Is all this 3-D stuff a phase?

[Jadzia]

Next TV I buy will have 3D capability.

Smellovision will be the next big thing.

All digital electronics will become enhanced with the recently patented NOSE technology.

 

[Dar70]

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.

The collection "recycling bin" are so they can repackage the glasses. You can take them home but they would probably rather have people leave them in the bin. Next time when you open up a "new" pair. Look at them closely. They are just cleaned up and repackaged. I never leave my glasses. I figure I pay extra for them and the experience so I either take them with me or snap them in half and throw them in the bin.

 

[Kaziarl]

Here, normal tickets are about 9 bucks now I think. 3D is 10 or 11. And the glasses are $5.

We do have the bins, so we can recycle them. However, if you keep the glasses, you don't have to pay the $5 next time you go.

 

[JarodRussell]

It's a phase, until we get 3D movies that you can watch without glasses, how ever that should work.

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 swear I heard the same argument about CGI in movies. And about digital film.

 

[Sparky]

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.

Well, it helps that HDTV's are the mainstream TV's now. At this point in the "normal" HDTV product cycle, CRT style TV's were still mainstream and far far cheaper. HDTV's were still very expensive. (It was only 5 years ago that my friend bought a Plasma TV for $2500, and it only did 1024x768 resolution!) The knowledge about HDTV and the amount and accessibility of HDTV content was lacking at the same stage of the product cycle. Adding 3D capability is an incremental step, not a wholesale change.

The thing is, 3D is included in almost every non entry level TV now. People are purchasing TV's that are 3D capable, not because it is a feature that they really desire. But because it just happens to be a feature in the TV that they buy. It's similar to the 120 and 240hz situation. It started off as a new feature in select models, but now it's usually just included as standard.

3D is in the growing pains stage right now. The tech is not perfected, but everyone is still trying to implement their own version. Eventually they will get the technology worked out. This goes for the cinema as well.

There will always be a segment of the population that will be unable or unwilling to watch in 3D, there will always be a 2D option for people to view. Eventually though, i suspect that it might cost more to go and see the 2D version of the movie in the theater.

 

[Jax]

There needs to be better regulation to stop 3-D being tacked at the end poorly. If your doing 3-D then you do it from the start not as a last minute quick extra dollars scheme.

Simple fact no movie has done it properly since Avatar.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

It's not a fad and it's not a "phase" that's going to decline and disappear in, say, the next five years because it serves some very specific economic purposes for the studios and it's working for them. It will evolve, and filmmakers will also probably find some novel ways of using the digital technology that makes it work which may or may not involve full-on 3D imagery (no, I have no real idea what those uses will be; if I did I'd be on a plane to L.A.).

And yeah, Avatar did it best. Brilliant movie.

 

[Dar70]

It's not a fad and it's not a "phase" that's going to decline and disappear in, say, the next five years because it serves some very specific economic purposes for the studios and it's working for them. It will evolve, and filmmakers will also probably find some novel ways of using the digital technology that makes it work which may or may not involve full-on 3D imagery (no, I have no real idea what those uses will be; if I did I'd be on a plane to L.A.).

And yeah, Avatar did it best. Brilliant movie.

Beowulf did it better, otherwise I agree with you. Its here to stay and people just have to get used to it. 3d has evolved beyond what it used to be so its not going to disappear like last time.

 

[Sparky]

3d has evolved beyond what it used to be so its not going to disappear like last time.

This.

In addition, the studios, theaters and TV manufacturers have invested far too much money to give up on it. They will keep tweaking and pushing it until it's a standard.

 

[hamudm]

In response to Damon Houx's (CHUD.com) op-ed piece entitled "Fuck 3D," I responded:

http://www.chud.com/38758/from-damons-desk-fuck-3-d/

I don’t even know where to start with this (and all the other artsy “film” snobs” arguments against 3D movies… nothing personal to anyone). First of all, this opinion piece comes off as just that. The author’s entire stance against 3D is because of HIS opinion, and HIS nostalgic feelings about how HE grew up and watched movies and that 3D changes that comfortable and familiar feeling with a 2D 35mm projection.

Damon, you posit:
“ I think a fundamental aspect of storytelling is that you’re supplying part of the narrative with your imagination, and any time something tries to be more real it ultimately becomes less so.” Can you honestly say that almost every single advance in filmmaking doesn’t have that effect? Colour? Sound? CGI (and I’m not just talking about Harryhausen monsters being replaced by CG, but even filling in details and creating parts of worlds that otherwise cannot or no longer exist)? Like it or not, our entertainment can and will continue to become more and more immersive.

As we continue to perfect the 3D technology, it’s going to become less and less of a ‘tacked on’ aspect of movies and will become a more natural and standard way of viewing.
I have not yet heard a single argument against 3D that doesn’t play on the nostalgic (headaches? please…) aspect of films and why they shouldn’t change from what we knew as children. We heard the same arguments against CGI and I’m sure we’ll continue to hear about 3D. The thing is that CGI matured, the technology became better and more immersive. Now days, when used skillfully, CGI creates realistic and natural elements in films… I’m sure 3D will also mature to this level.

“Fuck 3D” is like saying “Fuck HD” or “Fuck CG,” etc… 3D’s just a tool and our best filmmakers will learn to use it soon and use it well they will.

Also, what the hell is with the F-bomb in the title? I’m no prude, but the overusage of four-letter words in the content of this site just screams to me LAZY writing. Damon, I’ve read your work; you can do better.

I see complaining about 3D as a phase. Say what you will about Avatar, but the 3D was remarkably immersive and it's only going to get better and used in more unique and interesting ways.

 

[Harvey]

Slate ran this analysis last year suggesting that 3D might not be as good financially for the studios as has been suggested, but I haven't read anything analyzing the box office of 3D movies since.

Certainly exhibitors have been pushing 3D like crazy, converting thousands of theatres to digital 3D projection. The studios have been doing the same, post-converting a lot of 2D movies into 3D in order to give exhibitors enough 3D content to be able to charge more for those screens year round. And TV manufacturers have been selling 3D television as hard as they can. Hell, I just bought a 3D TV, not because I care for the format (I hate it), but because 3D TVs are being discounted to the point that they're cheaper to buy than equivalent 2D televisions.

Those pushes in infrastructure are going to keep 3D around for awhile yet. But whether this 3D phase will last in five or ten years is still, I think, an open question.

 

[JarodRussell]

Slate ran this analysis last year suggesting that 3D might not be as good financially for the studios as has been suggested, but I haven't read anything analyzing the box office of 3D movies since.

Certainly exhibitors have been pushing 3D like crazy, converting thousands of theatres to digital 3D projection. The studios have been doing the same, post-converting a lot of 2D movies into 3D in order to give exhibitors enough 3D content to be able to charge more for those screens year round. And TV manufacturers have been selling 3D television as hard as they can. Hell, I just bought a 3D TV, not because I care for the format (I hate it), but because 3D TVs are being discounted to the point that they're cheaper to buy than equivalent 2D televisions.

Those pushes in infrastructure are going to keep 3D around for awhile yet. But whether this 3D phase will last in five or ten years is still, I think, an open question.

Now if everyone who hates 3D and wants it to disappear buys 3D TVs because they are discounted...

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Avatar was awesome, movies converted to 3D in post really suck, and eventually studios will wise up and stop converting movies to 3D that have no business doing so. I hope so, anyway.

I don't think the current crop of 3D is going to go away, it would just be nice if it was used more judiciously and not as a gimmicky money-grab.

 

[Warp Coil]

My employer is investing lord knows how much money in 3-D. They seem confident enough in the future of the technology to launch the first 3-D U.S. network - 3Net - which is a joint venture between Discovery, Sony and IMAX. I'm sure the five people who have 3-D televisions and DirecTV (the only carrier currently offering the network) are enjoying the few native 3-D programs that we are currently airing. The only thing I know right now is that the technology severely hinders our post-production flexibility and there are a lot of kinks and weird things with it.

 

[JarodRussell]

I don't think the current crop of 3D is going to go away, it would just be nice if it was used more judiciously and not as a gimmicky money-grab.

If the Slate article Harvey posted, and a few other articles I read, are correct, then it's not a money-grab at all.

Haters, get your facts straight!

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I don't think the current crop of 3D is going to go away, it would just be nice if it was used more judiciously and not as a gimmicky money-grab.

If the Slate article Harvey posted, and a few other articles I read, are correct, then it's not a money-grab at all.

Haters, get your facts straight!

Just because it doesn't always work as a money-grab doesn't mean that isn't the intention. Some of the movies that have been converted to 3D in post-production are pretty suspect, and I can't think of any good artistic reason to do it, which only leaves money as a motivator.

 

[darkshadow0001]

There needs to be better regulation to stop 3-D being tacked at the end poorly. If your doing 3-D then you do it from the start not as a last minute quick extra dollars scheme.

Simple fact no movie has done it properly since Avatar.

That's because Avatar was original. Everyone else is just copying what Avatar did, and that's why they are poor quality.

So what's going to happen, are cable companies going to also stop producing normal TV and just go with this 3D crap?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Yes, the real economic point of 3D for the studios is to get exhibitors all converted over to digital projection. That makes this worthwhile for the studios without regard to the exact level of profits coming from 3D features themselves.

Use of 3D may level off or diminish, based on costs or public response, at some point after celluloid is for all commercial purposes a dead technology - but not before then. Give it a decade at least.

 

[Captain Craig]

And yeah, Avatar did it best.

Agree

Brilliant movie.

Disagree.

It's a visually good movie, poorly executed story. For a guy with complaints about Thor and/or X-M:FC you sure are forgiving about Avatar.
I will not be lining up for just more pretty pictures in Avatar 2. Cameron better try to at least retell a story as good as he can vs the boring cliche characters he put out in Avatar.

Sadly whatever decline 3-D starts to see in the next 2years, if it does, will only be boosted again by an Avatar 2.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

=I see complaining about 3D as a phase. Say what you will about Avatar, but the 3D was remarkably immersive and it's only going to get better and used in more unique and interesting ways.

Yeah, I think Avatar sold it for me. I refuse to see a movie where 3D was added in post production because it tends to weaken the visual experience, but I'll definitely choose 3D over 2D for a movie offered that way.

My employer is investing lord knows how much money in 3-D. They seem confident enough in the future of the technology to launch the first 3-D U.S. network - 3Net - which is a joint venture between Discovery, Sony and IMAX. I'm sure the five people who have 3-D televisions and DirecTV (the only carrier currently offering the network) are enjoying the few native 3-D programs that we are currently airing. The only thing I know right now is that the technology severely hinders our post-production flexibility and there are a lot of kinks and weird things with it.

I'm sure the people who get high and watch Planet Earth will appreciate it being in 3D.