You, sir, make an excellent point! This is the fourth or fifth time you've mentioned this, and nobody seems to have anything to say about it.

There's that word that keeps popping up: "immersive". Since when was film about putting the viewer INSIDE the movie? You are not in the movie. You're watching it, taking in the screen compositions and the events they depict.

While it's nice if you can identify with a character and ponder what you would do in that person's predicament, film is not a 1st person art form. That's what video games are for.

To me, the whole "immersive" trend (especially that bullshit "4D" thing in Korea) is no different than what would be the ludicrous act of housing Talouse-Latrec's paintings inside a room that is built to resemble the Moulin Rouge, or making a person listen to "Raindrops Keep Fallin' On My Head" while standing under a sprinkler. It distracts from the work of art, or more likely, is being used to cover up the weaknesses in storytelling in these movies.

Art is supposed to spark your imagination. It's an object. Something to look at or listen to, not something to BECOME ONE with like V'Ger.

Here's my question. 3D has been pushed on theaters to try to bring folks off their couches and back into the theater, right? Fine with me, as long as I still have a 2D alternative, since 3D gives my wife headaches and can't make it through more than about three minutes. What I want to know is, why are they also making such a push to market 3D TV's and Blu-ray players? Doesn't that then encourage those folks who used to stay home to just...stay home?

I often wondered how theater owners must feel about this until I saw what a clusterfuck hdmi 1.4 and FHD3D seem to be. I now doubt they're losing any sleep over this.

It's simple. People in these industries think 3D = $$. They are using Avatar to "prove" this. It will ultimately bite everyone in the ass.

I've seen a lot of 1950's movies in 3D but not until this thread did I learn that Kiss Me Kate was a 3D flick. Cool.

When the 3D Blu-Ray player gets into stores, does anyone think that companies will start transfering catalog movies into 3D Blu Ray versions that originally didn't play in the theaters as 3D?

And I wonder if the 3D Blu-Ray would be more expensive than the regular Blu-Ray...

If the movie was conceived and shot with 3-D in mind, then depending on the film I might buy into it. Ex. would be Avatar.

But I'm vehemently against films like Clash of the Titans being converted in post to 3-D. That's a gimmick I won't be wasting my money on.

That's exactly what they're going to be doing. Sony has already confirmed they have titles lined up to be converted to 3-D.

Cinema is all about illusion. The "immersive" effect that can be achieved in 3-D is an illusion also. It can be a very nice illusion when it's done right. I haven't seen it done right often enough. FINDING NEMO would have been great in 3-D, for me, because it would have given me that illusion of being under water and rooting about all those beautiful fish and other life forms found in the deep. There were scenes in AVATAR that apparently worked that way for many members of the audience, to such an extent that they were reportedly depressed to find themselves back in the real world when it was over. That's a pretty powerful illusion provided by a 2-dimensional medium. AVATAR didn't work that way for me, for various reasons, but I don't begrudge other people that experience.

Hilarious Anthony Lane article on the history of 3-D from the latest New Yorker

So far I've been enjoying the 3d "revival" of sorts. I loved the My Bloody Valentine remake, the Final Destination 3d was fairly bad, but the 3d made it watchable. I just saw Alice in Wonderland and I did not think that 3d brought alot to that movie, however I was entertained. I think 3d will not make a movie good, but it certainly can make it more exciting to watch.

As someone who wears glasses, I have found that the glasses provided at the theatre are not so comfortable. Has anyone tried making a pair of their own, or modding a pair from the theatre? As there are more and more 3d releases and the theatres around here use the Real 3D technology I am going to try this. Just curious how anyone else made out. I really wish they would have a paper glasses option, as this would fit most easily for us vision impared folks.

I actually wrote an essay about it several years ago and this book: Film Theory and Criticism has several essays that discuss the "original limited appeal" of color, specifically the Carrol piece.

Sadly 3D isn't going away, in fact it's only going to get worse. To be honest, I don't mind watching 3D films in the theater. My concern is what will happen when some of these movies hit DVD/Blu-Ray. Movies such as My Bloody Valentine and The Final Destination look horrible using the enclosed glasses, and watching them in 2D is pointless since those movies use the 3D gimmick far too much. Is Saw 7 going to be ruined at home because of a gimmick used to pad box office numbers as well?

I don't think so. Kevin Greutert isn't too keen on filming in 3D in the first place and has made comments about aspects of the film that he knows won't look good on regular televisions and will be changed for his Director's Cut.

I have a few issues with 3D...

Prices: Just another reason for the theatres to start raising average prices again. Here in Canada, I had to pay $15.50 to see Alice in 3D. After seeing a few 3D movies at these inflated prices (Cloudy, Avatar, and Alice), I`m convinced that it`s not worth the extra cash.

Focus: When I watch a movie, I like to focus on different parts of the screen, and not necessarily what`s in the foreground. I found, especially with Avatar, that if I wanted to focus on something other than whatever was in-focus at any given time, the rest of the image would appear distorted until I focused on whatever the cinematographer wanted me to focus on. In fast-paced action scenes, it becomes very difficult to keep proper focus. I tend to just close one eye. 2D movies don`t have this same problem; some things are out-of-focus, of course, but the entire image doesn`t appear distorted if I shift my focus elsewhere.

Disrespecting the classics: I really don`t want to see any films converted to 3D just because the studios can do it. It is just as disrespectful as colourizing old B&W films, if not worse.

I'll pay to see Casablanca in 3D, if that means that I can get Billy Madison in 3D.

Just to confirm, 2D was not an option, correct? Because here in Phoenix, most-every theater gives you the choice. And that's how I like it. Not sure how it works up there.

C'mon. There's got to be a better example than Saw 7. Is Saw 7 really going to be "ruined" by anything else, other than being Saw 7?

2D was available, but the two people I was with (wife & friend) chose 3D over 2D. It didn't help that the 2D showing was over an hour later.

But, just to be clear, I'm more or less okay with theatres charging a bit extra for 3D (since I won't be attending a 3D showing any time soon). What bothers me is that, at least where I'm at, theatres seem to be raising the prices of 2D films again. It couldn't have been more than a year ago when a regular ticket was $10.95. If this has anything to do with the battle between theatres and studios over who is supposed to cover the cost of 3D installations, it seems to me that regular prices are going up in order to compensate for that. As a consumer, it feels like the 2D viewers are indirectly paying for the 3D showings.

Forget Casablanca. How about A Trip to the Moon?

I got an e-mail from starwars.com last week with this in it:
The thing is, once all theaters have gone digital and are 3D ready, you know that ticket prices won't go down. The customers should be seeing lowered ticket prices for lower production costs, but that will never happen. What a joke.

Perhaps the savvier theater operators have jacked the prices in anticipation of those savings, thinking that by the time they're taking full advantage of digital delivery, their patrons will have simply accepted those higher prices. Nah, they wouldn't do a thing like that...

Now, if we're to believe those who insist that the free market will create the best price for consumers, then we should expect some theaters to try to under-price their competitors, relying on the digital delivery savings to offset the shift in their revenueperating cost ratio. Or something. I still think they'll pocket the savings and continue to charge more. We'll see.

It's not some sort of conspiracy. Running movie theaters can be a tough business. For every blockbuster that people line up for — or see multiple times — there must be several flops that can't even fill the seats on opening weekend. It costs money to show a movie to a nearly empty theater.

Movie theaters aren't necessarily competing with each other, rather, they compete with other forms of entertainment, such as TV, home theater, live theater, books, sports, even video games (for those of the video game generation). If the customers decide the prices are higher than they are willing to pay and they stay away, revenues will drop. Theater owners walk a fine line with ticket prices, especially since they make the majority of their revenue from concession sales (much of the ticket sales goes to studios).

For now, the novelty of 3D plus an actual blockbuster in Avatar is allowing theaters to raise prices a bit to help cover the cost of the new equipment. But if the novelty wears off, as I think it will, or if this year's movies aren't popular, the theater companies could end up hurting: all that money for equipment and no butts in the seats.

We can decide for ourselves whether or not a particular movie is worth the ticket price. If we don't like it, we can stay home and wait for the BD or do without. No one owes us a cheap ticket to a movie theater.

Many people here at DVD Talk have stated that they rarely, if ever, venture into movie theaters (for reasons like crying babies and other distractions more than ticket prices, from what I've seen). Some of them have made exceptions for a 3D movie like Avatar. But that may not continue. We shall see.

Certainly, and I appreciate the need to put asses in seats. Perhaps I made the situation seem more devious than I intended. If I might take another stab at it, I would say that at least some theater owners and operators are counting on the eventual savings from digital delivery, with the notion in mind of sustaining current ticket prices--perhaps even raising them--with an eye toward the lower overhead in tandem with high ticket prices to keep them in the black.

Very true. That said, I think it's worth keeping in mind that theaters need asses in seats, and one way of encouraging that is lower ticket prices. As you said, they are competing with other forms of entertainment. It's true that movie ticket prices are more competitive than most alternatives, but I'd be willing to bet that $10-15 a ticket is discouraging many from seeing those venerated 3D releases...especially considering that the majority of those films are targeted at family audiences.

In Vegas, I honestly believe the option is more due to the fact that a lot of the theaters don't want to pay the money to convert the screens to digital.

One of the reasons why a specific theater in Vegas only has one digital projector, Dolby Digital Cinema, is due to costs. It was cheaper (up front) to install the projector, pay for the specific glasses (which are reused after each screening) and pay Dolby for licensing fees rather than going the Real-D route in which one has to pay for the projector, a new screen, and then the licensing fees.

If you've ever compared the two; Dolby Digital 3D is a sack of shit.

There are only two theaters in Vegas that are all digital and are capable of 3D in every screen. Ironically, there used to be four. These other two used to be ran by Regal. However, these two specific theaters' locations were both in Butt Fucking Egypt compared to the general public and nobody really went there. Instead, Regal gutted most of the silver lining screens and DLP projectors in both theaters and sent the screens/projectors to other Regal theaters within the region. Out of the original 27 screens of both theaters, only 9 made it to other Vegas theaters. The rest went outside the state.

What I'm more curious about is when Technicolor 35mm 3D solution starts making it way to theaters across the country.

http://www.technicolor.com/GLOBALENG...ages/home.aspx

Theaters still have to pay for the silver lined screen; but all they will need is an additional lens rather than an entirely new projector.

Fair enough.Yes. I'd think twice if I had to pay that to see a movie. I'm glad $6 to $7 is the going rate out here in the sticks. I paid $6.50 to see Avatar in 3D, although it was a 110 mile (round trip) drive, versus the usual 70 miles to the nearest theaters, so there is a cost to that also.