Any REALISTIC hope that 3D MOVIES may soon LOSE popularity or die out?
- Thread starter Mutara Nebula 1967
- Start date
Re: Any REALISTIC hope that 3D MOVIES may soon LOSE popularity or die
3D movies are just another means for the theaters to make more money. Actually, in some cases more like revive the industry. They'd been losing money across the years as more and more people set up home theaters. That's why advertising has been stepped up so hard, to instill rampant "I've gotta see that new movie NOW" in people. I don't know about you, but I can wait for DVD or Blu-ray. I'm in no hurry.
Anyway, in these hard times, people are forgoing a lot but still going to the movies to escape everyday life. Even willing to pay those outrageous 3D prices. Well, if all movies start releasing in 3D only first, and there's enough of a drop-off in attendance (the novelty of 3D starts to wane), the prices may drop back down a bit to something more reasonable.
Personally, I find my mind works perfectly fine with 2D movies. 3D is more sensory input. Your brain has to work harder. Plus, there's all the added expense in filming 3D versus 2D. I think it'll eventually simmer down to 3D for action movies and 2D for general stuff, drama, etc.
The other issue is having to wear glasses. I don't mind it, but I'm not going to want to do this for every movie I see...
The higher end TV's mostly have 3D. You don't have much choice. They're getting clever, putting in certain features that only come with a 3D enabled TV too. So, a lot of those sales are not necessarily because someone wants 3D functionality specifically.
Pointless waste of time? Did you see Avatar in 3D? I did, along with several friends. We were mesmerized. The production values were amazing. The illusion felt like we were actually there on that planet. I had an incredible time, enjoyed it thoroughly. I saw Avatar in 2D later and it felt like something was lacking...
Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of crappy 3D work being done. I've heard Tron Legacy was wimpy in 3D, 2D being preferred. But when done right, 3D is quite a treat.
Eventually there will be holographic projection. You'll have holosuites of sorts (wealthy people only, at first) that make it seem like you're on the set of the movie, seeing things happen all around you. Of course, swivel chairs will be required.
3D movies are just another means for the theaters to make more money. Actually, in some cases more like revive the industry. They'd been losing money across the years as more and more people set up home theaters. That's why advertising has been stepped up so hard, to instill rampant "I've gotta see that new movie NOW" in people. I don't know about you, but I can wait for DVD or Blu-ray. I'm in no hurry.
Anyway, in these hard times, people are forgoing a lot but still going to the movies to escape everyday life. Even willing to pay those outrageous 3D prices. Well, if all movies start releasing in 3D only first, and there's enough of a drop-off in attendance (the novelty of 3D starts to wane), the prices may drop back down a bit to something more reasonable.
Personally, I find my mind works perfectly fine with 2D movies. 3D is more sensory input. Your brain has to work harder. Plus, there's all the added expense in filming 3D versus 2D. I think it'll eventually simmer down to 3D for action movies and 2D for general stuff, drama, etc.
The other issue is having to wear glasses. I don't mind it, but I'm not going to want to do this for every movie I see...
The higher end TV's mostly have 3D. You don't have much choice. They're getting clever, putting in certain features that only come with a 3D enabled TV too. So, a lot of those sales are not necessarily because someone wants 3D functionality specifically.
Pointless waste of time? Did you see Avatar in 3D? I did, along with several friends. We were mesmerized. The production values were amazing. The illusion felt like we were actually there on that planet. I had an incredible time, enjoyed it thoroughly. I saw Avatar in 2D later and it felt like something was lacking...
Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of crappy 3D work being done. I've heard Tron Legacy was wimpy in 3D, 2D being preferred. But when done right, 3D is quite a treat.
Eventually there will be holographic projection. You'll have holosuites of sorts (wealthy people only, at first) that make it seem like you're on the set of the movie, seeing things happen all around you. Of course, swivel chairs will be required.
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: Any REALISTIC hope that 3D MOVIES may soon LOSE popularity or die
I can not only wait for DVD, but I can wait for the DVD to drop below £10.
I didn't see Avatar because the story sounded utterly pants, but I wear glasses when I watch films to avoid eyestrain and wearing another pair of specs on top of them has zero appeal. I also know that regardless of the effect, it's still an illusion: you're projecting a 2D image on a flat screen. You can use trickery to create depth or whatever, but honestly saying this is the natural evolution of film is like saying "Magic Eye" is the natural evolution of painting.
I can not only wait for DVD, but I can wait for the DVD to drop below £10.
I didn't see Avatar because the story sounded utterly pants, but I wear glasses when I watch films to avoid eyestrain and wearing another pair of specs on top of them has zero appeal. I also know that regardless of the effect, it's still an illusion: you're projecting a 2D image on a flat screen. You can use trickery to create depth or whatever, but honestly saying this is the natural evolution of film is like saying "Magic Eye" is the natural evolution of painting.
Re: Any REALISTIC hope that 3D MOVIES may soon LOSE popularity or die
I think the discussion was about 3D-TVs, not in-theatre 3-D.
And I was the opposite. It wasn't until I saw Avatar in 2-D that I actually was able to get into the story. It changed my view so much that Avatar went from being one of the most overrated films I'd ever seen, when I saw the 3-D version, to being a half-decent movie when I saw the proper images in 2-D.
To repeat something I wrote in another 2-D vs 3-D thread: if you only want special effects and pretty pictures, 3-D is fine. If you actually want to get emotionally involved in a story - and pay attention to any messages that story might have - 3-D is not necessary.
Agreed. And as long as it's an option - and I don't have to pay extra - I don't care if the next TV I buy has a switch that allows me to flip between 2-D and 3-D if I want to. Just as long as there IS a switch and if I want to enjoy Avatar in high-rez 2-D, I can.
I heard a commercial last year that I thought was really misleading. It was an ad for 3-D TVs, and someone says "Baywatch actually looks good now!" Which is utter tripe because a) Baywatch isn't available in 3-D, and b) if you think trying to upconvert video-edited TV programs from the 1980s and 90s to HD is impossible, try shoehorning them into 3-D.
Alex
I think the discussion was about 3D-TVs, not in-theatre 3-D.
And I was the opposite. It wasn't until I saw Avatar in 2-D that I actually was able to get into the story. It changed my view so much that Avatar went from being one of the most overrated films I'd ever seen, when I saw the 3-D version, to being a half-decent movie when I saw the proper images in 2-D.
To repeat something I wrote in another 2-D vs 3-D thread: if you only want special effects and pretty pictures, 3-D is fine. If you actually want to get emotionally involved in a story - and pay attention to any messages that story might have - 3-D is not necessary.
Agreed. And as long as it's an option - and I don't have to pay extra - I don't care if the next TV I buy has a switch that allows me to flip between 2-D and 3-D if I want to. Just as long as there IS a switch and if I want to enjoy Avatar in high-rez 2-D, I can.
I heard a commercial last year that I thought was really misleading. It was an ad for 3-D TVs, and someone says "Baywatch actually looks good now!" Which is utter tripe because a) Baywatch isn't available in 3-D, and b) if you think trying to upconvert video-edited TV programs from the 1980s and 90s to HD is impossible, try shoehorning them into 3-D.
Alex
Re: Any REALISTIC hope that 3D MOVIES may soon LOSE popularity or die
Well I can buy a 40 inch 3D TV for 600 dollars and a non 3D HD of the same size is barely 100 bucks less than that. So your scenario is already bypassed to a large degree. In a few more years it's unlikely that you will be able to buy a new non 3D TV
Well I can buy a 40 inch 3D TV for 600 dollars and a non 3D HD of the same size is barely 100 bucks less than that. So your scenario is already bypassed to a large degree. In a few more years it's unlikely that you will be able to buy a new non 3D TV
Re: Any REALISTIC hope that 3D MOVIES may soon LOSE popularity or die
Depends on make/model
3d Ready 40" LED ~£1500
http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/samsung-ue40d8000-40-full-hd-led-3d-tv-09902291-pdt.html
Normal 40" HD TV ~£750
http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/samsung-ue40d5000-40-full-hd-led-tv-10078488-pdt.html
Depends on make/model
3d Ready 40" LED ~£1500
http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/samsung-ue40d8000-40-full-hd-led-3d-tv-09902291-pdt.html
Normal 40" HD TV ~£750
http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/samsung-ue40d5000-40-full-hd-led-tv-10078488-pdt.html
Re: Any REALISTIC hope that 3D MOVIES may soon LOSE popularity or die
Those are really jacked up prices
here they (3D TVs) start $478 for a 32 they list a 42" for $698 and a 60" for $740
http://www.walmart.com/browse/TV-Vi...geCatId=1060825&ic=48_0&ref=428799+4292268338
Those are really jacked up prices
here they (3D TVs) start $478 for a 32 they list a 42" for $698 and a 60" for $740
http://www.walmart.com/browse/TV-Vi...geCatId=1060825&ic=48_0&ref=428799+4292268338
Re: Any REALISTIC hope that 3D MOVIES may soon LOSE popularity or die
3 consecutive posts?
Remember that you have an Edit button and Multi-Quote button at your disposal to use for just such an occasion. Consecutive posts like these thee below are not necessary.
3 consecutive posts?
Remember that you have an Edit button and Multi-Quote button at your disposal to use for just such an occasion. Consecutive posts like these thee below are not necessary.
Pointless waste of time? Did you see Avatar in 3D? I did, along with several friends. We were mesmerized. The production values were amazing. The illusion felt like we were actually there on that planet. I had an incredible time, enjoyed it thoroughly. I saw Avatar in 2D later and it felt like something was lacking...
Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of crappy 3D work being done. I've heard Tron Legacy was wimpy in 3D, 2D being preferred. But when done right, 3D is quite a treat.
Eventually there will be holographic projection. You'll have holosuites of sorts (wealthy people only, at first) that make it seem like you're on the set of the movie, seeing things happen all around you. Of course, swivel chairs will be required.
Re: Any REALISTIC hope that 3D MOVIES may soon LOSE popularity or die
That maybe the case in the States here in the UK things are a little differrent. One of my original links was a retailer reporting 30% of TV sales(in a 2 week period) where 3D ready f they are anywhere from a third to twice as expensive as a normal HD why would people be paying the extra if they didn't want it?
1.>Either they like 3D
2.>They thought what happens if this 3D thing really takes off in a big way do I want to be buying another TV in a few years.
So whilst sales might be depressed for 3D in the states oother parts of the world seem more willing to embrace the technology for TV. Just as parts of the world switched over to Widescreen TV's as the norm back in the days when HD wasn't around before the states did.
That maybe the case in the States here in the UK things are a little differrent. One of my original links was a retailer reporting 30% of TV sales(in a 2 week period) where 3D ready f they are anywhere from a third to twice as expensive as a normal HD why would people be paying the extra if they didn't want it?
1.>Either they like 3D
2.>They thought what happens if this 3D thing really takes off in a big way do I want to be buying another TV in a few years.
So whilst sales might be depressed for 3D in the states oother parts of the world seem more willing to embrace the technology for TV. Just as parts of the world switched over to Widescreen TV's as the norm back in the days when HD wasn't around before the states did.
For those of you keen on 3d TVs, if you want one, best hurry while stocks last.
It looks like the fad is over.
Samsung and Panasonic have stopped making them; Sony and LG are ceasing production this year.
From the article:
"It will still be possible to find 3D-capable TVs from budget manufacturers and last-gen sales, but the format is essentially dead and buried. We've known this was on the cards for a while now. For the past few years, 3D has been conspicuously absent from TV marketing — including on the box. This is despite being enthusiastically touted as revolutionary back when Avatar was tearing up the box office."
It looks like the fad is over.
Samsung and Panasonic have stopped making them; Sony and LG are ceasing production this year.
From the article:
"It will still be possible to find 3D-capable TVs from budget manufacturers and last-gen sales, but the format is essentially dead and buried. We've known this was on the cards for a while now. For the past few years, 3D has been conspicuously absent from TV marketing — including on the box. This is despite being enthusiastically touted as revolutionary back when Avatar was tearing up the box office."
I'm surprised it took this long. The death of 3-D felt inevitable, from the horrible scenes in the Godawful "Jaws 3D" such as the shark crashing into the glass and the glass flying around like a bad special effect and the shark stopping completely, to all that terrible stuff in the middle where shots were bad and obviously made to show off the 3-D gimmick; to "Pocahontas" -- I mean "Avatar", where it wasn't even needed as it was just another big blouted faux emotional action film, this was dead upon arrival a long time ago.
I just hope other smimilarly bad ideas die out sooner.
I just hope other smimilarly bad ideas die out sooner.
I'm not sure 3D will be officially permanent until they stop requiring glasses. A lot of people I know just won't watch 3D films, particularly people older than me and my generation's hardcore nerds, and that's enough of the audience to still make it profitable to offer 2D. Also some people get headaches from polar glasses 3D. Even though they will be more and more dominant among blockbuster films, films with a smaller audience and more artistic films with a smaller budget will take a much longer time before they switch over.
Given equal choice I prefer 3d for candy visual action/scifi films, but I'm really fine either way.
Given equal choice I prefer 3d for candy visual action/scifi films, but I'm really fine either way.
If you wanted to watch a movie on opening night (now Thursdays), you had no choice but to watch in 3D but it looks like that's changing.
Last edited:
I didn't like 3D at first but now I can take it or leave it. I'm used to it. Never got eyestrain, probably because 3D glasses don't force you to go crosseyed nearly as much nowadays and because I usually take a short break during the movie by taking my glasses off or moving my eyes around a bit. I couldn't imagine staring at the screen non-stop for two hours anyway. I'm usually not that mesmerized by anything.
Around here we've always had the choice to go 2D on opening night.
HUZZAH!
So I guess the fad is now officially 4K and eventually 8K UHD when the manufacturers' coffers need refilling. I suspect so-called 3D will return when they perfect stereoscopy that doesn't require glasses. Partly, what killed the current incarnation was the poor post-production implementation in many movies. I'll stick with 1080p HD as long as I can, thanks.
The glasses were the killer. You have to sit in the perfect spot for the gimmick to work, and then have to put on glasses to watch that movie or show. Not conducive to casual viewing, or having people over to watch something in a group setting. And most of the implementations of it were gimmicky or forced, so really no value in having it be 3D to begin with.
Had one tv that did it, but after playing with it for 5 minutes when I got it, never used it again. One set of glasses is still in the box unopened. Meh.
4k is the new gimmick, and not sure there's a ton more value there, either. Can KINDA notice a difference, but only when like 3 feet from the tv. We're at a point where we've sorta maxed out what the eyeballs can interpret, so just making up new numbers to push sales.
Until we get to holographic systems, or real 3D projected without glasses, looks like just shuffling the deck chairs. the oled flexible tv thing is neat, but my tv is already close enough to the wall, using it like wallpaper doesn't provide any benefit to me. cleaner than a mount, I guess, but so what? More interesting as a phone that won't bend/crack, maybe.
Had one tv that did it, but after playing with it for 5 minutes when I got it, never used it again. One set of glasses is still in the box unopened. Meh.
4k is the new gimmick, and not sure there's a ton more value there, either. Can KINDA notice a difference, but only when like 3 feet from the tv. We're at a point where we've sorta maxed out what the eyeballs can interpret, so just making up new numbers to push sales.
Until we get to holographic systems, or real 3D projected without glasses, looks like just shuffling the deck chairs. the oled flexible tv thing is neat, but my tv is already close enough to the wall, using it like wallpaper doesn't provide any benefit to me. cleaner than a mount, I guess, but so what? More interesting as a phone that won't bend/crack, maybe.
What would even be the point of 8K? 
I just watched a movie in the theater that was projected in 4K digital. This was on a 45-foot screen and it looked just fine (and my vision is 20/20). I can't even begin to fathom the idea that in a home setting, the naked eye could discern any difference at all between 8K and 4K. I, for one, am just going to stick with 1080p until maybe someday when I might possibly have a room big enough for an 80" TV, and there is a lot more 4K content at more affordable prices.
As far as 3D goes, to me it's just a gimmick. And an inconvenient one at that, as you have to wear those awkward glasses. I can't wait for the day when all the pieces of art in museums are converted to 3D, and you have to walk around with those glasses on.
Kor
I just watched a movie in the theater that was projected in 4K digital. This was on a 45-foot screen and it looked just fine (and my vision is 20/20). I can't even begin to fathom the idea that in a home setting, the naked eye could discern any difference at all between 8K and 4K. I, for one, am just going to stick with 1080p until maybe someday when I might possibly have a room big enough for an 80" TV, and there is a lot more 4K content at more affordable prices.
As far as 3D goes, to me it's just a gimmick. And an inconvenient one at that, as you have to wear those awkward glasses. I can't wait for the day when all the pieces of art in museums are converted to 3D, and you have to walk around with those glasses on.
Kor
Why would you hope for this? I get that some people don't react well to 3D, but why would you want to spoil it for the rest of us? I'm glad there is a choice but it seems very odd to hope that 3D goes away!
Mr Awe
