Is all this 3-D stuff a phase?

[darkshadow0001]

I sure hope so. I was going to watch a movie at my local $1 theatre and I couldn't even watch it for a $1... since it was only in 3D Seriously though, this 3D stuff I think is really getting out of hand. I haven't even watched a 3D movie yet, not sure if I will, but anyways, how much are those glasses at the normal theatres? I think it was $2 at the $1. That really put me at a bummer... I was going to see Tron!

 

[infinix]

You are not alone.

 

[Kaziarl]

Tron was only in 3D in your town? That sucks...

I didn't see it in 3D, although I wanted to. The glasses are expensive, although if you frequent 3D movies like some people I know, they make them sturdy enough to keep from one film to the next. So the first time, here, I believe it's five dollars a pair on top of the tickets, and then just the price of the tickets from there on.

Although if I remember right, the tickets for the 3D are usually a couple bucks more as well.

I hope it doesn't become the standard though. I don't think all movies will look good in 3D.

 

[Spot's Meow]

Hmm, interesting. As far as I'm aware in my area 3D movies cost extra, but you aren't actually paying for the glasses. I mean, you are, and you can take them home and bring them back to resuse them if you'd like, but you still have to pay the higher cost of the movie. So I guess what I'm saying is that we don't actually pay a fee to buy the glasses, we just pay for the higher priced movie tickets and they hand us new glasses if we need them. If a normal movie ticket is $10, the 3D version of it would be $13.50, regardless of if you already have your own glasses or not.

 

[infinix]

Really? your theaters allow you to take those glasses with you?

I live in MD and every theater I've ever been to has a couple of attendants at the exit collecting the glasses as you walk out. The 3D movies are going to be that much more expensive regardless of whether you go in with your own set of glasses or not.

On this topic, I suspect that beyond the revenue, the reason why studios are jumping on the band wagon is because 3D movies are much harder to pirate (I mean much harder for a person who is sneaking a camera into the theater because you can't film a 3D film like you can a regular 2D film.) I don't know this for a fact, but this is what I suspect.

Like you, I wish the 3D thing would blow over. I hate having to wearing something on my face that is rarely comfortable for a movie where the 3D effects are superfluous.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

3D movies are not a phase. They're a method to prevent piracy (or at least ensure a profit in spite of it). While people feel they get a unique experience that is worth paying for, they'll pay for it. I'm not sure where you'd live that doesn't offer any 2D option, though, that's a bit strange.

 

[darkshadow0001]

3D movies are not a phase. They're a method to prevent piracy (or at least ensure a profit in spite of it). While people feel they get a unique experience that is worth paying for, they'll pay for it. I'm not sure where you'd live that doesn't offer any 2D option, though, that's a bit strange.

This was at the local $1 theatre. I'm sure maybe the normal theatres had both, I just never had the time to go see the film when it was at the regular theatre.

If 3D movies are going to be here, then I may not go to the movies much anymore. I don't really want to sit with 3D glasses at every single movie.

 

[Admiral_Young]

I swear we had a 3D thread not too long ago. Anyways I think that it will quickly turn into a phase if the box office slumps for the films that have them. I would postulate that the box office success of "Avatar" is the reason why it's taken off. All of a sudden since it's success you have every blockbuster booked from Dec 2009 to Dec 2012 as a 3D movie...or even worse, a converted 3D movie!!! Jim Cameron has given interviews saying that hollywood execs really didn't understand the use of 3D in his movie and I would tend to agree with him. I avoid watching them in 3D if I can.

 

[Spot's Meow]

Really? your theaters allow you to take those glasses with you?

Well, they have recycle bins you are apparently supposed to throw them into as you exit, but there hasn't been anyone manning the exit when I went to see 3D movies, so I just took the glasses with me. I still don't know if the recycling of the glasses is supposed to be a mandatory thing or optional.

And you stated well what I was trying to say in my previous post, that the 3D movies will remain at $13.50 whether you have your own glasses or not.

I have only seen two movies in 3D, and it gave me a headache not too long into the movie. Plus, as someone who doesn't wear glasses normally, I had a hard time forgetting they were there and just getting into the movie. I kept playing with them and felt they were rather a nuisance. The 3D look was much better than I remembered it being many years earlier, but still not worth the extra ticket price.

 

[Holdfast]

You know, if you asked me a year or so ago, I'd have probably said yes. But now, I don't think so. It's here to stay for at least the medium term. There's too much money invested in it, and it's beginning to penetrate home TVs and broadcasters as well as movie theatres. Most fundamentally, the glasses are much lighter/easier to wear than the older ones, and the effect is being used functionally (eg in sports broadcasts), rather than just as a gimmick, and it actually works well in that setting.

Next TV I buy will have 3D capability.

It won't be the only option for viewing, but it will be an option, for at least the medium term or until holographic tech becomes practical and cost-effective.

 

[Captain Craig]

It'll start to slump cause they put too many movies into 3-D and lack of theaters able to run multiple 3-D films will be A factor to them losing money. Another factor would be films that have no draw being in 3-D which is already occuring.

Then Avatar 2 will come along and surge the whole damn cycle back up again.

 

[Mysterion]

Is it a phase? If there is a kind and forgiving god, then yes.

 

[davejames]

Like most, I'm not crazy about the uncomfortable glasses (which seem designed only for people who don't already WEAR glasses) or the high prices.

But the 3D itself I actually really like. It may just be a gimmick, but it's a damn COOL gimmick as far as I'm concerned.

 

[wissaboo]

I think it's a phase. To give people something they can't have at home watching a movie and to control pirating. But 3d has had numerous "phases" before. I think this will pass in the same way.

and btw, the cost is to compensate for the different projectors they need to show the 3d.

 

[gblews]

I think 3D is eventually going to simply be the way movies are made. All this kvetching about it reminds me of what I have read about the reactions to "talkies".

3D seems to me to be a logical next step for movies, that is, now that the effect has been so improved (at least for the movies shot in 3D and not "converted").

 

[BlobVanDam]

I'm not a fan of the current 3D fad (I'm not calling 3D itself a fad, only the current cashing in of it), but if they can get the glassless implementations out quickly enough, I think it will definitely stick around this time. As it stands at the moment, I think it will probably stay, although the backlash seems to be increasing.

 

[Starkers]

I just don't get the appeal, I really don't. About the only film I've really liked in 3D was Tron, because it kinda made sense for all the inside the computer bits, but most films I've seen in 3D the 3D bit's been essentially pointless. I find wearing the glasses for two hours uncomfortable, it mutes the colour of the film, and worst of all everything in the background seems kinda blurry! (Or is that just me?) I also find it kind of jarring rather than imersive, rather than briniging me into the action it jolts me out of it.

Where possible I'll take the 2D option, but increasingly it isn't possible. Either there are fewer showings in 2D, or none at all (it was impossible to see The Green Hornet in 2D and similarly no 2D option when I saw Clash of the Titans)

Sadly I fear it isn't a fad, the studios have realised they can charge more for the priviledge, and people are dumb enough to keep paying the ticket prices so who can blame the studios for 3D'ing any and everything they can?

 

[JoeZhang]

It's here to stay, sales of 3D TVs have already outstripped sales of normal HDTVs at the same stage of their product life-cycle.

 

[C.E. Evans]

I think 3D is eventually going to simply be the way movies are made.

Not all movies. Perhaps all the big budget special effects-laden/CGI movies will be in 3D, but smaller movies in which there aren't any explosions and things flying towards the camera will likely continue to be made in 2D, IMO.

I think any backlash to 3D could come when people stop paying for movies in which it isn't a real improvement.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

It's here to stay, sales of 3D TVs have already outstripped sales of normal HDTVs at the same stage of their product life-cycle.

"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." as H L Mencken put it, and not just the American public it seems.