Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: 3-D headed in the wrong direction

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Ground Level » 3-D headed in the wrong direction (Page 2)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: 3-D headed in the wrong direction

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 09-21-2009 05:31 PM

quote: Claude S. Ayakawa
The argument about people prefer not to pay more for 3-D is not a very good one because all multiplexes playing a movie in 3-D are also playing a 2-D version at regular price.

I think over time, you'll see more and more people objecting to the price.

For now, the 3-D movies are mostly aimed at kids/teens, who either have plenty of $ or can convince their parents that they must see the more expensive option.

| IP: Logged

Jonathan M. Crist
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 531
From: Hershey, PA, USA
Registered: Apr 2000

posted 09-21-2009 08:01 PM

I think the real test of 3D increased price points will come with the Toy Story re-releases in a couple of weeks. I believe these will not be released in 2D so that if you see these in a theatre you must pay the 3D upcharge. (Actually a 2D re-release of these would make no sense at all)

Now I can't see a family (which must also purchase at the concession stand) taking a gaggle of kids at two to three dollars a ticket extra for the 3D to see the Toy Story movies that most of them surely already have at home on DVD.

Like every other "gimmick" this current 3D push will eventually burn itself out - a victim of diminished public interest combined with studio cutbacks due to the increasing costs of production. And once again the theatre owners will be stuck with a bunch of expensive equipment for which there is no product. (For a recent example of this just how many of you installed Dolby Digital EX a few years ago? And how many of those EX releases are there now?)

| IP: Logged

Mike Croaro
Master Film Handler

Posts: 394
From: Millbrae, CA
Registered: Apr 2005

posted 09-21-2009 11:27 PM

Greetings:

I myself, fail to see anything great about 3D. If given the choice, I'll see the 2D version of a 3D movie. I don't enjoy the price of the 3D films and as previously noted, the glasses reduce the brightness significantly.

Mike

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 09-22-2009 08:56 AM

I completely agree that 3-D is headed in the wrong direction. It's turned into a kids fare and kids alone will not support it. I simply refuse to go out of my way to see any of them any more as most of them have been very lame anyway. 3-D did nothing for "Up".

As for Hitchcock, he did indeed dislike the format and thats why Dial-M looks much nmore like a 2-D film for the most part... except for those couple of scenes where the Master used it to it's full effect!!

Mark

| IP: Logged

Claude S. Ayakawa
Film God

Posts: 2738
From: Waipahu, Hawaii, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 09-22-2009 02:21 PM

I am inclined to agree with the two negative comments about digital 3-D films. Yes, something must be done about the increased admission price to cover the cost of the use of 3-D glasses. It is fine and well to pay for them at first and not have to pay again if you decide to reuse them like I tried to do once for a Real D presentation. The young lady at the boxoffice told me I was not allowed to do that and I was forced to pay the full senior admission price for the show and a new pair of glasses. Bummers! I also agree that something must be done to improve screen brightness. Although I was very satisfied with the last three 3-D movies I saw, I was not happy with the presentation of JOURNEY TO THE CENTRE OF THE EARTH and MY BLODDY VALENTINE because the image on the screen was extremely dark.

I feel as long as the motion picture industry produce more quality live action 3-D films geared to adults and the exhibition industry improves the way 3-D films are priced and shown. 3-D should have a bright future. As I had stated many times, I loved watching 3-D films in the fifties because of the excellent 3-D as well as a good variety of films that were offered. The thing that killed 3-D in the fifties was the careless way they were exhibited with out of sync images causing people to get headaches as well as the usual "in the face" 3-D gimmicks. By the time some very serious films in 3-D was released, it was too late.

-Claude

| IP: Logged

Robert E. Allen
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1078
From: Checotah, Oklahoma
Registered: Jul 2002

posted 09-22-2009 04:21 PM

quote: Chris Slycord
You answered your own question in your explanation of what happened with Cinemascope.

Some people thought Scope was dumb yet the studios forced them to use it anyway, whereas now we only have a group of people thinking 3D is dumb without any studios forcing them to use it.

The anamorphic process we once called CinemaScope is still very much alive Chris. We just don't use the 20th Century Fox copyrighted name. Any 2.35 x 1 film you run is the same as CinemaScope.

3D has come and gone before and will again especially if the studios insist in giving it to us only in digital. We don't need gimmicks. We need good stories (and not remakes of those from the past).

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 09-22-2009 06:34 PM

quote: Claude S. Ayakawa
The thing that killed 3-D in the fifties was the careless way they were exhibited with out of sync images causing people to get headaches

Well, the presentation today is probably way better, but when we watched "Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs" in 3-D, my eyes felt like they'd done a full days work after that 90 minutes. My wife said her eyes felt tired after the first half hour. (I suppose the effects wouldn't have been as noticable if the movie hadn't been so silly.)

| IP: Logged

Jack Theakston
Master Film Handler

Posts: 411
From: New York, USA
Registered: Sep 2007

posted 09-22-2009 06:43 PM

quote: Mike Blakesley
Well, the presentation today is probably way better, but when we watched "Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs" in 3-D, my eyes felt like they'd done a full days work after that 90 minutes. My wife said her eyes felt tired after the first half hour. (I suppose the effects wouldn't have been as noticable if the movie hadn't been so silly.)

Most new systems, because they are sequential, are slightly out of phase by nature, but not severe enough to cause significant eye discomfort.

The cause of eye-strain with so many films today is the lack of education most of these filmmakers have. They don't understand the rules of stereo photography and constantly break them.

Unfortunately, because they're digital, there aren't any examples I could tell you to look at, but the next time you feel discomfort, take off your glasses and look at what the two pictures look like on screen. You'll notice that whatever subject your focusing on is not "in focus" because the "camera" (if you can call it that-- most of these are just alternate angles in the digital realm) isn't converged upon the main subject. Therefore, you eyes are working overtime to get the two to converge, usually crossing your eyes to the point of discomfort.

Same thing applies for excessive off-the-screen effects.

| IP: Logged

James Westbrook
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1133
From: Lubbock, Texas, Usa
Registered: Mar 2006

posted 09-22-2009 07:19 PM

As some of us get older, it becomes harder for our eyes to adjust to watching a 3D movie, too. I believe this is my problem.

| IP: Logged

Claude S. Ayakawa
Film God

Posts: 2738
From: Waipahu, Hawaii, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 09-22-2009 08:51 PM

At age 70, I am not having any problem watching 3-D movies.

-Claude

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 09-22-2009 09:11 PM

Claude...sorry the but the 3D upcharge is not just for the glasses...in fact they are a minor part, for now. It is just that 3D is being looked at as a new revenue stream. 3D cost the theatre significantly more to run. The projection system has to be significantly larger (wattage) to even achieve the dismal light levels. Larger lamps cost geometrically more money and last significantly shorter lives. The 3D equipment also adds into the cost...either the outright purchase (Dolby/Master Image) or the "partner" (Real-D). Whereas 3D does not increase overall ticket sales...the only way a theatre can afford 3D is to charge extra for it...it cost extra to have.

Now I agree that glasses are an area where the industry could REDUCE the cost of 3D. If people were to have "theatre glasses" that they kept...then theatres could sell the glasses at the concession stand (for a profit) to those that don't have their own. Those that do have their own glasses can save on having their portion of the "experience" added into the cost.

Steve

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 09-22-2009 10:04 PM

quote: Claude S. Ayakawa
If the film producers concentrated on producing quality live action 3-D films for adults rather than children without the usual gimmicks, I think digital 3-D will have a bright future.

The bigger problem is movie studios don't even know how to produce a decent supply of quality 2D movies, much less shoot them in 3D.

With the multiplex sites packed in with countless sequels, TV shows blown up to feature status, numerous remakes and lots of other derivative stuff, it's no surprise much of the 3D content going into movie theaters is also spun from a formula -that being CGI animated movies for kids. Pixar made lots of money with its movies and plenty of other outfits want to copy that and throw in 3D as a bonus (which requires a sizable price premium -cha ching).

| IP: Logged

Chris Slycord
Film God

Posts: 2986
From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 09-22-2009 10:28 PM

quote: Robert E. Allen
The anamorphic process we once called CinemaScope is still very much alive Chris. We just don't use the 20th Century Fox copyrighted name. Any 2.35 x 1 film you run is the same as CinemaScope.

Where did you get the idea that I was saying that CinemaScope was dead? I think you didn't understand what I was saying.

I was responding to the notion Claude gave that 3D should work well today in spite of some film-makers disliking it because CinemaScope succeeded in spite of some disliking it (because the studios forced them to use it).

| IP: Logged

Chad Souder
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 962
From: Waterloo, IA, USA
Registered: Feb 2000

posted 09-23-2009 11:56 AM

quote: Jonathan M. Crist
And once again the theatre owners will be stuck with a bunch of expensive equipment for which there is no product.

Actually the product on the new digital projectors theatres are installing for 3D is almost limitless due to the other content (video games, HDTV, etc.) that can be played through them.

I think the Toy Story 3D double release is a good idea. It's September/October. Business is dead anyway. We're all looking for ways to get people in the doors right now. People are getting 2 movies for the price of 1. It's a classic pair of movies and the new one is around the corner. Nobody is having to pull a moneymaker off the screen to play this Toy Story double feature.

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
I completely agree that 3-D is headed in the wrong direction. It's turned into a kids fare and kids alone will not support it. I simply refuse to go out of my way to see any of them any more as most of them have been very lame anyway. 3-D did nothing for "Up".

Final Destination played very well at my place. Lots of teens willing to fork out the extra cash for the 3D. Not a lot in concession sales, but whatever. There are other "non kid" 3D movies coming too.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 09-23-2009 06:49 PM

quote: Mike Blakesley
Well, the presentation today is probably way better, but when we watched "Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs" in 3-D, my eyes felt like they'd done a full days work after that 90 minutes. My wife said her eyes felt tired after the first half hour. (I suppose the effects wouldn't have been as noticable if the movie hadn't been so silly.)

Mike,

Don't forget that you actually have clean air there in Forsyth... I think it was more likely the Salt Lake City air which is more like the air in Los Angeles that finally got to your eyes...

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.