Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: My Bloody Valentine 3D

This is topic My Bloody Valentine 3D - Marketing Shenanigans in forum Ground Level at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=002160

Posted by Ryan Navaroli (Member # 3477) on 01-16-2009, 07:06 PM:

I am sort of upset with the way My Bloody Valentine has been marketed. It seems to unfairly place both the theaters without digital 3D and customers in regions with out it as an option in a very unfair place. A general confusion spurred by the marketing campaign and by the industry as a whole regarding 3D pictures. I wish there was something to educate the public even a poster series like they do for anti-piracy.

Just tonight after showing 3D for two rounds. Despite we display that the film is not showing in 3D there is still mass confusion and anger. It seems that the audience does not know why we are not showing it in 3D and think we choose to show it in 2D.

No doubt the marketing campaign on the movie is going to prove very profitable in markets with 3D and despite having it in 2D we are having good attendance.

This is something I am wondering about. I know Rentrak and Boxofficemojo display theater counts for films but is there any service that displays theater count broken down by digital print vs 35mm print or even 3D also?

I am curious to see what the number of 3D vs 2D houses are on this film, and then the grosses of 3D houses vs 2D houses.

This same problem happened with Beowolf and Journey to the Center Earth but not to this extent. No where near to this extent.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-16-2009, 07:13 PM:

That could be partly because the word "3D" is part of the MBV title. Whereas on those other two films, it was not.

I think there should be a law against having "3D" as part of the film's title if it will ever be shown in 2D format.

Meanwhile, put a sign in your window saying that 3D requires a fantastically expensive system that you don't have yet, and you're sorry but this film will be presented in our standard format, and you're sorry for any misunderstanding created by the marketing campaign.

Posted by Jonathan Althaus (Member # 5042) on 01-16-2009, 08:17 PM:

I am upset that I dropped a full 6k with T/P, reels 1,2 and 3 of MBV 2D on my toe and now it's got more colors than a crayola box.

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 01-16-2009, 08:18 PM:

Theaters need to let their distributors know very firmly that they need to try to avoid putting 3D in the title of films they plan on releasing flat. They should also provide some publicity material (posters, etc) without the 3D in them.

When Jaws 3D come out in the 80's, some of the posters had a matching sticker to cover the 3D part out to be used for 2D engagements.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 01-16-2009, 08:19 PM:

Journey actually was titled with 3D in the title and they dropped it at the last minute, supposedly because they couldn't get enough 3D playdates. Though I think we have onesheets and trailers that market it that way.

I would expect your booker would be able to tell you the 3D/2D split, and that that would be part of your negotiation for this title. No?

--jhawk

Posted by Edwin Schwing (Member # 1270) on 01-17-2009, 04:32 AM:

if you are upset about movies being released in 2D AND 3D, (and promoted mostly as 3D) then maybe you should also be upset about movies being promoted as IMAX! If not, then shut up!

Posted by Justin Gorka (Member # 3727) on 01-17-2009, 06:04 AM:

We hand some moaners last night depite signs being put up stating that we were not showing it in 3-D!

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-17-2009, 12:06 PM:

You COULD do up your own posters to educate YOUR OWN customers... no one's stopping you!

quote: Ryan Navaroli
and then the grosses of 3D houses vs 2D houses.

Typically 3-D houses gross 2 to 6 times the take of a 2-D house. This is at least true of our customers that have 3-D and I also believe this is true on a national scale.

Mark

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-17-2009, 12:17 PM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Typically 3-D houses gross 2 to 6 times the take of a 2-D house. This is at least true of our customers that have 3-D and I also believe this is true on a national scale.

Well of course....if the movie is marketed as 3-D, naturally 3-D fans are going to come out. That doesn't mean the movie wouldn't have done just as well if it was a 2-D movie and marketed in the regular way. (If it's a good movie.)

Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 01-17-2009, 12:32 PM:

Edwin, the difference is that people are trained to know that you have to go to a special theater for IMAX. They don't know or care about the distinction between 35mm and DLP, and therefore miss the fact that current release 3D is DLP, and specially equipped DLP at that.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 01-17-2009, 02:49 PM:

With MBV, the intention was to release it exclusively in 3D. The problem is that with only 900 or so 3D capable screens in the US they couldn't justify it and released it in 2D also. What they probably should have done is released it in 3D exclusively for 3 weeks and then rolled out a "now in 2D also" promo. The 3D runs will be switching to 2D at that point anyway for the most part.

I'm also assuming that it was released Jan 16 instead of Friday, Feb 13th (Fri the 13th and the day before valentines day) due to the release of Coraline on Feb 6th which will take up all of the 3D capable auditoriums.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 01-17-2009, 02:53 PM:

Yeah, Lyle, but that's been true for every 3D release. Nobody wants to do a 3D release in 2D, it's just [apparently] inevitable for the screen count that studios think is necessary.

[Insert witty commentary and time series graph of Gran Torino and Revolutionary Road theatre counts here]

--jhawk

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 01-17-2009, 04:48 PM:

quote: Ryan Navaroli
Just tonight after showing 3D for two rounds. Despite we display that the film is not showing in 3D

quote:
Meanwhile, put a sign in your window saying that 3D requires a fantastically expensive system that you don't have yet,

But if you have it, why aren't you playing it in 3D? What's taking up that screen? I don't get it...are you still running Bolt in 3D or something? Surely you could share that screen now with MBV.

[Confused]

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 01-17-2009, 04:55 PM:

quote:
if you are upset about movies being released in 2D AND 3D, (and promoted mostly as 3D) then maybe you should also be upset about movies being promoted as IMAX! If not, then shut up!

There's a difference that this movie has been, as far as I've seen, only been advertised as 3D whereas the movies being put into IMAX were advertised as being available both in IMAX and not. Like they'd advertise the movie itself then add a blurb about how you can also see it in IMAX.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-17-2009, 06:19 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
That doesn't mean the movie wouldn't have done just as well if it was a 2-D movie and marketed in the regular way. (If it's a good movie.)

Mike,
I think you mis-read my post. I said the 3-D grosses are generally two to three times the 2-D gross. It doesn't mean that 3-D fans come out of the wood work... a whole new generation of people are being exposed to digital 3-D which is much higher quality than the last round of 35mm 3-D was in the 80's. So if the 2-D gross has been good the 3-D gross would typically be 2 to 6 times that. Thats nothing to sneeze at! In one medium sized town one of our customers paid for his 3-D system with revenues from the first film booking! That makes installing 3-D a no brainer! Even if 3-D does die out in several years so what... you've made gobs of revenue and still have a projector that can play 2-D shows.

Mark

Posted by Michael McGovern (Member # 4807) on 01-17-2009, 10:39 PM:

The number of 3-D Capable auditoriums is still under 1000, but it's gradually increasing, and from what I've heard the major chains have entered into an agreement to have a certain number of 3-D capable screens, with Monsters vs. Aliens being the big anticipated wide release in which the majority of AMC / Regal / Carmike locations will have at least one Real D projector per theatre. So I expect by the time that film comes out (March?), the number of 3d Houses will approach 2000 or so.

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 01-18-2009, 12:03 AM:

The marketing in the UK has given the distinct impression that this release is exclusively 3D. We have had a few complaints but nothing major.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 01-18-2009, 12:15 AM:

My theatre isn't playing MBV at all. Most the the calls and web site requests we've received have specifically referred to it as My Bloody Valentine 3D.

I'm not interested in the movie to begin with, but I imagine a 2D release would be horrible to watch since it's likely filled with gimmicks specifically intended for 3D.

The thing that really irks me is when we do get marketing materials for the 2D version of 3D movies, it always has "Also showing in 3D in select theatres" or something to that effect. It bothers me because it puts us in the position of essentially pushing our customers to other locations (assuming there is a 3D capable theatre with reasonable distance). It also increases the number of customers asking "why don't you have it in 3D".

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 01-18-2009, 01:16 AM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
I think you mis-read my post. I said the 3-D grosses are generally two to three times the 2-D gross.

I can confirm this based on My Bloody Valentine. Our 3D runs (not showing 2D in the same building) are doing 2-5 times the business of the 2D runs including locations that normally do well with horror product.

I can also say that THE ONLY REASON to see this movie is the 3D. I watched the first 20 minutes or so. The 3D effects are very cool but the movie itself is aweful. It's a very bad "B" movie outside of the 3D effects.

But.....seeing a pick axe go through the back of a head and out the eye with the eyeball (still attached to the muscle) coming out at you is worth the price of admission!

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 01-18-2009, 09:46 AM:

LOL

This is EXACTLY Friday the 13th Part III 3-D of the 80's all over.

There was the shot of Jason shooting the speargun to the camera and onto the poor's victims eye and the shot of the eyeball with the nerves sticking out being shoved to the audience by the old guy on the road.

Also, in Flesh for Frankesntein (3D), the doctor got stabbed by a long spear that came out of the screen right to your eyes with a piece of flesh dropping out of the end ...

Obviously a movie like this is made to gross far more in 3D than 2D. The same wouldn't happen to a movie like, say, Gran Torino, which would probably gross roughly the same 2D and 3D if the price of admission was the same and it wasn't heavily promoted as a movie that "must be watched in 3D to truly enjoy it".

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
a whole new generation of people are being exposed to digital 3-D which is much higher quality than the last round of 35mm 3-D was in the 80's.

I'm sorry, Mark, but I must totally and authoratively discredit this stament as true. The 3D of the 80's was, generally speaking, as good if not better than current digital 2K real-d (or Dolby, for that matter).

The 3D of the 80's had a similar resolution while providing (generally) a brighter picture than most of todays' 3D offerings, with the added potential advantage of being in a "scope" format (not that today's offer are not ... just that when digital is Scope resolution is further reduced).

The comparison would be:

-Resolution, color, contrast and image quality:

80's 35mm 3D: Full 35mm frame was used. Full frame release prints have a proven resolution of about 4K, so splitting it in half to each eye gave aprox. a 2K image per eye.

Digital: 2K per eye, but with increased compression, only 1K for color resolution (4:2:2), and reduced 10bits color depth (vs. film's 14bits). Also, further reduced on TI's projectors older than a few month that couldn't cope with full 2K 48fps.

Basically a tie here, with a slight benefit to 35mm over/under if the release print was carefully made (not the case in practical terms, we all know, but in theory, anyway). As I said, I'll give them both a tie in resolution.

-Light levels

80's 35mm 3D: Full frame usage meant all available projector light was used, split in half to each eye. Basically the same as a 2-perf-per-eye full light level picture. As a result, light levels were about the same as a 1.85 3-perf factor because theaters increased their lamps rectifryers (sic) to the maximun available, to compensate for the "3-perf" to "2-perf" reduction. No anamorhpic was needed, so no loss from anamorpher adapters. Basically you obtained a light level similar to 1.85 but PER EYE. The 3-D optics (linear nor circular polarized) and glasses combination, depending on the system, lost between 66% and 72% of the light. But the silver screen "added" another 50% of the light back, so basically you had a light level that usually was only 20% or so below your 2D levels.

In digital, you "flicker" the light (at 144fps) between two eye, giving each half the light. You get 50% per eye. Then, you add a 7% blanking interval to allow for the 3D adapters (RealD Zscreens or Dolby color wheel) to adjust on time, so we are down to 43%. Then, you polarize the light through the zscreen, so we lose another 57/65% (depending on your model of zscreen). So we get roughly 20% of the light level. Then the glasses take care of another 8-15%. So we end up with aprox. between 18% and 10% of the available light. Say we change the light bulb to the maximun available (i.e. 6000w) and that gives us twice the light of our average 2D lamp (i.e. 3000w). Now we are still with a light level of between 20% and 35%. We put the silver screen gain into factor and you still are at less than half your 2D light level.

Studios "time" (squeeze the gamma curve, with the LARGE potential loss of contrast) the 3D releases in digital for 3.5fl to 5.5fl light levels. Definetly WORSE without any doubts that in the 80's. Period.

-Ghosting:
80's 3D: Mostly used linear polarizers. While your head was leveled with the screen (as it "should be" if you sit upright), linear always offers between 50% and 250% better extintion ratios than circular. So for most people sitting straight and not too far off-axis with the screen, the 80's 3D had some twice-to-three times less ghosting than real-d.

Dolby wins here, though. And real-d circular means you can move your head more and be less affected by wide off-axis angles. Please, also keep in mind that 3D in the 80's also offered circular polarization as an option, but was seldom used due to increase cost and ghosting with little advantages.

I'll say it's another tie or again a slight advantage to the 80's. Real-D "must" 'ghostbust' their prints so the problem doesn't get out of hand. Ghostbusting basically means degrading the image quality and killing the contrast once again even more.

-Cost:
80's 3D only costs a few hundred or a few thousand dollars to rent or purchase a 3D lense or an adaptor. You pbbly needed a silver screen too.

Digital 3D costs an arm and a leg for both, the silver (or high gain anyway) screen, the hardware, the glasses or the royalties. We won't mention the maintenance costs. Circular glasses or Infitec Dolby's glasses are more expensive than 80's linear ... and someone is paying for them, as you know. We won't mention double stock of projection lamps (i.e. 6000w), electrical costs, or, of course, the cost of converting to digital to begin with ...

Clearly the 80's 3D wins here.

-Light uniformity.
Here is where the 80's sucked. Non-integrator (rod) illumination of the 35mm frame meant that the light level at the corners drop off considerably. Since the frame was splitted in two, the corners didn't match symetrically. As a result, the corners of the image often had a (bothersome) stereo asymetrical vignette that sucked.

Digital wins here. Even Sony's 3D over/under digital doesn't have this problem as it uses two lenses and integrated collimated illumination.

All in all I'll say digital 3D is, basically, as good as 80's 3D. Not (theoretically or necessarily) much much better nor much much worse.

It is just plain wrong to say it is (significantly) superior. Perhaps it's easier to set up (push a button) so there would be less screw-ups. But just wait 10 years when zscreens start to break-down and silver screens start to be covered with dust and you'll see good-old bad-digital presentations almost as bad as the occasional bad 35mm presentation we were seeing in the 80's.

But, in theory, both systems are pretty close in performance with digital being far more expensive.

To be fair, the reason you might be seeing Digital presentations as better than 80's is because you are seeing "state of the art" brand-new equipment installed on brand-new screens with films digitally composed for great 3D.

In the 80's, 25 years ago, you were seeing 50 year old's projectors on crappy-old silver screens with films that were shot optically at a cost (for the whole movie) of under $3m, often not even $1m. Movies today cost far more and have far better technical means, so one would expect the result to look better.

But if you install a new theater today, with good 35mm equipment, a good brand new 3-D lens and a nice new Silver screen, I can assure you it would look as good (or better) than digital at 1/3 the cost.

Wait 25 years and you'll notice how this "wonderful digital images of today" look like absolute crap compared to the "wonderful 8K digital laser images" of the 2040's.

[ 01-18-2009, 03:25 PM: Message edited by: Julio Roberto ]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-18-2009, 01:56 PM:

Mark - I didn't misread your post, but Julio said what I was thinking better than I did:

quote: Julio Roberto
Obviously a movie like this is made to gross far more in 3D than 2D. The same wouldn't happen to a movie like, say, Gran Torino, which would probably gross roughly the same 2D and 3D if the price of admission was the same and it wasn't heavily promoted as a movie that "must be watched in 3D to truly enjoy it".

Posted by Andy Muirhead (Member # 712) on 01-18-2009, 08:34 PM:

quote: Caleb Johnstone-Cowan
The marketing in the UK has given the distinct impression that this release is exclusively 3D. We have had a few complaints but nothing major.

That's correct. In fact we weren't even aware there were 2D prints available. We now have it booked for next week in 2D (why do I keep saying 2D? Maybe I mean not 3D).

Anyway, have had to photoshop 3D out from any promo material I've been using, as there is nothing out there without the 3D tag. I'll wait and see how it goes down with our audience, I can't see too many complaints but there may be one or two comments.

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 01-18-2009, 09:35 PM:

It's fine to have "3D" all over the place and in all promotions for a 3D movie. But if it's also going to be released flat (2D), then for pits sake they should also print a few posters without the 3D everywhere and some promo materials.

In the 80's, they even removed the 3D from the on-screen titles of 2D prints for many 3D films. With today's movies being nothing more than digital files most of the time, I say it's much easier and cheaper than it was in the 80's.

Just wait until your (2D print, photoshoped-poster'ed) film starts and 3D comes right out to "your face" and people go:

"Huh??? I didn't know this was 3D. Damm, honey, go out and buy a couple of glasses .... and some more popcorn"

I know they wanted some movies to be "3D-only" and force cinemas to convert. That's fine. Then, don't release it 2D. If you want to release it 2D and want engagements in 2D ... then why "insult" your 2D patrons and piss your exhibitors over spending a few thousand $$$ to fix the titles?

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 01-18-2009, 09:43 PM:

Are you actually asking? Because they believe that such a film needs to play on a certain number of screens to maximize revenue, and that the available 3D screens are beneath that number. Just dollars and cents.

--jhawk

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-18-2009, 10:42 PM:

My Bloody Valentine 3D came in third for the weekend with around $21 million on nearly 2500 screens. By contrast, Saw V did just over $30 million last fall. Guess you don't need 3-D to draw horror fans.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 01-18-2009, 10:54 PM:

Saw's a franchise though. MBV will be interesting in the coming weeks, especially if it has a lower second-weekend drop than is typical for horror (68% for Saw V; 47% for the top-grossing Saw II; 60-ish% for the "slasher remakes"). What with the Valentine's hook, who knows?

--jhawk

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-18-2009, 11:39 PM:

..and they're doing a "Saw VI" for November of this year ...

Wow, we can think of past horror/slasher franchise titles:

Friday, the 13th
Nightmare on Elm Street
Hellraiser

..and prob a host of others that I can't think of at the time..

But, $21mil opening wknd aint that bad to sneeze at for a LG movie...on 2500 screens, and prob a quarter of them are doing 3D with this film

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 01-18-2009, 11:52 PM:

I agree, if budgeted and marketed properly this could be another good (for business) horror franchise, especially if they can get the valentines day week next year.

Our quad poster for MBV doesn't have the 3D tag on it, but the image is still the bloody axe coming out the screen with the audience wearing glasses.

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 01-19-2009, 12:01 AM:

Well, valentine is not having too much competition this week really. Not a lot of fresh strong openers and only 1 other strong horror film. So good timing as usual.

It should do fine. It would've done a bit better, I guess, if more 3D screens were available. But, oh well, perhaps distributors would start to realize they shouldn't nickle and dime with Virtual Print Fees and get the darned digital thing rollout over with.

We also must remember that this is a film that, for an entire new generation, would be the very first (and therefore unique) "slasher 3D experience". Tons of teens haven't even seen a life-action (proper) 3D film ever (they skipped Journey to the Center).

So this is the pinnacle of "3D" for the always profitable horror genre. For that, coming 3rd at the BO, almost tied in 4rd position, considering grosses are larger-per-attendance due to the higher ticket price ... I don't know. I expected it a bit better. Marketing was strong and the trailer did hit the mark.

Perhaps it will hold a bit for next week. Word-of-mouth should be fair, as young peeps love the 3D stuff ... A few might be watching it in 2D by mistake and going huh? and pbbly deciding to watch it a second time with (drunk) friends in 3D the following weekend.

But give the new-generation 3D-virgin public 4 or 5 3D slasher like they gave in the 80's and the novelty will wear out. Soon, number of people interested in "B" 3D movies will sink like it has happened in the past. Then the TRUE numbers for 3D "increased attendance" will show up. And they will be modest.

EDIT: Looking at the numbers, Valentine certainly didn't performed too well. It did virtually the same business as Number 4 at the box office film Notorious. But Valentine opened in 2,534 theaters while Notorious only in 1,638. Both are rated R movies.

Valentine probably opened in all the top houses, as it engaged most brand-new Digital 3D places. Notorious probably opened in much "poorer" (and cheaper) joins. In spite of Valentine's surcharge, it only made $8,642 per screen, while Notorious made $13,126. Also, one would've guessed that Valentine's demographics were widers than Notorious.

So overall, not very impressive for Valentine. Also, audiences rated Valentine better than most movies in the top ten (7 stars for Valentine, 6 for Notorious, 5 for Mall Cop). So people are enjoying Valentine, it's not like the movie suxs socks and has heavy competition.

[ 01-19-2009, 09:09 AM: Message edited by: Julio Roberto ]

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 01-19-2009, 01:36 PM:

quote: Andy Muirhead
there is nothing out there without the 3D tag

Not true. I saw a one-sheet today at the AMC Moorestown Mall in NJ that didn't say 3D. In fact their marquee out on the main road proudly proclaims "Bloody Valentine 2D"

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 01-19-2009, 01:59 PM:

This film was marketed incorrectly and caused many headaches for theatre managers over this weekend.

Thank you very much.

(I find myself having dreams about telling endless amounts of people that we are NOT playing this film in 3-D)

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 01-19-2009, 02:14 PM:

Looks like 1 of each, at least, from TES's ordering site:

(and, of course, usually there's lots of stuff that's not listed there).

--jhawk

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-19-2009, 02:28 PM:

That assumes the stuff is available. I would bet they didn't exactly make a ton of the 2D stuff.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 01-19-2009, 03:42 PM:

Why are comparisons only being made between the 3-D formats of the eighties and the current digital 3-D and not the dual projection process of the early fifties? I my opinion, the current digital process is much better that the eighties which I thought sucked. The 3-D effect in both however leaves a lot to be desired COMPARED TO THE DUAL PROJECTION 3-D OF THE FIFTIES. Both the current digital and the eighties process use a single projector but the fifties system used two projectors with separate light source that had very deep 3-D effects comparable to 70mm IMAX 3-D that has a beautiful bright picture.

Like current 3-D films, the earlier films of the fifties used a lot of gimmicks where objects was always coming at you and I must admit as a fourteen year old young man, I thought it was super cool! Because of this and poor projection methods, the process was just about dead when quality pictures were being made in Natural Vision 3-D including DIAL M FOR MURDER, HONDO, KISS ME KATE, MISS SADIE THOMPSON, and a few others.

-Claude

[ 01-19-2009, 08:59 PM: Message edited by: Claude S. Ayakawa ]

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 01-19-2009, 04:07 PM:

quote: Joe Tommassello
In fact their marquee out on the main road proudly proclaims "Bloody Valentine 2D"

What a selling point! [Roll Eyes]

quote: Claude S. Ayakawa
Like current 3-D films, the earlier films of the fifties used a lot of gimmicks where objects was always coming at you

While I'm sure MBV does this, as did Journey To The Center Of The Earth, Bolt at least seems to not be like that. While the 3D is very good, it's used more as an effect than to show off that it's in 3D. That's the way to make the films successful in either format. Watching Journey in 2D made me want to groan it was so full of things being thrown at the screen.
[sleep]

Posted by Jon P. Inghram (Member # 4125) on 01-19-2009, 06:18 PM:

Beowolf too. The one scene that really stands out in my memory is when someone takes a spear and pokes it (virtually) into the audiences corneas and then holds it there for a moment just in case they didn't notice that it's in THREE DEE!!!!!11!!11!! [Roll Eyes]

I only saw it in 2D, which made it even more absurd.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-19-2009, 06:39 PM:

I agree with Mark G that 3D makes any and every movie better (as well as gross waaaaay more) and that all movies should be in 3D with systems sold and installed by him.

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 01-19-2009, 08:40 PM:

quote: Claude S. Ayakawa
Like current 3-D films, the earlier films of the fifties used a lot of gimmicks where objects was always coming at you

Most 3D films, at all times, try to make a statement by sticking something out of the screen to the audience. Not all of them, but most do.

But out of the ones I've seen, just about them all, I'll say the ones in the 50's were, generally speaking, the ones sticking the least amount of stuff at your eyes.

Many films in the 70's/80's weren't but 1/4 of the time showcasing the 3D out-of-the-screen. I remember Frankenstein, were everything was off-the screen, Fantastic voyage (or something like that) with so much 3D that the closing titles was like 10 minutes cuts of all out-of-the-screen throught the film. Here in Spain they shot two of those movies absolutely filled with 3D effects ... Treasure of the Four Crown and Comin' at Ya.

Also a bunch of German/Swedish/French soft-core flicks with plenty of effects (Emmanuelle, Venus, Liebe). 2 or 3 chinese Kung-Fu films that were packed-to-the-rib with 3D effects, and that Indian one with pretty good ones too.

In the 50's films, I don't even recall a single one that was just a showcase for 3D. Sure most included 2-5 scenes with stuff obviously coming-at-you just for the 3D, but not the 10-20 scenes of the 80's films. There are always a couple of exceptions, of course.

I, for example, don't even recall a single "strong 3D" effect in Miss Sadie Thompson. Dial M only had like 1 or 2 "strong-3D" scenes. Kiss Me Kate had a few and was better 3-D aware overall. Etc.

Regardless, the 50's films felt more like regular films where the 3D was just there to add to the story and the occasional couple of 3D-staged gimmicks. The 80's films seemed to be mostly about the 3D, like Journey or Spy Kids was in the 00's.

Certainly the quality of (properly) projected dual 35mm film with linear polarized filters, which was the way done in "100%" of the 3D of the 50's, is superior to that of any digital Real-D installation in almost all aspects ... Keyword, though= "properly".

Digital is certainly more fool-proof, easier, and produces reasonably good results. That much is true. But, better???? Hmmmm .... Whoever says that a Real-D system has any better quaility in (just about) any parameter ... obviously has never seen a (proper) 50's dual 35mm 3D presentation ...

And here are 4-days weekend numbers for Boxoffice Number 3 and 4 films this weekend:

My Bloody Valentine 3-D (Rated R): $24,240,000, 2,534 screens, $9,566 per screen

Notorious (Rated R): $24,000,000, 1,638 screens, $14,652 per screen.

So much for a "3-D film grossing 3, 4 times more than 2D ....". Let's not forget that 3-D has usually a higher ticket price for the surcharge and is often engaged in the "top houses" at their best brand-new digital 3D screens. Also, early 3D films like this, get a lot of attendance from people curious about the 3D itself since they've never-ever-ever seen any movie whatsoever that way. Once the novelty wears out, 3D movies hardly get any new patrons for the 3D only.

I've heard of a few cases of people watching Valentine, realizing it wasn't 3D at their join, and planning on watching it again in 3D. In a way, it's "false" attendance since poor patrons were mislead by marketing. Once at the 2D theater door, they decided to walk in and leave the 3D visit for the following day or whatever. Those that have seen it in 3D I'm sure have no desire to walk into a (repeat) 2D showing.

[ 01-20-2009, 11:14 PM: Message edited by: Julio Roberto ]

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 01-22-2009, 03:05 PM:

quote: Monte L Fullmer
they're doing a "Saw VI"

Oh, please. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Poon Limpapun (Member # 4551) on 02-10-2009, 11:49 AM:

Here in Thailand, we will have MBV starting this Thursday showing in both 35mm and Digital Cinema all in 3D. The difference is the glasses and presentation method. Now I am having a hard time explaining to our customers the difference between 35mm 3D and Dolby 3D. sigh!

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 02-10-2009, 03:17 PM:

If they've made it available in 35mm 3D then that's just stupid. [thumbsdown]

Posted by Poon Limpapun (Member # 4551) on 02-10-2009, 03:25 PM:

My goal right now is to push all the customers to go 3D so then I could cancel the 35mm show and interlock Confessions of a Shopaholic from the auditorium next door.

I hope customers would go Dolby 3D. sigh!