Movies in 3D (1 Viewer)

[TravisR]

Two theaters near me have Cars 2 on three screens- both have two 2-D screens and 1 3-D screen. I would have guessed they would have had half or 2/3 of the screens in 3-D but I think I'm more surprised that Cars 2 only got three screens. I've said it in other threads when people whine about 3-D but once the public tires of 3-D, the theaters and studios will happily have more 2-D screens. It looks like that time is coming. I guess Transformers will be a good test to see if people are still willing to spend the extra money on a blockbuster that appears to actually use 3-D well. If that movie doesn't sell alot of 3-D tickets than almost nothing will and 3-D is basically dead... again.

 

[tbaio]

Its now obvious that 3-D is taking a beating at the box office; but out of curiosity, how are sales with the Blu Ray 3-D DVDs? I'm imagining that they are not too good as well being more expensive on average. But I'd still like to know. Anyone have an answer?

 

[Chris Will]

Amen to this quote!! This comment is, in a word, perfect.  Nothing more to add. 

 

Agreed, which is why the upcoming Star Wars conversions hold zero interest for me, even though I'm a big SW fan. I'll never waste my money on a conversion, at the theater or on BD.

 

[RobertR]

Originally Posted by Jose Martinez

and the 3D fatigue continues...


http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/green-lantern-harry-potter-2d-202952

Very glad to read this. Let 3D have its deserved death.

 

[montrealfilmguy]

" the light that burns twice as bright burns half as long "

ELDON TYRELL (Blade runner )


But unlike Roy Batty that has " burned so very very brightly " ,this one seems to have burned itself to a wispy smoked tiny pile of cinder.


Funny how two days ago i passed next to a downtown theater here in Montreal which USED to be called

the Paramount (see ? film reference,all good ) but is now called Cinema Nova Scotia (after the bank,no good and lots of shivers )


and again it struck me that the entrance lobby was simply filled with pushing the experience of it rather than the films themselves.

Actual butter for popcorn,vibrating seats,AVX theaters,and of course 3D.


I stand by my view of looking at 3D as a gimmick if ,most of the time,the sole purpose is not to enhance the film,but rather

to divert the attention away that a lot of films (more and more films ? ) are now created with the business side as first priority

and the art of it is left to the birds.And angry birds at that.

Just give it the kool-aid already.


and remember what uncle Roger says


http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=greatmovies_first100

 

[DaveB]

Originally Posted by tbaio


that's fine & dandy, but the picture is hardly different than that of 2-D; & the audience clearly notices that. At least with "in your face" 3-D, the audience can see something clearly different than 2-D. They now know that a process of some sort was done. This in turn justifies a higher ticket price IMO.

Nah, AVATAR 3D was a total-immersion experience most of us had never experienced in theaters before. Unlike the vast majority of the "me-too" 3D films that followed, it was worth the premium for the experience, even upon multiple repeat viewings.

It's not "3D" that needs to go away, it's bad 3D that needs to die.

 

[montrealfilmguy]

ok,so i was a bit harsh with my kool-aid comment there,


and DaveB summed it up pretty good in saying 3D doesnt need to die,it's bad 3D that needs to die.But i'm not sure how

the distinction is ever going to get to happen.


Not to open a Pandora's box or anything,but what HAS to be done about it,not what can be done mind you,but what HAS to

be done from our side,the millions of moviegoers who actually make it possible for Hollywood to keep churning out

this stuff,take our hard earned cash and keep investing and re-investing in less than desired options and ways to make

an enemy of the public.


Because i firmly believe that by simply not doing anything and letting some part of film let itself die out,then we will

lose a great deal.

Over the years,over the decades to come.

By not speaking out,by not stating exactly that we don't want to be taken for a ride.


Let's bring back the ratio to 50 Black swans and 50 Transformers,and try to be a little more discerning in the choices we

make regarding cinema.


Sure Michael Bay is looking into making screens brighter for 3d,but for the moment i see a guy looking after his

own interests and nothing else.


the filmgoing experience used to be a COMMUNAL thing,now it's every man for himself.

Lemme see if i got a message on my overly bright Iphone,lemme see if i can explain to my dumb buddy that this guy

is a bad guy out loud,lemme see if i can see my kitchen from here and go make myself a sandwich.


No,no and no.


And no,i'm not a card-carrying member of the secret society of Luddites

 

[TravisR]

Let's bring back the ratio to 50 Black swans and 50 Transformers,and try to be a little more discerning in the choices we

make regarding cinema.

When was that exactly? There was never a glorious time in the past when Hollywood cared about art over commerce. It's always been about money and it always will be. It seems like the public is tiring of 3-D and in response to that, 3-D will begin to dry up or die altogether. It's not like Hollywood is going to keep trying to foist 3-D on the public if they don't want it.

It's not "3D" that needs to go away, it's bad 3D that needs to die. 

Exactly.

 

[montrealfilmguy]

I do recall a time when the word blockbuster wasn't a part of the vernacular.


Before Jaws and Star wars.


I'm saying there was a period of...oh i don't know 60-70 some years that it wasn't ALL about the money like it

is now.I'm sure you can agree with me on that


Before it was glorious,now it's just day-glo.

 

[TravisR]

I'm saying there was a period of...oh i don't know 60-70 some years that it wasn't ALL about the money like it

is now.I'm sure you can agree with me on that

No, I can't agree with that at all. I'm not trying to be a jerk about it but money didn't become the only factor in Hollywood in the 1970's. It's what it's always been about and since it's a business, I can't really blame them for coming up with ways to make more money.

 

[montrealfilmguy]

Of course not,since i believe being a jerk on the net is much too much the easiest and cowardly way out.


Then i'd appreciate if you could state other factors apart from the evidently known fact that when summer movies suddenly went

past the magic 100 million dollar mark,there was indeed a shift,a major shift which superseded all other variables

regarding a profitable business.And it continues to this day.


If you,the studio tries to sell the audience a pile of gwano and color it and make it smell nice and push it like

it's all the rage now,the audience will figure it out eventually and you will not make a profit.


Not only that but you actually lose money in the long run BECAUSE you tried it in the first place,so your only

reasoning is .......trying to recoup your investment and try and sell me another kind of pastel-colored rose-scented

pile of gwano.


the competition was a lot more decent and civilised when it wasn't all conglomerates,focus groups ( which is

an inexact science and fails quite often to predict any accurate outcome regarding the success and failure of

a film ) fictitious film critics like David Manning to boost Columbia related films with fake reviews,and mentions

in all medias (tv,magazines,radio,the net,etc )of every box-office dollars raked in by every film being made today

as a " proof " of success and quality.And i'm not even going to go into 4-year reboots of franchises.Making me try

to forget Superman returns is insulting,as if we're collectively suffering from anterograde amnesia like Guy Pierce in Memento.


tell me if there was anything like that in the 50's or 60's.


Or put another way,we all know films that have stood the test of time.They range from 80 to 35 years ago.They exist because the

themes and issues explored in them are still relevant today in 2011.Don't bypass your childhood (Kane ) No place like home (Oz ) and

friends and family are the real riches (It's a wonderful life )


Do you honestly feel that in 50-some years,we will have an equal number of classics or less from what is being done today ?


Since i always enjoy a good food analogy,i'll go with this,

I like the occasional cheeseburger,but i don't want Epicmealtime every meal,every day.


I'm not trying to be a jerk either,just very passionate for what i think should not die in regards to films.Hence the passionate posts

accompanied by cute smileys.


In the end though,i do feel like sometimes i am fighting to justify the absolute need for good storytelling

first and foremost,which which shouldn't even be pointed out to begin with.

 

[Jose Martinez]

Looks like Cars 2's 3D gross even worse than recent 3D pics. According to Box Office Mojo, only 40% accounted for total gross! "Cars 2's run featured the 3D illusion at 2,508 locations, which accounted for 40 percent of the gross (including 150 IMAX screens that contributed five percent). The 3D share was even less than what Kung Fu Panda 2, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides and Green Lantern posted in their unenthusiastic 3D debuts. For perspective, Toy Story 3's 3D share was 60 percent (with 2,463 3D venues), while Up's was 52 percent (with only 1,534 3D venues)."

 

[AlexF]

At our local, two screens showing Cars 2 (2d), and one showing 3D. One of the 2D showings was at the same time as the 3D one, the other about halfway between.

 

[tbaio]

Originally Posted by DaveB





Nah, AVATAR 3D was a total-immersion experience most of us had never experienced in theaters before. Unlike the vast majority of the "me-too" 3D films that followed, it was worth the premium for the experience, even upon multiple repeat viewings.

It's not "3D" that needs to go away, it's bad 3D that needs to die.

Ok, I respect that angle. For me, Avatar was a great visual FX achievement in terms of the computer animation, the colors, the creature FX & of course, the performances by all involved (escpecially Sigourney Weaver & Stephen Lang). If the movie was shot flat, it would still have been a winner for me. In fact, the Blu Ray is of incredible quality without the 3-D. Due to that, I wasn't too upset about the 3-D verision of the film not being readily available for sale....& this is coming from a huge 3-D fan.

 

[Richard--W]

Stereoscopic Cinema and the Origins of 3-D Film, 1838-1952 by Ray Zone: Buy it from amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Stereoscopic-Cinema-Origins-Film-1838-1952/dp/0813124611/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b Reading this well-researched and lucid history from the University of Kentucky Press will clear up a lot of the confusion some people have about 3-D photography and 3-D films. I recommend it.

 

[tbaio]

I learned something by reading the cover alone. I had no idea 3-D's origins go back to the 1800s. I always thought it went back to the 1920's. Awesome.

 

[tbaio]

Did anyone see Final Destination 5? Please do so if you have not. Now that's 3-D!! Simply incredible. This is what Hollywood needs to do & do more often. I as well as the rest of the crowd was amazed by the visuals. This seriously justifies a higher ticket price; no one felt cheated at all. I do hope this type of visual display puts an end to post-conversion 3-D as well as all those other supposed 3-D formats that don't look different from the usual 2-D films. Its so nice to know that there are people striving to put good 3-D out there. I hope they continue to not only make more films of this 3-D quality, but inspire other film-makers to do the same.

 

[John Kilduff]

It's been my experience that most 3-D movies nowadays can be viewed just as well without the glasses. If I'm watching a 3-D horror movie, I want to see blood practically flying off the screen. If I'm watching a fantasy movie with flying characters, I want it to seem as if they're flying into the theater. As has been stated multiple times by many different sources, 3-D is nowadays basically a gimmick to get more money. It wasn't like that in previous versions. A 3-D ticket cost the same as a regular ticket. It doesn't work that way anymore, though. Sincerely, John Kilduff... If "E.T." is re-released theatrically next year, do you think they'll make it 3-D somehow?

 

[Malcolm R]

I saw Captain America in 3D and it was completely unnecessary. I've been trying to avoid 3D shows, but this was the only one that fit my schedule so I reluctantly bought a ticket. It was a waste of money. I'm done with 3D. If I can't find a 2D show, I'll Redbox the blu-ray.

 

[tbaio]

John,


it looks like me & you are in the same boat here. I as well like 3-D which comes out at the audience watching the movie. This is why I highly recommend Final Destination 5. Shot entirely in 3D, the film has many great shots of shrapnel, body parts, etc. which convincingly fly out at you.

I hope ET or any other film for that matter which was not shot in 3-D does not go through any post-conversion. Its not convincing & not necessary. The film should be shown how it was intended to be shot originally.