3D Movies: In Your Face, Whether You Like It or Not

It seems sort of fitting that Johnny Knoxville and his merry band of often-nude, feces-shooting jackasses would make the best 3D film of the year. And by best I don’t just mean most entertaining (although it probably is), but also best-looking 3D technology. Jackass 3D is, perhaps surprisingly,  the most visually solid execution of the medium since James Cameron’s behemoth Avatar, the film that pushed 3D back into the mainstream of American movie making.

Since Avatar’s ascension to box office glory and the release of Jackass, there have been a slew of 3D releases, ranging anywhere from Tim Burton’s rather successful Alice in Wonderland to M. Night Shyamalan’s critically dismembered The Last Airbender. Announcements were made that respected and renowned filmmakers like Martin Scorsese, Steven Spielberg and Michel Gondry would be directing 3D films. 3D seemed to be ready to take American cinema into a new age.

But now, almost a year after Avatar, the appeal of 3D movies is very much up for debate. Films that were rushed into a post-production 3D conversion process were generally panned, oftentimes because the shoddy 3D work ruined the color and image of the film, with Clash of the Titans and The Last Airbender as prime culprits. But while audiences and critics may not have enjoyed the films, both still made a profit, which is usually the bottom line in Hollywood.

Part of the reason for the split is that seeing a 3D movie is more expensive than seeing a 2D one. While average ticket prices usually range around $10-$12, 3D prices now reach as high as $15.50 per person after a price hike last March. That means it could cost the same amount for two people to see a Clash of the Titans in 3D as it would for three to see it in 2D. If a movie is released without a 2D option, as some are, movie-goers would make a choice between paying up to $5 extra each or, as Hollywood fears, just waiting until the film comes out on DVD.

But it’s also very possible that the  use of 3D isn’t even a determining factor in the success or failure of a film. For the most part, the films that have succeeded with 3D probably would’ve done well at the box office regardless of how many visual dimensions they conquered. Toy Story 3 was a success because it told a great story that adults and children could relate to, not because of 3D.  In contrast, Christopher Nolan specifically avoided using 3D technology in his summer blockbuster Inception, and the film still went on to be one of the most highly praised and talked about films of the year. Shyamalan’s Airbender failed not because of a poor 3D conversion job, but because of laughable screenwriting, poor direction and countless other flaws.

In all cases, the 3D was not the reason for success or failure, but merely a compliment to an already good or bad film. Hollywood’s problem comes when a subpar movie is converted into 3D to scrape up more money on the mistaken idea that people are seeing it for the 3D, regardless of the film itself. The temptation to convert films to 3D just to bump up ticket prices is strong, but will American moviegoers pay top dollar for a subpar, rushed product?

That’s where Jackass comes in. Because if they do decide to hold off on spending extra cash on movies with sloppy or even needless 3D, then the technology could be mostly relegated to gimmick films and B-movies, like the recent Piranha 3D and 2009’s My Bloody Valentine 3D. This gives a viewer exactly what they usually want from a 3D film: things flying out at them.

Jackass is able to use the 3D medium to great effect because the added depth and projectile images actually service the film itself. While it may not always make sense in the context of a narrative story to have the mighty Kraken to needlessly shove its tentacles out at the audience, it does make sense for Johnny Knoxville to shoot himself into the audience on a rocket or snowmobile. Jackass has always been about audience involvement and extreme visual action, so it makes sense to use 3D to enhance these effects. The movie was wise enough, however, not to needlessly throw 3D effects into gags and sketches that didn’t need them. This is a perfect execution of the medium: Jackass used it when it was appropriate, and left it alone when it wasn’t.

3D has also always enjoyed a solid existence in IMAX theater documentaries, where it can bring the beauty of an undersea world or exotic jungle into a viewer’s lap. But these experiences are also a one-trick pony. They don’t need to worry about a crafted, narrative story; rather, they just need to supply eye candy to make the money and usually brief running time worth it.

If 3D is reduced back to gimmickry, it wouldn’t be the first time. 3D movies enjoyed a period of interest and prosperity in the 1950s before fading into obscurity due to the difficulties in maintaining and accurately projecting the film prints. Since then, they were regulated usually to B-movies and horror sequels like Jaws 3-D, Amityville 3-D and Friday the 13th Part III. Judging by the fact that the profitability of a film like Piranha, or the fact that Jackass has grossed around $100 million on a $20 million budget, this could be where 3D becomes most comfortable in the long run.

Of course, much of the history for this current revival of 3D film has yet to be written. Cameron already has two more trips to Pandora in the works, and Spielberg and Scorsese are set to unleash their 3D creations later on in 2011. If these high caliber directors can seamlessly integrate 3D into their work as an essential measure, and if Hollywood is able to continue charging higher prices for 3D films without resistance from the public, than maybe it really is here to stay.  For the time being though, 3D’s fate remains in limbo.