FM3001 – Film and television studies project

What Significance Does Technology Offer To Mainstream Hollywood Cinema?

Khalyd Nazimi - 0717509

4/24/2012

Introduction

Technology has vastly developed over the years and has offered many tools to improve the way we live. We wait shorter periods of time for our food to cook, we sleep more comfortably and we commute more efficiently. These are a few examples of how powerful technology has become and we can only wait and bask at its glory as technology continues to advance. The primary theme of this discussion is technology, and what significance it has had in aiding mainstream Hollywood cinema. We will also look at the scepticism behind the use of technology, and discuss whether technology has complimented Hollywood mainstream cinema or has rather disguised poor narratives with over the top explosions and amazing visuals.

Technology is a big word and when we use its terminology we could open up a web of definitions relating to different subject matters. For example technology is used in almost every aspect of film making. It’s used from applying make-up, creating props, capturing the footage right through to editing and releasing the film into cinemas and theatres. We need to breakdown the word and focus on three areas of technology in Hollywood screen media. The first targeted area is the use of green screens. How they are used, and what significance they have had in Hollywood mainstream films. The second is CGI (Computer generated imagery) how computers and films blend together to offer more in terms of fantasy and action. The third targeted area is the breakthrough of 3D film making and the leap from 2D to 3D in Hollywood mainstream cinema.

During the Auteur movement of 1950’s, in post war European cinema directors were made to use natural lighting, films had no colour due to their budget, and there wasn’t much technology involved, apart from capturing the scenes and editing the films. However, having less technology didn’t lead to poor film making and directors such as Ingmar Bergman were praised for classic titles like “The Seventh Seal and Persona”. These films were successful due to their narrative, having lacked in technology the directors made up with narrative and acting. Would they have been more successful if they had been offered greater technology? We can’t overrule the question. Further to discussing the use of green screens and the leap from 2D to 3D we must also look at the views of critics and the reception these films generated from their viewers.

The question under scrutiny is whether big budget Hollywood movies are treated as more of a spectacle and less of a narrative or is this just a myth? This question has been hovering around ever since Hollywood major distributors began releasing huge budget CGI (computer graphics integrated) films, which were criticised for focusing more on explosions and less on the narrative. We must also take into account the targeted audiences these blockbusters are aimed at and focus on film genre. Certain genres require different methods of film making, for example love, drama, and thrillers mostly consist of a solid narrative, good screen play, and hardly any need for CGI, green screens, or the switch to 3D. This becomes quite the contrary when we look at genres such as action adventures, sci-fi, and fantasy these genres mostly rely on the use of technology such as green screens and CGI.

2

When considering the role that technology has had on mainstream Hollywood cinema, one must also take into account the works of director and producer James Cameron, as he has become known as one of the most successful directors of our generation. Looking back at the 1990’s the use of technology in mainstream Hollywood has enabled him and other directors to release epic block buster’s such as Terminator 2(1991), Titanic (1997), and Independence Day (1996) (IMDB, n.d.) With his films grossing an estimated 6 billion dollars, James Cameron has released some of the most highly grossing films of all time. Let us examine the success behind his major blockbusters and argue whether these films released were successful due to the support of advanced technology, and how technology enabled his narratives a more compelling perspective when shown to worldwide audiences.

Monaco argues (1991, p.69) that every art is shaped not only by its politics, philosophy, and economics of society, but also by its technology. This statement almost defines the relationship between directors and film technology, directors visualise scenes and technology makes it a reality.

Technology in Hollywood mainstream cinema throughout the 1990’s

It is believed that the 1990’s marked the shift in film making. This shift was indeed the progression and influence of media technology in Hollywood films. The decade was dominated by special effects technology such as C.G.I and green screens enabling directors to indulge into their fantasies thus allowing them to offer more to their audiences. C.G.I is a tool which allows computers to blend into films via computer software and film editing. The integration of computers allows directors to add imagery static or active within the film. When we see movies which deal with extra terrestrials, or super natural powers where we see the antagonist display amazing abilities, we understand that most of this is done via C.G.I. Computers have gotten very good at making detailed pictures, but they often move strangely because it’s hard to apply the laws of physics precisely, and the human brain is very good at predicting what happens to things, especially things that aren't stiff, like clothes and human anatomy when affected by the force of gravity,  if they don’t follow the rules it’s easy to spot.Computer graphics are readily recognizable because they do things that would otherwise be impossible to film, even with stunt men.  But because of the way they move, good filmmakers will often find other ways to get the shot they want without computers. 

Green screens have often been used all over media, from advertisement, weather forecasts, to music videos, and even film making. The principal of green/blue screens is when the subject is filmed or photographed against a background consisting of a single colour or a relatively narrow range of colours, usually blue or green because these colours are considered to be the furthest away from skin tone. The portions of the video which match the preselected colour are replaced by the alternate background video. This process is commonly known as Keying. Green is currently used as a backdrop more than any other colour because image sensors in digital video cameras are most sensitive to green, due to the bayer pattern allocating more pixels to the green channel, mimicking the human eye's increased sensitivity to green light. Therefore, the green camera channel contains the least "noise" and

3

can produce the cleanest key/matte/mask. Additionally, less light is needed to illuminate green, again because of the higher sensitivity to green in image sensors. Bright green has also become favoured as a blue background may match a subject's eye colour or common items of clothing, such as jeans, or a dark-navy suit.

Although green screens and CGI were used before the 1990’s I consider this decade to be the stepping stone in the relationship between computers and film making for Hollywood blockbusters. In the year 1991 Director and producer James Cameron wrote and directed one of the year’s most ground breaking sci-fi/action called Terminator 2 – Judgement day. Terminator 2 was distributed by TriStar pictures an American film production/distribution studio subsidiary of Columbia Pictures. The story follows Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton) and her son John(Edward Furlong) as they are pursued by a new, more advanced Terminator as a posed to the one they were facing in the fist instalment, the liquid metal, shapeshifting T-1000 (Robert Patrick), sent back in time to kill John to stop him from becoming leader of the human resistance. An older, less advanced Terminator (Arnold Schwarzenegger) is also sent back in time to protect John.

Terminator 2 was a significant box office and critical success. It had an impact on popular culture, and is considered hugely influential in the genres of action and science fiction. The film's visual effects included many breakthroughs in the use of computers, marking the first use of natural human motion for a computer-generated character and the first partially computer-generated main character. Terminator 2 made extensive use of computer-generated imagery to demonstrate the main two Terminators. The use of such technology was the most ambitious since the 1982 science fiction film Tron, and was essential to the critical success of the film. CGI was required particularly for the T-1000, a "mimetic poly-alloy" (liquid metal) structure, since the shapeshifting character can morph into almost anything it touches. Having been able to make full use of C.G.I James Cameron’s Terminator 2 was praised for its special effects. It received many film awards, including four Academy Awards for makeup, sound mixing, sound editing, and visual effects. With the budget of around 95 million dollars the movie grossed five times its budget worldwide grossing just fewer than 520 million dollars. The movie held the world record for the highest opening-weekend gross of an R-rated film with over 52 million. (IMDB, n.d.)

In 1996 we saw the release of yet another sci-fi/action adventure blockbuster – Independence Day. The film was distributed by 20th Century Fox and had a budget of 75 million dollars. Directed and written by Roland Emmerich who came across the plot when asked by a news reporter why he made a movie like Stargate. David stated that he was fascinated by aliens and alien invasions and wondered what it would be like to wake up one morning and face a 15 mile wide alien mother ship. This idea progressed to a script and the release of Independence Day. In order for director Roland Emmerich to release the alien invasion film he needed the 3, 000 plus special effects for the shots required for the film. Models of the Whitehouse and buildings were created and an explosion would be ignited below the model, and flames would rise towards the camera. This method of film and computer integration would engulf the tilted model and create the rolling "wall of destruction" look seen in the film. The aliens in the film were designed by production

4

designer Patrick Tatopoulos. The actual aliens of the film are minuscule and based on a design Tatopoulos drew when tasked by Emmerich to create an alien that was "both familiar and completely original". These creatures wear "bio-mechanical" suits that are based on another design Tatopoulos pitched to Emmerich. These suits were 8 feet tall, equipped with 25 tentacles, and purposely designed to show it could not sustain a person inside so it would not appear to be a man in a suit.

With a budget of $75 million the film grossed over $815 million (IMDB, n.d.) worldwide holding a position as the 30th highest grossing movie of all time. With its stunning special effects and a cast of renowned actors such as Will Smith, and Jeff Goldblum the movie was a success and received positive feedback by critics. The shot of the White House's destruction has been declared a milestone in visual effects and one of the most memorable scenes of the 1990s. In a 2010 poll, the readers of Entertainment Weekly rated it the second greatest summer movie of the previous 20 years, ranking only behind Jurassic Park. Lisa Schwarzbaum of Entertainment Weekly gave it a B+ for living up to its massive hype, adding "charm is the foremost of this epic's contemporary characteristics. The script is witty, knowing, and cool." Eight years later, Entertainment Weekly would rate the movie as one of the best disaster movies of all-time. (Schwarzbaum, 1996)

Reaching the penultimate year of the 90’s we saw the release of The Matrix (1999). Distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures the film had a budget of $63 million and starred Keanu Reeves and Laurence Fishburne. The Matrix is considered as a breakthrough in film visuals when they stunned their audience with the famous “bullet- time” scene. The narrative focuses on the life of a computer hacker who goes by the alias Neo (Keanu Reeves) who is on the search for “the Matrix” which references on his computer. The film depicts a future in which reality as perceived by most humans is actually a simulated reality created by sentient machines to appease and suppress the human population, while their bodies’ heat and electrical activity are used as an energy source. When learning this, computer programmer Neo is drawn into a rebellion against the machines with other people who have also been freed from the "dream world" and live in reality. Warner Bros received positive feedback from audiences who were most pleased by The Matrix’s visuals and fighting scenes. The film is known for popularizing the use of a visual effect known as "bullet time", which allows the viewer to explore a moment progressing in slow-motion as the camera appears to orbit around the scene at normal speed.

The reception the film obtained was very positive .In 2001, The Matrix was placed 66th in the American Film Institute's "100 Years... 100 Thrills" list. In 2007, Entertainment Weekly called The Matrix the best science-fiction piece of media for the past 25 years. The film is also ranked number 39 on (Empire Online, n.d.) "The 500 Greatest Movies of All Time”. The Matrix was voted as the fourth best sci-fi film in the 2011 list Best in Film: The Greatest Movies of Our Time, based on a poll conducted by ABC and People. The Matrix received Oscars for film editing, sound effects editing, visual effects, and sound. The filmmakers of the movie were competing against other films with established franchises, like Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace, yet they managed to sweep all four of their nominations. In 1999, it won Saturn Awards for Best Science Fiction Film and Best

5

Direction. The Matrix also received BAFTA awards for Best Sound and Best Achievement in Special Visual Effects, in addition to nominations in the cinematography, production design and editing categories.

With the combination of super star actors and advanced film technology this decade is known to release some of the most influential blockbusters of all time. The genre of action/ sci-fi took a powerful boost with the development of media technology. Film makers and programmers were able to create more powerful computer generated tools to enable a successful fusion of film and computer imagery, thus resulting in incredible blockbusters for Hollywood mainstream cinema.

Titanic, Avatar the extremely popular films of James Cameron

In 1997 James Cameron took on the role of recreating the devastating events of the Titanic and how it sank due to a collision with an Iceberg. The film was released by 20TH Century Fox and was written and directed by Cameron. The film was known to be the most expensive and technologically advanced movie ever made. When finally released into theatres and cinemas in thirteen short weeks became the highest grossing film in North America which shortly led to the film being the first motion picture to hit $1 billion worldwide. The films unprecedented success resulted to a grossing of just over $2 billion worldwide making it the second highest grossing film of all time.

Titanic tells the story of two people falling in love who come from different social classes and aboard the ship during its ill fated maiden voyage. Upon falling in love the two characters Jack Dawson (Leonardo Di Caprio) and Rose Dewitt Bukater (Kate Winslet) are forever being forced to break up by the fiancé and husband to be Calderon ‘Cal’ Hockey (Billy Zane). The film ultimately results in the ship crashing into to an undiscovered Iceberg which causes the ship to sink. Rose lives to tell her story as she rests on a floating door but Jack dies which formulates a very emotional ending.

It is logical that the box office and cultural impact of Titanic leads us to ask why this film which is one among the many fictionalised accounts of the sinking of the Titanic should have such appeal with the public. Before the release of the film, many pundits and critics were understandably sceptical of the films potential for success. This view was also shared with its production company Twentieth Century Fox, who feared for the worse and sold off some rights to Paramount in exchange for cash due to the films escalating production costs.

Titanic has been acknowledged for the famous sinking scenes which brought forward the excellent depiction of the historic event. Critics had unanimous praise for the production values of Titanic, with several seeing Cameron’s treatment of the ship as emblematic of his admiration for movie making apparatus itself and for futuristic technology. The book Titanic- Anatomy Of A Blockbuster describes that with the support of computer generated images which seemed realistic and graphical, this drove home the Titanic as a dream, a fatal vision for those who sailed in her, and a kind of unreal, awesome trip for those watching her now. (Gaylyn, 1999)

6

Downplaying the demand for cinematic realism enabled critics to celebrate Cameron’s delirious visual style. Unlike previous Titanic films, Cameron's retelling of the disaster showed the ship breaking into two pieces before sinking entirely. The scenes were an account of the moment's most likely outcome. Cameron's film was the second Titanic film to show the ship breaking in half after the 1996 television movie Titanic. Cameron wanted to push the boundary of special effects with his film, and thus enlisted Digital Domain to continue the developments in digital technology which the director had established while working on The Abyss and Terminator 2- Judgment Day. In order to save money, the first class lounge located on the ship was a miniature set incorporated into a green screen backdrop. As a subject matter, the sinking of the Titanic gave the film considerable significance. The film’s rendering of this event in its final ninety minutes was almost unanimously judged as Cameron’s true triumph. Jack Matthews of Newsday stated that none of the previously made films or documentaries on the subject had tackled Cameron’s focus, he quoted that “The only thing that has eluded our imagination is the sense of actually going down with the ship”.

Titanic received many praises including 11 academy awards which included best motion picture, best director, and best visual effects. James Cameron took an 11 year gap from film making which would see him come back with something even more spectacular. In 2009 audiences were excited and amazed with the release of Avatar. Directed and written by James Cameron, the film was released with 2D and 3D versions. The film is set in the mid-22nd century, when humans are mining a precious mineral called unobtanium on Pandora, a lush habitable moon of a gas giant in the Alpha Centauri star system. The expansion of the mining colony threatens the continued existence of a local tribe of Na'vi (a humanoid species indigenous to Pandora). The film's title refers to a genetically engineered Na'vi body with the mind of a remotely located human, and is used to interact with the natives of Pandora.

Development of Avatar began in 1994, when Cameron wrote an 80 page treatment for the film. Filming was supposed to take place after the completion of Titanic, for a planned release in 1999, but according to Cameron, the necessary technology was not yet available to achieve his vision of the film. The film had a budget of $237 million and with a $150 million budget for marketing. Released in 2009 James Cameron could rely on the extensive use of cutting edge motion capture filming techniques. The film was released for traditional viewing, 3-D viewing (using the RealD 3D, Dolby 3D, XpanD 3D, and IMAX 3D formats), and for "4-D" experiences in select South Korean theaters. The stereoscopic filmmaking was touted as a breakthrough in cinematic technology. According to Cameron, the film is composed of 60% computer-generated elements and 40% live action, as well as traditional miniatures.

During filming, Cameron made use of his virtual camera system which was a new way of directing motion-capture filmmaking. The virtual camera system is showing the actor’s virtual counterparts in their digital surroundings in real time, allowing the director to adjust and direct scenes just as if shooting live action. Cameron stated that when using this system "It's like a big, powerful game engine”. As the film was released in 3D audiences were fascinated with the stunning visuals portrayed by big cinema screens. Work on the film

7

had been delayed for over a decade due to lack of technical requirements Cameron needed in order to grasp his narrative. While working on the script Cameron was also working on a new motion-capture animation technology which he had developed in 2006. To achieve the blend of animation and real life, Cameron made his actors wear skull caps which were fitted with miniature cameras positions in front of the actor’s face. The information on the actor’s facial expressions was then collected and transferred to computers. Cameron claimed that this type of technology allowed him to transfer 100% of the actor’s physical performances to their digital equivalent. At one point there was too much data and technical requirements needed for specific shots and so Cameron called on the help of ILM (Industrial Light, and Magic) a special effects company. John Knoll from ILM was called in for the job, the Oscar-winning visual effects supervisor was tasked with finishing the most crucial stages of the Avatar CGI work. ILM also did the effects work on the film's final battle scene, taking responsibility for the shots of all the vehicles taking off, as well as the sequence's cockpit interior shots.

Phillip Williams (2010) of website Movie Maker – The Art and Business of Making Movies asked James Cameron “What have been the most pivotal advances in technology that made what you do possible and have in a sense blended with who you are as an artist?” James Cameron in response to the question stated that “The first, obviously, was CG animation; I was an early adopter. I really didn’t know if it was going to work, but Terminator 2 VFX supervisor Dennis Muren convinced me it could be done. That was a defining moment for me as a moviemaker, because my natural curiosity and technical bent had found a new toolset… Things I wanted to see in movies were now possible”. With the aid of advance technical innovations James Cameron’s Avatar was at its completion. The film was set for a release on December 10th 2009 (Thompson, 2007) and was released theatrically from December 16th to 18th. Internationally the film opened on a total of 14 604 screens in 106 different countries of which 3, 671 was shown in 3-D. The films total budget came up to $237 million and grossed a staggering $2.7 billion worldwide making it the highest grossing film ever released. Avatar won the 2009 Academy Awards for Art Direction, Cinematography, and Visual Effects, and was nominated for a total of nine, including Best Picture and Best Director.

James Cameron is known for his compelling script writing and excellent film directing; with the aid of advanced filming technology, he has been able to release some of the most notable sci-fi/ action adventures of our current generation. The two films mentioned above are to name but a few of his list of inspiring motion pictures. Technology is forever expanding, recreating, and advancing and we can only wait impatiently for his next motion picture.

Spectacle vs. narrative

A spectacle is a specially arranged display of a somewhat public nature usually on a

large scale that is an impressive show for those viewing it. It is also used to mean a person or

a thing exhibited to the public either as an object of curiosity or condemnation or an object of

miracle or admiration. The word spectacle is derived from the Latin root spectare which is “to

8

view, watch” and specere “to look at”. As we reach a more advanced age in terms of

technology, directors and film makers are offered more from software and I.T companies to

implement computer technology in films. Movie is now undergoing a dramatic shift from

narrative to spectacle in the era of visual culture. Hollywood movies and Chinese directors of

“the fifth generation” are evidences of this shift. Let us consider comparative analysis

between narrative and spectacle in movies, the shift in film making with the help of technical

innovations, and the reception they have received. Theoretically and practically, films can be

classified into two categories, i.e. spectacle or narrative.

Debates on spectacle over narrative in cinema has been going on for some time, can

they co-exist, what effects do they have? In Laura Mulvey’s book titled Visual pleasure and

Narrative Cinema (1975) she examines Hollywood narrative films. Mulvey argues that the

narratives in Hollywood films are characterised by spectatorial passivity and spectator’s

voyeuristic isolation making these films for her explicitly ideological. The dualistic concept

theory, advocated by Gilles Deleuze, a French philosopher, can be used to interpret narrative

films and spectacle films. Are they two difficult choices? Could there be a film that

completes its narration in miraculous sights, or put it simply, it tells both a nice story and

satisfies the audience's sensitive appetite.Images can be the means of narration, compared

with words, images and sights have their unique advantages, for either spectacle or narration,

and it’s not an either or decision. Gilles Deleuze proclaims that to combine the visual

pleasure with spiritual touching is the only way for the development of films.

In Geoff Kings book (2000) Spectacular Narratives: Hollywood in the Age of the Blockbuster. He takes on this breed of filming. He argues that blockbusters follow an “impact-aesthetic, based to a large extent on pace and motion towards the camera”. He then begins to compare blockbusters of our current generation to 3-D films stating that “Much like 3-D films, today’s special effects epics send objects flying towards the viewer with a promise of immediate sensual stimulation/gratification”. The criticism behind films being treated more of a spectacle and less of a narrative is aimed at the films which use special effects to cover up a poor narrative. An example of this in Hollywood mainstream cinema would be the release of Transformers- Revenge of the Fallen which received poor reviews from critics worldwide. David Edelstein of NYMAG criticised the film for being a computer-generated hash, weightless even with the nonstop booms, metal groans, and thuds. On a year-end poll administered by Moviefone, the film was voted the worst film of 2009 and Fox's performance the worst by an actress that year. Comcast ranked the film as the 4th worst sequel of all time.

Empire named the film the 25th worst movie ever made. In June 2009, an Associated Press article by David Germain called the film as the worst-reviewed $400 million hit ever.

Betsy Sharkey (2009) a film critic for the Los Angles Time described the films as in-your-face, ear-splitting and unrelenting. She goes on to saying that it's easy to walk away feeling like you've spent 2 1/2 hours in the mad, wild hydraulic embrace of a car compactor -- exhilarating or excruciating, depending on your point of view. Having poor reviews the film did exceptionally well at the box office, with a budget of $200 million and grossing over

9

$830 million worldwide. This makes us wonder if having a poor narrative has any effect to the film’s success once the special effect takes course. Almost covering up the poor acting and lacking narrative the film makes up with special effects and in-your-face action. This example of Hollywood cinema would back the argument of spectacle overcoming narratives in mainstream blockbusters, but there are films that have the ability to balance both firmly.

In 1999 Warner Bros released what has been widely regarded as one of the greatest science fiction films of all time The Matrix, which starred Keanu Reeves and Lawrence Fishburne. Having a budget of only $63 million dollars (IMDB, n.d.) The Matrix grossed over $460 million worldwide. The film received several awards including 4 academy awards for editing, sound editing, sound mixing, and special effects. With the popularity of the film Warner Bros decided to do a sequel which then turned into a trilogy. Consistency is maintained across the Matrix trilogy through the integration of narrative and spectacle. It makes logical sense that the plot fluctuates between two separate environments, the first (the Matrix) seductively deceptive and the other (the ‘real’ world) inhospitably solid. Neo (Keanu Reeves) finds that he has been plugged into the reconfigured post-apocalyptic planet, and that what he thought of as his body was a digital avatar of his excorporeated mind. The view from inside the Matrix provides the spectator with all of the films’ comforting filmic pleasures (the spatio-temporal manipulations of bullet-time, fetish-fashion, indestructibility and choreographed violence) – what Jeffrey Sconce calls a “hipster playground of high-action and high-fashion” while the real world is a harsh and hungry wasteland.

The virtual world of the Matrix asserts its authenticity by conforming to physical laws, resulting in an environment grounded in what Stephen Prince terms perceptual realism: that distinctive facet of CGI which aligns it with photorealism by virtue of its detailed textural resemblance to its referent, but which enables it to create impossible objects, locations and characters by virtue of its extreme malleability; CGI thus creates visual images which are “referentially fictional but perceptually realistic” . The photorealistic aesthetic of digital effects have led to a popular belief that digital imaging technologies are about to usher in a new age of absolute simulation where the filmed and generated are indistinguishable. It is assumed that complete engagement is the ultimate goal; however, digital special effects perform two functions, to create convincing deceptive worlds and to make it known, allowing the spectator to question its construction as well as its evolution from previous imaging techniques. But budgets are wasted if expensive special effects go unnoticed. Visual spectacle asks spectators to marvel at the comparison of it with the ‘real’. The discrepancy between them is the space in which visual effects can be understood by the spectator, and though it might be a gap narrowed by photorealism, extra-textual reference points help to preserve its integrity.

Geoff King (2000) questions “What though of narrative in the spectacular blockbuster?” in his book Spectacle, Narrative, And The Spectacular Hollywood Blockbuster. (King, 2003) He goes on to describe the sceptical view of a Hollywood blockbuster. The plot of the typical Hollywood spectacular blockbuster may not be terribly challenging or complex; a basic mistake that is often made, however, is to confuse this - a perfectly valid qualitative

10

judgment, but one that could be applied to many other Hollywood films - with the idea that narrative is in some way absent or displaced by spectacle. He goes on to argue that the fact remains, however, that spectacular Hollywood blockbusters, of both varieties, continue to invest strongly in narrative dynamics, and at more than one level. They tell carefully organized, more or less linear cause/effect stories organized around central characters. Geoff King makes reference to one of the recent Hollywood spectacular blockbuster Terminator 2 – Judgement Day. The film has all the characteristics of a spectacular blockbuster, with its high budget, large-scale, and a box office hit. He describes the film having a strong carefully orchestrated narrative dimension. He explains the opening moments of the film as both large-scale spectacle and narrative exposition.

In Geoff Kings other book New Hollywood Cinema: An Introduction, (2002) he declares that some people suggest spectacle has become the dominant tendency of contemporary blockbuster production. Narrative is usually identified as the victim. He breaks down the two sides to Hollywood mainstream blockbusters by claiming narrative to be understood primarily in terms of the telling of coherent and carefully developed character-based story throughout the course of the film. He describes the spectacle to be seen as a source of distraction or interruption. He further describes the experience we go through when watching blockbusters, by stating that our focus on the narrative is halted while we sit back to contemplate with amazement/pleasure/horror the sheer sensory richness of the audio/visual experience. He claims that narrative is interrupted by the intrusive presence of the commodity-form insufficiently integrated into the fictional world, a mere advertisement forced arbitrarily onto the screen.

Thus the balance between spectacle and narrative varies amongst contemporary Hollywood blockbusters. Spectacle is important, sometimes dominant. In no case however, do we find a complete abandonment of narrative. Narrative and spectacle are intertwined in complex ways and so by dividing them as mere polar opposites is immoral in films. The two sides to Hollywood mainstream cinema are needed in different ways and needed in different genres.

Conclusion

Hollywood's 3D revolution has changed the shape of the modern blockbuster and helped boost box office income for studios in an era of financial uncertainty, but not everyone thinks they're getting their money's worth and a minority complain of dizziness and headaches. New research has for the first time supposedly offered proof that 3D offers no measurable improvement in enjoyment for the vast majority of film audiences. According to a study of 400 filmgoers by L Mark Carrier, of California State University, 3D movies do not allow viewers to experience more intense emotional reactions, are no more immersive, and do not offer any advantage over their 2D counterparts in terms of enhancing the ability to recall a film's details. Carrier's study did, however, suggest that watching films in stereoscope increased threefold the risk of eyestrain, headache or trouble with vision. "All other things being equal, I would say you're increasing your chances of having some discomfort," said

11

Carrier at the America Psychological Association's annual meeting on Sunday. "There aren't going to be any benefits in terms of understanding the movie better or making the movie more meaningful, as far as we can tell," he added. (Rettner, 2011)

Participants in the research were asked to watch one of three films – Alice in Wonderland, Clash of the Titans and How to Train Your Dragon – in either 2D or 3D. They were then asked to detail their responses using a list of 60 words ranging from the mild, such as "enjoyment", to the more intense, such as "anger" and "rage". Carrier says there was very little difference between the response of those who watched in 2D and those who viewed in 3D, which surprised researchers. "Many of us were like, 3-D movies are so cool, it's gotta do something," Carrier said. "It didn't seem to enhance your memory at all. That's an unfortunate implication." The research is just the latest suggestion that the tide is turning against 3D. Many recent films shot in the format – a notable exception is Transformers: Dark of the Moon – have failed to offer a 3D box-office boost in the US, and film-makers are beginning to turn against studios that authorise cheap post-production conversions in the hope of achieving a short-term financial return. (Rettner, 2011)

Speaking at a presentation of his own 3D movie, The Adventures of Tintin, Steven Spielberg said at Comic-Con in San Diego last month that he hoped to see ticket prices for 3D and 2D films converge in the future. "I am certainly hoping that 3D gets to a point where people do not notice it. Because once they stop noticing it, it just becomes another tool and helps tell a story," he said. "Then maybe they can make ticket prices comparable to a 2D movie and not charge such exorbitant prices just to gain entry into a 3D one. Hopefully someday there will be so many 3D movies, prices will come down – which I think will be fair to the consumer." According to Roberto Baldwin of Gizmodo, 3D films practically printed money in 2009 and early 2010 things started to fall apart with the release of Toy Story 3. The film made $110.3 million at the box office, which is great, except that the per-theatre revenue of the 3D version of the film was 5 percent less than the 2D version. This kicked off a downward trend that seems to be getting worse. (Baldwin, 2011)

Avatar Director and 3D evangelist, James Cameron hit it right on the nose when he said that movie goers "don't want to pay extra for something that's not a great experience." Hopefully Hollywood will listen, and realize that slapping a 3D badge on a movie and expecting people to pay a premium to see is a losing proposition. Daniel Bates of daily Mail Online24 released an article conducting a study which had found that when a film was shown in three dimensions viewers did not have a greater sense of ‘being there’ than normal pictures. Their emotional reactions were the same, plus there was an unfortunate side-effect – that they were more likely to get headaches. (Bates, 2011) The research adds to the growing body of studies which suggest that going to 3D films might not be all they are cracked up to be.

Viewers are forced to pay up to 30 per cent extra just for the privilege of snazzy effects in cinemas where it is often impossible to see the film in ‘normal vision’. British cinema goers have said 3D makes little difference to the quality of a movie, according to a

12

new survey. Many of this year's blockbusters such as Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 and Transformers: Dark of the Moon was made using the technology. But responding to a YouGov poll, 41% of people called it a gimmick with just 19% agreeing that 3D improves a film. Just under half of those polled said it made no difference at all. Price does not appear to be an issue for more than a third of cinema goers who said that even if the more expensive 3D films tickets were the same price as their 2D counterparts, they would rather see a film in the traditional two dimensional formats.

According to an article by Roy Taylor, 3D movies aren’t just a Fad. He states that According to numbers available from False Creek Productions, while there were fewer 3D films that reached a gross of $1 million+ in 2010, a significantly higher percentage of them reached the top 20 of that year. He went on to claim that more cinemas are investing in 3D-enabled theatres. According to the figure some 30,000 new installations are currently undergoing across all regions. Electronic companies are also joining in on the hype, and almost every major retailer has released a 3D TV set. (Taylor, 2011)

Technology has enabled directors and film makers to give their audiences a more prolific movie experience. With the aid of new innovative media tools, we are able to see films which offer more visually stunning pictures while keeping its originality through clever narratives. A good example is Titanic as mentioned above. The film was hugely successful and presented its audiences with a strong narrative and visually stunning depiction of the sinking RMS Titanic. With the ability to almost portray any fantasy, we are at a stage in technical evolution where anything is possible in the films industry. With the use of tools such as CGI and green screens, film makers can interpret any idea into a film, from flying men, to alien abduction, and so the possibilities are almost infinite. Without advanced visual technology we may have never witnessed epic movies such as Titanic and Avatar, or the transformation from comic book to motion pictures such as Spiderman, Hulk, and Superman etc. There are also films that don’t require special effects technology, and this comes down to the genre. Some genres require technology such as sci-fi, action, and adventures, and some like romantic-comedies, thrillers, dramas don’t require them at all. Through the examples we have seen, the significance is shown clearly through ground breaking box office hits and innovative fantasy genres. The nature of these films is mainly to show people events which they could only dream about and ideas which manifest only in ones fantasy. Examples here back the importance of technology as being Hollywood’s key factor in releasing blockbusters with high grossing potentials.

13Figure 1: Total Recall 1990 Figure 2.1 Total Recall 2012

Another implication is that technology has created a more realistic universe within their films as compared to the technology being used in films of the 1990’s. Thus opening new realms of possibilities in creativity and offering directors the chance to delve deep into their fantasies bringing more and more ground breaking motion pictures to mainstream Hollywood.

14

References

Anon., IMDB, Box office/ Business for Terminator 2: Judgement Day, IMDB Charts, [online]. Available at:< http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103064/business >[Accessed on 14th April 2012]

Anon., IMDB, Box office/ Business for Titanic, IMDB Charts, [online]. Available at:<http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120338/business >[Accessed on 13 April 2012]

Anon., IMDB, Box office/ Business for Independence Day, IMDB Charts, [online]. Available at:< http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116629/business>[Accessed on 14th April 2012]

Anon., IMDB, Box office/ Business for The Matrix, IMDB Charts, [online]. Available at:< http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0133093/business >[Accessed on 14th April 2012]

Anon,. Empire Online, The 500 Greatest Movies of All Time, [online]. Available at:<http://www.empireonline.com/500/ > [Accessed on 05 April 2012]

Arroyo, J., 1998 Massive Attack, [online] February. Available at:<http://www.anlimara.com/filmography/titanicreview.html>[Accessed on 05 April 2012]

Baldwin, R,. 2011. Gizmodo. 2D Versions of Films Are Out-Performing Their Pricey 3D Counterparts, [online] 16 September. Available at:<http://gizmodo.com/5841182/2d-versions-of-films-are-out+performing-their-pricey-3d-counterparts>[Accessed on April 17th 2012]

Bates, D,. 2011. 3D films are 'no more exciting' than 2D (despite costing much more... and giving you a headache), [online] 10 August. Available at:< http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2024527/3D-films-exciting-2D-despite-costing-more.html#ixzz22stIEgnZ > [Accessed on April 17th 2012]

Fell. J, L., 1986. Film and the Narrative Tradition, University of California Press.

Gaylyn, S., 1999. Titanic – Anatomy of a Blockbuster, New Jersey: Rutgres University press.

King, G,. 2000. Spectacular Narratives: Hollywood in the Age of the Blockbuster, New York: St Martins Press.

King, G., 2002. New Hollywood Cinema: An Introduction, I B Tauris Academic.

15

King, G., 2003. Spectacle, Narrative, and the Spectacular Hollywood Blockbuster, London: Routlege.

McConnon, A., 2007. James Cameron on the Cutting Edge. Bloomberg, [online] 2 April. Available at:< http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2007-04-01/online-extra-james-cameron-on-the-cutting-edge >[Accessed on 17th April 2012]

Monaco, J., 1991. How to read films. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press.

Moviefone Staff., 2009. Features. Year-End Movies Poll Results, [blog] 21 December. Available at:< http://blog.moviefone.com/2009/12/18/year-end-movie-poll/ > [Accessed on April 17th 2012]

Mulvey, L., 1975. Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema. [Pdf] Available at:<http://imlportfolio.usc.edu/ctcs505/mulveyVisualPleasureNarrativeCinema.pdf> [Accessed on April 15th 2012]

Rettner, R,. 2011. 3-D Movies Boost Headaches, Not Enjoyment, [online] 8 August.

Available at :< http://www.myhealthnewsdaily.com/1557-3d-movies-boost-headaches-not-enjoyment.html>[Accessed on April 17th 2012]

Schwarzbaum, L., 1996. Independence Day. Entertainment Weekly, [online] 12 July. Available at:<http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20609141_293279,00.html>[Accessed on 05 April 2012]

Sharkey, B., 2009. ‘Transformers, Revenge of the Fallen’, Los Angeles Times. [online] 24 June. Available at:<http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/24/entertainment/et-transformers24> [Accessed on April 15th 2012]

Silver, A, Ward, E., 1992 Film Noir – An Encyclopedic reference to the American Style, New York: Overlook Press.

Taylor, R., 2011, 3D movies aren’t just a Fad, [online] 23 December. Available at:<http://mashable.com/2011/12/22/3d-movies-here-to-stay/ >[Accessed on April 17th 2012]

Thompson, A., 2007. Cameron sets live-action, CG epic for 2009. The Hollywood Reporter, [online] 9 January. Available at:<http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/cameron-sets-live-action-cg-127505 > [Accessed on 17th April 2012]

Willims, P., 2010. James Cameron Mixes It Up With Avatar. Movie Maker. [online] 19 January. Available

16

at:<http://www.moviemaker.com/directing/article/avatar_james_cameron_jon_landau_20100119/ > [Accessed on April 17th 2012]

Electronic images

[Arnold Schwarzenegger in distress] n.d. [image online] Available at:< http://www.welove-music.com/blog/index.php/tag/total-recall/>[Accessed on April 24th 2012]

[Colin Farrell in Total Recall] n.d. [image online] Available at:< http://www.geeky-gadgets.com/total-recall-2012-official-full-trailer-video-03-04-2012/>[ Accessed on April 24th 2012]

Filmography

Alice in Wonderland, 2010, Walt Disney Pictures

Avatar, 2009, 20th Century Fox

How to train your dragon, 2010, Paramount Pictures

Independence Day, 1996, 20th Century Fox

Persona, 1966, AB Svensk Filomindustri, United Artists, MGM

The Adventures of Tintin, 2011, Paramount Pictures, Columbia Pictures

The Matrix, 1999, Warner Bros. Pictures

Toy Story 3, 2010, Walt Disney Pictures

The Seventh Seal, 1957, AB Svensk Filmindustri

Terminator 2 – Judgement Day, 1991, TriStar Pictures

Titanic, 1997, Paramount Pictures, 20th Century Fox

Transformers – Revenge of the Fallen, 2009, Paramount pictures

17