Share of cinema 3D sales falls below 50% according to The Economist

[Diapositivo]

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]

.
That's Great News !

I saw Avatar In 3D.

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


Ron
.

[bsdunek]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.