Hi-Def 3-D: New Hope or New Hype?

In the early 1950s, the movie industry was losing audiences to television, and it needed something amazing to bring people back to theaters. Then, June 18, 1952, Hollywood premiered the "Bwana Devil" starring Robert Stack, which was the first full-length feature film in 3-D released in the United States. Reviewers panned the movie, but in 3-D it was critic proof, and audiences came out in droves. "Bwana Devil" grossed an incredible $95,000 in just two theaters the first week it was out. "Variety" then hailed 3-D as "the next big thing," and soon every studio had a 3-D movie in development.

Sound familiar? These days 3-D, this time in Hi-Def digital video, is being hyped as the next big thing, as well as the savior of the movie business. Can Hi-Def 3-D truly bring people back to movie theaters, or is it just another hyped-up gimmick that a desperate industry is pushing?

"Bwana Devil" was released in 1952 as the first 3-D feature film.

At this year's ShoWest convention, DreamWorks Animation CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg preached the wonders of 3-D loudly. He proclaimed it as "nothing less than the greatest innovation that has happened for all of us in the movie business since the advent of color 70 years ago." He also told the "L.A. Times" that making a movie on 3-D will add $15 million to the budget. However, with people coming out in droves to see these movies coupled with higher ticket prices, 3-D films should easily recoup, he said.

As David M. Halbfinger reported in "The New York Times," theaters can charge $5 more in ticket prices for a 3-D movie, and "Beowulf," which received poor reviews, reportedly grossed more in 3-D than it did in its regular format (Tom's Games review of Beowulf). The article also listed 19 3-D movies that will be released in the next two years including "Journey to the Center of the Earth" (coming this July 11), DreamWorks' "Monsters Vs. Aliens," Robert Zemeckis' animated version of "A Christmas Carol" and James Cameron's long awaited follow up to "Titanic," the science fiction opus "Avatar."

Several sources I contacted for this story blew HD 3-D off as a gimmick, but didn't want to be identified because in the filmmaking community, hi-def is a "political hot potato." As one Hollywood insider told me, "I think HD is a real mixed bag at this point, especially in terms of resolution, dynamic range and archival implications [preservation and restoration]."

And 3-D? Don't get this Hollywood veteran started. "We've seen at least two or three prior attempts to convince audiences that this novelty format is the 'wave of the future,' so you'll have to excuse me if I remain a skeptic. I've certainly noticed the advances in 3-D technology, but I'm not the type of viewer who necessarily wants to be 'immersed' in a motion picture, and I don't feel that any form of technical razzle-dazzle is a substitute for a solid script, a good cast, artful cinematography, and so on," the Hollywood insider source said. "I can assure you that more than a few artists in the industry agree with me on these issues, but are loath to speak out for fear of alienating the big manufacturers, who obviously have a clear stake in selling the hype."

James Cameron, who always loves to push the envelope with new technology, would certainly disagree. Cameron recently wrote an article for "HDVideoPro Magazine" about why he's gone digital, called "Cameron's Crusade," and he swears he'll never go back to film.

Simon Wakelin, editor of "HDVideoPro," said referring to Cameron, "he's really focused on capturing great resolution with the camera."

"Cameron is really happy that it's as good, if not better than film. He's really content with blue and green screen work with Hi-Def," Wakelin said. "He's said that all that stuff is really exceptional, and because of that he has no reason to go back to film."

"Avatar," James Cameron's latest film, was shot in digital hi-def 3-D.

Cameron wrote that for "Avatar," his latest film, "I can't think of a better movie for 3-D."

"3-D isn't right for every film, but it would have been perfect for all of mine to date and the ones I imagine for the future," Cameron wrote.

Cameron is currently in post-production on Avatar, editing the film at his house in Malibu, Calif. It's very tightly under wraps, and you can probably count how many people who've seen any footage of it on one hand, and still have plenty of fingers left over. What we do know is that Cameron used a proprietary 3-D camera system called Fusion, which the director co-developed.

Cameron told HDVideoPro, "Avatar is certainly the most technically complex film I've made so far and probably the hardest." Screenwriter Jay Cocks, who co-wrote "Strange Days" with Cameron and worked on "Titanic," said. "Jim is the only guy I know who will take his first vacation in 10 years and go to Antarctica in the depths of winter. He's a guy who needs perpetual challenge."

Right where Cameron's article in HDVideoPro ends, another story headline jumps out at us: "Film Isn't Dead." Wakelin reminded me of an article in "The New York Times" that declared film was dead, complete with a cartoon of cans of celluloid lying in the garbage. The article sparked much heated debate with the Cinematographer's Guild at the time, but this was eight years ago now, and film is still alive and well.

Wakelin then read to me a press release he received from Kodak before this year's Academy Awards, which said that for the 80th consecutive year - ever since the inception of the Academy Awards - the Oscar for Best Picture went to a movie produced on Kodak film. All five of the films nominated for Best Picture also used Kodak film ("No Country for Old Men" was the eventual winner).

Join our discussion on this topic