Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Katzenberg: Theatrical 3D will be gone in a year if crappy conversions peeve audience

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film-Yak » Katzenberg: Theatrical 3D will be gone in a year if crappy conversions peeve audience (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: Katzenberg: Theatrical 3D will be gone in a year if crappy conversions peeve audience

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 04-10-2010 05:10 PM

quote: Claude S. Ayakawa
You did not say the 80's, Bobby You said "the past"

Claude, I also wrote this:

quote: Bobby Henderson was the last to post
I think you would have to go back to the 1950s to find 3D movies of good dramatic quality

I think that said it pretty clearly.

| IP: Logged

Greg Anderson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 766
From: Ogden Valley, Utah
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 04-10-2010 09:18 PM

Theatrical 3D is already dead to me. After seeing the IMAX 3D version of The Polar Express (not too shabby) and then the dreadful, gimmick-laden IMAX, partial-3D version of Superman Returns, I was finished. I specifically avoided the surcharged version of Up and enjoyed the perfectly acceptable 2D version. I saw Avatar in 3D and decided that the movie didn't need to be in 3D and, bottom line, I didn't need to waste my money on a surcharge for a totally unnecessary "enhancement."

Yes, I'm done already.

| IP: Logged

Paul Linfesty
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1383
From: Bakersfield, CA, USA
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 04-10-2010 09:25 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
Nevertheless, there were other 3D movies made in the 1950s that were bad.

Yeah...most of them (*and there were a lot in 1953-54, around 50 or so). And the movies that WERE good, such as Kiss Me Kate and Hondo, were just as good in 2-D.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 04-11-2010 12:34 AM

They are still making lots and lots of bad 3D movies in the 00's and the 10's (or whatever this decade is called). Most of 'em are computer animated crap. Seen one, you've seen most. I honestly can't keep track of all the different computer animation movies that aren't Pixar.

| IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 04-11-2010 06:39 AM

quote: Mark Lensenmayer
I did a lot of research on the 50's 3D era, and 3D died then because, when the big 3D push hit, most of the films were terrible.

3D died in the 50s for a number of reasons.

1) Dual strip 3D required a bit more attention on the part of the projectionists to "get it right". For example if the film broke, the projectionist either had to add slug to make up for the lost frames on one of the prints or cut the corresponding frames from the other eye print. It wasn't THAT hard, but like anything else that's new, there's a natural adjustment period where everyone has to get used to doing what they're doing. It only lasted a year.

2) Distribution costs were a little higher- now you had to ship TWO prints instead of one... at least to the 3D capable theaters.

3) CinemaScope appeared. That was pretty much the nail in the coffin. It was easy. Ship one print, put the lens in, open the masking and forget it. And while some movie goers hated wearing glasses for 3D, almost everyone seemed to enjoy the bigger screens (except Hitchcock, but he didn't like 3D either).

I think Bobby is right about 3D dying in the 80s because the movies sucked. Hollywood tried a bunch of sequels in 3D trying to capitalize on the success of the previous installments of the movies.

First of all, #3 of anything is risky. Especially when #2 wasn't all that great. But Hollywood never seems to remember that lesson. The biggies from the 80s were all #3 sequels... Amityville, Friday the 13th, & Jaws. And let's face it. They all sucked. There was really no "Avatar" event-type movie. There was that "Space Hunter" movie or whatever it was, but even that didn't really have much going for it. So, yeah I think that's what happened in the 80s.

And don't forget that Universal also kicked around anaglyphic prints of Creature and It Came from Outer Space in the 70s. And we all know how much everyone loves wearing anaglyphic glasses. They love it so much that they magically "remember" wearing them in the 50s too.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 04-11-2010 11:25 AM

Well, as bad as they all are... and I disliked Avatar... they do sell tickets. 3 to 4 times the 2-D grosses here in You-Taw. The other thing is that many 3-D systems are easily paid for in the first month of operation so the expenditure is a no brainer... surely pay back isn't going to be any longer then 6 months for the smallest of locations. I do think and hope that we'll see less 3-D in the next few years as the newness wears off but because the equipment exists in quantity we are going to see them probably for at least the next 10 years.

Mark

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

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.