|
Author
|
Topic: 3D TV the end
|
Adrian Winchester
Film God
Posts: 2941
From: Croydon, London, UK
Registered: Aug 2004
|
posted February 20, 2013 08:08 AM
David - I read your post with great interest and I'm sure you're setting the record straight in some respects. In view of your knowledge of 3D and the industry in general, I wondered if you feel the current level of 3D production is commercially justified? I'm puzzled by it because of the evidence we hear of waning interest from the public, which include a report I saw about a year ago which indicated that in the USA, the 2D screenings of 3D films were usually doing better business than the 3D ones! The conclusion was that a major big budget film like 'Avatar' that handles the 3D well does commercially benefit from a 3D release, but that the market was overloaded with films that don't gain any benefit from being in 3D, and these could even dampen enthusiasm for it when the 3D is sub-standard. So the question is, are distributors refusing to acknowledge and respond to the facts, or are such reports highly misleading?
--------------------
Adrian Winchester
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ricky Daniels
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 587
From: London & Kent UK
Registered: Jul 2003
|
posted February 23, 2013 07:28 AM
...of course it's all commercially driven but if it keeps people going to and thinking about cinema that's a good thing isn't it?
Isn't this why we have colour, surround sound, CinemaScope, 3D, and not to mention the likes of smell-o-rama, sensurround, Cinerama, Imax, etc. etc. etc. We'd still be watching B/W Silent movies if it wasn't all about the money.
Charging double to see a movie in 3D isn't unfair, after all you're seeing 2x movies at the same time! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David M. Ballew
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 113
From: Burbank, CA USA
Registered: Nov 2009
|
posted February 25, 2013 07:07 PM
Very respectfully, let me point out that this thread has always been about 3-D in general, the title of the thread notwithstanding. Consider the very first posting:
…its looking like this round of 3D is drawing to a close. The cinema side of things is not doing to sell either with regard to 3D with low foot fall figures.
Even so, many good conversations have a way of winding their way over all sorts of topical terrain, just as this one has. I do not think we are always expected to be slavishly attentive to the title of a given topic.
Now, Adrian, in response to your post of February 20:
I generally feel the current level of 3-D production is commercially justified. Yes, Hollywood is sometimes outrageously profligate in its spending, and in ways that have no positive impact on the bottom line. (Think of the inflated salaries sometimes paid for stars with few recent hits, to cite just one example.) But I am convinced that the bean counters in the executive towers would not abide the expense of 3-D filming (or even 3-D post-conversion) if it did not have some positive impact on grosses or did not add value to a title as a future library property.
All that being said, I am sympathetic to those who experience physical discomfort, fatigue, and even nausea from stereoscopic movies. I am a huge 3-D fan, and I am glad that 3-D is making its presence felt, but like many of you, I am all in favor that 2-D screenings should be made readily available for those who simply cannot enjoy 3-D.
Three-D does require a generally healthy and robust pair of eyes, eyes that can work as a team. The muscles of the eyes are doing things in any stereoscopic presentation that they do not necessarily do in other ordinary leisure activities, like seeing 2-D movies, watching 2-D television, reading, et cetera.
I do feel (as stereoscopic pioneer Julian Gunzburg did) that stereoscopic movies can make patrons aware of hitherto undiagnosed eyesight issues, and that stereoscopic movies can provide an amusing way to exercise the eyes and train them to work as a pair.
But if this latter idea be true, then perhaps 3-D movies are akin to, say, a Stairmaster at the gym. I like Stairmasters; I lost a lot of weight a few years ago by climbing on one every day. I really dig the way I feel climbing on one, and the way I feel when I climb down off it. But I notice a lot of folks at my gym really shy away from the Stairmaster. Climbing on one is just too much work, or too much fatigue, or too much whatever. So even though I like the Stairmaster—and even though I want to “stick up” for the Stairmaster as a useful thing, not to be dismissed or discarded—I don’t want to force people to use the Stairmaster if it’s just not their thing. And the same goes for 3-D movies.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
