McCallion 1
Joe McCallion
Comm 240
October 12, 2013
Is 3D Revolutionary or Just a Sham?
Throughout the 20th century, the movie industry drastically changed from
silent films, to sound films, to color films, and finally, three- dimensional films. In
1927, the first movie with sound was created, and two years later, the first movie
with all talking, and all color (On With the Show) established itself into the world.
(imdb) In 1953, twenty-four years later, the first major 3D movie, Man in the Dark
was released. (imdb) Man in the Dark was not well liked however, according to
Rotten Tomatoes. Growing up, I never understood why movie directors made 2D
movies and 3D movies other than there were less 3D movie theaters in the country.
The question I am searching to find in this paper is the answer for, “Do 3D movies
generate more or less than the exact same movie in two dimensions?”
Roger Ebert, a famous American film critic for the Chicago Sun-Times, is
quoted claiming that 3D movies would never be successful. “It doesn’t work with
our brains, and it never will.” (Ebert, Roger) This was an excerpt from Ebert’s article
on his own website titled, “Why 3D DOESN’T WORK AND NEVER WILL. CASE
CLOSED.” Much to Ebert’s dismay, 3D movies seem to be a booming industry as we
see it today. Several 3D movies such as (Avatar, Alice in Wonderland, and Cloudy
With a Chance of Meatballs) have dominated the box offices during opening
weekend and in fact, sixty-one of the top 100 box office 3-dimensional movies were
made after Ebert made this claim. (boxofficemojo)
McCallion 2
Toy Story 3, a movie that was released in 2010, had a domestic total gross of
415 million dollars in the United States, however the 3D movie made five percent
less than the 2D movie per average theater. This proves Roger Ebert’s point that 3D
movies will never work. Nonetheless, An opposing argument to this case is an
example of the movie, Avatar, in which the 3D version of the movie dominated their
2D equal in the box office. Another example of this scenario is Alice in Wonderland
which annihilated its 2D colleague in the box office, taking over seventy percent of
the movies total revenue.
For my experiment, my independent variable is the movie, and my
dependent variable is the opening weekend gross revenue. To conduct this
experiment I chose a sample size of seventeen movies at random from the top 100
3D movies from 2000-2010. I chose 2000 to 2010, simply because the data for
recent 3D movies is not available at this point in time.
What I can conclude from my data is that although in the fifties, 3D movies
were not a huge success, more recently, 3D movies are trending upward to higher
average percent of the box office revenue. As you can see on graph number one, the
average percentage of revenue from 3D movies from November of 2006, to
September of 2009, was roughly forty-eight percent, and increased to about sixtyfive percent in June of 2010. The second graph shows the total revenue for both the
3D and 2D movies combined. The results show that Avatar has changed a
moviegoer’s attitude toward three-dimensional movies. My prediction is that as the
3D industry continues to grow, and 3D movies cost less to make, the price of the
McCallion 3
ticket will go down and will cause more people to watch a movie in 3D than ever
before.
As we talked about in class, Avatar dominated the box office and the reason
was because with booming technology, 3D movies are becoming much more
spectacular than 2D movies. Avatar was filmed to be a 3D movie and the reason it
was so successful in 3D was because it was meant to be seen in this format. A viewer
does not get the full feel of the movie unless they see the movie in three dimensions.
James Cameron once said that people who go to the movies do not want to pay extra
in order to see something that is not incredible. I believe through my research that
James Cameron is completely correct in this statement, and I believe that is why
Avatar was such a hit in the box offices. If a movie is successful, you cannot just
make it in 3D and expect results. The movie has to be a three-dimensional film for a
reason, and it has to show something more than its counterpart two-dimensional
film shows. In recent years, thanks to Avatar, directors are focusing more on making
sure a 3D movie is spectacular and not just a 2D movie converted into three
dimensions, ultimately giving viewers a reason to see the 3D version over the 2D
type. Technology is growing and developing to new heights each year, and will only
continue to develop to the point where 3D movies are realistic and engaging, and
when the cost drops due to technology increases, there will be much more demand
for 3D movies and more 3D revenue than 2D movies.
McCallion 4
Works Cited
"3D Here and Now." PriceWaterhouseCoopers. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Oct. 2013.
"3D." Movies at the Box Office. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Oct. 2013.
Ebert, Roger. "Why 3D Doesn't Work and Never Will. Case Closed." All Content.
RogerEbert.com, 23 Jan. 2011. Web. 12 Oct. 2013.
"Man in the Dark (The Man Who Lived Twice) (1953)." Man in the Dark (The Man Who
Lived Twice). N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Oct. 2013.
"On with the Show!" IMDb. IMDb.com, n.d. Web. 15 Oct. 2013.
McCallion 5
McCallion 6
Opening Gross Box Office revenues
Toy Story 3
Shrek Forever After
Clash of the Titans
How to Train Your Dragon
Alice in Wonderland
Avatar
Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs
Final Destination: Death Trip
G-Force
Up
Opening Gross Box Office revenues
Monsters vs. Aliens
Coraline
My Bloody Valentine
Journey to the Center of the Earth
Meet the Robinsons
Monster House
Chicken Little
0
50,000,000 100,000,000 150,000,000
Dollars ($)