Why 3-D is already dying

[Sub-Zero]

http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/27/tech...dying.fortune/

Yet another article claiming 3D is on the way out. Thoughts?

[Blu Man]

You couldn't have included this in the first "3D is dying" thread that you made?

[Sub-Zero]

Originally Posted by Blu Man

You couldn't have included this in the first "3D is dying" thread that you made?

Sorry. I thought the other article was about why people don't like 3D, and this is about "3D dying." I'll be more careful next time.

[DRG]

The biggest problem with 3d is that detractors dismiss it as a gimmick and most fans want it to be a gimmick. The general thinking (backed by James Cameron) is that for 3d for survive it has to be about more than just stuff flying out of the screen, yet whenever a 3d film doesn't go the 'in your face' route all I hear are people complaining that it "didn't really use the 3d". It's sort of a catch 22 for the concept in the long run.

[Ash Ketchum]

If we did a thread on every "3-D is dying" article over the next few months, then "3-D is dying" would qualify for its own board!

[RocShemp]

Originally Posted by DRG

The biggest problem with 3d is that detractors dismiss it as a gimmick and most fans want it to be a gimmick. The general thinking (backed by James Cameron) is that for 3d for survive it has to be about more than just stuff flying out of the screen, yet whenever a 3d film doesn't go the 'in your face' route all I hear are people complaining that it "didn't really use the 3d". It's sort of a catch 22 for the concept in the long run.

This. Exactly this.

[Sub-Zero]

Originally Posted by DRG

The biggest problem with 3d is that detractors dismiss it as a gimmick and most fans want it to be a gimmick. The general thinking (backed by James Cameron) is that for 3d for survive it has to be about more than just stuff flying out of the screen, yet whenever a 3d film doesn't go the 'in your face' route all I hear are people complaining that it "didn't really use the 3d". It's sort of a catch 22 for the concept in the long run.

So is there anyway that people can make 3D more than just a gimmick, while making fans happy with the "new 3D"?

[Sub-Zero]

Originally Posted by Ash Ketchum

If we did a thread on every "3-D is dying" article over the next few months, then "3-D is dying" would qualify for its own board!

This is the last "3D is dying" thread from me.

[MinLShaw]

Originally Posted by Tsung

So is there anyway that people can make 3D more than just a gimmick, while making fans happy with the "new 3D"?

Here's the problem: the people making movies have all been trained in using 2D technology to tell their stories. They're not in the habit of approaching every shot with 3D in mind, and the fix-it-in-post approach discourages them from adapting. I readily concur that 3D as it stands is nothing more than a gimmick, but I don't believe it has to remain that way. But it's going to take a crop of filmmakers with an entirely new, 3D-conscious approach to help the format evolve from being a technological gimmick to an artistic tool.

[Ash Ketchum]

Originally Posted by Tsung

This is the last "3D is dying" thread from me.

Sorry, I didn't mean to discourage you from contributing, simply suggesting that you use this thread (or the other thread) to continue to post links to new articles you find on the subject. My point being that the business and film industry press is going to be harping on this subject one way or another after every 3-D flop until--lo and behold!--the new 3-D has finally joined the old 3-D in the gimmicks' graveyard. OR resurrected itself yet again after another AVATAR-like hit. (These cycles seem to be repeating themselves a lot quicker these days.)

[Sub-Zero]

Originally Posted by Ash Ketchum

Sorry, I didn't mean to discourage you from contributing, simply suggesting that you use this thread (or the other thread) to continue to post links to new articles you find on the subject. My point being that the business and film industry press is going to be harping on this subject one way or another after every 3-D flop until--lo and behold!--the new 3-D has finally joined the old 3-D in the gimmicks' graveyard. OR resurrected itself yet again after another AVATAR-like hit. (These cycles seem to be repeating themselves a lot quicker these days.)

Thanks for your thoughtful reply, Ash Ketchum. Truthfully I hope that this 3D joins the "old" 3D in the gimmick's graveyard sooner rather than later. Despite claims that this is a better 3D product (and I'm know technically it is more advanced than past 3D technology), many of the same problems as "old 3D" are still around, along with new problems, such as poor lighting at the theatre and outrageous ticket prices, is really slowing the acceptence of 3D cinema. And unless there is a real improvement in the type of things being offered in 3D, I just don't see it lasting very long.

[Fist of Doom]

Why do people get so worked up about 3D? If you don't like it or think the ticket prices are too high, then don't see it. It's quite an easy solution.

[Sub-Zero]

Originally Posted by Fist of Doom

Why do people get so worked up about 3D? If you don't like it or think the ticket prices are too high, then don't see it. It's quite an easy solution.

I think the biggest reason that people get "worked up" about 3D is because directors usually change how they film movies for 3D, and when viewed on a traditional 2D screen those movies just look slightly off.

[mgbfan]

I think it will never be more than a niche, largely because a significant portion of the population can't "see" it, due to eye/vision conditions, or can see it but suffer from nausea or headaches when they do.

[Sierra Disc]

Hollywood only thinks in $$$ --
Avatar made more money than anything in the universe
+
and it was in 3D
=
All movies should be in 3D.

Once a handful of big 3D movies bomb suddenly the opposite will be true.

[Sub-Zero]

Does anyone think that if the current 3D technology did not require special glasses that it would have been a lot more successful and more embraced by the general public?

[Jackskeleton]

Simple math would show you why they want to milk it.

You get an added 1/3rd of the price added to the box office. Main reason why I don't fall in for it. Much like showing a film in Imax that wasn't intended to be shown in Imax

[naitram]

Originally Posted by Tsung

Does anyone think that if the current 3D technology did not require special glasses that it would have been a lot more successful and more embraced by the general public?

I don't see how this could be possible in the near future. To me, the answer is more resoultion (2K, 4K, etc) instead of relying on the glasses/2-camera combo type things we have now. It is a gimmick, literally.

The only 3-D movie I've seen in this new rendition of it is Avatar. I'm not interested in it enough to have gone before, and I also know enough about it to know that Avatar is the high-mark and everything else will pale to it, so I don't bother.

Avatar was amazing in 3-D, and it is equally amazing in 2-D, which is a feat in itself. In 2-D, it's film (though it's not film), but you know what I mean. In 3-D, it is not a film in any sense we've had before. The frame is quite non-existant and the focus and perspective is forced into where the 3-D elements direct you. It's an experience and one I quite enjoyed after getting over the initial disconcerting aspects it caused me, but it is not a "frame in which film happens". I loved it because it was quite unique and new plus I loved the movie, but I can't begin to imagine wanting to see many movies that way. Much more of an amusement park ride experience than a film. And though I would like to see it again that way in the theater because it was so different, I'm quite relieved the Blu-ray is 2-D and still want to see it 9/10 times in 2-D - it's just a more "complete" experience when you're allowed to view the filmed frame in its entirety on your own. I get the feeling (and from the numbers) that many other people feel the same.

But this is how these things are worked out. There needs to be a "discussion" as such about whether we want to view movies in this way or not. These discussions will happen in their respective markets and the information-transmission mechanism of those markets will answer it over time. So I think it's a little early to declare that "3-D is dying". Cameron is an innovator, no doubt. And the studios are nervous about declining ticket sales against the juggernauts of television and expanding accessibility of high-bandwidth internet, so the gimmicks need to be tested. They've allowed some of their film holdings to be purchased and viewed in HD already, which is definitely a blow to the theater-going draw. Will they let those properties be accessible to the public at 4K resolutions for your home, basically giving you the equivalent quality of their own film masters? I think 3-D is a stopping point on that path to slow that likely inevitable process and outcome.

Sorry if this was nonsensical rambling, painkillers are weird.

[RayChuang]

Here's the problem with 3-D movies: you need to wear special glasses to enjoy the movie. Given the large number of people who already wear glasses to correct vision problems (like me!), having to wear another pair of glasses is a very inconvenient thing to do.

In my humble opinion, the more likely next step forward is switching to digital projection on a very large scale over the next decade, especially now with a whole movie at 2000-line resolution fitting on a one terabyte drive that can connect to the projector using Fibre Channel connections--and the hardware cost has dropped dramatically in recent years. Indeed, a lot of theaters have already switched to digital projection, especially with no more worries about film scratching, broken film strips and the fact the whole projector setup is a lot smaller than it used to be with no more needing two big "plates" of film reels to show a two-hour movie.

[Michael Corvin]

Originally Posted by Fist of Doom

Why do people get so worked up about 3D? If you don't like it or think the ticket prices are too high, then don't see it. It's quite an easy solution.

On the surface, sure. All these movies in 3D though, means fewer 2D screens and fewer showtimes.

[Giles]

Originally Posted by RayChuang

Here's the problem with 3-D movies: you need to wear special glasses to enjoy the movie. Given the large number of people who already wear glasses to correct vision problems (like me!), having to wear another pair of glasses is a very inconvenient thing to do.

In my humble opinion, the more likely next step forward is switching to digital projection on a very large scale over the next decade, especially now with a whole movie at 2000-line resolution fitting on a one terabyte drive that can connect to the projector using Fibre Channel connections--and the hardware cost has dropped dramatically in recent years. Indeed, a lot of theaters have already switched to digital projection, especially with no more worries about film scratching, broken film strips and the fact the whole projector setup is a lot smaller than it used to be with no more needing two big "plates" of film reels to show a two-hour movie.

however Technicolor is implementing 3D technology on pre-existing 35mm projector's - the need to have a Digital Projector for 3D capabilities has become null.

[Drop]

Originally Posted by RayChuang

Here's the problem with 3-D movies: you need to wear special glasses to enjoy the movie. Given the large number of people who already wear glasses to correct vision problems (like me!), having to wear another pair of glasses is a very inconvenient thing to do.

Really has never bothered me. They fit fine over my glasses, and I stop thinking about them after the first 3D trailer.

I am not one of those people that love the gimmicky aspect of throwing shit at you, but the way to deal with that, is to create great depth in scenes and maybe only in extreme action scenes throw stuff at the camera. The 3D effects have to be apparent now, and as more directors get a grasp on it, they can use it just to enhance space.

To me 3D is like the difference between a telephoto and wide lens. Most people in the audience aren't going to think about it, but the director is using it to enhance an element of a scene.

I thought Pixar's 3D films have usedit appropriately, and that includes their Toy Story 1&2 conversions. Coraline was really great, stop motion seems like a perfect fit. Beowulf impressed me as well. Don't think Avatar needs to be mentioned, it is the shining example.

[Draven]

After Avatar, I gave it 5 years before it went away again. I'm going to amend that to a few more years but only for animation. Honestly, I think wearing the glasses made my 4 and 6 year olds pay more attention to Toy Story 3.

That said, the reason I don't like 3D is the same reason I don't like "reality" TV: it detracts talented people from working on good projects. And it's a lazy gimmick to get butts in the seats. The quality of the movie itself should be the only "gimmick" to do that.

I've yet to see a good movie made better with 3D, and it doesn't make bad movies good, so I fail to see the point.

[Peep]

Originally Posted by Draven

And it's a lazy gimmick to get butts in the seats. The quality of the movie itself should be the only "gimmick" to do that.

What planet is that where the quality of the movie used to get butts in seats?

[MinLShaw]

Originally Posted by Peep

What planet is that where the quality of the movie used to get butts in seats?

It's tempting to be completely cynical and concur with this, but positive word of mouth is still key to a movie's performance. That's why studios go out of their way to find positive words to excise from critics for inclusion in their promotional materials (even if they have to do some creative cutting and pasting to make it sound better out of context than it really was).

There was a recent article published that demonstrated a direct correlation between a movie being discussed on Twitter and its box office performance. Not just the volume, but once the tweets were read, the tone of them even more specifically related to box office performance. It's surely no coincidence that the first "promoted" Twitter trending topic was Toy Story 3; Disney/Pixar paid quite a lot of money to make sure people on Twitter saw their release every time they checked the top trending subjects. Yes, it was a gamble; every tweet could have been that the movie was horrible, but they were pretty confident that the word of mouth would be favorable...which is why it bothered me so much they weren't confident enough to keep their money and let it happen organically.