quote:

---

A report has suggested that the film industry could be damaged by the overpricing and oversaturation of 3D movies.

The study by PricewaterhouseCoopers revealed that there are more than 40 releases slated for 2011 that utilise 3D technology, as a result of an eagerness amongst financiers to back the films over traditional 2D formats.

"So many people are keen - sometimes too eager - to finance 3D films," the authors wrote.

"This supply of funds in a globally difficult film-financing environment has led to a push for the conversion of some films originally envisioned as 2D into the 3D format. This often proves ill-advised."

Between 50% and 70% of box office revenue is generated by 3D, the report found, which "has helped the entire industry to increase its revenues despite a declining number of tickets sold".

However, it added: "Generally speaking, the sustainability of the 3D ticket premium is questioned by some players whom we interviewed."

---

 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-12-2011, 08:58 PM:
 
Nonsense! 3D is just as important and as effective as, say, sound. Or color. Or even moving pictures. 3D really brings audiences into the story and makes the package as a whole more engrossing. Ha ha just kidding, I'm just spewing horseshit here.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-12-2011, 11:19 PM:
 
I think they need to bring smell back into the experience. When a fat 3D butt comes out of the screen at your face you should be able to smell it fart. Yeah. People will pay another surcharge on top of the 3D surcharge, big screen surcharge, big sound system surcharge and balcony surcharge to experience that!
 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 01-12-2011, 11:56 PM:
 
I kind of agree that too much 3D might ruin things, but more for Hollywood stuff than for films in general.
 

---

Posted by Peter Howard (Member # 3491) on 01-13-2011, 03:25 AM:
 
In my opinion, too much 3D will hurt your business. Sure, short term it's tough to say 'no' in a competitive market when your opposition across town is going to take the 3D, but if you're in a non-competitive market you've really gotta be selective and just take what you know the audience will pay to see in 3D.

This Christmas in Oz, we had Narnia (2/12), Megamind (9/12), Tron (16/12), Gullivers (26/12), Tangled (9/1), and Yogi Bear (today 13/1) available in 3D. The only titles we took in 3D were Narnia (which was ok) Tron (which underperformed), and Tangled (which overperformed). The others we just took in 35mm, not because we couldnt fit them in 3D, but because:

1) we didnt think 3D would add to the business we'd get in 2D on those titles, and
2) the surcharge turns off some of your audience, and
3) not everyone likes wearing glasses every time they go to the movies, and
4) the damn price of running that 2K! Bulb life burns quick ...
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-13-2011, 04:01 AM:
 
Bobby, if that were the case, can you imagine just how fast a Jackass Smell-o-Vision movie would be made? People would see it, too (not me). Man, it'd smell just awful... and that'd be the crowd. Just wait until the movie starts!
 

---

Posted by Ben Wales (Member # 92) on 01-13-2011, 04:23 AM:
 
Just the other day, I witness a Cinema screening a (BluRay) DVD on a DCI Projector and they left on the DVD Player (Screen Saver) as people walked in and then you can watch the operator select the "Play" Menu they should do this in 3D and charge an extra/extra Premium Seat Price
 

---

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 01-13-2011, 09:42 AM:
 

quote:

---

I think they need to bring smell back into the experience. When a fat 3D butt comes out of the screen at your face you should be able to smell it fart. Yeah. People will pay another surcharge on top of the 3D surcharge, big screen surcharge, big sound system surcharge and balcony surcharge to experience that!

---

The Idiocracy is just around the corner.



I've said it all along, I believe the surcharge will kill 3D. and it won't get any better regardless of the health of the economy.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-13-2011, 12:03 PM:
 
I do think it's a huge mistake to make ALL of the kids' movies in 3D. The pendulum is swinging though because less and less of the sales are in 3D. The film companies won't let us offer a choice, though -- we have to pick 3D or 2D, can't have both. I can see us playing quite a few of the kid movies in 2D and saving 3D for the blockbusters or the few that really benefit from it.
 

---

Posted by Chris Mosel (Member # 1451) on 01-13-2011, 12:44 PM:
 
Hillary: That's my theatre in the photo. Somewhere I have the onesheet for ASS.
 

---

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 01-13-2011, 01:00 PM:
 
LOL Chris! Small world. So when do you think Carl's Jr. will buy you out?
 

---

Posted by Chris Mosel (Member # 1451) on 01-13-2011, 01:15 PM:
 
They are just down the steet and they do look at us kinda funny.
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 01-13-2011, 06:21 PM:
 
3D has already tanked in KY. About 40% of the screens book 2-2D prints unless the picture is very big (gross wise.) Louis
 

---

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 01-13-2011, 07:42 PM:
 
As I've said before, I would have gone to EVERY 3-D movie that's come out if they had been regular price. Since they're charging extra, I've seen exactly two.
 

---

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 01-13-2011, 11:44 PM:
 

quote: Louis Bornwasser

---

3D has already tanked in KY. About 40% of the screens book 2-2D prints unless the picture is very big (gross wise.)

---

quote:

---

quote: Louis Bornwasser
3D has already tanked in KY. About 40% of the screens book 2-2D prints

That makes me VERY happy! I wish I could have seen Tron in 2D DLP.

---

So all those theatres in Kentucky are all loosing their 3D equipment investment, and this makes you happy because....?

If you really want to see 3D titles in 2D, just wait until they come out on DVD -- problem solved. OR, if you MUST see a 3D movie in 2D, just bring some gaffer tape and put a piece over one eye of the 3D glasses. OR, if you are REALLY all that stoked about seeing TRON in 2D, just take two pair of 3D glasses, punch the lens of the Right Eye out of pair #1, and punch the Left Eye lens out of pair #2. Now take Right Eye lens from Pair #1 and snap it into the Left Eye frame of Pair #2. Voila! You can see TRON in 2D.

But why stop there -- I mean, when you come out of the theatre you will be bombarded by that awful 3D all around you...best when you get outside, wear an eye patch over one eye so you can see EVERYTHING in 2D. After all, as has been said here over and over, 3D adds nothing to the experience, right? So why walk around being forced to constantly see everything in 3D?
 

---

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 01-14-2011, 07:42 AM:
 
Frank, I don't want to speak for Aaron, but I know that limiting other peoples' choices always makes Me happy!

Now just why did God buy into the whole 3D gimmick and give us two eyes in the first place?
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-14-2011, 09:47 AM:
 
LOL, you two. 3D in movies cannot compare to 3D in real life. 3D in movies ALWAYS looks artificial, even in Avatar. Despite Avatar having great 3D, the depth doesn't look natural. Other movies are even worse. So far no camera has their lenses the exact distance apart as my two eyeballs, and those may be a different distance than yours. What I see in 3D, others have a hard time seeing and vice-versa. When I posted a 3D video on Youtube, some people could see great 3D in one section but no 3D in the other. Others were just the opposite. Bottom line: There is no possible way to do 3D right for everybody since not everyone sees the same. The only way you could REALLY do it is holography.

3D fanboys are funny. I bet you guys think it is worth the extra ticket price, right? Right?
 

---

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 01-14-2011, 10:44 AM:
 

quote: Joe Redifer

---

I bet you guys think it is worth the extra ticket price, right? Right?

---

quote: Hillary Charles

---

I've said it all along, I believe the surcharge will kill 3D. and it won't get any better regardless of the health of the economy.

---

And you can go back to every post I've made regarding the longevity of 3D and see that I believe the surcharge is unnecessarily high and unless it is reduced or elminated, it will kill this generation of 3D movies. And I don't blame people for choosing 2D to save the money in any economy.

Considering 3D is one of the few reasons we go to the movies anymore (and that is rare these days), we find it worth it on our limited basis. DVD is fine for most other movies.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-14-2011, 10:45 AM:
 
I don't begrudge the 3D people having their 3D. I do hate having to deal with the FAD every so often and havoc it wrecks upon the industry.

As I have stated as well as others...the 3D that is delivered to a theatrical environment just is NOT the same as reality. There are too many variables that diminish it...including the lack of resolution that the current crop of Digital 3D has to offer. I find that it adds little to nothing to the story or experience other than fatigue and/or eye strain. If it were true virtual reality without the extra eye-wear, I would like it more.

-Steve
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 01-14-2011, 10:59 AM:
 
"The Savage started. That sensation on his lips! He lifted a hand to his lips; the titillation ceased; let his hand fall back on the metal knob; it began again..."
 

---

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 01-14-2011, 11:26 AM:
 
Yes, Randy, the "Brave New World" is just around the corner.

Can't wait for the Feelies!
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 01-14-2011, 01:00 PM:
 
Good catch!
 

---

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 01-14-2011, 01:31 PM:
 
The question i have for 3D enthusiasts here is how do you feel about the fact that most 2D presentations are now ruined by silver or high gain screens?
Do you care about losing pristine 2D images in these 3D ready theaters?
Do you not appreciate the look of perfect 2D on a regular flat white screen?
If we could have the formats coexist but separate i would stop feeling raped by 3D!
 

---

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 01-14-2011, 01:47 PM:
 

quote:

---

Good catch!

---

Good throw! But on second thought, I'm in no hurry for the "feelies." You just know it'll only be used for porn!

quote: Victor Liorentas

---

The question i have for 3D enthusiasts here is how do you feel about the fact that most 2D presentations are now ruined by silver or high gain screens?
Do you care about losing pristine 2D images in these 3D ready theaters?
Do you not appreciate the look of perfect 2D on a regular flat white screen?

---

Victor, I may not be the best person to ask about this. I grew up watching our (2D) home movies on a silver screen, and have grown oddly fond of the look. And since we primarily go to the movies for 3D these days, I don't recall watching a 2D feature on a silver screen.

Next month, we're doing a 16mm film show and our portable screen is silver. I'll watch some of the films at home on the matte white screen and try to get back to you with a response a bit more substantial than just my subjective and nostalgic opinion.
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 01-14-2011, 03:15 PM:
 
Did Huxley put his finger on it? (Pun intended. )

Does the public, in general, gravitate toward more immersive multimedia technology?

We have 3-D movies. We have motion simulator systems in movie theaters. We have wind machines, machines that blow water and move or vibrate the viewer's seats. We even have technology that can generate smells in the auditorium.

Is it just a matter of time before we create some technology that can recreate physical sensations like the way Huxley's "Feelies?"

Do you think the public, in some way, demands more and more gimmicks like these to go along with their movies, television or multimedia presentations?

I'm afraid that there is a demand for this even if it is only an undercurrent in the public's interest.

Personally, I am not in favor of it whether it is merely 3-D or the fully immersive "Feelie." I think that one very important aspect of movies is the ability of the viewer to use his imagination to fill in the blanks, as it were.

If a book, a movie, a ssong, a television program or even a stage play gives the viewer ALL the information, there is less incentive for a person to watch, read, listen or otherwise participate. Every person who watches a movie has different tastes and different ideas about what's happening. By giving too much information, it robs the viewer of the right to concentrate on what's important to him.

Let's say I'm watching a gun battle. Some people might be interested in the guns and how they shoot. Some people might be interested in tactics or strategy. Other people might be interested in the emotion of the situation. Still, others might be interested in the characters' motivations for fighting. Even if you have ten people watching the movie and all of them are interested in the same aspect of the scene, all ten of them have a different perspective.

By adding immersive technology to movies, we prevent people from taking their own perspective and making their own interpretations of the action according to those perspectives and "force" everybody to see, feel and understand the scene according to the movie maker's perspective.

Maybe some people will like it. Maybe they won't.

But, I'm willing to bet that the OP's statement that an overabundance of 3-D movies might hurt the movie business, in general, has something to do with the fact that 3-D movies give some people too much information, thereby robbing them of the ability to see things in the way that is most pleasing to themselves.
 

---

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 01-14-2011, 05:33 PM:
 
Randy, I agree that Huxley was very prescient in that book! And in that vein, you post some interesting questions, some of which I've asked myself.

In the Ken Burns documentary, "Empire of the Air," someone talks about asking a child years ago if he prefers radio or the (then new) television. The child responded, "Radio, the pictures are better."

Imagination is a wonderful thing. I do fear with the advance of all kinds of technology, imagination is being bred out of much of the species. We are immersed and anesthetized by incredible technology which does so much for and to us, our imagination atrophies as it is needed less and less.

In spite of my support for 3D, I enjoy old radio programs and silent movies. Reading remains a favorite pasttime. But so many today want all their entertainment pre-chewed for easier consumption, with everything spelled out visually, aurally and thematically, little effort necessary on the part of the viewer. Can you imagine trying to get some people to watch a production of "Our Town"?

So I can appreciate the misgivings that arise whenever a more "literal" addition (such as 3D) is added to our cinema vocabulary. Personally, I wouldn't recommend a steady diet of any one medium, but as I alluded to earlier, there is so much more out there from which to choose, as long as one has an open mind, and is willing to flex it a little, that atrophy doesn't have to occur.

quote: Randy Stankey

---

By adding immersive technology to movies, we prevent people from taking their own perspective and making their own interpretations of the action according to those perspectives and "force" everybody to see, feel and understand the scene according to the movie maker's perspective.

---

quote:

---

The plot of the film was extremely simple. A few minutes after the first Oohs and Aahs (a duet having been sung and a little love made on that famous bearskin, every hair of which–the Assistant Predestinator was perfectly right–could be separately and distinctly felt)

---

quote: Randy Stankey

---

It's just important that technology, whatever form it takes, is used to further the plot or the mood or the feeling of the movie but not used instead of a plot.

---

Randy, I think that train has left the station. That same wish has been expressed in regards to CGI for years already.

And Joe, sure people automatically use depth cues which do not require binocular vision. It's as automatic as me not caring what colors things should be in a black & white movie, or what Ben Turpin's voice sounds like. For any individual movie, the elements are as intended, and there are no missing sensory elements in the context of that movie.

Forgive me, but to me, 3D actually adds entertainment value on a visual level. And since the binocular depth cues are synthesized into a three-dimensional image in the brain, the images seem more indelible to me, as though they're being imprinted deeper than 2D images are. Clearly, not everyone feels this way, and far be it from me to insist everyone must have the same reaction. I guess there's a reason the acronym YMMV exists.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-14-2011, 11:09 PM:
 
Your Mule Might Vomit? I love that one.
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 01-14-2011, 11:55 PM:
 
Yes, Hillary, that's exactly what I was thinking.

It is too much the trend for movies to rely on special effects and gimmicks over plot. 2-D, 3-D or feelie. It's all the same.

I even though people might seem to want more gizmos and gewgaws, I think the lack of substance is what is really killing movies. It's not 3-D that is killing movies, per se. It's BAD 3-D that's killing movies.
 

---

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 01-15-2011, 08:17 AM:
 

quote: Joe Redifer

---

Your Mule Might Vomit? I love that one.

---

Now THERE is a sight for 3D!

And just know (with my husband's help) this ain't no snow job I'm handing you.



And Randy, there will always be a struggle between style and substance, and often it looks like style is winning. The choices should remain so we can separate the wheat from the chaff. I haven't seen Werner Herzog's 3D documentary, but can understand why he used 3D. At this point, I'm most curious to see what Martin Scorsese does with it. I trust he will make an honest attempt at good 3D.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 01-20-2011, 01:45 AM:
 
Damn, Hillary, you have one beautiful, sexy mind, girl!

I too have said over and over that the surcharge for 3D is a killing field. But I guess it is hard to tell a bean counter he should stop charging extra when people are stepping up to pay extra.

quote:

---

The question i have for 3D enthusiasts here is how do you feel about the fact that most 2D presentations are now ruined by silver or high gain screens? The question i have for 3D enthusiasts here is how do you feel about the fact that most 2D presentations are now ruined by silver or high gain screens?
Do you care about losing pristine 2D images in these 3D ready theaters?
Do you not appreciate the look of perfect 2D on a regular flat white screen?
If we could have the formats coexist but separate i would stop feeling raped by 3D!

---

quote:

---

I too have said over and over that the surcharge for 3D is a killing fiel

---

quote: Frank Angel

---

I don't really know why all those who don't appreciate 3D get their pantyhose up in such knots

---

quote:

---

Damn, Hillary, you have one beautiful, sexy mind, girl!

---

LOL Frank! I've tried and tried to make myself hate 3D by researching the opinions of all those oppose to it. But in the process I found my opinion as valid for me as others' are for them! Nice to know I'm not alone.
 

---

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 01-21-2011, 10:11 AM:
 
If the trend to convert to digital for digital 3d continues at this pace then silver should be on most screens before to long.

Even 35mm Tech 3d requires it!

I like good 3d but hate the technology being used to display it!
We have 0 Dolby systems around here,it's all Real D and Tech 3d
 

---