musick

I too had no interest at all in 3D and have yet to see a modern 3D theatrical presentation .....
however.... I did check out Samsung (CWACOM) and Panasonic (demo) 3D displays at BB/Magnolia recently and was actually quite impressed

I still wouldn't pay a premium to see it in theaters or pay current prices for the home theater experience but I have moved away from my it's all a gimick attitude

Travis McClain

I still think it's much too early to pass final judgment on 3D. Remember the 90s, and how many movies got away with having CGI effects in lieu of an actual story? Audiences didn't go for that very long, and I think that's part of why the CGI-laden films of the past decade were (by and large) much better. A big part of it is that it took filmmakers a while to become familiar enough with the technology to learn how to use it in their storytelling. There's a learning curve to this stuff, and I think we all need to be patient with the people who've been tasked with catching up to it.

That said, these studios are out of their ever-loving minds if they think I'm going to fork over that kind of money for a first generation 3DTV.

Draven

Well, we've already been through 3-D cycles. I don't understand why anyone thinks this time is any different and will somehow "stick".

Xander

I do not see movies in 3D and have yet to come across a movie where I thought "wow, this would be so much better in three dimensions". I just have no interest. Seems gimmicky and I have yet to see the value of 3D film proven to me.

And also wearing the glasses sucks.

Travis McClain

Because things constantly evolve. On a technological level, at least, filmmakers are more sophisticated today than ever before. Just because we haven't seen the potential realized yet doesn't mean it won't one day be. I agree with those who aren't impressed with what's out there today, but it's still way too early to pass final judgment.

Ash Ketchum

Panasonic is doing a big push with their 3-D TV sets. What is there to see in 3-D on TV? Does anybody here actually want to watch stuff in 3-D at home? How many people have the TV on while they're doing other things and are really only listening to the TV? How many have living rooms big enough to be able to sit back far enough for the 3-D to work? I could see watching something in 3-D on TV once in a great while, but not every day or even every week.

Travis McClain

I cannot stand to have the TV on unless I'm actually watching it. Unfortunately for me, my wife is one of those people who can't stand quiet and insists on turning it on. I've found since I converted to only watching what I really want to watch that 1) I enjoy those shows more than when I flake out and just keep surfing for "something" and 2) I don't feel nearly as much of a zombie. But this is a thread about 3D and not TV viewing habits, so...

I think this is an instance of the "If you build it, he will come" philosophy. I don't think Panasonic expects great market penetration with their 3DTVs right now, so much as they realize if it's going to work at all, it has to come out swinging. They're hoping that content providers will take the plunge soon enough to entice buyers. I've heard that at least some sports programming by year's end may be available in 3D. How well it will work is anyone's guess, of course. And there's been a lot of speculation that the next generation of video game consoles will be designed for 3D games.

What surprises me, really, is that it isn't Sony leading the charge. They're the only conglomerate in the unique position of manufacturing hardware (TVs, Blu-ray players and the PlayStation) as well as content (TV, movies and video games). I would have thought they would have coordinated things so that 3D consumers would have a variety of content viewing options from Day One.

Hokeyboy

Travis McClain

I'll grant you the average comic book flick isn't exactly on par with the greatest works of cinema. But I still believe that, by and large, audiences have become much harder to impress than they were 15 years ago, and I think there's been a more conscious effort to get the story right than before. Yes, we still get things like Hulk or Superman Returns, but audiences rejected those; a decade earlier, and they would have gotten by with the "wow" factor of CGI effects and been hits.

Hokeyboy

People like overblown CGI over storytelling more than ever.

Labor

Except that Avatar has better storytelling than 95% of other blockbusters of the past decade, not to mention it used its 3D solely for immersing the audience in the narrative.

The fact that it has the most impressive CG ever seen in a motion picture doesn't change the fact that it has a story, and its well constructed, unlike most other garbage these days, like Iron Man 2.

Travis McClain

Regarding Avatar, which I still haven't seen, I understand that the consensus was that the visuals were stronger than the story. But I've heard quite a lot of people who really went for the story, including my mother-in-law who actually bought it on DVD the day it was released. And I don't know that she's ever bought a movie the day it was released. Is that proof that the story was somehow great? Of course not. But I do think the story was stronger in 2009 than it would have been in 1999.

As for Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, it made a lot of money but fans still complained about how weak it was. I think most of its audience went in not really caring what happened, so long as they got to see robots beat the hell out of each other and the camera linger on Megan Fox in between--and they got that. Still, the sentiment that the story sucked has been expressed loudly enough that they've gone out of their way to mention in interviews about the next one that they realize it was weak and have made a stronger effort this time around. Will it be a great film? Likely not, but I think it still speaks to the idea that fans aren't as easily contented as they once were.

Each time a Spider-Man 2 or a Dark Knight comes along, it raises the bar for every CGI driven release. We can see amazing visuals in just about any movie these days (except, for some reason, the Fantastic Four movies). If a movie doesn't have quality writing, by and large fans will reject it, and when fans balk, it can force a dramatic change in a franchise, or kill it outright: Ghost Rider, Spider-Man 3, Die Another Day, Star Trek: Nemesis, Hulk, Superman Returns...

eXcentris

My reaction to 3D is invariably "ok, that's a cool effect", not "wow, it's like I'm part of or "inside" the movie!". It distracts you from the narrative instead of immersing you in it. For me that's the problem with 3D.

Trevor

RoboDad

This post typifies the problem I have with almost all of the statements made as "proof" that 3D is dying. Blanket conclusions are inferred based solely on anecdotal evidence. In this case, the generic word "you" is used, apparently to imply a universal truth. In fact, it does not. You may correctly state "it distracts me from the narrative", but you cannot correctly state that it distracts all moviegoers from the narrative in all cases. In point of fact, well-used 3D has never distracted me from the narrative in a film, any more than well-used color, sound or visual effects have.

RocShemp

I liked Avatar but it's not even remotely close to being a great movie. It's just a fun albeit derivative Western that has humans in the US cavalry role and the Na'avi in the Native Americans role. The 3D does nothing to make that better. It was well used in the visuals but it didn't make the movie better.

It's just a good movie with some nice imagery. Nothing more, nothing less.

Michael Corvin

The first two words of his post were "MY REACTION" which infers the rest of the post would be about his opinion.

Gunde

That's a pretty fucking silly statement.

Trevor

Not just silly, but perhaps the most hilarious words that have ever been strung together in the history of writing.

naitram

Or maybe that a decade into the overall post-9/11 discourse of mainstream entertainment, most people view it as a narrative on a powerful multi-national private military corporation going into a less technologically-advanced civilization to exploit it for natural resources/capital expansion. Sorry, but that's the majority view and that's why it resonates so widely with audiences. Your focus on "another Dances With Wolves in CGI" is a very minority frame of view. Just hate it and move on already.

fitprod

Hmmm... OK, considering it's Ferngully (They even lifted the tree shredder for crying out loud) merged with Aliens, you're giving the general public too much credit.

fitprod

Travis McClain

Why is it that any time someone wants to play "critic," they rush to deride the general public? As I've already asserted, movie-going audiences are more sophisticated and demanding than ever; we've had entirely too many bar-raising efforts to be contented easily.

Yes, popcorn movies continue to earn more at the box office than mature dramas. That doesn't prove that audiences are mindless, though. It proves that more people pay to have a fun couple of escapist hours than to submerse themselves in the kind of movie that often reminds them of the very lives they're trying to take a break from in the first place.

FRwL

Avatar had Seagal-style dialogue, it made Aliens seem like it was written by Lawrence Kasdan.

eXcentris

You're trying to find a "blanket conclusion" or a "universal truth" where none was implied. When the first sentence of my post starts with My Reaction... and the last with For me..., it's pretty much a dead giveaway that I'm only stating MY opinion.

RocShemp

You know, for a guy who likes to word his responses in as fancy a way possible, you don't have much in the way of reading comprehension.

Here's the first part of my post (I'll bold it this time so you don't miss what I said):