3-D Starts to Fizzle, and Hollywood Frets

[onehandle]

Please let it die. The only 3-D film I've seen that actually looked decent was Avatar.
____________________________

LOS ANGELES — Has the 3-D boom already gone bust? It’s starting to look that way — at least for American moviegoers — even as Hollywood prepares to release a glut of the gimmicky pictures.

Ripples of fear spread across Hollywood last week after “Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides,” which cost Walt Disney Studios an estimated $400 million to make and market, did poor 3-D business in North America. While event movies have typically done 60 percent of their business in 3-D, “Stranger Tides” sold just 47 percent in 3-D. “The American consumer is rejecting 3-D,” Richard Greenfield, an analyst at the financial services company BTIG, wrote of the “Stranger Tides” results.

One movie does not make a trend, but the Memorial Day weekend did not give studio chiefs much comfort in the 3-D department. “Kung Fu Panda 2,” a Paramount Pictures release of a DreamWorks Animation film, sold $53.8 million in tickets from Thursday to Sunday, a soft total, and 3-D was 45 percent of the business, according to Paramount.

Consumer rebellion over high 3-D ticket prices plays a role, and the novelty of putting on the funny glasses is wearing off, analysts say. But there is also a deeper problem: 3-D has provided an enormous boost to the strongest films, including “Avatar” and “Alice in Wonderland,” but has actually undercut middling movies that are trying to milk the format for extra dollars.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/30/business/media/30panda.html

[hobbit709]

1. Maybe they should spend less on special effects and a little more on a plot.

[ret5hd]

2. i bet you are one of --those-- people...

that read books with no pictures, aren't ya?

[hobbit709]

6. I learned to read books at the age of four.

By the time I was 6 I was reading in my native German(both modern and Gothic German print) and English. I had a grandfather who had over a 1000 books in his library on just about every subject. He taught me how to read.

[Jackpine Radical]

12. There is something wonderful about Fraktur.

For some reason I have always felt a subtle undertone of--I don't know--elegance, maybe, a connection to Goethe and Heine and Schiller when I read things in Fraktur…

[marmar]

4. Exactly. A crappy movie in 3-D is still a crappy movie.

nt

[spooked911]

5. exactly

3D is boring, IMO, but I'm an old fart

[originalpckelly]

10. That and make the resolution of the movie higher.

Move completely away from film and on to digital.

That's where they could win, if they did that.

And of course, some of the stories they put out suck ass.

[Occulus]

24. They're starting to film at 60 frames per second.

THAT will go a long way toward making movies good again. Film at 60fps is just truly remarkable.... crisp, fluid, and very smooth.

There's a reason PC gamers love it when they get 60fps out of a game. It looks just fantastic.

[rurallib]

3. the upcharge to see 3D is pretty healthy out here in the hinterlands

Having seen a couple, I can't say the extra cost is in any way justified.

[liberal N proud]

7. Lets see $12 dollars and must wear uncomfortable glasses vs.

$7 and can sit there in comfort with no visual aids.

It is not only a pocketbook issue but sitting for 2 hours in comfort as well.

[Ready4Change]

8. I've astigmatisms in boh eyes.

I've yet to see any 3D system, outside of real life, that doesn't cause me to constantly fight to focus. It's extremely distracting from any content I'm trying to view, and results in me just trying to clearly see 3D effects, rather than following plots, enjoying characters interactions, or anything else which normally makes movie watching something I enjoy.

In short, 3D ruins movies for me.

[Tesha]

15. The trouble is that your brain has been trained through millions of years...

...of evolution and all the real-world experiences
of your life that the focus of your eyes and the
turning-inwards of your eyes are related: when an
object is close to you, your eyes must not only
focus more-closely but they must turn inwards more.

3D movies on a flat screen break that assumption;
your eyes have to hold focus at (essentially)
infinity even if the object appears to be 6"
from your nose.

Someday, true holographic (volumetric) displays
won't have that problem but right now, no practical
large-scale realizations of such things exist (a
few small-scale true-volumetric displays have been
built).

Tesha

[formercia]

46. CBS Labs had a true holographic color movie projection in 1969

I used to have a small bit of the Holographic film that I salvaged from the floor while working on the equipment. It was a nightmare to operate and cost a fortune to produce, but it worked. It projected a life-sized image in motion.

[Shagbark Hickory]

9. I wish they'd develop a 3d windshield for your car.

[jberryhill]

71. There's something really disturbing about that reply

But, no, I'm not going to ask.

I do like the way they integrate realistic "bumping" sensations when pedestrians bounce off of it.

[Shagbark Hickory]

75. It would be a safety feature. So people can see things flying through the window before it actually

happens.

[WolverineDG]

11. I can't watch 3D movies

I'm one of those who get sick watching while watching them. Besides, all 3D means is that they spend more time throwing stuff at your head than on something really necessary, like say, a plot line.

dg

[shanti]

60. you're not alone

my sister also can't do 3D movies and gets sick too.

[WolverineDG]

61. I read a newspaper article about it

another poster commented on it too...has to do with the conflicting signals your eyes gets from a 3D image from a flat surface. One of my friends can't watch 3D movies for the same reason.

dg

[Nye Bevan]

13. 3D is only good for theme parks. I like Mickeys Philharmagic and the 3D muppets at Disney.

But for regular movies it's just annoying.

[onehandle]

22. My wife and I did Mickey's Philharmagic a couple of months ago.

Had been a couple of years since we first saw it. It is in bad need of a technical refresh. Too dark and out of focus.

[CBGLuthier]

70. 100% agreement

Saw both those shows and they were great fun but not what I would ever want in a regular movie.

3D is about 2 things. neither of which are artistic.

Trying again, as they did in the 50's to counteract television.

Plus now they have the second incentive of gouging people for glasses rental.

[Motown_Johnny]

14. Because they make 3D Movies. They should just make movies that are in 3D.

Endlessly throwing things at the audience so they can see the 3D effect is just stupid.


Once they start making actual movies (with characters you relate to, and an interesting story line) that have the added bonus of being more realistic due to the 3D technology they will be on the right track.


Hell, if they just started making some teenage movies like Porky's so you could see all the hot young girls in 3D they would at least draw in teenage boys.




Avatar and Alice in Wonderland were reasonably good movies that were in 3D, that is why they did well. 3D by itself just isn't enough.

[Tesha]

16. Prediction: 3D will become standard.

As Motown_Johhny observed above, once folks (movie makers
*AND* the audience) get tired of the novelty effects,
and simply return to movie-making, the extra richness
that 3D adds to ordinary movies will be a selling
point.

Additionally, more and more flat-panel TVs (LCDs
mostly, but OLEDs will be just as capable) are
3D-capable as are the Blu-ray players that go
with them. And the added production costs will
be small as well; it's all just digital data.

As a result, 3D will simply become the default,
at least for a while.

(NB: I'm talking about ordinary stereoscopic 3D;
I'm *NOT* talking about holography or any other
volumetric recording. There, the huge dataset sizes
make this impractical at least for a while longer.)

Tesha

[delunapark]

19. IMAX is better. IMO

n/t

[Tesha]

29. IMAX 3D is better still! ;-)

http://www.jordans.com/Imax.aspx

Tesha

[delunapark]

37. Cool

We have a new Imax Digital Screen here in Pensacola and I hope they show 3d.
Thanks

[Initech]

17. I saw a 3-D documentary, and I came to the conclusion I really hate 3-D.

[rucky]

69. Admit it. You saw the Justin Beiber movie.

[ikri]

18. How many films

Have actually been produced from the start with 3D in mind compared to those that have been converted to 3D post-production?

As far as I'm aware, most 3D films have been post-production conversions and the conversion process doesn't always produce great results. Done well, to add depth to a film, like in Avatar it can be pretty good. Done badly and it is awful.

The crap glasses don't help either, I was constantly aware of them whilst watching Avatar. They need to spend some time deciding on a 3D standard for cinemas and come up with a design for some comfortable glasses that don't block my peripheral vision like a pair of blinkers.

[MorningGlow]

20. A gimmick is a gimmick is a gimmick

Ranks right up there with Smell-o-Vision and the vibrating seats. All these gimmicks pass sooner or later. And yet Hollywood never seems to get that...

[Tesha]

30. Yeah, that "Color TV" stuff is for the birds (NBC Peacocks).

And 16:9 HDTV? That'll *NEVER* take off!

Every technological breakthrough has had its detractors.

Tesha

[MorningGlow]

43. Har har

V. funny! :P

3-D tanked before. And yet Hollywood never learns.

[Tesha]

49. 3D with the old red/blue system has very little to do with modern 3D.

Whether it's done by polarizing glasses (as is done at
the movies) or shutter glasses (as is done at home),
modern 3D is incomparably different than the old
Red/Blue system.

"3D tanking" before says absolutely nothing about
whether modern 3D movies will succeed.

Tesha

[MorningGlow]

51. Yabbut

It's not the technique, but the concept--as others have posted in this thread, 3-D is no replacement for a decent story. And yet the Hollywood brainiacs will spend megabux on making a 3-D movie instead of investing in interesting, original scripts (which they can get for a fraction of the price of the 3-D-ing).

[Tesha]

57. There's actually very little extra cost to filming a movie stereoscopically...

...compared to the rest of the costs associated
with the production.

Now *PROJECTING* the movie stereoscopically has
an associated capital cost, at least for the
initial conversion of the theatre.

Tesha

[jberryhill]

59. You can have my Betamax when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers

Along with my RCA videodisc player

[Tesha]

68. Not *EVERY* idea is a good idea, of course.

The RCA capacitive videodisc was obviously a kludge from
the word "go" and unlike the laserdisc, it was unable to do
freeze frame or even good, high-quality seeking/searching.
And as a contact-reading method, it was subject to wearing
out, something that optical videodiscs don't do.

Beta is a more-complex story. Initially, it was missing one
critical feature: the ability to put a full-length movie on a
single cassette. But in every other way, it was superior to
VHS, so even though it failed in the consumer marketplace,
it went on to lead a long and profitable life in the commercial
broadcast market where it was the gold-standard for on-
location videography.

Tesha

[Danmel]

21. I get very queasy from 3-d

I won't go to 3-d movies- it totally screws up my equilibrium.
My kids, otoh, love them.

[Liberal_in_LA]

27. I get queasy in IMAX movies, particularly the scenes where they swoop over terrain

omg. I totally avoid them.

[Danmel]

31. Me too

I went to the finding titanic thing @ IMAX - I spent the whole movie with my head between my knees trying not to get sick. That swoopy thing kills ne too- can't do simulated motion rides either- I can do real movement but not ones where you are still but feel like you're mving- kills me!!

[Liberal_in_LA]

35. I've kept my eyes closed the whole time too. The only IMAX that didn't produce that

feeling was the Michael Jackson one...no swooping about.

[Tesha]

32. That's because your inner ear is sending signals that are totally at variance...

...with the signals your eyes are sending. It's the
same reason people get seasick below decks on a ship
but they're fine when they're up on deck looking at
how the horizon is moving: suddenly, what they see
matches what they feel.

Tesha

[Liberal_in_LA]

34. Yes. I get seasick also. Can't read in moving vehicles.

[Tesha]

50. It's all the same phenomenon: your eyes disagreeing with your inner ears (NT)

[fishwax]

23. some filmmakers actually take advantage of 3d, but for others it's just a gimmick

I think that studios have been too eager to slap on 3d as an afterthought (as in, according to most reviews/reports I've heard, the Clash of the Titans remake), assuming it will make the film better/more appealing; that lack of quality control has turned moviegoers off the technology.

[Liberal_in_LA]

25. I've only seen one 3-D, The Alice and wonderland one with Johny Depp

It was visually beautiful but nothing I need to experience on a regular basis.

[JCMach1]

39. Wasn't even originally filmed in 3D... was added in post-production as a gimmick

[Alexander]

26. Good. Avatar sucked as a movie. This 3-D nonsense needs to end.

I know, I know, the special effects looked nice, let's all be distracted by shiny objects someone created on their computer.

[Supply Side Jesus]

28. +1

DEATH! DEATH TO 3-D!!!!!!!!!

[Taverner]

33. I think it's time to double down! Bring back Waters' 'Odorama'!!!

And bring back those electrocution machines they put in movie seats in the 50s!!!!

[Lucian]

36. For the price of a ticket to see the 3D movie...

you can buy the fucking movie when it comes out on DVD.

And besides, if it's a shitty movie, putting the movie in 3D won't make it less shitty.

[JCMach1]

38. Sometimes it just ruins the picture... I think Cameron actually thought through 3D as a director

I have yet to see another 3D film that has done the same. Many were just technical afterthoughts like Alice in Wonderland.

Mastery of 2D doesn't necessarily qualify you to make 3D... similar to the jump from silent film to talkies.

[Occulus]

40. Those would probably be the ones where the 3D effect is added in post.

The really good examples of 3D I've seen all used stereoscopic cameras to actually film in three dimensions. When it's added in post production, even when done well, it just doesn't look the same at all because the extra dimension isn't there in the first place.

No projector can display what the camera didn't see, and as an audience, we know the difference when we see it. It's just part of how our brains work. If you want to do it correctly, you have to have two cameras filming the same scene simultaneously, with a gap between them equal to the distance between the average gap of the adult human eyes.

Even then, because of differences between that value which vary from individual to individual, you'll never have a completely perfect experience. For people like me, whose eyes aren't perfectly symmetrically spaced in either the horizontal or the vertical, this can cause special problems when viewing that aren't apparent to people with "normally" spaced eyes.

[Lizzie Poppet]

41. In addition, he not only planned for it, he used it interestingly.

Some directors, even when they plan for 3D, do it in such a predictable, lame fashion ("Hurr, durr...it's like it was COMING RIGHT AT ME!!") that the film would have been better off if they hadn't bothered.

[MurrayDelph]

42. After seeing Pirates 4 in 3d

(which was better than 2 & 3, but still not as good as 1), and had to shut my eyes a couple of times to avoid the headaches, I've decided on a new rule for myself:

If it's a movie I really want to see and was shot in 3d, I will drive the 80 miles to a big town on see it on a big screen with 3d glasses.

If it's a movie I really want to see but was converted to 3d (or, as I call them: a ViewMaster movie, I will drive the 80 miles to a big town and see it on the biggest screen with the best sound system that is showing it in 2d. (And save the 3d premium to buy a small popcorn)

If it's just a movie to see for the sake of seeing it, I will go to the local theatre in my town. (And save the premium and gas money to buy a large popcorn).

[onehandle]

55. Seeing Pirates 4 tomorrow. In 2D. Glad to have the choice. nt

[backscatter712]

44. 3D as it currently stands is still nothing more than a gimmick.

And you're potentially turning off about 25% of your audience - that's the amount of people that experience headaches and other symptoms when they try to watch 3D movies - the difference between the depth perception and the focus distance makes people go cross-eyed after a while.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

45. Roger Ebert called it a gimmick. That's good enough for me. nt

[Downtown Hound]

47. Hollywood needs to can its unrealistic profit expectations

People are broke. They can pay $50 for a video game that's going to give them many long hours of distraction, or they can pay $50 for four movie tickets, a popcorn, and a soda. It's a no brainier why people aren't going to the theater anymore.

And if Hollywood was expecting 3-D to save them, all they need to do is look at history. They tried it int he 50's when TV first hit the scene, and it didn't work then either.

[svpadgham]

48. Did anyone mention...

That it sucks putting on 3D glasses over regular glasses. I really hope Green Lantern has a 2D option, and yes I'm prepared to have my childhood dashed to pieces yet again.

[onehandle]

56. It really sucks. nt

[WatsonT]

52. I certainly hope so

3-d does nothing to improve the movie and gives me a headache.

[Forkboy]

53. The best movies over the last few years have come out of Korea and aren't 3D.

Thirst
The Good, The Bad, The Weird
I Saw The Devil
Oldboy

And many more, all top notch movies with stories and acting that put anything I've seen put out by Hollywood in the last few years to shame (though I admit I haven't seen True Grit yet).

[zappaman]

64. Didn't care for THIRST

but the rest of that list is gold.
of course, Hollywood has been talking of remaking OLDBOY for years...possibly with Will Smith.
Ugh.
I SAW THE DEVIL is the film of the year.
check out 13 ASSASSINS as well!

[lifesbeautifulmagic]

54. if i have a choice between 3-D and 2-D,

I will take 2-D everytime.

3-D gives me a headache and makes my stomach hurt. Every single time.

[Mopar151]

58. What of us who have monocular vision?

The one partial 3-D (Imax version of 2 Harry Potters ago) I saw required me to wear the glasses to see the screen at all, and what I could see was not right - colors were off, kinda flat......

( And I see 20/13, with no color blindness)

[localroger]

62. 3D halves the brightness

Since the projector that you normally see with both eyes is now spending only half its time projecting for each eye. This makes 3D movies noticeably flatter in color and dynamic range than 2D movies.

[Kablooie]

63. Good! I'm tired of paying extra for the privilege of getting a headache from the film.

[BulletproofLandshark]

65. I hope it dies out too.

The theaters near my home often only show the 3D versions of some of the bigger movies. For me, the choice is to either spend an extra $3 or wait for the BluRay. I don't care where you live, paying $12 to see a movie is nuts.

[csziggy]

66. They need to have actual ghosts fly out of the screen!

William Castle did it in the 60s, why can't these new fangled films do it today?

[Scottybeamer70]

67. They'll never match the 3D movie from the 50's.......

House of Wax............
Yes.......some of us are that old........

[TrogL]

72. I'll go to 3D movies when they start doing it in real life

errr....wait a minute :shrug:

[RedCappedBandit]

73. Ever take your glasses off in the middle of a 3d movie?

Half the time there's nothing 3d about it anyway. Waste of money.

[charlie and algernon]

76. YES! I saw James Cameron's OTHER 3D movie, Sanctum

This is the movie about the cave explorers trapped in a large cave. I ended up keeping the glasses OFF for half the movie. They were completely unnecessary, and because the movie was already had little lighting, it was not blurry at all when viewed without the 3D glasses.

[AngryAmish]

74. 3D hurts my eyes and gives me a headache

[LynneSin]

77. I suppose the fact that neither movie had decent reviews doesn't play into this

:eyes: