3-D movies or "How Hollywood figured out to suck more money out of moviegoers" (1 Viewer)

[DaveF]

Quote:Originally Posted by Michael Reuben /forum/thread/298725/3-d-movies-or-...-more-money-out-of-moviegoers/30#post_3669148

 

[Holadem]

You two should've hosted the Oscars.

--
H

 

[Michael Reuben]

Consistent with the title of this thread, the following is from a Wall Street Journal blog entry today:

Domestic ticket sales to 2-D theaters last year edged up just 0.8%, to $9.47 billion, according to a numbers-heavy report released Wednesday by the MPAA. Meanwhile, 3-D admissions for the year were up nearly fivefold, to $1.14 billion, compared with just $240 million in 2008. Put those together and voila: $10.6 billion in total ticket sales. The trend is only going to get more pronounced this year. For one thing, 2009 included just a couple weeks of “Avatar’s” record-setting theatrical run; the film has done more than 60% of its theatrical business since the New Year. And the 2010 release schedule is packed with other new 3-D releases, from last weekend’s record-setting “Alice in Wonderland” opening through the next “Harry Potter” installment, due close to the holidays. And let’s not forget the third, 3-D installment of the “Step Up” franchise, which promises to bring the same kind of technological transformation to steamy dance dramas that “Avatar” brought to interplanetary romance.

http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2010/03/10/3-d-films-added-new-dimension-to-box-office-grosses-says-mpaa-report/ Let the groaning resume!

 

[Bobby Henderson]

I might be willing to give a movie shot entirely in the "Digital Backlot" style a pass on being 2D converted to 3D. The live action elements are pulled out of green screen photography and are, in effect, floating on their own layer. All of the 3D animated elements and node-based effects compositing work exists in computerized 3D space. With some extra work a second camera eye view of all that material can be rendered.

However, some things aren't so simple. If the decision to go "3D" is made after certain key CGI/compositing sequences have gone through their final rendering stages then those flattened 2D scenes might have to be artificially converted to 3D instead of re-rendered for 2 camera eye views.

If you're dealing with imagery that is 100% 2D live action photography going 3D with it is exceedingly difficult. I'm not convinced there is any "auto" buttons to inflate a 2D image to 3D. Lots of abstract decisions computers cannot handle must be made in the process -meaning lots of human intervention. Anyone who has done a lot of work with Photoshop knows how difficult it can be to remove backgrounds or pull photographic objects out of an image. Not everything has a hard edge. Objects like hair, smoke, water, ice, glass, grass, fire, transparent fabrics and many other things are a real pain to isolate. Live action movies have lots of that stuff.

Live action movies also play around with depth of field effects. One scene may have a deep depth of field with objects in the foreground and background in sharp focus. That image will create a lot of work for all the objects that must be isolated and extracted into separate layers to simulate 3D. A low depth of field image creates a potentially worse situation. An object in the foreground is in sharp focus while blur increases on objects farther away from the plane of focus. It's pretty difficult to isolate an object in a photo if it has a blurred edge. Some scenes have such low depth of field that only part of the object is in focus. Good luck inflating that to 3D!

Even when a live action scene can be converted into 3D the end result may have the appearance of numerous, flat looking 2D objects floating in front of each other in an odd looking 3D space. People look like the flattened celebrity cut outs you stand next to for a cheesy tourist photo.

There's lots of tough challenges in converting something shot 2D into 3D. The process isn't easy, I'm sure it isn't cheap and the more 2D live action footage there is the less effective the conversion will be.

 

[Steve Christou]

"I'm a grown man; I don't need to see things jumping out at me," says Zach Galifianakis, star of The Hangover and winner of ShoWest's comedy star of the year award. "If I want to see a bird flying toward me, I'll walk out into my yard. It seems like a great effect but not much more."

Avatar producer Jon Landau, who won the show's innovation award along with director James Cameron, says critics are viewing 3-D too narrowly. "No one would say we shouldn't have gone to sound or color," Landau says. "People are treating it as a gimmick, instead of a tool."

But not all stars want that tool applied on them. "It was hard enough accepting high-definition screens," cracks Sex and the City's Sarah Jessica Parker, who was at ShoWest to pick up the best-ensemble prize. "Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I'm a 2-D girl," Parker says. "I don't want to look like I'm crawling out of the screen at people."

Katherine Heigl sees it differently. "Life," she says, "is in 3-D."

More than two sides to 3-D movie debate at ShoWest

Gimmick or Tool? I've always seen 3-D as a gimmick, an annoying gimmick until I saw Avatar and was blown away by what it can do. Though there were times it felt like I was watching the film through a pool of water.

 

[Jose Martinez]

This is a pretty good article:

http://www.deadline.com/2010/03/michael-bay-james-cameron-skeptical-of-3d-conversions-the-jury-is-out/#more-29283

 

[WillG]

"I'm a grown man; I don't need to see things jumping out at me," says Zach Galifianakis, star of The Hangover and winner of ShoWest's comedy star of the year award. "If I want to see a bird flying toward me, I'll walk out into my yard. It seems like a great effect but not much more."

But not all stars want that tool applied on them. "It was hard enough accepting high-definition screens," cracks Sex and the City's Sarah Jessica Parker, who was at ShoWest to pick up the best-ensemble prize. "Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I'm a 2-D girl," Parker says. "I don't want to look like I'm crawling out of the screen at people."

These seem like myopic attituded to me. They seem to equate 3-D with things jumping out of the screen at you. Granted, many 3-D films were like that, but that's certainly not the way it has to be. Everyone loved Avatar in 3-D. Is that the only acceptable film that there could ever be made in 3-D? Now, I can understand the some of the skeptcism among filmmakers around converting a 2-D film to 3-D (although it can be done to perfectly acceptable effect as the Toy Story re-release showed) And some filmmakers feel perhaps that their projects wouldn't be a good fit for 3-D, and that's fine. But I still don't get where there's a certain faction of people who seem to actively against it (although I can understand why it was hard for Sarah Jessica Parker to accept High Definition Television)

 

[Steve Christou]

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Originally Posted by WillG

I can understand the some of the skeptcism among filmmakers around converting a 2-D film to 3-D (although it can be done to perfectly acceptable effect as the Toy Story re-release showed)

CG films are the exception to the "2D to 3D conversion looks like crap" rule, because they can go back to the original data files to render a legitimate second lens. With live action, the information simply doesn't exist to fill in what was missed by the first lens but would have been caught by the second lens if they'd filmed in 3D from the start.

 

[DaveF]

Steve - that's awesome!

 

[mattCR]

Prime example of really BAD conversion of 2D to 3D.. the new clash of the titans. Woof. Save all your money, I've heard this is good in 2D, but the effects are pointless and everything is crazy blurry in 3D. Talk about complete suck fest.

 

[sayall]

Oh Benson... dear Benson... Tiffany Bracelets !!you are so mercifully free of the ravages of intelligence.

 

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by mattCR

I've heard this is good in 2D,

I just saw Clash Of The Titans and it would be terrible in any dimension.

 

[mattCR]

Ok, then let me just say: the 3D has to be worse. Because that thing is like the shittiest 3d I've ever seen. It's borderline unwatchable.

 

[TravisR]

Oh yeah, the 3-D transition was lousy too.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

I can personally take or leave 3D, Avatar was spectacular in 3D but I still don't have a burning desire to see every new film that comes out in the format. In fact if it were to go away completely tomorrow I wouldn't miss it in the least and wouldn't even inquire as to where it went.

I also have absolutely zero desire to see TITANIC in 3D. It's one of my favorite films of all time but I don't need to see people jumping from the ship and falling off the screen at me, the film works as well as it will ever work in 2D.

I'll even go so far as to say that if this is James Cameron's idea I'm highly disappointed in him.

As for the new 3D at home technology coming out...meh, I don't like the idea of having to wear the glasses all the time to watch TV at home. Here's an idea, if this trend becomes standard maybe eye doctors can come up with a new kind of contact lens that works just like the glasses?

 

[pandora321]

Peter Jackson's LOTR trilogy and James Cameron's Titanic. Peter Jackson wants to convert his trilogy to 3D but Warner is hesitant on doing it (although they may have changed their minds). If it happens, I'm there. Titanic is going to take a year or so to covert (and it's already in the process) so a re-release in 3D should be around the end of 2011. I'll definitely be there to help break Avatar's box-office record.
http://www.tf-mart.com/
http://www.pandoraestore.com/
http://www.linkslondonsale.com/
http://www.panjewellery.com/

 

[pandora321]

As for the new 3D at home technology coming out...meh, I don't like the idea of having to wear the glasses all the time to watch TV at home. Here's an idea, if this trend becomes standard maybe eye doctors can come up with a new kind of contact lens that works just like the glasses?
http://www.tf-mart.com/
http://www.pandoraestore.com/
http://www.linkslondonsale.com/
http://www.panjewellery.com/

 

[SilverWook]

It would be nice if this rekindles interest in 3D still photography. I was just getting into taking such photos in the 90's when the company that made the cameras and processed the film went under. If you've never seen a lenticular photo, you see the effect without glasses. There must be a way to do it with digital photos and video.


I'm surprised Cameron didn't think about Viewmaster reels when it came to merchandising.

 

[WillG]

I'll even go so far as to say that if this is James Cameron's idea I'm highly disappointed in him.

Redoing Titanic in 3-D would be totally his idea. That is to say, it would not be done if he didn't want it to be.