Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Is 3-D Dead? Slate article

M Most said:
And what percentage of the total screens were 3D screens?

.....

Of course, if one wants to believe that 3D is the reason, I can't do anything about that. I just don't happen to see it that way.
Click to expand...

So Mike, 3D has nothing to do with these HUGE numbers for Lion King 3D? Considering the significant premium that theaters are charging for 3D, why are 92% viewers choosing 3D over 2D?

Mr. Hollis added that 92% of the weekend's gross came from 3-D ticket sales, even though a 2-D version of the film was also available in most theaters. "I'm a big proponent of choice and giving consumers the option of seeing films in the format they like," he said.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903374004576578821977969998.html
Click to expand...
 
On a whim, I checked the theaters in 4 theaters I've frequented in the past 2 years. Places I know.

3D showings: 25
2D showings: 6

There will probably be better films to promote as evidence of 3D's definitive viability.
 
Tom Lowe said:
So Mike, 3D has nothing to do with these HUGE numbers for Lion King 3D? Considering the significant premium that theaters are charging for 3D, why are 92% viewers choosing 3D over 2D?
Click to expand...

They're not really such huge numbers if you compare it with previous Disney re-releases. When 101 Dalmations was re-released in 1991 it grossed over $60 million.

In 1991 dollars.

In 2D.

So no, I don't believe that 3D was the primary or even the most significant driver this weekend. But that's just my opinion. And I have no doubt that 3D proponents will be doing some sort of victory dance. So be it.
 
It's not a matter of "3D promoters". I am essentially neutral on the subject. My point is that it's complete nonsense when the "3D haters" claim that 3D is dead or in rapid decline. Let's see how dead 3D is when The Hobbit comes out.

Mike, given the high price premiums of 3D over 2D, how do you explain 92% of ticket sales being 3D?
 
Tom Lowe said:
It's not a matter of "3D promoters". I am essentially neutral on the subject. My point is that it's complete nonsense when the "3D haters" claim that 3D is dead or in rapid decline. Let's see how dead 3D is when The Hobbit comes out.

Mike, given the high price premiums of 3D over 2D, how do you explain 92% of ticket sales being 3D?
Click to expand...

Since this was heavily promoted as "Lion King 3D", and not just as "Lion King", It wouldn't surprise me if over 80% of the screens were 3D. If you do that math in that scenario, you'd get close to that figure.

Look, I'm basically neutral as well. I don't really care whether 3D sold it or not. All I know is what I glean from conversations with people both in and out of the industry. And in those conversations, all I seem to hear is people either not caring about 3D or being actively annoyed by it. And I hear that primarily from people out of the industry. If people really want to see 3D pictures, that's fine. I don't really have any personal investment in it one way or the other. And I intend to keep it that way.
 
That's fine, and my point stands: 3D is NOT dead.
 
Tom Lowe said:
It's not a matter of "3D promoters". I am essentially neutral on the subject. My point is that it's complete nonsense when the "3D haters" claim that 3D is dead or in rapid decline.
Click to expand...

Tom, I agree, in a way. I'm neutral in the sense that I don't have any personal interest in promoting or dismissing 3D, I'm far less neutral when it comes to my choice as member of the audience, but it's not like I show up with "3D sucks" sign in front of theaters: I simply choose 2D over 3D, but that's me (and someone else, I guess).
Shouting "3D is dead" is not going to "kill it", that's for sure, and that's why I wrote earlier that this kind of debate gets quite boring and pointless after a while. But, at the same time, for some people who are so vocal about their "hate" for 3D, there are many, many, many more who keep saying "3D is the future". Just like many other thing, in my very humble opinion, probably the truth is somewhere in the middle: 3D is just another format, another tool, and as long as we can choose what to see and how to see it, I personally can't see where the problem is. I'd rather hear people's opinions about something far more interesting, i.e. the fact that out of 40-ish 3D releases this year alone, the vast majority (90%+) are sequels, prequels, re-releases, and generally speaking derivative works. So far, original material presented in 3D is still quite rare.
 
3D is not dead... everyone is just waiting for the right display at a reasonable price that looks incredible. And it is NOT active glasses.

Jim
 
Jannard said:
3D is not dead... everyone is just waiting for the right display at a reasonable price that looks incredible. And it is NOT active glasses.

Jim
Click to expand...

Okay, I was no longer to post here, as it is a senseless discussion... BUT...

Okay, now this deserves a post... RED 4K 3D Passive Ware TV Display would sure be nice... Wouldn't??
 
Julio Quintana said:
I don't think the average filmmaker has the chops to pull off a 3D movie.

The more information you have on screen, the more difficult it is to focus the audience on the correct information in the frame. This is why it's harder to shoot with wide lenses and deep focus. Most filmmakers just use a long lens and throw the background out of focus. It's easier.

With wide lenses/deep focus, blocking, lighting, composition, and production design become infinitely important to guide the audiences eye. How many guys have mastered this? Kubrick, Welles, Malick, Speilberg? It's a hard thing to do, and I personally don't know if there is enough talent out there to sustain an entire 3D industry.
Click to expand...


You are so correct on this point. As a 2d example have a look at CARNAGE in a theater, when you can and you will see very skilled director and crew bringing their craft to excellent performances, doing exactly what you are describing is hard to pull of even in 2D.

Good point. The problem might be the people. Not the technology. Maybe there are not enough evolved skilled craftsman yet?

David
 
KETCH ROSSi said:
Oh, btw, "Rape of a Beauty" already has 3 prominent Distribution houses, and two major Studios, looking in to acquiring its rights even before is made,
but I guess I'll make it as an Indie of a new Era of what Indies can and will be thanks to the new gear like RED EPIC and ATOM, we now have access to.

Also since I am opening a Studios in Italy for the Development, Production and DISTRIBUTION of Motion Pictures, does this no longer makes me an INDIE?? Just wondering... ;)
Click to expand...

Paolo Tinari said:
Huge!
Click to expand...



I agree. This is HUGE and fantastic news for your film and your studio Ketch! Way to go.
Is this why you are in Milan now?

Go!
 
I have done two things over the last two years to test the 3D waters (I have a rental company - very small). I visit theaters when I go to a film (multiplex with 20 theaters). When Avatar came out they all went to 3D. Today, sorry to say, only a hand full of people. The other thing I do is ask kids (many, 15 to 25 years old). Again around Avatar they all went, today almost none of them. The reason, the glasses, the prices and the quality. If things move quickly with much better presentation (no glasses, better brightness and maybe a good film or two) maybe it will survive for other than tent pole films. I have yet to meet anyone that watches 3D sports at home (anybody else know someone that does?). Someday I see TV that does have 3D depth (not the pop up book look) but not anytime soon (unless Jim has something to tell us). It has helped move us quickly into digital projection and I like that. My weekend 2 cents. Later.
 
I can tell you for sure that the 3D content you have seen has not been seen in its best light. That will change.

Jim
 
3D will only be mainstream when glasses are out of the equation, and when they add something to the storytelling and cinematography. A good 3D movie needs incredible mise-en-scene work (and expensive). When everything is in focus, it needs incredible planning of how everything "works" in a 3D space in order to use 3D as a story telling device. In conventional 2D filmmaking control of DOF is used to help to create this notion of depth and at the same time focus and differentiation. In 3D, this notion needs to be done through lighting, mise-en-scene and set design mostly... Its a completely different ball game, a game that most are not playing because 2D is still the major distribution channel and if you go make a film with only 3D in mind, it will look, well, quite underwhelming in 2D...

EDIT- Just saw this was quite eloquently discussed before. Somehow this sums up, albeit in a bit more simplistic way, some of the opinions of previous posters. I hope this post doesn't sound too redundant...
 
David Battistella said:
I agree. This is HUGE and fantastic news for your film and your studio Ketch! Way to go.
Is this why you are in Milan now?

Go!
Click to expand...

Thanks David, yes this is one of the reasons, second reason is the Grand Gala Gallery events I'll be doing every month, and Milan has proven to be the absolute best city for it...

Oh, and since this is about 3D, I guess is fitting to say that many of the Frame Grabs printed shown at this events will be in 3D... ;)


Jannard said:
I can tell you for sure that the 3D content you have seen has not been seen in its best light. That will change.

Jim
Click to expand...

On this we agree as well, BIG TIME!! More then once I literally did go in to the Projection room, and assisted in making lighting adjustments...

However, I still believe that the issue here is also the Projector itself in most Cinemas, as well as the SCREENS, and of course, those GLASSES...
At list me and my buddies now view them on Oakleys, and that already helps, as not having to use those cheap thin foil like glasses,
all scratched up and such is already a BIG plus... JUST NOT IN OFF YET...

KETCH ROSSi STUDiOS Milan, Italy it sure would be proud to be amongst the first or the first in Italy at list to showcase EPIC's beautiful images on a RED PROJECTION SYSTEM... ;)
 
Jannard said:
3D is not dead... everyone is just waiting for the right display at a reasonable price that looks incredible. And it is NOT active glasses.

Jim
Click to expand...

I am quite interested in how personal 3D OLED eyewear will have an impact ... everyone has the best seat in the house with this potentially disruptive 3D technology

SONY HMZT1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCYKk_ZxkY
Watching Sony's "Green Hornet", shot on Red MX


VUZIX
http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/19/vuzix-wrap-1200vr-video-eyewear-does-3d-with-head-tracking-for/
 
Last edited:
Jannard said:
I can tell you for sure that the 3D content you have seen has not been seen in its best light. That will change.
Click to expand...

I really don't see it seriously changing until there is actual 3D. Not stereoscopy. But, once again, just my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top