Not sure if the problem is 3-D, or 3-D movie prices.

Why 3-D is already dying - Jul. 27, 2010 (http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/27/technology/3D_technology_dying.fortune/index.htm)

HD was a homerun hit.


3D is not.


Oh ......... and they're trying to ram it down our throats ....... for their own purposes, to serve themselves, to line their own pockets.


HD is value added, big time and people (like me) were willing to pay for it, and, again, 3D is not.

This is not the whole picture of what's going on.

Nintendo has the 3DS, Sony is about to go full force on 3D gaming on the PS3 and you have Panasonic about to release a consumer 3D camcorder. On top of all that, 3D TVs are becoming more and more popular in the stores so it wont take long for 3D to seam standard on TVs even if you don't want anything to do with 3D.

Still, their is the question of negative health effects that's currently being studied and we know that some people can handle 3D much better than others. I'd say by around mid 2011, we'll have a much better understanding and see if people who are used to it now will develop problems by then or even after 2012 if 3D gets bigger than ever. The health effects are really the only thing that can stop it if it's really an issue. We'll see.

Some things look so obvious at times and large corporate entities seem to miss these huge objects from time to time.

The very first time I heard wind of 3D I knew it would fail, as it has everytime before. What amazes me is the rush to make all of the cameras & TVs etc... so quickly. What are you going to do wiht a 3D camera if 3D dies a quick death?

I see it a total greed. HD took like 15 years to develop in the marketplace and now when it is finally getting some traction they have to come out and say the "next thing" is here already. All of this format switching just turns consumers off to being in the game at all. If they try to mess with Blu-ray I am going to storm the bastille!

Just a quick thought...

Anybody else remember Nintendo Virtual-Boy? Gaming seems to always be more adaptive, so if it really fails, they'll just stop making them.

Now, if only we could stop them from making really bad films...

Most importantly to us, content producers, you have half a dozen new 3D networks that have already launched or will launch before the end of the year, both here and in the UK.

Someone needs to produce all of the 3D content for these new networks.

Dan

I think part of the 3D push has been to offer movie-goers an experience that can't be downloaded for free off the internet (yet) but I just find 3D movies irritating. I have no problem seeing 3D die a quick death.

"Sing it high, Sing it low!
Hey ho, the Wicked Witch is dead!"

;-)

"Sing it high, Sing it low!
Hey ho, the Wicked Witch is dead!"

;-)

LOL... Best thing I've read this am!

No-one wants to look like an idiot with those glasses.... most people struggle not to loose reading glasses and sunnies let alone 4 pairs of 3d's for the bloody television.

At Expo 2010 in June we saw no glasses 3D TV in the Siemens pavilion. There was a lot of interest in it, 90 degrees in front was great but 45 and more either side was kinda 2D.

With the present infrastructure and growing, I think it's here for the long haul.

But at present 3D is like the very first stereo LP recordings, everything was hard left and right.
Cheers.

I was noticing a few movie news sites mentioning major filmmakers are already saying they don't want to do 3D. Avatar was the best and worst thing for 3D.

When I met with Ari Presler and his team at Silicon Imaging, I really dug the 3D camera (I think it was both 07 and 08), and I saw the NBA Vegas game shot with the Pace/Cameron Fusion 3D System and projected with a Sony 4K projector in 07 and I loved it.

I wanted to make my next film in 3D, and I still might, but I wanted to use 3D as a tool to help me make my film. I was going to make 3D work for me.

Heath

The article mostly pointed out the higher fees levied to watch a 3D movie, and they are correct. Some movies simply aren't worth the extra coin to see them in 3D. Some, like "Avatar," are. Also, 3D is not some revolutionary device that will boost the movie attendance slump. I'm not sure anything will ever fix that. It's just a sign of the times. Too many other ways to get films, from cable and satellite TV, to DVDs and internet downloads. Don't blame 3D for that, or expect it to be the savior that increases attendance.
And the article really lambasted "The Last Airbender." That movie was pretty much skewered in 2D or 3D!

I see 3D as another evolutionary step in visual entertainment. Talkies, color films, CG effects, HD movies, now polarized 3D. When the prices for 3D movies are the same as 2D, then I think people will be more likely to watch it. And when they ever develop no-glasses 3D, then there'll be wide acceptance of the format.

"Avatar" showed how effective 3D can be as a story-telling tool. I'm not about to write the format off just yet, nor do I think it has matured as a technology. I think the Fortune article fortelling the end of 3D movies is a bit pre-mature.

Going 3D from 2D is a mistake, and I still have my reservations about Captain America and Thor shooting 2D but converting to 3D.

When the studios and theaters raised prices on 3D tickets, attendance dropped. It's economics 101. And there hasn't been a good 3D movie in a while (I probably won't see Toy Story 3 in 3D). Avatar was visually great, but don't get me started on the story...

heath

I don't understand the 2D-3D conversions - they're a hack attempt at more money at best.

True 3D is (to me) a novelty. For nearly a century filmmakers have been more than capable of creating depth and texture with great lighting and great lensing. I keep seeing 3D films where everything is in focus because depth is now part of the 3Dness and I just hate it. On top of that I have to try to put up with uncomfortable, stupid-looking glasses for 2 hours and somehow have to convince my 3 year old she should do the same. Half way through the movie she's tired of them, takes them off and gets bored because she can't watch the screen or a headache because she tries and we're done at the movies. Sure I could take her to a non-3D showing... if the theaters didn't have their 3D to 2D showtimes at a ratio of 4:1 (or higher).

I'm tired of techno tricks, CG, and plot twists taking the place of good story telling and solid production. Can't we just go back to making great movies that move people?

I agree, 3D to 2D is a mistake. If you want 3D, shoot in 3D.

Toy Story 3D was fantastic. If anything, it reinforces the use of 3D.
But yeah, 3D glasses on a 3 yr. old girl probably won't work. But hey, take her to a 2D movie, then. I myself can wear the glasses, no problem.

Avatar's story? Heh, yeah, just watch Pocahontas for the same plot. Or Dances With Wolves. Still, it was a great flick.

Kevin,

I defer to Christopher Nolan:

Christopher Nolan Talks 3D, IMAX & ‘Inception’ - Screen Rant (http://screenrant.com/christopher-nolan-talks-3d-imax-inception-mikee-50838/)

He makes valid points on 3D, though I'm sure he'll do Batman 3 in 3D.

As a die hard Iron Man fan, I'd love to see Iron Man in true 3D!

heath

I agree, 3D to 2D is a mistake. If you want 3D, shoot in 3D.



Whoops! I meant 2D to 3D.

Ha! I knew what you meant so it never registered that you'd had it backwards.

I was somewhat surprized by the sudden onslaught of 3D TVs, 3D programming, and now "cheap" consumer 3D camcorders. (Note that I don't think the software you need to edit in 3D or the hardware is quite so cheap).

I mean, a lot of people are really just now getting on board with the whole HD thing... and even the 1080p thing.

Originally, I thought it would be a pain to have to always wear some glasses to watch TV, but even now, panel developers are making 3D screens where you don't need glasses anymore... so that is -a little- more doable.

I hope 3D kind of dies out really... because it makes me motion sick.

Plus, I'm not exactly sure what value it really adds....

I do not like 3-D for the sake of 3-D. However, to predict its demise or hope for it to die seems shortsighted (no pun intended). Certain films could lend themselves very well to 3-D, both visually and for enhancing the experience. I saw Toy Story 3 in 3-D to see how Pixar handled the story AND the 3-D. I found it a wonderful experience to see it in 3-D and I did not feel Pixar did the 3-D portion for a gimmick. I have several clients that have expressed an interest in 3-D for corporate work based on the field they're in - and the benefits that 3-D could bring to the promotion of their products.

Having said all this, I strongly agree the studios have made a major mistake by jacking up prices for 3-D productions. It's like the oil companies constantly trying to raise prices while the average American (or anyone else in the world) is still struggling to make ends meet. At the slightest sign of economic improvement, up go gas and oil prices. The studios saw an uptick from 3-D and could not control themselves. All this does is lower everyone's willingness to spend money since they have less to spend!

Overall I like 3-D when used appropriately. But it's a mistake to think the general public will flock to it just because we're told to do it. Make quality films and documentaries that take advantage of what 3-D can offer and people will accept and buy in to it, but not overnight. Make it affordable to produce and more small production companies can and will embrace it (myself included) when it's appropriate for the project we're doing.

Here's another take on it:

Today3D: Is 3D Already Dying? Is Color TV Dying? Probably not. (http://www.today3d.com/2010/07/is-3d-already-dying-is-color-tv-dying.html)

I've really only seen two 3D movies in the past (close to) 3 years, Beowulf and Avatar, and both were incredible, though Beowulf had the better story.

Anyway, I'm a little excited about possibly using 3D in the future. But at the same time, I'm also not looking forward to wearing glasses at home. Non-glasses 3D will get me to switch.

And good point about the slow adoption of HD vs. the quickness of 3D. Studios, networks and electronics manufacturers saw the potential for both, but the money exploded with 3D. I was an early adopter of HD, and my friends and colleagues even thought it was odd that I bought a widescreen 1080i CRT HDTV (LCD and Plasma were still too expensive), and I still somewhat regret that 03 purchase of a then-new JVC HD10.

heath

And good point about the slow adoption of HD vs. the quickness of 3D. Studios, networks and electronics manufacturers saw the potential for both, but the money exploded with 3D. I was an early adopter of HD, and my friends and colleagues even thought it was odd that I bought a widescreen 1080i CRT HDTV (LCD and Plasma were still too expensive), and I still somewhat regret that 03 purchase of a then-new JVC HD10.

heath

Heath, I remember the postings you made after you bought the HD10. Brave soul, you were one of the first to dip into the HD pool. Hey, I learned a lot reading your postings. That's why I didn't buy the HD10 - lol!

Glen,

Glad I could help! We did make a movie with the HD10, probably one of the first with that format. It's okay, I guess:

Release Me, a short film (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1955775334161280368#)

Sorry about the quality--I encoded and uploaded it (from my old boss's PC since Google Video didn't support Mac back then) five years ago. We shot the film Dec. 2003.

On the bright side, I made back about $1500 in freelance shooting (shooting in DV, no less), sold the camera in 06 for $800 or so, and by buying it and blogging here, it helped launch my writing career. I co-wrote or contributed to two HD books with Douglas Spotted Eagle and Mark DiLeo; I wrote for MovieMaker; Videomaker; Digital Media Net; and now full time at TopTenREVIEWS. So something positive came out of that camera; it sure wasn't the quality! Long live the FX1 and Z1!

heath

Then there's this:

Cool Stuff: Anti-3D “Hollywood Swindle” T-Shirt | /Film (http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/07/29/cool-stuff-anti-3d-hollywood-swindle-t-shirt/)

A t-shirt protesting the higher costs of watching 3D these days in theaters.

heath

3-D has its place... and that's in the classroom... in this time, the investment needs to shift from the consumer to the student. The future of 3-D is in the classroom, where it will thrive and develop, to a "spectacle less" experience, while supplementing University fees...

Those of us who grew up seeing a short lived television series called "Whiz Kids" would empathize...

Don't get me wrong, it has its place, just not as the brain / heartbeat / lungs of the industry. It has been and always should remain at the end of all 3 extremes MEDICAL, EDUCATION and SPORTS, all of which should require a premium price anyways...

Lakers v Celtics?... Liverpool v Manchester United?... in 3-D?!? sure...

But definitely not the dude, doing that dance, with all his friends and the goldfish and the dog while eating a gross concoction of peanut butter, ketchup and hot sauce, and they play their personal gaming device while having cheerleaders on 3-DTube... ugh...

The last movie I went to this year was Avatar. When they jacked up the prices for both 2D and 3D, I decided to sit the summer out. So, they in effect lost 200.00 from me. It was very tempting to go see Inception, but I'll wait for the Blu-Ray. Same for Toy Story 3.

Thanks to NetFlix and Hulu, I can be very selective on Blu-Ray purchases too.

Families consisting of 4 or more are finding it difficult to justify paying 100.00 +. If they do, it cuts into the money they could have used for other activities.

Want the 3D immersive experience? Hang out at the mall food court and people watch.

Joe,

That's exactly right. I've read that they scaled back the "in 3D" parts of the ads for Toy Story 3 and Despicable Me. It was there, but I think Disney and Universal understood that parents were sick of shelling out a ton of money to watch a film in 3D vs. 2D.

heath

3D's demise is great exaggerated:

Rumors of 3D demise greatly exaggerated : Capria.TV (http://www.capria.tv/2010/07/3d-demise-exaggerated/)

Heath

It's not going away, the competition is too worried about the competition.

MarketSaw - 3D Movies, Gaming and Technology: 3D Geek Alert: Now Companies Are Innovating! Simple New 3D Lens For Panasonic's G Series On Its Way!! (http://marketsaw.blogspot.com/2010/08/now-companies-are-innovating-simple-new.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Marketsaw+%28MarketSaw%29)

Cheers.

3D is perfect for gamers. It'd be ironic if, after pouring a lot of money into building up 3D, Hollywood lost even more entertainment dollars to the game industry.