- This topic has 14 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 14 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
A new article came out about how 3D is making less and less money.
http://www.slate.com/id/2303814
It’s a bit long, so the interesting parts are here:
Quote:The profitability of 3-D cinema had dropped since the start of the vogue several years earlier, and more recent films were barely breaking even on their 3-D screenings. Now we’ve got another year’s worth of data—12 months’ more evidence that the medium is in peril. According to a New York Times business story from June, waning enthusiasm for 3-D has brought the vultures circling, with shares of DreamWorks Animation, the studio managed by Jeffrey “2-D films are going to be a thing of the past” Katzenberg, in free-fall. Shares of RealD, one of the big players in stereo projection technology, have also been in a tailspin, losing 70 percent of their value since May.Quote:Toy Story 3 opened with $110.3 million in ticket sales, making it one of the most successful films in history. Yet the Pixar movie’s 3-D screenings contributed relatively little to its dazzling profits. Their per-theater revenue was at minus-5 percent compared to 2-D showings—the first time in recent history that 3-D had sunk below the break-even point on a film’s first weekend.Quote:About three-quarters of the last year’s films saw negative returns from 3-D, and many landed far below the breakeven point. The newest Harry Potter and Kung Fu Panda movies, plus Captain America and Green Lantern, saw revenue adjustments of around minus-65 percent. In other words, their screenings at 3-D theaters were making just one-third as much money as regular showings.
That’s because 3D sucks unless it’s actually shot in 3D. I’m more disappointed that the studios don’t do it right than happy that it’s failing, if that makes sense.
I, on the other hand, am happy it’s failing. It gives me a headache, and it makes the video blurry and dark. I think these are the most common complaints you’ll come across when reading articles on the subject. Some people like it, some people don’t mind it, but for many, it gives them headaches and makes the movies less enjoyable.
So why don’t I just go see everything in 2D you ask? Because sometimes when a 3D movie comes out here, it’s only available in 3D, so I have a choice of either not seeing it in the theater, or handing out even more money than normal so I can get a fancy headache.
Besides all that, even when the 3D is done well, it just doesn’t add anything to the experience for me. If all the movies went back to being 2D only, then I’d be able to see whatever movies I wanted in the theater and at least I’d know I’d be comfortable.
I remember that the first time I saw Avatar, my head did hurt, but I read this thing somewhere that some people get a headache because they’re trying to focus on things that aren’t supposed to be in focus. The second time I went, I made sure to not let my eyes wander as much and just look at what’s already in focus (or, just treat it like a 2D movie). I enjoyed it so much more, and actually experienced more depth. So, uh…yeah.
3D is contradictory to what your brain tells your eyes to do when you want to focus. The tech that creates this real depth of field, can account for your eyes at focus, but not at anything beyond the focal plane. Your brain basically tries to refocus based on depth of field, and of course fails because the footage is not in focus at all. This constant adjustment creates eye-strain, and often a headache.
It’s really weird watching a space that looks pretty damn real, only to have someone else making the decision as to where your eyes need to be focused. I didn’t have a headache from my first (or 2nd, or 3rd viewing of Avatar), but I did find it troublesome during the first to have this world that I can still control my field of vision, but not my focus within the field. The second time, (as Rob mentioned) it was easier to let go a little and really watch what I was being shown. I got much more out of it because it forced me to be focused on the desired effect, and the result is that I saw more of what I was being shown. After the 3rd viewing, this actually felt like work; trying to watch a movie, and not watch what I want, but what the director wants me to watch.
This reason is why I started being much harder on Avatar. Instead of letting the actors, the story, and the cinematography direct my senses in the movie, I had an effect trying to drive the most sensitive of all of them in a very controlled, linear fashion. It almost started to feel like I was watching a directed story, then a redirected viewing experience. Maybe a better way to say it is that I felt like the movie didn’t make use of my ears and my brain (logic and emotional responses) the way another movie may have, but instead either relied on (or just possibly totally overloaded) one sense to tell the story. In a sense, the deepest movie I’d ever seen became incredibly flat at that point, and I totally lost interest in even trying to go through in in 2D once just to see it for the story.
Now that said; Avatar was a great experience. 3D achievements never before seen in the cinema. -And if someone else wants to give me a never-before-seen experience, I’ll be happy to forgo my normal cinema experience to give them a try (and give them my money). But to just see 3D movies? I can’t see this technology being the mainstream as studios seem to have their dumb buttholes convinced it will be. It’s really pointless fluff, detracts from most movies that feature it, and raise ticket prices above the target audiences expectations for casual entertainment. It’s a dumbass business practice, and should be reserved for special (and therefore more lucrative) presentations, and entertainment channels.
I personally really like the 3D experience at Legoland: I got sprayed with water, snowed on and even felt the wind from flying. That was a unique enough experience (and short by the way) to justify the medium. Beyond that, I personally hope the trend for 3D mediocre film of the week kills the practice off in mainstream cinema.
i’m glad it’s failing because it just further illustrates that hollywood just has no grasp on what consumers really want. i think the big hollywood push for 3d wasn’t about innovation and giving us a better experience but another front on their war on piracy (piracy which has been shown time and time again to actually increase revenue).
My essence still senses Bucho's women.
I haven’t actually seen a 3D movie that was filmed with 3D in mind and not just tacked on at the last minute. The only movie I have seen in 3D was Thor. It was dark and scenes with any sort of action seemed overly blurry. Did the 3D add anything? No. I hardly even noticed the 3D at all. Waste of time and money in my limited opinion.
@Larkitect 47819 wrote:
another front on their war on piracy
I can’t think of a movie that was in 3D and 3D alone, there is almost always a 2D version.
I don’t mind 3D at all when done properly. I’d heard enough about Avatar to make me determined to go see it in 3D. And I wasn’t disappointed. I never got around to seeing Tron Legacy, but would have opted for 3D if I had. And I WILL be seeing all of the Star Wars movies in 3D as and when they are released. Mostly because it’s Star Wars on the big screen, but also because I know that the best possible conversion to 3D will come from Lucasfilm.
But with the exception of Avatar, every other movie that I have seen in 3D is because the cinema forced me to, with undesirable 2D showtimes….or no 2D showtimes at all. My youngest daughter can’t watch it without getting a headache and it costs me more….which for something I don’t want, is a fucking joke!! Especially when all my youngest is seeing is a blurred screen for the most part!!
I just wish they’d fuck right off!!
(Too aggressive?….I think it was a little strong that. I’ll be calm for the next post)
BIG JOBBIES@Newman 47821 wrote:
I can’t think of a movie that was in 3D and 3D alone, there is almost always a 2D version.
even if they wanted to release a 3d-only movie, there’s too many theaters with too few 3d projectors installed. and they have to make theater owners happy.
and by “combat piracy” i didn’t mean that 3d made it harder to pirate. i just meant that they see it as a means of getting seats filled.
“why pirate a 2d copy when you can see it in glorious in-your-face 3d?”
there’s just and old-fashioned arrogance that hollywood can’t let go of. they could embrace and profit from the digital age but they’re too afraid of any shift in the current production/consumption paradigm.
it’s just like the government. sometimes you just have to be patient; wait for all the old, entrenched white guys to die off before things get better.
My essence still senses Bucho's women.
@Larkitect 47824 wrote:
and by “combat piracy” i didn’t mean that 3d made it harder to pirate. i just meant that they see it as a means of getting seats filled.
I believe somewhere towards the end of the article I posted a link to, it mentions piracy as one of the reasons movie studios are pushing 3D so hard right now. I think it says something about making the movies harder to copy and harder to watch at home. It’s true that there’s usually a 2D version available in many theaters, and when it comes to disc it’s available in 2D, but I’m guessing their overall idea was to slowly wean people off of 2D and onto 3D.
“But,” you say, “the home movie industry would continue to come out with 3D TVs and 3D disc players, so you’d still be able to watch things at home.” That’s true, but the movie industry may not understand this completely. The movie industry doesn’t have a lot of foresight. They tried to block VHS players, and yet we had VHS. They tried to block DVDs, and yet we have DVDs. So just because 3D movies would make it into the home if the 3D technology had been popular doesn’t mean the movie industry fully realizes or understands that.
They probably think, “Aha! Once we get everyone to go from 2D to 3D, they’ll all have to come to the theaters to watch anything!” That’s when Sulu says, “Oh my!” and everyone laughs.
And, keeping with the movie industry’s level of foresight, they’re probably baffled why 3D isn’t doing well.
@digitaltopia 47825 wrote:
That’s when Sulu says, “Oh my!”
that’s how 3d wins! random inserts of sulu.
My essence still senses Bucho's women.
@digitaltopia 47827 wrote:
I am inordinately pleased with this idea of Sulu appearing in random pictures.
I am inordinately pleased with your use of the word inordinately.
- Women sense my power and they seek the life essence.
@Bucho 47829 wrote:
I am inordinately pleased with your use of the word inordinately.
i’m inordinately attracted to people that use “inordinately” to convey favor of the use of the word “inordinately”.
My essence still senses Bucho's women.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.