A fascianting recent stat; the new “Pirates of the Carribean” film was presented in 3D on 67% of the screens it opened on, but those screens brought in just 47% of the revenue. Clearly, more people wanted to see the brighter, no-glasses-required 2D format.
Heck, I do this myself - carefully checking movie listing to ensure I’m planning for the 2D showing, not the 3D. I enjoyed “Avatar” in 3D but most 3D movies are too dark, too clumsy with the glasses, and just don’t add anything.
So as of May 29, 2011, is 3D doing okay or is it flopping?
Why does 3D do so much better outside the US than in?
Will the technology get better to allow the 3D format to be less dim?
The reasons aren’t that clear. Perhaps people were wary of spending more than they needed to on another freakin’ Pirates movie. It could be that people prefer 3D, but not paying for it. Or perhaps shitty 3D-conversions, such as Thor, have turned some people off.
Reading that link, it seems clear that the lack of promotion of Pirates 4 as a 3D movie likely has something to do with it. I didn’t know the movie was in 3D, either, so upon going to the theater, why would I choose 3D for another few bucks? They didn’t even promote its 3D virtues.
As long as they continue to offer the 2D format, I’ll be happy to ignore 3D. The glasses are annoying and 9.9/10 times the effect adds nothing*, so I won’t choose to watch movies that way. If they get rid of the 2D option at some point, I’ll really get my curmudgeon on.
*Yeah, Avatar looked good, but so what? Everything else about that movie was terrible. The 3D effects were like sparklers decorating a shit pile - visually interesting but doing nothing to detract from the stench.
Agreed. My wife and I saw a relatively recent movie on TV just last night. Even in 2D, we could easily spot the “THIS IS 3D!!!” scenes. They’re totally distracting.
I love 3d, I really do. I think can add so much to a movie…if done right. Up and Coraline did it right and I’m glad I saw the film in 3d and would do so again. Thor, on the other hand, I saw in 2d because I knew they would not use the technology to its fullest.
I had a houseguest last week who was keen to see the new Pirates of the Caribbean movie. I said I was not under any circumstances seeing it in 3D, and she wasn’t big on 3D either, so we drove 20 minutes to the next town over to see it in 2D there. Had I been willing to watch it in 3D, we could have walked three blocks to the theater near my house where it was showing in 3D only.
At no point during the movie did I think “Gosh, this would be a lot better in 3D!” or “If only I could be wearing an extra pair of glasses on top of the glasses I already need to see!” or “I sure wish we’d paid an extra $3 each for this!”
I said two years ago that 3D would last five years tops. Still on schedule.
It’s fad. There’s nothing that 3D adds to a movie. Once the novelty is gone, people realize they’re paying extra and getting nothing for their money.
The technology for 3D is barely different from the technology used for 3D in 1954. It’s digital, sure, but the same technique is being used: two polarized images shown simultaneously, and polarized glasses to filter out the images. The darkness is an effect of the laws of physics: you need twice as much light, since you’re viewing only half the image in each eye.
I don’t know about 3D dying anytime soon, not because audiences clamor for it, but because theaters have invested a lot of money in it. What you might want to consider, though, is that according to Roger Ebert your 2D experience is being messed with because of the investment in 3D. link.
Huh. I thought the reason the last (2D) movie I saw looked like crap had something to do with it being shot in a way that facilitated conversion to pseudo-3D.
You only need to go to your local electronics store and see the new 3D flat screen televisions being sold to let you know this “fad” isn’t going away. Additionally, there is new technology that will allow you to watch 3D on television without wearing those stupid glasses.
Also, several broadcasters have announced new 3D channels in the works - most notably the sports channels. My guess is once your neighbors have the Superbowl in high-def 3D, the rest of the neighbors are going to follow suit. I am by no means a sports fan and took quiet satisfaction in reading that America’s Got Talent beat the NBA play offs in ratings - but when I watched a snippet of a basketball game on a 3D television, I was duly impressed. An entirely different experience!
So, between getting a TV like that to impress your friends for big TV sporting and non-sporting events, and showing some better 3D movies for your kids - well, if I had money to invest, it would be in 3D - and my guess is Hollywood is not going to quit anytime soon. It would be nice if they would really film the entire movie in 3D and not just fiddle with the film after-the-fact with a few scenes.
Oh, and let’s not forget that Avatar 2 and 3 are already in the works, as well as both Hobbit films being filmed in 3D…you guys all seriously think this is going away soon?
Sorry, but I’ve seen too many new electronics technologies come out and fail to take that as any sort of indication of success. For instance, I love surround music. Can I sell you a DVD-Audio player? It also plays Super-Audio CD! My love of it, and the fact that it was a genuine advance, didn’t keep it from ultimately flopping.
Here’s the thing - go shop for one. You’ll find each set uses a completely different technology. The glasses for one won’t work for a competing brand. Most of the ones that work well use “active” glasses (like the Dolby 3D system) rather than passive, polarized ones. That means you have to invest in expensive, fragile pairs of sunglasses. Imagine the situation in a sports bar. Can you see the bar buying a pair of active glasses for everyone in the place, and keeping track of them?
I’ve watched the spectrum of 3D movies now, and Avatar in Imax 3D is still the most spectacular movie I’ve ever seen - you could practically smell the air of Pandora. If you only saw it in regular 3D, you seriously missed out. I wouldn’t cross the street for regular 3D - it isn’t special enough to warrant the hassle for me.
Hmm…this sounds oddly familiar - “Nobody will buy video machines as they are too expensive and which do you buy, Betamax or VHS?” “Nobody will buy tapes instead of records - which would you buy, 8 track or cassette?” “My Walkman’s fine, why would I need a CD player?”“What is an MP3? I have CD’s so I don’t care!”
I believe a lot of Hollywood executives saw TV as a fad that would soon go away.
Blu-Ray anyone?
IMAX has the big screens going for it, but the 3D technology itself is significantly inferior to the RealD system most non-IMAX theaters use. There’s no point in IMAX 3D in a regular theater.
And I’ve still yet to hear any of the “just a fad” crowd give a good explanation for why color movies weren’t “just a fad”. All the same arguments apply.
I’m actively rooting against it! My daughter can’t see in 3D and I am selfishly hoping the whole fad falls off. It is simply entertainment. If it were something like a cure for cancer, then I would say, my daughter’s experience be damned, cure the cancer for god’s sake! But for something as trivial as 3D, I feel just fine rooting against it.
You would be surprised at how many people think I am wrong for feeling that way.