Contemporary Film

Issues and Trends in Film

Filmmaking is both a commercial and artistic venture. The current economic situation in the film industry, with increased production and marketing costs and lower audience turnouts in theaters, often sets the standard for the films big studios are willing to invest in. If you wonder why theaters have released so many remakes and sequels in recent years, this section may help you to understand the motivating factors behind those decisions.

The Influence of Hollywood

In the movie industry today, publicity and product are two sides of the same coin. Even films that get a lousy critical reception can do extremely well in ticket sales if their marketing campaigns manage to create enough hype. Similarly, two comparable films can produce very different results at the box office if they have been given different levels of publicity. This explains why the film What Women Want, starring Mel Gibson, brought in $33.6 million in its opening weekend in 2000, while a few months later, The Million Dollar Hotel, also starring Gibson, only brought in $29,483 during its opening weekend. Unlike in the days of the Hollywood studio system, no longer do the actors alone draw audiences to a movie. The owners of the nation’s major movie theater chains are keenly aware that a film’s success at the box office has everything to do with studio-generated marketing and publicity. What Women Want was produced by Paramount, one of the film industry’s six leading studios, and widely released (on 3,000 screens) after an extensive marketing effort, while The Million Dollar Hotel was produced by Lionsgate, an independent studio without the necessary marketing budget to fill enough seats for a wide release on opening weekend.

The Hollywood “dream factory,” as Hortense Powdermaker labeled it in her 1950 book on the movie industry, manufactures an experience that is part art and part commercial product. While the studios of today are less factory-like than they were in the vertically integrated studio system era, the coordinated efforts of a film’s production team can still be likened to a machine calibrated for mass production. The films the studios churn out are the result of a capitalist enterprise that ultimately looks to the “bottom line” to guide most major decisions. Hollywood is an industry, and as in any other industry in a mass market, its success relies on control of production resources and “raw materials” and on its access to mass distribution and marketing strategies to maximize the product’s reach and minimize competition. In this way, Hollywood has an enormous influence on the films to which the public has access. Ever since the rise of the studio system in the 1930s, the majority of films have originated with the leading Hollywood studios. Today, the six big studios control 95 percent of the film business. In the early years, audiences were familiar with the major studios, their collections of actors and directors, and the types of films that each studio was likely to release. All of that changed with the decline of the studio system; screenwriters, directors, scripts, and cinematographers no longer worked exclusively with one studio, so these days, while moviegoers are likely to know the name of a film’s director and major actors, it’s unusual for them to identify a film with the studio that distributes it. However, studios are no less influential. The previews of coming attractions that play before a movie begins are controlled by the studios. Online marketing, TV commercials, and advertising partnerships with other industries—the name of an upcoming film, for instance, appearing on some Coke cans—are available tools for the big-budget studios that have the resources to commit millions to prerelease advertising. Even though studios no longer own the country’s movie theater chains, the films produced by the big six studios are the ones the multiplexes invariably show. Unlike films by independents, it’s a safe bet that big studio movies are the ones that will sell tickets.

The Blockbuster Standard

While it may seem like the major studios are making heavy profits, moviemaking today is a much riskier, less profitable enterprise than it was in the studio system era. The massive budgets required for the global marketing of a film are huge financial gambles. In fact, most movies cost the studios much more to market and produce—upward of $100 million—than their box-office returns ever generate. With such high stakes, studios have come to rely on the handful of blockbuster films that keep them afloat, movies like Titanic, Pirates of the Caribbean, and Avatar. The blockbuster film becomes a touchstone, not only for production values and storylines, but also for moviegoers’ expectations. Because studios know they can rely on certain predictable elements to draw audiences, they tend to invest the majority of their budgets on movies that fit the blockbuster mold. Remakes, movies with sequel setups, or films based on best-selling novels or comic books are safer bets than original screenplays or movies with experimental or edgy themes.

James Cameron’s Titanic (1997), the second highest-grossing movie of all time, saw such success largely because it was based on a well-known story, contained predictable plot elements, and was designed to appeal to the widest possible range of audience demographics with romance, action, expensive special effects, and an epic scope—meeting the blockbuster standard on several levels. The film’s astronomical $200 million production cost was a gamble indeed, requiring the backing of two studios, Paramount and 20th Century Fox. [10]However, the rash of high-budget, and high-grossing, films that have appeared since—Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone and its sequels (2002–2011), Avatar (2009), Alice in Wonderland (2010), The Lord of the Rings films (2001–2003), The Dark Knight (2008), and others—are an indication that, for the time being, the blockbuster standard will drive Hollywood production.

The Role of Independent Films

While the blockbuster still drives the industry, the formulaic nature of most Hollywood films of the 1980s, 1990s, and into the 2000s has opened a door for independent films to make their mark on the industry. Audiences have welcomed movies like Fight Club (1999), Lost in Translation (2003), and Juno (2007) as a change from standard Hollywood blockbusters. Few independent films reached the mainstream audience during the 1980s, but a number of developments in that decade paved the way for their increased popularity in the coming years. The Sundance Film Festival (originally the U.S. Film Festival) began in Park City, Utah, in 1980 as a way for independent filmmakers to showcase their work. Since then, the festival has grown to garner more public attention, and now often represents an opportunity for independents to find market backing by larger studios. In 1989, Steven Soderbergh’s sex, lies, and videotape, released by Miramax, was the first independent to break out of the art-house circuit and find its way into the multiplexes.

In the 1990s and 2000s, independent directors like the Coen brothers, Wes Anderson, Sofia Coppola, and Quentin Tarantino made significant contributions to contemporary cinema. Tarantino’s 1994 film, Pulp Fiction, garnered attention for its experimental narrative structure, witty dialogue, and nonchalant approach to violence. It was the first independent film to break $100 million at the box office, proving that there is still room in the market for movies produced outside of the big six studios.

The Role of Foreign Films

English-born Michael Apted, former president of the Director’s Guild of America, once said, “Europeans gave me the inspiration to make movies…but it was the Americans who showed me how to do it.” Major Hollywood studio films have dominated the movie industry worldwide since Hollywood’s golden age, yet American films have always been in a relationship of mutual influence with films from foreign markets. From the 1940s through the 1960s, for example, American filmmakers admired and were influenced by the work of overseas auteurs—directors like Ingmar Bergman (Sweden), Federico Fellini (Italy), François Truffaut (France), and Akira Kurosawa (Japan), whose personal, creative visions were reflected in their work. The concept of the auteur was particularly important in France in the late 1950s and early 1960s when French filmmaking underwent a rebirth in the form of the New Wave movement. The French New Wave was characterized by an independent production style that showcased the personal authorship of its young directors. The influence of the New Wave was, and continues to be, felt in the United States. The generation of young, film school-educated directors that became prominent in American cinema in the late 1960s and early 1970s owes a good deal of their stylistic techniques to the work of French New Wave directors.

In the current era of globalization, the influence of foreign films remains strong. The rapid growth of the entertainment industry in Asia, for instance, has led to an exchange of style and influence with U.S. cinema. Remakes of a number of popular Japanese horror films, including The Ring (2005), Dark Water (2005), and The Grudge (2004), have fared well in the United States, as have Chinese martial arts films like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000), Hero (2002), and House of Flying Daggers (2004). At the same time, U.S. studios have recently tried to expand into the growing Asian market by purchasing the rights to films from South Korea, Japan, and Hong Kong for remakes with Hollywood actors.

Cultural Imperialism or Globalization?

With the growth of Internet technology worldwide and the expansion of markets in rapidly developing countries, American films are increasingly finding their way into movie theaters and home DVD players around the world. In the eyes of many people, the problem is not the export of a U.S. product to outside markets, but the export of American culture that comes with that product. Just as films of the 1920s helped to shape a standardized, mass culture as moviegoers learned to imitate the dress and behavior of their favorite celebrities, contemporary film is now helping to form a mass culture on the global scale, as the youth of foreign nations acquire the American speech, tastes, and attitudes reflected in film.

Staunch critics, feeling helpless to stop the erosion of their national cultures, accuse the United States of cultural imperialism through flashy Hollywood movies and commercialism—that is, deliberate conquest of one culture by another to spread capitalism. At the same time, others argue that the worldwide impact of Hollywood films is an inevitable part of globalization, a process that erodes national borders, opening the way for a free flow of ideas between cultures.

The Economics of Movies

With control of over 95 percent of U.S. film production, the big six Hollywood studios—Warner Bros., Paramount, 20th Century Fox, Universal, Columbia, and Disney—are at the forefront of the American film industry, setting the standards for distribution, release, marketing, and production values. However, the high costs of moviemaking today are such that even successful studios must find moneymaking potential in crossover media—computer games, network TV rights, spin-off TV series, DVD and releases on Blu-ray Disc format, toys and other merchandise, books, and other after-market products—to help recoup their losses. The drive for aftermarket marketability in turn dictates the kinds of films studios are willing to invest in.

Rising Costs and Big Budget Movies

In the days of the vertically integrated studio system, filmmaking was a streamlined process, neither as risky nor as expensive as it is today. When producers, directors, screenwriters, art directors, actors, cinematographers, and other technical staff were all under contract with one studio, the turnaround time for the casting and production of a film was often as little as 3 to 4 months. Beginning in the 1970s, after the decline of the studio system, the production costs for films increased dramatically, forcing the studios to invest more of their budgets in marketing efforts that could generate presales—that is, sales of distribution rights for a film in different sectors before the movie’s release. This is still true of filmmaking today. With contracts that must be negotiated with actors, directors, and screenwriters, and with extended production times, costs are exponentially higher than they were in the 1930s—when a film could be made for around $300,000. [20] By contrast, today’s average production budget, not including marketing expenses, is close to $65 million today.

Consider James Cameron’s Avatar, released in 2009, which cost close to $340 million, making it one of the most expensive films of all time. Where does such an astronomical budget go? When weighing the total costs of producing and releasing a film, about half of the money goes to advertising. In the case of Avatar, the film cost $190 million to make and around $150 million to market. Of that $19 million production budget, part goes toward above-the-line costs, those that are negotiated before filming begins, and part to below-the-line costs, those that are generally fixed. Above-the-line costs include screenplay rights; salaries for the writer, producer, director, and leading actors; and salaries for directors’, actors’, and producers’ assistants. Below-the-line costs include the salaries for non-starring cast members and technical crew, use of technical equipment, travel, locations, studio rental, and catering. For Avatar, the reported $190 million doesn’t include money for research and development of 3-D filming and computer-modeling technologies required to put the film together. If these costs are factored in, the total movie budget may be closer to $500 million. Fortunately for 20th Century Fox, Avatar made a profit over these expenses in box-office sales alone, raking in $750 million domestically (to make it the highest-grossing movie of all time) in the first 6 months after its release. However, one thing you should keep in mind is that Avatar was released in both 2-D and 3-D. Because 3-D ticket prices are more expensive than traditional 2-D theaters, the box-office returns are inflated.

The Big Budget Flop

However, for every expensive film that has made out well at the box office, there are a handful of others that have tanked. Back in 1980, when United Artists (UA) was a major Hollywood studio, its epic western Heaven’s Gate cost nearly six times its original budget: $44 million instead of the proposed $7.6 million. The movie, which bombed at the box office, was the largest failure in film history at the time, losing at least $40 million, and forcing the studio to be bought out by MGM. Since then, Heaven’s Gate has become synonymous with commercial failure in the film industry.

More recently, the 2005 movie Sahara lost $78 million, making it one of the biggest financial flops in film history. The film’s initial production budget of $80 million eventually doubled to $160 million, due to complications with filming in Morocco and to numerous problems with the script.

Piracy

Movie piracy used to be perpetrated in two ways: Either someone snuck into a theater with a video camera, turning out blurred, wobbly, off-colored copies of the original film, or somebody close to the film leaked a private copy intended for reviewers. In the digital age, however, crystal-clear bootlegs of movies on DVD and the Internet are increasingly likely to appear illegally, posing a much greater threat to a film’s profitability. Even safeguard techniques like digital watermarks are frequently sidestepped by tech-savvy pirates.

In 2009, an unfinished copy of 20th Century Fox’s X-Men Origins: Wolverine appeared online 1 month before the movie’s release date in theaters. Within a week, more than 1 million people had downloaded the pirated film. Similar situations have occurred in recent years with other major movies, including The Hulk (2003) and Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith (2005). According to a 2006 study sponsored by the MPAA, Internet piracy and other methods of illegal copying cost major Hollywood studios $6.1 billion in the previous year. The findings of this report have since been called into question, with investigators claiming that there was no clear methodology for how researchers estimated those figures. Nonetheless, the ease of theft made possible by the digitization of film and improved filesharing technologies like BitTorrent software, a peer-to-peer protocol for transferring large quantities of information between users, have put increased financial strain on the movie industry.

The Influence of New Technology

New technologies have a profound impact, not only on the way films are made, but also on the economic structure of the film industry. When VCR technology made on-demand home movie viewing possible for the first time, filmmakers had to adapt to a changing market. The recent switch to digital technology also represents a turning point for film. In this section, you will learn how these and other technologies have changed the face of cinema.

Effects of Home Entertainment Technology

The first technology for home video recording, Sony’s Betamax cassettes, hit the market in 1975. The device, a combined television set and videocassette recorder (VCR), came with the high price tag of $2,495, making it a luxury still too expensive for the average American home. Two years later, RCA released the vertical helical scan (VHS) system of recording, which would eventually outsell Betamax, though neither device was yet a popular consumer product. Within several years however, the concept of home movie recording and viewing was beginning to catch on. In 1979, Columbia Pictures released 20 films for home viewing, and a year later Disney entered the market with the first authorized video rental plan for retail stores. By 1983, VCRs were still relatively uncommon, found in just 10 percent of American homes, but within 2 years the device had found a place in nearly one-third of U.S. households.

At the same time, video rental stores began to spring up across the country. In 1985, three major video rental chains—Blockbuster, Hastings, and Movie Gallery—opened their doors. The video rental market took off between 1983 and 1986, reaching $3.37 billion in 1986. Video sales that year came to $1 billion, for total revenue of more than $4 billion, marking the first time in history that video would eclipse box office revenues ($3.78 billion that year).

Video sales and rentals opened a new mass market in the entertainment industry—the home movie viewer—and offered Hollywood an extended source of income from its films. On the other hand, the VCR also introduced the problem of piracy.

VCRs Legal, Just Barely

In an age when Hollywood was already struggling financially because of increased production costs, Sony’s release of home video recording technology became a major source of anxiety for Hollywood studios. If people could watch movies in their own homes, would they stop going to the movies altogether? In the 1976 case Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Universal Studios, and the Walt Disney Company sued Sony in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The suit argued that because Sony was manufacturing a technology that could potentially be used to break copyright law, the company was therefore liable for any copyright infringement committed by VCR purchasers. The District Court struggled with the case, eventually ruling against Sony. However, Sony appealed to the Supreme

Court, where the case was again highly debated. Part of the struggle was the recognition that the case had wider implications: Does a device with recording capabilities conflict with copyright law? Is an individual guilty of copyright infringement if she records a single movie in her own home for her own private use? Eventually, the Supreme Court ruled that Sony and other VCR manufacturers could not be held liable for copyright infringement. This case represented an important milestone for two reasons. It opened up a new market in the entertainment sector, enabling video rental and home movie sales. Additionally, the case set a standard for determining whether a device with copying or recording capability violated copyright law. The court ruled that because nonprofit, noncommercial home recording did not constitute copyright violation, VCR technology did have legitimate legal uses, and Sony and other companies could not be held liable for any misuse of their devices. Recently, this case has posed interpretive challenges in legal battles and in debates over file sharing through the Internet.

The Optical Disc System

In 1980, around the time when consumers were just beginning to purchase VCRs for home use, Pioneer Electronics introduced another technology, the LaserDisc, an optical storage disc that produced higher quality images than did VHS tapes. Nonetheless, because of its large size (12 inches in diameter) and lack of recording capabilities, this early disc system never became popular in the U.S. market. However, the LaserDisc’s successor, the digital versatile disc (DVD) was a different story. Like LaserDisc, the DVD is an optical storage disc—that is, a device whose encoded information follows a spiral pattern on the disc’s surface and can be read when illuminated by a laser diode. However, unlike the analog-formatted LaserDisc, the DVD’s information storage is entirely digital, allowing for a smaller, lighter, more compressed medium.

The first DVDs were released in stores in 1997, impressing consumers and distributors with their numerous advantages over the VHS tape: sharper-resolution images, compactness, higher durability, interactive special features, and better copy protection. In only a few years, sales of DVD players and discs surpassed those of VCRs and videos, making the DVD the most rapidly adopted consumer electronics product of all time. In 1999, the movie rental market was revolutionized by Netflix. Netflix began in 1997 as a video rental store in California. In 1999, the company began offering a subscription service online. Subscribers would select movies that they wanted to see on Netflix’s website, and the movies would arrive in their mailbox a few days later, along with a prepaid return envelope. This allowed users to select from thousands of movies and television shows in the privacy of their own home.

More recently, DVD technology has been surpassed by the Blu-ray Disc format, intended for storing and producing high-definition video. Released in 2006, the Blu-ray Disc technology has the same physical dimensions as DVDs, but because they are encoded to be read by lasers with a shorter wavelength, the discs have more than five times the storage capacity of the DVD. By 2009 there were 10.9 million Bluray Disc players in U.S. homes. However, the technology has yet to replace the DVD in rental stores and among the majority of U.S. consumers.

DVD Revenues and Decline

DVD rentals and sales make up a major source of revenue for the movie industry, accounting for nearly half of the returns on feature films. In fact, for some time the industry has been exploiting the profitability of releasing some films directly to DVD without ever premiering them in theaters or of releasing films on DVD simultaneously with their theater releases. According to one estimate, for every movie that appears in theaters, there are three that go straight to DVD. [7] While direct-to-DVD has become synonymous with poor production values and ill-conceived sequels, there are a number of reasons why a studio might bypass the multiplexes. Prequels and sequels of box-office hits, shot on a lower production budget, are often released this way and can generate considerable income from the niche market of hard-core fans.

The fourth American Pie film, Bring It On: In It to Win It, and Ace Ventura Pet Detective, Jr. are all examples of successful direct-to-DVD films. However, in other cases, the costs of theatrical promotion and release may simply be too high for a studio to back. This is especially true among independently produced films that lack big-studio marketing budgets. Slumdog Millionaire (2009) was almost one of these cases. However, the film did make it to theaters, going on to win eight Academy Award awards in 2009, including Best Picture. [8] Finally, a film may go straight to DVD when its content is too controversial to be released in theaters. For example, almost all porn films are direct-to-DVD releases. Between 2005 and 2008, the number of direct-to-DVD releases grew 36 percent as studios began to see the profitability of the strategy. After a movie’s success at the box office, a prequel, sequel, or related movie might earn the same profit pound-for-pound at the rental store if filmmakers slash the production budget, often replacing the original celebrity actors with less expensive talent. In 2008, direct-to-DVD brought in around $1 billion in sales.

Despite the profitability of the DVD market, the economic downturn that began in 2007, along with the concurrent release of Blu-ray Disc technology and online digital downloads, have brought about a decline in DVD sales among U.S. consumers. With the rise in digital downloads, Netflix broadened its appeal in 2007 by offering subscribers live-streaming movies and TV shows. This allowed viewers to watch programs on their computers, handheld devices, the Nintendo Wii game system, the Sony PlayStation 3 game system, and the Microsoft Xbox 360 game system without ever having the disc itself. Additionally, by late 2007 film studios also became anxious over another trend: the Redbox rental system. Redbox, an American company that places DVD rental vending machines in pharmacies, grocery stores, and fast-food chains around the country, had placed a kiosk in approximately 22,000 locations by 2009. For the movie industry, the trouble isn’t the widespread availability of Redbox rentals, it’s the price. As of March 2001, customers can rent DVDs from a Redbox kiosk for only $1 per day, which has already led to a severe decline in rental revenue for the film industry. According to the traditional pricing model, prices for rentals are based on a release window; newly released films cost more to rent for a specified period of time after their release. When customers can rent both older and newly released movies at the same low price, rentals don’t produce the same returns.

Hollywood has also suffered major losses from online piracy. Since 2007, studios have been teaming up to turn this potential threat into a source of income. Now, instead of illegally downloading their favorite movies from file-sharing sites, fans can go to legal, commercial-supported sites like Hulu.com, where they can access a selected variety of popular movies and TV shows for the same price as accessing NBC, ABC, and CBS—free. In April 2010, Hulu announced it has already launched this service, the Hulu Plus service, in addition to its free service, for users who want access to even more programs, such as Glee. Hulu doesn’t allow viewers to download the films to their home computers, but it does provide a home-viewing experience through online streaming of content.

The Industry Goes Digital

In an industry where technological innovations can transform production or distribution methods over the course of a few years, it’s incredible to think that most movies are still captured on celluloid film, the same material that Thomas Edison used to capture his kinetoscope images well over a century ago. In 2002, George Lucas’s Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones became the first major Hollywood movie filmed on high-definition digital video. However, the move to digitally filmed movies has been gradual; much of the movie industry—including directors, producers, studios, and major movie theater chains—has been slow to embrace this major change in filming technology. At the time that Lucas filmed Attack of the Clones, only 18 theaters in the country were equipped with digital projectors.

However, digital cinematography has become an increasingly attractive, and increasingly popular, option for a number of reasons. For one thing, during production, it eliminates the need to reload film. A scene filmed in the traditional method, requiring multiple takes, can now be filmed in one continuous take because no raw material is being used in the process. The digital format streamlines the editing process as well. Rather than scanning the images into a computer before adding digital special effects and color adjustments, companies with digitally filmed material can send it electronically to the editing suite. Additionally, digital film files aren’t susceptible to scratching or wear over time, and they are capable of producing crystal-clear, high-resolution images.

For distributors and production companies, digitally recorded images eliminate the costs of purchasing, developing, and printing film. Studios spend around $800 million each year making prints of the films they distribute to theaters and additional money on top of that to ship the heavy reels. For a film like Attack of the Clones, widely released in 3,000 theaters, printing and shipping costs for 35-mm film would be around $20 million. On the other hand, with the digital format, which requires no printing and can be sent to theaters on a single hard drive, or, as the system develops, over cable or satellite, these costs are virtually eliminated.

In part, the change has been gradual because, for theaters, the costs of making the digital switch (at around $125,000 for a high-quality digital projector) is high, and the transformation offers them fewer short-term incentives than it does for distributors, who could save a significant amount of money with digital technology. Furthermore, theaters have already heavily invested in their current projection equipment for 35-mm film. In the long run, the high-definition picture capabilities of digital movies might boost profits as more moviegoers turn out at the theaters, but there are no guarantees. In the meantime, the major studios are negotiating with leading theater chains to underwrite some of the conversion expenses.

Another financial pitfall of digital film is, surprisingly, the cost of storage once the film is out of major circulation. For major studios, a significant portion of revenues—around one-third—comes from the rerelease of old films. Studios invest an annual budget of just over $1,000 per film to keep their 35-millimeter masters in archival storage. Keeping the film stock at controlled temperature and moisture levels prevents degradation, so masters are often stored in mines, where these conditions can be met most optimally.

Digital data however, for all of its sophistication, is actually less likely to last than traditional film is; DVDs can degrade rapidly, with only a 50 percent chance of lasting up to 15 years, while hard drives must be operated occasionally to prevent them from locking up. As a result, the storage cost for digital originals comes closer to $12,500 per film per year. Moreover, as one generation of digital technology gives way to another, files have to be migrated to newer formats to prevent originals from becoming unreadable.

The Resurgence of 3-D

After World War II, as movie attendance began to decline, the motion picture industry experimented with new technologies to entice audiences back into increasingly empty theaters. One such gimmick, the 3-D picture, offered the novel experience of increased audience “participation” as monsters, flying objects, and obstacles appeared to invade the theater space, threatening to collide with spectators. The effect was achieved by manipulating filming equipment to work like a pair of human eyes, mimicking the depth of field produced through binocular vision. By joining two cameras together and spacing them slightly apart with their lenses angled fractionally toward one another, filmmakers could achieve an effect similar to that created by the overlapping fields of vision of the right and left eye. In theaters, the resulting images were played simultaneously on two separate projectors. The 3-D glasses spectators wore were polarized to filter the images so that the left eye received only “left eye” projections and the right eye received only “right eye” projections.

3-D was an instant sensation. House of Wax, the first big-budget 3-D movie, released in 1953, brought in over $1 million during its first 3 weeks in theaters, making it one of the most successful films of the year. Best of all for investors, 3-D could be created with fairly inexpensive equipment. For this reason, a boom of 3-D development soon occurred nationwide. Forty-six 3-D movies were filmed in a span of 2 years. However, 3-D proved to be a brief success, with its popularity already beginning to wane by the end of 1953.

3-D soon migrated from the realm of common popular entertainment to novelty attraction, appearing in IMAX cinemas, as an occasional marketing draw for kids’ movies, and in theme-park classics like Captain Eo and Honey, I Shrunk the Audience. Captain Eo, a Disneyland attraction from 1986 to 1993, featured pop sensation Michael Jackson in his heyday. Following Jackson’s death, the film was rereleased for a limited time in 2010.

Despite the marginal role 3-D has played since the midcentury fad died out, new technologies have brought about a resurgence in the trend, and the contemporary 3-D experience seems less like a gimmick and more like a serious development in the industry. DreamWorks animation CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg, for one, likened the new 3-D to the introduction of color. One of the downfalls that lead to the decline of 3-D in the 1950s was the “3-D headache” phenomenon audiences began to experience as a result of technical problems with filming. To create the 3-D effect, filmmakers need to calculate the point where the overlapping images converge, an alignment that had to be performed by hand in those early years. And for the resulting image to come through clearly, the parallel cameras must run in perfect sync with one another—another impossibility with 35-millimeter film, which causes some distortion by the very fact of its motion through the filming camera.

Today the 3-D headache is a thing of the past, as computerized calibration makes perfect camera alignment a reality and as the digital recording format eliminates the celluloid-produced distortion. Finally, a single digital projector equipped with a photo-optical device can now perform the work of the two synchronized projectors of the past. For the theater chains, 3-D provides the first real incentive to make the conversion to digital. Not only do audiences turn out in greater numbers for an experience they can’t reproduce at home, even on their HD television sets, but theaters are also able to charge more for tickets to see 3-D films. In 2008, for example, Journey to the Center of the Earth, which grossed $102 million, earned 60 percent of that money through 3-D ticket sales, even though it played in 3-D on only 30 percent of its screens. Two of the top-grossing movies of all time, Avatar (2009) and Alice in Wonderland (2010), were both released in 3-D.^[1]

References

Brandon Gray, “‘Avatar’ is New King of the World,” Box Office Mojo, January 26, 2010,

http://boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=2657.

Brian Moylan, “3D is Going to Ruin Movies for a Long Time to Come,” Gawker,

http://gawker.com/#!5484085/3d-is-going-to-ruin-movies-for-a-long-time-to-come.

Edward Baig, “‘Avatar’ Director James Cameron: 3D Promising, but Caution Needed,”USA Today, March 11, 2010, http://content.usatoday.com/communities/technologylive/post/2010/03/james-cameron/1.

Roger Ebert, review of The Last Airbender, directed by M. Night Shyamalan, Chicago Sun Times, June 30, 2010, http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100630/REVIEWS/100639999.

Andrew Stewart and Pamela McClintock, “Big Ticket Price Increase for 3D Pics,” Variety, March 24, 2010, http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118016878.html?categoryid=13&cs=1.

Edward Baig, “‘Avatar’ Director James Cameron: 3D Promising, but Caution Needed,”USA Today, March 11,

2010, http://content.usatoday.com/communities/technologylive/post/2010/03/james-cameron/1.

Europe 1789–1914: Encyclopedia of the Age of Industry and Empire, vol. 1, s.v. “Cinema,” by Alan Williams, Gale

Virtual Reference Library.

“The Kinetoscope,” British Movie Classics, http://www.britishmovieclassics.com/thekinetoscope.php.

Britannica Online, s.v. “Kinetoscope,”

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/318211/Kinetoscope/318211main/Article.

David Robinson, From Peep Show to Palace: The Birth of American Film (New York: Columbia University Press, 1994), 43–44.

Britannica Online. s.v. “History of the Motion Picture.”

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/394161/history-of-the-motion picture; Robinson, From Peep Show to Palace, 45, 53.

Encyclopedia of the Age of Industry and Empire, s.v. “Cinema.”Louis Menand, “Gross Points,” New Yorker, February 7, 2005,

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/02/07/050207crat_atlarge.

Louis Menand, “Gross Points,” New Yorker, February 7, 2005,

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/02/07/050207crat_atlarge.

David Robinson, From Peep Show to Palace: The Birth of American Film (New York: Columbia University Press, 1994), 63.

Andrei Ionut Balcanasu, Sergey V. Smagin, and Stephanie K. Thrift, “Edison and the Lumiere

Brothers,” Cartoons and Cinema of the 20th Century,

http://library.thinkquest.org/C0118600/index.phtml?menu=en%3B1%3Bci1001.html.

Britannica Online. s.v. “History of the Motion Picture.”

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/394161/history-of-the-motion picture

David Robinson, From Peep Show to Palace: The Birth of American Film (New York: Columbia University Press, 1994), 74–75; Encyclopedia of the Age of Industry and Empire, s.v. “Cinema.”

David Robinson, From Peep Show to Palace: The Birth of American Film (New York: Columbia University Press, 1994), 441.

Encyclopedia of Communication and Information (New York: MacMillan Reference USA, 2002), s.v. “Méliès, Georges,” by Ted C. Jones, Gale Virtual Reference Library.

Dictionary of American History, 3rd ed., s.v. “Nickelodeon,” by Ryan F. Holznagel, Gale Virtual Reference Library.

Britannica Online, s.v. “nickelodeon.”

Raymond Fielding, A Technological History of Motion Pictures and Television (Berkeley: California Univ. Press, 1967) 21.

Raymond Fielding, A Technological History of Motion Pictures and Television (Berkeley: California Univ. Press, 1967) 21; David Robinson, From Peep Show to Palace: The Birth of American Film (New York: Columbia University Press, 1994), 101–102.

“Pre World-War I US Cinema,” Motion Pictures: The Silent Feature: 1910-27,

http://www.uv.es/EBRIT/macro/macro_5004_39_4.html#0009.

David Robinson, From Peep Show to Palace: The Birth of American Film (New York: Columbia University Press, 1994), 135, 144.

David Robinson, From Peep Show to Palace: The Birth of American Film (New York: Columbia University Press,m1994), 140.Britannica Online. s.v. “History of the Motion Picture.”

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/394161/history-of-the-motion picture

“Griffith,” Motion Pictures, http://www.uv.es/EBRIT/macro/macro_5004_39_6.html#0011.

“Post World War I US Cinema,” Motion Pictures,

http://www.uv.es/EBRIT/macro/macro_5004_39_10.html#0015.

Motion Picture Association of America, “History of the MPAA,” http://www.mpaa.org/about/history.

Phil Gochenour, “Birth of the ‘Talkies’: The Development of Synchronized Sound for Motion Pictures,” in Science and Its Times, vol. 6, 1900–1950, ed. Neil Schlager and Josh Lauer (Detroit: Gale, 2000), 577.

“Pre World War II Sound Era: Introduction of Sound,” Motion Pictures,

http://www.uv.es/EBRIT/macro/macro_5004_39_11.html#0017.

Charles Higham. The Art of the American Film: 1900–1971. (Garden City: Doubleday & Company, 1973), 85.

Phil Gochenour, “Birth of the ‘Talkies’: The Development of Synchronized Sound for Motion Pictures,”

in Science and Its Times, vol. 6, 1900–1950, ed. Neil Schlager and Josh Lauer (Detroit: Gale, 2000), 578.

“Motion Pictures in Color,” in American Decades, ed. Judith S. Baughman and others, vol. 3, Gale Virtual Reference Library.“Motion Pictures in Color,” in American Decades, ed. Judith S. Baughman and others, vol. 3, Gale Virtual Reference Library.

Britannica Online. s.v. “History of the Motion Picture.”

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/394161/history-of-the-motion picture

Michael Baers, “Studio System,” in St. James Encyclopedia of Popular Culture, ed. Sara Pendergast and Tom Pendergast (Detroit: St. James Press, 2000), vol. 4, 565.

“The War Years and Post World War II Trends: Decline of the Hollywood Studios,”Motion

Pictures, http://www.uv.es/EBRIT/macro/macro_5004_39_24.html#0030.

Britannica Online. s.v. “History of the Motion Picture.”

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/394161/history-of-the-motion picture

David Robinson, From Peep Show to Palace: The Birth of American Film (New York: Columbia University Press, 1994), 45, 53.

Dan Georgakas, “Hollywood Blacklist,” in Encyclopedia of the American Left, ed. Mari Jo Buhle, Paul Buhle, and

Dan Georgakas, 2004, http://writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/blacklist.html; Michael Mills, “Blacklist: A Different

Look at the 1947 HUAC Hearings,” Modern Times, 2007, http://www.moderntimes.com/blacklist/; Kathleen

Dresler, Kari Lewis, Tiffany Schoser and Cathy Nordine, “The Hollywood Ten,” Dalton Trumbo, 2005,

http://www.mcpld.org/trumbo/WebPages/hollywoodten.htm.

“Recent Trends in US Cinema,” Motion Pictures,

http://www.uv.es/EBRIT/macro/macro_5004_39_37.html#0045.

Britannica Online. s.v. “History of the Motion Picture.”

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/394161/history-of-the-motion picture; John Belton, American

Cinema/American Culture. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994), 284–290.

John Belton, American Cinema/American Culture. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994), 305; Steve Hanson and Sandra Garcia-Myers, “Blockbusters,” in St. James Encyclopedia of Popular Culture, ed. Sara Pendergast and Tom Pendergast (Detroit: St. James Press, 2000), vol. 1, 282.

Karen Rosen and Alan Meier, “Power Measurements and National Energy Consumption of Televisions and Video Cassette Recorders in the USA,” Energy, 25, no. 3 (2000), 220.

Everett Rogers, “Video is Here to Stay,” Center for Media Literacy, http://www.medialit.org/readingroom/video-here-stay.

David Sedman, “Film Industry, Technology of,” in Encyclopedia of Communication and Information, ed. Jorge Reina Schement (New York: MacMillan Reference, 2000), vol. 1, 340.

Britannica Online. s.v. “History of the Motion Picture.”

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/394161/history-of-the-motion picture

Lary May, “Apocalyptic Cinema: D. W. Griffith and the Aesthetics of Reform,” in Movies and Mass Culture, ed. John Belton (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1997), 26.

“Birth of a Nation,” Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 2nd ed., ed. William A. Darity, Jr., Gale Virtual Reference Library, 1:305–306..

Charles Higham. The Art of the American Film: 1900–1971. (Garden City: Doubleday & Company, 1973), 10–11.

Lary May, “Apocalyptic Cinema: D. W. Griffith and the Aesthetics of Reform,” in Movies and Mass Culture, ed. John Belton (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1997), 46.

Review of Casablanca, directed by Michael Curtiz, Digital History,

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/bureau_casablanca.cfm.

Clayton R. Koppes and Gregory D. Black, Hollywood Goes to War: How Politics, Profits and Propaganda Shaped

World War II Movies (Los Angeles: The Free Press, 1987), 122

Tim Dirks, review of The Graduate, directed by Mike Nichols, Filmsite, http://www.filmsite.org/grad.html.

John Belton, American Cinema/American Culture. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994), 286.

“Complete Nudity is Never Permitted: The Motion Picture Code of 1930,”

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5099/.

“The Production Code of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributers of America, Inc.—1930–1934,” American Decades Primary Sources, ed. Cynthia Rose (Detroit: Gale, 2004), vol. 4, 12–15.

Kirby Dick, interview by Terry Gross, Fresh Air, NPR, September 13, 2006,

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6068009.

Tim Dirks, “1980s Film History,” Filmsite, 2010, http://www.filmsite.org; Michael Anderegg, introduction to Inventing Vietnam: The War in Film and Television, ed. Michael Anderegg (Philadelphia: Temple University Press,1991), 6–8.

Robin Wood, Hollywood from Vietnam to Reagan (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986), 168.

Diana Pemberton-Sikes, “15 Movies That Inspired Fashion Trends,” The Clothing Chronicles, March 3,

2006, http://www.theclothingchronicles.com/archives/217-03032006.htm.

Steven Mintz, “The Formation of Modern American Mass Culture,” Digital History, 2007, http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=455.

Jack Doyle, “A Star is Born: 1910s,” Pop History Dig, 2008, http://www.pophistorydig.com/?tag=film-starsmass-culture.

John Belton, introduction to Movies and Mass Culture, ed. John Belton, 12.

Kim Severson, “Eat, Drink, Think, Change,” New York Times, June 3, 2009,

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/07/movies/07seve.html.

Suemedha Sood, “Weighing the Impact of ‘Super Size Me,’” Wiretap, June 29, 2004.

http://www.wiretapmag.org/stories/19059/.

Tim Dirks, “Film History of the 2000s,” Filmsite; Washington Post, “The 10 Highest-Grossing Documentaries,” July 31, 2006, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2006/07/31/GR2006073100027.html.

Nash Information Services, “What Women Want,” The Numbers: Box Office Data, Movie Stars, Idle Speculation, http://www.the-numbers.com/2000/WWWNT.php; Nash Information Services, “The Million Dollar Hotel,” The Numbers: Box Office Data, Movie Stars, Idle Speculation, http://www.thenumbers. com/2001/BHOTL.php.

Edward Jay Epstein, “Neither the Power nor the Glory: Why Hollywood Leaves Originality to the Indies,” Slate, October 17, 2005, http://www.slate.com/id/2128200.

Hortense Powdermaker, “Hollywood, the Dream Factory,”

http://astro.temple.edu/~ruby/wava/powder/intro.html.

Caryn James, “Critic’s Notebook: Romanticizing Hollywood’s Dream Factory,” New York Times, November 7,1989, http://www.nytimes.com/1989/11/07/movies/critic-s-notebook-romanticizing-hollywood-s-dreamfactory.html.

John Belton, American Cinema/American Culture. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994), 61–62.

Kirby Dick, interview by Terry Gross, Fresh Air, NPR, September 13, 2006,

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6068009.

Hillary Busis, “How Do Movie Theaters Decide Which Trailers to Show?” Slate, April 15,

2010, http://www.slate.com/id/2246166/.

New World Encyclopedia, s.v. “Film Industry,” www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Hollywood.

Steve Hanson and Sandra Garcia-Myers, “Blockbusters,” in St. James Encyclopedia of Popular Culture, ed. Sara Pendergast and Tom Pendergast (Detroit: St. James Press, 2000), vol. 1

Ronald Bergan, Film (New York: Dorling Kindersley, 2006), 84.

Michael Apted, “Film’s New Anxiety of Influence,” Newsweek, December 28, 2007.

http://www.newsweek.com/2007/12/27/film-s-new-anxiety-of-influence.html.

Richard Pells, “Is American Culture ‘American’?” eJournal USA, February 1, 2006,

http://www.america.gov/st/econ-english/2008/June/20080608102136xjyrreP0.3622858.html.

Ronald Bergan, Film (New York: Dorling Kindersley, 2006), 60.

Diana Lee, “Hollywood’s Interest in Asian Films Leads to Globalization,” UniOrb.com, December 1, 2005, http://uniorb.com/ATREND/movie.htm.

Jessica C. E. Gienow-Hecht, “A European Considers the Influence of American Culture,”eJournal USA, February 1, 2006, http://www.america.gov/st/econenglish/2008/June/20080608094132xjyrreP0.2717859.html.

Steve Hanson and Sandra Garcia-Myers, “Blockbusters,” in St. James Encyclopedia of Popular Culture, ed. Sara

Pendergast and Tom Pendergast (Detroit: St. James Press, 2000), vol. 1, 283.

Steve Hanson and Sandra Garcia-Myers, “Blockbusters,” in St. James Encyclopedia of Popular Culture, ed. Sara

Pendergast and Tom Pendergast (Detroit: St. James Press, 2000), vol. 1, 282.

Eric Schaefer, “Bold! Daring! Shocking! True!”: A History of Exploitation Films, 1919–1959 (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1999), 50.

Nash Information Services, “Glossary of Movie Business Terms,” The Numbers, http://www.thenumbers.com/glossary.php

Mojgan Sherkat-Massoom, “10 Most Expensive Movies Ever Made,” Access Hollywood,

2010, http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/34368822/ns/entertainmentaccess_

hollywood/?pg=2#ENT_AH_MostExpensiveMovies; Rebecca Keegan, “How Much Did Avatar Really Cost?” Vanity Fair, December 2009, http://www.vanityfair.com/online/oscars/2009/12/how-much-did-avatarreally-cost.html.

Aldo-Vincenzo Tirelli, “Production Budget Breakdown: The Scoop on Film

Financing,”Helium, http://www.helium.com/items/936661-production-budget-breakdown-the-scoop-on-filmfinancing.

Rebecca Keegan, “How Much Did Avatar Really Cost?” Vanity Fair, December 2009,

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/oscars/2009/12/how-much-did-avatar-really-cost.html.

Box Office Mojo, “Avatar,” May 31, 2010, http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=avatar.htm.

Sheldon Hall and Stephen Neale, “Super Blockbusters: 1976–1985,” in Epics, Spectacles, and Blockbusters: A Hollywood History (Detroit: Wayne State Univ. Press, 2010), 231.

Tim Dirks, “1980s Film History,” Filmsite, 2010, http://www.filmsite.org

Glenn F. Bunting, “$78 Million of Red Ink?” Los Angeles Times, April 15, 2007,

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/apr/15/business/fi-movie15/4.

Lisa Respers France, “In Digital Age, Can Movie Piracy Be Stopped?” CNN, May 2, 2009,

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/05/01/wolverine.movie.piracy/.

Jesse Hiestand, “MPAA Study: ’05 Piracy Cost $6.1 Bil.,” Hollywood Reporter, May 3,

2006. http://business.highbeam.com/2012/article-1G1-146544812/mpaa-study-05-piracy-cost-61-bil.

Greg Sandoval, “Feds Hampered by Incomplete MPAA Piracy Data,” CNET News, April 19, 2010, http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20002837-261.html.

Entertainment Merchant Association, “A History of Home Video and Video Game Retailing,” http://www.entmerch.org/industry_history.html.

Willie Spruill and Derek Adler, “Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios,” Downloading & Piracy project for Laura N. Gasaway’s Cyberspace Law Seminar, University of North Carolina School of Law, 2009, http://www.unc.edu/courses/2009spring/law/357c/001/Piracy/cases.htm.

Entertainment Merchant Association, “History of Home Video”; Tim Dirks, “1990s Film History,” Filmsite, 2010, http://www.filmsite.org

Blu-Ray.com, “Blu-Ray Disc,” http://www.blu-ray.com/info/.

Henning Molbaek, “10.7 Million Blu-Ray Players in U.S. Homes,” DVDTown.com, Jan 9, 2009, http://www.dvdtown.com/news/107-million-blu-ray-players-in-us-homes/6288.

Robert W. Court, “Straight to DVD,” New York Times, May 6, 2006, Opinion section,

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/06/opinion/06cort.html.

Tom Charity. “Review: Why Some Films Go Straight to DVD,” CNN, February 27, 2009,

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/02/27/review.humboldt/index.html.

Brooks Barnes, “Direct-to-DVD Releases Shed Their Loser Label,” New York Times, January 28, 2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/28/business/media/28dvd.html.

Dianne Garrett, “DVD Sales Down 3.6% in ’07,” January 7, 2008,

www.variety.com/article/VR1117978576?refCatId=20.

Brookes Barnes, “Movie Studios see a Threat in Growth of Redbox,” New York Times, September 6, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/07/business/media/07redbox.html.

Carl DiOrio, “$1 DVD Rentals Costing Biz $1 Bil: Study,” Hollywood Reporter, December 7, 2009, http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/1-dvd-rentals-costing-biz-92098.

Jesse Hiestand, “MPAA Study: ’05 Piracy Cost $6.1 Bil.,” Hollywood Reporter, May 3, 2006. http://business.highbeam.com/2012/article-1G1-146544812/mpaa-study-05-piracy-cost-61-bil.

Reuters, “Hulu Launches Paid Subscription TV Service,” Fox News, June 30, 2010,

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/06/30/hulu-starts-paid-subscription-tv-service/.Hulu, “Media Info,” 2010, http://www.hulu.com/about.

Scott Kirsner, “Studios Shift to Digital Movies, but Not Without Resistance,” New York Times, July 4, 2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/22/technology/22iht-movies23.html?scp=15&sq=digital%20movie&st=cse.

Scott Kirsner, “Studios Shift to Digital Movies, but Not Without Resistance,” New York Times, July 4, 2006,

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/22/technology/22iht-movies23.html?scp=15&sq=digital%20movie&st=cse.

Eric A. Taub. “More Digital Projectors, Coming to a Theater Near You,” Gadgetwise(blog), New York Times, June 18, 2009, http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/18/its-a-4k-world-after-all/.

Ty Burr, “Will the ‘Star Wars’ Digital Gamble Pay Off?” Entertainment Weekly, April 19, 2002, http://archives.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/Movies/04/19/ew.hot.star.wars/.

Doreen Carvajal, “Nurturing Digital Cinema,” New York Times, May 23, 2005,

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/22/technology/22iht-movies23.html;

Ty Burr, “Will the ‘Star Wars’ Digital Gamble Pay Off?” Entertainment Weekly, April 19, 2002,

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/Movies/04/19/ew.hot.star.wars/.

Reuters, “Movie Theaters Going Digital,” CNN, December 24, 2003,

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/ptech/12/24/digital.movietheater.reut/index.html.

[Doreen Carvajal, “Nurturing Digital Cinema,” New York Times, May 23, 2005,

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/22/technology/22iht-movies23.html

Erin McCarthy, “The Tech Behind 3D’s Big Revival,” Popular Mechanics, April 1, 2009,

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/digital/3d/4310810.

Michael Cieply, “The Afterlife is Expensive for Digital Movies,” New York Times, December 23, 2007,

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/business/media/23steal.html.

Matt Buchanan, “Giz Explains 3D Technologies,” Gizmodo (blog), November 12, 2008,

http://gizmodo.com/5084121/giz-explains-3d-technologies.

John Hayes, “‘You See Them WITH Glasses!’ A Short History of 3D Movies,” Wide Screen Movies Magazine,

2009, http://widescreenmovies.org/wsm11/3D.htm.

Heather Hust Rivera, “Captain EO Returns to Disneyland Resort.” Disney Parks Blog, December 18, 2009.

http://disneyparks.disney.go.com/blog/2009/12/captain-eo-returns-to-disneyland-resort/.

Erin McCarthy, “The Tech Behind 3D’s Big Revival,” Popular Mechanics, April 1, 2009,

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/digital/3d/4310810.

John Hayes, “‘You See Them WITH Glasses!’ A Short History of 3D Movies,” Wide Screen Movies Magazine,

2009, http://widescreenmovies.org/wsm11/3D.htm.

Erin McCarthy, “The Tech Behind 3D’s Big Revival,” Popular Mechanics, April 1, 2009,

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/digital/3d/4310810.

This chapter is adapted from The Saylor Foundation Media and Culture which is adapted without attribution ↑

Traditional Principles of Animation

Class Copy

Notes

Show the following:

Adjust appearance: