What actually killed 3D in the silver age 1979- 85 (1 Viewer)

[whyme?]

No this has not been discussed. Being a 3D fan I was disappointed that it stopped by 85. The problem was that not all theaters were willing to put silver screen s and the Bernier process. Only a moderate amount of theaters were willing to put that equipment in their theaters. This resulted in general release of movies like jaws 3D flat. Not that the images were smaller than the ,screen neither . This discourage corporate and independent family film makers to persued it. Since mainstream consumers of entertainment are apathetic and can easily be manipulated, they lost interest too.Except for us large minority of serious 3D enthusiast. So Tony Anthony and Gene Guantano could not make a third 3D movie.

 

[Thomas T]

I think the answer is as simple as this ..... bad movies no one wanted to see. Did 3D make movies like Jaws 3D, Amityville 3D or Spacehunter better movies? In the 1950s, 3D was enough of a novelty that people would pay to see mediocre movies for the 3D effect but this got old very quickly. Simply making a movie in 3D isn't a good enough incentive to get people into theatres. It has to be something special, out of the ordinary. There's a reason Avatar brought people in hordes to theaters and it wasn't just 3D. It was a movie people wanted to see and knew would be innovative. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Dick]

Plus, adding to what Thomas just posted, I would say that, as in the 50's, people grew tired of wearing glasses and getting headaches.

The newest 3D epoch, in the 2000's, held on longer because DCP's made silver screens unnecessary, headaches were rare, IMAX and large theater chains carried them, 3D t.v. emerged and, although always a niche product (like laser disc), it had a solid base of collectors. The format was readily available in Best Buys's and Wal*Mart's.

We've already covered dozens of times why it petered out.

Maybe we'll eventually have a fourth major wave of enthusiasm.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

The newest 3D epoch, in the 2000's, held on longer because DCP's made silver screens unnecessary,

Silver screens were required for RealD and, I believe, IMAX. Dolby 3-D could use a white screen.

 

[Matt Hough]

As a 3D fan, I went to every one of the 3D Silver Age releases that came my way, but I didn't end up thinking of any of them fondly as films. There was nothing of the quality of a, say, Dial 'M' for Murder or Kiss Me Kate. Some of the 3D effects were done well in some of the movies, but that was the only pleasure they delivered.

 

[Clinton McClure]

3-D has always seemed cheap and gimmicky to me.

I’ve only seen two theatrical releases in 3-D. I saw Jaws 3-D during its first run at a local Rialto in 1983 and it didn’t move the needle with me. It might have been because the film itself was beyond awful, I don’t know. I do remember not being impressed by the 3-D and thinking how hokey it looked.

The second movie was Jurassic Park in 2013 when we went to visit my in-laws in Georgia. The glasses we were given at the theater wouldn’t fit over my eye glasses so I took them off and just used the 3-D glasses. I’m near-sighted so the screen was fuzzy and out of focus. The 3-D glasses made that doubly so. About an hour into the movie, my head was hurting so bad that I just took off the 3-D glasses and tried watching the rest of the movie without them, which was equally bad. Eventually, I gave up and waited in the car.

 

[Indy Guy]

Bad movies were a big reason, but in 1982 astonishing 3D imagery made it's debut at Disneyland and Epcot.
It was a twin 70mm process that was clearer than most traditional theaters could possibly provide. The premier film was called "Magic Journeys" presented by Kodak. The cameras were specially built by Kodak, and both the cameras and projectors introduced a sophisticated pin registration enhancement that reduced the obvious jerky alignment that affected all other two projection systems.

Magic Journeys was the first 3D motion picture to display CG imagery. It was in a tug a war with Tron for use of the newly developed Disney image rendering systems.
Yes, the theme park films were novelties, but they set the 3D bar very high and put general release films to shame in terms of quality 3D imagery.

 

[Todd J Moore]

Three major reasons:
1)Every 3D movie from 1966-1997 sucked.
2)Many of them were poorly shot.
3)Despite the belief that single strip systems would solve the misprojection problems dual strip 3D movies had, they absolutely did not.


I know people are going to give me a thumbs down for the first statement, but it's pretty true. The Bubble is a bore. A*P*E is ridiculous. The chop sockey movies are fun in 3D but have no real plot. Andy Warhol's Frankenstein is an acquired taste I didn't acquire (though I admit the female monster is hot). The less said about The Flesh and Blood Show, the better. Don't get me started on how boring Domo Arigato is (it almost makes The Bubble look good in comparison). The rest of the 70s is porn, so I'll take a pass thank you very much. The Stewardesses was quite enough for me. And then there's the 80s batch. I personally think Jaws 3D was the best of the b batch and that says absolutely nothing for Jaws 3D. Comin' At Ya! and Treasure of the Four Crowns have no reason to exist beyond throwing things out of the screen, Parasite is just plain silly (though kinda fun), Friday the 13th was never my thing and seeing the 3rd film in 3D didn't make me want to see any of the others, Spacehunter is almost okay, Metalstorm is not, The Man Who Wasn't There is the Movie That Shoudn't be, and Amityville 3D is Amityville 3D, which is not a good thing. Silent Madness is almost as enjoyable as Jaws 3D, though again we have a low bar. I only saw Rottweiler from Earl Owensby and am not eager to see the rest of his. And finally Starchaser is an animated Star Wars wannabe. Let's not even go into the 90s trio, most especially Run For Cover.

In terms of the way they were shot, too many of them were headache inducing because they'd get the gimmicks so far out of the screen it felt like your eyeballs were being ripped out. I can't watch Comin' At Ya for more than say 20 minutes at a stretch without needing a break. Bob Furmanek talked about how badly shot Warhol's Frankenstein was and frankly, it's a miracle he got it to look as good as it does now. I'm talking purely stereoscopically, because these guys didn't give a hang about the stereo window. There's a reason people complain about the 3DFA not getting to work on some of the silver age releases and how much better they'd look if they did.

Finally, I went to a single strip showing of House of Wax in 1991 at a local theater around Halloween. The screen wasn't silver and I believe the wrong type of beam splitter was being used among other failings. The 3D was non-existent, a blurry double mess the whole 90 minutes. This, by the way, was my first time getting to see House of Wax in 3D. Five years later I went to a midnight single strip screening of Dial M For Murder where the entire first 30 or so minutes was shown in reverse 3D until the theater fixed it. Again, my first time getting to see this in 3D. A year later I went to another midnight showing, this time of Silent Madness, that was an unmitigated disaster, as bad as the House of Wax showing in 1991.

Ray Zone's book also talked about 3D showings of the 80s being misprojected, being shown in reverse 3D or having splices that were cut wrong so the film was out of sync. So yeah, the single strip system solved nothing. At least in the digital age, unless they forget to turn on the 3D filter, misprojection is not a thing.

So there you go. Bad, poorly made movies with misprojection. A one-two-three punch if ever there was one.

 

[Will Krupp]

Finally, I went to a single strip showing of House of Wax in 1991 at a local theater around Halloween. The screen wasn't silver and I believe the wrong type of beam splitter was being used among other failings. The 3D was non-existent, a blurry double mess the whole 90 minutes.

Lol. I had almost the exact same bad experience at a showing of House of Wax in 1982. I was never entirely sure what was different about those re-release prints but they obviously befuddled the poor projectionists who could NOT make it work. It was endlessly blurry, impossibly dark, and the 3D effects never seemed to properly align. The ONE positive was that it all came together for a few minutes when the paddleball man came on and that effect worked like gangbusters. Soon, however, they tried to fix something in the booth and spent a good portion of the second act projecting one of the images onto the left wall of the theater! I was a teenager then and, in later years, I got to know the owner of the cinema very well and he told me it remained THE most harrowing experience ownership and those poor projectionists ever had! Needless to say, we all got an apology and free tickets to another movie as we left the theater that night and I think they pulled the plug on the rest of the engagement.

April 30, 1982 (aka 'that night of terror' lol):

I love that they had a "children's price" for Sword and the Sorcerer (!) but I digress. It's strange because they had no issue with other 3D films. Comin' at Ya was my first 3D experience (also at that particular theater) and, although it's an unequivocally terrible movie, I had a lot of fun. That snake felt like it was in my lap and I never had another 3D experience that gave such a visceral thrill as that one did.

But I don't disagree with anything you wrote!!

 

[Stephen_J_H]

The other issue with single-strip over/under was brightness. Brightness is already effectively halved by polarisation; by splitting the frame, over/under halved it yet again, and exhibitors at this time were infamous for running their xenon lamps dimmer in an effort to preserve the bulb [fun fact: that's not how it works]. This is less of an issue with current systems, because they rely on rapid flashing rather than over/under, and Dolby 3D, utilising a white screen, avoids the hot spots of a silver screen.

 

[Garysb]

Having to wear used glasses despite their having been sanitized (true or not) I am sure didn't help the popularity. Picture never seemed bright enough with glasses.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Just in case you're wondering what killed 3-D in 1954:

What Killed 3-D? - 3dfilmarchive

www.3dfilmarchive.com

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Having to wear used glasses despite their having been sanitized (true or not) I am sure didn't help the popularity. Picture never seemed bright enough with glasses.

I believe most Silver Age presentations used disposable cardboard glasses. We used to have to order a new supply for each film (I ran Friday 13th and Metalstorm).

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Having to wear used glasses despite their having been sanitized (true or not) I am sure didn't help the popularity.

I'm reasonably sure this only applied to IMAX 3D and Dolby 3D, as RealD glasses were sent back and sanitized and repackaged by them, rather than onsite. Because IMAX glasses and Dolby glasses were so much more expensive per unit

 

[Stephen_J_H]

I believe most Silver Age presentations used disposable cardboard glasses. We used to have to order a new supply for each film (I ran Friday 13th and Metalstorm).

When I saw Spacehunter in 1983, they handed out disposable cardboard glasses.

 

[Matt Hough]

My memory isn't what it was, but I remember only cardboard 3D glasses for all of the Silver Age 3Ds I saw. Sometimes the movie's logo was printed on the sides but usually they were generic glasses.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I think the answer is as simple as this ..... bad movies no one wanted to see.

Yup. And they were gimmicky as all get out, too.

In 2009, 3D got a "killer app" that gave it new life.

There was no "Avatar" in the 80s to make audiences embrace the format.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Yup. And they were gimmicky as all get out, too.

In 2009, 3D got a "killer app" that gave it new life.

There was no "Avatar" in the 80s to make audiences embrace the format.

To be fair, only over/under 3D went away by 1985; IMAX 3D started in 1986 and bubbled under until digitally produced 3D started making waves in the early 00s; first as output to anaglyph on Robert Rodriguez kid-friendly titles like Spy Kids 3-D and The Adventures of Shark-Boy and Lava Girl in 3-d, then when digital projection became more widespread with films like Journey to the Centre of the Earth. Avatar was the "killer app", but there were a few before that with impressive natively shot 3D.

 

[maxfabien]

If the 1980's had produced quality 3D films like "House of Wax" and "Creature from the Black Lagoon" from the early 1950's, I think the "rebirth" of 3D would've been more successful. As for today, I am not a fan of the "converted" 3D films. Unless a movie is filmed specifically for 3D ("Avatar", "Hugo", "Journey to the Center of the Earth"(2007), even "A Very Harold and Kumar 3D Christmas") the 3D is irrelevant.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

To be fair, only over/under 3D went away by 1985; IMAX 3D started in 1986 and bubbled under until digitally produced 3D started making waves in the early 00s; first as output to anaglyph on Robert Rodriguez kid-friendly titles like Spy Kids 3-D and The Adventures of Shark-Boy and Lava Girl in 3-d, then when digital projection became more widespread with films like Journey to the Centre of the Earth. Avatar was the "killer app", but there were a few before that with impressive natively shot 3D.

Oh, I know 3D was "reviving" prior to "Avatar" - didn't mean to imply it was the initiator or whatever.

But no "Avatar" and no "new 3D craze", IMO.

It was the one movie that made people go "ya gotta see this 3D!"