Is all this 3-D stuff a phase?
- Thread starter darkshadow0001
- Start date
http://www.dispatch.com/content/sto...t/2012/04/08/1-3-d-trends-art-g1jgmufu-1.html
When we start to see dramas and comedies being successful in the cinema in 3-D then it may be here to stay.
The only movie I've saw in 3D was Avatar and after it was over I wasn't that impressed, plus it gave me a pretty good headache.
Having opened on Wednesday, April 4 to give it a long 5 day opening even the great Titanic only scored $25.7m. For a film that is such a monster hit in it's initial run this tells me people aren't just going to rush out to 3-D film re-releases.
Plus Star Wars Ep.1 did very poor in February.
Plus Star Wars Ep.1 did very poor in February.
The reason 3-D is still around right now is twofold: foreign markets, and a desperate attempt by Hollywood to bolster floundering media sales.
3-D plays extremely overseas... far better as a percentage vs. the US. However, foreign markets don't seem to be too wowed 3-D re-releases. Star Wars did OK, Titanic is doing OK... the only re-releases that appear to do well in US and foreign markets are some of the higher profile Disney films like "Lion King."
For the home video market studios have been trying to shove 3-D down the throats of consumers, only a year or two after getting people to buy into HD... So let's see the logic... back in 2009 I paid $1500 for my brand spanking new 55" HDTV... now you want me to fork out $2800 for a 3-D version of the same TV?!?!?!?! No thanks.
Hollywood has been desperately trying to buttress their floundering home video sales. The precipitous fall began around 2005-2006 and have been dropping like a rock ever since. Blu-Ray has not been the savior some insiders thought it would be and 3-D seems to be the last gasp as the industry tries to retain sales figures in the face of streaming video and video on demand services.
3-D took a few years to die off in the 50s. I suspect in another 3 years or so 3-D will go into hibernation once again.
Yancy
Last edited:
That's why I waited to get a 3D HD TV rather than get a HD or BluRay player sooner. But its only a bedroom 32" set that wasn't that much more than a HD set of the same size.
I got it as much for knowing that as a fad it might die out, so at least I'm covered, and can enjoy them a bit longer.
Right now there's very few films I'd ever want to watch at the cinema again that aren't 3D.
I'd say that this isn't all that bad for a 14-year-old film.
^^^
It's icing to be sure. The conversion process is reported to cost around $10-15m so it paid for itself. However for a film of it's magnitude the stakes were higher. I believe BoxOffice.com had an industry predict of $120-140m for the 3-D re-release. If I find the link I'll edit it back in.
Edit: Their OW predict was $42m, it'll be lucky to mange $50m. It's predicted run was $155m and if you aren't famliar with BoxOffice.com they are a respected industry site. Those predicts weren't made at a whimsy but based on insider expectations along with other factors.
It's icing to be sure. The conversion process is reported to cost around $10-15m so it paid for itself. However for a film of it's magnitude the stakes were higher. I believe BoxOffice.com had an industry predict of $120-140m for the 3-D re-release. If I find the link I'll edit it back in.
Edit: Their OW predict was $42m, it'll be lucky to mange $50m. It's predicted run was $155m and if you aren't famliar with BoxOffice.com they are a respected industry site. Those predicts weren't made at a whimsy but based on insider expectations along with other factors.
I to waited for a 3D TV. I simple bit of research before forking out money on a HDTV said 3D TV's were just around the corner. SO it made more sense to wait and spend the money on something that was potentially more future protected.
But perhaps only part of the issue is HD, HD TV's are also WS TV's and as far as I am aware in the UK unlike the US WS TV's were already the norm had had been since around the late 1990's.
As the US appeared to be slower in adapting to that format. Take DVD releases most DVD and even a great many VHS were released in OAR or WS with Pan & Scan release becoming rarer and rarer towards the end. Whilst in the US films were routinly released in both Pan & Scan and WS.
But as to the topic question at hand
I've got this new idea for films, it's called a talkie
I've got this new idea for films. it's called colour.
I've got this new idea for FX in films, it's called CGI.
etc..
When ever something new comes around some people will think it's just a fad and not worth taking seriously.
I believe they are already working on SHD (Super HD) for TV's surely that will be a fad as well. Technology marches on
The problem with this line of reasoning is that it ignores all of the alleged "innovations" introduced to cinema over the years that have proven to be nothing but fads, including Cinerama, smell-o-vision, and, yes, 3-D (in the '50s and '80s).
It also doesn't include the technical failures to achieve the innovations you've listed. Before color film, movies were dyed or hand-tinted, but dying wasn't really color and hand-tinting was too time consuming and expensive. Before sound on film technology was invented, Edison tried to tie his film projector to a phonograph, and Warner Bros. used a double system of film and vitaphone disc. 3-D may ultimately become part of the medium, but that doesn't mean that it will happen with the latest technological efforts.
Given the subsidy of 3-D surcharges and the investment in 3-D infrastructure (i.e. new digital projects) by exhibitors, there's a good chance that 3-D won't go away. Indeed, in the face of declining revenues from 3-D movies in the US, it hasn't. But it's not a sure thing.
Earning nearly three times/nearly double that which it cost isn't a failure. And it also isn't a failure not to meet the expectations of even the most informed.
Certainly. I didn't make any claims to the contrary. Edison's attempt at talkies didn't work, but sound cinema eventually happened. It just took a little longer, and the eventual technology was much different than what his people were tinkering with.
We'll just have to take their word for it about "meeting expectations" but it sounds like spin to me.
So? The numbers speak for themselves.
^^^
Not sure what you mean in this case. The numbers are what they are.
I only question the truth of the "expectations" as voiced by the studio.
Not sure what you mean in this case. The numbers are what they are.
I only question the truth of the "expectations" as voiced by the studio.
But in case of upgrading to digital projection systems it's not much of a loss. When 3-D fails... and it will. The exhibitors will simply switch over to straight 2-D digital projection which all of these systems are capable of anyway.
The real point of the 3-D movement by guys like Cameron and Lucas was to get theater owners to convert from traditional film projection to digital... the 3-D was just a mechanism to push theaters along. Digital adaptation was exceedingly slow from 2002-2007... the "3-D craze" simply gave the process a jolt.
Yancy
And what would Cameron and Lucas gain by that push?
Lucas and Cameron are both notoriously anal about the presentation of their films. Lucas limited the initial release of Episode I in 1999 to ensure the film was seen in the best possible presentation. Initially Lucas wanted the film in only THX certified cinemas, but Fox balked at that one.
Lucas from Entertainment Weekly (2011): "I know I have a reputation for being this technical guy, but I'm not. All I know is I need to tell a story, and I'm most interested in quality. I've worked my whole life trying to get the best quality that I can, so the audience can enjoy the film the same way we do when we sit in the answer-print screening and see it under the most prime conditions. The idea in digital projection is that you get a high-quality image for the run of the film. What does it look like four weeks into release? That's what I'm concerned about."
Hell, Cameron's moved on to a new passion... shooting at higher framerates (60fps).
http://www.firstshowing.net/2011/cinemacon-james-cameron-demos-the-future-of-cinema-at-60-fps/
For the director it's all about presentation... Lucas and Cameron are showmen.
Yancy
Similar threads
