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

[Tyler_Legrand]

They have to try 3D because there's virtually nothing cinemas can offer that you can't get with BluRays and widescreen TVs.

[GRUNT]

I would argue that theatres offer a fantastic communal viewing atmosphere which can really heighten the experience of seeing a film for the first time, and also that the sheer size of the screen and the sound has a definite impact that isn't quite the same even in top-notch home theatre setups.

Back on-topic, 3D films strike me more as being a gimmick rather than a 'natural evolution' of cinema. From what 3D stuff I have seen, there's a definite lack of sharpness in the visuals...and it becomes a pain to watch for extended periods of time.

[Ben]

I totally agree, but unfortunately the world seems to be getting more and more insular. I was having a conversation with a friend of mine the other night and it was amusing how we both felt that people are staying in more to talk to other people online!

I am ALL for getting people together and sharing a movie experience with them: it's why I'll invite anyone into my home theater and why I help run an annual film festival each year, to get people out of their homes and into enjoying a film that might not have otherwise come across, with an appreciative audience.

Even movie parties are much more fun that watching a movie on your own, but it doesn't look like that's the way it's going. Soon we'll be watching first run movies on download, on small screens at that, and if 3D makes an impact on the home market, then theaters are finished. People, generally I obviously mean, don't seem to be bothered by the big picture and sound.

[GeorgeC]

People don't want to seem to pay the big bucks studios want them to for their entertainment.

Blu-Ray sales are in fact better than laserdisc sales ever were but people are delaying upgrades because there's only so much entertainment they can afford in their budgets. The current economic climate sure isn't helping either.

For as much as industry officials complain about DVD sales being down (just means they aren't growing 20%+ per year like they were for a while) now is a better time than at any other point to be a home video film affficionado. There is more stuff available on home video than ever before, and, as these knuckleheads running the home video companies realize there's tons of stuff left in the studio film vaults that haven't seen the light of day for decades(!), they're releasing more and more of it. Add to this the great fact that I can go to Wal-Mart, Best Buy, and a bunch of places and occasionally buy quality films for under $10! $5 even if I'm lucky. It was very hard to do that with either laserdisc or VHS and be guaranteed a film that would play or a video copy that wasn't somehow defective. (Happened to me with both of the latter formats, btw.)

I don't think expensive technology that really doesn't improve the movie experience and that forces me to pay higher ticket prices is the answer.

Content still rules over all else which is just a nice paper wrapping...

As long as 3-D depends on gimmicky red-and-green glasses for a flimsy visual effect, count me out. Just not impressed.

[Ben]

I don't think 3D - even in the home - relies on red/green specs anymore George.

[GeorgeC]

Gee, Ben,

Last time I checked you STILL needed the glasses to see these films in 3-D. You can try watching them without the glasses but I wouldn't recommend it. It's sort of like looking through crud-encrusted Coke bottles. It's as blurry as those 3-D comics are and about as special, too (not very).

Ditto for every 3-D film I've ever seen released on home video. "3-D" glasses required unless there's a regular, flat version on the DVD.

And as far as many people are concerned, the films are still a headache with or without the glasses. Nausea concerns are also why we don't have smells (other than the B.O. of the people around you) in films, too.

Frankly, I didn't think seeing Nightmare Before Christmas in 3-D made it a better film than it was the first time I saw it.

Same technology used for the 3-D version of that film is what's being used for the reprocesses of the Star Wars and Toy Story movies. Cameron's Avatar is going to be a bit more advanced and involved with 3-D than the reprocesses of the older films but I think that film still needs the glasses.

This is not true 3-D anymore than computer animation is. It's just a bad gimmick being revived because movie studios are desperate to get people in the seats and still haven't gotten it through their heads that a gimmick only works once or twice... Last I heard, 3-D still failed miserably in the 1950s. With the cash crunch going on now in the entertainment industry, I wonder why they think all that extra film processing time (and ie, extra budget costs) for BAD stereo-optical effect is worth it?

[Ben]

Not using DLP or, as Sullivan says, LCDs now. They can play back the newer kind of 3D content using the clear glasses, even in the home. I saw a DLP demonstration and apart from the possible lack of need for it, it did indeed work.