3D Another doom and gloom prediction....3-D (1 Viewer)

[Persianimmortal]

People can like what they want. Personally, I'll be happy to see the gimmick end.

If you think about it carefully, slipcovers, steelbooks, and assorted other superfluous and utterly wasteful packaging trickery are the real gimmicks when it comes to Blu-ray. They typically add nothing of value to the movie experience whatsoever... unless of course you like collecting printed cardboard or metal cases. Yet for some reason, 3D, which actually adds a new dimension (literally) to a movie, and is a valid use of a visual technology that people can choose to enjoy, is frequently dismissed as a "gimmick". You know, if we're going to be logical about this, let's get rid of all the other gimmickry first before wanting to see 3D die off.

The fact is that there is not that much demand for it as very few tvs have the option available.

That is not a fact. The actual fact is that most TVs now have 3D built-in. For example, in the 2012 Panasonic Viera range, the majority of the sets are 3D capable (UT, ST, GT and VT series). The majority of the 2013 series which has just been announced is similarly 3D-capable.

 

[Todd J Moore]

One thing that a lot of 3D Haters tend to forget is that this run of 3D is actually entering it's 10th years. That's a longer run than any other time in movie history, unless you want to count 1968-1985 as a straight run, but the majority of that was porn. 3D in the mainstream hasn't had as good a run as this ever. True, it took a couple of years to kick up a head of steam, but it was ten years ago that SPY KIDS 3-D: GAME OVER and GHOSTS OF THE ABYSS hit theaters and lead to the current technology. 3D will never be in every movie the way sound and color is, nor should it be. But 3D is fairly common now and doesn't seem to be going anywhere for a while.

 

[DaveF]

The article made sense to me, in the assertion that 3D was not used much to promote other announcements. If HD had been pushed hard, everything was shown in HD to promote HD, and every set for sale had HD as standard feature...then the next CES all the promotions were done using SD video because HD, while available, wasn't really that interesting or useful. That's the implication from the article. I'd enjoy 3D at home if I had it. But I have to buy a new display for that, and I'm not sure when that will be.

 

[Dick]

If you think about it carefully, slipcovers, steelbooks, and assorted other superfluous and utterly wasteful packaging trickery are the real gimmicks when it comes to Blu-ray. They typically add nothing of value to the movie experience whatsoever... unless of course you like collecting printed cardboard or metal cases.

You are so right, sir! These damn slipcovers are completely wasteful. I can't see that they would really further discourage shoplifting, so what's the point of them? They are wasteful and superfluous in the way that cardboard long boxes were for CD's for a number of years (but in that case, environmental complaints finally stopped their use). For those who love those 3-D plates on the sleeves, why can't studios simply adhere them to the keep case, thereby eliminating a ton of wasted cardboard and thus the salvaging of many trees?

 

[Ejanss]

You are so right, sir! These damn slipcovers are completely wasteful. I can't see that they would really further discourage shoplifting, so what's the point of them? They are wasteful and superfluous in the way that cardboard long boxes were for CD's for a number of years (but in that case, environmental complaints finally stopped their use). For those who love those 3-D plates on the sleeves, why can't studios simply adhere them to the keep case, thereby eliminating a ton of wasted cardboard and thus the salvaging of many trees?

Over on another forum, we have an entire CULT of folks who believe that slipcovers are some rare limited-edition packaging embellishment, and must be treasured like collectors' items. It's become a running joke to try and heckle...er, intervention these people that the cardboard slipcovers are merely just to display sales information for store shelves, are often identical or inferior to the case cover, and can, like your mattress tag at home, be removed and discarded once you've actually made the purchase and walked out of the store. The response is usually "But what about those cool 3D plates?", which usually brings responses from folks who simply rip the glued-on plate off the cardboard, put it inside the plastic case front like it should be, and recycle the tree-product. The difference between the "gimmick" of packaging, and the "gimmick" of 3D in the theaters, of course, is that steelbooks and cardboard slipcovers aren't a vile conspiracy by Warner and Sony to replace every movie ever made in the theaters, force us to buy overpriced hardware, and then sell us something else a month later...Just watch, they're probably getting 8K holographic sets ready as we speak! ()

 

[DaveF]

Originally Posted by Dick
You are so right, sir! These damn slipcovers are completely wasteful. I can't see that they would really further discourage shoplifting, so what's the point of them? They are wasteful and superfluous in the way that cardboard long boxes were for CD's for a number of years (but in that case, environmental complaints finally stopped their use). For those who love those 3-D plates on the sleeves, why can't studios simply adhere them to the keep case, thereby eliminating a ton of wasted cardboard and thus the salvaging of many trees?

If we're going for minimal packaging, we need to eliminate the entire packaging, and package the disc in a minimal card sleeve. Then get rid of the plastic disc itself and go to online distro

 

[SilverWook]

You are so right, sir! These damn slipcovers are completely wasteful. I can't see that they would really further discourage shoplifting, so what's the point of them? They are wasteful and superfluous in the way that cardboard long boxes were for CD's for a number of years (but in that case, environmental complaints finally stopped their use). For those who love those 3-D plates on the sleeves, why can't studios simply adhere them to the keep case, thereby eliminating a ton of wasted cardboard and thus the salvaging of many trees?

Those infamous long boxes actually survived in membership stores like Costco well into the new century. They were even selling DVD's in them. Was very surprised first time I saw them, as I had not seen a long box since the early 90's. I presume it was a way of making their stock look "exclusive".

 

[Persianimmortal]

If we're going for minimal packaging, we need to eliminate the entire packaging, and package the disc in a minimal card sleeve. Then get rid of the plastic disc itself and go to online distro

While streaming/digital only is indeed very efficient in terms of resources, it has a way to go before it becomes as convenient and matches the quality of Blu-ray. But Blu-ray cases are anything but superfluous. They actually serve a role in protecting the disc during transport and storage, something that a sleeve would not do. Case in point: I received several Blu-rays from Amazon UK a couple of months ago where the package had been put under significant pressure, and two of the BD cases had actually cracked/split down the side. The discs inside however were unscratched and worked perfectly, so I just switched the cases for new ones. Cardboard wraparound slipcovers on the other hand serve no practical purpose whatsoever. They just pander to the "collector" mentality, and indeed, as Eric points out, were you to visit another forum that shamefully sullies the name of Blu-ray, you would see a whole host of people lathering up with excitement over this sort of cheap gimmickry. Yet they would be the first to scream that "3D is a gimmick", and often do, when they themselves indulge in a much more pointless gimmick of their own.

 

[Ejanss]

The article made sense to me, in the assertion that 3D was not used much to promote other announcements. If HD had been pushed hard, everything was shown in HD to promote HD, and every set for sale had HD as standard feature...then the next CES all the promotions were done using SD video because HD, while available, wasn't really that interesting or useful. That's the implication from the article.

And as another poster pointed out (it was too good not to pass along), by the same logic as the article, there are clear indications that color TV is dead, and networks are planning to drop color broadcast in favor of B/W-- Judging from the fact that TV shows no longer say "In COLOR" as they used to do when it was popular back in the 60's and 70's. A clear sign of the networks losing interest and failing to promote the new format.

 

[DaveF]

They still use color on all their demo work. So I don't think that comparison works. But if all the CES press talks and demos and booths reverted to black and white, yes.

 

[Yorkshire]

One thing that a lot of 3D Haters tend to forget...

That shouldn't enter into it. People who hate 3D should be prepared to accept if it's a success and those who love it should be prepared to accept if it has failed.

...is that this run of 3D is actually entering its 10th years.

That's more damning than anything, isn't it? After 10 years I think sound, colour, and 'scope were pretty dominant. 3D still seems to be stuck in its own genre film ghetto of kids' animation, teen horror, and sci-fi/fantasy. People will still complain of headaches, finding 3D gimmicky, not seeing any effect, or not liking the effect they see. A majority of people still either dislike 3D, or can take it or leave it. Very few demand it. A decade into the life of sound films you had trouble getting wild horses to drag people into a silent film. This is despite things generally moving more quickly these days. Every new invention and innovation seems to have arrived, been accepted, then ditched for the next fad well within ten years, but 3D is still very much trying to grow into mainstream acceptance. Ten years since we started, and how many mainstream dramas are being made in 3D? Less than 10% ? Less than 1% ? None? A DECADE IN! I don't agree with the article. 3D isn't dead. It may not by dying. But it certainly isn't anywhere near as advanced after 10 years as its supporters would have hoped. Steve W

 

[Persianimmortal]

People will still complain of headaches, finding 3D gimmicky, not seeing any effect, or not liking the effect they see. A majority of people still either dislike 3D, or can take it or leave it. Very few demand it.

I'd venture a guess that the single biggest reason for home 3D not "taking off" is that it requires hardware upgrades, and most people will argue that it "makes no difference", or "it's a gimmick" largely to avoid having to pay for such upgrades. In other words, saying 3D isn't all that good is more of a soothing justification rather than a genuine reason. Sure, I'll agree that 3D isn't as amazing as it was hyped up to be, but it's definitely a nice feature to have. To put it another way, here we are 7 years into the Blu-ray format, and DVD sales are still comprising the bulk of home media purchases (around 75% last time I looked). According to your logic, this means that either Blu-ray is not particularly useful, or "isn't as advanced as its supporters would have hoped". The reality is that most people will justify continuing to purchase DVDs and watch movies in SD simply because they don't want to spend the money to upgrade their system to full HD. It's not Blu-ray that's at fault or a silly gimmick, it's that people don't like spending money.

 

[Albert_M]

I'd venture a guess that the single biggest reason for home 3D not "taking off" is that it requires hardware upgrades, and most people will argue that it "makes no difference", or "it's a gimmick" largely to avoid having to pay for such upgrades.

"largely to avoid having to pay for such upgrades?" No, most people simply view it as a gimmick - something that's a fine once in a great while visual effect to watch, but that's it and certainly don't want to waste any additional money on it. I think this is a case where a forum's ability to draw in enthusiasts, distorts the reality that most people simply view it the way I stated above.

 

[Ejanss]

The reality is that most people will justify continuing to purchase DVDs and watch movies in SD simply because they don't want to spend the money to upgrade their system to full HD. It's not Blu-ray that's at fault or a silly gimmick, it's that people don't like spending money.

Remember when the FCC upgrade to digital sets, thereby "requiring" everybody to upgrade to HDTV and discover Blu-ray, was probably "the government in a bribe deal with Sony to sell expensive players", since 'there was probably no demand for the fancy new format nobody wanted"? How about the folks who stubbornly claimed they "saw no difference", since "their upscaling DVD player worked fine"? ...Jack Benny had NOTHIN' on these folks. And even then, when a future Blu-ray title hit theaters, it didn't have cheap post-conversions for marketing, or glasses surcharges at the ticket booth, thus giving every moviegoer self-righteous "justification" to put on their old Occupy V-masks and march around in front of Warner studios claiming they were being "persecuted" by the studio execs, and that the 99% moviegoers would defeat their expensive ploy someday...

 

[Ryan-G]

If you think about it carefully, slipcovers, steelbooks, and assorted other superfluous and utterly wasteful packaging trickery are the real gimmicks when it comes to Blu-ray. They typically add nothing of value to the movie experience whatsoever... unless of course you like collecting printed cardboard or metal cases. Yet for some reason, 3D, which actually adds a new dimension (literally) to a movie, and is a valid use of a visual technology that people can choose to enjoy, is frequently dismissed as a "gimmick". You know, if we're going to be logical about this, let's get rid of all the other gimmickry first before wanting to see 3D die off. That is not a fact. The actual fact is that most TVs now have 3D built-in. For example, in the 2012 Panasonic Viera range, the majority of the sets are 3D capable (UT, ST, GT and VT series). The majority of the 2013 series which has just been announced is similarly 3D-capable.

For me at least, I am really bothered by the "Gimmick" implementations that are far more common than adding a new dimension to a moive. Quite often, 3D involves extremely awkward shots that exist just for the sake of "Something's coming out of the screen!". Resident Evil had many of these, Pirates of the Carribbean's last movie had at least one, and I've come across a number of other movies that did the same. Other times it's used in a different way to break the 4th wall, where something is falling from the sky and you get an exagerrated scene of some character touching it to try and make it look like he's grabbing something floating in the air of the theater. Contrast that to a movie like Avengers or Avatar, the rare instances where it's used for adding a new dimension to the movie instead of trying to play the gimmick. That's why I really wish 3D would just end, because much of the time it's not used as a form of artistry in order to enhance the experience, but just as an excuse to throw something at you. Which I find the scenes, even in 2D, to be jarring and immersion-breaking due to the awkward way the scenes are commonly shot.

 

[Todd J Moore]

What Ifind interesting about all this is that IMAX is just as much a gimmick as 3D, and in fact many of the complaints against 3D can be leveled at IMAX as well, and yet there isn't this groundswell of hatred for IMAX. Why is that? Seriously, consider the following: IMAX has been used for fiction movies for roughly as long as the current spat of 3D and yet, it's not used for dramas. It, like 3D, has been "stuck in a genre film ghetto" comprising of action movies, superhero movies, animated films, and sci-fi/fantasy. You can no more see Les Miz the IMAX movie than you can Les Miz the 3D movie. Ironically, Les Miz might have actually worked for both, but that's beside the point.The point is, neither was used. And at least there have been a couple of dramas like HUGO and the upcoming THE GREAT GATSBY in 3D. There have been zero dramas in IMAX--as one poster put it--A DECADE IN!!! Plenty of people can't watch IMAX movies either as it tends to make them sick or cause vertigo. I myself have an issue with IMAX. Unless it's underwater, I can't watch it. Oh, and those various flying through the air shots designed to put the audience in the movie? Just as awkward and pointless as many 3D effect shots. But yes, THE DARK KNIGHT RISES is as much a gimmick film as HUGO. Just different gimmicks. And there's nothing to be ashamed of there, either. HOW THE WEST WAS WON is a gimmick movie, too. So was THE ARTIST for that matter. So sometimes, gimmick movies can be pretty good, too. And that is one thing about this current run of 3D movies. There's been some undeniably good ones in this run, including a few that would give the best of the 1950s films a run for the money (sorry, Bob). There's also been some good directors putting them out like Martin Scorcese (who, as I think of it may have made the best 3D movie of all time), Steven Spielberg, Peter Jackson, Ang Lee, and James Cameron. If you're fine with IMAX, that's cool. Just realize that you're fine with a gimmick, the very thing you're arguing against with 3D.

 

[Edwin-S]

Stating that a technology is "dead" because it wasn't front and center at CES is the usual hyperbole. Sure, it may not have been used to promote other announcements and/or was not promoted as heavily as in last CES's but that doesn't mean it is "dead". That is a pretty big show. I'm pretty sure if a person walked around, he/she would have seen 3D content on display. Most new sets are incorporating 3D as standard. Once a technology becomes standard (used or not) it becomes old hat as far as a technology show goes. The new dog and pony show manufacturers are trying to hitch their wagons to is 4K UHD. A technology that, in the average home viewing situation, will have even less apparent impact than 3D. At least with 3D a person can see a change in the picture. With 4K sets there is going to be no noticeable difference in the PQ in the average home. If there was ever a useless home theater technology, it is that one. However, if I had unlimited money to continually upgrade, I probably would buy a 4K set simply because I am a gadget head and like new technology, even the kind that has no apparent use under normal circumstances.

 

[Sam Posten]

Sam, You're late to the party.  http://www.hometheaterforum.com/t/326672/another-doom-and-gloom-prediction

Looks like they got merged together. That's cool. Either way, I continue to enjoy 3D Blus but refuse to pay extra for em, will give 'converted' 3D a fair shake, and will buy a 3D PJ when I can, but I fully expect that it's a fad that isn't going to last or go mainstream.

 

[Albert_M]

Seriously, opening it up that everything - all films are gimmicks? Come on. I don't think that's a great argument. I don't really think it's that hard to digest - some people don't want to wear glasses to see something fly at them for 2 hours, let alone pay more than the already high cost to see a movie in a theater... or care very much to watch 3D at home. They just want to watch a film. An an occasional diversion can be fine, but the constant use is gimmicky. Yes there are other abused aspect to films. Computer animation at the expense of quality is a problem too. A big problem. When was the last time an explosion in a film did not look like a video game explosion? The difference with most other things and 3D is that the studios see the 3D as a specific financial opportunity to up sell consumers... so much so that they have released many non 3D filmed movies as 3D etc. I'm not breaking any new news here. And once again, that doesn't mean that people can't love it, but the reality is that a small dose goes a long way for most consumers.

 

[Ejanss]

Seriously, opening it up that everything - all films are gimmicks? I don't really think it's that hard to digest - some people don't want to wear glasses to see something fly at them for 2 hours, let alone pay more than the already high cost to see a movie in a theater... or care very much to watch 3D at home. They just want to watch a film.

(You saw a 3D movie with stuff flying at you? Where?...Which one? I've been wanting to see some of those, just like in the 80's, but all I've been getting lately is this Avatar "depth" crap!)

An an occasional diversion can be fine, but the constant use is gimmicky. Yes there are other abused aspect to films. Computer animation at the expense of quality is a problem too. A big problem. When was the last time an explosion in a film did not look like a video game explosion? The difference with most other things and 3D is that the studios see the 3D as a specific financial opportunity to up sell consumers... so much so that they have released many non 3D filmed movies as 3D etc. I'm not breaking any new news here.

So, it's "The evil studios in our faces" and "Why haven't movies been better lately?" No. You're not. In fact, you seem to be running the exact same hit parade as all the other paranoiac bashers, who can't seem to talk about the home-theater format ITSELF for five minutes straight without social persecution and theater whining.