Is 3D dead already?

[Rii]

On average, Toy Story 3 pulled in $27,000 for every theater showing the movie in 3-D, and $28,000 for every one that showed it flat. In other words, the net effect of showing Woody, Buzz, and friends in full stereo depth was negative 5 percent. The format was losing money.

I don't understand this, if the movie wasn't in 3-D, those $27,000 worth of viewers might have bought 2-D tickets worth $20,000 or whatever.

Yeah, I think it's fudging the numbers a bit to assume that everyone who saw it in 3D would've seen it had it not been available in 3D, but I imagine it's true of most folks. It'd probably be more reasonable to say that Toy Story 3 didn't benefit much from being available in 3D. Then you add in the additional tech/logistical issues of supporting the format...

In any case, it'll be interesting to see how 3D films do over the next year or two.

 

[JarodRussell]

All of you who are complaining about 3D (headaches, glasses, etc...) what 3D did you watch?

IMAX 3D? Dolby 3D? RealD? XPAND?


Or even Red/Green?

 

[davejames]

I already need to wear glasses, that means I have to wear two pairs at the moment to watch a 3D film.

Avatar did look nice at points, but the headache and balancing two pairs of glasses coupled with the price hike for the ticket... not worth the hassle for the novelty.

I will be interested to see how well the new DS works.

I've never had a problem with headaches, but I agree it's a pain when you already wear glasses and you need to constantly cram your current ones into your face just to keep the 3D ones from falling off. lol

That said, I still absolutely loved the 3D in Avatar and Toy Story 3, and don't mind if the technique stays around awhile. It may not be necessary, but it IS pretty cool when done right.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

On average, Toy Story 3 pulled in $27,000 for every theater showing the movie in 3-D, and $28,000 for every one that showed it flat. In other words, the net effect of showing Woody, Buzz, and friends in full stereo depth was negative 5 percent. The format was losing money.

I don't understand this, if the movie wasn't in 3-D, those $27,000 worth of viewers might have bought 2-D tickets worth $20,000 or whatever.

Yeah, I think it's fudging the numbers a bit to assume that everyone who saw it in 3D would've seen it had it not been available in 3D, but I imagine it's true of most folks. It'd probably be more reasonable to say that Toy Story 3 didn't benefit much from being available in 3D. Then you add in the additional tech/logistical issues of supporting the format...

In any case, it'll be interesting to see how 3D films do over the next year or two.

I wasn't even factoring in that less people would see it but that those same people would have brought in less revenue at a 2D theater (lower ticket prices). I just don't see how it's negative revenue (assuming of course that the money made from 3D offsets the cost to produce it that way).

 

[Harvey]

All of you who are complaining about 3D (headaches, glasses, etc...) what 3D did you watch?

IMAX 3D? Dolby 3D? RealD? XPAND?


Or even Red/Green?

I've seen older films in the Red/Green format, which is horrible, of course. I've also seen films in IMAX 3D and RealD...there wasn't much of a difference to my eyes (besides the IMAX format being bigger, obviously). The glasses of both were awkward enough that I had to remember to wear contacts for them to be comfortable.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Or even Red/Green?

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPx8FKjEwv8[/yt]

 

[captcalhoun]

i didn't get a headache, but my eyes were watering a couple of times in SFA. i saw it in RealD.

 

[Trent Roman]

3D gimmickry? ....I guess if you're watching a car, and it turns sharply left, the seats do that...or make some kind of vibration. Ditto for explosions, etc.

I was rolling my eyes that anyone would pay 17.00 for that! But hey, it's the new "thing".

New thing? Hardly. My seats did that when I went to see "Daredevil" in '03. It was more distracting than anything else and the cinema soon pulled them out because soon nobody wanted to sit in them, let alone pay extra money for it. I'm surprised someone tried to resurrect this gimmick.

As for 3D? Yes: silly, stupid fad that will die the death of silly, stupid fads. When they come up with the technology to present something in 3D without having to jam glasses over my pre-existing glasses, then missing half the first few minutes because of the pain from my eyes adjusting, then I'll call 3D the way of the future. Until then, it's just a shiny new coat of paint on the same old clunker tech.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Owain Taggart]

I find that overall, 3D imax films have their place and I don't see them disappearing anytime soon. I'm talking about the documentary movies, not Hollywood movies. The Imax movies present something unique, and the 3D fits them like a glove, considering one won't be seeing Imax movies regularly like Hollywood movies. These take you to places where unseen by most people and make you feel like you're there. I've seen Under the Sea, which is amazing as it really makes you feel like you're swimming in the ocean encountering interesting water life. From what I've heard of Hubble 3D, this one's a must see.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ The IMAX Space Station film looked pretty cool in 3D as well.

 

[Timby]

All of you who are complaining about 3D (headaches, glasses, etc...) what 3D did you watch?

IMAX 3D? Dolby 3D? RealD? XPAND?

My wife and I have had two 3-D experiences: The re-release of Toy Story / Toy Story 2 last October, and Avatar. Both of them were projected in RealD, with the plastic glasses.

While my wife and I both wear eyeglasses, we didn't get any headaches from the viewings. We just didn't care for them very much.

Avatar was a pretty cool movie, and the 3-D effect was very well-done. But outside of the action sequences and a few segments (like when Sully first wakes up), there wasn't much of a reason to be wearing another pair of glasses for two and a half hours. Honestly, without the 3-D, the movie would have been far less impressive.

When we saw the Toy Story re-releases, I was struck by the realization that Pixar's movies, especially Toy Story, are filled with vibrant and vivid colors, and while the occasional 3-D effects were neat (thankfully, Pixar never made 3-D the focus of the show, but used it as a supporting effect), the glasses and the viewing experience negatively impacted that color palette, washing it out. We decided right away that we'd see Toy Story 3 in 2-D.

 

[Harvey]

^ The IMAX Space Station film looked pretty cool in 3D as well.

I'd go as far to say that it was a cool movie in 3D, and just okay in 2D. But those IMAX documentaries are always cool, whether they're in 3D or not, given the format. I still need to see the Hubble one...

 

[wamdue]

I had an awful 3D experince the other day, I had seen 3D movies before, using Real D 3D at a local multiplex, I was in another town and went to see Toy Story 3 in 3D, to say that I wasted the extra £2 for 3D is the most true thing ive ever said.

The cinema I saw it in, was quite small, and didnt use the same 3D glasses I was used to. I just didnt feel it was worth the extra, yet when I saw the traler for it in 3D at the large multiplex it looked alot better.

My point is that some cinema systems do not seem to show 3D at all well.

 

[Owain Taggart]

^ The IMAX Space Station film looked pretty cool in 3D as well.

I forgot that one was in 3D, or maybe the one I saw wasn't in 3D, but dang it, I thought that was one of the best Imax movies ever. Can't wait for Hubble 3D which is arriving in October where I live.

 

[Goliath]

Well, for what it's worth, I saw Piranha today, in RealD, and in my opinion, the 'third dimension' didn't add anything to the film at all.

In fact, I thought it detracted from the experience. The effect was positively weird at times: in particular, it often made people's heads look elongated. And overall, I found it counter-immersive: it kept taking me out of the film, by reminding me that this was a film.

It didn't give me a headache, but it did cost me more. So overall, I felt like I'd paid more for less. It certainly didn't encourage me to repeat the experience.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

BTW, I just saw the re-release of Avatar. It's honestly a movie that works well in 3D without being gimicky. It certainly made for a fun experience (the added depth in scenes helped make it more immersive).

So my thought is this: If the movie is designed for 3D and has good visual effects, it's worth watching in 3D. It's not worth watching every movie in 3D, however. The novelty will wear off too quickly, plus there's a slight headache factor to consider.

 

[Snaploud]

When we saw the Toy Story re-releases, I was struck by the realization that Pixar's movies, especially Toy Story, are filled with vibrant and vivid colors, and while the occasional 3-D effects were neat (thankfully, Pixar never made 3-D the focus of the show, but used it as a supporting effect), the glasses and the viewing experience negatively impacted that color palette, washing it out. We decided right away that we'd see Toy Story 3 in 2-D.

Yeah, that's the part that bugs me the most about 3D (the effect on the color palette of the picture). Though, I did very much enjoy Avatar in 3D.

 

[JarodRussell]

Well, for what it's worth, I saw Piranha today, in RealD, and in my opinion, the 'third dimension' didn't add anything to the film at all.

In fact, I thought it detracted from the experience. The effect was positively weird at times: in particular, it often made people's heads look elongated. And overall, I found it counter-immersive: it kept taking me out of the film, by reminding me that this was a film.

It didn't give me a headache, but it did cost me more. So overall, I felt like I'd paid more for less. It certainly didn't encourage me to repeat the experience.

Is Piranha shot in 3D or just converted to 3D?

 

[Kegg]

Of the so-called new batch of 3D films Avatar is the only one I've seen in 3D (though I did see it twice) and I'm quite content to keep things that way.

I wouldn't say 3D is dead, but 3D isn't like sound or colour - it's something you can apply to most films and expect it to be worthwhile. For me it remains pretty much the purview of the big epic extravaganzas, if that.

 

[Goliath]

Is Piranha shot in 3D or just converted to 3D?

According to Wikipedia, it was converted to 3D in post-production, but not as an afterthought or a gimmick: it was always intended to be a 3D movie.

But really, I thought the only scene in which 3D was used to good effect...

Spoiler: the only scene in which 3D was used to good effect

...was the scene in which the piranhas devour (and then regurgitate) a severed penis...

...which should give you a good indication of just how unabashedly, gleefully crass the whole movie was.