Last Friday I was at a movie preview for a concert movie called U23D, which, as you will correctly surmise, was a U2 concert filmed in digital 3D.
A few weeks ago I saw the new film Beowulf, also in 3D.
As I look out the office window to the AMC Loews on 84th St, I see that the marquee is already pitching Hannah Montana 3d, not due out until February.
And outside that same theater is a 3d movie poster for the upcoming Speed Racer movie.
Suddenly everything is floating in space, after decades of flatness. What gives?
Those of us who frequent Freedom To Tinker know that there are two approaches for producers operating in our world of nearly-zero-cost copying. The option most often pursued thus far by the content industries has been to pin hope on a technological fix - DRM - and then use political muscle to get governments around the world to mandate its use. Thus far this strategy can only be said to have been pretty much a total train wreck for all the parties involved - from the record industry to Microsoft - and it has had the disastrous side effect (from their point of view) of persuading an entire generation - and then some - that the media companies are "the man" and so file sharing is not immoral.
Of course the other option - thus far being resisted strenuously by the record labels - is to try a new business model. Sell the customers something better than what they can get for free. Maybe - just maybe - that's what's going on here.
As you doubtless know, there's nothing new about 3d movie or photos. In fact, they go back nearly to the very beginning of photography. To make the 3d effect work, you just need to present different images, shot from slightly different perspectives, to the two eyes. While various systems have been invented over the years to do this (see the wikipedia page on the subject for a bit of the history of the technology), they all to a greater or lesser extent shared the common faults that (a) the theater had to install special equipment (including a more expensive screen that reflects polarized light without depolarizing it), (b) the film was bigger and more difficult to handle, and (c) splicing the film print when it broke required careful treatment to avoid getting the two eyes out of sync. So it just wasn't quite worth it.
So why are we seeing these movies again now? One possibility is that the explanation for the renaissance of 3d is just that digital technology solves some of these problems (especially b and c), and so filmmakers are interested in trying again.
However, I think it's possible there's something else going on. Could it have something to do with the fact that a 3d movie cannot be pirated?
According to IMDB, the LA premier of Beowulf was on November 5, 2007 and the film was officially released in the US on November 16. On the other hand, according to vcdquality (a news site that announces the "releases" of films into various darknets) it was already available for file sharing by November 15.
Isn't it just possible that the studios were thinking: Hey guys, I know you could just download this fantasy flick and see it on your widescreen monitor. But unless you give us $11 and sit in a dark theater with the polarized glasses, you won't be seeing the half-naked Angelina Jolie literally popping off the screen!
Maybe the studios have learned something after all.