Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Pretty good overview of the 3-D revolution

This is topic Pretty good overview of the 3-D revolution in forum Film-Yak 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=8;t=006112

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-29-2010, 03:34 PM:

From "The Week" magazine (which is a darn good publication, by the way):

Movies in another dimension
Is 3D here to stay?

Link

What’s so special about 3-D?
By adding a dimension, it makes movies look more like the “real” world, and pulls the audience “inside’’ the film in a visceral way. Human vision is stereoscopic, meaning that when we focus on something, our eyes absorb visual information from two slightly different vantage points. The brain then resolves the two perspectives into a single view that has depth as well as height and width. Three-dimensional movies, with the help of special glasses, replicate that process, so that the floating mountains in Avatar seem to hover over the theater seats, and the creatures in the Na’vis’ jungle appear to fly or slither into moviegoers’ laps. Movie studios are now banking on the astonishing realism of 3-D to lure people away from their home theaters and game consoles, and back into cinemas. “It shatters the idea of going to a movie as a passive experience,” says director Gil Kenan. “It becomes something more akin to a thrill ride.”

How long has 3-D been around?
For a surprisingly long time. Early filmmakers experimented with 3-D as far back as 1890, and the first commercially released 3-D movie was the 1922 film The Power of Love. For that movie, synchronized projectors simultaneously ran two separate strips of film, which audiences viewed wearing two-toned, cardboard-framed glasses. But the effect was underwhelming, and the film wasn’t widely released. Since then, while the technology has steadily improved, 3-D has gone in and out of vogue, enjoying a brief resurgence in the 1950s, when audiences flocked to see Vincent Price in House of Wax, and again in the 1970s, when producers of cheesy action movies like The Magnificent Bodyguards and even cheesier porno films like Supersonic Supergirls embraced the technology. The current resurgence of 3-D began in 2004, when the animated feature Polar Express grossed $305 million.

Are special glasses still required?
Unfortunately, yes. Although the cardboard-framed models of yesteryear have been replaced with reusable, plastic-framed eyewear, today’s glasses haven’t completely eliminated the problems that have plagued them from the start. They fit awkwardly, at best, over conventional glasses. And some people complain that the glasses make them dizzy, while others find that the lenses darken screen images so much that they’re hard to see.

Why is 3-D back in fashion?
In a word, money. DVD revenues are falling off due to inexpensive rental services such as Netflix, and the studios are hungry for new sources of income. Theater owners also are struggling to compete with the movies people can now watch on big-screen, high-definition TVs. “Both exhibitors and studios are looking for ways to say, ‘This is really different from the DVD. This is worth getting in your car and driving 20 miles for,’” says Richard Gelfond, co-chairman of IMAX. And exhibitors can charge more for 3-D tickets—$14 per adult at a typical first-run theater, versus $11 for a conventional movie.

Is 3-D drawing crowds as predicted?
Much better than predicted, actually. Pixar studios’ Up sold $723 million in tickets worldwide and won the 2010 Oscar for Best Animated Feature. Avatar is the most financially successful movie of all time, selling more than $2.6 billion in tickets worldwide so far. Alice in Wonderland took in a record-breaking $116 million in its opening weekend—a total that might have been even higher if Fox Film Studios hadn’t convinced theater owners to keep showing its film Avatar rather than make room for Disney’s Alice. That jostling for screen space is likely to intensify.

Aren’t there enough 3-D theaters to meet demand?
Not nearly enough. The U.S. has only about 4,000 3-D screens in operation—not many for a country of 300 million people. Until the runaway successes of Avatar and Alice, exhibitors were reluctant to invest the $150,000 needed to upgrade a projection system to digital 3-D. Now they’re racing to install 150 3-D systems a month. “We are expanding as fast as we can,” says John Fithian of the National Association of Theatre Owners, “but we are not ready to handle the number of pictures coming out in the next few months in 3-D.”

Will 3-D eventually replace 2-D completely?
Moviemakers say yes. “It’s a little bit like when films first got sound,” says producer Mike Devlin. “Once people start to get used to it, it’s going to pretty much take over the industry, like when televisions got color.” Both DreamWorks and Disney/Pixar are going 3-D for all their animated films, and Warner Bros. has committed to an ambitious slate of 3-D films. But not everyone is thrilled. If 3-D becomes the norm, some critics warn, viewers will demand even flashier thrills. “3-D will ravish our senses and take us on rides that no drug can match,” says The New Yorker’s Anthony Lane, “but my guess is that, like so many blessings, it won’t make us happy. It will make us want more.”

3-D comes to the living room
In an episode of 1950s TV show The Honeymooners, Ralph Kramden explains to his wife why he refuses to buy a new television: “I’m waiting for 3-D.” His wait is over. Sony, LG, and Samsung all unveiled 3-D sets at this year’s consumer electronics show in Las Vegas, and ESPN and Discovery Communications both plan to launch channels that will show exclusively 3-D content. It remains to be seen, though, whether consumers will clamor for the new sets, which start at $2,000, especially after millions have recently upgraded to HD. (And yes, you’ll need special glasses for home viewing, too.) Riddhi Patel of market researcher iSuppli thinks the question might stir some domestic discord. “I think 90 percent of the males in this country would be dying to watch the Super Bowl” in 3-D, she tells The New York Times. But their spouses might not be in such a hurry. “You don’t necessarily want the ladies of The View sitting around you when you watch them.”

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-29-2010, 05:59 PM:

That is a horribly written article, going for pure sensationalism. The author deserves to be fired for such schlock and live homeless on the street, battling other homeless people for dead sewer rats to survive. Check out some of the quotes:

quote: Lame Article
floating mountains in Avatar seem to hover over the theater seats, and the creatures in the Na’vis’ jungle appear to fly or slither into moviegoers’ laps.

No, they don't. Not in any movie theater ever. They cannot go beyond the borders of the screen. Dumbass.

quote: Lame Article
It becomes something more akin to a thrill ride.

Whatever you say. My adrenaline doesn't start pumping just because I watch something in 3D. Dumbass.

quote: Lame Article
Pixar studios’ Up sold $723 million in tickets worldwide and won the 2010 Oscar for Best Animated Feature.

Which it would have done with or without 3D. Dumbass.

quote: Lame Article
Once people start to get used to it, it’s going to pretty much take over the industry, like when televisions got color.

Good luck with that. You don't need idiotic glasses to see things in color. Dumbass.

quote: Lame Article
3-D will ravish our senses and take us on rides that no drug can match

Oh Jesus Christ on a shish kabob! This comment is so incredibly stupid it makes my brain turn to ooze. Fucking dumbass!

quote: Lame Article
I think 90 percent of the males in this country would be dying to watch the Super Bowl in 3-D

Not even 90 percent of males are dying to watch it in any form, much less 3D. Way to stereotype all men as drooling uncontrollably over anything sports-related. Dumbass.

quote: Lame Article
You don’t necessarily want the ladies of The View sitting around you when you watch them.

So when did 3D put things around me? Never, that's when. I cannot get over how stupid people are. It saddens me that people like this are permitted to exist. They are bringing down the collective intelligence of the entire planet. I would fully support the execution of stupid people. Try this comment again when HOLOGRAPHIC imagery comes about, dumbass.

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 03-29-2010, 06:34 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
No, they don't. Not in any movie theater ever. They cannot go beyond the borders of the screen. Dumbass.

I guess they just don't make 'em like they used to. [Wink]

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 03-29-2010, 06:39 PM:

You'll poke your eye out...

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-29-2010, 07:03 PM:

I like the audience member reaching out for the mermaid's tits.

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 03-29-2010, 08:28 PM:

I have a feeling this whole thing may yet shoot itself in the foot. It's now $19.50 for an adult ticket to an AMC 3-D LieMAX showing in Manhattan, and, I'm sorry, that's too damned much. And it's especially too much for a shot-in-2-D-and-hastily-bastardized-into-3-D-with-no-special-thought-given-to-effect thing like Clash of the Titans.

Eventually, I hope, people are going to catch on to the fact that they are being gouged for something that they would enjoy just as much flat. Novelties wear off, and the case of 3-D, they have worn off twice before. As for me, I will continue to go to the 2-D $6.00 "before noon" shows here in suburban N.J. until this all passes again.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-30-2010, 12:52 AM:

quote: Joe Redifer
The author deserves to be fired for such schlock

You can't blame the writer for crediting the success of Up and Avatar to 3-D because that's what the entire industry and the media (except those of us in the know) is doing.

quote: Mark Ogden
Eventually, I hope, people are going to catch on to the fact that they are being gouged for something that they would enjoy just as much flat.

They're not being gouged. The ticket price is displayed above the window for all to see. Nobody is forcing anyone to pay the ticket prices. In a multiplex there is also the 2-D option available if they would rather see a movie that way. I agree that some city theatres are charging too much, but the way distribution is screwing the theatre business, who can blame these suits if they want to get their 3-D equipment paid for before the whole thing hits a wall?

Posted by Richard Hamilton (Member # 321) on 03-30-2010, 09:11 AM:

quote:
They're not being gouged. Nobody is forcing anyone to pay the ticket prices.

I disagree. Last Christmas, I promised my son I would take him to a movie while he was here. Some animated film. It was so good that I can't remember the title. The options were 2D, 3D, or Imax 3D. My 9 year old son started chanting "Imax, Imax, Imax, Imax......". I slapped him hard across the face and told him never to mutter that word in my presence again. Seriously though, he really wanted to see it in 3D (RealD). I just thought to myself, O.K. it's 6 bucks more for the tickets, I just won't get that small coke I was going to get.

Because that option of 3D is there, I was "forced" to buy tickets to it, or be a jerk in my sons eyes.

Rick

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 03-30-2010, 10:04 AM:

quote: Richard Hamilton
Because that option of 3D is there, I was "forced" to buy tickets to it, or be a jerk in my sons eyes.

If it wasn't 3D it would end up being something else. Kid sees some shiny fancy object and then he asks for it and you say "I can't afford it" and now you're an asshole. Is it fair? No. Did the mere existence of said shiny object force you by buy it? No.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 03-30-2010, 11:04 AM:

quote:
“3-D is a distracting, annoying, anti-realistic, juvenile abomination to use as an excuse for higher prices...

[How To Train Your Dragon] is being shown in both 3-D and 2-D. The 3-D adds nothing but the opportunity to pay more to see a distracting and unnecessary additional dimension. Paramount has threatened theaters that if they don’t clear screens for “Dragon” despite the current glut of 3-D films, the studio won’t let them show it in 2-D. This displays real confidence in 3-D...

I’m a notorious skeptic about this process, a needless distraction from the perfect realism of movies in 2-D. Cameron’s iteration [Avatar] is the best I’ve seen — and more importantly, one of the most carefully-employed. The film never uses 3-D simply because it has it, and doesn’t promiscuously violate the fourth wall. He also seems quite aware of 3-D’s weakness for dimming the picture, and even with a film set largely in interiors and a rain forest, there’s sufficient light. I saw the film in 3-D on a good screen at the AMC River East and was impressed."

-- Roger Ebert

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 03-30-2010, 11:22 AM:

Proof that Roger Ebert has no consistency in his views. He didn't bitch that Avatar was available in both 2D and 3D nor saying that the extra dimension was unnecessary.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 03-30-2010, 11:24 AM:

I don't see the inconsistency. He's saying 3D is typically used as a gimmicky distraction but Avatar used it more wisely.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-30-2010, 11:59 AM:

quote: Richard Hamilton
Because that option of 3D is there, I was "forced" to buy tickets to it, or be a jerk in my sons eyes.

Just grow a pair and say "no." The kid will still love you.

Posted by Richard Hamilton (Member # 321) on 03-30-2010, 12:06 PM:

quote: Chris Slycord
you say "I can't afford it"

Sorry Chris, I don't lie to my kids.

My son had seen the ads for the movie on T.V. and they all ended with "in 3D and Imax 3D". It was "forced" into his brain that this was a 3D film. If I took him to the 2D, I would compare it to my own dad taking me to see "Earthquake" in a mono theater, knowing that the theater next to me was "experiencing" an earthquake in sensaround.

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 03-30-2010, 01:57 PM:

With the recent increase in 3D prices at Regal and AMC, I would not be surprised if many people choose NOT to get that popcorn or soda having spent their budget on tickets alone.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 03-30-2010, 02:10 PM:

quote: Richard Hamilton
Sorry Chris, I don't lie to my kids.

Where did I suggest you lie to your kid? I was using that as a hypothetical that kid asks for something you can't afford right now and you tell them and you're a jerk for it.

quote: David Stambaugh
I don't see the inconsistency. He's saying 3D is typically used as a gimmicky distraction but Avatar used it more wisely.

1) It's misleading to combine two quotes into one as if he said them in the same breath (and even more so editing them together after seeing my response).
2) And you'd have a point if he were saying "the 3D in HTTYD is gimmicky" but he's not. He's complaining about 3D's mere existence and labeling all 3D as necessary/distracting.
3) Sure, maybe he thinks that Avatar's 3D was less distracting, but if he were consistent he would've said (in reference to Avatar) something like "The 3-D adds nothing but the opportunity to pay more to see a distracting and unnecessary additional dimension, although this iteration is slightly less distracting than others."

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-30-2010, 02:45 PM:

Ebert is hanging onto life by a thread these days. Give the man a break. It's amazing that he's still reviewing stuff like HTTYD.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 03-30-2010, 05:54 PM:

To be honest, I think this was a bit like this before getting the illness.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-30-2010, 07:47 PM:

Yeah, he said videogames cannot be art. He says a lot of stuff. I agree with him (mostly) on the 3D thing.

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 03-30-2010, 08:55 PM:

I kind of align myself with Stephen Low, producer of such IMAX 3D films as "The Last Buffalo," "Across The Sea of Time" and "Mark Twain's America." His reaction a few years ago to Ebert's well-known anti-3D stance:

quote:
He's wrong. Human beings are 3-D animals. We didn't get two eyes just to poke one out...It's tricky, but in the right hands it can work. We are not 2-D animals. Everything should be in 3-D in my opinion.

But if it gets too expensive... [Mad]