PDA

View Full Version : EW.com - Are 3-D movies dying? Well, it's complicated...



JBHuskers
06-02-2011, 11:19 AM
http://insidemovies.ew.com/2011/06/02/are-3d-movies-dying/

http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/i/2011/06/02/3d_glasses_trouble_320.jpg


The last two weeks will not go down as 3-D’s greatest moment. First there was Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, which earned just 46 percent of its $90.2 million opening from 3-D showings. That was the second-worst 3-D debut — on a percentage-of-gross basis — since November 2008. And then over Memorial Day weekend, Kung Fu Panda 2‘s three-dimensional screenings could muster only 45 percent of its $60.9 million opening. For both films, nearly two-thirds of moviegoers opted for the 2-D version. Depending on who you ask, that’s either an indication that audiences are starting to reject 3-D cinema, or simply a blip in 3-D’s otherwise promising future. But Wall Street investors aren’t liking what they’re seeing, causing shares of the leading 3-D technology company RealD to tumble 26 percent the last two weeks.

Stock analyst Richard Greenfield of BTIG Research is one of Wall Street’s most vocal opponents of 3-D. “I think people are tired of showing up and having to wear glasses — at high prices — every single week,” says Greenfield, who happened to mention the three most frequent complaints launched against 3-D: uncomfortable glasses, expensive surcharges, and an oversaturated market. In regard to the glasses, some segments of the audience have trouble with them, namely small children and individuals who already wear glasses, while others (particularly Roger Ebert) don’t appreciate their dimming effect. But most moviegoers seem okay with wearing the dorky frames.

Pricey surcharges and a glut of 3-D movies are another matter, though. At Los Angeles’ AMC Century City theater, a family of four must shell out $64 to catch a 3-D flick — $17.50 for adults and $14.50 for kids. “[The prices] are insulting to the consumer,” says Greenfield. “They’re hurting the price-value relationship of going out to the movies, especially when you see Netflix at $7.99 or Redbox at a dollar a day.” The sheer amount of 3-D movies being released has also drawn criticism. In 2009, Hollywood put out an average of one 3-D picture per month. Last month, however, saw the release of four 3-D films — one every weekend. “There’s just too much 3-D,” says one prominent industry executive. “It’s too much of a good thing. I like steak, but I don’t want to eat it every night.”

But does Hollywood have any plans for curtailing its surplus of 3-D movies? Or, more importantly, does Hollywood even think 3-D needs fixing at the moment? One comment I frequently heard from various insiders was this: Wait a little longer. “You have to make decisions based on a full-year cycle, not a finite period of time,” says Greg Foster, chairman and president of IMAX Filmed Entertainment. That sentiment was echoed by Dan Fellman, the president of domestic distribution at Warner Bros. “I think it’s a bit of a glitch we’re going through at the moment,” says Fellman. “By the middle of August, I think we can really determine what the pattern is and if we need to make some adjustments.”

By mid-August, we’ll have seen (and, in some cases, endured) the 3-D releases of Green Lantern, Cars 2, Transformers: Dark of the Moon, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2, Captain America: The First Avenger, The Smurfs, Final Destination 5, Glee Live 3D, Conan the Barbarian, Fright Night, and Spy Kids 4. And while Wall Street investors and box-office analysts will be looking closely at how these movies performed in 3-D, the studios may be focused on something else: the foreign market.

Any 3-D fatigue that’s being felt domestically has yet to spread overseas. Disney’s Pirates posted the largest foreign debut ever, with 66 percent of its tally coming from 3-D screenings, while Kung Fu Panda 2 grossed $55.5 million from only 11 markets — including China, where it registered the biggest opening ever for a non-Chinese production. “Our shareholders expect us to think about the world as the world, not domestic versus international,” says Dave Hollis, Disney’s executive VP of theatrical exhibition sales and distribution, “and [with Pirates] we did 61 percent of our global business in 3-D.” Adds Fellman: “If the international market continues to rally and the domestic drops a little, the overall picture is still in the plus column and there will be no change [in Hollywood's approach to 3-D].”

So are 3-D movies dying? Not according to Hollywood, at least when studios examine the issue from a global viewpoint. The big question is whether 3-D’s novelty will eventually wear off in such emerging markets as China and Russia. “I can’t imagine consumers all across the globe are that much different from Americans when it comes to seeing movies,” says Greenfield. Of course, if the world’s moviegoers do tire of 3-D in next year or two, there’s a little film at the end of 2014 just waiting to get us hooked all over again. It’s called Avatar 2.

SmoothPancakes
06-02-2011, 11:23 AM
God I hope it dies off. Stupid as hell in my opinion. And all these so called "3-D" movies are really 2-D movies with a couple 3-D scenes here and there. Over priced, not true 3-D, stupid glasses, and just a waste of time in my opinion.

JBHuskers
06-02-2011, 11:24 AM
3-D movies and gaming...I just don't care.

SmoothPancakes
06-02-2011, 11:27 AM
I agree completely. Never been to a 3-D movie, never going to one. Don't give a damn about 3-D TV. Couldn't care less about 3-D gaming, just give me a normal game like always, and enough of this 3-D crap.

JBHuskers
06-02-2011, 11:29 AM
I've been to two....Jackass and Saw. Would have enjoyed them the same in 2D.

Nothingface
06-02-2011, 11:29 AM
went and seen SAW 3D. I don't remember anything 3D happening.

Nothingface
06-02-2011, 11:31 AM
I've been to two....Jackass and Saw. Would have enjoyed them the same in 2D.

except was there any joyous moments in saw at all? lol.

fuck i hated that movie. ruined the franchise for me.

morsdraconis
06-02-2011, 03:23 PM
Here's the thing with 3D. Is it necessary? Nope, not at all. Is it cool to watch a movie that actually uses the 3D well (How To Train Your Dragon and Avatar)? Absolutely! Avatar and How to Train Your Dragon were amazing movies with the 3D effects. The problem is this:

Not all movies that are "3D" are actually shot in 3D. 95% of the movies that are released as "3D" use some horrible upscaling software to make it look 3D that make it look very poorly done. Not only that, but with studios and directors pushing for 3D because it supposedly increases the revenue of the movie, they're doing the upscaling effects hastily and it looks like shit. Whereas, there are parts of Transformers 3 that are only done with the upscaling technique instead of being shot in 3D and, from everything I've heard, the 3D looks great because it wasn't hastily done and was done correctly.

Then, you have the issue that at least 75% of theaters that are showing these movies in 3D aren't using the 3D projectors right. They're not making the films as bright as they should be by dialing back the amount of usage of the brightness of the bulbs. These theaters are saving money by extending the life of the bulbs but they are sorely costing these films by making them dark (which, as anyone that's seen a 3D movie knows, they're kinda dark already so dialing back in of the brightness of the projection of it is just going to make it that much worse).

Just like sound was before George Lucas and Lucas Films made mandates on sound quality in theaters with THX and Dolby Digital, there needs to be a standard for the viewing quality of the movie as well.


All that said, I hope it dies as well. Even with movies like How to Train Your Dragon and Avatar, there were only select scenes where the 3D really added to the movie (pretty much the flying scenes were about it). Overall, 3D effects are useless in 95% of movies and really are just a waste of money by the filmmakers and a waste of money for anyone that goes to see it. I hate 3D because it gives me headaches after probably 30 minutes of viewing unless I really get into the movie (like I happened to do with Avatar and HTTYD).

JeffHCross
06-05-2011, 01:06 PM
Die, die, die!

I can't see it anyway.

ram29jackson
06-05-2011, 04:58 PM
I could care less about 3D, old or new


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Xg9U2NXyGw


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eamQ5k0IHNw

souljahbill
06-05-2011, 08:37 PM
*sigh*

I like 3-D.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ram29jackson
06-05-2011, 11:51 PM
Dr Tongues 3D house of pancakes


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6m2gl51J6lo

jaymo76
06-06-2011, 12:02 AM
God I hope it dies off. Stupid as hell in my opinion. And all these so called "3-D" movies are really 2-D movies with a couple 3-D scenes here and there. Over priced, not true 3-D, stupid glasses, and just a waste of time in my opinion.

Statement of the yar SMOOTH!!! I could not have said it better myself. I refuse to see 3D, I REFUSE TO PAY MORE FOR 3D, I don't want a 3d TV.... ETC.

jaymo76
06-06-2011, 12:04 AM
I agree completely. Never been to a 3-D movie, never going to one. Don't give a damn about 3-D TV. Couldn't care less about 3-D gaming, just give me a normal game like always, and enough of this 3-D crap.

Plus throw in the fact that researchers are saying 3D causes eye damage to young kids...

JeffHCross
06-06-2011, 10:08 PM
Plus throw in the fact that researchers are saying 3D causes eye damage to young kids...Always has.

I watched plenty of 3D stuff when I was a developing kid. And my eyes are fine!

Oh wait ...