IMAX sticks a fork in 3D (1 Viewer)

[Josh Steinberg]

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.

Except that Dunkirk wasn't part of a specific strategy to eschew 3D as a format. Christopher Nolan makes films exclusively in 2D. 2D 15/70 IMAX is his preferred filmmaking medium. Christopher Nolan making films in the format he prefers to work with really can't be taken as a comment on the industry as a whole. The same way we can't say "Hollywood is now making more movies in 15/70 IMAX" just because Christopher Nolan made one this year. Christopher Nolan's preferences for filmmaking can't be seen as larger trends or strategies for the business as a whole. If they could, surely we'd be seeing a resurgence of film projection any day now.

If the author of the article wanted a better film to make this point with, he should have looked at Alien Covenant. That's a film where the filmmaker made the previous entry in the series in native 3D, and spoke at that time how he intended every film he'd make from that point onwards in 3D, and then didn't make Alien Convenant in 3D - because the studio didn't want to pay for it. But according to the filmmaker, once the studio saw the finished film in 2D, they then regretted not making it in 3D. But that seems a better example of the point this article is reaching for than Dunkirk.

 

[TravisR]

Possibly so.

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?

Not at all because for home 3-D, you still need to buy a specific TV, player and disc but when the price is the same at the theater, I can't imagine many people avoiding a 3-D screening in favor of the 2-D. I even think (though I certainly have no way to prove) that, if the prices were the same, more people would prefer the 3-D screening.

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 don't think the average consumer cares about 3-D or 4K. That being said, 4K is definitely the future simply because it will eventually become the standard but when that happens, it won't be because there was a great demand from the average consumer for even higher resolution.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Not at all because for home 3-D, you still need to buy a specific TV, player and disc but when the price is the same at the theater, I can't imagine many people avoiding a 3-D screening in favor of the 2-D. I even think (though I certainly have no way to prove) that, if the prices were the same, more people would prefer the 3-D screening.

I don't think the average consumer cares about 3-D or 4K. That being said, 4K is definitely the future simply because it will eventually become the standard but when that happens, it won't be because there was a great demand from the average consumer for even higher resolution.

I agree with a lot of this.

Specifically, I don't think the average consumer really cares about 4K or notices much of a difference. I don't think the average consumer is intentionally upgrading to 4K. I think they're simply replacing their older TVs with newer TVs, and right now, 4K is what's available. If 4K was substantially more expensive or worked differently from 1080 (for example, if it didn't work with regular HD devices), I think you'd see some public resistance. Similarly, if 3D had simply been included in new televisions, without any extra charge, and if 3D discs simply been included with the 2D disc at no extra charge, things might look a little different today. And this is probably why we'll see that while 4K TVs are headed for mass adoption (if they're not already there), UHD discs aren't yet moving at that rate. Buying a 4K TV isn't a high end investment anymore - it's just buying a TV. But buying a UHD player and UHD discs is a high end investment compared to using streaming or buying DVDs.

 

[DavidMiller]

at the theater, I can't imagine many people avoiding a 3-D screening in favor of the 2-D. I even think (though I certainly have no way to prove) that, if the prices were the same, more people would prefer the 3-D screening

Actually people do it all the time. Go work at work at a theater. People change or avoid show time because they do not want to see 3D all the time.

 

[TravisR]

Actually people do it all the time. Go work at work at a theater. People change or avoid show time because they do not want to see 3D all the time.

Like I said, "if the prices were the same", I don't think there would be as much resistance to 3-D from some people.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Like I said, "if the prices were the same", I don't think there would be as much resistance to 3-D from some people.

Also, if prices were the same, studios wouldn't push 3D to be included with everything, because there'd be no financial gain for doing so. Instead, it could be used when the filmmakers felt it was appropriate. If 3D was only used when the filmmakers wanted to use it, there might be fewer 3D films overall but those released would probably be of higher quality than the average 3D release today, which potentially could make for greater audience experiences.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

On the flip-side of this proverbial pessimistic coin, we currently have an even dozen vintage titles (not including our current project CEASE FIRE) in the restoration pipeline for eventual 3-D Blu-ray release!

Next on the Archive's operating table: THE MAZE.

http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/the-maze

 

[TJPC]

Actually people do it all the time. Go work at work at a theater. People change or avoid show time because they do not want to see 3D all the time.

Just went to see "War of The Planet of The Apes" in real 3D. We have one IMAX theatre and some Arachnid movie was still screening there.

It was the first showing of the day, and started of with a Cineplex reel and Time Play, with no picture. We are Canadian, so everyone just sat and looked at a blank screen until I got an usher who turned it on.

Then we started watching a completely flat version of the previews until I again complained and then she started it again in 3D. The point here is that she first asked us if we really wanted 3D and when we replied yes she told us that that was unusual, because most audiences would pick flat.

To finish up the experience, the feature started in 3D but the lights in the theatre stayed on until, you guessed it, I had to go get the usher. The 3D was very well done.

 

[WillG]

Link isn't working well for me so I didn't get to read the whole thing. But I did notice that they said they were "cutting back" on 3D which doesn't necessarily mean abandoning it altogether.

Also I think it's pretty disingenuous to suggest Dunkirk is some kind of referendum against 3D. People aren't flocking to "Dunkirk" in IMAX because it's the only way to see the movie in glorious 2D. It's because the promotion for Dunkirk heavily suggests that the only way to "truly experience" the film is in IMAX (and preferably 15/70 IMAX). Just like when we were told that the only way to "truly experience" "Avatar" was in 3D and as a result the 3D version did killer business. One day a top tier director will tell us the only way to "truly experience" their movie is in smell-o-vision and beyond that another top tier director will tell us that the only way to "truly experience" their movie is in holodeck. Generally, when someone in authority or someone with a solid reputation in something tells us their advice on something, we typically comply. If Dunkirk was released in IMAX 2D and IMAX 3D and the 3D version did significantly worse than the 2D, then you have a point.

 

[Chuck Anstey]

3D is in its sorry state at this time for these simple reasons.
1. Directors did not and were not going to spend the time to improve their craft to understand how to use 3D cameras correctly and how to use 3D effectively for visual effect, sans a few less popular directors who did. So what we got was movies that weren't shot to benefit from 3D and it was badly done 3D converted by a computer, which looks exactly like a computer converted a 2D image to 3D.
2. Studios and theaters charged a premium to view this bad 3D. This was a simply a pile-on to #1 and insulted the consumers.
3. Massive saturation of these bad 3D movies. In the heyday of this round of 3D, many consumers were effectively forced to watch the 3D version because the 2D version had very few showings and at the worst times. This just rapidly reinforced that #1 and #2 were true and they were being cheated into paying more for no real benefit and the annoyance of having to wear glasses and see a dimmer projection. So they actively started avoiding the 3D showings even if it was very inconvenient.

3D was never going to be a normal standard for every film like surround sound is now. If 3D movies were made by people who actually knew how to make 3D movies and only on those movies that benefited strongly from it, they could have kept it going well and even charged a premium for it. But the show business industry can't help but kill the goose that laid the golden egg because they are too hasty and greedy.

I personally love well done 3D movies that were shot in real 3D but right now I just wish movies were shot in full color and not the extremely muted, almost colorless palette used today to help hide all the CGI.

 

[RobertR]

Great post, Chuck. I hate the whole "let's shove fake computer generated 3D versions of movies at people that were never shot with 3D in mind" concept. That alone tells you there is no artistic intent involved. This makes the whole 3D push very different from other technological innovations. Directors consciously shot for Cinemascope, consciously used multichannel sound, etc. Not so with the computer generated stuff. It was always about how much more they could charge. I'm just glad the situation has changed. It used to be that every premium showing seemed to be 3D. Now I can watch a Dolby Cinema showing three minutes from my house in 2D, and not pay a huge amount.

 

[RobertR]

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.

But you KNOW that the big 3D push would never have happened without the big ticket prices. That was the whole point. And you know that Hollywood doesn't care about original intent, otherwise the conversions wouldn't be there.

 

[Tino]

Great post, Chuck. I hate the whole "let's shove fake computer generated 3D versions of movies at people that were never shot with 3D in mind" concept. That alone tells you there is no artistic intent involved. This makes the whole 3D push very different from other technological innovations. Directors consciously shot for Cinemascope, consciously used multichannel sound, etc. Not so with the computer generated stuff. It was always about how much more they could charge. I'm just glad the situation has changed. It used to be that every premium showing seemed to be 3D. Now I can watch a Dolby Cinema showing three minutes from my house in 2D, and not pay a huge amount.

A 2D Dolby Cinema showing at my local AMC costs more than an IMAX 3D showing.

 

[TJPC]

It is my understanding that directors, knowing that a film is going to be converted to 3D, film and plan accordingly in 90% of the cases. It is not just done automatically by machine.

Except for a few early efforts, 3D conversion is a painstaking process that yields results indistinguishable from native filmed 3D. It can often yield astonishing results as well. Look at the 3D blu rays of "Titanic", "The Wizard of Oz" and "Jurassic Park"!
Even lesser efforts can give an astonishing sense of depth.

 

[RobertR]

Except for a few early efforts, 3D conversion is a painstaking process that yields results indistinguishable from native filmed 3D. It can often yield astonishing results as well.

Similar statements could be made about colorization. The point is that the original intent is being violated.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

But you KNOW that the big 3D push would never have happened with the big ticket prices.

I'm not convinced that had to be true. Ticket prices didn't go up when film projectors were swapped out with digital projectors, which was a huge expense at the time. (Older film projectors could last decades or longer, while new digital projectors generally need to be replaced every ten years at most - adding a digital projector over a film projector turns a one-time expense into a recurring expense.) Ticket prices didn't go up when theaters switched from optical audio tracks to digital audio. Movie theater audiences are declining. Because prices keep going up, and because there are added surcharges for things like 3D, Dolby Cinema, IMAX, and so-called "premium large format" auditoriums, the box office grosses have been going up each year, and those grosses are disguising that attendance is down. The studios had two different potential options for strategy to deal with declining audience. The first would have been to improve the product and presentation so that what you could see in the theater was so much better than what it would be like at home that of course you'd continue going to the movies. (This was the idea behind CinemaScope, for example.) The other option was to accept the declining number of patrons, but to try to extract more money out of the ones that remained. Sadly, this is what the major studios and theaters have opted to do. Instead of trying to make going to the movies better than what everyone had at home, they are accepting that the audience is fleeing and trying to get more cash out of those who stay. Two of the major multiplexes where I grew up on Long Island, for instance, recently renovated. They kept the screens, projection equipment and audio gear as is, but replaced the standard theater seating with large recliners. They've reduced capacity by at least half (and in some cases, what appears to be two-thirds), and have raised the prices. Just as recently as a year ago, Long Island wasn't crossing the $20 threshold for movie tickets. With these new renovations, they now have.

I know the purpose of the article was ostensibly about how IMAX may be curtailing 3D support for select releases, but I think all of this is part of a larger picture: attendance is declining. It's very hard to make people pay $20 for something that they can watch at home for free two months later.

And you know that Hollywood doesn't care about original intent, otherwise the convertions wouldn't be there.

I don't agree with that either. Conversions can be just as good, or even better, than natively shot 3D footage. Acclaimed filmmakers like Robert Zemeckis have opted to make 3D films using conversions instead of native photography because conversion was the most effective way to get the effect they were looking for. Alfonso Cuaron won the Academy Award for Best Director for a 3D film he decided to shoot and convert rather than shoot natively.

I also think it's appropriate to consider more than just the director when we talk about "the filmmakers". When a studio like Marvel hires a director, they're being hired to deliver a film that will be exhibited in IMAX 3D, and the directing job is closer to the traditional role of a television director than an auteur. In those cases, the team that works on all of the Marvel movies as producers and supervisors are part of the group of "filmmakers" in my view.

 

[Tino]

Similar statements could be made about colorization. The point is that the original intent is being violated.

Regarding 3D conversions, how is the original intent violated if the film was originally conceived and shot to be converted, which is cheaper than actually shooting in 3D?

 

[RobertR]

I'm not convinced that had to be true. Ticket prices didn't go up when film projectors were swapped out with digital projectors, which was a huge expense at the time. (Older film projectors could last decades or longer, while new digital projectors generally need to be replaced every ten years at most - adding a digital projector over a film projector turns a one-time expense into a recurring expense.) Ticket prices didn't go up when theaters switched from optical audio tracks to digital audio. Movie theater audiences are declining. Because prices keep going up, and because there are added surcharges for things like 3D, Dolby Cinema, IMAX, and so-called "premium large format" auditoriums, the box office grosses have been going up each year, and those grosses are disguising that attendance is down. The studios had two different potential options for strategy to deal with declining audience. The first would have been to improve the product and presentation so that what you could see in the theater was so much better than what it would be like at home that of course you'd continue going to the movies. (This was the idea behind CinemaScope, for example.) The other option was to accept the declining number of patrons, but to try to extract more money out of the ones that remained. Sadly, this is what the major studios and theaters have opted to do. Instead of trying to make going to the movies better than what everyone had at home, they are accepting that the audience is fleeing and trying to get more cash out of those who stay. Two of the major multiplexes where I grew up on Long Island, for instance, recently renovated. They kept the screens, projection equipment and audio gear as is, but replaced the standard theater seating with large recliners. They've reduced capacity by at least half (and in some cases, what appears to be two-thirds), and have raised the prices. Just as recently as a year ago, Long Island wasn't crossing the $20 threshold for movie tickets. With these new renovations, they now have.

I know the purpose of the article was ostensibly about how IMAX may be curtailing 3D support for select releases, but I think all of this is part of a larger picture: attendance is declining. It's very hard to make people pay $20 for something that they can watch at home for free two months later.



I don't agree with that either. Conversions can be just as good, or even better, than natively shot 3D footage. Acclaimed filmmakers like Robert Zemeckis have opted to make 3D films using conversions instead of native photography because conversion was the most effective way to get the effect they were looking for. Alfonso Cuaron won the Academy Award for Best Director for a 3D film he decided to shoot and convert rather than shoot natively.

I also think it's appropriate to consider more than just the director when we talk about "the filmmakers". When a studio like Marvel hires a director, they're being hired to deliver a film that will be exhibited in IMAX 3D, and the directing job is closer to the traditional role of a television director than an auteur. In those cases, the team that works on all of the Marvel movies as producers and supervisors are part of the group of "filmmakers" in my view.

Regarding 3D conversions, how is the original intent violated if the film was originally conceived and shot to be converted, which is cheaper than actually shooting in 3D?

Both of you misunderstand what I was referring to. There was no "conception and shot to be converted" for WOZ, Titanic, T2, etc. THOSE are the conversions I'm talking about.

 

[TJPC]

Similar statements could be made about colorization. The point is that the original intent is being violated.

Not true, except for the classic movies I mentioned, most 3D movies were planned to be 3D from the start. 3D is not an after thought.

 

[RobertR]

Not true, except for the classic movies I mentioned, most 3D movies were planned to be 3D from the start. 3D is not an after thought.

The classic movies are what I'm talking about. It's a violation of original intent. Same as colorization.