AI Fuels 3D Cinema Comeback

Artificial intelligence is powering a surprising comeback for 3D cinema, making conversions affordable and boosting premium ticket sales. But this resurgence sparks a debate between commercial potential and the preservation of artistic integrity.

A curious tremor is rattling through the hallowed halls of cinema, hinting at a revival for a format long dismissed as a gimmick, a passing fad, or, at best, a headache-inducing novelty.

After decades of on-again, off-again dalliances with the third dimension, 3D cinema is once again flexing its volumetric muscles, fueled by a potent, and potentially problematic, new ally: artificial intelligence.

The numbers, for once, are not merely flat.

RealD’s recent analysis of comScore data paints a picture of a format not just surviving, but thriving, with North American 3D ticket sales jumping a remarkable 34% from May-July 2024 compared to the same period last year.

Premium exhibition spaces, from RealD 3D to 4DX and IMAX 3D, are cashing in, with seven of the top ten new releases in that window collectively raking in $222 million on 3D screens, accounting for 13% of all tickets sold.

Audiences, it seems, are willing to pay a premium – an average of $18.51 per ticket, roughly $4 more than 2D – for an immersive experience.

This burgeoning appetite for depth bodes well for a diverse slate of upcoming films.

James Cameron, the undisputed high priest of modern 3D, continues his crusade with more “Avatar” sequels slated for 2029 and 2031, alongside a Billie Eilish concert project.

But it’s not just blockbusters.

Even the restoration of Werner Herzog’s contemplative 2010 arthouse documentary, “Cave of Forgotten Dreams,” is set for a 3D re-release, a testament to the format’s widening appeal.

New laser projection technologies are addressing previous gripes about dim screens, while immersive venues like Cosm and Las Vegas’s Sphere are reimagining how audiences engage with cinema, old and new.

Yet, this resurgence isn’t merely a nostalgic wave; it’s being propelled by a force as potent as it is polarizing: artificial intelligence.

The prospect of AI-driven conversion, slashing the exorbitant costs of transforming 2D films into 3D from an estimated $15 million in the early 2010s (and $5 million recently) to a “small fraction” of current pricing, is the siren song for studios.

Paul Becker, CEO of Outsyders, a company built on this very premise, believes machine learning can unlock vast archives.

“A studio’s value is not the current films they’re making; it’s their archives,” Becker asserts, envisioning a future where “every movie ever made” could be seen in 3D, “future-proofing films” for the inevitable advent of widespread VR goggles.

This vision resonates deeply with RealD CEO Elizabeth Frank, who sees 3D as “the most profitable premium format that exhibitors and studios have.” The business model, she argues, is sound, and the technology is ready.

Becker’s Outsyders has already put its AI to the test, converting IMAX’s “The Blue Angels” and contributing to Disney’s “Lilo & Stitch” remake, which garnered $55 million in 3D from May to July in North America alone.

Their work on Disney’s upcoming “Tron: Ares” further solidifies the commercial viability.

However, the rapid march of AI brings with it a shadow of ethical and artistic concern.

While Becker insists he’s hiring talented individuals previously “held back by technology and/or budgets,” the specter of job displacement for post-production workers looms large.

More profoundly, the idea of AI retroactively altering a filmmaker’s original vision raises questions about artistic integrity and consent.

Enter Werner Herzog, the venerable German auteur, whose own “Cave of Forgotten Dreams” is enjoying a 3D renaissance.

He admits to being “very happy” with the new rendering of his film, particularly its “completely wild” epilogue.

Yet, the very thought of AI-meddling with his other works sends a shiver down his spine.

“For God’s sake, don’t touch my movies! Let them be 2D,” he implores, a primal scream for artistic sovereignty.

He has no plans to film another feature in 3D, though he humorously concedes he’d take a 3D camera to Mars for daily reports.

Herzog’s passionate plea underscores a fundamental tension.

Kent Jones, director of “Late Fame” and former NYFF director, echoes this skepticism with a wry jest: “Why stop at film? Why don’t they grab images of every painting in the world and make those three-dimensional, too? That’s one thing that’s been missing from romcoms: 3D.”

His cutting assessment, “The idea that every new technological ‘advancement’ that comes along is progress is just ridiculous, because all it’s about is commerce,” cuts to the heart of the debate.

Beyond the AI question, 3D still faces hurdles.

The home video market for 3D has all but evaporated, eliminating a crucial ancillary revenue stream.

And for some viewers, the format still induces headaches and nausea, an issue that even improved projection technology struggles to fully resolve.

Furthermore, while franchise films like “Tron: Ares” and “Zootopia 2” are embracing 3D, original IP is struggling to find its place, as evidenced by the sparse 3D offerings at major film festivals.

This collision of commercial imperative and artistic integrity forms the uneasy bedrock of 3D’s potential future.

On one side, a financially tantalizing landscape promises to breathe new life into studio archives and pull audiences back into theaters with unparalleled immersion.

On the other, the guardians of cinematic art stand firm, wary of a future where algorithms rather than auteurs dictate the visual language of storytelling.

As the screens flicker and the algorithms churn, one thing is clear: the future of 3D cinema, whether a brave new world or a commercialized wasteland, will be anything but one-dimensional.