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 :)

NY Times article about 3D at the Box Office

Thanks Steve...
cheers
 
What prices do theaters outside the US charge for 3D screenings? Is it just a bit extra to see 3D in, China, Russia, etc.? Or are there places where 3D is the only choice?

Seems foolish to count on people to pay extra for movie tickets in a down economy.

So far it looks like Avatar is the only 3D-from-the-ground-up franchise. Spider-man is a reboot, and The Hobbit, Harry Potter, POTC, and Transformers have had 2D precedents. Maybe people who are already vested in a franchise don't see the need to suddenly switch to 3D for the latest installment?
 
Went to see Pirates on sunday with my 13 year old daughter. Because I think I haven't seen any 3d proper spectacle yet I thought I'd see it in 3d, and my daughter being 13 I assumed she'd demand the hype thing. This is what she said (and she didn't have to pay the ticket): let's see it 2d, I think 3d is too expensive and it doesn't add anything.
 
KETCH ROSSi said:
NOthing to do with 3D, and everything to do with the DISASTROUS Economy, and people are trying to save a buck, even when going to the Movies,
and for this they are skipping 3D viewing as the ticket prices are higher. nothing to do with people not liking 3D!!
Click to expand...

That sounds like the view of someone who feels they have a stake in the outcome. From my point of view, if the economy were to blame, people wouldn't be going to the movies in the first place. The difference in pricing is only a few dollars, not enough to me for the economy to be such an overwhelming factor. If they're going to the movies but opting for the 2D presentation, it's far more likely that it's because they either like it better, don't enjoy the 3D experience, don't see the point of 3D, resent paying more for something that really doesn't add much to the story, or a combination of the four. Saying "it's the economy" is to me something of a cop-out, a way of avoiding the obvious, as if fixing the economy would magically catapult 3D into everyone's mindset and somehow make them embrace it.
 
I'd also add in the likelihood that US audiences weren't gung-ho about seeing POTC and KFP2 anyways, regardless of 3D.

I'm curious to see what the numbers on 2D vs. 3D would be if they had roughly the same number of screens and 3D tickets didn't cost extra. But that would defeat the entire purpose of 3D, which is to get people to pay more for a movie ticket.

Personally, I know very few people who like 3D movies among my industry and non-industry friends. And I'm in my 20s. So its not just a bunch of old Luddites who dislike it.
 
If I had a choice between 3d and 2d at the same price I would choose 2d. Actually I think I would pay more to see 2d over 3d.
 
M Most said:
That sounds like the view of someone who feels they have a stake in the outcome. From my point of view, if the economy were to blame, people wouldn't be going to the movies in the first place. The difference in pricing is only a few dollars, not enough to me for the economy to be such an overwhelming factor. If they're going to the movies but opting for the 2D presentation, it's far more likely that it's because they either like it better, don't enjoy the 3D experience, don't see the point of 3D, resent paying more for something that really doesn't add much to the story, or a combination of the four. Saying "it's the economy" is to me something of a cop-out, a way of avoiding the obvious, as if fixing the economy would magically catapult 3D into everyone's mindset and somehow make them embrace it.
Click to expand...


I just say its the economy simply because I tired of every one else's wanting to know the real cause, and just simply speaking none sense, sorry but it is the way I fill,
including your tough... ;)

I usually don't even bother which I should have not bother this time either but I did, but I will not replay again, this are all complete MUTE points,
from either people that don't know how to adapt to a changing times, or don't or can't do 3D, or just because they simply want to act as if they know everything.

Oh believe, me I have seen mote then once families choosing 2D vs. 3D because of the ticket's price difference, which is way more then few dollars,
check your local theaters in the USA, you'll see that is not just few dollars difference.

Yeah of course I have a stake on it, I am a Filmmaker, which happens to like and use every tool at his disposal, 3D included... ;)
 
I don't consider myself to be any of the four things I think you just accused me of being, and I'm rather insulted that you would see me that way. I consider myself a pretty well informed person with a good deal of experience in multiple ends of the industry, who just happens to have a different opinion than you. That doesn't make either of us right or wrong, and it doesn't make either of us more modern, forward thinking, or talented than the other. Nothing is obvious in the world of stereoscopic 3D, least of all whether it has staying power in it's current form, or whether audiences like it or they don't. For every study that has one conclusion, I can show you one with a different conclusion. If you want to use it as a tool, that's fine by me.

But I'll probably still want to see it in 2D ;-D
 
None of the above was directed at you, if I wanted to be directed at you I would have named you directly, it was named in general to the many posters that of which I have read nonsense.

However you did directed your self at me, and you should have directed yourself in a different tone for that matter, I believe I do have my share of Knowledge in the business, and of how the world works... ;)
 
Boy, Ketch, I'm with you about those blow-hards that act like they know everything! Taking up a lot of air when they don't know which end their ass is attached to!. I'm 100% behind that! I'm in your corner buddy. You and me against the bloviators of the world!
 
3D... but how do you remember the images?

3D... but how do you remember the images?

So here is something that I think might be an interesting idea to consider when it comes to the 2D vs. 3D --or--- is 3D a trend type discussions...

Most of us can recall images in our minds from films that made an impact on us... we don't need to see the image in front of us we can see it from memory almost verbatim.

But what about 3D films, is the same true? Is the image you can recall in your minds eye 2D or 3D? Does it have the forced depth or is it recalled as the traditional 2D image in your memory?

My experience has been a bit limited... Avatar is the only recent example I have seen in 3D (IMAX). I can recall specific images in my mind from that film with great detail. I remember how the film looks quite well, but I don't see it in my mind (memory) in 3D the way I experienced it when I viewed it in the moment it was projected. How do you recall the images when you close your eyes? Is the effect of 3D strictly experiential in the moment or does it have a persistence effect?

...my point being, if others experience a similar phenomenon of not recalling images in 3D after they have watched them, is there a disconnect emotionally between 3D films and their audiences?

just a thought.
 
KETCH ROSSi said:
None of the above was directed at you, if I wanted to be directed at you I would have named you directly, it was named in general to the many posters that of which I have read nonsense.
Click to expand...

In that case, I misinterpreted. Never mind. ;-)))
 
Brandon Kraemer said:
So here is something that I think might be an interesting idea to consider when it comes to the 2D vs. 3D --or--- is 3D a trend type discussions...

Most of us can recall images in our minds from films that made an impact on us... we don't need to see the image in front of us we can see it from memory almost verbatim.

But what about 3D films, is the same true? Is the image you can recall in your minds eye 2D or 3D? Does it have the forced depth or is it recalled as the traditional 2D image in your memory?...... I remember how the film looks quite well, but I don't see it in my mind (memory) in 3D the way I experienced it when I viewed it in the moment it was projected. How do you recall the images when you close your eyes? Is the effect of 3D strictly experiential in the moment or does it have a persistence effect?
Click to expand...

Interesting to think about, although if you do that a bit too much your brain might explode.....

I think there's a difference - a serious one - between image memory and experiential memory. In other words, if you think about moments you've experienced, you can relive the experience (at least most people probably can), but the reliving is not necessarily visual. I have some very vivid memories of events that happened during very early years in my life (I'm talking 4 years old here..) that were particularly significant for me personally, and when I call them up I can recall being there, the emotions I had at the time, things that I reacted to and how and why. And all of those type of memories are just as significant as my visual memory of "seeing" those moments happen. The human brain is a very, very fast and complex computer - hence why dreams can be such vivid and detailed recreations of "real life" - and my feeling is that visual memory, even when comparing 2D and 3D images you've seen, is a very small part of what memories actually are.

That probably doesn't answer your question, but it is interesting.
 
I understand that we are here to make cinema size images, but it is probably worth considering the discussion of staying power of 3D in terms of other screens as well. I would say that the home theater and gaming prospects of S3D create a very unique opportunity for the technical obstacles that cinema size 3D faces, to be overcome (read physical seat positioning/glasses/IO measurements). Perhaps when more people have experienced well made, interesting uses of stereo3D in other venues, which are now more affordable and technically possible than other iterations of the S3D "waves", they will then feel an enthusiasm for hitting the movie theater for some big scale stereography (Well, let's hope it's for big scale storytelling, with an added spice of the stereoscopy as a tool ;)
My 2 cents.
 
Storytelling triumphs over all. If the film sucks in 3D it will still suck in 2D -just lipstick on a pig.

Tix are on average $3 more for 3D here in Winnipeg.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top