Comic Con 2012 has come to a close and as far as I can tell the convention offered very little to talk about. Sure, we got some Godzilla remake, but the convention seems to have lost its ability to break headlines, with studios opting to market to the fans rather than truly engage them.
Peter Jackson wasn’t even willing to preview The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey at 48fps or in 3-D. Instead he opted to show it in 2D at 24 frames per second so as to keep the focus “firmly with the content and not the technical stuff.” A comment that says a lot more than it may initially seem.
Yes, the decision was made to avoid any potential negative press, such as what he experienced at CinemaCon earlier this year, but it’s interesting to see someone essentially admitting 3-D and higher frame rates are merely “technical stuff” while making a point to focus on what’s actually important for a film… the content.
No, Jackson didn’t intentionally mean to disparage 3-D or the use of a higher frame rates as advancements in feature films, but he essentially did. The fact he wanted the focus on “the content” alone is quite telling when it comes to the significance that has been placed on all this technical stuff.
When I decided on the headline for this post I did a Google search to see if it had been used before. To no surprise it had, and recently.
Only two months ago Forbes ran with the exact same headline in an article addressing corporate obsession over digital gadgetry, apps and technology and how it isn’t the package that wins consumers over… it’s, again, the content:
Advertisers continue to use the throw-everything-into-new-media-and-see-what-sticks approach. Most have faired poorly as a result forgetting the key point that it’s not just about the apps and technology (which often miss the mark), but rather content is what truly engages consumers. What good is a shiny app without real content consumers can hold on to and connect with while making purchasing decisions?
That last sentence is so great and it easily applies to the massive misconception of worth when it comes to 3-D. Just replace a few words and voila… What good is a movie in 3-D at 48 frames per second without real content audiences can hold on to and connect with while watching a movie?
Peter Jackson clearly knows 3-D isn’t important and neither is 48 frames per second. Unarguably, for some, the 3-D experience may enhance a film and 48 frames per second and beyond may be the future of cinema (James Cameron says he’ll be filming the Avatar sequels at 60 frames per second). However, none of that “technical stuff” will matter one bit if the content is trash.
Was Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance any better because it was in 3-D? How about Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter or even The Avengers? The latter is some of the worst 3-D I’ve seen, if there is such a distinction, and while 3-D may add an occasional “wow” factor, overall it does nothing. And those that argue for Martin Scorsese’s Hugo being a 3-D outlier that somehow uses the visual distraction that is 3-D on a different level… sorry, but I can’t agree.
You want “wow” factor, combine visual storytelling with a compelling story, editing, performances and score. If visual storytelling and 3-D were all that were needed Zack Snyder would be king of the world. We’d be seeing in slow motion as everything around us exploded, but based on the reactions out of Comic Con to the teaser for his Superman film Man of Steel, even Snyder has dropped the act and gone for something more authentic.
If we’re being honest, can’t we all just agree that this idea of 3-D and higher frame rates is just “technical stuff” as Jackson says and go back to watching movies for their content rather than their presentation? While I enjoy the conversation and the interest in what goes into filmmaking, the conversation is getting away from the storytelling and focusing on the wrong things. When anyone asks me after seeing a movie, “How was the 3-D?” I have no idea how to answer that question. How was it? I don’t know, I was just happy I had glasses so the picture wasn’t blurry.
I’m not above saying a presentation in legitimate IMAX, or even 3-D (in only a couple cases as far as I can remember), doesn’t have the ability to add something to a film, but without quality content does it even matter?
