3D fading as film failures cause box office eyesores

vbimport

#1

3D fading as film failures cause box office eyesores.

[newsimage]http://static.rankone.nl/images_posts/2012/02/mfWHLZ.jpg[/newsimage]The costly 3D TVs are not selling, the 3D movie tickets are being passed up for cheaper 2D ones, and the poor quality of most 3D film conversions have caused the overused three dimensional fad to drop off significantly.


Read the full article here: [http://www.myce.com/news/3d-fading-as-film-failures-cause-box-office-eyesores-58996/](http://www.myce.com/news/3d-fading-as-film-failures-cause-box-office-eyesores-58996/)


Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

#2

Can’t happen fast enough for me. I have no need or desire for this particular technology that they are trying to shove our way.


#3

I love 3D. It’s great for some movies and not for others. Hugo was a prime example of 3D contributing to the experience of a great film. And it wasn’t the typical action movie which lends well to 3D.


#4

There does seem to be a big difference between movies filmed in 3d and hollywood doing post-filming conversion.

Avatar looked awesome in 3d, but pretty much everything that came out after looked rather meh.

Hollywood took a good idea and completely diluted it with rubbish. Even if someone made an awesome 3d movie now, it’ll probably get lumped with all the crap.


#5

I always read “Avatar” when it comes to push 3d. If they want to push 3d, then why is this effing movie only available to panasonic customers?


#6

Captain EO which used to be an attraction at Disneyland was the best 3D I have ever seen. Unfortunately nothing to this date has comes close. Even Avatar’s 3D, characters were disproportionately wrong and the spinning thingies were blurry.

3D TV better look almost perfect because the general public is not willing to plunk down 3k on a 3D TV as it stands today. The ultra expensive 3D glasses also must go.

Jeff


#7

[QUOTE=Jeffrey_P;2623295]The ultra expensive 3D glasses also must go.

Jeff[/QUOTE]

The glasses are only expensive for the active shutter systems.

Passive 3D systems use simple polarised glasses which are cheap and there are numerous TV models out there already that support this.

[B]Wombler[/B]


#8

Can’t see 3d anyways so I don’t care if it lives or dies as it wont do me any good and cost me more money. I think most consumers feel this way about the money part as why should we have to pay extra just to see a few gee wiz moments in a film or on TV. Everything’s expensive enough as it is lately and they just want to get more out of us.


#9

The passive glasses are cheap because they are not nearly as good as active for clarity and brightness etc…

Wanna know a fact about avatar ? a large portion of it was not filmed in 3D and was converted in post. However all the scenes were composed in 3D and that is the big difference maker. Post conversion can be amazing if done right. Unfortunateley it’s often done wrong. Very wrong.
There has been plenty of good 3D. Transformers 3D was great for the 3D. amazing actually. Ice age 3D was a blast and very well done. As I mentioned above Hugo surprised the hell out of me with how amazing 3D can be effective in a “non action flick”. Although it was very visual / fantasy. It was a great 3D experience.

IMO the Hobbit will be the next big 3D success, with the new 144 fps frame rate technology it should be the best 3D to date. Can’t wait until December !


#10

Was trying to remember the most recent 3D flick which I thought was great. It was Tin Tin and again the 3D was really well done.

Unfortunately I missed the BIG 3D masterpiece from last year, Harold and Kumar 3 ! :slight_smile:


#11

So 3D works well for animated, our heavily animated films :wink:
Not so much live action films.

So long as the movie industry targets children for 3D, they’ll be fine.


#12

3D is awesome, but it has to be on a big screen. I don’t own a 3d TV, but watched parts of a movie on a 55" TV and it was cool and all, but I was not ‘immersed’ in the picture. Gotta go big screen for this technology to survive, which I hope it does.


#13

The movie industry pushes 3D every 30 years or so. It first cropped up in the 1950s, but the fad soon died. It next appeared in the 1980s, but again, the fad soon died. Now it’s back in the 2010s, but… well, you get the point. :slight_smile: I doubt that Big Media will learn its lesson this time around, either. Maybe the 2040s will be different… of course, I’ll be in my 70s then and will care less about 3D than I do now (and I don’t care at all about it now).


#14

[QUOTE=Mirror007;2623292]I always read “Avatar” when it comes to push 3d. If they want to push 3d, then why is this effing movie only available to panasonic customers?[/QUOTE]
Yes, it’s ridiculous, they’re killing 3D themselves! I made the point in this piece: http://www.myce.com/news/3d-blu-ray-content-locked-away-in-exclusive-bundles-30170/


#15

I was looking at 60" LCD and plasma sets over the weekend for my basement home theatre. My wife and put on some passive 3D glasses and watched 30 seconds of The Polar Express, right when the train is going up and down the tracks like a rollercoaster. Almost made us puke. Our 5 year old son has recently seen The Adventures of Tintin and Star Wars: Ep. 1 in 3D and liked them, but I know he would have liked them just as much had he seen them in 2D. I also worry about long term vision effects of watching 3D, especially on a child. Prices have come down, only about a 20% premium over 2D, but it’s just not something I’m interested in… at any price. My next television/projector will be 2D and I’ll be glad I didn’t spend the extra money for headaches or eye strain. When 3D goes glasses-free, then I’ll have another look.


#16

MJPollard, there is a difference between the 3D they pushed over the decades and the technology now. The modern 3D camera technology and the higher frame rates (see Hobbit in December) make the 3D far more realistic and effective. Its sure not perfect though.

Duke I agree I wonder how bad it will be on you eyes (and brain!) long term. My nephew has a 3DS and I’m concerned it’s not good for his eyes too.

I too was looking at plasma recently. Turns out the best Panny plasma for 2D quality is the 3D model! So if you want the best you need to get the 3D model. They will probably all be 3D soon anyhow.

Aside from all this I am keen to see how 3D plays out for video games. Many games are now 3D capable and I’m hearing the xbox 720 or whatever and the PS4 will have a big focus on 3D.


#17

[QUOTE=ivid;2623678]MJPollard, there is a difference between the 3D they pushed over the decades and the technology now. The modern 3D camera technology and the higher frame rates (see Hobbit in December) make the 3D far more realistic and effective. Its sure not perfect though.[/QUOTE]
The improvements in technology don’t overcome simulated 3D’s inherent weaknesses (which killed it the first two times) or Big Media’s greed in pushing it with price premiums (which is killing it now). Wake me up when we have true 3D viewing experiences, like holograms that appear right in the middle of your living room. Until then, no improvements in technology is going to make simulated 3D anything more than an over-hyped, expensive, problem-plagued gimmick.


#18

[QUOTE=MJPollard;2623983]The improvements in technology don’t overcome simulated 3D’s inherent weaknesses (which killed it the first two times) or Big Media’s greed in pushing it with price premiums (which is killing it now). Wake me up when we have true 3D viewing experiences, like holograms that appear right in the middle of your living room. Until then, no improvements in technology is going to make simulated 3D anything more than an over-hyped, expensive, problem-plagued gimmick.[/QUOTE]
I disagree. Movies which have been produced/directed with intent of release on 3D, and animated movies, are generally fabulous.
Once again, greed comes to play - the market has been flooded with revamped/retro movies that were filmed in 2D and have been kludged up into a 3D version in an attempt to squeeze the last remaining drops of blood out of consumers with cruddy catalogue titles.

[QUOTE=ivid;2623678]MJPollard, there is a difference between the 3D they pushed over the decades and the technology now. The modern 3D camera technology and the higher frame rates (see Hobbit in December) make the 3D far more realistic and effective. Its sure not perfect though.

Duke I agree I wonder how bad it will be on you eyes (and brain!) long term. My nephew has a 3DS and I’m concerned it’s not good for his eyes too.

I too was looking at plasma recently. Turns out the best Panny plasma for 2D quality is the 3D model! So if you want the best you need to get the 3D model. They will probably all be 3D soon anyhow.

Aside from all this I am keen to see how 3D plays out for video games. Many games are now 3D capable and I’m hearing the xbox 720 or whatever and the PS4 will have a big focus on 3D.[/QUOTE]
I agree - the 3D we have now is decades ahead of the original 3D … but, I’m not so sure about the “Passive” 3D TV models which seem to have been released recently. It just seems like such a rip-off to dredge up 30yr old tech and release it next to current 3D tech models.

It just proves, once again, that the industry has it’s own interests at heart, and snake-oil salesmen are still around, are paid more, and have corporate support.

As to health affects … I don’t long term problems in either eyes or brain, but the brain working overtime will make people more tired.
Of course, trot out the usual idiots that will strap on a 3D pair of glasses and sit down for a 3 month 24hr marathon of 3D movies, just to argue the case.
Being more practical than empathetic, I’d suggest it’s for the good of the species. Hopefully said idiots will somehow remove themselves from the gene pool. :iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree:

:bow:Darwin Awards Forever!:bow: