the 3-D fad

[TheMarvell]

so I just got back from watching James Camerons Avatar tonight. Before I get into why I'm making this topic, let me first say this:  It was an enjoyable film, but incredibly overrated. The only award this movie should ever receive is for its special effects. The story is good, but it's been done before, and the entire film is full of really cliche characters. You know, the angry science nerd; the gruff, battle-hardened a-hole army general, the jerk "who cares about anything else but money?" corporate guy, etc. It was a fun movie, but nothing anymore special than your typical summer blockbuster. (In other words, I don't think this movie deserves any "movie of the year" awards anymore than the next superhero movie.)

But I digress.

the big deal about this movie was the 3D. I've seen a few movies in 3D before, including Imax, and Avatar wasn't any different than those movies. It's kinda cool at first, but I have a hard time focusing, and sometimes I even forget it's in 3D. Sometimes my head even starts to hurt. So, I don't get it. Why is this the new thing to do? Every other movie seems to have a 3D version released. But after seeing Avatar in 3D, my opinion remains the same: I'd still much prefer watching movies in regular 2D. Am I missing something?

[thalaw2]

The 3D fad comes and goes every couple of decades.  Avatar was the latest 3D movie I saw (hadn't seen one since the early 90's or was it late 80's) and it was cool because it seemed to be completely 3D, not just a few cheap effects.  However, the story was nothing new and I did fall asleep during the movie.

[Talavar]

The reason 3D is being pushed as the big "new" thing (things from the '60s are new, right?) is because of movie studios and a probably temporary resurgence in popularity with viewers.  While the fad lasts this time, it pushes more people to see 3D movies while they're in theatre, rather than wait until they're on DVD, it fights piracy because you can't record a 3D film with a camcorder (and it wouldn't be 3D at home either), and they see it as justification for charging more per ticket.

[yell0w_lantern]

The original 3D ploy way back when was to draw people in to see a movie instead of stay home and watch television.

The fact is that sci-fi, comedy and action films never even get considered by the Academy for best picture. It has to be a drama (usually a BIG tear-jerker).

But, really, it's all been done before.  How many stories of terminally ill children, newly relevant but dying elderly people, single mothers, star-crossed lovers, wastrel bachelors being redeemed and falsely convicted people sentenced to death can there really be?

[TheMarvell]

I heard Avatar was being considered for best picture though. And if that's true, I think that's absolutely ridiculous because the only reason is because of James Cameron. The movie was nothing special, even with the 3D gimmick. There was nothing at all that set it apart from other action blockbusters, or other 3D movies.

[docdelorean88]

There is a reason for the headaches, i felt the same way so i found this. I had read it in a class one day.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6080XO20100109 It also talks about why some instances do not seem to be in 3d at all.

[Trelau]

The original 3D ploy way back when was to draw people in to see a movie instead of stay home and watch television.

and that's actually quite the opposite of today's plot. i probably won't learn you anything by saying that 3d television is coming hard this year and particulary next year. the plan is to get a new thing to sell. we allready had flat screen tv, hd-ready tv, full hd tv. now they are gonna try to sell us 3d tv.
with what? what would be the point?
so that's the first reason why we're gonna get a buttload of 3d movies in the years to come.
and the worst part is it's probably gonna work, at least in the US. Because the Great Grand Master Scheme has one ace in it's hand: Superbolw in 3D.
So every superbolw nerd is expected to run and buy a 3d screen by next year, avatar-zombie ("avatar is the greatest movie in the woooorld! i know because james cameron said it to me in my sleep") in other country will probably take the bait to.

But back on topic, i couldn't agree more with TheMarvell. Avatar was a generic action movie, but with james cameron name on it. i won't even give it the 3d "hype", because we already had 3d movie last year; the only difference was the size of their marketing budget. And 3d gives me killer-headaches.
I'm expecting avatar to win a lot of awards, everywhere. that way i can still rant about how awards are mostly meaningless these days...

[Uncle Yuan]

In the past 3-D was limited by technology - we could do it, but not terribly well.  As computing and resolution technology becomes better and cheaper high-quality 3-D becomes cheaper and easier.   I won't say that THIS round of 3-D will be the one to stick, but I do feel it really is inevitable.  In all of human history it is 2-D entertainment that is the exception with the advent of film and motion pictures at the end of the 19th century.  Prior to that - theater, opera, street performance etc was all 3-D.  What I do think will change (or very sincerely hope will change) is 3-D as a gimmick.  As it becomes more routine, having things fly off the screen at you will happen less and less and the 3-D will simply be another tool to create an immersive entertainment experience - like a dark theater and a screen that fills your field of view.

[GogglesPizanno]

Count me among the Not that impressed by Avatar. Technically really well done, but best picture? Really? Not so much. Unlike some movies this is one that I actually like less and less each time i think about it...

As for the 3D its all about economics. When DVD hit, everyone upgraded and replaced their VHS which was a huge windfall of profits for the studios. A failed movie in theaters could still turn a profit on home video. But once people replaced their movie collections, and people started waiting for $5 sales DVD sales started to plummet hard. It was further compounded by things like Netflix and streaming movie services where people could watch on demand, removing the need for the avergae consumer to buy a DVD at all...

So begins the HD wars, which really was just a way to get people to upgrade their collections again form DVD to HD... only the prices were too high (initially) and the jump on quality form DVD to HD was not as great as VHS to DVD. So the public was kind of "eh" and the promise of a new windfall of profits was not really realized.

We come full circle with 3D... as was mentioned 3D started being used again as a gimmick to get people into theaters for an experience that you cant get at home. Initially it was kids and horror films. Movies that can use the gimmick to maximum effect. Then Coraline and UP and Avatar come along and connected with audiences and use 3D as more an immersion technology as opposed to throwing things at the audience... and audiences responded (by shelling out a butt load of money) now suddenly you see a few things. People are willing to pay an extra $3-4 a ticket, theater pirating gets more difficult, and services like Netflix cant compete. As a result "every movie" now is going to be in 3D (whether on purpose or manipulated in post production). Its kind of seen as the goldenn goose to save the movie industry (even with record setting profits the last couple of years).

This of course leads to the 3D TV thing which is gonna take off in a big way starting this year/next year. I think 3D TV in conjunction with HD is hoped to be the big "Update your collection" moment (that blue Ray never was) and get people to forgo their old collections and fork out wads of cash to get their movies and TV's in the new 3D thing.

[murs47]

I heard Avatar was being considered for best picture though. And if that's true, I think that's absolutely ridiculous because the only reason is because of James Cameron. The movie was nothing special, even with the 3D gimmick. There was nothing at all that set it apart from other action blockbusters, or other 3D movies.

Agreed. This movie was pretty much just Pocahontas 2010.

[Zippo]

As an aspiring film maker and current film student, the only thing I have to say to 3D movies is "BAH!"

[Trelau]

As an aspiring film maker and current film student, the only thing I have to say to 3D movies is "BAH!"

yep, everybody in my class though so too. only 2-3 guys think of  it as "the future" of cinema.
but almost evrybody agrees that it's not being used in th right way for now.

Coraline did the closest to what a 3d movie should look like: not a movie where 3d is used in 2-3 money shots with explosion and arrows flying at your face; but decomposing as much shot as possible into "layers" to create enhanced depth of field.
one group in my class did an alternate version of their end of cursus short movie: every shot you had a 3d foreground (typically the set), then the subject in 3d (typically the character), then a 2d foreground, the a 2d background. That's what i called enhenced depth of field, and 3d to good use.
granted, it's easier to do it on a 3 minute short than on a 90min full lenght movie; but that still the only way that i can see 3d actually serving a purpose other than "oooooh, shiny!" effect.
And i'm still waiting for a headache-free system, you know, the one we're promised just got discovered when a new 3d movie comes out?

[BWPS]

I don't mind it as long as I'm given a choice. I may try it every once in a while and then sometimes I just regret it. It gives me headaches for long movies and it costs way too much extra. Also the depth no matter what doesn't seem real-life 3D. It feels more like certain things are closer, but still 2D thin. And for bad movies that do things just so they'll look cool in 3D... blargh.

I haven't watched a movie in 3D since Meet the Robinsons, so what would I know? Maybe its better... I may try it out for the new Clash of the Titans movie since the preview pretty much blew my mind... I'd give that preview an Oscar for best special effects of all time.

[Mr. Hamrick]

My take on is that two things are going on here. 

1) Many studios and filmmakers are desperate to bring in what has become a surprisingly smaller amount of viewers.  Consider this, a movie that grossed what Avatar has or what The Dark Knight did would've have made approximately 25% more if not more than 25% box office wise had they brought in the number of people to the screens that a movie like Titanic or Jurassic Park did.  (First two movies that came to mind, there are better examples of this,) Ticket prices have increased significantly in the past 15-20 years. 

The math is simple:
1,000,000 people going to see a movie with the price of $5 a ticket = $5,000,000 gross
1,000,000 people going to see a movie with the price of $10 a ticket = $10,000,000 gross and the same $5,000,000 could be made off only 500,000 people with that $10 price.

And less people are going to the movies than use to.  Why?  Largely because of the ticket prices.  Instead of giving better stories, many studios and filmmakers are perfectly willing to rely on gimmicks like 3D or gimmick advertising. 

2) Theaters are surprisingly having to compete with Blu-ray technology.  What's more important to note is that it's only going to get worse.  Home theaters are quickly becoming as potentially high quality as movie theater quality with regards to picture and sound.  With high definition TV becoming the increasing norm as well as high definition audio, within the next ten years, theaters are really going to have a problem. 

Personally, I don't care for the whole 3D thing.  I never have and never will.

[Trelau]

just a quick comment about 1): since you're a filmmaker i guess you know what you're talking about, but it's worth noting that this only applies to the US.
this year in europe was the best year for cinema since 2001 if i'm not wrong. and ticket price are 10?, not 10$ so that's not a question of price.
the real change is in the nature of the audience: more people are coming to the cinema, but they came less frequently
so there is more and more "casual" audience (people who go to the movie once every month or every two month) but there is almost no people going to the movies every week left.

so big 3d movies with no plot do have a bright future before them.

and about 2) : i can't wait 'till we get rid off the cinema in the movie experience. they can try to convince us that people really want to get stuck with a hundred inconsiderate jerk that talks, screams, brings crying babies, throw pop corn and all other wonderful stuff but i know i don't go to the cinema unless it's a midnight screening just to avoid the crowd.
so when cinema are out of the picture (ah ah) we'll be able to instant-dowload a movie the day it comes out to put it on our high quality home cinema to see it only with your close friend that won't use their cell in the middle of a dramatic death scene.

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

While I do indeed think that movies are headed in that direction, that would also mean the end of high budget films.  Direct sale movies simply can't make as much, as consumers will not pay 50-100 bucks for such a film, which is the kind of level needed to be equal with theatre sales.  Probably what will end up happening, is that more films will be released directly for home theatre, but a smaller number of all big budget blockbuster movies will continue to be released by the old theatre methods.  I would not be surprised if these get released for home use much quicker (as indeed Disney is trying to do with Alice in Wonderland) with a premium being charged for getting the movie at home extra early.

[bredon7777]

Personally, I much prefer 3d movies to 2d ones.  I love feeling like I'm actually IN the middle of something- makes it feel less of a static experience. And apparently I'm in the minority- the new polarized glasses don't leave me with any ill effects at all; though the old red and blue ones do give me a whopper of a headache.

3d is the near future.  Eventually, they'll work out how to effectively do 3d that DOESN'T require the glasses, and then expect the medium to really take off.

Oh, and "Avatar" is EXTREMELY over-rated, especially compared to the genius of Sherlock Holmes.

[BlueBard]

I'm waiting for my holodeck home theatre.  Until then, I could care less about 3D.

I find multisensory theatre to be more immersive and interesting than 3D.  Obviously, the theatre needs to be specially tricked out for the experience and it's not something that you could do for every single movie.

I understand that there is a 3D TV in the works that builds the 3D into the screen and doesn't require glasses, but I don't know anything specific about it.

[Mr. Hamrick]

just a quick comment about 1): since you're a filmmaker i guess you know what you're talking about, but it's worth noting that this only applies to the US.
this year in europe was the best year for cinema since 2001 if i'm not wrong. and ticket price are 10?, not 10$ so that's not a question of price.
the real change is in the nature of the audience: more people are coming to the cinema, but they came less frequently
so there is more and more "casual" audience (people who go to the movie once every month or every two month) but there is almost no people going to the movies every week left.

so big 3d movies with no plot do have a bright future before them.

You may have a point there with there being a future for "big 3s movies with no plot" but it's not an appealing one.

And yes, I was referring to the US market for my example.  However, you get my overall point regarding the nature of the audience.  The exact reasons vary not only from the US to other countries but also with regards to different regions in the US.  

The question that I have is rather or not a lot the casual audience would return if better movies were being made and promoted when they do get made.  It's sad when some of the best films recently I have seen don't ever get a wide release, promoted, or generally heard of by most audiences.

[stumpy]

I will be curious to see how effective 3D is in getting people out to the theaters. I may see the 3D version of Clash of the Titans, since I kept my goofy glasses from Avatar, but I would have seen Clash whether or not there was a 3D release. On the other hand, I wouldn't have gone to the theater for Transformers 2, no matter how many dimensions they managed to put on the screen.

It's almost unfortunate that 3D (currently) has Avatar as its standard bearer, just because it's such a mediocre movie aside from visual effects. If there had been a big budget 3D movie with a more interesting storyline or fewer cliched plot points, then the 3D aspect might have added something to the movie, rather than being the only reason to see it.

Technically, the 3D was fine for me. I don't get headaches and the effect was pretty subtle, which is how it should be, IMO. But, I did leave the theater thinking that I would have been just as happy (or annoyed) if I had saved the three bucks and seen the 2D version; once again, more an issue with the movie than with the technology.

I know that a couple companies have 3D televisions sets coming out relatively soon. Meh. I don't mind the glasses, but I am guessing it will still be a while before enough 3D content is produced that I'd want to invest. I am not much of a gamer, but I would think that 3D could really shine for games before it does for movies.

And, I am not sure how they are going to get rid of glasses if the technology still involves looking at a 2D screen. Without some way to differentiate what each eye is seeing, 3D isn't going to work. Of course, when we get to the point where an actual hologram is projected, I may have my wallet out...

[Trelau]

the technology for 3d without glass already exist, i've seen a perfectly working "prototype" (more like advanced model) at a convention in paris this year (Paris FX).
The probleme is that you have to be in a 120? angle in front of the screen for it to work (if you go too far on the side the 3d disapear).
So no glass and no headaches...the perfect 3d technology, except it's much more expensive to make for now. so obviously that wasn't the standard chosen for 3d tvs to come. too bad.

And Mr Hamrick, i couldn't agree more with you about all the high quality film that go unotice because they can't afford to advertise enough. It's sad, and the fact that even if you spend your time looking for them you may still miss some is very annoying to me. I really wish i could see them all...