Why is 3-D making a comeback in cinema?

[CapnHook]

Posted: 3/14/10 at 9:09pm

Today I saw ALICE IN WONDERLAND in 3-D. This is the second film I have seen in 3-D at a theatre, the other being A NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS.

I must preface to say that when I saw NIGHTMARE 3-D, I was given cheapo paper 3-D glasses. Today, I received these polarized heavy plastic 3-D glasses which I am told cost $75 each. We were not allowed to take them home as a souvenir, they had to be returned following the movie. A movie attendant remained in the theatre at all times to guard them. I must say that it was the most crystal-clear 3-D experience I have had, even more than the Disney and Universal theme parks.

While the discussion of 3-D has happened here a while back, I can't find the thread.

Regarding the film, I thought it was better than what I was expecting it to be. I was actually impressed, to be honest. Not the best film, not the best Burton film, not the best Alice in Wonderland film. However, my enjoyment of the film was severely diminished by the 3-D experience.

The 3-D effects were pointless and added nothing to the film. In fact, they were distracting. And having the glasses on my face were distracting. I just don't get the appeal. It doesn't add anything, it only takes away.

I know people share and don't share this opinion, but why does it seem like everyone LIKES it? I read somewhere that 30% of movies in 2010 and 2011 will be in 3-D. Is it really THAT popular? Personally, I think it is a gimmick and audiences are just liking something new. They are fooling themselves. Or perhaps they genuinely like the 3-D...I don't know. I just don't understand how this could possibly be catching on! Not to mention that it's a more expensive ticket price!

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 3/14/10 at 9:31pm

"Avatar" used the 3D effects BRILLIANTLY to enhance the movie going experience. I mean, in my opinion, the movie would have bombed if it wasn't for the 3D effects because it had such a paper-thin plot. If you are able to see "Avatar" in IMAX 3D, I would highly recommend it to show how 3D effects can REALLY be used.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 3/14/10 at 9:40pm

Basically, the same reason it came into being. They want to put butts in the seats

Add to that, the improvement in technology & the chance to charge more & sock you for the glasses.

[SNAFU]

Posted: 3/14/10 at 10:10pm

I believe Alice was shot in 2 D and then remastered into 3-D in post. wasn't Avatar generated in 3-D? Can't really say "shot? anymore.

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/14/10 at 10:11pm

Can Smellovision and Sensurround be far behind?

[JohnBoy2]

Posted: 3/14/10 at 11:31pm

I've been seeing 3D films since the 50s, and they were pretty much all with Polarized glasses. I can't imagine where you saw the film with another type of glasses.

[Jane2]

Posted: 3/14/10 at 11:37pm

"Can Smellovision and Sensurround be far behind?"

I still have my smellovision card from Polyester and some of the tabs still smell! This after almost 30 years!

[SNAFU]

Posted: 3/14/10 at 11:43pm

The ones I believe that Cap was describing are the ones that they use in the imax theatres where the lenses sort of liquid crystal shutter shutter that is activated by infa red beams given off on the sides of the screen. They are heavy goggle type things. Not the simple polarized sun glass ones or the red and blue cardboard glasses.

[eatlasagna]

Posted: 3/14/10 at 11:49pm

Avatar was awesome in 3D...

Alice in Wonderland... 3D was definitely not necessary... same thing with The Final Destination

My Bloody Valentine 3D was hilarious in 3D!!! naked woman running around the screen in 3D!!!!

i hate that studios think that EVERY freaking movie now needs to be in 3D... it does not!!!

[Biff AKA Levi]

Posted: 3/15/10 at 12:12am

My Bloody Valentine was AMAZING in 3D. I felt like I had to shower afterwards because I felt covered in blood. The eye ball was cool, too.

Final Destination wasn't too bad in 3D. Stupid story, but had some pretty good effects.

My favorite movie in 3D has been Monsters VS Aliens. I didn't see AVATAR and I hated UP. The 3D was pointless.

I've seen both Alice in 3D and in 2D, and while there isn't a huge change, I missed seeing the Cheshire Cat and the Caterpillar's smoke in 3D.



That's what our glasses look like at my cinema. They're cheap and recyclable.

[tazber]

Posted: 3/15/10 at 6:09am

Alice was shot in 2-D and converted after (as SNAFU mentioned).

When the process is after the fact like that the results are hit and miss.

Posted: 3/15/10 at 6:12am

When are we going to get Porn in 3-D again?

I can't be only one who loved "Heavy Equipment"!

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/15/10 at 9:52am

3D is making a comeback because movie theatre attendance is down. Drastically down. They don't want you to know that, though.

Yes, there's all this talk about Avatar being the highest grossing film of all time. Movies are the ONLY entertainment format where they talk dollars instead of popularity.

With books, it's number sold.
In the music industry, it's number of units sold (albums or singles)
With TV it's number of viewers (ratings)
With plays it's nightly and weekly attendance

But with movies? It's dollars.

And it makes no sense, because the dollar fluctuates and the ticket prices change. The cold hard fact is that movie theatre attendance has been dropping steadily for years now. Avatar may be the highest grossing film of all time, but it is not the most attended. Not even close. In fact, it ranks 14th. Not very exciting to promote that, though. So they talk dollars, because the record can be broken far more easily. Just hike the ticket prices up enough, and eventually you'll set a new record.

Here's the all-time Box Office Mojo chart adjusted for inflation:

http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

3D movies are making a comeback because the technology has improved, and with attendance down, they are trying to keep people going to movie theatres.

[WOSQ]

Posted: 3/15/10 at 9:53am

When one is blind in one eye, as I am, 3-D means nothing. If I watch a 3-D film I must use the glasses, but I see the film flat.

I judged Avatar as it was presented as a movie and not some "special 3-D experience" which is one reason I said it was good, but not a great, film.

As for Alice in Wonderland, I have no real yen to watch this. I sang "White Rabbit" made famous by Grace Slick and called it a day.

Feed your head.

[JohnBoy2]

Posted: 3/15/10 at 11:15am

I adore 3D, and like I said in my previous post, have been going to see them since the 50s. I skipped Avatar, because the trailer (which I saw in IMAX 3D), bored me to tears. I'm skipping Alice, because I'm not a fan of the story, and I'm bored by Burton's same look in every film (ugly), and with Johnny Depp playing every role as a woman. But I still love the process, and am glad for its comeback.

Favorite films in 3D (for the technique)

House of Wax
Dial M for Murder
Friday the 13th, Part 3
Kiss Me Kate
A Christmas Carol (even though I hate the Motion Capture process)
My Bloody Valentine
The Final Destination
Revenge of the Creature

Jaws 3D remains the worst (in every aspect) 3D film I ever saw. And that's including the X-rated The Stewardesses and Robot Monster (a man in an ape costume with a diving helmet on his head)!

[tazber]

Posted: 3/15/10 at 11:24am

A lot of people have problems viewing movies in 3-D WOSQ. That's another reason why Hollywood's expectations need to be downgraded.
To hear Katzenberg talk, one day every movie made will be in 3-D b/c even the smaller scale films will benefit from its added depth.

I can't see how My Dinner With Andre would benefit from any sort of gimmicky enhancement, but there you go.

As besty points out, the whole reason for the resurgence was to entice people to return to the theaters. During the mid-aughts home video was outpacing ticket sales by almost 3:1. So 3-D was supposed to bring us all back to the cinemas.

Of course 3-D TV's were only a matter of time, and the first models are rolling off the assembly line right now. So the resurgence of movie-going may be short lived.

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/15/10 at 12:08pm

You could be right, Taz. I'm not sure how 3D will play out in the home entertainment market.

Initially, I think it will piss people off, because it requires all new equipment and cables to see it.

Your current HDTV doesn't have a fast enough refresh rate. Your current BD players don't support the format. And even with the rumored promise of a free hardware upgrade for the PS3, the current HDMI ports aren't fast enough, either. And your current HDMI cables (very likely) will need to be upgraded to 1.4 in order to view both frames (left and right) simultaneously.

Maybe they'll figure all of this out in the coming months, but their audience is the consumers who are into Blu-ray, HDTV, and have all the right cables, etc. If they find out they need to replace everything, it will leave them bitter. "Yet another marketing scheme to get us to re-buy."

If that's the case, I see it as taking years to catch on, if at all.

[tazber]

Posted: 3/15/10 at 12:16pm

Oh yea, it's definitely years away from mass penetration (tee-hee).

As it stands now, the glasses alone are $150.00 a pair. So for a family of 4 to watch a 3-D movie on their overly priced new 3-D tv you'd have to add an additional $600.00. Clearly pricing needs to be worked on.

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/15/10 at 12:23pm

Wow, I think I can hire the actors to come over and do the movie in my living room cheaper.

I know some of the TVs sell with either 1 or 2 pairs included. Some with none at all. And for a family, even 2 pairs of glasses are insufficient.

I saw a bunch of people walking out the door without returning their glasses at Avatar. I don't know if these glasses would work for home viewing or not, but that didn't stop 'em from poaching.

[tazber]

Posted: 3/15/10 at 12:29pm

No, the glasses are completely different for TV 3-D. Some companies are selling "starter sets" which include 2 pair with the TV, but from what I understand it's a limited plan.

And the glasses are prone to breaking easily. The technology involves a high speed shutter opening and closing faster than the eye can see. I'm sure you can imagine how fragile these could be.

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/15/10 at 12:31pm

... not to mention I seriously question their long-term effects on vision.

Jeeez, kinda scary.

[tazber]

Posted: 3/15/10 at 12:34pm

Huh, never thought of that.

[StageManager2]

Posted: 3/15/10 at 12:41pm

It's a fad. People will soon get tired of staring at a plywood box every night.

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/15/10 at 12:58pm

Plywood? LOL

Do you still have an old console set?

[tazber]

Posted: 3/15/10 at 1:00pm