3-D films WON'T last long...

General Discussions, Polls, Lists, Video Clips and Links
AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 2949
Joined: October 24th, 2004

3-D films WON'T last long...

Post by GeorgeC » April 2nd, 2007, 6:24 pm

Same as the case was with the first round of "3-D films" in the 1950s, the current craze won't last long...

Why?

(A) It's all about CONTENT people, NOT the media! It doesn't matter if a film is flat, round, "stereoptical 3-D," or a projected hologram, if it doesn't have a story and characters that involve the audience FOR THE RIGHT PRICE, it just won't sell tickets.

(B) People see through many gimmicks quickly. 3-D, and, to a large extent IMAX, are just another in long line of gimmicks motion picture studios and multimedia companies have come up with to get people to part with their hard-earned money.
The gimmicks that HAVE stuck are the ones that added appreciably to the movie-going experience (stereo sound, widescreen processes, color) and DIDN'T raises ticket prices or elevate production costs unreasonably.

(C) The increasingly higher costs of living in the United States have forced many of us to be a lot more stingy with our entertainment money. It's just not cheap to go to the movies anymore. Heck, nothing's cheap anymore!
A silver- or gold-plated turd (movie) is still a turd. Why spend MORE money on a bad film because it's in 3-D?
The Nightmare Before Christmas was an excellent movie and I seriously doubt its recent 3-D re-release paid for its 3-D prints. The fact that "Nightmare" was still available on DVD AND that you had to pay an extra $3 to see the film in 3-D I'm sure hurt its box-office.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 823
Joined: February 22nd, 2007
Location: Belgium

Post by Jeroen » April 2nd, 2007, 6:41 pm

You made some good points there George,
although 3D in the 50's and 3d now is a completely different thing in my view.
This 3D doesnt give you a headache after 20 minutes, and it's in real colour instead of red/blue

In some time every cinema will have digital projectors and you will be able to see 3d everywhere.
I'm expecting it to become much more mainstream and cheaper in the future.
It's still in it's baby years right now.

I know it's used as more of a gimmick now but I'm hoping thats gonna change in years to come,
CGI was a gimmick in its first years as well, Now it's the most normal thing in the world.

To me it's just a step in the evolution of cinema, from black/white to colour to 3 dimensional.

I'm hoping it will eventually be used in regular movies as well in a moderate fashion instead of just in "spectacular" movies.
For example: Just 2 people talking in a park on a bench or whatever and you getting the feeling you're sitting next to them.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 7951
Joined: October 25th, 2004
Location: Binghamton, NY

Post by ShyViolet » April 2nd, 2007, 11:02 pm

(C) The increasingly higher costs of living in the United States have forced many of us to be a lot more stingy with our entertainment money. It's just not cheap to go to the movies anymore. Heck, nothing's cheap anymore!
SOOOOOOOOOOOO true. :wink:

You are a wise man, George. :) :wink:


************************************************************


I don't know what's the big deal with 3d....I did see it once I think, in Universal Studios, with the Alfred Hitchkock theater, y'know The Birds flying out right at you, etc..... :shock:

That was cool. But it was basically a RIDE, not a movie.

IMHO, screw all this 3d stuff. That's for theme parks, not movie theaters. How about investing in more IMAX theaters? Now THAT would get me to go to the movies more.

With more sophisticated "home theaters" available now, blu-ray, HD etc....going to the movies has got to be more SPECIAL.

Solution:

Bigger screens (pref. IMAX)
Cleaner theaters
More comfortable seats that aren't, um, broken. :(
Ushers!! :)
Healthier snacks, and NOT AS EXPENSIVE. :?
Cell phone ban--get caught using yours more than once, and OUT you go. :roll:

Oh yeah,and one more thing:


Films You Might Actually WANT to Go See!!! :wink:

I'm hoping it will eventually be used in regular movies as well in a moderate fashion instead of just in "spectacular" movies.
For example: Just 2 people talking in a park on a bench or whatever and you getting the feeling you're sitting next to them.
Wow, great idea Zwollie!! :) I like that! :wink:

Almost like everyone being inside the same dream..... :shock:
“Ahh, fresh victims for my ever-growing army of the undead.
Sir, you have to let go of the button.
Well, son-of-a-bi-“

Animated Views Admin
Animated Views Admin
Posts: 6901
Joined: October 16th, 2004
Contact:

Post by James » April 2nd, 2007, 11:14 pm

I disagree. This 3d is not your fathers 3d. For the most part, the gimmicks are gone. The new 3d technology not only lets things float from the screen, but also gives things depth - a sort of reverse 3d where it looks like things actually are behind where the screen is. If you haven't seen it yet you've got to try it. You get so used to it you forget that is is 3d and just accept the depth as the new norm.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 3845
Joined: May 31st, 2005
Location: Maryland

Post by Meg » April 3rd, 2007, 2:40 pm

That was cool. But it was basically a RIDE, not a movie.
Aw, no way, Vi! :P You should really try seeing a Digital 3D movie when you get the chance - it's A LOT different than a ride. You know, things don't shoot out at your face every five seconds.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 2949
Joined: October 24th, 2004

Post by GeorgeC » April 3rd, 2007, 3:58 pm

James wrote:I disagree. This 3d is not your fathers 3d. For the most part, the gimmicks are gone. The new 3d technology not only lets things float from the screen, but also gives things depth - a sort of reverse 3d where it looks like things actually are behind where the screen is. If you haven't seen it yet you've got to try it. You get so used to it you forget that is is 3d and just accept the depth as the new norm.


I saw Nightmare in 3-D.

Still had many of the same problems that previous 3-D films like Captain Eo and The Honey I Shrunk the Kids Epcot attractions did.

(A) Very obvious plane separation. Foreground objects look dimensional, backgrounds seem flat. It's an unnatural 3-D presentation that doesn't resemble real life. Conventional "flat film" still looks better.

IMHO, the biggest advances in film the past 20-30 years have really been in sound presentation.

(B) The fact that I have to still wear glasses is a big point. That's an irrrecoverable cost for these films. If the glasses DO get reused, how abused do you suppose they'll become? I wonder how often Universal and Disney have to replace these glasses at their 3-D attractions.
May be a little point with the theme parks, but do you honestly think theaters want to deal with even more crap than they already do?

(C) You can't deny that cost is a big sticking point with people. There's only so much disposable income the average joe can spend on entertainment. The high cost of new technology delays the introduction of it to the mainstream. That in addition to standards that are continually evolving and make last year's obsolete.
I'd still say that a big reason for people being picky about movie-going and home video media is cost. The fact that we are seeing the average movie price going above $10 and that these "extras" like 3-D cost an additional $3-$4 on top of a regular $10 ticket price, this just won't fly with regular people.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 823
Joined: February 22nd, 2007
Location: Belgium

Post by Jeroen » April 3rd, 2007, 4:09 pm

I saw Nightmare in 3-D.

Still had many of the same problems that previous 3-D films like Captain Eo and The Honey I Shrunk the Kids Epcot attractions did.

(A) Very obvious plane separation. Foreground objects look dimensional, backgrounds seem flat. It's an unnatural 3-D presentation that doesn't resemble real life. Conventional "flat film" still looks better.
I do think only new films should be made that have 3d in mind.
Old movies should stay just the way they are in my view.
(B) The fact that I have to still wear glasses is a big point. That's an irrrecoverable cost for these films. If the glasses DO get reused, how abused do you suppose they'll become? I wonder how often Universal and Disney have to replace these glasses at their 3-D attractions.
May be a little point with the theme parks, but do you honestly think theaters want to deal with even more crap than they already do?
You're right about that, It's expensive for one and I used wear glasses ( wear contacts now ) and glasses over glasses never feals comfortable .
But as I said, it's still in its baby shoes, eventually in the way distant future glasses wont be needed anymore.
It does take time to evolve

Animated Views Admin
Animated Views Admin
Posts: 6901
Joined: October 16th, 2004
Contact:

Post by James » April 3rd, 2007, 4:13 pm

I mentioned in another thread that Nightmare in 3D was a waste of the time it took to create it. So I don't think it's fair to take the worst example of the technology to pan the whole thing.

As for the cost, well that is for consumers to decide. I'm willing to pay the premium. But I may not be the norm. I pay extra for movies in my local theaters' Director's Hall - comfier seats, more leg room, extra concession service etc. I also pay the extra fee to pay for movie tickets online so i don't have to wait in line. So I can't say much about what the average joe might think about the cost.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 7951
Joined: October 25th, 2004
Location: Binghamton, NY

Post by ShyViolet » April 3rd, 2007, 11:28 pm

Aw, no way, Vi! You should really try seeing a Digital 3D movie when you get the chance - it's A LOT different than a ride. You know, things don't shoot out at your face every five seconds.


I'll have to give it try sometime. :wink:

I still prefer IMAX however.

It would be so awesome to see a Jurassic Park movie in 3d!!! :D (I mean one directed by Spielberg that is. :?)
“Ahh, fresh victims for my ever-growing army of the undead.
Sir, you have to let go of the button.
Well, son-of-a-bi-“

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 823
Joined: February 22nd, 2007
Location: Belgium

Post by Jeroen » April 4th, 2007, 6:31 am

Lord of the rings would be amazing as well.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 3845
Joined: May 31st, 2005
Location: Maryland

Post by Meg » April 4th, 2007, 7:08 am

I think they said they were going to release the LoTR movies in 3D in an article in Popular Science - they had a whole big story on the new technology and stuff. Same with Star Wars.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 823
Joined: February 22nd, 2007
Location: Belgium

Post by Jeroen » April 4th, 2007, 7:29 am

I knew star wars was coming but Lord of the rings is a suprise to me.
But damn the final battle in return of the king must be amazing to watch in 3d.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 3845
Joined: May 31st, 2005
Location: Maryland

Post by Meg » April 4th, 2007, 3:46 pm

You can say that again!

George Lucas said in the article that he's never making a movie in 2D again.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 261
Joined: November 15th, 2005
Location: Beautiful Downtown Burbank

Post by Sullivan » April 4th, 2007, 5:21 pm

As long as people are born with two eyes, 3D movies will be made.

Popularity may increase or decrease. But it'll always be around. It's in our very nature to want to look at something in 3D.

Interesting tidbit... 3D images date back to old stereoscopic photography... which was a huge phenomenon in the 1800s. As a matter of fact, I've read once that we have more 3D photographs of Abe Lincoln than we have 2D photos of him.

User avatar
Animated Views Admin
Animated Views Admin
Posts: 18833
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » April 4th, 2007, 6:34 pm

Meg wrote:You can say that again!

George Lucas said in the article that he's never making a movie in 2D again.
Apart from Indy IV ;)

Post Reply