Are Moviegoers Tired of 3D...or just the $15 Prices...?

[M Most]

Shooting in 3D is WHY Avatar in 3D worked. Not shooting in 3D is why Clash Of The Titans in 3D did not work.

About 85% of Avatar consisted of scenes that were completely CG. Most of the picture wasn't "shot" at all, but created. I might agree with your sentiment, but Avatar is not a good example as to why.

 

[Mark Collins]

I'm not seeing this light level drop that most people are talking about with regards to 3D in theatres. I've seen Avatar 4 times in 3D, I watched Clash of the Titans and Shrek 4 in 3D, and i also saw Dark Country in 3D, and out of all of those I didn't notice the picture being darker than it should have been or anything like that. So, my personal opinion on that is that's it's a non-issue compared to the real issue of whether or not the film was shot in 3D or not. Dark Country was a whole other matter with it having the lenses set too far apart so that even the glasses can't correct the image to proper stereoscopic.

Clash of the Titans was overall terrible, but seeing it in 3D was an absolute waste because there truthfully was no 3D effect. Shrek 4 had a similar problem in that the 3D added nothing to it at all.

As for ticket prices, yes ticket prices are insane. Digital even moreso. But the digital projection systems are also insanely expensive. The theatre I work at just got a digital project a few months back, and it will take them several years to pay it off.

As for shooting 3D, I haven't done it yet so i can't speak to the challenges/benefits of doing that, but I have shot a lot of digital, and i must say that a film shot on 35mm and projected on 35mm looks so much better than a film shot digitally and then projected digitally.

 

[Bruce Allen]

Sure, Avatar was amazing for some.

I'd say that "some" is perhaps a bit of an understatement, considering the box-office

Anyone want to finalize this whole "3D is dying" thing into a formal bet?

As in "from Jan - Dec 2012, revenue from 3D movies will be responsible for less than X percent of total boxoffice" or "Panasonic, Sony or Samsung will experience decreased 3D TV sales" or... I don't know. Name your bet!

I'll put money down on the other side. And I promise, all winnings would be put towards shooting something - in 3D

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[sbcooler]

For me 3D is a novelty once in awhile for the right kind of picture. For me it's better for documentaries like seeing the Grand Canyon or perhaps a live U2 rock concert. Very cool once in awhile. I hope its used this way or I just won't spend the time/money on 3D drama movies. I'll just wait to see them on HD cable.

We'll see what the future has in store for us all. For me 95% of what I'd be watching I prefer in 2D.

 

[Alex G. Cohn]

The only good thing that can come from 3D is if wide-spread R&D programs turn up some amazing stuff. Otherwise, this will be a fad - like any previous attempt.

Sure, Avatar was amazing for some. What next? Because if that was their one and only ace in a hole, then people will notice soon enough, and this will turn into a passing fad...

I find it funny that the studios are rushing out all of these post-Avatar 3D movies, as if they believe that the 3D was the only reason that Avatar did well.

The 3D certainly accounted for some curiosity tickets as well as inflated ticket prices, but the film did not make over $2.7 billion worldwide because of the 3D.

Avatar is a stunning film in every possible way that the word "stunning" can be defined, from the visuals to the action to the story and so on. And it is really just as stunning in 2D.

 

[Mark Collins]

I find it funny that the studios are rushing out all of these post-Avatar 3D movies, as if they believe that the 3D was the only reason that Avatar did well.

The 3D certainly accounted for some curiosity tickets as well as inflated ticket prices, but the film did not make over $2.7 billion worldwide because of the 3D.

Avatar is a stunning film in every possible way that the word "stunning" can be defined, from the visuals to the action to the story and so on. And it is really just as stunning in 2D.

The Blu-ray release looks better than it did in IMAX 3D

 

[Gunleik Groven]

I cannot see 3D I only use one eye properly) but have to wear the glasses to have fun when my kids go for 3d shows. So to me:
3D is the new 2D + glasses... -