Is 3-D ruining film-going for you?

[USS Mariner]

They should be more considerate to people with colour blindness or bad vision in one eye.

They should make all films with on-screen subtitles for people with impaired hearing. In fact, this whole "talkie" thing is a noisy nuisance and a fad.

Ahahahaahahaaahahahahaahahahahthat was weak.

To be honest, I'd be very interested in a study that would show the percentage of the population whose eyesight prevents them from watching a 3D movie comfortably. 3D movies are still in the infancy stage, and unless Hollywood is directly funding the hardware-end of the business (which would focus it's efforts on churning out as many properties in 3D as inhumanly possible), I'd expect R&D to perfect the implementation for everyone in less than 5 years.

Or we could all act like Dennis and pretend that people we don't agree with are scum of the earth and subhuman.

IDIC and all that shit.

 

[CaptJimboJones]

I've read that about 15% of the population cannot property view/enjoy 3D movies because of eyestrain, headaches, etc. That's why I imagine most major 3D releases will also be released in 2D, as was the case with Avatar and Alice - Hollywood isn't about to give up that 15% of the box office recipts.

So as long as there are options for both 2D and 3D, I can't imagine what the problem is.

 

[ATimson]

I've read that about 15% of the population cannot property view/enjoy 3D movies because of eyestrain, headaches, etc. That's why I imagine most major 3D releases will also be released in 2D, as was the case with Avatar and Alice - Hollywood isn't about to give up that 15% of the box office recipts.

But they get an extra 30%-60% from the higher fees for 3D - surely that should offset the other?

 

[Harvey]

^^
It might offset those losses, but why give up on that other profit stream when exhibitors and distributors can have both?

 

[CaptJimboJones]

^^
It might offset those losses, but why give up on that other profit stream when exhibitors and distributors can have both?

Exactly. The studios get the premium ticket prices from the 3D audiences, but they can also capture the revenue from 2D viewer who, without that option, would likely see a different movie rather than subject themselves to the discomfort of 3D.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I'd expect that most multiplexes will simply schedule a certain number of 2D shows for major releases for the foreseeable future. There's nothing about digital projection equipment that prevents it, as long as the studios make some 2D copies available, which as you indicate is in their best interests.

 

[B.J.]

...and in my area anyway, the best theater isn't showing either Avatar or Alice in 2D, only 3D or 3D Imax. I don't have a choice without going quite a bit further or settling for a smaller screen. I can honestly see 3D making me NOT go to the theaters in some situations and instead waiting for a DVD.

I'm in the same boat. The "good" theater in my area shows ONLY the 3D version of a movie. If you want the 2D version, you have to wait until it gets to the poor-quality theater, which is usually some weeks later.

 

[Kaijima]

While it's a problem when theaters don't schedule a 2D showing of a film at the same time as the 3D, I have to observe:

The opposite extreme of sneering "get with the times!" if someone doesn't prefer the 3D version of a film, is mindlessly repeating "3D is a stupid fad! It always has been, it always will be!"

Unfortunately, people who say that are equally wrong headed. The 3D "fad" we are seeing now is partly the result of new filming technologies. This isn't red/blue Crackerjack Toy 3D. The authentic 3D films coming out are filmed stereoscopically. The better films are beginning to explore how to use 3D to create new kinds of shots and new kinds of scenes. 3D isn't going anywhere.

The other reason for the 3D surge is it is a way to make the theater experience unique once again. Using the logic of some people in this thread, motion pictures should never have been shown in widescreen, with THX sound, because nobody had a widescreen television and a surround sound system at home, once upon a time. The fact that 3D showings make a unique event to draw people into going out to the movies is in fact, the point. The thing is, if it's a good experience, then it's not really a cheap gimmick.

Some people may not like the 3D effect personally, or may have physiological problems with it; that's perfectly reasonable. But by the same token, it's not going away this time, because the concept for truly three dimensional video/film displays is being enabled by a more mature technology.

Of course, it's easy to call it a gimmick because of the requirement of special glasses to view it. That is, indeed, a remaining hack required to make it work. In time though, that barrier will be removed as well. (And should solve comfort problems for people with a physical problem.)

In that sense, it is important that a lot of major films are being filmed with true 3D cameras today, because those films are futureproofed. The three dimensional information exists, thus it can be rendered into viewable form via more advanced techniques in the future. (Such as projection screens that don't require the viewers to wear glasses or sit in a specific spot to get the 3D effect.)