Comments on: 3D Movies Run Amok: A Fad That Should Stop… But Won’t

By: Rob Prof

Rob Prof — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 15:54:03 +0000

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!

By: Vogelpestp

Vogelpestp — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 23:34:49 +0000

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.

By: David Lavenja

David Lavenja — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 09:09:28 +0000

Our Statistics homework help service provides statistics assignment help, statistics dissertation, math homework help and online tutoring to students with very low fees.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 05:34:19 +0000

@rossie

ummm….i think you’re in the wrong forum

By: Phavady

Phavady — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 02:18:30 +0000

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!

By: Christine

Christine — Tue, 14 Dec 2010 04:14:32 +0000

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.

By: ishootvideo

ishootvideo — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 03:33:05 +0000

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.

By: nick

nick — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 03:55:59 +0000

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

By: Rossie Merlan

Rossie Merlan — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 03:51:25 +0000

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!

By: jim

jim — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 03:51:03 +0000

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.

By: Spiderfan

Spiderfan — Sun, 11 Apr 2010 09:07:43 +0000

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.

By: TaranAPK

TaranAPK — Sun, 11 Apr 2010 06:13:44 +0000

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.

By: trulytechnical

trulytechnical — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 08:31:37 +0000

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

By: thechairman74

thechairman74 — Sat, 03 Apr 2010 19:09:59 +0000

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.

By: Dr_Sprl

Dr_Sprl — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 18:58:15 +0000

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.

By: Tiffany

Tiffany — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 17:55:06 +0000

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.

By: Avery

Avery — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 20:44:42 +0000

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.

By: rovshen_azeri

rovshen_azeri — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 04:07:08 +0000

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!

By: BlueCollarCritic

BlueCollarCritic — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 00:32:05 +0000

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?

By: ChrisMohrSr

ChrisMohrSr — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 01:36:22 +0000

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”