Analyst predicts 3D fad will die off unless...!

[GeorgeC]

http://www.thewrap.com/movies/article/w ... -fad-18658

An analyst for the entertainment industry is predicting 3D movies will be early casualties within the near future unless the quality of the films improves dramatically.

Summing up the rest of the article, other reasons given for the analysis are a) the economy; b) premium ticket prices for 3D exhibition; and c) an analysis that's showing recent film releases are making less and less percentage-wise from 3D exhibition...


*********


He's pretty much stating what my own observations and common sense have said all along.

3D is an expensive one-trick pony most of us never asked for... It's also like a dead president's corpse exhumed every 20 years to be positive that the guy is still there and dead for sure!

[droosan]

Toy Story 3, Shrek Forever After, and How to Train Your Dragon were no less enjoyable in '2-D' than in '3-D'.

Gotta say .. these days, when presented with a choice of seeing a movie in '2-D' or '3-D', I'll opt for '2-D' 90% of the time.

For my own part, it has little to do with the cost; I can 'write-off' the full amount of all my entertainment expenses. But -- not everyone can do that .. and here in L.A., a '3-D' movie ticket costs between US$15 and US$20 ..! Multiply that by 3 or 4 times for a family outing, and it becomes easy to see why many families would rather wait for the DVD instead (and thus skip the '3-D' altogether).

My personal gripe is mostly the hassle of wearing glasses on top of my eyeglasses .. and the inevitable color desaturation they cause for the film, however slight.

As an industry professional, I should be all-for '3-D' .. since it has created a fair amount of work for local artists (though, some recent live-action films have already shipped their 'conversion' jobs over to India), and since it supposedly discourages 'piracy.'

But in the end, '3-D' still appears to mostly be a 'gimmick', as it always has been .. it's just that it seems to have persisted longer, this time around.

[GeorgeC]

Sorry to hear about your eyesight situation, Droo.

I'm a bit near-sighted myself but still have the best visual acuity out of anybody in my family. I'm lucky that I DON'T need to wear glasses to drive.

I actually prefer NOT to wear glasses when I can. I find that wearing them a few hours at a time weakens my eye muscles. As much as I hate squinting to read signs sometimes, it's a trade-off between that and weakening my regular vision by wearing glasses! I generally only wear glasses if I'm sitting in the back of a room OR going to the movies (when I remember to bring them)!

**********

Yeah, I think the movie content is the downfall of 3D.

That and it just costs too much as it is. $30-$40 million for something that I don't think is even that good is a ridiculous amount to pay. Better to invest in something that WORKS and ENHANCES films an appreciable amount! 3D just ain't it..l

I predict the 3D TV sets won't do that well when all is said and done. Lack of content and cost will probably kill the technology for now. And I think most of us are content to live wiithout them and don't see them as necessary. Sort of like a bunch of us are holding on upgrading to hi-def any time soon.

I think we're at least two generations away from viable 3D projection. Without the stupid glasses!

This stereoscopic glasses-stuff isn't true 3D as far as I'm concerned. They also cause headaches for too many people.

3D still looks as bad to me now as it did when I was a kid.


And the content of movie and cost of tickets are keeping me from theaters, too.

It's amazing what you learn to live without when you're broke or have money. When I'm in the middle, I'm freer with money. Right now, I'm at the broke end of things but I'm just as frugal when I DO have a surplus of money.

[droosan]

ehh, I've worn eyeglasses since I was seven years old; I'd feel 'naked' without 'em. I've never considered them a hassle.

Back when I was a kid, contacts weren't even an option (severe astigmatism). Sometime in my teen years, soft contacts became available which I could have worn .. but by then, I had already become used to my glasses, and the concept of something touching my eye weirded me out, so.. yeh.

As for LASIK .. that weirds me out even more! I keep waiting for the news headline: "Laser Eye Surgery Determined Harmful; Thousands Go Blind Overnight".

[EricJ]

A conference on the same subject also addressed the question of "Why does the public seem to be unfairly prejudiced against post-production conversions?"
That's one they'd better figure out the answer to pretty quickly...Although there seemed to be a bit of cough-cough and not specifically mentioning a certain mythological film.

[Randall]

Well, I'm glad to hear that I'm not the only one weirded out by the prospect of "touching my eyeball" when using contacts; and that someone supports my theory that LASIK sounds too good to be true!

I have no scientific rationale for why I feel the way I do, but the prospect of having my eyeball cut just freaks me right out, and it doesn't seem "right". I could never do that surgery. (Okay, let's just say it--- I'm a chicken. ) I also wonder what studies will show 20 years from now, once LASIK has had enough time to be properly judged over the long term.

I've had glasses since I was about 19 (20 years now), and they do just fine for me. (For the record, one eye is "lazy" and quite near-sighted; the other has astigmatism, and is getting more nearsighted all the time despite being quite good otherwise 20 years ago.)

-----------------------------------------------

Anyhoo, back to topic... I did see a number of 3-D films in the past year, and found only Monsters Vs. Aliens to be mildly better with it, simply because the film was so (wonderfully) gimmicky to begin with. 3-D did nothing for Up (or Toy Story 3); even my little girl said she preferred the 2-D version, as we saw it both ways. I did kinda like Coraline in 3-D. But I didn't think it helped Avatar any.

IMAX 3-D is likely better, as I think you need a huge screen to really get the best effect. Otherwise, stuff just keeps flying off the sides of the screen, and "poof" goes the illusion of 3-D. I can only imagine how lame 3-D TV will seem to me.

Of course, I'm still jazzed to see a demo at my local Future Shop anyhow! I really have to get there sometime.

I had my Toy Story movie passes from the Blu-ray releases, and my little boy was free for Toy Story 3 (since he's under 4), so I didn't have to pay much for the 3-D show; but I can't see splurging too much in the future for the 3-D presentations.

And here's a thought: Today's filmmakers say they don't want to do the cheesy "coming right at ya" effects in their 3-D films. My thought is, what's the point if you don't do that? Without the gimmickry, I nearly totally forget I'm even seeing it in 3-D.

I'm not saying I want more 3-D gimmick shots; I just want good 2-D films that tell good stories without the cheese.

------------------------------

Re: post-production "conversions": They simply can't work as well. There is no way to have a digital conversion take the place of having two different camers filming from different angles. Digital conversion can only shift the image over, not grant a new persepctive (for live action filming).

[Ben]

I want to comment more, but don't have the time right now.

BUT...I've always felt 3D was a gimmick we can live without, ultimately, and just don't see the point in starting to put out all this new expensive equipment (new 3D HDTVs, new 3D BD players, the glasses which you have to recharge, etc) just in the worst recession of modern times! It's going to bomb or be VERY niche however you cut it.

Second, laser eye surgery is not to good to be true -- three years later I'm absolutely thrilled that I went ahead with it, and I'm one of the most squeamish people I know. The "surgery" (it's not actually like that) was so quick and painless they did it before I even realized, and the effect is wonderful. I fully recommend this to anyone!

[GeorgeC]

I'm still NOT letting anybody near my eyeballs!

I'll let them age gracefully... Jury's still out on the long-term health effects of LASIK surgery and I fully believe in "better safe than sorry!"


As for 3-D, yet another article on the sad economic state of things at theaters...

http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/27/technol ... g.fortune/

The fad is NOT attracting people to theaters and may actually be repelling them.




I honestly believe it's not going to do well in home theater, either.

The premium for the experience is just too high for most people and I don't believe there are enough early adopters to support it and make it viable long-term. Too many people in charge of the studios and electronics companies are believing what Wired and the other tech-rags say. The economy's not good and frankly most people are happy enough without the third dimension and the glasses.

I doubt the recent 3-D Blu releases have made much diffference in sales, either...

[Whippet Angel]

I avoid seeing films in 3D simply because I'll usually end up with a terrible headache afterwards. It's even worse if the movie is any longer than 90 minutes (The Toy Story double feature nearly killed me, but it was worth it to get to see those films on the big screen again ). I thought it was just me (since I get migraines so easily), but I've heard many other people say the same. Seems to be more of a problem if you wear glasses.

For me, the gimmick is simply not worth the headache, cost, or muted colors.

I'm still NOT letting anybody near my eyeballs!

I'll let them age gracefully... Jury's still out on the long-term health effects of LASIK surgery and I fully believe in "better safe than sorry!"

Heh, I've been saying that for years. I've been wearing glasses/contacts since middle school, and I just can't warm up to the idea of getting my eyes "zapped".

[Ben]

As I said a while back, after going from VHS to LD or DVD (or both) and from 4:3 sets to 16:9 widescreen and then flatscreen, and then HD and then Blu-ray and any number of games consoles, I think the public has had enough and will probably sit out the next transition until we have holographic cubes pumping out 3D without the need the glasses.

That's in the home, though I think the theatrical novelty is wearing off too. I saw Shrek 4 and Toy Story 3 in theaters over the past two weeks, and on each occasion I heard other complaining about the glasses in terms of eye strain, headaches or having to wear them over other glasses or being uncomfortable.

In both those cases, the 3D didn't really lend itself too much to the films anyway: Lee Unkrich even saying that 3D pulled him out of any given film and so he used it sparingly. A couple of times I took off the specs and noticed the film was mainly playing "flat" for long periods, especially on character close-ups.

But my biggest lack of enthusiasm for the format - apart from the fact that it darkens the images - is the lack of audience connection. How many times have you been watching a film with a partner or friend, and there's a moment that has another meaning for you? It might be a joke, or a line someone says that means something in your own lives. Don't you give each other a quick glance to see if the other has "got" it? Or if there's a funny moment, don't you quick check to see if the other is laughing?

When James and I were at Disneyland in 2008 and we went on Star Tours, when the tour ship heads into the Death Star and the "da-da-da-da-da-da" music strikes up, we both referenced Family Guy and started singing along with it. We both instinctively turned to each other, without a word, and just did it, but it was the recognition of what we were doing and the eye contact that actually made it funny and a memorable moment.

With 3D - at least while the specs are around - that's impossible. With the Dolby Digital glasses, which are think and bulky, I felt closed in, like in my own little room. I forgot the other audience was even there. I just felt cut off and, when I did look at my lady, Jenny, to see if she was enjoying parts of the movie, all I got was someone wearing the same stupid glasses. I couldn't see her eyes, I coudln't see if she was enjoying it...I couldn't see if she'd even fallen to sleep or something.

I looked around and saw an audience full of people all just watching the screen, but all enclosed in their own little theaters without the audience contact that we normally get. Of course people laughed and people enjoyed the movie, but I lost that communal feeling that going to the movies is all about.

And that's one of the only things worth going to the movies for, nowadays, to see a movie with an appreciative audicence. If we're all now to be in these silly little blocked off glasses that isolate us even further, then what's the point in that? I'd rather save the extra expense on seeing a movie in 3D and simply buy the Blu-ray, which would look brighter and just as exciting at home. Granted, I have a nice sized home theater screen, but it's still more fun to have friends around where we're all watching the movie together and once again enjoying the group experience.

So, apart from any technical issues, that's why 3D leaves me cold, and I think other people are starting to wake up to that. I see this as just a fad that will be gone in two years. And again, given the current economic climate, it's just the wrong time - especially after upgrading so many formats over the past 20 years - to launch something that requires the tiple whammy: new TV display, new disc player and new discs!

[Whippet Angel]

But my biggest lack of enthusiasm for the format - apart from the fact that it darkens the images - is the lack of audience connection. How many times have you been watching a film with a partner or friend, and there's a moment that has another meaning for you? It might be a joke, or a line someone says that means something in your own lives. Don't you give each other a quick glance to see if the other has "got" it? Or if there's a funny moment, don't you quick check to see if the other is laughing?

Yes! I know exactly what you mean. That communal feeling is part of the reason I still enjoy going to the theater. I saw TS3 with a co-worker friend of mine. We had a shared laugh at the scene where in an attempt to escape out of the bathroom window Woody carefully sets a sheet of toilet paper on the seat before climbing onto it. Everyone at work knows I'm a MAJOR germaphobe, so this really resonated with me.

[GeorgeC]

I'm glad economic reality is starting to hit 3-D sooner rather than later.

I just consider the whole thing a waste of tech.

The electronics manufacturers should have waited on this instead of trying to sell the public on lousy tech that's a rehash of what didn't work before... Hi-def is having a hard enough time of it as it stands now between Blu ray's slow adoption (although still better than LD ever experienced) and the complete misunderstandings of the general public on cable standards (must upgrade to hi-def cable to get the benefits with the new sets!) and the general lack of incentives for many people to upgrade to begin with.

It's just harder to see the benefit with hi-def when so many films are still being bungled on BD with poor hi-def transfers and no real extras to speak of... The studios seem to be less willing now than they were just a few years back to put out a competent product. This does NOT build consumer confidence!

***********
3-D was rubbish 60 years ago, and it still is now...

It's just the stark reality of the mediocrity of the general theater market is making it more obvious now.

My goodness...! I thought the 1990s were bad for entertainment in general but the first decade of this new millennium...... It's pathetic!

(I lived through the 1970s and can honestly say it wasn't a great era for fashion and a lot of entertainment in general -- the animation back then was REALLY bad! -- but compared to what's passed for entertainment the past two decades, it was really one of the last golden ages for both serious performance work -- both musically and in films like The Godfather that could be enjoyed by everybody over 18 -- and more popcornish/pop art like Jaws and later Star Wars. There's just no way any of that would happen now with the people in charge of the media companies and with much of the general talent in front of and behind cameras. Uh-uh... The environment's hostile toward that now.)

The current economy sure doesn't help but careful research reveals that even depressions didn't keep people from going to the movie palaces in the past. The difference back then might have been greater imagination demanded by the limits of the technology, more care in most aspects of technical production, and an entertainment industry seemingly more willing to cater to the audience and do something uplifting and creative. Stories that uplifted and valued human life instead of demonizing everything and celebrating noise and destruction signifying nothing --- entertainment is just so morbid in many genres now ( ==> a good part of the reason why I just don't enjoy present-day comics or comic book movies much). I dunno... I'm still convinced Kong I was a better film than either of the remakes. Likewise for much of the classic theatrical short animation versus what passes for most animation nowadays. There's just no comparison between the eras for the art forms in many cases.

And people still had other forms of entertainment to contend with back then, too...

I just don't buy that it's all the Internet and videogames sucking people away from the movies.

[Ben]

I do think BD is a good format, and that the (kinda) slow uptake is split between the economic climate and the fact that many people: 1) can't really see a discernible difference on their smaller screens, and 2) don't want the hassle of upgrading everything they just bought again (and again if you include some double dips).

People have just become more aware that the studios will keep releasing the same thing over and over. So asking them to buy a new TV, disc player and discs *just* when they have have gone from DVD to BD anyway is frankly just plain nuts.

Only the hardest of the hard-core early adopters are going to go for it, and even here amongst my tech friends, they're all saying they're going to wait until there's a lack of glasses involved. Because right now even the high-end geeks don't see the value in a system where you have to pay extra for each pair of glasses (so Grandpa Joe doesn't sit on the end of the sofa unable to watch what the rest of the family are seeing), plus batteries and replacement costs.


Funny irony: next time you're at a Dolby 3D equipped theater, hold up the glasses to the light. No kidding...the lenses are tinted red and blue/green.

[Karenhill]

I don't like 3D because it makes my eyes hurt, and because 3D makes the image quality worse. But, I *hate* 3D with a passion because I love movies, and avoiding 3D becomes less and less of a choice with some recent movies.... The theater just will not play the traditional 2D version. I wonder why?

[Karenhill]

3D just sucks because it will harm your eyes, gives you fatigue and headaches, and has obviously lower picture quality compared to 2D. Eyes are not made for stereoscopic viewing, since they naturally try to refocus anything that they perceive to move out of the screen plane (because in nature, these things would actually come closer or get more distant). However, in a movie theater all images only *exist* in the screen plane, and only in this plane are they in focus. So your eye is constantly torn apart from trying to refocus the "closer" or "farther" objects, and going back to the screen plane for the most focused image. It's a dilemma no "RealD", "Imax3D", "Disney3D" etc can resolve. In the long run, you might ruin your eyes, and whatever happens to a generation of children subjected to this from a young age only god knows.

Apart from damaging your eyes, the 3d picture quality is undeniably lowered. Objects that appear very close to you are often chosen by the director to not be pulled in focus. So however hard you stare at them, you are not able to focus on them even though they "seem" so close. This is another headache-inducer. With the current low framerate of movies (24fps) you can see strobing in 3D movies whenever the picture moves fast enough. Looks downright ugly! Moreover those "advanced" 3D glasses dim the picture a great deal. Avatar is truly spectacular in 2D with beautifully shining colors for all those neon-hued animals and plants -- however, it becomes gloomy in comparison in 3D. Ghosting effects (= faint double images) are also routinely present in 3D movies whenever there is any ever so slight reflection on the actual lense surfaces of your 3D glasses. Ugly as hell! And all these compromises for what exactly? Why do we put up with all these unnecessary reductions in picture quality? Just to give a cheap 3D-thrill to adolescents of the video-game generation? Don't tell me you REALLY were not able to tell foreground from background in any good old "traditional 2D" movie... To educate you a little bit: Your BRAIN *already* infers depth from perspective, so you don't need being hammered with additional confusing visual "3D data" to get the picture. This will just screw up your visual cortex in the long run. What's worse, in some recent movies, the 3D effect is even TECHNICALLY incorrectly applied to the original material (f.ex. Clash of the Titans, or Piranha 3D). Then things look downright unrealistic and artificial: Things that should be in the back appear in the front and vice versa! Congratulations for yet another headache-inducer! Well, if ever Hollywood has gone in the wrong direction, then it was the crazy media blitz they did for 3D. "The future of the movie-going experience"... Don't make me laugh. Yes, but only if you want cross-eyed children with permanent vision problems in the "future". Otherwise better forget it quickly. Did you know that the studios are actually *paying* the theaters to install the new 3D projectors. Did you know they *threaten* the theaters not to give them the 2D version of a movie, unless they also show the 3D version. That speaks volumes about their confidence for the so-called "moviegoing experience of the future". It appears that agressive enough advertizing for a product can indeed brainwash a lot of people to think it's "cool". Amazing that it works even though they are being sold visual garbage.