I think its good to occasionally go and watch a movie in 3d at the cinema for full effect, but I'm certainly not going to sit wearing silly spectacles of an evening at home. HD tv for me.
3D has risen and fallen millions of times. Sure, it's reached an all-time peak this time and the current trend of 3D has been the biggest one ever certainly, but there's never been anything new to suggest that 3D is here to stay this time.
Let's face it, the whole 3D craze has just been riding off the back of Avatar for 3 years now - very few films have actually done anything impressive with it.
Also, it's worth noting that 3D re-releases have gone through a massive decline in the last year or so. Phantom Menace did relatively well, but that's more to do with the loyalty of Star Wars fans. All last year's Disney/Pixar ones bombed, and Jurassic Park's not doing so well so far. The Lion King is the only real success story, and that was 18 months ago now.
It'll take another few years yet, but unless there's a big 3D cinematic event like Avatar, I really think it's on its way out yet again.
Well we've got The Hobbit in 3D for 2 more years, Avatar 2/3 and the new Star Wars Trilogy (and the spin-offs) over the next 6 years or so..all in 3D. Those alone will keep support going.
Plus with childrens CGI films there's little reason for them not to be in 3D..all the data needed to do it is there on the computer at the flick of a switch.
Jurassic Park 3D (which is a superb conversion) only had a budget of around $10 million...and its made around $42 million in the US so far. Profit wise that's a better return than a big chunk of this years blockbuster films.
Well we've got The Hobbit in 3D for 2 more years, Avatar 2/3 and the new Star Wars Trilogy (and the spin-offs) over the next 6 years or so..all in 3D. Those alone will keep support going.
Plus with childrens CGI films there's little reason for them not to be in 3D..all the data needed to do it is there on the computer at the flick of a switch.
Jurassic Park 3D (which is a superb conversion) only had a budget of around $10 million...and its made around $42 million in the US so far. Profit wise that's a better return than a big chunk of this years blockbuster films.
Plus it was released on the back of a Blu Ray 3D release,so it was kind of like an Advertisement for its release
Titanic's what I meant when I said 're-make', although obviously it wasn't a re-make in the usual sense of the word. As with Avatar, Cameron took the time to re-do Titanic properly. It wasn't just quick 'run it through the computer' job to cash in. I agree converted can look as good as 'native' 3D if it's treated the same way. I didn't know JP was being re-done, but I fully expect SS will do it right. I can't see him doing a rush job somehow. As you say, if you (as the film-maker) don't have the time and/ or money to do it right, then don't bother (yes, I'm looking at you, David - Harry Potter - Yates). I like to think that some day soon, film companies will wise up to the fact that the consumer would rather have film made only in 2D, than poor 3D.
I do so agree with the highlighted bit. Cinema "3D" is more like 2.5D in reality and the only realistic 3D I have ever seen has been in a specialist IMAX cinema.
I'm with film critic Mark Kermode on this one - I just don't care for 3D films or TV.
Same here. No lover of 3D - I do like IMAX though - glad Nolan likes it too.
I also agree with Kermode...although disagree with him about the 3D in Hugo 'working' because of the historical nature of it...3D is 3D and that's that.
However, what 3D does do is make directors set-up the shots with more depth and breadth than they would do for 2D to 'make' the 3D worth it...I find what this does is make 2D films actually look better as the broader and deeper shots do give the shots more 'depth'...painters do that anyway so no reason why directors can't however not that many directors who make 2D actually think about the depth etc.
You're in the minority though i'm afraid. People are clearly feeling forced into seeing those 3D screenings, even if they dislike 3D. (Fright Night, Dredd)
I know there are people that like it, but i only know of the 5 or 6 DS members (always the same few guys) that post here, and i know one person who rates it. Just one, and she's easily pleased if i'm brutally honest.
"It's not completely over yet, but during the past few months it seems that industry attitudes towards 3D have hardened and the smart money is now backing 4k."
Short version: most of it has been poorly done so it's no wonder it's not popular.
I managed to miss the two films I would have liked to see in 3D (Hugo, Life of Pi). From reports these really used its potential well so I'm pretty sure I missed out. I did get force fed 3D as the only way to see the Hobbit in HFR, as with a previous poster. 3D was meh. HFR was startling (but that's for another thread).
I also agree with Kermode...although disagree with him about the 3D in Hugo 'working' because of the historical nature of it...3D is 3D and that's that.
His argument had nothing to do with it being historical, he said the 3D worked because it was designed to alienate the audience from the film (and that was exactly what he felt it did).
His argument had nothing to do with it being historical, he said the 3D worked because it was designed to alienate the audience from the film (and that was exactly what he felt it did).
On his film show I don't remember him saying anything so anal- it was closer to what Is said which surprised me that he actually felt it worked especially regarding The comment about the train clip in 3D was also in his book which he referenced in his Radio 5 review as well as in his book.
Finally found a copy of the review...just to make sure I wasn't going mad. Not point scoring here as it is interesting how he sees to be saying two different things in the Gruniad and on the podcast...starts around 43:30 - the sound to text transcript is interesting on the page!
I think I paraphrased what Kermode said a bit/a lot.
On his film show I don't remember him saying anything so anal- it was closer to what Is said which surprised me that he actually felt it worked especially regarding The comment about the train clip in 3D was also in his book which he referenced in his Radio 5 review as well as in his book.
Finally found a copy of the review...just to make sure I wasn't going mad. Not point scoring here as it is interesting how he sees to be saying two different things in the Gruniad and on the podcast...starts around 43:30 - the sound to text transcript is interesting on the page!
I think I paraphrased what Kermode said a bit/a lot.
Odd, I didn't read his column, but I definitely remember him using the phrase "Brechtian Alienation Device" (Presumably you know this, but just in case, Brecht was a director who wanted to make the audience think, instead of being realistic, so used non-naturalistic techniques to take the audience out of the story) on his radio show, and Simon Mayo wondering what on Earth that meant. Mayo now periodically brings it up from time to time.
Odd, I didn't read his column, but I definitely remember him using the phrase "Brechtian Alienation Device" (Presumably you know this, but just in case, Brecht was a director who wanted to make the audience think, instead of being realistic, so used non-naturalistic techniques to take the audience out of the story) on his radio show, and Simon Mayo wondering what on Earth that meant. Mayo now periodically brings it up from time to time.
Yes,he has gone through a phase of using that phrase but not for Hugo I think?
I wonder if there's an element of getting used to 3D before you start to appreciate it (PJ said the same thing about HFR). If you only see the odd 3D film then you notice the bad (eye strain etc...) and that over-rides the good. Perhaps the more you are exposed to 3D the less the negatives impact on the positives. I only suggest this as I always used to be very anti-3D but I have had a 3D TV for a couple of months now and find watching some things on it brilliant and also suddenly have found myself watching 3D films (Iron Man 3 last night) as a preference and enjoying the experience. I will be watching Star Trek in 3D.
I wonder if there's an element of getting used to 3D before you start to appreciate it (PJ said the same thing about HFR). If you only see the odd 3D film then you notice the bad (eye strain etc...) and that over-rides the good. Perhaps the more you are exposed to 3D the less the negatives impact on the positives. I only suggest this as I always used to be very anti-3D but I have had a 3D TV for a couple of months now and find watching some things on it brilliant and also suddenly have found myself watching 3D films (Iron Man 3 last night) as a preference and enjoying the experience. I will be watching Star Trek in 3D.
Just an idea.
From my local Vue website: tonight at around 8pm, films in 2D on a standard (ie big) screen cost £11, films in 3D on the same size screen cost £14. Add a couple more quid for the Xtreme screen if size really matters.
3D is overpriced, the choice of films is limited, and until that changes there's no incentive to get used to the discomfort and reduced picture quality. When we get glasses-free 3D as standard, when we get thrillers and romcoms and comedies and Iranian art-house films in 3D as standard, then it will be worth getting used to.
From my local Vue website: tonight at around 8pm, films in 2D on a standard (ie big) screen cost £11, films in 3D on the same size screen cost £14. Add a couple more quid for the Xtreme screen if size really matters.
3D is overpriced, the choice of films is limited, and until that changes there's no incentive to get used to the discomfort and reduced picture quality. When we get glasses-free 3D as standard, when we get thrillers and romcoms and comedies and Iranian art-house films in 3D as standard, then it will be worth getting used to.
Don't get me wrong... IMO the premium price put on 3D is totally unjustified. I also don't expect 3D to be widely adopted for films other than CG animated & blockbuster action/sci-fi/adventure. If 3D display starts to become more widely used in other technology such as PC displays, laptops, phones etc... I do think it will become mainstream.
I can't stand 3d in the cinema; the prices are jacked up, I have to wear a stupid pair of polarised lenses on top of my glasses and I don't see much value being added. Honestly, being able to see that the lamp is in front of the wardrobe is not worth the eye strain.
Each to their own I guess. I don't mind 3D content at all. Yes 3D in the cinema IS expensive and we used to go and see a 3D movie once a month (if available) but now we get them from the Sky store at a fraction of the cost of going to the cinema but there's just something about watching a 3D movie on an imax screen.
3D has risen and fallen millions of times. Sure, it's reached an all-time peak this time and the current trend of 3D has been the biggest one ever certainly, but there's never been anything new to suggest that 3D is here to stay this time.
Let's face it, the whole 3D craze has just been riding off the back of Avatar for 3 years now - very few films have actually done anything impressive with it.
Also, it's worth noting that 3D re-releases have gone through a massive decline in the last year or so. Phantom Menace did relatively well, but that's more to do with the loyalty of Star Wars fans. All last year's Disney/Pixar ones bombed, and Jurassic Park's not doing so well so far. The Lion King is the only real success story, and that was 18 months ago now.
It'll take another few years yet, but unless there's a big 3D cinematic event like Avatar, I really think it's on its way out yet again.
But not so well that the supposed planed release of all six Star Wars films in 3D has materialised.
Bearing in mind that My Bloody Valentine 3D, the first film in the current 3D boom, came out all the way back in January 2009, I think we're long past the point where it can be written off as a fad.
The main reason why 3D failed to take off in the 50s and 80s was that it pretty much doubled a film's production costs and made it much harder to project. Nowadays it only increases a film's budget by 10-15% and digital projection takes away most of the cinema-side problems. I think 3D's here to stay this time, though odds are it'll have peaks and troughs in popularity until the technology improves, and a film comes along which does for 3D what The Wizard of Oz did for colour.
Comments
Well we've got The Hobbit in 3D for 2 more years, Avatar 2/3 and the new Star Wars Trilogy (and the spin-offs) over the next 6 years or so..all in 3D. Those alone will keep support going.
Plus with childrens CGI films there's little reason for them not to be in 3D..all the data needed to do it is there on the computer at the flick of a switch.
Jurassic Park 3D (which is a superb conversion) only had a budget of around $10 million...and its made around $42 million in the US so far. Profit wise that's a better return than a big chunk of this years blockbuster films.
Plus it was released on the back of a Blu Ray 3D release,so it was kind of like an Advertisement for its release
Nice of you to speak for everyone there.
Some of us actually enjoy watching films in 3D
Same here. No lover of 3D - I do like IMAX though - glad Nolan likes it too.
I also agree with Kermode...although disagree with him about the 3D in Hugo 'working' because of the historical nature of it...3D is 3D and that's that.
However, what 3D does do is make directors set-up the shots with more depth and breadth than they would do for 2D to 'make' the 3D worth it...I find what this does is make 2D films actually look better as the broader and deeper shots do give the shots more 'depth'...painters do that anyway so no reason why directors can't however not that many directors who make 2D actually think about the depth etc.
You're in the minority though i'm afraid. People are clearly feeling forced into seeing those 3D screenings, even if they dislike 3D. (Fright Night, Dredd)
I know there are people that like it, but i only know of the 5 or 6 DS members (always the same few guys) that post here, and i know one person who rates it. Just one, and she's easily pleased if i'm brutally honest.
http://www.redsharknews.com/distribution/item/659-so,-why-did-3d-fail-a-lot-of-3d-movies-weren-t-very-good-in-any-dimension
Short version: most of it has been poorly done so it's no wonder it's not popular.
I managed to miss the two films I would have liked to see in 3D (Hugo, Life of Pi). From reports these really used its potential well so I'm pretty sure I missed out. I did get force fed 3D as the only way to see the Hobbit in HFR, as with a previous poster. 3D was meh. HFR was startling (but that's for another thread).
5 brand new Star Wars films should do it.
Is that the one where Jesus pops out and performs a miracle on the reader?;):D
He said that here for sure:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/apr/01/hugo-deep-blue-sea-dvd
On his film show I don't remember him saying anything so anal- it was closer to what Is said which surprised me that he actually felt it worked especially regarding The comment about the train clip in 3D was also in his book which he referenced in his Radio 5 review as well as in his book.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dgLEDdFddk
Finally found a copy of the review...just to make sure I wasn't going mad. Not point scoring here as it is interesting how he sees to be saying two different things in the Gruniad and on the podcast...starts around 43:30 - the sound to text transcript is interesting on the page!
I think I paraphrased what Kermode said a bit/a lot.
http://en.podcastle.jp/episode/downloads.bbc.co.uk%2Fpodcasts%2Ffivelive%2Fkermode%2Fkermode_20111202-1625a.mp3
Yes,he has gone through a phase of using that phrase but not for Hugo I think?
Just an idea.
3D is overpriced, the choice of films is limited, and until that changes there's no incentive to get used to the discomfort and reduced picture quality. When we get glasses-free 3D as standard, when we get thrillers and romcoms and comedies and Iranian art-house films in 3D as standard, then it will be worth getting used to.
Don't get me wrong... IMO the premium price put on 3D is totally unjustified. I also don't expect 3D to be widely adopted for films other than CG animated & blockbuster action/sci-fi/adventure. If 3D display starts to become more widely used in other technology such as PC displays, laptops, phones etc... I do think it will become mainstream.
Always has been, always will be.
But not so well that the supposed planed release of all six Star Wars films in 3D has materialised.
thats nothing to do with the box office,and more to do with Disney stopping anything Star Wars related in the lead up to Episode VII
The main reason why 3D failed to take off in the 50s and 80s was that it pretty much doubled a film's production costs and made it much harder to project. Nowadays it only increases a film's budget by 10-15% and digital projection takes away most of the cinema-side problems. I think 3D's here to stay this time, though odds are it'll have peaks and troughs in popularity until the technology improves, and a film comes along which does for 3D what The Wizard of Oz did for colour.