are 3d movies going to become commonplace?

[her34]

so i was listening to a conversation about this today, which is summarized as follow:



person A: 3d movies are the future

* movie theatres have historically distinguished themselves from homes: first to have color, widescreen, surround sound

* piracy is the #1 impetus. studios will push anything that curbs piracy: hdcp and vista (windows retooled for drm) is example. 3d movies can be shown in theatres and stereo projector systems will eventually allow 3d movies to be shown at homes, but there is no method of pirating 3d movies

* "avatar" coming in 2009 from james cameron marks the begining of the movement. over the years the 3d technology will be cheap enough to where even romantic comedies and horror movies will use it.


.

person B: 3d movies are only nice features like imax, 7.1 surround, etc, but won't impact mainstream audiences

* enthusiasts care but most people don't. even widescreen and surround sound aren't that important to mass audiences. people who like pan&scan over blackbar widescreen are proof. people who don't even have surround sound systems are proof. people who can't really tell much difference between sd-dvd and hd-dvd/blu-ray are proof

* piracy has never been stopped. hd-dvd/blu-ray has already been cracked before many consumers even know what they are. windows drm is constantly cracked and upgraded by msft. even for 3d movies, piracy will find a way.

* the fancy feature are becoming impractical. 7.1 hasn't really taken hold. most people are happy with 5.1. dolby specs in hd-dvd/blu-ray allow for something crazy like 13.3 with multiple subwoofers and 2 levels of speakers, all of which will never happen because people don't have the space for the stuff. 3d movies at home will also be limited because of space concerns for most people.



what do you think?

[eedoon]

I myself think that 3D is gimmicky, as how it always was in the past. And even if they succeed, there's always ways to pirate/counterfeit things.

[Draven]

Though I've heard it's amazing, I chose not to see "Harry Potter" at the IMAX simply because I wanted me first viewing to be "pure" without the distraction of 3D to pull me out. We might see it again at the IMAX but it defintely wasn't my first choice.

[Steve Phillips]

In the past few years, 3-D versions of THE POLAR EXPRESS, OPEN SEASON, CHICKEN LITTLE, MONSTER HOUSE, MEET THE ROBINSONS, NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS, SUPERMAN RETURNS (partial), HARRY POTTER 5 (partial) and others have done big business, outgrossing the 2-D showings on a 3 to 1 margin in markets where both were playing. We've gone from less than a hundred capable screens in the US to almost 1000 in less than 2 years, and all the theater chains are all signing deals for 3-D digital projection like crazy.

Hollywood is listening, and all of the following are on the way: U23D, BEOWULF, MONSTERS VS ALIENS, SCAR, AVATAR, JOURNEY 3-D (as in to the Center of the Earth) and more in devolpment. All CGI kids movies will have 3-D versions soon, in fact, Dreamworks has already stated they will go entirely 3-D by 2009.

3-D movies have already gone beyond the gimmick stage, and the latest 3-D movement has already outlasted the ones in the 1950's and 1980's.

Will 3-D take over? No. In fact, flat 2-D versions of movies will be around even when they're playing in 3-D in the auditorium next door. But it's pretty certain at this point that 3-D feature films are going to be a standard part of the mix and will no longer be considered novelties. James Cameron, Robert Zemeckis, Peter Jackson, George Lucas, Steven Speilberg, Robert Rodriguez are a few of the big names that have seen the 3-D future, and all have projects in development or production.

I don't understand how depth would be a distrction. Do you walk around with an eye-patch on so you see in 2-D and aren't distracted by the depth perception two eyes give you? Gimmicky 3-D I can understand, or poorly projected stuff. But the latest digital projection 3-D is simply amazing and emersive.

[Draven]

Originally Posted by Steve Phillips

I don't understand how depth would be a distrction. Do you walk around with an eye-patch on so you see in 2-D and aren't distracted by the depth perception two eyes give you? Gimmicky 3-D I can understand, or poorly projected stuff. But the latest digital projection 3-D is simply amazing and emersive.

It's distracting to me because it's not the way I interface with video in any other way in my life.

I'm a video producer by profession - I don't shoot in 3D. I work on a computer all day - that's not in 3D. My two televisions and projection screen at home are not in 3D. There is no media I observe on a daily basis that's in 3D.

And you can't understand why it's distracting to some people?

[PopcornTreeCt]

3-D may be the future but it's just going to be plagued with mindless blockbusters. A gimmick if you will.

[Steve Phillips]

No, I really don't get it. Humans have stereoscopic vision so I don't understand why movies shouldn't strive to represent that.

Just because you are used to seeing flat movies and TV doesn't mean 3-D should be ruled out forever. By that logic, movies and TV would still be silent, black and white and 1:33 to 1 because that's the way people were originally conditioned to experience them. If you go back and read articles from the times that these technologies were being introduced, you'll find many, many quotes from critics who thought that the talkies, color films and widescreen were distracting and gimmicky.

Also, 3-D movies have NOT always been gimmicky. Sure, the explotation stuff from recent decades was pure cheese, but if you actually watch the old ones from the 1950's you'll find plenty of examples of excellent, restrained yet totally emersive stereoscopic photography. INFERNO, MISS SADIE THOMPSON, DIAL M FOR MURDER, and I, THE JURY are good examples of this. Like 2-D films, the 3-D movies of the time were a mix of good and bad.

It's just a technology like color, widescreen, CGI or multi-channel shound. It's up to the artists to decide *how* they're going to use it.

The only thing that's changed really is that the projection systems are now dependable and simple enough to allow widespread polarized 3-D projection in a consistant manner. In the past, it was a real nightmare for the theaters to deal with. Also, now that they can convert 2-D material to 3-D fairly well (HARRY POTTER for example) some of the complications of shooting 3-D on set are moot.

Simply put, filmmakers now have the realistic option of 3-D, and audiences can still choose either a 2-D or 3-D version. This also keeps them from using 3-D as a crutch, as the films have to play well in two dimensions as well as the stereoscopic version.