Slow but steady future for 3D films, says PricewaterhouseCoopers

By Sarah Sluis

The move to 3D, in terms of film history, should play out more like color than sound. All films transitioned from silent to sound in a snap--just a few years. To not convert was to become a box-office failure. But color, like 3D, was reserved for specific genres, like historical epics, fantasy, and children's movies, before becoming more widespread. I took a few of PricewaterhouseCoopers' predictions on the future of 3D movies and gave my own take on how it will all play out.

"Most 3D live-action production will be limited to sci-fi, horror and concert genres" Yes, but this is changing. Avatar is sci-fi, but it's also a tentpole, an awards hopeful, a James Cameron movie and an action/environmental/romance movie. As films with multiple genre identities are made in 3D, it will become easier for those "romance/action/comedy" movies to be made. Just today, Variety announced that the sequel to Zombieland, a horror/comedy will be filmed in 3D. The next Jackass sequel, a documentary/action/comedy, will be made in 3D. With its emphasis on live, improv events, Jackass is a cousin of the concert film, a popular choice for 3D, but certainty not part of the genre itself.

"3D-animated slates at Disney and DreamWorks will be closely scrutinized by rivals." Maybe. As far as I'm concerned, animation is already a lock for 3D. Animation is a medium grounded in fantasy, not reality, making 3D a very natural variation. I would worry if these animation studios decided to make a movie in 2D, which would indicate a slipping in 3D's profitability. As it stands, both Pixar and DreamWorks Animation are committed to producing all their upcoming films in 3D.

"Slow growth through 2014...because of lingering budgetary and creative concerns" You can look at this from the production side, but the audience side is just as important. A lot of people are resistant to seeing 3D movies because of their stereotype as a gimmicky concept that takes away from the narrative. That's not the case. As a former skeptic myself, watching movies like Coraline, Up, and even The Jonas Brothers 3D Concert Experience "glasses on" made those movies better. In the case of concert movies, 3D helps amp up the spectacle and gives a heightened sense of reality. No, you don't actually feel like you're there, but the dimensionality gives you a sense of the landscape, and the camera movements always make sure you have the best seat in the house. Up, compared to Coraline or Monsters vs. Aliens, uses very restrained 3D. The filmmakers either didn't author it in 3D from start to finish, but added it in later, or they chose to avoid having the images pop up and behind in a striking (and perhaps detracting) way. Takeaway point: 3D is flexible. It's not always about making you think something is coming right at you, but subtly adding depth of field. If 3D is adopted by dramas, comedies, and romances, I suspect this restrained look will be the norm. Regardless, watching a film with glasses is on its way to becoming a normal part of the moviegoing experience.

Surprise! Only 7% of mainstream movies directed by women

By Sarah Sluis

Put film directors in the category of dead presidents: most are white males, and their average age is 45, when most of them are mid-career. It's the kind of information that gets rehashed occasionally with an aura of outrage, as it was in a New York Times article yesterday. Some blogs, like Women & Hollywood, offer dedicated, consistent commentary on female filmmakers, and consistently point out their absence.

Certainly directors in this "dead president" demographic are capable of directing movies that appeal to audiences beyond themselves, just as directors like Kathryn Bigelow can direct war and action movies (though her gender turned some heads and became the focus of many of her publicity interviews and articles). Many female directors work in designated genres, like movies appealing to kids and teens, or romance and comedy. Not one has won an Oscar for "Best Director." When the female demographic is directing only 7% of the films, and working on less prestigious, non-award-seeking projects, the gap seems even worse.

It's easy to forget about the dearth of women in the film industry because women do work in virtually every area of the business, and most of the "firsts" in female filmmaking have already been taken (the Academy Award for Best Director notwithstanding). Some suspect that the lifestyle required by a director turns many women off to the position, but I don't buy that. There's also evidence that people react more negatively to certain types of female leadership, leaving women a narrow range in which to discipline and delegate without being called that B-word. Finally, with so few female directors out there, they simply don't look the part, and are more likely to be called into question or sent back to central casting.

By drawing their talent from such a narrow range of people, studios are selling themselves short. As the article puts it, "Directors who are overwhelmingly of the same sex and ethnicity can hardly be expected to tap all of the cinematic potential in a rich and roiling humanity."

Hollywood seems to be stuck in a feedback loop, where the young male, first-weekend audience is considered the ultimate prize, and in turn many movies (e.g., Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen) are created with them in mind. Female-oriented successes are still considered aberrations. Who do you think were the majority of people that saw Titanic again, and again, again? All the girls in my middle school. Twilight? Check. Sex and the City? Check. Today, Women & Hollywood posted the news that The Proposal (directed by a woman) had quietly surpassed the theatrical gross of Sex and the City, which many had touted as the movie that proved women existed at the box office. It's clear to me that conventional wisdom about female moviegoers contains some serious errors. Perhaps some female directors could help the studios get back on track.