Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Movies' started by Sam Posten, Jul 27, 2017.
It's dead, jim...
Link is dead.
But I doubt anyone is shocked by this.
(p.s. What's funny is had I posted this, I would have been fried at the stake for being an "naysayer", but a Mod does it and it's fine. (you know it would happen)
This was a pretty dismal summer for big budget tentpoles in 3D. Guess its time for the other shoe to drop.
Yep. However, I predict the theaters will feel that consumers want 3-D again in a few months when guaranteed hits like Thor, Justice League and Star Wars come out and they can charge even more money for an IMAX ticket.
Haven't you heard? Superhero epics and space operas are passe now. People only want regurgitated black comedies and dreary depressing war movies! That's what Deadline says!
The only reason I see a movie at the theater is if it is 3D and/or IMAX . Otherwise I just wait to see it on Blu-ray at home a few months later.
3D (and IMAX) offered a reason to go out to the movies. I think this is a big mistake, Since there is going to be no way theaters can charge more for a 3D showing, they will just raise the 2D showing to what the 3D price was.
Doubt that. Our best theater in town doesn't even charge extra for 3D, they always made a point to advertise it too. But the 3D showing have diminished over the last year or so, so the point may be moot now.
Its funny, but although I am a big 3D enthusiast, 3D in the movie theatre is only a preview for the 3D disc I buy later. If the movie is intended to be flat by the director, and only shown flat in the theatre, I don't care if the Blu ray is flat.
If on the other hand a 3D movie is only available in flat disc (The Mummy) it bugs the hell out of me. I have thousands of discs and none are exclusively flat if the movie was a theatrical 3D. I can't stand the feeling of "something missing". I end up ordering from England etc.
Occasionally I have made a mistake and bought the flat version in a dump bin ("Abraham Lincoln Vampire hunter"/"The Lego Movie"). As soon as I discovered this, they went into the Salvation Army donation box.
I think you and a few others here are the exception... Sales for 3D movies are always lower, many times lower in most cases. It is costing them money even with the premium to run a 3D movie to a theater that is 20% or less full when they are selling out the 2D...
Yea, I guess I am not a typical viewer. If a movie is in 3D (native), I feel I have to watch it that way or I am missing out.
The last few movies I saw in 3D at the theater were almost full. But, they were major movies releases. Maybe it is different in large cities for some reason. The chain I go to is usually about $12 for a 3D Imax (fakemax) at the times I usually go, so it isn't a big money difference. If the price delta is more in large cities, that might explain why there are fewer people in the 3D showings.
That is definitely an exception to the rule. If all theaters did that, 3-D would still be as about as popular as it was during the days Avatar.
Based on your assumption, do you think if prices were same as 2D (at theaters) the 3D home video market would still be alive today?
Link fixed. I posted a news article not went off on a diatribe about my personal feelings on 3D. There's a difference =p
It's not really news to say that IMAX presented Dunkirk in 2D-only when the film was created as a 2D-only experience.
Excellent point. For a format that people supposedly have no interest in, the majority of people who saw The Force Awakens in theaters saw it in 3D. Movies like Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 2, where the director talked extensively about writing the 3D cues as part of the script, are still drawing an audience in the format. People seem less interested in films where 3D is obviously an afterthought being used to drive up prices, and even as a 3D enthusiast, I can understand that. Hollywood turned to 3D in the mid-2000s because of declining theater admissions; their mistake was to charge a premium for it. The whole point should have been to give people something in theaters they couldn't readily get at home -- which was basically the point of every prior cinematic innovation, including widescreen and surround sound. You can get a giant HDTV inexpensively these days, and content to watch on that TV is dirt cheap. Theaters needed to elevate the theatrical experience instead of making customers feel even further nickel-and-dimed. (I suspect if you asked most people if they'd be interested in paying a $5-per-ticket premium for an audio format like Dolby Atmos, most people would reject that too.)
I merely want films to be presented as the filmmakers intended. If studios stop preparing films for 3D release, that's less of an issue to me. My issue happens when filmmakers intend for a title to be in 3D, but the audience isn't able to have access to the film as intended.
Also, for what it's worth and with respect to the OP, to say that "IMAX sticks a fork in 3D" seems incredibly misleading, particularly when the article is basing a large part of this on the IMAX release of Dunkirk, a 2D-only movie that was conceived as a 2D-only experience, that was never going to be made available in 3D no matter what. Sam, with respect, this seems a little similar to your posts on Vudu that cherrypick the worst quirks of the service without context, or speak with a "sky is falling" voice when the day to day reality is different for most people.
Everything is cyclical. It will be back in fashion with the next big 3D must see hit.
Are you saying that to me? That's not what the news article said. They said that Dunkirk was an example of this strategy specifically to eschew 3D.
I wonder how much longer movie makers will stay on the 3D train? I mean at some point they will see that few theaters will offer 3D, home 3D is dying/dead. At some point they have to see the added time and cost to make/convert their movies isn't worth it anymore.
I think we have already passed that. As the Bruce Sterling saying goes, "the future is already here it's just not evenly distributed." The reality is that HDR and 4K are both much more valuable to consumers when they are exposed to it, and even the best 3D has all kinds of tech baggage.
I like 3D. I've collected over 50 3D releases, but I'm down to 1 of 3 sets being 3D. And I will give up 3D projection for 4k with HDR. I have been a realist about this: There will always be enthusiasts but it was never going to go mainstream.
Well said sir.
We are pretty much now a 4K and smart TV world and it will only get a wider audience come this holiday season when there will probably be a boatload of super cheap 4K smart TV's flooding the stores.
3D had it's moment in the spotlight, just like it did in the 50's, 70's, 80's. They tried hard to make it a solid mainstream feature, but in the end it was more of a novelty that was too cumbersome to latch on to.