The death of 3-D cinema?

maxmordon · Sep 16, 2011

Nostalgic and somewhat elitesque naysayers saying victory too early for a normal bump in the road or an actual blow to a gimmicky Hollywood fad?

http://www.slate.com/id/2303814/pagenum/all/

An analysis published in Slate last August showed that the patient might already have flat-lined. The profitability of 3-D cinema had dropped since the start of the vogue several years earlier, and more recent films were barely breaking even on their 3-D screenings. Now we've got another year's worth of data—12 months' more evidence that the medium is in peril. According to a New York Times business story from June, waning enthusiasm for 3-D has brought the vultures circling, with shares of DreamWorks Animation, the studio managed by Jeffrey "2-D films are going to be a thing of the past" Katzenberg, in free-fall. Shares of RealD, one of the big players in stereo projection technology, have also been in a tailspin, losing 70 percent of their value since May.

DeleyanLee · Sep 16, 2011

I don't know about others, but I've never seen a movie in 3D that actually was worth the extreme price-jump from 2D. That includes Avatar.

And if a movie isn't released in 2D in my area, I simply wait 'til it comes on cable and Hollywood doesn't get any of my money.

I'm one of the unemployed, so where each dollar goes makes a difference. While I'll still see a movie in the theater, they haven't earned the big bucks with that technology. I think the bad economy is probably a big factor since I doubt I'm alone in really wanting the biggest bang for my few bucks.

Toothpaste · Sep 16, 2011

Quite frankly most films that come out in 3D are only released that way for the extra grab for more cash. They aren't shot in 3D, nor is 3D taken into consideration with the storytelling. Most of these movies are made much darker by having to look through the glasses, and are not remotely enhanced by the experience.

The studios haven't seem to cared. They will ruin films they have spent millions on simply so they can earn more money with the higher cost for audiences to see 3D. Take the latest PIRATES film (not particularly good anyway), almost all of it is shot in the dark, and with the glasses on you actually couldn't see half the movie. But who cares? It made millions.

So, my point? I'd be happy to see it fade into oblivion, and the odd film that truly needs to be 3D because it is integral to the storytelling and was shot using 3D cameras. . . well those can be the odd exception.

Shadow_Ferret · Sep 16, 2011

I've never seen a 3D movie on my life. I don't understand what the point is. Now if it was real 3D, like a Star Trek holodeck and you were in the middle of it. That would be cool! But just being an illusion created by some migraine inducing glasses I have to wear over my regular glasses, that's just silly and not worth the extra expense.

parumpdragon · Sep 16, 2011

I've only ever seen one thing in 3D and that was in 1996 at Disney Land. It was a show called "Honey I Shrunk The Audience", and yes it was shot in 3D. Plus there were hydrolics in the seats and air valves (etc.), which made it feel like everything happening on screen was happening around you - down to the lab mice escaping off the stage and under our seats...

It was cool, and yes we have the glasses, but it was an experience. Not just a movie

. A ride, of sorts.

DeleyanLee · Sep 16, 2011

Shadow_Ferret said:
I've never seen a 3D movie on my life. I don't understand what the point is. Now if it was real 3D, like a Star Trek holodeck and you were in the middle of it. That would be cool! But just being an illusion created by some migraine inducing glasses I have to wear over my regular glasses, that's just silly and not worth the extra expense.

I will say that the glasses technology has improved. The 3D glasses in the '80s gave me killer migraines, but the modern ones are no problem at all. And I wear oversized glasses both then and now.

Torgo · Sep 16, 2011

Only 3D film I've seen was THOR. It was dim, hard to focus on, and all in all a rubbish gimmick.

Another rubbish thing is that apparently the projector lens needs to be swapped out to show 3D, and because of the draconian DRM system built in to the projection tech the whole system needs to be rebooted each time. This takes long enough that a lot of cinemas don't bother - in order to get the next load of punters in promptly they just leave the 3D lens in place for 2D films, which end up murky and dim as a result.

leahzero · Sep 16, 2011

3D film will never* truly catch on. Here's why:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=238gr0R2CXg

(See especially the last 10 minutes.)

For the tl;dw version:

Depth perception is used primarily in near vision. Events in film rarely occur so close-up. Perceiving depth in objects that are supposed to be far away (e.g. players on a football field) is unnatural and something we never experience in the real world. It actually lessens the realism of a scene.

For objects that are close-up, e.g. a spear hurtling out of the frame toward the viewer's face, other problems occur, such as your eyes being focused on a screen 10-100 feet away while the spear is supposedly mere inches from your face--but you can't focus on it, because technically it's on the screen.

This is why I hate the current "3D" in movies, games, etc. It's not real 3D, it's an unnatural distortion of human depth perception. The sooner it goes away, the better. Poke me when we start working on real "real 3D."

* Until it can be simulated via a true 3D environment, a la virtual reality.

Manuel Royal · Sep 16, 2011

I don't have stereoscopic vision in real life; my eyes don't point the same way, so my brain never developed the skill, and 3D movies don't work for me. But even if the effect did work, it seems an unnecessary gimmick.

defcon6000 · Sep 16, 2011

Only movie I saw in 3D was Tim Burton's Alice, which didn't do much for me. Plus, its annoying to wear glasses AND the 3D glasses.

To me it's a gimmick and hopefully one that goes away.

parumpdragon said:
I've only ever seen one thing in 3D and that was in 1996 at Disney Land. It was a show called "Honey I Shrunk The Audience", and yes it was shot in 3D. Plus there were hydrolics in the seats and air valves (etc.), which made it feel like everything happening on screen was happening around you - down to the lab mice escaping off the stage and under our seats...

It was cool, and yes we have the glasses, but it was an experience. Not just a movie . A ride, of sorts.

I went on that ride too! Hella fun, and that's how 3D should be. If you want to sit back and have something popping out at you, just buy a pop-up book.

kuwisdelu · Sep 16, 2011

Die, gimmick, die.

ETA: And stop thinking I want it in my TV, either.

c.m.n. · Sep 16, 2011

The death of 3D cinema?

Hells ya! Now I can go to the movies again whoo hoo!!

Shadow_Ferret · Sep 16, 2011

TV. Yeah. A fortune in replacing misplaced glasses.

Jess Haines · Sep 16, 2011

Thank goodness.

I've only seen two films in 3D. Avatar and Tangled.

Ironically, I haven't been back to the theater since Tangled. Enjoyed both movies a lot more when I watched them at home on the big screen TV instead.

DancingMaenid · Sep 16, 2011

Manuel Royal said:
I don't have stereoscopic vision in real life; my eyes don't point the same way, so my brain never developed the skill, and 3D movies don't work for me. But even if the effect did work, it seems an unnecessary gimmick.

I have a similar issue. With my wandering eye, I can't really focus on the screen with both eyes at once. Because of that, I don't see 3D effects that well, and older 3D technology, with the red and blue or red and green lenses, doesn't work at all because it requires sensory input from both eyes. (Though, I have noticed that if I try to look at older 3D stuff like that with only one lens, one of the lenses, I think the red, will give me a bit of a 3D effect. The other lens does nothing.)

The newer technology seems to work better for me. I haven't been to a 3D movie, but I have looked at demo models of 3D televisions, and those glasses appeared to work. Though, of course, I have no way of knowing if I'm seeing it differently than someone with normal vision. In any case, I don't like how it darkens the picture.

Gravity · Sep 16, 2011

I've only ever seen two 3-D films. The first was back in the seventies when a local theater played the 1953 (Vincent Price) version of The House of Wax. It was a lot of fun, but a lot of that had to do with a raucous crowd on a Halloween night.

The other was in the mid-80's, a Western called (appropriately enough) Comin' at Ya. It starred no one, and the storyline was likewise forgettable (stolen gold, if memory serves).

All I really recall is the frigging thing was as dark as Charlie Manson's heart, and gave me a ringing headache.

Hiroko · Sep 16, 2011

I've *unfortunately* had to sit through 3D movies due to going too late after the movies were released, and I don't get the appeal. I've always seen 3D movies as a fad, and I'm eagerly awaiting their death.

Manuel Royal · Sep 16, 2011

Y'know what does give me a good 3D illusion? A bright, clear, well-framed movie scene using a normal camera. For over 100 years, movies have provided that illusion; something that's like reality, only better. The camera can take you inside a drop of water, or outside the Galaxy; it can show sweeping, calamitous events or the emotion on a single human face. You don't need a stereoscopic gimmick on top of that.

Gravity · Sep 16, 2011

^^^Quoted for truth

BunnyMaz · Sep 16, 2011

I do find myself wondering about this. Does anyone like 3D? I mean, I'll admit to having seen a couple of films with 3D, but that isn't by choice. If my younger SIL wants me and the mister to go see a film with her, we have to watch it in 3D. None of the cinemas near us, aside from little small-business endeavours which don't always get the big new films at all, offer a non-3D option any more.

I can never see the action scenes properly since, with all the flashy motion and 3D my eyes can't work out where to focus, so every action scene is a blur.

The only effect it has had is that I go to the cinema a LOT less often than I used to. It seems like pretty much everyone I know takes the attitude of "If I really want to see a film, I'll tolerate the 3D"

ceenindee · Sep 16, 2011

I like 3D in animated films. I thought it was great in Coraline and How to Train Your Dragon, and I'm hoping to see the re-release of Lion King this weekend.

I don't really know that it's as worth it for live action movies. I found with Harry Potter that I had to sit just right or the effect would get thrown out of whack.

shelleyo · Sep 16, 2011

I can't watch 3D movies. I can't play first person shooters. I can't read in a car. I've always known that in a moving vehicle I have to look at moving things. But I didn't know I had the opposite form until I tried to play Doom years ago and got horrifically sick every time.

If I went to see a 3D movie today, I'd have to leave the glasses off, which defeats the purpose, or I'd be vomiting in short order.

I did go to see two 3D movies years ago when my daughter was small--Spy Kids 3D and the Rugrats 3D movie (or was that one the ones with the scratch 'n sniff cards?), but I didn't wear the glasses for more than about 2 minutes at a time before feeling awful and taking them off or just closing my eyes. Watching a 3D movie with the glasses off is the pits because nothing looks right--at least the Spy Kids movie didn't. Maybe today it's different. I'm not paying the extra to find out.

I'll be glad when they stop, then my cousin who doesn't have a touch of motion sickness will stop trying to convince me to go by telling me that it'll probably be okay because the technology is so wonderful. Ugh.

Shelley

parumpdragon · Sep 16, 2011

My mother has vertigo and it sets her off, the world seeming to go end over end, when she sees things like 3D.

BigWords · Sep 17, 2011

I love the theater experience, so I'm hoping real 3D catches on in a big way - y'know, with the actors in the same room as you. No film can come close to the experience of seeing a live performance.

shelleyo · Sep 17, 2011

BigWords said:
so I'm hoping real 3D catches on in a big way - y'know, with the actors in the same room as you. No film can come close to the experience of seeing a live performance.

Makes those car chases kind of tricky.

Shelley, who thinks seeing Phantom of the Opera on stage was better than any movie she'll ever see

The death of 3-D cinema?

Penúltimo

Writing Anarchist

THE RECKLESS RESCUE is out now!

Court Jester

I sometimes hiccup fire

Writing Anarchist

Formerly Phantom of Krankor.

The colors! THE COLORS!

Revolutionize the World

Beary cute ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Court Jester

Boldly going nowhere in particular.

New kid...seven years ago!

Seen 'em come, seen 'em go

Which of them was the machine?

Seen 'em come, seen 'em go

Ruining your porn since 1984

Just another face in a red jumpsuit

I sometimes hiccup fire

Geekzilla

Just another face in a red jumpsuit