Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Is 3D already dying?

This is topic Is 3D already dying? 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=002395

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 07-22-2010, 04:30 PM:

The title says it all.

According to Gizmodo, and I have little reason to doubt the figures quoted, there appears to be a declining trend in 3D B.O receipts.

...and proof positive that the general concensus here on Film-Tech was not too far off the mark.

Gizmodo article on the decline in 3D boxoffice.

Earlier today I reported on the unlikelihood that the next Batman movie will be in 3D. But is that a fluke or part of a trend? If box office numbers are any indication, it's definitely the latter.

Since the high-water mark of Avatar, where 71% of the revenue came from 3D screenings, numbers for big-budget 3D movies have plummeted to less than 50%.

Obviously Avatar was a unique case in that it was basically sold as a 3D "experience," so if you saw it in 2D you were missing out. But then three months later the animated How to Train Your Dragon pulled in 68% of its revenue from 3D screens, hardly a significant drop-off.

Fast forward a mere four months and you have Despicable Me, another 3D animated kids movie, pulling in 45% of its revenue from 3D screens. As you can see by The Wrap's chart below, it's a pretty clear trend.

What's this mean? It means that now that people have had a chance to experience 3D in theaters, they're opting to spend $10 on a 2D screening rather than $15 on a 3D screening when given the option.

It's not great news for Hollywood studios that have sunk boatloads of money into 3D cameras and tech, but it's much, much worse news for consumer electronics companies such as Sony and Panasonic who are betting the farm on people wanting to upgrade two-year-old HDTVs to 3D HDTVs. But if Hollywood finds that making 3D movies isn't as profitable as they thought, they'll stop doing it. And without that content, no one will have any reason to buy a 3D TV.

Sucks for them, but it's good news for consumers who are voting with their wallets. No more inflated ticket prices and no need to buy a new TV for a feature no one ever really wanted? Sounds good to me. [The Wrap via Ebert]

What I would like to find out is, if this trend continues what kind of effect this would have on the digital rollout seeing 3D was a major hook in getting exhibs to convert.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 07-22-2010, 05:08 PM:

I've discussed the 3D issue with people where I work. Everybody agrees that digital 3D can be an interesting gimmick and maybe even add to the movie experience in a very few cases (Avatar). But in general, people increasingly mention paying extra for 3D as a waste. Clash of the Titans has been brought up in the context of "What the hell was the point of doing fake 3D for that movie, except to make us pay more?". There's a greater awareness developing of 3D Done Right vs. 3D Done Wrong.

Posted by Mike Frese (Member # 4361) on 07-22-2010, 08:00 PM:

I am not ready to say that 3d is dying yet. Pricing has to be kept reasonable but Real3d $.50 per ticket will keep that problem around for a while.

Another thing to keep in mind regarding Despicable Me was that Disney demanded and got 4 week commitments for Toy Story 3 in 3d. So many single 3d screen venues were stuck running a 4th week of Toy Story 3 in 3d and running Despicable Me in 2d.

According to another forum the 3d locations were as follows for the week of July 9:

* Despicable Me: ~1,551 3D screens
* Toy Story 3: ~2,100 3D screens
* Airbender: ~1,606 3D screens

The buzz on Airbender's 3d was negative before it came out. Most people knew that TS3 story would be great and the 3d was an afterthought.

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 07-22-2010, 10:26 PM:

I'm not convinced that Disney's tying up screens is the problem. We have a 3D and a 2D of Dispicable Me. Guess which one is attracting more attendance? Yep, 2D in a 55-45 percent split.

With Toy Story, we had one 3D and two 2D. Percentages there were even more dramatic, about 60-40 in favor of 2D. Not good, even if you were to argue that with two prints of 2D vs. only one 3D, the 2D would do better with more showtimes.

I don't know about other venues, but initially 3D outdrew the 2D fare by a wide margin. As time goes on (with the exception of Avatar), we are seeing a reduction in 3D attendance and an increase in 2D to the point where 2D is doing more business.

I have never been a 3D fan. I predicted that the bloom would come off the rose. It seems that people are going to be very selective as to what they will pay extra money for in order to watch a film in 3D.

I'm sure the distributors are getting nervous, and rightly so. They have jumped into the 3D fad, looking for maximum profit. They could end up with egg on their face. It's about product. Either it's good or it isn't. As the old saying goes: "You can't shine [bs]

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 07-23-2010, 12:09 AM:

3D is not dying, it's simply dropping to a predictable level. Families coming to animated movies aren't as willing to spend the extra money for their whole group, but people are aware of the potential for awesomeness that 3D has, thanks largely to Avatar. Remember, Avatar started off horribly slow. I think our midnight show had around 20 people. The only buzz was amongst geeks. Then word got around that it was amazing and people came from everywhere. That will happen again, when someone else puts together another visually spectacular movie.

Regarding Batman, Nolan said he didn't want to do 3D only because of the gimmick. If he felt it brought something necessary to a movie, he would consider it. I can't see how it would add anything of value since he's proven he can do very well without.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-23-2010, 03:09 AM:

I think the industry is making a mistake by having too many 3Ds. If the format was restricted to, say, one title a year per studio, then it would be more of an "event" (especially if the movie was any good) and there wouldn't be as much of a logjam of product.

We're already compiling a nice list of 3Ds we will probably skip, with "Airbender" sitting at the #1 position. I'm also hoping to pass over any "conversions" since they are apparently always going to suck.

Posted by Manny Montes (Member # 5639) on 07-23-2010, 05:21 AM:

eh, I don't think 3D is dying, its really a bit drastic to say that already. It's just becoming less of a big deal and dropping to "predictable levels" as someone else put it. Not every movie needs to be seen in 3D plus look at the films that are playing now, they are comparing the 3D/2D split of AVATAR, which is considered a movie that has to be seen in 3D with splits from movies that aren't really marketed as a huge 3D event. Yeah, you COULD see despicable me in 3D, but with toy story hogging a 3D screen with its 4 week booking, is 3D that huge of a deal to wait for? Not for most families, and the $3.50 extra isn't helping it either.

I think 3D isn't going to "die out" despite many on here wanting it to, 3D is here to stay, it may die down though, or at least that's what I hope, hollywood is putting out too much 3D garbage right now. I wouldn't mind a WELL DONE 3D movie, i think it's just becoming too much of a gimmick because hollywood is making it that way. It can really add a level of immersion into a film.

Posted by Jonathan M. Crist (Member # 413) on 07-23-2010, 09:46 AM:

What I have never understood as a practical matter is why the proliferation of 3D cartoons for little children (e.g. Shrek, Toy Story 3, Despicable Me).

For example my wife's friend runs a large day care center. She will sometime take a group of children to a matinee show. She is not going to pay an additional 3 to 5 dollars a ticket for each member of the group (mostly 4 and 5 year olds) who really aren't old enough to appreciate the 3D anyway.

I am sure many parents feel the same way.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 07-23-2010, 09:59 AM:

I'm pretty sure most parents don't have 30 children, though. [Wink]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-23-2010, 10:16 AM:

The way the kids' glasses look when we get them back, there's NO WAY the kids are enjoying the 3D effects as the film makers intended.

We have a few pairs of glasses that we modified for little kids -- we attached some tie straps to help them stay on -- and they always come back completely smeared with gunk. But, people insist that the kids love the 3D so who are we to argue?

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 07-23-2010, 07:11 PM:

So, if it is going to drop to "predictable levels", just what are those levels? Once that is established, the next question becomes: "Are those levels economically sustainable in order for exchbitors to make a profit/"

No argument about Avatar- it was a success. But I have to ask how many Avitars are needed for exhibitors to make a go of it? I stand by what I said in my previous post:

"It seems that people are going to be very selective as to what they will pay extra money for in order to watch a film in 3D."

Therefore, will there be enough good product to justify the expense?

Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 07-23-2010, 08:43 PM:

Look at history. 3D has come and GONE several times. There is an old saying: those that do not learn from history, are doomed to repete it. 3D is nothing more than a gimmic, and people tire of gimmics.

BTW, I thought that Avatar was not a very good MOVIE. The story line was very thin, and down right stupid in places.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-24-2010, 01:19 AM:

Well...if it has worked as a gimmick multiple times in the past, who's to say it won't work as a gimmick again?

Posted by Phil Blake (Member # 2012) on 07-24-2010, 04:01 AM:

I would have to disagree , i think 3d is going to be like any other shows , people will pay the money and come a good one and happy to pay more , but serve up a crappy 3d show and they will stay away.

Since wwe started with 3D people have become to expect it ,complaining that we are not showing everything in 3D , bit hard when we only have 1 unit.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 07-24-2010, 06:37 AM:

Tou are all correct. At the starting point it was 80% 3D/20% 2D if given a choice. Now about 50/50. Louisville area. Louis

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 07-24-2010, 04:11 PM:

3D isn't the problem, it's the surcharge, plain and simple. And whereas that was theoretical in the first few releases. It is has become obvious now that enough people just aren't going to shell out that extra money for 3D now that it has become almost commonplace.

When it was a novelty, people were willing to pay extra to see it; now they've come, they've payed and they've seen, and they are done with it. The surcharge can become the deciding issue when making a choice between 2D and the more expensive 3D. If the prices were level, that would be the real determining factor as to how the ratio of 2D to 3D will play out. Adding a surcharge has obviously biased the playing field so it is impossible to tell if it is really the 3D process that the audiences are drifting away from or the extra cost to see it.

Imagine if there were two versions of a movie -- one in scope and one flat, but the exhibitor added a surcharge for the scope version. How would one be able to determine if a drop off in scope attendence was due to a particular public penchant for the "flat experience" or just that a percentage of them don't see any value to scope worth paying more.

If the attendance for 3D versions continues to drop, exhibitors will have no choice but to level out the pricing for 3D product, otherwise their investment in the 3D hardware will be of an investment with zero return on the dollar.

Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 07-24-2010, 06:40 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
Well...if it has worked as a gimmick multiple times in the past, who's to say it won't work as a gimmick again?

That is what is happening right now. People are coming to see the gimmick, but they are beginning to tire of it. 3D will go away for some time (as it has ALWAYS done in the past), and we will see it again in another 30 to 50 years.

Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 07-24-2010, 09:07 PM:

The only thing I will be seeing in 50 years will be the ruffled silk fabric of what ever casket they lay me in.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 07-24-2010, 10:24 PM:

Typical Hollywood sylogisim:
Avatar Made Money
Avatar was in 3D
Therefore 3D makes money.

This is exactly the same as:
Titanic Made Money
Titanic was a 3+ hour movie about sinking ships
Therefore 3+ hour movies about sinking ships make money.

Posted by Jeremy Weigel (Member # 4208) on 07-24-2010, 11:14 PM:

quote: Martin McCaffery
This is exactly the same as:
Titanic Made Money
Titanic was a 3+ hour movie about sinking ships
Therefore 3+ hour movies about sinking ships make money.

And 3+ hour movie about sinking ships in 3D will make even more money...

Posted by Eric Robinson (Member # 2966) on 07-25-2010, 04:56 PM:

Avatar made money
Avatar is from James Cameron
Therefor, James Cameron makes films that make money

3D makes money
3+ hours make money
James Cameron likes underwater stuff
The Titanic is underwater
The Titanic makes money: James makes money
Therefor if James makes an underwater movie
in 3D that is over 3 hours long about the Titanic
The money made will be 4 times higher than normal
Hasn't anyone noticed this yet?

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 07-25-2010, 05:00 PM:

When 3D dies, may I please kick the corpse?

Posted by Jonathan M. Crist (Member # 413) on 07-25-2010, 05:31 PM:

Avatar is being re-released on August 27th.

I guess if you add Titanic on as a double bill and then you really ought to make some money.

Posted by Daniel Schulz (Member # 1881) on 07-25-2010, 09:28 PM:

FWIW, the fanboys at Comic-Con cheered when Joss Whedon said he'd rather show Cabin in the Woods in 2D than the 3D the studio wanted, as his DP had been studying the look of John Carpenter's horror films and they were going for a "classic" look. He even mentioned as a joke specifically advertising the film as being in 2D.

Also I was told (I didn't see it for myself) that an audience treated to a new trailer for Harry Potter cheered the trailer until the "In 3D" text came up, at which point the cheers switched to boos.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-25-2010, 10:47 PM:

All that proves is that there were some 3D fans in the room, and some non-3D fans.

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 07-25-2010, 11:10 PM:

I do find the tide is turning at least a wee bit based on the feedback i am getting from all over the place.
I don't want to sound like a 3d hater but more a [dlp]

hater

I just want to see film 2d treated fairly instead of [bs]

on in the name of progress!

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 07-26-2010, 05:51 PM:

I don't know, but this sure doesn't sound like 3D is dying to me --

quote:
SMPTE 3D Conference: A Success by Every Measure!

Dear Frank Angel,

Over the past several weeks, you've received a number of updates regarding our first ever International Conference on Stereoscopic 3D for Media and Entertainment - the only scientific gathering focused exclusively on 3D. I am pleased to report that the event, held 13-14 July in New York City, was a success by nearly every measure!

During this two-day event, leading experts from multiple industries detailed a series of critical, next-generation 3D approaches and findings to a standing-room only audience, covering everything from lighter-weight camera designs and image-processing capabilities to speed 2D-to-3D conversion to more efficient 3D content pre-preproduction techniques and a review of the latest 3D display technologies, including holography.

Pete Lude, our Executive Vice-President and Conference program chair summed up the proceedings well: "There is a vibrant, worldwide community of stereoscopic researchers, scientists, and engineers laying the groundwork for the next generation of 3D tools. As the worldwide leader in motion-imaging standards and education, our mission is to enable these experts to exchange the latest ideas and accelerate the development of the 3D standards and solutions that industry needs."

I want to thank the conference program committee for its vision in shaping this event, the Board of Governors for its unflagging support, and the New York Section volunteers and SMPTE staff for handling the myriad details associated with making it a success. Based on the strong content, stand-room-only attendance, and enthusiastic feedback, we plan to hold another 3D conference next summer and look forward to seeing even more of you there!

In the meantime, you can view abstracts from the conference proceedings at http://www.smpte.org/events/3d_conference/3DConfProg/. Full papers will be available for sale beginning 1 August 2010.

-- From the SMPTE Member Listserv

Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 07-26-2010, 05:57 PM:

The only problem I see is that their are simply too many 3D movies and people will grow weary of it.

I think there should be about one a month.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-26-2010, 07:02 PM:

Agreed. Since we only have the one screen, I can see us skipping over about half or more of the 3D movies. (Sorry to miss you, Last Airbender. Have a nice life on video, Step Up 3D. Come on in, Harry Potter 7!) That way it'll be more of an event for us and people will know we've picked the best of the bunch.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 07-26-2010, 11:34 PM:

When I was at the Pearlridge 16 Theatre in Aiea, Hawaii yesterday to see KARATE KID, I could not believe the number of 3-D films that are scheduled between now and December from the posters and standees I saw in the lobby. I think there are at least three scheduled in August and this does not include the exclusive 3-D re release of AVATAR both in regular 3-D and IMAX. It is absolutely insane when there are only limited 3-D screens and many houses with only one system and about three 3-D films playing at the same time.

-Claude

Posted by Rob Ferreira (Member # 3406) on 08-16-2010, 02:00 AM:

Our theatre is going to be getting the Technicolor 3D soon. As it's only on a few hundred screens in the US, I can't yet comment on how it looks in compared to digital Real3D or Disney 3D or even the classic red/blue glasses.

At any rate, 3D seems to hit in these 30 year cycles. Popular in the 50s, again in the 80s, and now. It'll die off soon, I hope. It's a generic technology that focuses on visuals instead of stories. Which is made even more apparent by that god-awful piece of Smurf trash AVATAR. Recycled bullshit story, poor acting, and phenomenal 3D and visuals. Wahoo. Who gives a shit? Obviously a lot of morons who care nothing about the movies themselves and everything about having shit pop out at them. Biggest movie of all time? Give me a break.

Even with the recent release of 3D TVs, and channels like ESPN broadcasting in 3D, I still don't see it lasting forever. Fads come and go, right?

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 08-16-2010, 11:15 AM:

quote: Rob Ferreira
I can't yet comment on how it looks in compared to digital Real3D or Disney 3D or even the classic red/blue glasses.

FYI
Since this is a common misconception, there's no such 3D system as "Disney Digital 3D." Disney calls every 3D movie they release as being in "Disney Digital 3D" whether it is played in Real D, XpanD, Dolby, or anything else digital I'm leaving off.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-16-2010, 11:20 AM:

It's not their fault; Disney just can't help themselves.

They put Micky Mouse ears on every street lamp in Orlando. Bet they were pulling their hair out trying to figure out where on the poles they could put the copyright & trademake symbols.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-16-2010, 01:37 PM:

I will say this about Disney: They know a thing or two about branding aggressively. With their 3D digital films, you get a "Disney Digital 3D" tag to play before the movie. There's nothing wrong with reinforcing their brand.

When we were in Disney World last year, I bought a box of Minnie's Chocolate Chip Cookies. They were super-expensive compared to Chips Ahoy or whatever, but seeing the colorful box made me hungry for cookies. If they had been just generic branded cookies I probably wouldn't have even spotted them on the shelf. (Were they good? You bet they were.)

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-16-2010, 02:45 PM:

I've always thought that exhibitors that offer both 2-D and 3-Dee at the same location might as well also shoot themselves in the head. Of course the cheapskate public is going to buy the cheaper ticket! Why on earth would anyone book a 2-D print when they have 3-Dee capabilities in the same building is beyond me.... unless that single system is already playing 3-Dee. Just schedule MORE 3-Dee showings instead. Onne chain I do service work for never has the same print playing at the same location in 2-D where they have 3-Dee. They play the 2-D print at another location clear across town at a less favored site! This approach works very well and theor 3-Dee groses have stayed much higher than their 2-D groses on the same picture.

quote: Mike Blakesley
(Were they good? You bet they were.)

Of course they were good... Minnie baked them herself!

Mark

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 08-16-2010, 03:33 PM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
I've always thought that exhibitors that offer both 2-D and 3-Dee at the same location might as well also shoot themselves in the head. Of course the cheapskate public is going to buy the cheaper ticket! Why on earth would anyone book a 2-D print when they have 3-Dee capabilities in the same building is beyond me....

1) Even at locations that have both 3D and 2D simultaneously, most people choose 3D
2) Cheapskates won't simply go to a 3D showing... they'll go somewhere else that has it in 2D. And you can't assume that adding another 3D showing will lead to more 3D tickets since you would know that many time having an extra showing just leads to less people per showing. So really, it can be beneficial to have a print in 2D as well as have it in 3D.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-16-2010, 06:18 PM:

Yep...and furthermore...some folks, regardless of the price, want to see movies in 2D and not fool with the glasses...folks like kids and the more mature groups. Now there are some that fall into those two that do want 3D but the by and large, it is the the teens to 30s that are the prime 3D market. But who wants to throw away any of the market?

I've been asked more than once on how to show the 3D movie in 2D for special screenings. One even got the distributor to issue them the 2D version as well.

Steve

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 08-16-2010, 08:27 PM:

Steve,

I celebrated another birthday almost two weeks ago and as a very mature person in his early seventies , I still love good 3-D after getting hooked in the fifties. I never cared very much for the process they used when 3-D came back in the seventies and eighties but current 3-D films like AVATAR and STEP UP 3-D were excellent and worth paying extra to see them. I was not yet wearing glasses in the fifties but I do now. Without or with the prescription glasses I wear now, wearing 3-D glasses has never been a problem except the awful ones I was made to wear when I saw TOY STORY 3 at the Consolidated's Ward 16 in the very overhyped Expend Digital Cinema recently. The only thing threatening 3-D right now is the excessive amount of animated films in the format and movies that were photographed in 2-D and converted to 3-D. Because the studios are doing that, I have not seen most of the 3-D films that have been released so far. Give me real 3-D, live action and a very good story and I will be glad to pay extra to see them at a cinema.

-Claude

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-17-2010, 03:02 AM:

I'm wondering about the upcoming Harry Potter movie. Apparently it was planned for 3D from the get-go, but now I'm hearing it is a conversion too.

So is it possible to do a good conversion to 3D? Or is Harry bound to suck?

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 08-17-2010, 04:19 AM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
So is it possible to do a good conversion to 3D? Or is Harry bound to suck?

Very good question.

This is the film which will succeed or fail on the story/franchise alone, and it will be very interesting to see how the boxoffice receipts spread across the 2D and 3D screens.

Considering the piss-poor reception to the recent conversions, Warners would have to be absolutely brain-dead to risk another 3D ripoff conversion. Still, when the studios are pushing ultra-hard the 3D experience, then it would come as no surprise to this commentator that Warner would try. If they do and the conversion blows, then they can kiss goodbye the surcharge, and the decline of 3D will be well on its way.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 08-17-2010, 07:18 AM:

But those complaints happened after HP had already been announced for quite some time that it was gonna be 3D and they'd probably already done quite a bit of the shooting for the movie.

Also, not all of the 3D conversion stuff was done poorly. Alice in Wonderland, for instance, was shot 2D but with most of it composed with the knowledge that it was gonna be 3D and I thought it worked pretty well.

Posted by Jonathan Smith (Member # 5609) on 08-17-2010, 10:56 AM:

Well, it was shot, as all the prior "Harry Potters" were, on 35mm film, so it is obviously going to have to be a 3D conversion.

IDK WTF they don't resurrect some of the 80s 2-perf. cameras I assume they used to film 3D movies then.

Obviously, in this day and age, it is too prohibitively expensive to shoot two 4-perf. cameras simultaneously.

But, with 2-perf. I don't know why the hell all the 3D rigs now are digital. It still looks like trash, frankly. I've only seen a couple of digital movies really pull the look off, "Date Night," "Knowing," and "Collateral."

The first and the latter pulled the look off because they embraced digital cameras' strengths rather than trying to make them look like film. The one in the middle did alright because they deliberately made every daylight exterior cloudy so as to avoid blown highlights.

I still maintain 3D is a push to digitize the film industry at the top level, which is a loss for everyone except the chip companies. I don't think anyone here will argue that 35mm neg. still is king, even scanned and F-ed with.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 08-17-2010, 11:16 AM:

quote: Jonathan Smith
Obviously, in this day and age, it is too prohibitively expensive to shoot two 4-perf. cameras simultaneously.

On a $100million production, the cost of film runs somewhere below lunch on the expense account [Wink]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-17-2010, 01:15 PM:

quote: Rob Ferreira
At any rate, 3D seems to hit in these 30 year cycles. Popular in the 50s, again in the 80s, and now. It'll die off soon, I hope. It's a generic technology that focuses on visuals instead of stories. Which is made even more apparent by that god-awful piece of Smurf trash AVATAR. Recycled bullshit story, poor acting, and phenomenal 3D and visuals.

I don't think anyone expects Merchant-Ivory literary quality when paying to see a James Cameron movie. I agree Avatar was cardboard thin on plot and character. But it delivered in the areas where more than enough customers expected: action and visuals. A domestic box office gross of nearly $750 million is pretty difficult to dismiss.

Hollywood's current fixation on 3D has some major differences from the 3D trends of the 1950's and 1980's. The current 3D trend is easily more successful than the brief 1980's period of 3D use and at least rivals the success of the 1950's. Unlike the 1980's 3D is now being used on at least some of Hollywood's top tier releases. This current 3D craze is also unique for the number of animated 3D movies being released. There's a lot more 3D content for children available. Hollywood studios and movie theaters are throwing a lot more money at 3D now than they did 20 or 50 years ago.

I don't know if this will mean 3D is going to stick around permanently, but its chances are certainly better now then they've been in the past. Various parties can still goof up a good thing with surcharge price gouging at theaters, phony 2D to 3D movie conversions on the production end and the flat out stupid exclusive Blu-ray 3D movie bundling going on with 3D TV sets for home use. The level of greed being displayed against the consumer right now is pretty unwise especially with the economy bouncing its butt on the basement floor. Those various executives are horribly out of touch and just asking for a really nasty anti-3D backlash.

quote: Jonathan Smith
Obviously, in this day and age, it is too prohibitively expensive to shoot two 4-perf. cameras simultaneously.

The budgets and technology is there to shoot entire movies in 5-perf 65mm or even full blown IMAX (Christopher Nolan is considering doing just that on the next Batman installment). 8-perf 35mm VistaVision is feasible. A dual strip 4/35mm system is do-able. But too many techno-geeks out there keep creaming their jeans over the word "digital." So that's where all the developing effort is going.

quote: Jonathan Smith
But, with 2-perf. I don't know why the hell all the 3D rigs now are digital. It still looks like trash, frankly. I've only seen a couple of digital movies really pull the look off, "Date Night," "Knowing," and "Collateral."

Knowing is the only one of those three that pulled off a reasonably convincing film look. It was recorded with a Red One camera in 4K resolution.

Date Night, shot with the Panavision Genesis camera, often looked video sourced. Panavision desperately needs to do something with that system because it just sucks when used in any low light settings. I can understand the reasoning for so many comedies being shot with digital cameras (more takes, improv experiments, etc.) but it's often coming at a cost of making the movie look like shit.

Collateral wasn't shot to look pretty, but it's still really easy to tell the difference between the video and film-sourced imagery in that one. I think the movie would have been better if the native video footage had retained its video look rather than being muddied up with film look filtering attempts.

I kind of worry about Tron Legacy. It's being produced with a twin digital camera setup in 1080p HDTV resolution. That immediately kills any enthusiasm for me to see an IMAX version of it, be it fake IMAX or film IMAX. I remember how crappy the blown up from 1080p HD footage of Superman Returns looked in IMAX 3D. I'm not repeating that same attendance mistake again. If I see Tron Legacy it will be in a standard 2K digital theater with a modest sized screen.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-17-2010, 02:06 PM:

We ran the Tron Legacy trailer in 3D with Toy Story 3. I was painfully disappointed in that trailer -- I'd really been looking forward to it, thinking "THIS" is going to be the movie of 2010 that's really going to make great use of 3D. Well, not if the trailers is any indication...There was hardly any 3D in it at all, in fact you could watch the whole thing without glasses and barely realize you were watching a 3D trailer.

I attributed it to maybe the 3D effects weren't finished yet, but why release a 3D trailer that doesn't even look like 3-D?

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 08-18-2010, 11:37 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
The budgets and technology is there to shoot entire movies in 5-perf 65mm or even full blown IMAX (Christopher Nolan is considering doing just that on the next Batman installment).

I'd love to find out that Nolan is checking out the IMAX Solido camera. Then we'd have 3D with the true IMAX quality he wants.

But I won't be holding my breath.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-19-2010, 03:16 AM:

quote:
Well, not if the trailers is any indication...There was hardly any 3D in it at all,

Mike, you are confusing 3D depth perception (stereo vision) with 3D in-your-face effects. Big difference.

In a 3D movie when the stereoscopic process is used properly, the 3D depth is there throughout the entire film and not a single object need be thrown at the audience to appreciated the dimentional depth effect, just like you don't need to have a recording of a ping-pong game to appreciate the depth of stereo sound.

When a filmmaker has nothing to say except, "here, duck because we are hurling car parts at you and they are on fire," then 3D won't save his film, and worse that than, he will give 3D a bad name. You don't need to have things throw at you in order to appreciate 3D depth; in fact, I am afraid that was exactly what was off-putting for most people years past; 9 times out of 10 those exagerated 3D "effects" don't advance the story, they are contrived and intrusive and after the first few objects come flying at you, those boring 3D effects simply become annoying. I came to see a MOVIE, not to dodge a 90 minute rock slide.

GOOD 3D is a natural with the gentle feeling of space and depth of stereoscopic vision, just like you have with your everyday natural stereo sight. You don't need to have chairs and baseballs and knives hurling at you to appreciate seeing in 3D; we see in stereo every day of our lives and can go for weeks and months without ever having to duck.

3D films full of 3D effects and nothing else was the biggest complaint the other two times 3D surfaced....and faded just as quickly as it came. Wise filmmakers won't make that mistake a third time.

Posted by Don Furr (Member # 1469) on 08-19-2010, 06:09 AM:

Frank is absolutely right. I think the best example of 3D done right is "Dial M For Murder". Nothing in your face but great 3D.

Don

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-19-2010, 07:04 AM:

Frank I agree with everything you said, but the Tron trailer didn't seem to have any depth to it, either. It just looked flat to me. At first I thought maybe the file was mislabeled or something, but there were a few depth scenes, but painfully few for such a marquee 3D film.

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 08-19-2010, 07:10 AM:

I agree, very well said, Frank. It's stunning how many times I hear or read people complaining that a 3D movie "only had a few 3D scenes." Of course, they're talking about the gimmicky stuff. Even Roger Ebert believes that's how 3D is always presented:

"There is a mistaken belief that 3-D is "realistic." Not at all. In real life we perceive in three dimensions, yes, but we do not perceive parts of our vision dislodging themselves from the rest and leaping at us. Nor do such things, such as arrows, cannonballs or fists, move so slowly that we can perceive them actually in motion. If a cannonball approached that slowly, it would be rolling on the ground."

He is an entertaining writer, isn't he? [Roll Eyes]

But the greatest quality of 3D to me is the immediacy from the sense of sharing space with the onscreen action. It makes the experience more entertaining and enjoyable.

EDIT: Mike, I was writing this before your post. I'm not impying your experience with the TRON trailer is an example of those people I mention above. [Smile]

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 08-19-2010, 10:35 AM:

quote: Frank Angel
Wise filmmakers won't make that mistake a third time.

But unwise ones will.

Posted by David E. Nedrow (Member # 4981) on 08-19-2010, 11:32 AM:

quote: Don Furr
Frank is absolutely right. I think the best example of 3D done right is "Dial M For Murder". Nothing in your face but great 3D.

Don,

There is an "in your face" moment in DMFM. It's when the inspector pulls the key out from the stair and turns to show it "out" to the audience/Ray Milland. I'm willing to bet the only reason Hitchcock shot this in 3-D was studio pressure and the ability to do this one gag. Which stands out in the film, since it's the only time in the movie that something goes negative X.

I would also note that, while we always have stereoscopic vision, our brains don't always process the information in a 3-D space. The brain frequently goes into what is called a "low-resolution" or 2-D mode when depth isn't important. Once your brain has acquired enough information to establish the relative positions of the trunk and appendages, it's no longer necessary to process three dimensional information -- assuming the body or another object doesn't move in such a way that the brain is kicked into 3-D evaluation again.

For that reason, any 3-D film is actually a non-natural way of seeing the world. Because an artificial 3-D set of coordinates is being created within our natural 3-D space (e.g. the auditorium), the brain is forced to constantly process information that it would normally ignore. That's why 3-D can be stressful (headaches, anxiety, etc.) for some people watching 3-D.

-David

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 08-19-2010, 12:28 PM:

quote: David E. Nedrow
There is an "in your face" moment in DMFM. It's when the inspector pulls the key out from the stair and turns to show it "out" to the audience/Ray Milland. I'm willing to bet the only reason Hitchcock shot this in 3-D was studio pressure and the ability to do this one gag. Which stands out in the film, since it's the only time in the movie that something goes negative X.

But there is another shot, the famous one during the attempted murder where Grace Kelly reaches out toward the audience, as if asking us for help. In both cases, I wouldn't consider them "in your face" like a paddle-ball or native spear. Those dramatic moments are heightened by those rare uses of negative space and don't feel tacked on for the sole purpose of gimmickry.

Posted by Don Furr (Member # 1469) on 08-19-2010, 12:50 PM:

quote: Hillary Charles was the last to post

Don

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-19-2010, 01:38 PM:

I haven't seen the 3D Tron Legacy trailer yet, so I can't make a judgment about the trailer's 3D quality. The movie isn't set to open until the end of the year. My guess is a great deal of post production work is still being completed so maybe Disney just doesn't have all the rendering work finished to show off a proper 3D trailer.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-20-2010, 12:40 AM:

quote: David E. Nedrow
Because an artificial 3-D set of coordinates is being created within our natural 3-D space (e.g. the auditorium), the brain is forced to constantly process information that it would normally ignore.

Our brains are quite capable of that and lots more. Think of all the unnatural 2D material we watch where all the cues are from forced perspective, all the while our eyes are focused on a single flat surface at a fixed distance. Wouldn't the opposite be true there -- the brain trying to gather depth information that simply isn't there? Or the very unnatural persistance of vision -- how unnatural is that, watching an image for two hours plus that is flickering at 24fps....where do the eyes and brain have THAT to deal with in real life? Why do we not stress out and have nervous break downs from that? We don't.

Think of all the high speed car chases and super quick cutting amid dizzying motion that you would never see in real life, yet we have adapted petty well to all those artificial 2D visuals quite unscathed. The brain can learn. I think some of the grave concern about detrimental effects of watching a 3D movie, at least for healthy normal people, is very exagerated by "the sky is falling" crowd who start worrying with every new technology. Just like when the first motor cars were introduced -- there was quite a popular idea going around that it would be a terrible danger to move a human body at any speeds exceeding 20mph (and I am sure some people did get stressed and anxious on their first car ride), but the resiliency of the human mind and body is quite extraordinary. It will survive the stresses of watching a 3D movie, unnatural as it may be.

quote: David E. Nedrow
3-D can be stressful (headaches, anxiety, etc.) for some people watching 3-D.

Wusses.

Posted by Manny Montes (Member # 5639) on 08-20-2010, 05:17 AM:

We've been running step up 3 only in 3D since its release, I've been getting a lot of "oh you only have it in 3D? What else is showing right now?"

3D definitely has a place in film, its just not for every movie as i doubt customers are going to pay $3.50 extra for every single movie they see.

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 08-20-2010, 08:18 AM:

quote: Manny Montes
3D definitely has a place in film, its just not for every movie as i doubt customers are going to pay $3.50 extra for every single movie they see.

EXACTLY. Thats it right there.

Once that "wow" factor has/is worn off, then the ease at which one can watch a 2D film will become re-apparant.

There is still that little birdie in my ear saying that the 3D push was to force more screens to go digi, and I think that birdie aint too far off the mark.

Posted by Manny Montes (Member # 5639) on 08-21-2010, 02:18 PM:

even getting movies for free, I see myself asking "do i really want to wear glasses for 2 hours?", is it going to be worth it or is it just a gimmick? I saw step up in 3d not only because we only had it in 3d and I had to screen it, but because everyone said the 3D effects with the "fusion camera system" were great. I loved that, it looked great, but after watching clash, cats&dogs, and other bad conversions I doubt the mainstream audience is going to bet their $3.50 extra every time a 3D movie comes out. I've heard from so many people that the extra 9 minutes of footage or whatever isn't worth paying 13.50 to see avatar again, we'll see what it's grosses are.

Posted by Mike Frese (Member # 4361) on 08-21-2010, 03:09 PM:

Keep in mind that with Real 3d being the market leader (by % of screens-no other measure), you will be hard pressed to find 3d tickets being priced the same as 2d due to that $.50 per ticket royalty. Even at $1, the theater loses money in most cases as the studio takes their cut. So the 3d up charge would have to be a min. of $1.15-$1.25 to break even to what a 2d would cost.

Of course that does not take into account any of the other costs that an exhibitor may have with 3d.

Plus, I thought I read that the studios require a $2 3d charge to pay for the glasses using the Real3d system??

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 08-21-2010, 06:37 PM:

At my theatre, we are getting a lot of early interest in the Avatar special edition.

Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 08-21-2010, 07:18 PM:

Bobby- there is a 3D Tron trailer...3D is better than average for a live action 3D flick. I tend to prefer the 3D animation to the live action 3D.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-21-2010, 09:57 PM:

I guess we can use our single screen status to an advantage here -- we can skip over the crappy 3D movies, so our audience will (hopefully) learn that when we do play a 3D'er, it's worth the extra bucks.

I've also toyed with the idea of not doing the surcharge on movies that are (a) less popular and/or (b) not playing us on the break, but I'm worried about confusing people.

Posted by Andrew Bangs (Member # 4938) on 09-23-2010, 04:17 AM:

I find that after watching a 3d movie I come out saying it was good but would have been just as good in 2d and saved me the cost of the glasses. I will admit with the right movie it does add a little something. I remember watching JC's Avatar and once during the film I moved my head out of the way of a branch that flicked back at the screen. I then realized I was sufficiently drawn into the environment and I liked that but when you use these cheesy "coming at you" effects all it really does it remove you from the movie experience. not to mention it scares any of the little kids in the theatre making them cry and disturbing the rest of us while the parents try to convince them it will not hurt them. I agree they need to limit the amount of films being released in 3D so that it is more of a special event. But you tell the studios well if you make this 3D then you get an extra % from tickets then they are going to say Make them all 3D. IDOTS!!!

Also I hate to say this since we all take such great care of our presentation Quality but I think some people are willing to pay the extra price because they know 3D is presented on a digital screen and not on a 35-mm Screen. Another side is the owners of theaters are going to save bit of cash as they will no longer have to keep a "Projectionist" or 2 on duty all day they just need a manager who can turn on download and program. After that it is push a button and go or if you want program the timer and, how did that slogan go??? "Just set it and forget it!" So what they loose in revenue they no longer have to pay in salary which will offset some of the cost.

Ok so I may have drifted but Oh well I feel better now.

Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 09-25-2010, 09:56 AM:

If you over use special effects, then they are no longer special.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 09-28-2010, 08:52 PM:

This should kill it. From Variety, today, Sept 28:
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118024771.html?categoryid=13&cs=1&ref=vertfilm

Posted: Tue., Sep. 28, 2010, 6:05pm PTPrint
Share
'Star Wars' saga gets 3D makeover
Converted 'Phantom Menace' to hit theaters in 2012
By DAVID S. COHEN

Star Wars 'Episode I: The Phantom Menace' will return to theaters in 3D in 2012.

After more than five years of teasing, Lucasfilm disclosed today that work is under way on converting the "Star Wars" saga to 3D.
All six pics will get theatrical re-release in stereoscopic starting with "Episode I: The Phantom Menace," which returns to theaters in 2012.

Exact release date has not been announced, but a Lucasfilm spokesperson said the pic will open wide and "as close to day and date (worldwide) as possible."

The prospect of six "Star Wars" pics released in 3D should stifle speculation that the format is a fading fad. It also promises to reintroduce the franchise to young auds who are used to 3D and only know 'Star Wars' from homevideo and the "Clone Wars" Cartoon Network skein.

20th Century Fox will once again distribute. Fox domestic distribution prexy Bruce Snyder called the series "perfectly suited" for 3D and said "I expect this to be as much fun for people that have not experienced 'Star Wars' as it was for people who were there in 1977 staring at the screen with mouth agape."

Spacing of the re-releases has not yet been determined, as that will depend on the pace of the conversion effort.

There are no plans yet for a homevideo release.

John Knoll, visual effects supervisor for Lucasfilm's Industrial Light & Magic, is overseeing the conversion, which is being done by outside vendors with close oversight by ILM.

Knoll said Lucasfilm is committed to ensuring that the 3D conversion delivers results as good as a movie shot and authored in 3D. Knoll said that it'll be used to make the experience more immersive and he'll avoid some of the more jarring, exaggerated uses of 3D that have marked previous stereoscopic pics.

"Having seen a lot of stereo material, I have very strong opinions about what I like and don't like about stereo," Knoll told Variety. "I'm going to be applying my aesthetic. It's not going to look like (conversions) we've seen in the past."

Knoll said there are no plans to add or fix visual effects on the movies. Over the years, Lucas's digital tweaks on the original trilogy pics have generated pushback from fans.

Contact the Variety newsroom at news@variety.com.

Read more: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118024771.html?categoryid=13&cs=1&ref=vertfilm#ixzz10sYvIv8z

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 09-29-2010, 01:03 AM:

quote: Martin McCaffery
There are no plans yet for a homevideo release.

It's already on home video damn it!

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-29-2010, 10:45 AM:

Hopefully it will be improved from the test footage we saw a few years ago. It was underwhelming to say the least.

They would do better to simply release the "original" versions of Episode 4, 5 and 6 in theatres again. But of course this is just a lead-up to releasing Blu-Rays and 3D home versions. Gotta milk the old cash cow one more time before the "spinning disk" era is over.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-29-2010, 01:01 PM:

Digital photo-manipulation technology has made great strides in recent years. Software has been improved to handle difficult masking/extraction chores such as isolating hair, smoke, ice, etc. The newest version of Photoshop can do things like remove an animal that is standing in front of a fence and paint in the fence behind where the animal was standing. It's amazing stuff.

Still, those new capabilities get someone only so far. When the shot has varying levels of focus or some outright low depth of field the masking/extraction work is going to be tough or near impossible to do.

Additionally, even if all the objects in a camera shot can be extracted onto their own floating layers they're still stuck with a big problem: they're only 2D objects. It's not easy to give all of those objects accurate 3D volume.

To get a 2D/3D conversion anywhere near the quality of 3D done right will take an enormous amount of pains taking work. And then the finished result might still not look all that great.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 09-29-2010, 09:00 PM:

Don't worry so much -- it's not your problem -- that's why they pay the other guys the big bucks! [Big Grin]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-29-2010, 10:29 PM:

quote: Martin McCaffery
This should kill it.

I agree. If anything were to be solely responsible for killing off 3D, this could be it!

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-30-2010, 02:09 AM:

Are you kidding? If they would do it the right way and FORGET Eps 1,2 and 3, and release the good movies, the fans would come out in droves (bitching all the while, but money talks) and it would be called the SAVIOR of 3-D, and then every Star Trek movie (or some other old franchise) would get the treatment.

But, if they go ahead as promised with 1, 2 and 3, sales might be so crappy they'll scrap theatrical plans for the others and go right to Blu Ray 3D with them.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-30-2010, 02:17 AM:

3D will be dead by the time the good Star Wars movies come out. Movies like Phantom Menace and whatever the second one is called "I Hate Sand..." or whatever will do nothing to make customers believe that 3D is not a fad. Of course Variety says it isn't a fad, but Variety is a shitty rag who has its lips firmly planted on the collective asses of the big studios. They'd be better off re-releasing An Officer and a Gentleman in 3D than this shit. And it is shit.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 09-30-2010, 08:28 AM:

Jar Jar Jinks in 3D.

Need I say more?

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 09-30-2010, 09:21 AM:

I love how they talk of 3D success in terms of the number of titles.

That's like counting bullets that are unspent and equating each one with a victim. It is possible that there will be no witnesses to the crime; no tickets sold to films made. Louis

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 09-30-2010, 09:15 PM:

So...people are going to go out and line up in droves to see a re-release and fork over the extra bucks because it's in 3D? What genius thought this one up? Give me a break.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-30-2010, 10:59 PM:

This is Star Wars though. If George Lucas released "The Star Wars Saga: The Same Movies, But With the Picture Reversed" there are still millions of fans who would come out to see it. (And then gripe about it.)

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 10-01-2010, 08:43 AM:

And being Star Wars, the studio will issue "Special Limited Edition" Star Wars Glasses for all of the characters with the release of each movie so the geeks will have to buy numerous pairs to have a complete set still wrapped in protective plastic bag which they can send away to a rating house which will certify authenticity in the hopes of selling them on ebay to finance the purchase of the next generation of Star Wars crap.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 10-01-2010, 01:58 PM:

3D may well die (again) but I doubt if it will be STAR WARS that kills it. If history is any example, the fans will come out to see this -- they might bypass Episodes 1 and 2 but I still think they will come out to see the last 4 in 3D.

Personally, I'll be curious to see what it looks like in 3D and to evaluate the adaptation.

...and then, yeah...I'll probably bitch about it... [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-01-2010, 05:17 PM:

Ep 3 will probably look better in 3D than the three that follow it.

Maybe Lucas should do remakes! George Clooney could be Han Solo, that way he could kill that franchise too. [Smile]

Posted by David Kilderry (Member # 142) on 10-09-2010, 01:16 AM:

........and now Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is 2D only!

Warners released a statement saying technically the 3D version could not be prepared in time.

Methinks the financial reasons have as much to do with this as the technical ones!

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 10-09-2010, 04:04 AM:

the "House of Wabbit" is smart in not destroying HP:Hallows with 3D conversion from the 2D photography (prob learned with "Titans" that it was a bad idea..), yet Pt 2 next summer will be (prob going to shoot that one in 3D from the beginning and no conversion..) to cap it all off.

See what happens. - Monte

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 10-09-2010, 08:23 AM:

The LAST of any series should be made in 3D. That way they won't be tempted to do "just one more." I'm thinking that 3D even killed Superman. Louis

Posted by David E. Nedrow (Member # 4981) on 10-09-2010, 01:47 PM:

quote: Monte L Fullmer
yet Pt 2 next summer will be (prob going to shoot that one in 3D from the beginning and no conversion..) to cap it all off.

Monte,

Part 2 was shot at the same time, ala Superman I & II, so I'm pretty positive it would have to be a conversion as well.

David

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-09-2010, 05:24 PM:

Yeah but if there are any real problematic scenes they could go back and reshoot.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-09-2010, 11:09 PM:

The Road Runner cartoon at the beginning of "Ledgend Of The Guardian" is worth the price of admission alone! It's great 3-D but way to short. I didn't want it to end... Sad that most little kids have never had the quality cartoons we have all experienced. 3-D makes this cartoon amazing...

Mark

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 10-16-2010, 10:59 AM:

The problem is all the film's they are releasing in 3D are the kind of movies that do well at the box office anyway.

Avatar did a tonne of money...so people use that to justify the sucess of 3D, regardless that even in 2D it would have had strong box office figures anyway. (because it was the new well advertised James Cameron movie.)

Shrek 4, Toy Story 3, Saw 7 have (and will) do well at the box office because of the sucess of the previous films in each respective series. Nothing to do with them being in 3D.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 10-16-2010, 07:21 PM:

i think this is true -- and, to this, i would add that 3D gives these familiar (arguably tired) franchises new life -- posing (and then answering) the question, "what would it be like in 3D?" -- hence we get pre-existing 2D material being repurposed for 3D (like "the nightmare before christmas" and soon the "star wars" trilogies) -- btw we have also seen this with standard 35mm fare being repurposed for IMAX -- 3D and IMAX conversions will thrive as long as they generate more revenue (per screen) than their standard counterparts -- or until a more cost-effective (or lucrative) technology comes along -- for example, consider what happened to both 70mm and THX when digital audio formats came along