When was the last time you caught a 3D movie?
Three, two, one, and stop – if you can't remember, that's totally understandable.
For at least the past three months, audiences without kids have had slim chances to enjoy a 3D film, as among this year's top ten box office hits, only "Boonie Bears" was available in 3D.
Without any warning, 3D movies have seemingly disappeared from Chinese cinemas.
Once the darling of the film industry, they've quietly swept across the era's face, leaving their mark to dry on the silver screen.
Rome wasn't built in a day, nor will it collapse overnight. The decline of 3D movies has been on the horizon for some time now.
It's just that, for those who were blown away by "Avatar," there's always going to be a special place in their hearts reserved for 3D.
No wonder it's so unforgettable. After all, in the half-century since color movies became mainstream, cinema-goers had never experienced such a groundbreaking innovation.
Directors try out new tech every year, but those "exciting" changes are almost imperceptible to the average Joe: apart from Nolan himself, probably no one cares whether "Interstellar" was shot in 35mm and 70mm IMAX film.
It's stubborn, it's classy, but a specific film format isn't going to be the reason we flock to theaters. 3D, on the other hand, will.
Fourteen years ago, in the dim light of the cinema, countless hands reached out into the air, trying to gently capture the glowing spores that seemed just within reach. Like a dream, yet so real, the world of Pandora unapologetically broke through the fourth wall, coming within an arm's reach of everyone.
3D movies burst onto the scene with a thunderous roar, heralding endless possibilities for the future, leaving everyone dizzy with excitement.
In an era where small screens increasingly vie for our entertainment time, 3D movies offer a compelling reason for people to step back into theaters - it's an experience exclusive to the cinema.
Thus began the era of 3D movie frenzy.
In 2009, China had only 900 screens suitable for screening 3D movies. The following year, that number skyrocketed to 1460 screens. A decade later, out of the 80,000 screens nationwide, three-quarters were capable of screening 3D movies.
The frenzy reached its peak in 2016. That year, out of the top ten box office hits, only one, "Operation Mekong," didn't have a 3D version. The other nine films, including "The Mermaid," "Zootopia," "Warcraft," and "Captain America: Civil War," were either exclusively in 3D or had significantly more 3D screenings than 2D ones.
These films gobbled up nearly 70% of the year's box office revenue.
Heading into the cinema during peak season, there's hardly any choice—it's a sea of 3D movies. At that time, a cinema manager remarked in a media interview, "We've compared 2D and 3D, and the audience just loves 3D."
The list of genuine (left) and fake (right) 3D movies from 2015 and 2016, as listed on realorfake3d.com.
But it's been running too fast, almost like a curse in the Chinese market, with a rapid surge rarely ending in anything but tragedy.
The decline of 3D movies began in 2016, and since then, the number and share of box office receipts for 3D movies have been declining steadily.
By 2020, the proportion of 3D movies for the entire year had dropped to 7%, and the share of box office receipts had plummeted from 69% that year to a measly 15%.
At this point, the decline of 3D movies was already evident, though some semblance remained. Many foreign blockbusters were still converted to 3D format for release in China, preserving some dignity for 3D.
But regardless, the waning allure of 3D couldn't be concealed, even the groundbreaking pioneer "Avatar" couldn't reverse the trend.
As we all know, the "Avatar" series isn't exactly celebrated for its plot, with its interstellar version of "Dances with Wolves" often criticized as clichéd and mediocre.
Yet, remarkably, audiences were forgiving of the first installment. Despite its reliance on mind-blowing visual effects, criticism of the plot was notably absent. Instead, all commentary seemed to converge on one profane yet unanimous sentiment: "Damn, that's freaking awesome!"
13 years later, the same audience clearly has run out of patience: "Avatar 2: From Zhangjiajie to the Maldives."
"My bladder is filled with water squeezed out of the script."
Cameron's visual effects still meet the Cameron standard, but audiences are no longer as "naive" as before, turning critical and snarky.
The recent battle of "Ancestor Master" at the box office was decent, but compared to the bustling excitement of years past, it completely deflated the hype around 3D movies.
As we turned the corner into 2023, apart from animated films, it's hard to recall any notable 3D movies.
The truth is, there weren't any. Not a single one. Even "The Wandering Earth 2," which would seem perfect for a 3D rendition, opted out.
The demise of a trend always comes quietly, without even a whimper. And just like that, 3D movies faded into obscurity.
But why did 3D movies go from being everyone's favorite to everyone's nuisance?
From the audience's perspective, it's pretty obvious.
Why have people stopped watching 3D movies? Because they've been burned too many times.
Anyone who's stepped into a cinema in the last decade has likely fallen victim to the so-called "China-specific 3D" at least once.
So, what's this China-specific 3D? It's when movies originally shot in 2D are hastily converted into 3D just to enter the Chinese market.
A true 3D movie, as we all know, requires special 3D filming techniques. It involves using two cameras to mimic what each of our eyes sees, which is then merged by computers to create the 3D effect.
This process is not only expensive but also technically challenging. Hence, there's another route taken by some: "converted 3D."
Converted 3D is essentially taking a regular 2D movie and splitting it into left and right eye views in post-production to create a 3D effect. Converting a movie this way can cost as little as 5 million CNY, sometimes even less, making it a much cheaper alternative to shooting in real 3D.
The high-quality 3D conversion of "Titanic" took two years and cost $18 million.
But cheap doesn't always mean good quality. The most common scenario is that it's converted, but it's "just converted."
In some subtle moments, there can be some stereoscopic effects, but more often than not, it looks like "only the subtitles are 3D."
Entering the cinema with expectations akin to watching "Avatar," only to find oneself experiencing a blind man's version of the show - wearing sunglasses throughout, it's all dark and gloomy.
And it gets even worse.
Many films aren't shot in 3D precisely because they're not suited for it.
Take, for example, the once highly criticized "Jason Bourne 5," which still gets its fair share of roasting on Douban for its 3D version to this very day.
"Jason Bourne 5" was a spectacle of thrilling action, shaky visuals, and rapid cuts. However, when these brilliantly executed scenes were converted to 3D, it turned into an epic disaster, blurring all the action into an indistinguishable mess.
By the end of the movie, viewers were left with splitting headaches and dizzy spells, turning the phrase "I'm going to be sick" from a figure of speech into a literal experience.
And then there's "Dune."
If 3D movies were declared dead, Denis Villeneuve, the director behind the "Dune" series, might be the happiest about it.
Back when "Dune Part One" was released, the old man made a memorable scene, begrudgingly praising 3D despite his obvious disdain.
Facing the camera, he struggled to find a balance between integrity and the allure of cash, finally managing to squeeze out a sentence with a forced smile:
"Watching 'Dune' in 3D was an eye-opening experience for me."
Because the director never actually shot a 3D version of "Dune" back in the day, what China got was a specially converted version for its release.
The already somewhat gloomy lighting turned even gloomier, and as the focus shifted back and forth, viewers were left feeling dizzy and disoriented. In the end, the anticipated face-to-face encounter with the sandworms was nowhere to be found. The only thing that was truly 3D turned out to be the subtitles.
Rather than viewing the current decrease in 3D movies as an anomaly, it's more accurate to consider the previous flood of 3D movies as the exception.
True 3D films demand a hefty investment of both time and money, and they were never meant to hit the screens as frequently as they did.
Watching 3D movies isn't exactly comfortable either, especially in China, a country leading in glasses-wearing rates. For many, watching a 3D movie means having to wear a pair of "sunglasses" over their regular glasses.
Nor is 3D viewing cost-effective. Not only are tickets for 3D films pricier than those for standard movies, but sometimes you also have to fork out extra cash to buy the glasses.
When the overwhelming number of shoddily produced 3D movies fails to deliver a magical cinematic experience, we really can't find any reason to justify spending our hard-earned money at the theater for this kind of disappointment.
Thus, the once thrilling prospect of experiencing 3D cinema has naturally turned into a word of caution: "Don't bother with 3D."
However, audience boycotts alone can't fully explain the decline of 3D movies, as what gets shown in cinemas often isn't up to the viewers.
After a massive outcry against the 3D version of "The Bourne Legacy," the producers relented, providing cinemas with the 2D keys, allowing them to schedule 2D showings as they saw fit.
Despite being fully aware of moviegoers' preferences, many cinemas still allocated the prime timeslots and a majority of screenings to 3D. In the end, the 3D box office revenue for "The Bourne Legacy" was still double that of its 2D counterpart.
So, why do Chinese cinemas have such a strong preference for 3D movies, and why have they started to abandon them?
Cinemas favor 3D because it's a money-spinner.
According to Topo Film Data, for the same movie, the 3D version can fetch 3-5 CNY more per ticket compared to the 2D version. Roughly calculated based on the 2016 8.91 billion viewership of 3D movies, that's a staggering difference of 44.5 billion CNY.
With 3D versions of the same film raking in more profits, it's only natural for cinemas to prefer 3D screenings.
But can cinemas only care about money, and do film producers not care about the reputation of their movies?
Why are producers willing to provide cinemas with many lower quality 3D conversions to screen?
To answer this question, we need to rewind to 2012. It was all about timing and fate.
If you look closely, you'll notice that from 2012 to 2017 was the boom period for 3D converted movies. This coincides precisely with a particular policy.
In 2012, China and the US signed the "Memorandum of Understanding on Solving the WTO Film-Related Issues," also known as the China-US Film Agreement. The agreement stated that the number of American movies imported into China would increase from 20 to an additional 14, but these additional 14 had to be either IMAX or 3D movies.
Thus, to snatch up these 14 new slots, the "China Special Edition 3D movies" were born.
Without converting to 3D, you couldn't get in the door. Once converted to 3D, not only could you enter, but you also had the chance to earn more. The only sacrifice was some picture quality and viewing experience. It's a deal anyone would consider.
In 2016, the global market began to grow disillusioned with 3D, with China being the notable exception, still reveling in the boom of 3D movies.
That year, 3D films raked in 69% of the box office revenue in China, while in North America, the figure had dropped to just 14%.
However, this unusual prosperity came to an abrupt halt with the expiration of the Sino-US film agreement in 2017.
Quickly, the production of 3D movies significantly decreased, and the proportion of 3D movies in theaters began to decline year by year.
The 3D bubble, once overheated by speculative investment, began to deflate back to normal levels.
Interestingly, this was not the first time 3D movies had experienced a rise and fall in history.
As far back as the 1920s and 1930s, 3D movies had their moment of fame.
MGM once produced a series of shorts called "Audioscopiks" and distributed red-green glasses to the audience - yes, those simple early 3D glasses that came with Mickey Mouse magazines in our childhood.
This visually spectacular series of shorts was quite a sensation at the time, even earning an Oscar nomination for Best Short Film. MGM quickly followed up with a 3D feature film starring Frankenstein called "The Murderer in the Third Dimension".
After a brief surge, the wave of 3D movies quickly fell silent amidst the gunfire of the war.
In the 1950s, horror and monster films briefly thrived with the application of 3D technology. The 1970s saw 3D adult films dominating the box office, while the 1980s ushered in a resurgence of 3D action movies.
Every decade or so, 3D movie technology seems to make a comeback, touted as the next big thing, only to quietly fade away as people's fascination wanes.
What we've experienced is just a brief surge in this ongoing cycle, sparked by the release of "Avatar" and then slowly receding over time.
3D movies have vanished from the spotlight, but they're far from dead.
When the right story comes along, I believe they'll make a grand return.
