3-D movies or "How Hollywood figured out to suck more money out of moviegoers" - Page 3

The 3D Trend Must End (Step Up To the Streets 3D)

Ok, I've said that we are going to see a lot of crap movies get 3D treatment, or films that could be decent in 2D get 3D treatment just to rip off bucks.  But it is now apparent that hollywood has decided every film needs to be cranked out in 3D in order to get the higher ticket price and try and get people into the theater to see crap films.

 

I have no other explanation for it.  No other way to explain this:



What next?  Will Smellovision make a comeback?  Rattle seats?  Have we suddenly decided because 3D worked well for a few films we'll use it everywhere to get a higher ticket price? ?? 
 

I am wondering how the studio is going to shove this into the big screens, occupying the prime spots at theaters just so people can go watch someone throw their shoes/butt in your face for 1:30.

 

 Like this couldn't be included in the other 3D complaint thread...

Don't pay money to see movies in 3d.  You have the ultimate power as the consumer.

 Exactly, Steve.  I saw Avatar and Clash of the Titans in 2D because I chose to.  If a large percentage of people are seeking out entertainment in 3D, then the studios would be foolish not to appeal to them.  If they do bad conversions from 2D to 3D, people may stop seeking out 3D movies.  Or people may get tired of 3D, and again the studios adjust.  It's the free market at work!

Oh yeah:  "Rattle seats?"

Well, Matt -- have you heard of D-Box?

Sorry, Search didn't even suggest the other thread and I forgot it :)  Thanks for the admins to join.

About the colors, I imagine that it wouldn't be too difficult for them to alter the colors/brightness so that they would look the same in 3D with the glasses on as they would in the 2D version? Of course there would be variables, but that's the case also with regular projection.

 I thought that's what Cameron did with Avatar.  As least I seem to remember him talking about it in an interview...

Could be, it didn't look that dark, as opposed to Up.

Quote:

www.ucbcomedy.com/videos/play/6146/star-wars-4d

So The Last Airbender and The Green Hornet are now being converted from 2D to 3D.  It seems to me when studios decide to do this after most, if not all, of the principle filmshoot it's just a sign that the film is utterly crap and going 3D is just a way of pulling in more bucks to make it look successful.

That's a possibility, but I think it's more about the extra dollars that a "3D" version will supposedly bring in. The Hollywood suits saw people flocking to 3D venues to see "Avatar". They have naturally concluded that 3D is an extra draw to get asses in the seats and they are taking advantage of the 3D fad while it is hot. Most, if not all, of these 2D to 3D conversions are probably going to look like shit, but if 3D means people are going to spend a few extra dollars then the suits are going to jump on the trend like sharks on chum. The unfortunate thing is that it will probably end up eventually killing real 3D filmmaking.

 "The unfortunate thing is that it will probably end up eventually killing real 3D filmmaking."

Either that, or more productions will come out of the gate as full-fledged 3D productions to meet the perceived interest.  Doing it the cheap way may hurt Hollywood.  All I've been hearing about Clash of the Titans' 3D is that it's crap, which can't help drive people to the theaters...

Roger Ebert weighs in against the rush to 3D.

3-D should be like IMAX - used where appropriate, though I find IMAX far more exciting. From a home theater perspective especially, the Batman IMAX footage was AMAZING - far more appealing to me than having to wear plastic goggles and getting a headache every time I want to watch a movie.

 

The inevitable 3-D porn should be interesting though....

I agree about IMAX and find it to be much more immersive and - ironically - more three dimensional than 3D.

Another vote here for IMAX over 3-D.

and so it begins...

 

http://www.awardsdaily.com/?p=22212

 

 

 

Quote:

IMAX specializes in 3-D.

In fact, IMAX has produced about 50 state-of-the-art 3-D films.

They are screened in IMAX theaters all over the world all the time.

Their reputation for stereoscopic cinema is impeccable and much-admired by professional cinematographers.

 

Their 3-D conversions of studio-produced flat films is something else again.

Converting flat to 3-D is problematic by its nature, because 3-D has to be composed and lensed differently.

I have to admit that I'm getting more than a little tired of seeing and hearing 3D everywhere I go, not including the actual world I live in of course lol.

 

Everywhere it's "3D this, 3D that..." hell I even saw a freakin' toothpaste commercial the other day called '3D Whitening'...it's enough.

 

I for one don't want all of my media all the time to be 3D and I really do hope it goes away or at least dies down a little soon.

 

I'm also more than a little bothered when I see a trailer for a new movie and at the end of it it actually makes it a point to say "Also in 2D", the fact they even have to say that tells me that something isn't right.

 

3D should be a perk, not a way of life.

Looks like this fad is already petering out: http://www.slate.com/id/2264927/pagenum/all/#p2

The logic at the end of that article seems fatally flawed to me.

Stereoscopic films are financially successful, period.

The problem is both a shortage of product and a quantity of product that is all the same. Not everyone wants to see 3-D cartoons and 3-D horror films all the time.

Audiences want to see action and drama and comedy in 3-D.

Adults want to see grown-up 3-D films, and I'm not referring to porn.
 

3-D is a way of life because you have a left eye and a right eye.

Therefore, 3-D movies should be a way of life, never a perk.

 

People who hate 3-D that much should just pluck out one eye. Then movies, like life, would be flat for them whether it's three-dimensional or not.

 

 

 

 

Allow me to be more clear, 3D should not be a way of life at the movies, that should have been obvious to you. 3D AT THE MOVIES is a gimmick, plain and simple.

 

I look at all this 3D like a treat, in small doses it's okay but the moment you start making it a standard meal it becomes excessive and tiresome. Hell I actually don't care for 3D at home, either, I demoed one of the new 3D TV's and first off the effect wasn't all that great and second the glasses muted the colors far too much. They had a trailer for Toy Story 3 playing on it and if I'm going to watch that movie at home I'm more interested in seeing the colors pop more than random objects.

 

2D has never impeded my enjoyment of any film so I don't see myself jumping on-board this fad anytime soon.
 

 

Stereo has never impeded my enjoyment of any performance so I don't see myself jumping on-board this surround-sound fad anytime soon.

Black and White has never impeded my enjoyment of any film so I don't see myself jumping on-board this color fad anytime soon.

 

 

Title cards have never impeded my enjoyment of any film so I don't see myself jumping on-board this "talkies" fad anytime soon.

If I had to wear restrictive headphones with diminished sound quality to enjoy surround sound, I would stick with stereo.

 

If I had to wear distracting rainbow glasses to watch movies in color, I might stick with black and white.

 

If I had to stick my head in a fishbowl to hear actors speaking, I might rather read title cards.

 

I am not opposed to having 3D cinema in the future, but this current implementation, with light attenuating glasses and gimmicky, computer generated parallax effects just sucks balls.  As a technical "advancement", it is barely progressed from the 50's.

Some people stick their head in fish bowls and sand dunes because they like it there.

 

For the rest of us, life goes on.

Edited by Richard--W - 8/25/10 at 10:38am

 

 

Lossy digital audio never impeded my enjoyment of a movie; so who needs lossless?

It's funny you mention that, Michael, I have yet to upgrade to lossless and am still using standard DD and DTS and I still think it sounds outstanding hehe. It's probably one of those situations where once I do get it in my home and hear the difference I'll be thinking "what the hell took me so long to get this!?".

 

However I've seen 3D TV in action and am not impressed in the least, I agree 100% with Hanson on every single point he made.

 

Bury my head in the sand? Over what? An insignificant and unappealing gimmick?

If 3D were "a way of life", that would leave many people screwed over, specifically people who suffer from headaches and eye fatigue because of the glasses, the effect, or both, and also people who simply cannot see the effects because their eyes aren't able to. 

 

But who cares about them, right?

 

Ridiculous.

 

 

As for lossless audio, the only reason I haven't noticed a world of difference every time is simply because I have to keep volume at a certain level thanks to living in an apartment building. Let's just say if I were the 'screw the people down below me' type, well I wouldn't have the volume buttons at the ready. ;)

 

I've never done an A-B comparison like I've done with Dolby vs. DTS, which itself is skewed because DTS tracks are louder and it's difficult to make a direct comparison with that. It's easy to fall into that louder=better problem.

That's a whole other can of worms, Nicholas, I have a friend who can't see the 3D effect because of an eye disorder, if everything eventually goes 3D I guess she's screwed, right? Or relegated to waiting for DVD and BD for those films?

 

It's insane.

 

And how about those with Epilepsy? Again...screwed?