3D How the Studios, Theatre Owners, and TV Manufacturers All But Killed 3D (1 Viewer)

[SFMike]

Last night I went to see The Peanuts Movie in 3D. First the clown selling tuckets was shocked that I asked for that movie period. Then he did the "you know this is a 3D movie?" question as if to discourage me on that basis.

That is exactly the experience our local multiplex uses to discourage 3D ticket sales. I've also been told "if you wait 20 mins. you can see it regular." If they are not actually discouraging people from seeing the 3D version they are scheduling two 3D showing of a feature at say 3:30 pm and 9:55pm while the film is being shown on three screens. The manager has admitted to me they only have the 3D showings because the studio requires it. I guess they are trying to prove to the studio that "the public doesn't want 3D." The good new is Star Wars will have 3D showings at normal viewing times.

 

[Todd Erwin]

The good new is Star Wars will have 3D showings at normal viewing times.

Are you sure? My local multiplex has 3:50pm and 10:30pm as the only 3-D with Atmos showtimes, and they are one of the busiest theatres in the nation....

 

[Jesse Skeen]

Latest example of pricing inequality: Minions 2D Blu-Ray on sale $17.99 at most places, 3D Blu-Ray on sale for $27.99. That's a full $10 more for 3D. I saw the 2D Mad Max on sale plenty of places on Black Friday too while the 3D was still full price, around $30.

 

[SFMike]

A noted by Jesse and Todd above, the studios couldn't do a better job trying to get rid of 3D if they actually had a plan.

 

[RolandL]

Latest example of pricing inequality: Minions 2D Blu-Ray on sale $17.99 at most places, 3D Blu-Ray on sale for $27.99. That's a full $10 more for 3D. I saw the 2D Mad Max on sale plenty of places on Black Friday too while the 3D was still full price, around $30.

I bought Mad Max 3D for $12.61 on Walmart.com. Just have to go to my local store and pick it up. You just need to look for sales on 3D titles.

 

[Jesse Skeen]

Believe me, I DO look for sales! But there's been many times when a store will have the 2D version cheap but the 3D at full price, almost as if they didn't want to sell it! (Mad Max is on the way from Amazon, even though I'm trying to boycott them. Likely they won't make any profit off that anyways.)

 

[Tina_H_V]

Believe me, I DO look for sales! But there's been many times when a store will have the 2D version cheap but the 3D at full price, almost as if they didn't want to sell it! (Mad Max is on the way from Amazon, even though I'm trying to boycott them. Likely they won't make any profit off that anyways.)

What is the reason for your boycott of Amazon, Jesse???? I, too, am somewhat dismayed at the 2D vs. 3D pricing where applicable. I am limiting my 3D purchases this year for various reasons, imbalanced pricing once of them. And I, like you and anyone else, am on the lookout for a good deal as well.


Again, Jesse: why the boycott???

Believe me, I DO look for sales! But there's been many times when a store will have the 2D version cheap but the 3D at full price, almost as if they didn't want to sell it! (Mad Max is on the way from Amazon, even though I'm trying to boycott them. Likely they won't make any profit off that anyways.)

 

[Todd Erwin]

A noted by Jesse and Todd above, the studios couldn't do a better job trying to get rid of 3D if they actually had a plan.

In this case, it is the theatre chain (Regal) that is responsible, as they decide what showings get 3-D and which do not.

 

[RolandL]

Ant-Man Blu-ray 17.99 2D 19.99 3D on Amazon

 

[revgen]

Looks like I missed it. 3D version is $24.99.

 

[Jesse Skeen]

Again, Jesse: why the boycott???

Look for my post from a few months ago in "Streaming Video and Digital Downloads".


I just got Ant-Man delivered from Best Buy for $19.99 with free shipping- slipcover had a slight rip in it, but not a complete tragedy. (At least there was no store sticker on it!) Looks like I'll be waiting a while for Minions.

 

[RolandL]

Look for my post from a few months ago in "Streaming Video and Digital Downloads".


I just got Ant-Man delivered from Best Buy for $19.99 with free shipping- slipcover had a slight rip in it, but not a complete tragedy. (At least there was no store sticker on it!) Looks like I'll be waiting a while for Minions.

I bought mine on eBay for $9.99. Its missing the 2D disc but I never watch the 2D version and the extras are not that great.

 

[Chuck Anstey]

Our local theaters are still pushing 3D as hard as ever. SW:TFA was shown 35 times a day at the local Regal theater, 23 of them 3D with only 12 2D. Another theater was showing it 9 times with 5 3D and 4 2D but the 2D was really early or really late with prime times being 3D only. On the big releases you still have to go out of your way and at off times to see 2D around here.

 

[SFMike]

Our local theaters are still pushing 3D as hard as ever. SW:TFA was shown 35 times a day at the local Regal theater, 23 of them 3D with only 12 2D. Another theater was showing it 9 times with 5 3D and 4 2D but the 2D was really early or really late with prime times being 3D only. On the big releases you still have to go out of your way and at off times to see 2D around here.

It so has to do with the theater chain it's annoying.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

At least in the NYC area, I'm seeing a huge number of 3D showings for Star Wars. It seems like it's 60/40 for 3D in the area, but that's just a guesstimate. Mostly it's playing round the clock, so you're never more than a 30-60 minute wait from a 3D showing at a lot of locations.

This summer it was nearly impossible to find Inside Out in 3D after the first week or two. And then in the fall, The Martian seemed like it had an even higher percentage of 3D screens than SW.

Who knows how they figure this stuff out?

 

[RJ992]

This summer it was nearly impossible to find Inside Out in 3D after the first week or two. And then in the fall, The Martian seemed like it had an even higher percentage of 3D screens than SW.

Who knows how they figure this stuff out?

I'd assume it could be because the CGI animated kid flicks don't draw as well as live-action in 3D. Certainly on disc, the animated titles are always at the bottom of the sales charts while live-action movies do much better. Perhaps the kids are also less likely to stay calmly seated and keep the glasses on while they run up and down the aisles. While there may be exceptions, that's just my guess. .

 

[Race Bannon]

I think what ultimately bodes poorly for 3D is that it's just not that beloved even when everything is right. I'm a huge movie fan and do not particularly enjoy it. It needs to somehow cross over into beloved territory, where people are excited and can't get enough of it.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I think what ultimately bodes poorly for 3D is that it's just not that beloved even when everything is right. I'm a huge movie fan and do not particularly enjoy it. It needs to somehow cross over into beloved territory, where people are excited and can't get enough of it.

Is surround sound beloved? It's everywhere, and anecdotally speaking, I don't hear a lot of people singling that out either. I don't think I've ever heard a single person in person (and not online) say anything about Dolby Atmos or any of the other latest audio innovations either. If there was an upcharge for surround sound like there is for 3D, I wonder if people would gladly pay it, or if they'd save a couple bucks and see the movie in stereo instead.


My take is that 3D needs to be something that's included in the presentation, and not charged extra for. If you have to pay extra for it, you'll be spending the entire time looking to see whether it was worth the extra $5 instead of just enjoying the movie. It's hard for anything to stand up to that kind of scrutiny. And it also creates a pressure for the 3D to always be present and showing off, when vision in real life doesn't work that way. There's no expectation with surround sound movies for every second to be filled with gimmicky sound. I think it would be better if 3D was simply an option made available at the price of a regular ticket. Filmmakers could then feel free to use it as little or as much as they want within a movie, and not have to worry about giving people their money's worth. Maybe somebody will have a great idea for a movie that's 95% 2D, but has one scene that suddenly uses 3D to enormous effect - you get the equivilent thing happening with audio design, where most of a movie is dialogue and then one giant action scene might have sound effects that are unlike the rest of the film. And I think people would be able to better appreciate the format when they're not predisposed to thinking of it as a cash grab.


The problem is that the majority of the studios do view it as a cash grab, and there are very few filmmakers who are actually interested in exploring it in an artistic way. And that's a shame. When you see someone like Robert Zemeckis making a movie like "The Walk", you're seeing something on screen in way that's never been shown before - I was blown away by the use of 3D in that movie. But unfortunately, that example is in the minority. The latest trend I'm seeing is studios not releasing as many of their cash grab conversions domestically, but saving them for overseas - titles like Noah and The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2 were released in 3D internationally where it remains more popular, but not here in the U.S. In the case of Hunger Games, the studio or director released an unintentionally hilarious statement about how the 3D version was not appropriate for U.S. audiences, as if somehow we couldn't handle it. But those examples kinda prove that in those cases, the 3D conversion had little artistic merit - if it was an important part of the film, no filmmaker would stand to have it not be released in that format here.

 

[Chuck Anstey]

That sounds a lot like what I posted earlier about 3D but I'll make one comment that I mentioned before. Watching 3D is an active action. It is not passive like listening to stereo, 5.1 or infinity.infinity speaker setup. So even if the cost was the same, wearing 3D glasses for a 95% 2D movie is pretty pointless and irritating, especially for those who already wear glasses. If you are going to make the audience suffer wearing those glasses, dim image, and color shift then you better make it worth the effort. 3D should not be ubiquitous but instead reserved for a few movies a year that make full use of the feature. It is the attitude that 3D is both a cash grab AND that it requires not more thought or effort than a sound mix or having the movie be in color that prevents 3D from being beloved. It seems pretty clear there are no big name directors that think they need to learn anything about shooting a 3D movie and that shooting normal 2D and converting in post is the same thing but easier. It is arrogance and laziness that prevents good 3D from being made and the studio's cash grab that fuels the audience perception that 3D is purely a gimmick with no intrinsic value for any movie.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

So even if the cost was the same, wearing 3D glasses for a 95% 2D movie is pretty pointless and irritating, especially for those who already wear glasses.

Two quick comments:

- maybe one day "glasses free 3D" could be used for my example of a movie that's mostly 2D, but features some 3D moments.


- I wear glasses already, so for me, throwing on an extra pair of 3D glasses is no big deal - probably because I'm used to seeing the world through glasses anyway. But based on experiences with friends and family, I think I'm the only one who feels that way