farther behind in the race every day. Hollywood's insatiable lust for extra 3D revenue might, in the long run, destroy the intricate, relatively-level playing field that provided so much talent - in other words, depth - for decades. It's time Hollywood took off their rose-colored 3D glasses about where this grand new revenue stream is leading the industry.