Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: The decline of 3D

This is topic The decline of 3D 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=003050

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 08-22-2017, 04:47 PM:

As 3D continues to decline in popularity and available showings, I'm curious what others think about the eventual demise of 3D.

With the lower demand from customers, and less strict requirements from the studios, I wonder how long it will make sense to buy brighter bulbs to project 3D. Especially when we long gaps without any 3D content.

I had this discussion about my theatre recently and it has been concluded the additional cost per hour for 4K vs 3K bulbs does not justify ditching 3D entirely. However, we may be getting close to the time when the projector(s) will normally have 3K bulbs and a 4K is just kept on the shelf for when we have a worthwhile 3D movie.

Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 08-22-2017, 05:20 PM:

I don't even book 3d content any more. 2d only

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 08-23-2017, 07:48 AM:

The market here might be slightly different, but in general we follow the same trends as the U.S.

I don't think 3D will entirely go away in the foreseeable future, although it's undeniably on the way down for a while now. Especially studios like Disney are still releasing most of their tent poles in 3D and the "premium" concepts like IMAX, Dolby Cinema and other assorted PLF "formats" are still catering to the format as of now.

My impression is that most customers base their decision for a particular show not so much on format, but more on a particular show time that best fits their planning. Most people I speak about it, consider 3D more a nuisance than added value.

There are the occasional re-releases that specifically target 3D, like the upcoming Terminator 2 release. Also, for a handful of new releases, 3D will make some sense and you might find some people specifically looking for the 3D version, especially if it gets some good reviews, particularly because of the 3D (which is rare, but still seems to happen).

As for the economics, I guess it depends on your theater and the size of the individual auditoriums. A local 8-plex for example, keeps 3D available in one of their three larger screens and one of their 3 medium sized screens, both screens also have Atmos. Another one, which has the rather unique configuration with 8 equally sized screens, also keeps two screens available for 3D, this used to be three.

Another 11-plex has ditched 3D in their larger auditoriums entirely and is showing 3D only in two of their medium sized rooms.

A smaller 4-plex which had 3D available in all their auditoriums has ditched 3D entirely. They do get the occasional question, why they aren't showing a particular show in 3D, mostly regarding animated stuff though.

I don't think that, nowadays, you do not necessarily need to offer 3D in the biggest rooms in the house, but if you're running 4 screens or more, it's probably still worthwhile to keep it in one of your medium sized screens. The extra costs for the "bigger" bulbs should only be marginal in those cases.

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 08-23-2017, 08:25 AM:

I'm really bummed that T2 is not playing in 2D anywhere. I'm excited to see it again on the big screen, especially with my kids, one of whom hasn't seen it, but hate paying extra for a format we don't like.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-23-2017, 07:56 PM:

We haven't played a movie in 3-D since April 2016, and I've probably had maybe half-a-dozen people ask about it since then, so I don't know if it's worth resurrecting our system or not. (Our Dolby 3-D unit went "down" in April and we've tried every trick in the book but can't get it to work.)

That said, I'll bet the 3-D promotional machine will crank up very loud when James Cameron gets ready to roll out the next Avatar movies. After all, the original was the main driver behind most of the digital 3-D installations in the first place, and I don't think he's lost his enthusiasm for the format. He'll probably be pushing laser 3-D installations this time though.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 08-23-2017, 08:15 PM:

Avatar 2 is now scheduled for 2020. I'm not entirely sure what Cameron's plan is, but it seems like he keeps kicking the can down the alley, although the alley finally seems to narrow somewhat.

It has been mentioned, he's aiming for a 4K 3D 60fps release. I guess, by now, HDR also has been added to his wish list. The only setups theoretically capable of playing such content right now are the highest end dual-stack 3D setups like the Christie Dolby Vision setup.

quote: Geoff Jones
I'm really bummed that T2 is not playing in 2D anywhere. I'm excited to see it again on the big screen, especially with my kids, one of whom hasn't seen it, but hate paying extra for a format we don't like.

Apparently, the studio and most likely Cameron by proxy, demands exclusive 3D presentations for this release, at least in some markets.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 08-23-2017, 08:25 PM:

What will be the first film to bill itself as being shown in "Classic 2D"? [evil]

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 08-23-2017, 08:40 PM:

With very very few exceptions like Avatar, GOOD RIDDANCE.

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 08-23-2017, 08:50 PM:

Amen, but 3D will never really be "gone" until the last of those infuriating silver screens is replaced.

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 08-29-2017, 06:12 AM:

As a HUGE fan of 3D, the industry has largely mishandled it this time around. Charging extra for it was a HUGE mistake- they didn't charge extra for it in the 50s or 80s. (I know someone on here will tell me it costs more to run 3D than 2D, but I doubt it amounts to $3 more per patron, and it seems they're losing more than that from the people who won't go at all because of the upcharge.) 3D should never have been treated as an "add-on" either- either a movie is in 3D, or it isn't. Separate 2D showings of 3D movies are the same as showing a color movie in black and white, or playing a surround track in mono. Shooting in 2D and then post-converting to 3D is pretty silly too- although it CAN look good, there's been enough bad conversion jobs to turn people off from 3D especially if they had to pay extra to see them. If they could shoot 3D in the 50s with dual-camera rigs, there's no reason why they can't shoot true 3D with digital equipment now.

I'll just say from a patron point of view that I would have gone to EVERY 3D movie that came out since the revival (starting with Disney's Chicken Little) if theaters hadn't been charging extra for 3D. Since they did, I've only seen a handful of them (but I didn't go to the crappy 2D showings just to save money- I either see movies the right way or not at all.) It's especially sad now that 3D showings have been reduced rather than the upcharges dropped- now if there's a movie I want to see, I first have to verify that it's in 3D to begin with, and then if it is make sure I go to the "right" showing. (Meanwhile all that precious 3D equipment in the booth that cost so much money is just sitting there doing nothing as the 2D showings play through it.) Even if I go see a 2D movie, I have to double-check that it wasn't actually in 3D and that I'll miss it because the theater decided not to show it that way.

I have to ask those who've been in the business at least since the 80s though, was there as much hate for 3D the prior times it came around as there has been recently? I honestly can't believe the amount of COMPLAINING I've heard about 3D from some people. It seems some people simply can't see it properly, but I definitely can and I love it!

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-29-2017, 08:00 PM:

We never did 3D on a regular basis before the current iteration, but I can tell you that we got almost no compliants about the surcharge. Most gripes centered around the glasses, headaches, or "I just can't see 3D." So if we made it a freebie I doubt it would increase attendance much.

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 08-30-2017, 12:40 AM:

I think 3D popularity can very greatly by venue and clientele.
I recently had one theater owner, who has pretty much given up on 3D
ask me if there was any aftermarket for used 3D equipment, and how
much I thought he could get for it if he decided to rip it all out.

(I told him I don't know- - because I don't know)

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 08-30-2017, 04:09 AM:

Love to get rid of 3D so we can lose that blessed "hot spot" that loves to follow you around, by putting back up matte white screens.

Dolby 3D installs don't count.

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 08-30-2017, 06:40 AM:

quote: David Stambaugh
With very very few exceptions like Avatar, GOOD RIDDANCE.

Yeah, Avatar is the one movie where watching it at home in 2D made it feel like it lost something.

Posted by Rusty Gordon (Member # 2210) on 08-30-2017, 11:17 AM:

As a long time exhibitor (former) and lifetime moviegoer, I have never liked 3D and I certainly wouldn't pay extra for the privilege. I'm 53 now and while not quite curmudgeon I see my industry making ridiculous mistakes that are driving the decline of moviegoing. When you consider that the most reliable patron is single and of school age and dating age, exhibition has priced them out--or at least reduced moviegoing frequency to just tentpoles.

What teen/young adult can afford $12 to $23 a ticket to see a film every week? Ask yourself if teens/young adults have the money for extras like 3D for a middling, non-blockbuster film. Ask yourself if a teen wants to pay $5+ extra to sit in a wide lazy-boy type chair every time he attends a film like "Boo! A Madea Halloween". Ask yourself if reserved seating appeals to a teen who wants to meet up with his friends (and sit together) at the cinema. Ask yourself, is Dolby Atmos 100 channel sound really needed or is 7.1 or 5.1 even really adequate? Indeed, these amenities are super for a person like myself who can afford them. But I see *maybe* 5 films a year in the cinema. I would never go to a cinema and sit through 95% of the drek that comes out today. Kids would--if they could afford it. Just my perspective. Two-cents if you will.

Exhibitors are driving its most reliable customer from an affordable cinema experience they can repeat every week. Back in the day teens would go to the cinema every weekend and just pick and watch anything. No more. Not only are there other, less expensive choices at home and mobile and on demand, there are now exorbitant amenities one must pay for in addition to just seeing a film. No more are kids just plopping down an hour's wages to see a film. In many cases it's two--just for a ticket. It may be too late for the exhibitor who's taken the plunge and bought into this madness. Your customer base may have found more affordable options.

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 08-30-2017, 11:32 AM:

I think that 3D should have been made a bigger deal than it was this time around.

What do I mean? When I started in this business, 3D was a "once in a while" thing. However, it was made into a big deal. Advertisements were put in the paper and we spent money on promotions for these special shows.

Now it's just "MEH".

Additionally, I think there should be special themed glasses for each film - and only charge for them (instead of an upcharge). At least the patron will feel like they have a tangible thing to take home with them commemorating the "special showing" that they just saw.

Of course now, all of this is pretty much ruined.

Posted by Rusty Gordon (Member # 2210) on 08-30-2017, 12:04 PM:

If 3D had been reserved for films like "Avatar" and opened first week exclusively in 3D that would have been something of an 'event'. Instead, it's so common that it has become an annoyance that most patrons avoid and exhibitors relegate to less popular showtimes.

3D is so unpopular in home viewing that TV manufacturers have abandoned it altogether and ESPN and DirectTV have discontinued 3D channels.

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 08-30-2017, 04:18 PM:

I think the failure of 3D channels says more about cable and satellite than it does 3D- as much as I love 3D (I've bought nearly EVERY 3D Blu-Ray that's come out so far), I STILL would not have subscribed to cable or satellite to get their 3D offerings. I heard the ESPN channel was especially half-assed, as they only covered a few games in 3D and then showed them over and over, charging extra for the privilege of course.

I did buy a new 75-inch LG TV with 3D when I heard they were dropping it; it will be the last TV I ever buy if none in the future can display it. It has a far better and brighter 3D picture than the Sharp TV I had before (I sold that one) and uses cheap polarized glasses that fit easily over my regular ones and are even light enough to see my phone and stuff with them on, though usually during a movie at home the phones go unanswered until it's over.

Someone really does need to make another movie in 3D that REALLY takes advantage of it without being gimmicky. It seems that a prominent filmmaker could push for it ONLY being shown in 3D in theaters as well. (When a 3D movie is shown in 2D, is there a separate 2D file of the movie that is played, or is there a button that "turns off" the 3D like the Mono button on a Dolby film sound processor? If it's the former, they could simply not provide a 2D file.) It'll have to be someone other than James Cameron too, as his Avatar sequel keeps getting pushed back and lots of people now think it was a stupid movie anyways despite being one of the all-time highest grossing (I never saw it until I got the 3D Blu-Ray.) The best 3D movies I've seen at home have still been the classics like House of Wax- a common complaint I've heard about the current crop is that they don't exploit 3D enough, calling it "2 1/2 D" as nothing ever comes out of the screen. Of course if they did do that, others would call it a shameless gimmick.

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 08-30-2017, 05:05 PM:

There are separate 3D and 2D versions provided on the hard drive. The file names contain the characters 3D or 2D so you can tell them apart when ingesting the movie.

Posted by Clint Koch (Member # 1179) on 08-30-2017, 05:28 PM:

Unfortunately I am one of the group of people who get headaches from 3D. Always have and seems like I always will. Something about how it makes my eyes focus from what I have been told. Who knows, maybe it is all in my head but I do get them.

Posted by Stephan Shelley (Member # 8587) on 08-30-2017, 07:11 PM:

Clint, have you tried a properly converged two projector 3d with static filtering? It is much easier on the eyes.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-30-2017, 09:40 PM:

Well 3-D definitely takes more "processing power" by the eyes and brain, so it's not surprising that some people get headaches from it. Not all humans react the same way to everything.

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 08-30-2017, 11:32 PM:

As I've posted here before, I can't actually see 3D in real life or on the screen. 2D movies look like real life to me, and 3D movies don't look any different than 2D ones. While I understand in an academic sense what 3D is, I've never actually seen anything that way.

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 08-31-2017, 05:18 AM:

quote: Frank Cox
There are separate 3D and 2D versions provided on the hard drive. The file names contain the characters 3D or 2D so you can tell them apart when ingesting the movie.

Now that's interesting- so conceivably if someone wanted their movie to only be seen in 3D, they could leave out the 2D version? Blu-Rays usually have separate discs with 3D and 2D, but sometimes the 3D disc has an option to play it in 2D where only the left eye view is shown, others only do that if your player isn't hooked to a 3D display, and a few even just say "You need a 3D display to watch this, so get one!" and don't let you go any further, though that's technically outside the Blu-Ray spec (the separate 3D discs do that too, but they include the 2D disc also.)

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 08-31-2017, 06:25 AM:

Speaking of Avatar, I have a true story that happened regarding that film. I have told this story before, but can't remember if I told it on here:

If you remember, when the film Avatar was intially released, it was only on digital screens and I believe, only in 3D. The theatre I managed was in a college town, so I had a lot of patrons not willing to pay the upcharge, and therefore it did not do great business the first two weeks of release.

Two weeks after opening, we finally received a 2D 35mm print of the movie. So we were finally playing the film at a "regular" price and business had an uptick.

I came into the theatre for an evening shift, I believe it was the Friday night we started playing it in 2D and I walked past the doorman's stand and witnessed an usher giving 3D glasses to a patron who was seeing the 2D show in the 35mm auditorium. I immediately asked the usher what the hell was he doing. He remarked that all the patrons in that theatre (#4) had come out to request the glasses. I told him that show was only in 2D and he said that he told people that, but that they all came out and demanded the glasses anyways.

I then walked into the auditorium and indeed saw all the patrons sitting in their seats wearing the glasses (over 100 people!). I decided to let it go and see how many people complained afterwards.

I stood at the theatre entrance with the 3D glasses collections box at the end of the show. Not one single patron remarked about the fact that the movie was not in 3D. As a matter of fact some commented on how good the 3D effects were.

I was floored....

That is a true story...

I've never been a big advocate of 3D since.

Posted by Clint Koch (Member # 1179) on 08-31-2017, 10:19 AM:

Stephan Shelley, as far as I know I have.

Posted by Rusty Gordon (Member # 2210) on 08-31-2017, 12:03 PM:

Dennis, those are the same people who would watch 4:3 shows on their 16:9 TV with "stretch" setting because it "looks better" to them.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 08-31-2017, 03:21 PM:

quote: Jesse Skeen
3D should never have been treated as an "add-on" either- either a movie is in 3D, or it isn't. Separate 2D showings of 3D movies are the same as showing a color movie in black and white, or playing a surround track in mono.

Jessie, that's really the problem. Here have only been a handful of movies which were conceived and filmed as 3D. In most cases the 3D was added as an afterthought in order to capture the higher ticket prices. I agree that watching a good 3D movie can be quite the experience. Gravity and Life of Pi come to mind as two of the best true 3D movies. I'm sure Avatar was as well, but I saw the 3D in a long narrow auditorium where I was quite a distance from the screen, so I wasn't particularly impressed.

I disagree about the notion that watching a "3D" movie in 2D is comparable to watching a colorized version of a black and white movie. Any 3D movie in the last 10 years was produced with the full knowledge the movie would be watched in 2D by the majority of the audience. And the lack of 3D exclusive engagements means the film was never intended to be seen in 3D.

quote: Rusty Gordon
When you consider that the most reliable patron is single and of school age and dating age, exhibition has priced them out--or at least reduced moviegoing frequency to just tentpoles.

My experience is that seniors are actually the most reliable audience today. Teenagers only seem to show up in large numbers to the tent-pole pictures. And I don't think it's a money issue. From what I've observed, many teenagers have more than enough money to spend. Whenever we do a private showing for school groups, I'm amazed at how much money the kids have to spend - and this applies to kids as young as 10 on up through high school.

Although the price of a movie ticket may seem steep, it's still generally in line with the minimum wage. I know this isn't true in all areas, but even if it's twice the price of minimum wage it's still within the budget of many teens.

What I believe has cannibalized the teen audience is the volume of choices. Game systems, smart phones, streaming services, illegal downloads, and so forth. Add to that the fact that teens today don't seem to give a lick about whether they are watching on a 40 foot movie screen or a 5 inch smart phone.

On the other hand, the majority of our regular customers are senior citizens or older adults. We have a handful of families which come on a regular bases, and the teens turn out for movies like Annabelle. But the seniors are the most reliable based of customers on a week to week basis. To a certain extent I think that's what hurt this summer - not enough content which is of interest to seniors.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-31-2017, 11:28 PM:

quote: Justin Hamaker
teens today don't seem to give a lick about whether they are watching on a 40 foot movie screen or a 5 inch smart phone.

Yes! ^^^^^ THAT'S the battle we're fighting right there. It isn't price, even though that's the big "complaint" we hear -- teens (and adults) tend to figure out how to afford things they want. Hell, just about everyone over age 10 is walking around with a $600 phone in their pocket, and most of them have an expensive gaming system (or two, or three) at home; prices haven't made sales of those things drop.

The industry's mission needs to be making a movie be a memorable experience that they can't duplicate and will want to have again. Of course, to do that, we need a good movie to start with, too.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 09-01-2017, 03:26 AM:

quote: Dennis Benjamin
I stood at the theatre entrance with the 3D glasses collections box at the end of the show. Not one single patron remarked about the fact that the movie was not in 3D. As a matter of fact some commented on how good the 3D effects were.

I was floored....

I once went into a show as a patron, where left and right were swapped. Once the 3D show started, I immediately noticed there was something amiss. It didn't take long to figure out left and right were swapped.

So, I walked out to inform the guy on duty. He walked in, took some 3D glasses and told me: I don't see the problem, the 3D is working. It took some time to convince him left and right were switched, he simply couldn't see it. Still, he apparently tried to alter some settings, as the show was stopped and started a few times. The problem wasn't fixed and he told me he couldn't find the problem.

My solution was a rather uncomfortable one, I turned the 3D glasses upside down. I was already too far into the movie to give up on it.

Still, the only one except me that seemed to have noticed anything was my girlfriend. The rest just sat there. The few people I asked after the show all told me, they didn't see anything wrong with it.

Watching an inverted 3D show is just plain horrible. I cannot explain how anybody could have watched an entire show like this. It's far more distracting than watching a 2D show through a pair of sunglasses, yet most people don't seem to mind.

So, your story of people of complimenting you for non-existing 3D somehow feels familiar. It's also a testament to how much crap you can feed people before they actually seem to notice or start to complain about it.

Regarding 3D in general:

I've never had a problem to perceive 3D, fortunately, it also isn't causing any major discomfort in the form of headaches, although it surely strains the eyes more than watching a plain 2D movie.

But quite frankly, I've personally never seen the value of feature-length 3D presentations. I do see the added value for things like theme park attractions, but not for a 90 minute or more show.

Why? Because the distractions are just not worth it. Even the best 3D system currently on the market is creating more artifacts and distractions than what it's usually worth to endure. That's also what makes it different from color v.s. black and white. Also, the WOW effect wears off quite rapidly. Nobody is amazed at seeing a movie in color nowadays, because we're used to it. Nobody is really amazed at seeing a movie in 3D anymore, because most of us have seen plenty of them.

So, now consider a movie like Avatar, with a runtime of roughly 160 minutes. I can tell you, that after about 90 minutes into the movie, you don't really care about the 3D anymore. Yes, there might be exceptions if you really into 3D and the occasional negative parallax ("in your face") 3D effect might grab some of your attention now and then. Yet still, the immersive effect is entirely negated by the glasses getting kind of heavy and irritating and by the lack of brightness in the picture. Also, for many people, some kind of fatigue will set in, after a prolonged 3D experience, even for those who don't generally have a problem with stereoscopic 3D images.

Like Mike already mentioned, it all starts with a good movie. And a good movie is so far more immersive than any 3D could ever be.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 09-01-2017, 12:37 PM:

The first RealD movie I saw (Monsters Inc?) had the polarizer reversed or something. You had to turn the glasses upside down for correct 3D. I got the manager to look at it and she agreed something was very wrong. I was comped. Next time I went there for 3D it was fixed.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-01-2017, 12:44 PM:

It's a programming issue in the projector. With our system, it happens every time there is a projector software update and it has to be readjusted.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 09-01-2017, 02:40 PM:

quote: Marcel Birgelen
... it surely strains the eyes more than watching a plain 2D movie. ...

Take two pairs of glasses and swap the lenses so that one pair is L/L and the other is R/R. You now have two pairs of "Un-3D" glasses.

I used to keep a pair of these doctored glasses around for whenever I didn't want to watch a movie in 3D... especially bad post-conversions.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 09-01-2017, 04:50 PM:

In the aforementioned case, it also happened after a software update. You'd say it would be easy to spot, then again, most people operating those things nowadays alongside serving popcorn are just a bunch of kids with no affinity to the business whatsoever.

quote: Randy Stankey
Take two pairs of glasses and swap the lenses so that one pair is L/L and the other is R/R. You now have two pairs of "Un-3D" glasses.

I used to keep a pair of these doctored glasses around for whenever I didn't want to watch a movie in 3D... especially bad post-conversions.

They're an actual product and you can buy them from Amazon. DCINEX/CinemaNext, one of Europe's largest integrators has them made with your logo on it, just like regular 3D glasses.

I know at least one chain that offers them as an option, instead of 3D glasses. The irony is, they come with an additional charge. So, in order to see a 3D show in 2D, you've to pay up double.

Quite frankly, those 2D glasses suck. They might be a solution if you go out with a group and some can't handle the 3D, but I'd never go see a show that way. You get all the distractions of those glasses, but none of the remaining benefits of 3D.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 09-01-2017, 05:01 PM:

NEC had an issue around the time of the first Thor movie where they swapped the left/right priority (I believe the setting is "Input Frame Dominance") between versions. If you didn't get this switched you picture would look like the 3D went into the screen rather than popping out.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 09-01-2017, 09:34 PM:

Motion Picture Herald
January 16, 1954

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-02-2017, 10:05 AM:

NEC has a bad habit of rewriting their standard files. If you want to avoid an update changing things you have set, always (and I mean always) make your own screen, PCF and 3D files. All you need do is save them under a different name.

How 3D was implemented changed a bit in DCinema. Eye dominance affected stuff before the line-interleave method came into use. Eye dominance showed up where Left and Right eyes were correct BUT you were essentially 1/2 frame out of sync so one eye was behind the other (but still looking at the correct eye). So on motion shots, you'd see a disturbing judder (particularly any horizontal action). It WOULD get you headaches.

Eye polarity (typically called normal and inverted) is where the two eyes can get swapped. Then you get reverse 3D where the orientation is such that near-field stuff is behind the far-field stuff. That is easily verified by turning the glasses upside-down.

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 04-06-2018, 02:00 PM:

Another article on the death of theatrical 3D: Yahoo Finance

quote: Yahoo Finance
Could it be that the scourge of 3D film is coming to an end? The box office contribution of 3D showings dropped in 2017 to 12 percent of the U.S. and Canada's $11.1 billion total take, its lowest point essentially since 3D movies became a thing.

The numbers come straight from the horse's mouth: an MPAA report on ticket sales. It's a mixed bag altogether, for the most part positive: people are still watching lots of movies, and they're paying to go to theaters all over the world. Global box office hit a new record ($40.6 billion) even if the U.S. and Canada dropped 2 percent.

The decline of 3D, however, is really only noted in the following chart:

You can see that at 12 percent of total box office, it's the lowest percentage and absolute amount of ticket sales for 3D movies since 2009. The peak, in 2010, was largely due to Avatar, surely the most impressive 3D film and certainly the highest grossing, even if it did use Papyrus for its title font. It's been largely downhill since then.

And why not? 3D is expensive, uncomfortable, degrades the quality of the picture, rarely adds anything to a film, and in fact is often bolted on after the fact in post-production. (CG films, more easily converted and aimed at a younger crowd, are an exception.)

3D TVs failed, 3D gaming failed, VR's special take on 3D is at the very least failing to succeed — so why not 3D film?

As an embellishment on moviemaking, it's largely bankrupt of possibility, but the idea of creating a "premium" tier of moviegoing (the sort-of-stealth motive of 3D) is far from a bad idea. People will pay extra for things like big seats, 21+ showings where you can drink, good food, and so on. And as MoviePass has shown, they'll also pay for theaters as a service — although whether the company can pull that off at the current price point is a matter of some debate.

Even if Avatar 2 were to give the 3D box office a shot in the arm, it's unlikely that the enterprise is considered worth saving when other, fresher opportunities to put butts in seats are in the offing. Here's hoping 2018 or 2019 will be the last time you have to specify 2D when buying tickets.

While I like 3D when it is well done, my experience is that most people are indifferent to 3D (at best), but actively hostile to the up-charge. It is a shame, because they finally got 3D, both home and theatrically, to the point where it worked really good, but killed it off with too many mediocre movies that had no reason to be in 3D. It was no longer something special, deserving of a higher price.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-06-2018, 02:44 PM:

It's been about 2 years now since we had our last 3-D movie. In the last year I've had exactly one guy ask about 3-D. Everybody else has lost interest. Like I've said before, we didn't ever really get complaints (to our faces at least) about the surcharge, the biggest gripe I heard was people didn't like wearing the glasses.

Even though there is a huge frenzy over the new Avatar land at Disney World (which IS extremely well-done), I'm still not sure if Disney and James Cameron can whip up enough interest by the time the Avatar sequels come around to make 3-D a thing again or not.

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 04-06-2018, 03:00 PM:

When I first got the 3D it was a big thing and lots of people went out of their way to "see it in 3D!" And I got lots of comments about the wonderful special effects and such.

Now people don't seem to care much either way. Nobody (well, almost nobody) complains about the surcharge.

Very few people seem to actively dislike it, but it's no longer the special thing that it used to be.

Posted by Alan Gouger (Member # 543) on 04-06-2018, 10:13 PM:

Just recently ordered a new silver screen, and now I see this thread [Razz]

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 04-09-2018, 03:14 PM:

> Now people don't seem to care much either way. Nobody (well, almost nobody) complains about the surcharge.

People rarely complain about pricing. They just don't go. It would be been an interesting experiment to have the same movie with the same showtimes, at the same price for both 2D and 3D, and see if there is as great a difference in the attendance for 2D vs 3D. I think 2D will still win, since there are people who just don't like it, but I tend to think the difference would be a lot closer without the upcharge.

Who knows, I could be wrong.

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 04-18-2018, 03:13 PM:

Never liked it when I worked in the industry and I'm surprised that it's lasted as long as it has. You couldn't drag me to a 3D presentation these days. Well, maybe Avitar in 2020 if I live that long. [Big Grin]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-19-2018, 12:51 AM:

I think it absolutely is all about the pricing. $3 to $4 extra for 3D, even if it is (MOST OF THE TIME) a phony, bullshit 2D to 3D conversion job? Yeah, customers are going to actually search out the 2D version of the show. Between the ticket prices and snack bar prices a trip to the theater is kind of expensive for the majority of people in the middle and lower income brackets. Any analogies of what it costs to attend a live stage play can please be forwarded along to those cats with McMansions and country club memberships. A trip to the movie theater ain't the same as a freaking show on Broadway.

I think 3D is pretty cool when it is well done. Avatar was great in 3D. So was Gravity. I have a 3D Blu-ray of that one (even though I watched it for the first time in 2D, but with a killer Atmos sound mix).

People my age remember the 1980's when 3D didn't cost anything extra. You got some cheap paper glasses with thin plastic polarized lenses in them. It was fine for what it was. Somehow with "digital" being involved now everyone has to get price gouged for the 3D business model.

I think it really sucks how movie theaters are on the hook for these technological things rather than the damned movie studios. 3D is one thing. How about laser-based projection? That crap costs a giant fortune. IMAX has to blow $2 million+ per screen to do its "IMAX with Laser" conversion job. Dolby Cinema ain't cheap, and they almost always never do 3D even though 3D would look far better on their setups than any standard single or dual projector setup. It costs a fortune for a movie theater to install a Dolby Atmos sound system where Atmos works like it is advertised.

Basically what's going on in the movie business and movie theater business is extreme imbalance. A number of very selfish, greedy parties is just trying to get theirs at any cost and screwing over other partners in the business. I think the movie studios and movie theater chains should be working more closely together to improve the movie-going experience. And that means sharing the cost of making that happen. They kind of need to start doing that shit soon since the movie distributors made a complete shit show of their home video business over the past few years.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 06-03-2018, 08:34 AM:

We've gotten to the point we only show 3D when we have a movie on more than one screen, and even then we usually one have 1 or 2 3D shows. It makes no financial sense to take away a 2D show time for a 3D showing that typically won't have more than 15-20 people on a Friday or Saturday.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 06-03-2018, 12:59 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
Even though there is a huge frenzy over the new Avatar land at Disney World (which IS extremely well-done), I'm still not sure if Disney and James Cameron can whip up enough interest by the time the Avatar sequels come around to make 3-D a thing again or not.

The reason the new Avatar land is so busy is because Flights of Passage is the best motion simulator ride I've experienced. Combine that with the fact that it has a relatively low hourly capacity and it leads to long lines and extreme difficulty in obtaining a fastpass. The boat ride is absolutely terribe.

Flight of Passage could have been themed to any IP and it would be just as popular. It has nothing to do with Avatar.

Unless they are really good movies (which the first was just OK), the 73 Avatar sequels that Cameron is filming could all bomb terribly. The combination of 3D hype and the gap between James Cameron movies is what led to the ridiculous success of Avatar.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-03-2018, 10:30 PM:

I get your points but I didn't think the boat ride was so terrible. I didn't like it as well as the Frozen ride but to me it was not that different from other Disney boat rides. At least it's more of a people eater.

You have to admit the land itself is pretty amazing to look at. But yeah, the rides are what draw people in.

I agree that Flights is the best motion simulator ever. Could have ridden that many more times. I'm not sure when we'll get to that park again - maybe when Star Wars Land sucks all the people out of Animal Kingdom next year.