This article posted in the Transformers thread, but I like Cameron's and even Bay's thoughts on this whole 3-D stuff.

http://www.deadline.com/2010/03/mich...e-jury-is-out/

I'm more worried that this 'tier-pricing' is going to set a dangerous precedent. Right now they explain away the higher price with the fact that you're buying the glasses with it, but before too long everybody who goes to movies will own at least one pair of the damn things... it's doubtful they will ever lower the ticket price even if 95% of the moviegoers no longer need the glasses. So then we're stuck with the idea of a higher price for a 'premium' film.

But where does that mentality end? Will they start charging a premium for big budget films like Iron Man 2? Will Star A start demanding in their contract that their film charge a dollar more per ticket than Star B's?

No one (that I have talked to, at least) has ever said that the ticket price difference was due to the cost of the glasses. I have even spoken to my local theater manager about this. The difference has always been explained to me as being due to the increased cost of the "print", and the increased cost of buying and maintaining the 3D equipment in the auditorium. Whether that is a legitimate reason is obviously open to debate, but the glasses have nothing to do with it.

I suspect that some low-level theater employees may use the glasses excuse as a way to deflect customer complaints, but that doesn't really mean anything.

What a load of crap- with digital there IS no print- they get a hard drive and that's loaded onto a server, then they get a 'key' from the studio to play it. If anything they should be charging LESS for anything that's digital because it requires a lot fewer people to run the projection booth- the shows can even be started unattended. The equipment might cost money, but what they save in payroll alone makes up for it, along with the money the studios are saving in not making or shipping film prints.

Quote from Aja due to the upcoming Piranha 3D over on AICN...

No Aja, that's not true 3D. True 3D is done in camera. Cameron, for example, was able to see the 3D as he was on set doing both live-action and motion capture for Avatar. Ellis did the same for The Final Destination.

CGI rendering is not real 3D. If you have to do all your 3D work in post, that's 100% conversion.

Does anyone know if it's OK to take a 4 year old kid to watch "how to train a dragon" in 3D? I'm afraid he's going to hide under his seat. well I'm actually almost 90% positive he will hide under his seat at some point, but in 3D it will probably happen much faster.

You mean Pixar and Dreamworks shoot their 3D features with real cameras?

If the CG objects already exist in 3D space in the computer, they can be rendered from two different angles for real 3D, like a video game or the first two Toy Story movies. That's what he's getting at. Although, the resulting mix of real 3D and fake 3D elements in the same shot may be odd.

I agree with this guy's opinion on the impending death of 3D (again), mostly this:

If a movie is filmed for 3d and benifits from it I have no problem paying extra. I thought the 3D was awesome in Avatar and got my moneys worth. I think the second best 3D movie I have seen was Chicken Little, the depth was excellent and the color was still vibrant.

The problem I have with 3d movies is in regular theaters the Digital 3d the glasses they give you are too small and dont cover your whole viewing angle, and I have noticed the picture needs to be brighter. It looses so much contrast and vibrant punch. This may because the theater doesnt have the projector at the highest brightness, since they want to expand the life of the bulb.

I dont like seeing them market movies that really shouldnt be in 3d like Clash of the Titans and Alice in Wonderland. I didnt think the 3d in Alice was very good at all. and when Clash of the Titans comes out I will be seeing it in 2D

That's something I'm wondering about for 3D in the home. Will you need to re-calibrate your brightness when you switch between 2D and 3D? Apparently, they're going to use the same video for 2D and 3D (the 2D will just be the left or right eye image), so they can't adjust in the transfer. I wonder if the 3D BD spec has a provision for the player increasing the brightness when a title is played in 3D mode.

like I said before, 3D is good for 3 things: sports, nature shows, and porn...

What's the next big 3D movie like Avatar? Is there one?

Avatar 2, or whatever else Cameron does next. Seriously, the guy took 8 years to get that right. No one is pulling that off anytime soon.

I love that Ebert keeps calling out studios on the 3D bullshit. His reviews for both Clash of the Titans and How To Train Your Dragon basically say save your money and see it in 2D.

CHICKEN LITTLE wasn't in 3-D. It was 3-D CGI animation, like pretty much most animated features of the last 7 or 8 years, but it was never IN 3-D. You weren't given glasses to watch it.

^YES IT WAS. I saw Chicken Little theatrically in Disney Digital 3D, wearing the glasses... you've got your facts mixed up. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0371606/trivia

Dragon looked great in 3D. Clash looked like crap. No comparison.

Yes, CHICKEN LITTLE was indeed released in digital 3-D format in a few markets. The 3-D version played on about 85 screens nationwide, as opposed to today when there are thousands of capable venues.

I saw it in 3-D.

HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON is awesome in 3-D; probably the best use of the format in a CGI flick yet. Seeing it flat would not be worth it to me. Now as for CLASH, no one can really argue.

I'm not sure, but I think by "3D bullshit" he may have meant the converted 3D as opposed to real 3D.

I don't know anything about Dragon so I was just going by what Ebert said for that one. Maybe it was always intended for 3D. Even so, if the film loses that much by not seeing it in 3D well was it really any good then? I saw Up in 3D. After seeing it at home I didn't feel 3D added anything.

It bugs me that we seem to already be at a point where every computer animated movie MUST be in 3D or else. I guess all those Pixar award winners were missing something right?

Dragon's got an amazing 98% on RT - wow.

I took my 4 yr old to Dragon in 3D on opening night and he loved it. you should be fine

The Clash of the Titans was not filmed in 3-D and converted to go along with the current craze of charging more for a 3-D movie.
http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/movi...titans-3D.html

I just read somewhere that Iron Man 2 is getting the 3D conversion.

that's great the critics are loving it, but I'm getting the sense not alot of kids and parents are flocking to this as Dreamworks had hoped.

Great commentary from Ebert on the fad:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/237110/page/1

He makes some very valid points.