3D Movies Run Amok: A Fad That Should Stop… But Won’t
Mar 18, 2010 by Paul Young3D movies are here to stay – but we’ll tell why all 3D movies are NOT created equal.
For the same reason people who are selling their homes spend $1,000 on new landscaping: To pretty them up. The upfront cost to them is very little in the initial investment and they can recoup it tenfold. It’s simple math really.
The typical conversion process costs somewhere in the neighborhood of $300,000 – $500,000. That’s a drop in the bucket compared to the overinflated multi-million dollar budgets the major films are getting. For their investment, studios can expect to see anywhere from 30- 50% increase in box office sales because of the additional cost for the “privilege” of watching the film in 3D. Studios know that not everyone is going to do their research on the technology and figure out that it is a scam, so they can be assured that opening weekend will have much higher numbers from people trying out the 3D “experience.”
In essence, a film can sell fewer tickets and still turn a profit because of the additional cost the other suckers theater goers are paying. It would be a financially dumb decision for them NOT to convert their films into 3D. The average cost of a standard 2D movie ticket rose in 2009 to $7.20 – I’d like to know where I can see a movie for that price – but the cost of seeing a film in 3D is a flat $3 extra regardless of the theater you go to. That’s a modest 42% additional cost to each moviegoer to just wear a pair of oversized glasses and experience the ILLUSION of 3D.
That’s right, I said ILLUSION! Sometimes people forget that no matter what great 3D special effect directors and studios add to their film it’s not a true 3D experience. They are simply adding depth to the frame that is not there. To experience true 3D you would have to – wait for it – GO OUTSIDE!
Even if the conversion process wasn’t being used by a vast majority of the upcoming 3D films, I would still have a problem with it. I’m not completely against the use of 3D technology but I do feel, as a wearer of corrective lenses (read: glasses), that I’m being slighted. I have yet to meet another person wearing glasses who says “Man I absolutely LOVE wearing these ridiculous glasses on top of my existing frames.” They are very awkward to fit on your face and feel like they are constantly sliding down your nose. As beautiful and majestic as Avatar was to look at, I was distracted the entire time by these gigantic over-sized glasses resting on my face.
Last September, Real D did announce that it intends to make designer 3D frames (Gucci, Prada, etc.) and that some time in the future we can expect to have prescription lenses as well. Also on their slate are a line of toddler frames so more kids can “enjoy” the 3D effect. That is a step in the right direction – to get prescription lens wearers on board with shelling out the extra money but honestly, I can’t say that will sway me personally to jump on the 3D bandwagon.
So what should studios focus on instead?
Personally, I’d rather see them spend money in a way that enhances the overall quality of a film by shooting it with IMAX or better yet, shooting the film in HiDef 1080p and converting the theaters to show them. I think a headline stating “Green Lantern to be shot in IMAX!” would be less groan inducing than a headline about it being in post-converted 3D.
I know IMAX cameras are big, bulky and expensive but maybe if they pumped just half of the budget from all the dumb 3D movies coming out into research, then they could develop a smaller camera. Say what you want about Transformers 2 but the IMAX scenes in the film looked glorious and I don’t think anyone would argue the IMAX scenes shot for The Dark Knight were anything but fantastic.
Whether we like it or not, 3D technology has proven (to studios at least) to be a very productive and efficient way to recoup their investment. Just like remakes, reboots and sequels, post-conversion 3D is, unfortunately, here to stay; all we can hope is that eventually Hollywood gets tired of playing with their toy fireman’s hat and just uses it for certain films. It would also help if they stopped post converting and started filming in 3D but as long as audiences keep lining up and plopping down the extra cash (Alice in Wonderland is over $200 million in 2 weeks) then studios have no reason to change their tactics. In their minds, they are giving audiences what they want and doing us a favor.
Coming soon to a theater near you!
In case you are curious about how many films are actually slated to be released in 3D (post or otherwise) over the next couple of years, here is a list:
Two Harry Potter films, Green Lantern, Sucker Punch, Clash of the Titans, Toy Story 3,The Blob, Saw VII, Transformers 3 , Underworld 4, Resident Evil 4, Zombieland 2, Piranha 3D, Drive Angry, Re-Animator remake, Swamp Thing, Burst, Stretch Armstrong, The Three Musketeers, Yogi Bear, Scream 4, The Hobbit, Twister 2 (possibly), Yellow Submarine, Who Framed roger Rabbit?, Night of the Living Dead, Cowboys and Aliens, Spider-man, Gremlins 3, Guardians of Ga’Hoole, Cats and Dogs 2, Ghost in the Shell, Frankenweenie, Gravity, Tintin, Priest, Star Trek 2 (maybe), Erector Set, How To Train Your Dragon, Samurai Jack, View-Master, and oh yeah, Avatar 2.
Is your head spinning yet? It only took me 5 minutes to look all those up on here on Screen Rant and that only covers films coming out through 2012 – which just proves that it really could be the end of the world. Maybe that’s why the Mayans didn’t have 3D technology? *Note – there are many more films scheduled to be done in 3D that I left off here.*
Again, I’m not completely against the use of 3D in movies, I just think that studios and directors should follow Cameron’s example and plan for it from the start. Scorsese seems to have the right idea and if Marc Webb is consulting Cameron on his Spider-Man 3D reboot, then he will be on the right track as well.
What are your thoughts about this 3D craze? Do you see it slowing down anytime soon and how you would rather see studios spend the money?
Follow me on Twitter @Walwus
Source: Shadow Locked, Hollywood Reporter, Associated Press, Gizmodo, Variety
Around the web:
Loading ...
I totally agree, if something is worth the 3D treatment, then I want to splash out and see it at the IMAX, not pay a similar price to see it at the local.
I liked Avatar in 3D because they used the technique to enhance the sets, it was more of a tool than a gimmick IMO, not just throwing stuff at you a la Spy Kids 3D (the only other 3D film I've seen!).
I don't mind 3D but it's not worth the £5 mark up price to me, so hopefully the overkill of 3D will soon have everyone bored, broke and running back to “normal” screens.Also, I wear glasses and the huge Imax frames just about stayed on my face and it was tricky to balance them, so that's another consideration for me.
As someone once said, “This is Deja Vu all over again!” One of the reasons 3D failed in the fifties was because the studio powers that were at that time were so greedy for the money they thought might be made with this almost forgotten art form, they paid no attention to the presentation of these films. They only concentrated on grinding them out as quickly as possible to make as much money as possible as soon as possible. And now they are doing it again by beginning to saturate the market with these psuedo 3D films that were made originally in 2D. There is a good chance the public will sense the lack of true depth perception, but not realize exactly why something is amiss. And again, as in the fifties, the public may reject 3D as nothing but a gimmick, as they did before. And this would truly be a very sad thing.
I totally agree 3-D movies are a waste of time and money, paying anything over ten dollars for a 3-D movies is bogues and BS. The fact is 3-D adds really nothing to the movies but some crazy heavy glasses, I found myself taking the glasses off every six mins during Avatar when they weren't needed. I don't find the 3-D experenice all that great, it's a chessey effect that we could really do without. The only reason studios are remaking films in 3-D is of course making money, which alot of films thier remaking in 3-D is going to cost them, because ppl are starting to realize that 3-D is costly and nobody wants to pay the price, so there go see it in 2-D or wait for DVD or Blue-Ray, studios are going to loose so much money doing this, so let them make there mistakes, and please don't make the comic book movies in 3-D it's just going to take away from the storyline. Look Avatar was good but not that good, a second grader could wrote the screenplay, the actors were ok, and they spent most of the time on the effects, spend more time on the story not the effects, stop ruining movies with special effects, ppl want story not stuff trying come out of the screen.
3D as well as IMAX is here to stay. It's never dying off. As we speak 3D tech is being integrated into your very cell phone displays, computer monitors, HDTV's, etc.
Like James Cameron said: “I wanted them to forget they were in a theater and in another world”
He did it. It works and it's here to stay.
Your comments might be worthy of evaluation if it weren't for the fact that you are illiterate. My spelling is pretty bad, but when I'm not sure how to spell a word I look it up. You are so illiterate, you have no idea that you can't spell even the simplest words. And the fact that you really believe 3D adds nothing to a film only means that the disability of blindness must be added to your disability of illiteracy.
Let me quote a movie review I recently came across. The reviewer said, “This new technology is nothing more than a gimmick. The only advantage is the monetary one gained by the makers and distributors of the new motion picture equipment needed to replace the presentation system we now have. Eventually the public will see this and reject this new technology that doesn't really add anything to the art of motion pictures.”
This was a movie review for “The Jazz Singer”
Vic (& the rest of the crew)
3D ticket price hike from Variety.com Story (From the Screenrant tweets): http://shar.es/mgRST
QUESTION: Does this article raise the question as to whether theatre chains have been lying for years now about their not making money on ticket sales which is why they justify the outrageously high cost of concessions? It seems to me that if this were true then the price hike for the 3D surcharge would not only NOT mean dollar signs for theatre chains as the story indicates but it would also be consistent regardless of the location (i.e NY vs some mid-west small town). I know that the ticket price itself varies from region to region but there is still a consistent pattern in that when ticket prices have increased in the past to keep up with the cost of living increase, the increase in terms of percentages was relatively the same regardless of location. That said shouldn’t the same be true for the 3D surcharge unless the fact is that the theatres do make money off ticket sales?
I’m just ticked because for years now I’ve justified paying the high cost of AMC’s pizzas (currently in the Dallas area its $7.50 for the equivalent of a personal Pan pizza which you can get for half that at Pizza Hut) and their popcorn and soda which for just myself was always another $15-$20 per visit. When I went to see [Insert any major release here] last year on iMax in 3D I paid $25 +/- $1-42 for the ticket plus 1 drink, 1 pizza and 1 popcorn. That’s a lot of money for 1 person to see a movie. I justified this by telling myself that AMC only made money on the food & beverage but now I’m thinking otherwise.
Thoughts?
I don’t know where that Variety article got it’s numbers. I guess the huge chain theaters like AMC get to keep that much since they can negotiate back at the studios, but independent theater owners get shafted at the box office.
In the first week a movie is out the studio may take up to 90% of the ticket sales. YEAH 90%! It’s sick!
A great deal is depending on the movie, the location, the distributor, lots of factors. But a big well promoted wide release movie like Toy Story 3 is going to be getting around 80%+ in the first two weeks. The longer the movie is there the less the studio keeps. So in its 4th week they might only take 65% of the tickets sales and down and down the percentage goes over time, but ticket sales drop dramatically by the third week so who cares if we’re keeping 60% of ten tickets sold. Whoop dee doo.
So I thought, “Why don’t we sell tickets for a dollar since we don’t get to keep much of it anyway.” And the answer to that is because the studio don’t allow it. If we “under-perform” they will just stop letting us show their movies, and then we are really screwed. Because they will only let you have movies that are in their 3rd or 4th week.
But the bottom line is the studios do get the lion’s share of the ticket. So theaters do require that concession income to keep their doors open. Whether independent or chain.
And if it makes you feel better independent theater owners REALLY appreciate you buying the popcorn.
i'm sick of this 3D,really….everywhere, every movie with 3D…i don' like this 3D!!!
i hate 3D….my head spinning while watchin' movie in 3D…2D is my favorite!
I wear glasses, and when I saw the 15-minute trailer of Avatar, the 3D gave me a splitting headache halfway through. I had to wait for Avatar to come out in 2D to see it, and I was not impressed. It was pretty, but the story was one long string of cliches. These “filmmakers” are taking a page from P.T. Barnum: “Nobody ever went bankrupt underestimating the intelligence of the American Public.” All they do is show us pretty images and false 3D, and we happily shell out an extra 7 bucks. I maintain that until we perfect true 3-Dimensional holographic projection, 3D will remain a fad and a gimmick.
But that doesn't take into account what would happen if the movie only came out in 2d. I think people are choosing the 3d over 2d because the option is there and it seems cooler. If there were no 3d option for that movie to begin with, they would sell more 2d tickets because people would still want to see the movie and wouldn't feel like they were settling for second best. You are right that they make more money off of the 3d version though because they get to jack up the ticket price.
I think that as many films as possible should be shot in 3D. If you don't want to see it in 3D, that's fine. Just see the 2D version. But I really believe we should keep as many viewing options open as possible. That way everyone's happy. Even for the people who hate the current 3D technology, or get headaches… who knows? Maybe someday they'll come up with a way of viewing 3D films that you'll enjoy, and then you'll wish that more films had been shot in 3D…
2D-to-3D conversion should never be done for live-action films, unless they come up with a much more impressive way of doing it than what they did for Alice in Wonderland and Clash of the Titans.
This won't be possible for a long time, but the only real 3-D will be some kind of holographic effect where the viewer will see a different view based on where he is sitting in the theater. The glasses will have some kind of little GPS device in them that can determine the position and angle in which the glasses are looking at the “screen”. In other words, it will be like real life where if I am standing to your left, I will see the left side of your face. If the other viewer is to your right, he will see your right side. True depth, and true dimensionality are what true 3-D can be. Even though Cameron's 3-D photographic and development process are much more advanced than the previous efforts, it is still essentially taking a 2-D picture and manipulating it to look 3-D. CGI may be the only way to fully achieve this effect. Since the computer can render all the objects on the screen in full 3-D it would be possible to do this. It would not be dissimilar to a multi-player video game where each participant is in a different location but they are viewing the same event. The computer would then have to render what the picture would look like for every possible seat location and its resulting viewing angle. Since this type of film could only be shown in a very limited number of theaters under strict control, they will know the exact number of seats and the distances and angles. They will also need to render slightly different views if the viewer's eyes pan all around the screen. Obviously the closer the viewer is to the screen the greater the angle range required.
The bottom line though is that this system has to be an active system, where the glasses work with the theater's computers to provide you the image. The amount of processing power and bandwidth is pretty steep. The glasses themselves will be little computers. Weight of course will be an issue. It's possible that the theater will have to hand each viewer a separate small device that will feed the image to the glasses. The other optional requirement I would have is that if a person chooses not to watch in 3-D, he can watch the exact same movie in 2-D. Say a person who wears eyeglasses, or has vertigo problems.
A movie ticket here is not that bad, 8 for regular 11 for 3d. I actually saw avatar twice, the first time was in 2d the second in 3d. I can honestly say that the 3d added a lot to the movie, but I still think it would have been hugely successful. I have seen a lot of 3D movies and there is a HUGE difference between stereoscopic and converted 3D. The glasses are a little clunky, but they are tolerable. I like 3D, but whether it is done in stereoscope or converted, It still has to be a good movie to begin with or its pointless
This is basically what I was thinking. I see 3D as the next logical step in the development of cinema. First there was motion itself, then sound, then color, and now depth. And what's wrong with that? I understand that many people have trouble working with the current technology that requires glasses, but they're experimenting with 3D displays that don't require them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autostereoscopy), so I'm hopeful that someday we won't have those problems.
3D can be used in a gimmicky way, but that doesn't mean it *has* to be. And just because, in some people's opinion, it hasn't added that much to movie making yet doesn't mean it can't. It's another tool that can be used creatively just like lighting, color, focus, etc. I agree with Ben Kendrick's Scorsese post. I think 3D dramas are exactly what needs to happen in order to explore 3D as a tool without so much temptation to turn it into a gimmick.
I agree that it is being abused in terms of its use but it can be put to good use. When it is used more aesthetically (like in Avatar and How to Train You Dragon) it can be a good tool. But when used as a gimmick I want to throw up.
The simple fact is that people expect the technology in movies to move with the times. With the invention of CGI, Hi-def picture and sound etc, there is little the movie industry can't do. What else can they improve without reinventing the preverbial wheel? I'm guessing that 3D movies are here to stay.
Amazing! I adore Miley and her innovative record album. I’d have to say that either Can’t Be Tamed or Scars are probably my favorite songs. She is all grown up from her Hannah Montana days!
@rossie
ummm….i think you’re in the wrong forum
F 3d movies..iv always hated them..its like ur friggin wearing sunglass to watch a movie..the only time i will like a 3d movie is if they can make a 3d movie work without the stupid sunglasses..or the blue and red glasses..making it as if its actually real..so ya F 3d movies
What really makes me insane about all these 3-D movies is that I couldn’t watch them even if I wanted to. My husband is blind in one eye, so we have missed out on seeing some movies we wanted to see because they were released only in 3-D. It is frustrating because on some occasions Hollywood seems to be forgetting an entire section of viewers. I don’t care if the 3-D thing becomes a norm for movies, I just hope they don’t make it the only way movies are released.
Our local theatre (we have only one) has been playing nothing but 3d. I am totally sick peering through a pair of small uncomfortable glasses that cut off my peripheral vision and otherwise negatively affect my moviegoing experience. I have resolved to quit the theatre until they get over this 3d fad!
Our Statistics homework help service provides statistics assignment help, statistics dissertation, math homework help and online tutoring to students with very low fees.
Interesting and well written. I enjoyed it, thanks for that.
Personally I agree on shooting more in higher quality than making things in 3D. I have seen Avatar and Alice in Wonderland in 3D. Avatar was alright and after 5 minutes I wished I bought the ticket for the not 3D Alice. And now I know why. Overall I don’t like 3D that much. I can still see the 2D edge of the screen and sometimes it feels like I’m watching a movie through a square hole in the wall. We will see if 3D is here to stay. It seems logical though, from BW to color and from color to 3D, all adding realism. But I personally think the technology needs to improve.
I won’t be seeing any movies in 3D soon though.
Negative or what?
If you are lucky enough to have good 3d vision with or without corrective glasses, then properly filmed 3D really does add an exciting amount of realism. The latest commercial passive 3D TVs, blu-ray 3D players and 3D video cameras work extremely well, producing a very acceptable amount of depth.
As another member said, ’3D is here to stay’. What Avatar did was demonstrate how far 3D technology has advanced. It woke up the industry.
I and millions of other Tolkien 3D fans can’t wait to see the Hobbit in 3D!