Press Release BVHE Press Release: Avatar: The Way Of Water (4k UHD) (Digital) (1 Viewer)

[Robert Crawford]

It seems like a missed opportunity to me that some TV manufacturer wouldn't offer at least a couple 3D options in different sized screens.

We get cars, appliances, computers/phones, and many other consumer products in all different styles with all sorts of different available options, features, and choices.

But your TV has to be UHD, and only UHD. Take it or leave it.

Perhaps, but I think their cost analysis regarding the 3-D display market doesn't support those 3-D options.

 

[Bryan^H]

To the extent that that success is transferrable, which I think is very limited, Ant-Man 3 did a little more 3D business percentage-wise than the previous Marvel film release, and some trailers did make a point of calling out the 3D version.

But for better or worse, for most people most of the time, for a variety of reasons, 2D is the preferred option.

So do you think this Avatar film would have done just as well had it only been available 2D screenings? I kind of think it would have, but there is no way to ever tell.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I don’t disagree, but the consumer electronics industry just isn’t interested in supporting a niche product like this in terms of hardware, the studios aren’t interested in supporting it in terms of software, and the general public isn’t interested in buying into it. Unfortunately, this is a battle that was lost a decade ago.

Yup, if it doesn't affect the profit margin to a certain amount then it's not worth it for the company to invest in a niche product.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

So do you think this Avatar film would have done just as well had it only been available 2D screenings? I kind of think it would have, but there is no way to ever tell.

I think total number of admissions would have been similar, but since theaters charge more for 3D, the total dollar number would have been a little lower to reflect that.

 

[Malcolm R]

Perhaps, but I think their cost analysis regarding the 3-D display market doesn't support those 3-D options.

I think they'd be surprised what some are willing to pay to buy one. It wouldn't need to be a mass-market price at the local Walmart.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I think they'd be surprised what some are willing to pay to buy one. It wouldn't need to be a mass-market price at the local Walmart.

Perhaps, but they have years of marketing data, what do you have to support your argument?

 

[Stephen_J_H]

It seems like a missed opportunity to me that some TV manufacturer wouldn't offer at least a couple 3D options in different sized screens.

We get cars, appliances, computers/phones, and many other consumer products in all different styles with all sorts of different available options, features, and choices.

But your TV has to be UHD, and only UHD. Take it or leave it.

As counterintuitive as it may sound, it's actually cheaper to produce a 4K UHD display, especially if you limit said display to HDR10. Why? The current 4K UHD home standard is only 60Hz, whereas you need at least a 120Hz refresh rate to do active 3D, and passive 3D requires a polarizing screen in front of the display. Sure, some higher end 4K displays support higher refresh rates than 60Hz, but that's largely for gaming purposes and for the abomination known as frame interpolation. I say this as a 3D fan working towards upgrading to a projector that supports 3D.

 

[Malcolm R]

Perhaps, but they have years of marketing data, what do you have to support your argument?

This forum.

And I'm not sure how much reliable data they have since they haven't offered the option for many years now. I don't know how they know how well they'd sell or how many would buy one until they test the waters with an actual product.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I think they'd be surprised what some are willing to pay to buy one. It wouldn't need to be a mass-market price at the local Walmart.

I think, again for better or worse, that they’ve determined the cost and effort of producing a limited market premium priced 3D display outweighs the sales potential.

Realistically speaking, each time there’s been a petition calling for more 3D TVs to be made, it gets signed by several thousand people. More people always say they’re willing to buy something than the number of people that actually do - that is a near universal constant. It’s probably more accurate that thousands of people want them to still be made, but that only several hundred or so would be willing to buy them on a yearly basis.

There’s already been so much consolidation in the flat panel manufacturing business. Regardless of what brand TV you buy, most panels are being made by LG (South Korea) and the company that owns TCL (China). Those are collectively selling millions of panels a year.

The reason 3D capability was removed from 4K sets was that the implementation of 3D interfered with the ability to implement HDR. Again, for better or worse, 4K HDR is what the public wants right now.

From a big business perspective, retooling a factory line that produces hundreds of thousands or millions of 2D flat panels to make space for hundreds of 3D panels isn’t cost efficient at any level. And because there’s practically a monopoly on panel manufacturing with all of the brands using the same handful of suppliers, there’s no one to go to for a niche company to try to acquire the panels needed to build 3D TVs.

The per unit cost would be astronomical and the number sold so minimal that the effort just wouldn’t be worth it at the volume these companies require - the market just isn’t supporting that. At the prices it would cost, that leaves only the wealthiest enthusiasts, and those are people who are by and large doing projector installs in custom purpose built rooms anyway.

I really wish it were otherwise. But that’s not how consumer electronics or our economy work anymore.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

I think, again for better or worse, that they’ve determined the cost and effort of producing a limited market premium priced 3D display outweighs the sales potential.

Realistically speaking, each time there’s been a petition calling for more 3D TVs to be made, it gets signed by several thousand people. More people always say they’re willing to buy something than the number of people that actually do - that is a near universal constant. It’s probably more accurate that thousands of people want them to still be made, but that only several hundred or so would be willing to buy them on a yearly basis.

There’s already been so much consolidation in the flat panel manufacturing business. Regardless of what brand TV you buy, most panels are being made by LG (South Korea) and the company that owns TCL (China). Those are collectively selling millions of panels a year.

The reason 3D capability was removed from 4K sets was that the implementation of 3D interfered with the ability to implement HDR. Again, for better or worse, 4K HDR is what the public wants right now.

From a big business perspective, retooling a factory line that produces hundreds of thousands or millions of 2D flat panels to make space for hundreds of 3D panels isn’t cost efficient at any level. And because there’s practically a monopoly on panel manufacturing with all of the brands using the same handful of suppliers, there’s no one to go to for a niche company to try to acquire the panels needed to build 3D TVs.

The per unit cost would be astronomical and the number sold so minimal that the effort just wouldn’t be worth it at the volume these companies require - the market just isn’t supporting that. At the prices it would cost, that leaves only the wealthiest enthusiasts, and those are people who are by and large doing projector installs in custom purpose built rooms anyway.

I really wish it were otherwise. But that’s not how consumer electronics or our economy work anymore.

Josh, thanks for posting this.

Not coming down on anyone -- this is based on feedback I see everywhere -- but for some people, it's hard for them to understand why there will no resurgence in the current 3D format.

We live in a bubble here. When on a daily basis we just have each other to talk to and share our passions with, it's difficult to see what the rest of the world is doing. And the rest of the world wasn't even remotely as invested in the format as we were here.

 

[Edwin-S]

I'll only buy it if a 3D version is released and only as an accompaniment to the first one. The film really wasn't all that good, beyond its stellar world effects.

 

[Todd Erwin]

With the caveat that I could always be wrong…

I don’t think it’s any different than when post-pandemic movie trailers announce that a movie is “exclusively in theaters” - clearly that hasn’t meant they’re not coming for home viewing, just that they’re specifically coming to theaters first.

It seems very unlikely that there wouldn’t be a disc version. But this seems timed to coincide with the theatrical box office starting to run dry for this film - now that it’s no longer topping the charts, they’re ready to turn on digital sales to keep the revenue coming in while the title is still fresh on people’s minds.

And I hope Disney doesn't shaft Disney+ subscribers.

One thing to keep in mind here, and I think Josh is not too far off when he says Disney wants to milk every penny out of this film as possible, is that this, technically, was a 20th Century Studios 2022 theatrical release, which means it potentially could be part of the now expired deal Fox had with HBO prior to Disney's acquisition (the deal included and ended with 2022 theatrical releases). Once they make it available on Disney+ it must also be available on HBO/HBO Max. By making it available as an "Early Access" or "Theater at Home" premium purchase, the studio is collecting a higher percentage of revenue from each purchase and it is not watered down with being available on a subscription service or physical media yet.

 

[Mark Booth]

Home 3D is dead. It's been dead for many years already. Current film 3D technology is nothing more than a gimmick. It will remain a gimmick until the day that glasses are no longer necessary.

Mark

 

[Bryan^H]

Home 3D is dead. It's been dead for many years already. Current film 3D technology is nothing more than a gimmick. It will remain a gimmick until the day that glasses are no longer necessary.

Mark

As long as I can still purchase 3D BD, it isn't dead. Not yet. HD DVD, DIVX is dead, and has been for many years.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Home 3D is dead. It's been dead for many years already. Current film 3D technology is nothing more than a gimmick. It will remain a gimmick until the day that glasses are no longer necessary.

Mark

"It's not dead; it's just resting."

 

[Edwin-S]

Home 3D is dead. It's been dead for many years already. Current film 3D technology is nothing more than a gimmick. It will remain a gimmick until the day that glasses are no longer necessary.

Mark

You are not telling us anything that we do not already know; however, there are still some 3D releases being done. Avatar happens to be a special case, since Cameron has invested so much in filming in 3D and his intention that it be seen in 3D. That is why it is expected to eventually have a 3D release on disc. If that doesn't happen then there is no point in me buying the film because the director's intent is not being met.

If a 2D version is the only release then I can wait for it to arrive on D+ if I want to watch it in a non-OAR format. Not that I'll ever bother watching any film natively filmed in 3D in a flat version.

 

[Jesse Skeen]

This forum used to be about seeing films as they were intended. If home 3D is “dead”, then why would anyone want to see this in 2D? Even if a 3D disc does come out this is one I won’t buy as it likely won’t be in high frame rate, which is also how it was intended to be seen (although I found the constant switching of that annoying.)

If 3D is still supported on projectors then that will be my next display device, as impractical as it is for me to set one up. I got into laserdisc for similar reasons, I didn’t like the side flips but it was the only way to get most movies shown properly.

Ron, I’m curious as to why you refuse to see this at a theater? I worked in that business for 10 years mainly running film, I got out because I didn’t like the direction the business was heading (smaller screens and more ads mainly) and I’ve largely given up on seeing moves at theaters now. I did see Avatar because it likely won’t be in high frame rate 3D at home, I went to a brand new theater that had yet to disappoint me and sad to say the picture was just too dark and sound quality was anemic. Didn’t renew my faith in the experience at all.

 

[Bryan^H]

This forum used to be about seeing films as they were intended. If home 3D is “dead”, then why would anyone want to see this in 2D?

I'm not sure, but there are some that are 3D capable on this forum that will be sure to skip it like the plague.
3D isn't for everyone.

 

[Bryan^H]

Because the engineers at Panasonic refuse to update the firmware to allow the user to control whether the darn player shuts itself off after 20 minutes on pause. I'll never purchase another Panasonic product.

Mark

Off topic!!

You own the best 4K player on the market. But if it is crap to you , sell it buy a Sony 4K player that doesn't have the 20 minute lock out, and spend the remaining $500 on something else you want. Simple!

 

[Edwin-S]

I'm not sure, but there are some that are 3D capable on this forum that will be sure to skip it like the plague.
3D isn't for everyone.

I always found the glee that some on this forum had when 3D was killed annoying. They hated 3D and took great pleasure in seeing others, who wanted the format, lose it. It was gross.