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

[Matt Hough]

Some of the 3D films, however, were HUGE hits in other parts of the world. Titanic 3D did incredible business in China, for example.

 

[Johnny Angell]

Where I think 3D has been derailed is in "the bombs". I can't even recall the name of the movie(on my phone) that starred Sam Worthington and was a "300-ish" type movie(Clash of the Titans???? Just came to me...). That film, by itself, probably did as much harm as Avatar did in promotion. Then with "the crap" you had to watch 3D with...because the "good movies" were held hostage in a bundle... Gee, and we all wonder why 3D wasn't sliced bread...

If you're referring to the the exclusivity of titles, you had to buy a Panny to get Avatar, I agree that was shortsighted and stupid. Here you've got the "killer app" for 3D and the public cant buy it? It still pisses me off, even now that I've got a Sammy 3D setup. Come on, there's a dearth of 3D software and the studios and manufacturers make it harder to get them? They must of thought they were "making us an offer we couldn't refuse." What hubris. I believe this scheme hurt 3D. And I wish that directors would embrace all that 3D can do, in yo' face should be used more. I was in Walmart the other day and I saw A Turtle's Tale...in 2D only. That pisses me off too.

 

[TravisR]

The studio only gets about half that amount - and between the costs of conversion and marketing, it probably didn't do much better than breaking even.

I understand that but The Phantom Menace re-release helped sell boatloads of toys so plenty of money was made in the end. And none of that really has to do with my main point that the quality of the movies isn't really the main factor (Finding Nemo and Monsters, Inc. must be more highly regarded by people than TPM and they made less- far less in the case of Monsters, Inc.). The 'problem' for conversions is that people have grown accustomed to 3-D and it's not something that's going to draw people like it did 3 or 4 years ago so whatever the converted movie, the grosses are going to continue to get smaller for the most part because the new factor of 3-D is gone.

 

[Everett S.]

Regarding some of the 3D reissues doing poorly, or being canceled, I take that more as a marketing misstep vs any type of gauge on how 3-D is doing. The Lion King 3-D did very well in the box office, so Disney decided they had a winning formula and planned on releasing a half dozen of their older features to try to ride that wave. The question that needed to be asked is, with or without 3-D, were these movies ones that you would pay to see again on the big screen? I've enjoyed some of the Disney 3-D re-issues on home video, but that doesn't mean I want to pay $10 or more to see it on the big screen .. in 3-D or standard 2D. When The Phantom Menace 3D reissue bombed, thankfully most online news reports accurately noted the lack of turn out likely had more to do with the movie itself vs the newly tacked on 3-D aspect. (Add to that the 3D on TPM was weak - which also didn't help) Now that Star-Wars is under the Disney umbrella, it is more likely they are simply making a blanket decision on all of their future 2D to 3D re-issues. I'll tack on this recent report. Anyone who is a bean counter will understand 3D is far from dead http://www.businessinsider.com/3d-movies-have-a-future-in-hollywood-2013-1

My 55inch panasonic 3D comes fri.2/1/13. Also I think they may have started to convert some of the other "Star Wars" films and want a fresh start.

 

[RolandL]

One big change is the cost of 3-D TV's and glasses. When I was a salesman back in 2011, 55 inch 3D TV's were well over $3000 on sale. The LCD glasses were over $100. Now I see an LG 55 inch on sale for $1300 and they give you free 6 pairs of passive 3D glasses.

 

[Steve Schaffer]

^^^Actually LG makes a 55" 3D set that's retailing for $849 (55LS4600). It's a "dumb" set and only comes with 4 pair of glasses but take the family out to one Real-D movie and keep the glasses and you're set. The fact is that once you get above what I call low-midrange models you're going to get 3D capability whether you want it or not. 3D doesn't happen at screen sizes below 46"--at 55" and above I'd venture to say the majority of models available from non-throwaway mfgs are 3D capable (I sell tvs so this is from observation of store stock). I agree that 3D is enough of a "given" at mid to high range levels that it's just not touted as vigorously as in the past. Our Samsung ES-8000 endcap display, provided and set up by Samsung, touts the Angry Birds demo and Smart Hub over it's 3D capability.

 

[Ejanss]

^^^Actually LG makes a 55" 3D set that's retailing for $849 (55LS4600). It's a "dumb" set and only comes with 4 pair of glasses but take the family out to one Real-D movie and keep the glasses and you're set. .

Oh, I see, "Dumb" as in "Why would anyone buy fuzzy ol' theater-quality Passive?" Thought you meant "Dumb" as in "Not internet enabled".

The fact is that once you get above what I call low-midrange models you're going to get 3D capability whether you want it or not. 3D doesn't happen at screen sizes below 46"--at 55" and above I'd venture to say the majority of models available from non-throwaway mfgs are 3D capable (I sell tvs so this is from observation of store stock). .

I KNEW there was something wrong with my 37" Panasonic Viera Active! (That I also got for $900--Hey, I live in an apartment.)

 

[Yorkshire]

I think there are two main reasons why some people are particularly hostile to 3D. I might be wrong, but I believe this is it. The studios tried colour and it worked, so we kept it. The studios tried sound and it worked so we kept it. The studios tried 3D in the '50s and it failed, so it 'died'. Then they tried it again in the '80s and if failed so it 'died'. Now, without there being any real call for its return, from either film makers or the public, the studios re-introduce it. They charge a premium for watching it in 3D instead of 2D, and in many cases people have trouble finding the 2D version. Now for all the rights and wrongs, and the points about there still being a choice, I think to many people it feels like the studios are trying to force something on to them which they've previously rejected and didn't ask for. There's an additional reason. For dedicated film-lovers, they see 3D as a gimmick. I know the term has been used, and I'm not saying it is or isn't, but I think that's how many serious film fans see it. If you were to have asked everyone here at HTF to list their 100 favourite films 10 years ago, how many of the thousands listed would have been 3D productions? Maybe Dial 'M' for Murder from the '50s, an outside chance of Creature from the Black Lagoon or House of Wax from the '50s, and probably nothing from the '80s. Now all of that's not to say you can't make a good film in 3D by any means, just that the format has a track record of abysmal failures with the odd success. Even with the successes (Dial 'M' for Murder, Avatar, Hugo, Life of Pi), many people feel that 3D added little, added nothing, or worse still actually detracted from the viewing experience. Meanwhile the studios make a fortune by charging the cinema-going public extra for popcorn trash/summer blockbuster that most of us usually claim to dislike. I think those are the main reasons there's a lot of hostility to 3D, those two reasons combined. People feeling they're having something forced on them which has a track record for being poor, and getting charged extra. Steve W

 

[TravisR]

Even with the successes (Dial 'M' for Murder, Avatar, Hugo, Life of Pi), many people feel that 3D added little, added nothing, or worse still actually detracted from the viewing experience.

I hadn't really thought about it but I'd say that Life Of Pi is one of the best (if not the best) use of 3-D that I've ever seen. It's a rare example of where I'd say that the 3-D adds to the movie and if at all possible, you should view the movie that way.

 

[Jonathan Perregaux]

"3-D is dead." * Pokes an eye out *

 

[Steve Schaffer]

Oh, I see, "Dumb" as in "Why would anyone buy fuzzy ol' theater-quality Passive?" Thought you meant "Dumb" as in "Not internet enabled". I KNEW there was something wrong with my 37" Panasonic Viera Active! (That I also got for $900--Hey, I live in an apartment.)

No, I meant dumb as in not internet enabled. Passive works fine for people like me who get headaches from the flicker on active sets (not everyone, admittedly) or don't want to pay $60 a pair for active glasses. Congratulations on your DT-30 active 3D set, it's no longer available, being last year's model.

 

[Ejanss]

I think there are two main reasons why some people are particularly hostile to 3D. I might be wrong, but I believe this is it.

Might be and you probably do, but shoot:

The studios tried colour and it worked, so we kept it. The studios tried sound and it worked so we kept it. The studios tried 3D in the '50s and it failed, so it 'died'. Then they tried it again in the '80s and if failed so it 'died'.

No, they tried 3D in the 50's and 80's--with two projectors, faulty synchronization and reflective screens that had to stay in the same theater for a week--and became technically impossible, so it "died". Then they invented DLP and fixed all the technical problems over the years that had always made it impossible with film projectors, so we kept it. Already for a good six years longer than we kept it in the 80's, and two years longer than the 50's. (In fact, it had never actually "died" at the IMAX theaters all those years, just that there was no technical avenue to bring it to the mainstream theaters before projection systems changed.)

There's an additional reason. For dedicated film-lovers, they see 3D as a gimmick. I know the term has been used, and I'm not saying it is or isn't, but I think that's how many serious film fans see it. If you were to have asked everyone here at HTF to list their 100 favourite films 10 years ago, how many of the thousands listed would have been 3D productions? Maybe Dial 'M' for Murder from the '50s, an outside chance of Creature from the Black Lagoon or House of Wax from the '50s, and probably nothing from the '80s.

It took me years to recognize Grace Kelly's scissors attack as the "classic moment" from Dial M, when it kept showing up in TCM's "100 Years of Movies" short. Think I'd only seen Dial M once, and not in the 80's 3D revival. Now, c'mon, say it...You know you want to. They all do. Sooner or later, they ALL do. Look into my eyes, you're thinking it, you're just holding it back; you cannot resist, it is your destiny, Luke, c'mon, say it, say it, say it...SAY IT!!

Meanwhile the studios make a fortune by charging the cinema-going public extra for popcorn trash/summer blockbuster that most of us usually claim to dislike. I think those are the main reasons there's a lot of hostility to 3D, those two reasons combined. People feeling they're having something forced on them which has a track record for being poor, and getting charged extra.

Yes--The other shoe has achieved Drop: Houston, we officially have Corporate Cineplex/Summer-Blockbuster/Big-Studio Whine! Gee, ya think that seems to keep turning up as the main misdirected-anger complaint?

 

[Ejanss]

And it needs to be said:

Especially in the context of people wishing that home 3D would die. What exactly is it about home 3D that bugs people so much, given it's entirely voluntary in all respects? As I said, the only explanation I can come up with is sour grapes: "I don't want to spend extra to have home 3D, so it should die!".

Can anyone, frankly, listen to one of the naysayers saying "I'm holding out and not buying one until we get that Glasses-Free set they showed at CES!", and NOT hear:

Alice: "Ralph, why can't we have a television set? The Nortons are on their second one and we haven't even had a first one. Why do you have to be so cheap?" Ralph: "Cheap? You think that's the reason, because I'm cheap? Well, that shows how much you know!" Alice: "All right, what is the reason?" Ralph: "You wanna know the reason?....The reason?.........I'll tell you the reason! I'm waiting for 3-D television, that's the reason!" Alice: (beat pause) "Are you waiting for a 3-D refrigerator, too?" - The Honeymooners, "TV or Not TV", 1955

(Like the DVD episode of Third Rock From the Sun, every great home theater revolution has its own great prophetic sitcom quote. )

 

[RolandL]

No, they tried 3D in the 50's and 80's--with two projectors, faulty synchronization and reflective screens that had to stay in the same theater for a week--and became technically impossible, so it "died".

Actually in the 80's the films were projected through a single lens and the over/under or side by side 3D method.

 

[Todd J Moore]

The 80s films could (and no doubt were) just as frequently misprojected as their 50s counterparts. I saw terrible misprojections in the 90s of showings of the single strip DIAL M FOR MURDER, HOUSE OF WAX, and SILENT MADNESS. It didn't help that the 80s fims by and large, if you'll excuse the phraseology, sucked. I could make an argument that movie wise, JAWS 3D was the best of the batch and that says nothing for the rest of them. I suppose SPACEHUNTER has some charm, too. AMITYVILLE 3D half-heartedly tries to be an okay movie. But yeah, they were pretty bad. While some of the latest batch have been pretty bad, too, there have at least been some decent movies in the mix.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Originally Posted by Todd J Moore
The 80s films could (and no doubt were) just as frequently misprojected as their 50s counterparts. I saw terrible misprojections in the 90s of showings of the single strip DIAL M FOR MURDER, HOUSE OF WAX, and SILENT MADNESS. It didn't help that the 80s fims by and large, if you'll excuse the phraseology, sucked. I could make an argument that movie wise, JAWS 3D was the best of the batch and that says nothing for the rest of them. I suppose SPACEHUNTER has some charm, too. AMITYVILLE 3D half-heartedly tries to be an okay movie. But yeah, they were pretty bad. While some of the latest batch have been pretty bad, too, there have at least been some decent movies in the mix.

That's the main difference between 3D in the 80s and today: the "software" wasn't there 30 years ago. As you note, some of the modern 3D films have been bad, but we've seen many good to great flicks shown 3D in recent years, and that wasn't the case in the 80s...

 

[Douglas R]

Surely the '80s 3D films were analglyph? I saw FRIDAY THE 13TH, SPACEHUNTER, COMIN' AT YA! and I'm sure I was handed red and green glasses. It's only relatively recently, when I saw BEOWULF that I saw 3D with polaroid glasses for the first time.

 

[Todd J Moore]

Wrong. I saw JAWS 3D in 1983 (and still have the glasses, too) and they were polarized. I also saw AMITYVILLE 3D and SILENT MADNESS at screenings in 1996 and 1997 and they, too, were polarized. The confusion comes from the anaglyph showings on TV and DVD of these movies. But they were most definitiviely polarized. To prove my point, here's photos from the web of glasses from two particular 3D movies of the 80s:

and

 

[Todd J Moore]

That's the main difference between 3D in the 80s and today: the "software" wasn't there 30 years ago.  As you note, some of the modern 3D films have been bad, but we've seen many good to great flicks shown 3D in recent years, and that wasn't the case in the 80s...

Oh, without a doubt, the 80s batch was pretty abysmal. Only a couple of them even put forth any effort. The rest basically subsisted on the idea of tossing everything they could at the audience. This is especailly true of the two awful Quntano-Lupo-Anthony films, which no one has any reason to watch in 2D. Or 3D for that matter! Mind you, there's a couple I would undoubtedly buy on 3D Blu if they were made available. I have previously admitted to a soft spot for JAWS 3D, which I recognize now as not being a particularly good movie, but some of it is fun especially in 3D. And it has a pretty good cast, most of whom actually sorta kinda try. SPACEHUNTER, too, has a decent cast and sort of tries (and is occassionally fun).

 

[Douglas R]

Wrong. I saw JAWS 3D in 1983 (and still have the glasses, too) and they were polarized. I also saw AMITYVILLE 3D and SILENT MADNESS at screenings in 1996 and 1997 and they, too, were polarized. The confusion comes from the anaglyph showings on TV and DVD of these movies. But they were most definitiviely polarized.

I didn't see those three but if the ones I saw were with polaroid glasses they were extremely cheap looking and the 3D wasn't up to much! Maybe they were shown anaglyph in London?