Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 
 

Is 3D in decline??


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 27-04-2013, 23:26
boddism
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: South Coast
Posts: 12,934

Do you think the 3D craze is now in decline??

At my local cinema big 3D films are now shown in 2D and 3D, with MORE 2D showings in general.

I also notice a decline in new 3D films in general in recent months. Maybe its just my local area?

What do you think?

(Im no lover of 3D anyway)
boddism is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 28-04-2013, 00:36
MTUK1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,064
Do you think the 3D craze is now in decline??

At my local cinema big 3D films are now shown in 2D and 3D, with MORE 2D showings in general.

I also notice a decline in new 3D films in general in recent months. Maybe its just my local area?

What do you think?

(Im no lover of 3D anyway)
I was reading a few months ago, that proportion of 3D movie ticket sales is way down in the UK and US, but higher than ever in Europe and Asia. To be honest, I don't see the appeal of 3D. It's overpriced, and very few films do it properly. I also get massive headaches after going to a showing.
MTUK1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-04-2013, 01:05
Amanda_Raymond
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 554
Mostly 3d doesn't do much, watched Iron Man 3 in 3d and the 3d did nothing, Oz on the other had the 3d really worked in, so really depends on the film
Amanda_Raymond is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 28-04-2013, 01:50
Callous
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,622
I don't think it's in decline, I just think you're getting more options. Most of the big blockbusters are now 3D.

Half the problem with 3D at present is the 3D effect is so weak that it might as well be 2D.

Weirdly the best 3D I've seen in a live action film is the new conversion of the original Jurasic Park (you can import it now on multi region blu ray..months before it's even released at the cinema over here).

If a movie studio wants to know what a 3D film should look like..they should take Jurassic Park 3D as their template. Every scene, every person, every face, every location..and of course every dinosaur.. is in full,deep, well realised 3D (and superbly converted..far more impressive than most films I've seen natively filmed in 3D). I'd highly recommend it. It really gives me hope for future conversions of older films.
Callous is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-04-2013, 02:27
PJ2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 755
Now I want to see Jurassic Park 3D at Darling Harbour IMAX in Oz.

http://www.imax.com.au/films/jurassic-park-3d/
PJ2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-04-2013, 10:32
AaronEmmett
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 11
It would really be interesting to watch Jurassic Park 3D.... Anyway, I heard somewhere, not too sure though that there is much more better than 3D.
AaronEmmett is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 28-04-2013, 10:47
theonlyweeman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 5,463
It would really be interesting to watch Jurassic Park 3D.... Anyway, I heard somewhere, not too sure though that there is much more better than 3D.
Lots of people prefer IMAX to 3D. Though IMAX is essentially just a normal cinema with everything turned up to 11.
theonlyweeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-04-2013, 12:06
Rincewind78
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 2,082
not a lover or interested 3D here either.
only will see a film in 3D if the next available showing of a movie I have interest in is being shown in that formet when I go to the cinema.
The extra charge with an Unlimited card is now included so you get in for free, still does effect my interest in it.
I just think it makes no difference to my enjoyment of the movie at all.
went to see Iron Man 3 the other day at my home town's Cineworld (St.Helens) and asked the woman behind the popcorn stand about the midnight screening of the movie the night before.
Just wondered if it was a sell out.
she stated "about 200 for the 3D showing and 50 for the 2D showing"
not sure 3D is dead in the water just yet. sadly.
Rincewind78 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-04-2013, 12:19
TelevisionUser
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Storbritannia
Posts: 20,055
I don't think it's in decline, I just think you're getting more options. Most of the big blockbusters are now 3D.

Half the problem with 3D at present is the 3D effect is so weak that it might as well be 2D.


Weirdly the best 3D I've seen in a live action film is the new conversion of the original Jurasic Park (you can import it now on multi region blu ray..months before it's even released at the cinema over here).

If a movie studio wants to know what a 3D film should look like..they should take Jurassic Park 3D as their template. Every scene, every person, every face, every location..and of course every dinosaur.. is in full,deep, well realised 3D (and superbly converted..far more impressive than most films I've seen natively filmed in 3D). I'd highly recommend it. It really gives me hope for future conversions of older films.
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.
TelevisionUser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-04-2013, 13:57
Gavin_Wadsworth
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 26
went to see Iron Man 3 the other day at my home town's Cineworld (St.Helens) and asked the woman behind the popcorn stand about the midnight screening of the movie the night before.
Just wondered if it was a sell out.
she stated "about 200 for the 3D showing and 50 for the 2D showing"
not sure 3D is dead in the water just yet. sadly.
But you could book the 3D version for several weeks in advance, you could only book the 2D version a couple days before. The film studios know that if it were a 50/50 split between 2D and 3D showings most people would pick the 2D version, thats why they limit the 2D showings and don't allow advanced booking for them.
Gavin_Wadsworth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-04-2013, 14:35
stripedcat
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,161
It just never really adds any thing to a film. The advantages of it don't out way the disadvantages of it.
stripedcat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-04-2013, 14:42
Verence
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Kessingland, Suffolk
Posts: 64,504
From a selfishly personal point of view, as far as I'm concerned the sooner the 3D gimmick disappears the better

I have a problem with my left eye so 3D effects in films don't work for me.

It's not so much of a problem with the really big film franchises such as Batman and Spiderman but last year I was unable to see Dredd in the cinema as none of my local cinemas were showing the 2D version
Verence is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 28-04-2013, 14:47
jeffiner1892
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 4,214
Mostly 3d doesn't do much, watched Iron Man 3 in 3d and the 3d did nothing, Oz on the other had the 3d really worked in, so really depends on the film
Yeah I went to the second Sherlock Holmes film in 2D (with no 3D offerings) and it was one where I thought 3D would have been effective.
jeffiner1892 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-04-2013, 17:23
PhoenixRises
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,542
Do you think the 3D craze is now in decline??

At my local cinema big 3D films are now shown in 2D and 3D, with MORE 2D showings in general.

I also notice a decline in new 3D films in general in recent months. Maybe its just my local area?

What do you think?

(Im no lover of 3D anyway)
You really didn't need to tell us that, only people who dislike 3D seem to start the Decline of 3D threads

And in our cinema 3D showings seem to be on the increase with less 2D showings than usual. I had to watch Iron Man 3 in 3D yesterday because the showings of the 2D were at times that weren't convenient for me and far fewer showings.
PhoenixRises is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-04-2013, 17:34
zx50
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Next to Consett.
Posts: 61,051
Do you think the 3D craze is now in decline??

At my local cinema big 3D films are now shown in 2D and 3D, with MORE 2D showings in general.

I also notice a decline in new 3D films in general in recent months. Maybe its just my local area?

What do you think?

(Im no lover of 3D anyway)
I thought 3D was supposed to be bad for the eyes because of the different colours displayed in each eye. I think there's glasses that are supposed to flicker as well. Maybe people come away from these 3D films with strained eyes or whatever and decide that they'd rather see the 2D version.
zx50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-04-2013, 17:50
fastest finger
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Heart of England.
Posts: 5,564
I thought 3D was supposed to be bad for the eyes because of the different colours displayed in each eye. I think there's glasses that are supposed to flicker as well. Maybe people come away from these 3D films with strained eyes or whatever and decide that they'd rather see the 2D version.


1. It DOESN't display different colours in each eye.

2. The cinema glasses DO NOT flicker.

Where are you getting this from??
fastest finger is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 28-04-2013, 20:04
zx50
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Next to Consett.
Posts: 61,051


1. It DOESN't display different colours in each eye.

2. The cinema glasses DO NOT flicker.

Where are you getting this from??
It was in a report from an episode of The Gadget Show that I watched a while ago. The glasses out now must be work differently then.
zx50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-04-2013, 20:09
GARETH197901
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: XBL-JediScho PSN-Gareth1979
Posts: 21,874
It was in a report from an episode of The Gadget Show that I watched a while ago. The glasses out now must be work differently then.
Cinema Glasses work via Polarised Lenses,the active shutter glasses are on 3D TV's
GARETH197901 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 29-04-2013, 10:28
zx50
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Next to Consett.
Posts: 61,051
Cinema Glasses work via Polarised Lenses,the active shutter glasses are on 3D TV's
Ah, right. Okay.
zx50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-04-2013, 10:44
gashead
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Bristol
Posts: 6,508
I don't know if it's decline or not, but I do think that maybe we, the public, have been misled on 3D cinema. Or maybe not misled, but as with everything that gets hyped, we expecetd too much and have inevitably ended up disappointed.

James Cameron famously said he waited until the technology caught up with his vision before making Avatar. This led to wildly fanciful hopes and expectations of how good 3D must be when it was released. For some, these hopes were realised and they went "Oh My F-ing Christ, this is amazing !" For others, such as myself, it was all a bit 'meh, s'okay', but the bar had been set on what 3D could offer. Only it didn't. 'Proper' (movie) 3D is so expensive, that only a handful a films a year get made - or re-made - using it, and these do tend to be very good (the 3D element, at least) e.g. Hugo, Life Of Pi, Titanic, Toy Story 3. The rest, which make up the vast majority, are 3D'd in post, and are almost always very poor (again, the 3D element).

As a concept, I love 3D. In some films, such as the aforementioned, and TV shows, it really does enhance the viewing 'experience', but until all 3D films are made in, rather than converted to, 3D, and ticket prices no longer have to reflect 3D being a premium gimmick, I can't see it becoming standard industry practise.
gashead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-04-2013, 10:55
GARETH197901
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: XBL-JediScho PSN-Gareth1979
Posts: 21,874
I don't know if it's decline or not, but I do think that maybe we, the public, have been misled on 3D cinema. Or maybe not misled, but as with everything that gets hyped, we expecetd too much and have inevitably ended up disappointed.

James Cameron famously said he waited until the technology caught up with his vision before making Avatar. This led to wildly fanciful hopes and expectations of how good 3D must be when it was released. For some, these hopes were realised and they went "Oh My F-ing Christ, this is amazing !" For others, such as myself, it was all a bit 'meh, s'okay', but the bar had been set on what 3D could offer. Only it didn't. 'Proper' (movie) 3D is so expensive, that only a handful a films a year get made - or re-made - using it, and these do tend to be very good (the 3D element, at least) e.g. Hugo, Life Of Pi, Titanic, Toy Story 3. The rest, which make up the vast majority, are 3D'd in post, and are almost always very poor (again, the 3D element).

As a concept, I love 3D. In some films, such as the aforementioned, and TV shows, it really does enhance the viewing 'experience', but until all 3D films are made in, rather than converted to, 3D, and ticket prices no longer have to reflect 3D being a premium gimmick, I can't see it becoming standard industry practise.
Titanic was one of those done in Post Production Converted 3D just like the upcoming Jurassic Park conversion which as others have said on here was good also,but thats down to them taking the Post Production 3D seriously and not just phoning it in,conversion practices have come on in leaps and bounds since the dark dark days of Wrath of the Titans,so it is entirely possible to make a Converted film that can look almost as good as Filmed

Film companies have to realise that if they can't Convert a film and take their time and do it properly,then they should film it in 3D in the first place,the general public will continue to become disenfranchised with 3D if they keep giving them lacklustre conversions
GARETH197901 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 29-04-2013, 11:06
nh3com
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 969
after watching iron man 3 in 3d on Friday I will not be watching 3d again, it was terrible and the trailer for star trek had me thinking nope will not be watching that in 3d!

don't like the fact that all the major releases have 3d bolted on, the cinema that I go to show them on their massive 4k screen and 2d is relegated to the lessor screen
nh3com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-04-2013, 11:15
gashead
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Bristol
Posts: 6,508
Titanic was one of those done in Post Production Converted 3D just like the upcoming Jurassic Park conversion which as others have said on here was good also,but thats down to them taking the Post Production 3D seriously and not just phoning it in,conversion practices have come on in leaps and bounds since the dark dark days of Wrath of the Titans,so it is entirely possible to make a Converted film that can look almost as good as Filmed

Film companies have to realise that if they can't Convert a film and take their time and do it properly,then they should film it in 3D in the first place,the general public will continue to become disenfranchised with 3D if they keep giving them lacklustre conversions
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.
gashead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-04-2013, 12:48
James2001
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 24,281
The only reason I saw The Hobbit in 3D was because it was the only way to see the HFR version- if there was 2D HFR, I'd have seen it thay way. HFR's a bigger enhancement than 3D. Otherwise I'll always see the 2D version.
James2001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-04-2013, 12:52
GARETH197901
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: XBL-JediScho PSN-Gareth1979
Posts: 21,874
The only reason I saw The Hobbit in 3D was because it was the only way to see the HFR version- if there was 2D HFR, I'd have seen it thay way. HFR's a bigger enhancement than 3D. Otherwise I'll always see the 2D version.
Id agree wholly with that,Having now seen that film in 2D,3D and 3D HFR,id take the HFR version anyday
GARETH197901 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 22:08.