PDA

View Full Version : Share of cinema 3D sales falls below 50% according to The Economist



Pages : [1] 2 3

Diapositivo
07-27-2011, 08:08 AM
This short article in the online version of The Economist shows how 3D is losing ground lately:

http://www.economist.com/node/18988914

Considering what a menace is digital cinema to the film manufacturing industry, and how the 3D technology is mainly digital, this new "trend" is good news.

M.A.Longmore
07-27-2011, 08:12 AM
.
That's Great News !

I saw Avatar In 3D.

I will never waste another dollar on a 3D Movie.


Ron
.

bsdunek
07-27-2011, 08:23 AM
Sounds like the 1950's all over again. 3D movies made a big splash then and then faded away. 3D doesn't save a bad movie any more than excessive computer effects do now. Additionally, I think, people get tired of wearing those glasses.
I think most all the commercial movies are digital today, so I don't think the failure of 3D will help our film supply, IMHO.

erikg
07-27-2011, 08:59 AM
I don't know how this might affect our film supply, but according to my friends who work in the movie business there is still a large amount of work shot on film, I don't think one can say as yet that most films are shot digitally. There are many directors who aren't yet sold. Digital projection is also another threat, and for me just one more reason to stay home and watch movies there. What's the difference besides an over-sharpened image and over-amplified sound? Oh and rude people who won't stop talking behind you. No thanks to that and 3D.

Steve Smith
07-27-2011, 09:08 AM
I saw Avatar In 3D.

I will never waste another dollar on a 3D Movie.

Someone at work went to see Harry Potter in 3D last night. His advice this mornig was "don't waste your money".


Steve.

Lee L
07-27-2011, 09:14 AM
Someone at work went to see Harry Potter in 3D last night. His advice this mornig was "don't waste your money".


Steve.
This film was shot in 2D, and 3D effects were all added in post-production. Friends went to see it in 3D and said only 2-3 scenes had any 'real' 3D use. If I see it in a theater, I'll go to a nearby 2D screen.

Lee

Thomas Bertilsson
07-27-2011, 09:22 AM
The thing that bothers me a little bit about 3D is that now we have reached a stage in entertainment where we don't even have to use our imagination to view what's on screen. With standard two-dimensional projection at least we can sit and imagine a little bit, and use our brains. 3D, to me, seems to be a lot more about special effects than adding any real value to the movies, and I hope consumers are smart enough to realize it. So I sat down and watched 'Pecker' via a lousy standard DVD and our old 28" CRT TV screen, and enjoyed the hell out of the story.

Yesterday we got an advertisement in the mail from Sprint, the phone network provider, and the bragging point was that they now had 3D phones - my life like I had never seen it before! I laughed out loud as I saw it and shook my head as I am ever more mystified with the choices people make in what they spend their money on.

Steve Smith
07-27-2011, 09:36 AM
As most Hollywood produced films seem to require multiple car chases and explosions, 3D seems ideal. For movies made outside of Hollywood which rely on actual stories, I don't see any benefit.

I think 3D for movies is the equivalent of quadrophonic sound for hi-fi.


Steve.

jnanian
07-27-2011, 10:22 AM
could it be that we are in a global recession and people don't want to spent 15$ a ticket to see a movie ?
i know paying for 5 people to go to a 3D movie and then the feed bags of popcorn and trough of drink
comes to ... a small fortune ...

railwayman3
07-27-2011, 10:43 AM
Movie enthusiasts will still be enjoying some of the classic B&W productions long after most 3D films are forgotten.

Just because technology exists to do something new, doesn't always mean it's necessarily "better". I think we APUG people know this already. ;)

Thomas Bertilsson
07-27-2011, 10:50 AM
Movie enthusiasts will still be enjoying some of the classic B&W productions long after most 3D films are forgotten.

Just because technology exists to do something new, doesn't always mean it's necessarily "better". I think we APUG people know this already. ;)

Absolutely.

And another version of what you wrote: Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

Klainmeister
07-27-2011, 11:07 AM
Has anyone seen the Cave of Forgotten Dreams by Werner Herzog yet? I hear that the 3D version is spectacular, particularly because he had the foresight to use 3D as it is intended: in highly dimensional spaces where depth will help shape understanding of spacial relations. The Chaveaut Cave has been seen by less people than the top of Everest, so having him go in there and film in HD with a real 3D setup might be our only chance to see it as it is.

MaximusM3
07-27-2011, 11:12 AM
Saw Harry Potter 3D and it was a joke. Underexposed, dim, utterly annoying. Got a good headache out of it.

holmburgers
07-27-2011, 11:16 AM
Regardless of the 3D aspect, the movie theatres and Hollywood folks have seen how good digital projection can be, and ultimately, how much easier it will be for them, once the transition is made.

I wouldn't put too much faith in the demise of 3D saving film projection. It might postpone it, but they didn't have digital anything in the 50's.

3D has a future, and I personally think it lies in autostereoscopic displays that require no glasses. When this takes off... 3D will be here to stay. Just like stereo recordings completely have superceded mono, once 3D is as simple as looking, it'll become standard.

Autostereoscopy has been possible for years, but never before has it been so well poised to become a mass-marketed reality.

I also agree with Umut & Klanmeister; 3D can be used very effectively, and lends to the experience. Just because you record Michael Bolton in stereo doesn't make him any better than in mono, but listening to the Ventures live in Japan, 1965, in stereo.. that will put you in the seats of the auditorium.

The vehicle just gets a passenger somewhere, but the right passenger in the right vehicle... BOOM!

:cool:

Thomas Bertilsson
07-27-2011, 12:03 PM
So, regardless of impact on the film industry, does 3D make the movies better?

In your opinion, what does it add to the movie that you consider profound enough that it's worth the extra cost?

Plate Voltage
07-27-2011, 12:14 PM
Digital projection is also another threat, and for me just one more reason to stay home and watch movies there. What's the difference besides an over-sharpened image and over-amplified sound? Oh and rude people who won't stop talking behind you. No thanks to that and 3D.

Not to mention the outrageous admissions prices, the outrageous price of refreshments, and the sticky floors. No thanks to that too.

Marco B
07-27-2011, 12:18 PM
With standard two-dimensional projection at least we can sit and imagine a little bit, and use our brains. 3D, to me, seems to be a lot more about special effects than adding any real value to the movies, and I hope consumers are smart enough to realize it. So I sat down and watched 'Pecker' via a lousy standard DVD and our old 28" CRT TV screen, and enjoyed the hell out of the story.

If you like that kind of low tech approach and using your imagination, watch the movie Dogville by Lars von Trier once. It is entirely set in an empty studio, with a minimum of theatre stage attributes like a single door without walls, and simple white lines on the black studio floor depicting the different buildings in Dogville.

It was a revelation for me to watch that movie, as it is still entirely convincing due to some great acting work.

How much do you really need to make a good movie?... :confused:

perkeleellinen
07-27-2011, 12:20 PM
I hope I don't sound too bitter. I haven't been to a cinema in ten years (I'm 38). 3D or not, I won't pay to watch a film - they're all derivative crap. Even on TV they're derivative crap, but at least they have the decency to show ad breaks to give the viewer a rest. I suppose some decent films must have been made recently with good dialogue and a clever story, but I won't waste hours searching for them...

holmburgers
07-27-2011, 12:22 PM
3D cannot make a movie better... much in the same way that you can't polish a turd...

I find 3D displays fascinating in ther own regard, from a technical & logistical standpoint, but the adding of another dimension to play with in composition alone suggests that there is artistic potential to be exploited.

I would have to in turn ask why 3D is so offensive to people? Does it really give you a headache and hurt your eyes? I've seen Avatar in the theatre and that's basically it for my 3D film-going, but I really, really enjoyed the cinematic experience of it. I've said it before, but it's like watching Dorothy and Toto come out in color... it's just pure visual rapture.

On the flipside, oftentimes when I see a 3D picture from a stereoscope, or something like that, I'm left with the impression that, hmmm... ok, that's what it looks like in real life. *yawn* In that respect, I can relate to some 3D skepticism.

However, there are very intriguing possibilities with hyper & hypo stereo setups; where the "eyes" are placed much further or closer than our interocular distance. Imagine two cameras 50 feet apart and aimed at a distant thunderhead; the thunderhead becomes a dollop of whipped cream. Likewise, 3D microscopy, showing a virus or cell in full relief. This kind of stuff interests me.

update: a lot of these posts are just down right curmudgeonly IMO

Thomas Bertilsson
07-27-2011, 12:30 PM
3D is not offensive to me. It just not something I think is necessary to enjoy a GOOD movie. Maybe it helps adequate or crappy movies to gain some traction with the audience, I don't know. But as you say, you can't polish a turd.

To me what makes a good movie is the building of great characters, a good story that either moves me or teaches me something. Good acting is important, as is good directing, and finally someone that can keep the cheese factor down.
I saw Avatar in 3D in the theater, because I was curious. No visual miracles in the world can save that movie from being a lousy story. Like everything else it's another way to wrap people in a neat package of 'entertainment value'. I hated the movie, and the added visual tricks did nothing to enhance the experience.
Now to the flip side of the coin; if I were to see a really good movie in 3D, I might enjoy it. But I would enjoy it in 2D too without missing the possibility of seeing it in 3D. So for me it's completely unnecessary and frankly a waste of time.