|
|
This topic comprises 9 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Is 3-D Still Going Strong?
|
|
|
|
|
Justin Hamaker
Film God
Posts: 2253
From: Lakeport, CA USA
Registered: Jan 2004
|
posted 02-12-2015 12:36 AM
quote: Mike Blakesley
Most people don't have surround sound on their TV sets, but they can still enjoy a movie without surround.
Mike, this is exactly the point. Watching a movie at home without surround sound is a perfectly acceptable presentation for most people. However, watching it with surround sound enhances the movie experience by making you feel more like you are in the movie with the sound happening around you, rather than in front of you.
In theory, 3D is supposed to do the same thing. And with a handful of movies (Gravity, Avatar, Up, Life of Pi), the 3D adds to the experience by making you feel more like you are in the scene with the characters. Or in the case of horror movies, the 3D can add to the jump factor by having objects come at you. It's not that 3D or surround sound changes the story; it's that it enhances the experience of the story - at least that's the theory.
As for whether 3D is still going strong, I'll just say that we had a pretty good turn out for our 3D showings of SpongeBob this past weekend. Only 1 of 4 shows was in 3D over the weekend, but attendance for those shows was more or less on par with the 2D showings (meaning the 1:00 2D would have 100, and the 4:00 3D would also have about 100). This doesn't show that 3D is going strong in general, just that it can still do well with the right movie.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 02-14-2015 07:26 AM
Jesse,
Setting aside your preference for 3D, which is fine...the up-charge is a necessary part if the exhibitor is to not lose money by showing 3D. That is the simple financial fact of it.
If you have Real-D, you are paying 50-cents to Real-D for their technology on each and every ticket. And that is from your percentage of the box office so it is more like a dollar of extra boxoffice just to cover Real-D. Then there are the realities of having the purchase the brighter lamp and paying the higher electric bill. These things NEVER pay for themselves.
If you have Dolby 3D, you have a considerable uptick in your lamp requirement (if not laser)...it is only 10% (on a good day) efficient so you need 10-times the light on Dolby 3D to hit the same light levels as you have on 2D...the realities are that you typically cut the light requirement for 3D into 1/2 -1/3 and up you light level to hit that. So you went from possibly a 2KW lamp up to a 6KW lamp trying to hit those levels...care to do a cost analysis on what it takes to run a 6KW versus a 2KW? And there are the glasses. While the studio (in the US) provide Real-D type glasses...they don't for Dolby (or event the equivalent in value of the Real-D)...so the exhibitor has to not only buy but maintain those glasses by sanitizing them and replacing the damaged/stolen glasses...again...a cost that never stops.
XpanD has similar cost issues to Dolby but with glasses that are typically about 4-5 times more expensive, with batteries to also maintain and the damage/theft problem. On the upside, XpanD is typically about twice as bright so the lamp size increase isn't quite a bad but still significantly more than 2D.
Now lets add in the FACT that attendance to 3D is on the significant decline. You want all 3D shows of a 3D title. If you had a theatre and had to decide on fewer butts in the seats or all 3D shows...which would YOU choose. The market is responding to demand and 3D is not in demand. I know of a theatre that experimented with 100% 3D on a title...the attendance went down because the majority of people didn't want to see the title in 3D. Its a bad business decision to deliberately turn away otherwise happy customers in the name of convincing them to want to see a title in 3D.
Your sound analysis doesn't apply here either. The addition of 3D, increases the cost of every show and dissuades some people from attending. Multi-channel audio, while more expensive to install, does not keep costing the theatre money and seemingly has very few people that would stay away because of it. Sure, Woody Allen isn't a big fan of it but nobody has made stereo a requirement on the authoring end.
It is great that you and others like 3D and I think you should be thankful that it is still out there for now. There are generations that didn't have that option but would have liked it. However, I think it a bit righteous to feel that it must be forced upon everyone when the vast majority either don't care about it or actively dislike it.
I'll go even further...if you are in a competitive market, and your neighbor has 3D, it is to your advantage to not install 3D at all. You WILL suck their business away...I've seen it. I've definitely had more people tell me that not putting 3D was a decision they were thankful for than tell me that thankfully they put 3D in (so far, none to date). Furthermore, nobody that opted out of 3D has asked me to retrofit it in. Conversely, I have had people decommission their 3D systems to prevent studios from requiring a 3D showing.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jesse Skeen
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1517
From: Sacramento, CA
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 02-14-2015 05:30 PM
quote: Steve Guttag
If you have Real-D, you are paying 50-cents to Real-D for their technology on each and every ticket. And that is from your percentage of the box office so it is more like a dollar of extra boxoffice just to cover Real-D.
See, that is just extreme greed and stupidity, and RealD deserves to go out of business if that's how they operate. Were you paying 50 cents per ticket to Kodak or Deluxe for their "technology" on film prints, or to DTS, Dolby or Sony for their sound? Covering the cost of 3D glasses shouldn't even be a factor at this point- I can see charging people for those, but what about those who have saved their glasses from previous showings and bring those instead? I usually bring one pair of 3D glasses and just keep the ones they give me sealed- but again, I don't go to many 3D movies at the theater because of the price.
quote: Steve Guttag
Then there are the realities of having the purchase the brighter lamp and paying the higher electric bill. These things NEVER pay for themselves.
But it costs EXACTLY THE SAME amount of money to run a show to an audience of one person as it does to a full house. When you've got empty seats because they aren't willing to pay the increased ticket prices, what sense does that make?
(And I'll add that the past few 3D movies I've seen in theaters were preceded by COMMERCIALS in 3D! That made me REALLY angry- if there really is a significant cost to showing 3D, why not charge the ADVERTISERS more for the 3D ads and pass that along to the customers??? I might have had a more favorable reaction to the commercials if that had been the case!)
quote: Steve Guttag
I know of a theatre that experimented with 100% 3D on a title...the attendance went down because the majority of people didn't want to see the title in 3D.
Did they really not want to see it in 3D, or did they not want to pay the increased ticket prices? I can't see going to a compromised showing just to save money, though people still went to crappy discount theaters with mono sound for that reason.
I know there's some people who "don't like 3D", but most of them don't even know what good 3D looks like, and there's some who are just closed-minded and won't even give it a chance. Charge them extra for it and they sure as hell won't watch it! Runnning a 3D movie in 2D is the same as showing a color movie in black and white (I've watched some of the 2D versions that are on my 3D Blu-Rays, and feel that's an accurate description. Yes, you can still see the picture, but something's clearly missing! Ditto for playing a 7.1 sound mix in mono!) Would you show a color movie in black and white for those who don't like color? How about a family-friendly edited version of anything rated PG or above, so they can enjoy the movie without all the offensive stuff? I've always been strongly against changing a movie to suit others- most of the time there is only ONE correct way to show a movie, period. If the filmmakers really felt that 3D "didn't add anything" to their movie, they wouldn't have made it that way to begin with. (Post-conversions of course are a grey area and I really wish they didn't do those. "Noah" was shot and released in 2D in the US, but in other countries was shown in converted 3D against the director's wishes. I watched that movie in 2D, though if I bought it on Blu-Ray I'd want to have both 2D and 3D with it. If Darren Aranofsky was REALLY against his movie being in converted 3D, he would have taken his name off of it and replaced it with an "Alan Smithee".)
quote: Steve Guttag
However, I think it a bit righteous to feel that it must be forced upon everyone when the vast majority either don't care about it or actively dislike it.
As I said, in most cases there is only ONE correct way to show a movie- if that's "righteous" then so be it. There's people out there who would like censored versions of movies available, but outside of TV and airlines they can't see those. "The vast majority" sadly doesn't really care one way or another- most of the time they'll just go to whatever showing starts when they want to see it, no matter how it's presented or how much it costs.
There's some big movies like Jurassic Park and Star Wars coming out this year that will hopefully make great use of 3D and get more people actively interested in it again. It would be a HUGE tragedy however if 3D ceases to exist again though just because the industry insists on charging more for it when the public refuses to pay.
(True story: Spacehunter, a forgettable crappy sci-fi movie shot in 3D came out at the same time as Return of the Jedi. I went to see Spacehunter FIRST because it was in 3D! I thought it was really unjust how that piece of crap was in 3D but Jedi wasn't; it's been refreshing now to see REAL movies in 3D and glad the next Star Wars will have it.)
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 02-15-2015 04:52 AM
Jesse,
You live in a fantasy world not based in reality.
RealD's source of revenue is that 50-cent charge per ticket. And that is how they got to be the BIGGEST installed based of systems. It certainly isn't the best system out there. The exhibitor paid little and typically ZERO for the 3D equipment aside from the screen (must be Silver or one of the new, extra expensive, polarizing white screens) and upsized light. The other thing RealD did that was equally as big, in the USA (because it isn't true world-wide) is to get the glasses paid by the studios. In effect, the made the initial cash outlay to the exhibitor very small and get their money on the back-end via the 50-cent charge per ticket.
All of the other systems get their money up front for the technology. MasterImage is in a nice zone whereby an exhibitor can get "free" glasses.
Now when it comes to the whole glasses thing...I there with you. I think people should have the option of buying their own 3D glasses and use that to defray the up-charge for 3D...though that is going to only save you about $1. The downside for you, the moviegoer is having to buy one pair of each technology. RealD and Masterimage use the same circular polarization glasses. Dolby 3D glasses are unique to them in cinemas as are XpanD glasses. My wife has even suggested to Dolby (she has the Dolby 3D system) to make purchase glasses and have them be colored so they would be easy to identify as not owned by the theatre. Ask any exhibitor, they'd prefer not having to deal with glasses at all.
Your claim about showing to an audience of 1 versus 100 is true...but the realities are, if you run that title in 2D, you'll get the 100...if you run it in 3D, you'll get closer to the 1. Those ARE the numbers (not quite as dramatic but 3D is typically 1/4 - 1/3 the number of 2D). In a business that depends on concession sales for sustainability, getting more bellies near the concession stand the better the profit for the business.
Justin hit the nail on the head...With Avatar, when the 3D fad started back up again...it was the novelty and anyone that had a 3D screen with Avatar or the Hanna Montana show got a HUGE take of the boxoffice. However, it has been all downhill from there with just a handful of exceptions. And you keep hearing the same titles tossed about over and over...Gravity or Hugo as often being the exception to the rule.
Your position that 3D was way the movie was meant to be seen is not a view shared by most. The method of filming/showing 3D does NOT represent reality on many scales. It can/does cause headaches to many it IS a technology that tends to scream out "look at me and what I'm doing." You could claim similar things about aggressive sound mixes (which I don't like either...I like sound mixes so good that you don't notice just how good they are). With rare exception, color is not used as a "notice me" technology...though one can certainly find examples of it (Wizard of Oz, or even South Pacific immediately come to mind). That said, I enjoy a good B&W movie as one can really get shadow details in a well composed B&W shot that will get lost in color.
As I said previously. It is great that you enjoy 3D and you should be thankful that you still have that option on many titles. However, I can assure you, you are in the minority as a society. It isn't just the up-charge...it is the whole concept. 3D in the home hasn't gone anywhere either
3D is a business decision more than a creative one, in most cases. As such, it has to justify its extra expense at all stages from production through exhibition/distribution.
I can certainly appreciate you desire to bring depth to the image, but whether you want to admit it or not, the current technology does not do it very well and it brings with it more negatives than positives.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justin Hamaker
Film God
Posts: 2253
From: Lakeport, CA USA
Registered: Jan 2004
|
posted 02-15-2015 04:05 PM
Just to expand on what Steve said, there are a number of reasons why people don't like 3D.
For some, it is as simple as the extra cost. Paying and extra $2.00-$3.00 per ticket just isn't appealing to many people. However, 3D costs more for the theatre, which is part of the reason theatres charge more. Depending on which system you use, there is an extra outlay of cash for equipment - silver screen, 3D unit, 3D glasses, replacement filter discs, brighter lamp, and so forth. None of this is free, and better allocated directly to 3D, rather than raising prices across the board.
There are a number of people who can not view 3D for one reason or another. A variety of vision problems can affect the ability to see 3D. For some people it might just cause ghosting in the 3D image. For others it might cause the image to appear out of focus. For others it can actually cause physical discomfort.
For people who wear glasses for vision, wearing 3D glasses on top of your regular glasses may not be comfortable. While clip-on glasses are available for the polarized systems, they are not usually available in the theatre, or have an additional cost.
Young children usually won't keep the glasses on. This comes back to the value question for parents. Is it worth paying the up-charge for children who are not actually going to experience 3D because they won't keep the glasses on.
You make a valid point about certain films being intended to be viewed in 3D, but this only applies to a small number of 3D movies. In these movies, there are often things that look odd when viewed in a 2D picture. However, in most cases the 3D was added as an afterthought - whether during filming or in post - as a way to increase box office revenue.
You also make a reasonable point about how movies are intended to be viewed. However, if we were only going to present movies in the way they were intended to be viewed, than most movies would never be available on DVD or shown on TV since they were intended to be shown on a movie theatre screen.
Regardless of how you may feel about 3D, the simple reality if the marketplace is largely rejecting the format for a number of reasons. This is why studios are responding by releasing fewer 3D movies. If the trend continues, I imagine we will be down to just a handful of 3D movies each year within another year or two. And hopefully those released in 3D will be the small handful where 3D actually adds to the experience.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 9 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
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.
|
Home
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic