Is This The Beginning Of The End For 3D?

Minstrel27 · 11-06-2011 10:29AM #1

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/The-Beginning-Of-The-3D-End-DreamWorks-Stock-Plummets-After-Kung-Fu-Panda-2-Underperforms-In-3D-25035.html

article wrote:

Long have we been harping on Hollywood for forcing the well overplayed 3D gimmick down our throats and it would seem we’re now beginning to see the fruits of our labor. Kung Fu Panda 2 was released last weekend and even after its five day opening the film only pulled $68 million. Considering its $150 million budget that’s not awful, but the real shocker is that only 45% of that came from 3D ticket sales-- a huge shift from even a year ago, when 60% of Toy Story 3's opening weekend box office came from 3D.

According to the Wrap, between Panda and similarly lackluster 3D numbers for PIrates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, folks on Wall Street are none too psyched about the future of the format and have been dumping stock like it's the plague. Stock for Dreamworks Animation, the studio behind KFP 2, is down almost 10%, with RealD stock plummeting 12%.

These are huge losses putting both companies at two-year lows, and may signal the end of this 3D craze that no studio can seem to move on from. There are some other tent poles on the way this summer that could change this initial assessment--Green Lantern, Cars 2, and Transformers all hit theaters this month-- so we’ll be keeping a close eye on the numbers when they start to roll in.

We’ve always said that 3D has a place in Hollywood. Animated films look generally nice, and films like Avatar that push the envelope of the medium work just fine. But with so many films handling it improperly and the focus and dimness problems caused by the sunglasses you have to wear for the 3D to even work, it may be time to make like the 80s and shelve this technology until these problems get solved.

I was reading this and the takings aren't so good for 3D. Is this the end of it?

Personally I find that 3D can work very well when used correctly. Avatar is a good example of this as they used it to convey a real sense of depth in the landscape.

But when a film only includes 3D so they can have things flying off the screen it is poor.

Hank_Jones · 11-06-2011 11:52AM

I'll be happy if we do get to see the back of it.

Regardless of whether it is good when used properly, the prices are far too high for 3D and the format isn't used well enough for it to be a positive for the industry.

For every Avatar, there are probably a thousand Last Airbenders, Priest or Clash of the Titans.

The money should be put into making better 2D films, as opposed to being wasted on converting films into 3D.

Galvasean · 11-06-2011 01:00PM

Minstrel27 wrote: »

I was reading this and the takings aren't so good for 3D. Is this the end of it?

It should not be all that surprising that films like toy Story 3 and Kung Fu Panda 2 don't sell too many 3D tickets. If i was a parent bringing 2 sprogs to the cinema you can bet I'd opt for the 2D screening simply to save some money! You're looking at roughly €2 extra per person to see a film in (limited) 3D which the kids are not likely to even notice.
I've seen two CGI kiddie movies in 3D, Ice Age: Rise of the Dinosaurs and Toy Story 3. Having also seen both in 2D I can say very confidently that it added nothing to the experience (increased ticket price notwithstanding).
I'd say 3D as a medium for kids movies will soon come to an end. I would say it will have longer legs in relation to sci-fi blockbusters though (stuff like Avatar and transformers 3).

Nolanger · 11-06-2011 01:02PM

3D cinema was out in the '50s and it died. Then it came back in the '80s and it died. Now it's back in the 2010s and guess what will happen?

Ardennes1944 · 11-06-2011 01:03PM

directors just seem to be using 3d to try and add a gimmick to their film to boost sales. personally, ive only been in 2 films where it was actually needed, the rest are just there for the sake of it. im also not sure that 3d doesnt harm eyesight as my and the gfs eyes often feel funny and a bit sore after a film in 3d

jaykhunter · 11-06-2011 03:09PM

Yeah, you guys said it. There are films that are well made in 3D (AVATAR, Up etc) but there's far more "Clash of the Titans" post-conversion 3D which is a disgrace and I'd rather film companies not spend their time and our money on it. The most annoying aspect of 3D is that it feels shoe-horned in (like in POTC4; "look this tree is in 3D") which serves to distract rather than enhance.

If films adhered to the high quality of Pixar etc or used 3D as a gimmick (Piranha 3D, My Bloody Valentine) i'll be for it. I hate wearing another set of glasses or having to put in contacts to see a film 1/4 less bright....

Magic Eight Ball · 11-06-2011 04:53PM

‎3D was a fad in the 50s when TV was killing cinema. It was a fad in the 80s when VHS was killing cinema. It's a fad now that the internet is killing cinema.

3D movies, hmm, it was never really going to work long term. Basically, it's a bit rubbish. 3D's future lies elsewhere. (Video games IMO)

As development of 'glasses free' 3D continues to evolve in other markets, such as touchscreen interfaces, immersive gaming, operating systems and mobile devices, it will, I'm certain, becoming ubiquitous. Just not necessarily movies.

I'm sure that James Cameron has already given the world it's best effort in stereoscopic 3D. Given his unique position, with Fox granting him enormous amounts of R & D as part of an equally enormous preproduction, production and post production schedule. Who else is likely to achieve such carte blanche status with a studio. Thus, much inferior 3D product has since flown from Hollywood with depressing rapidity.

Personally, I would rejoice in seeing the back of this current trend. However, the third Transformers (shudder), 'Tin Tin' and next year's 'The Amazing Spider-man', 'Star Wars EP 1' and 'The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey', will no doubt appease 3D's ailing box office.

I sometimes wonder what Stanley Kubrick (surely the ultimate tinkerer?) would have made of all this digital and 3D hoopla.

Linguo · 11-06-2011 08:51PM

Boyfriend and I hate 3D, choose 2D if there's the choice every time!

It made sense for a movie like Avatar for I find it so distracting and we both end up with wrecked eyes from it, it really is gimicky and doesn't add anything to the story

Sad Professor · 11-06-2011 09:01PM

Even if 3D wasn't a fad, the studios are going to run it into the ground with their sloppy-arse conversions. I think it's going to take a big film to burst the 3D bubble, but when that happens it will probably disappear pretty quick.

Magic Eight Ball wrote: »

‎I sometimes wonder what Stanley Kubrick (surely the ultimate tinkerer?) would have made of all this digital and 3D hoopla.

Kubrick was a photographer, so I don't think he would have liked 3D. However, I suspect he would have loved digital. It would have suited his love of multiple takes. He was one of the first directors to use a video assist and he think he would have appreciated being able to immediately look back at a take as well.

JOSman · 11-06-2011 09:12PM

Whatever you say, I have a 3D tv and generally love the set as it is at the high end of the market with fantastic quality. That being said, the price of the films are crazy at €31 a pop. It's unlikely to achieve anything at those prices.

Come on people give the owners a break and reduce the cost?

TheDoc · 11-06-2011 11:42PM

Gave 3D a go with all the films I've seen and not a fan, would pick 2d anyday.

Action scenes are ruined by it, Avatar was a blurry mess for me, much prefereed the 2D showing.

Pity is that most cinemas around me arnt showing 2d pics. Which is a pity, since its basically stopping me going to the cinema : /

JustAddWater · 11-06-2011 11:49PM

I think 3D is the movie industry's response to piracy as it's impossible to CAM rip a 3D movie

Hard to say if it will die or not but one thing these figures show is how overpriced 3D movies are and how families just can't and won't pay that

mikemac · 11-06-2011 11:59PM

It has a future but that future is in video games more then films. Walking around a war zone or dark alley with a gun and having enemies jump out would be incredible if done correctly. Possibly driving games too like Formula 1.

Already the technology is out there for 3D TV's in your own home and this will become more and more affordable.

Might be over five years off but the next generation of playstations and xbox will be looking at this strongly.

Sad Professor · 12-06-2011 12:08AM

JustAddWater wrote: »

I think 3D is the movie industry's response to piracy as it's impossible to CAM rip a 3D movie

I don't know about that. For 3D to be an effective piracy deterrent they would have to phase out 2D movies entirely, which would never happen as many people can't see in 3D. As long as there's a 2D version showing somewhere there'll be piracy.

I agree that its future (if it has one) is in gaming, not films. Its use in films is just a cheap attempt to improve the cinematic experience and get people back to the cinema.

enfant terrible · 12-06-2011 12:24AM

Hopefully the Hobbit which is being shot at 48fps will look amazing and catch on and 3D will only be used where suitable.

Sad Professor · 12-06-2011 12:51AM

But isn't it mostly only going to be the 3D version The Hobbit that will be 48fps? Cinemas will likely use their film projectors and non-upgraded digital projectors for the 2D showings. Also, I'm not convinced that 48fps will catch on. A lifetime of watching films at 24fps and associating higher frame rates with video and soap operas is going to make audiences reject 48fps as too smooth looking.

Magic Eight Ball · 12-06-2011 09:04AM

The future of cinema is a wider choice of better movies, properly projected and reasonably priced for an attentive audience.
Like so many apparently intractable problems if the modern world, this is very easily achievable. All that is required is the will to do it.
If the will isn't there, cinema will not only suffer, it will deserve to suffer. It will be a shame, but it will be their own fault.

PixelTrawler · 12-06-2011 09:12AM

Magic Eight Ball wrote: »

‎

3D movies, hmm, it was never really going to work long term. Basically, it's a bit rubbish. 3D's future lies elsewhere. (Video games IMO)

I used to think that until i tried GTV in 3d... horrible experience.. added little positive, did add blur and headache, made it harder to concentrate on overtaking the car ahead

jaykhunter · 12-06-2011 11:26AM

Give it a bit, I also think 3D gaming will be done very well. I've read/heard reports (from people with no stake in it lol) that it's brilliant. Since it's rendered in 3D, live, it'll stand a much better chance of taking off. The main thing is if 3D TVs/monitors die out; it might not have the chance.

How about we just sit on our hands until holograph tvs :pac:

the whole year inn · 12-06-2011 12:17PM

I like to ave the option to go and see it 3d.People making the statement that it was in the 50s is crazy,those movies where crap.

mikhail · 12-06-2011 01:03PM

JustAddWater wrote: »

I think 3D is the movie industry's response to piracy as it's impossible to CAM rip a 3D movie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f05S9x7BarE&t=0m13s
I'm sick of hearing this. Stick a circularly polarised lens (or filter over a regular lens) on the video camera, and you get a 2D version of the film. You can buy a set of two crappy lenses for about a euro at most cinemas, or a high end filter is about €150. 3D is not a piracy deterrent.

Wetai · 12-06-2011 01:05PM

I'd say it'd depend on the genre of movie, something with lots of explosions and what-not (action) might get more 3D sales, as that might be more embracing and people might prefer to pay the extra money for a better chance at money's worth.

johnny_ultimate · 12-06-2011 04:05PM

The only reason I go to see 3D films anymore is because there's no alternative.

I want to go to see Kung Fu Panda 2 with my friends some evening this week. Check the times. Only 2D screenings in the local area - and this is the suburban Dublin area - are on at awkward times in the afternoon. Only evening screenings are in cursed third dimensions.

When we went to see Thor, I only realised in the car out it was in 3D when a friend told me he'd brought 3D glasses. I was genuinely annoyed, and of course no reasonable hour 2D alternative.

I boycott 3D when I can at this stage, but the only reason 3D is as popular as it is is because there's regularly no other option. Glad to see consumer's revolt against the worst trend in cinema in decades.

senordingdong · 12-06-2011 10:27PM

jaykhunter wrote: »

Give it a bit, I also think 3D gaming will be done very well. I've read/heard reports (from people with no stake in it lol) that it's brilliant.

Not sure about that, I've heard some bad reports about the 3ds hurting peoples eyes.

jaykhunter · 12-06-2011 11:10PM

senordingdong wrote: »

Not sure about that, I've heard some bad reports about the 3ds hurting peoples eyes.

Yeah, I meant 3D on PC gaming or consoles; definitely not 3DS! The viewing angle is just atrocious. Tilt your head (god help you using the gyroscope!) and the 3D effect is lost...

expectationlost · 13-06-2011 05:45AM

harry potter was converted so is there a 2d version and how many of them will they show?

The Orb · 13-06-2011 06:23AM

I'm going to crash the party and say that I love 3D in the cinema, so there!

expectationlost · 13-06-2011 06:27AM

surely the difference is now, the tech, the director can see the 3d live as he's film ala avatar and cameron

ztoical · 13-06-2011 10:18AM

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

The only reason I go to see 3D films anymore is because there's no alternative.

+ 1 I'm lucky were I currently am as theres two VUE's right beside each other so the newer one tends to have 3D and the older one none 3D on at decent times but I've had a few times were there's no option but the crappy 3D version and I've gone and travelled clear across the city [london] to get a screening not in 3D. I made the effort when it all started, saw a couple of films in both 3D and none 3D [sorry I can't say '2D', frankly I'd call it all 2D as it is all bloody 2D, it's still a flat screen with just different types of fake perspective] Saw Avatar in both and while some of the set pieces worked nicely it made no difference to the story nor really the over all film at the end of the day so just not worth bothering with annoying glasses I have to wear over my own glasses just to see everything a little bit darker. Tron I was almost sold on as they had the 'real' world in none 3D and the computer world in 3D which at least had a little thought put into it but the 3D effects were pretty poorly done so it was a wasted effort.

ztoical · 13-06-2011 10:31AM

expectationlost wrote: »

surely the difference is now, the tech, the director can see the 3d live as he's film ala avatar and cameron

The cameras don't work that way, your not seeing the rushes in the '3D' look as theres alot of post that needs to be done and with something like avatar alot of green screen work. You can get a rough idea of the scene but it's not much different to the rushes a director would see for film stock. Now rather then having film stock that needs to be processed the film is being put onto drives that are taken away at the end of filming for back up and processing. Also the vast majority of 3D films are not shot in 3D but rather it's added in post production.

Animation doesn't work that same way as all the scenes being render are rendered out twice to create the 3D look and it can take several hours if not whole days sometimes depending on how complex a scene is. I'm sitting here waiting for a fairly straight forward scene from an animated tv series to render and it will be sometime this afternoon before it's ready.

conorhal · 13-06-2011 10:33AM

The latest Pirates movie was the very last straw for me when it comes to 3D.
The film was poor, the upconversion added nothing to the experience and the shots, particularly at the beginning, were so dark that with the addition of a pair of shades, I could barely make out what the hell was going on.
On the whole I had just paid a premium for a degraded and sh1tty experience that I don't care to repeat. No more 3D for me in the future.

Galvasean · 13-06-2011 12:08PM

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

The only reason I go to see 3D films anymore is because there's no alternative.

I want to go to see Kung Fu Panda 2 with my friends some evening this week. Check the times. Only 2D screenings in the local area - and this is the suburban Dublin area - are on at awkward times in the afternoon. Only evening screenings are in cursed third dimensions.

That's how they got me with Clash of the Eastenders Titans.

don ramo · 13-06-2011 12:18PM

jaykhunter wrote: »

How about we just sit on our hands until holograph tvs :pac:

it will be great just well have to get rid of the TV part of it, holodeck or holotable(patent pending;):D)

yeah i saw POTC4 a few weeks ago, went out of my way to see it in 2D, which is annoying as i really like my normal conema more, and i can only imagine trying to watch it in 3D, a chuck of the film must have been missing it was so dark for so much of it,

if the cinemas are happy driving people who attend there cinemas at a minimun of every other week, then its fine by me, ill wait,

3D is only good for immersive film ala avatar, other than that its a gimmick, swords being pointed at the screen, or knives being swiped, direct the god damn film the way your supposed to, dont add in totally unnessary knife swipes, they might aswell convert the shawshank redemption to 3D the way there going,

i would like to see the irish attendance figures for 3D Vs 2D, anyone know if things like this are available anywhere, maybe if the facts were placed in front of cinema owners they might stop investing in these gimmick films,

mathie · 13-06-2011 12:32PM

I'll own up to being a fan of 3D

I think there are a lot of bad examples of 3D movies (Clash of the Titans, POTC 4 and others) but these are just bad movies in the first place.

There are two types of 3D. The everythings-coming-out-of-the-screen type like Final Destination 4, My Bloody Valentine, Drive Angry or the ones that add a lot of depth and dimension to a film like Tangled, Avatar, Bugs (documentary)

Both types have their place but the future is in non-gimmicky looking 3D. I think all films could use the depth-effect. Even Shashank Redemption!

I've seen some stunning documentaries - Legends of Flight, Under the Sea, Bugs,

I think since the 1950s it gets better and better at every attempt and the latest 3D incarnation isn't perfect but it's getting close.

13-06-2011 01:27PM

mathie wrote: »

There are two types of 3D. The everythings-coming-out-of-the-screen type like Final Destination 4, My Bloody Valentine, Drive Angry or the ones that add a lot of depth and dimension to a film like Tangled, Avatar, Bugs (documentary)

Both My Bloody Valentine and Drive Angry used 3D to add a sense of depth, there was very little use of it in order to simply throw things at the audience. Drive Angry features one of the most impressive uses of the technology thus far, the flash back scene in which 3 or 4 images are placed atop one another is a brilliant piece of cinema and shows just how effective 3D can be used in order to do something new.

expectationlost · 13-06-2011 02:33PM

ztoical wrote: »

The cameras don't work that way, your not seeing the rushes in the '3D' look as theres alot of post that needs to be done and with something like avatar alot of green screen work. You can get a rough idea of the scene but it's not much different to the rushes a director would see for film stock. Now rather then having film stock that needs to be processed the film is being put onto drives that are taken away at the end of filming for back up and processing. Also the vast majority of 3D films are not shot in 3D but rather it's added in post production.

Animation doesn't work that same way as all the scenes being render are rendered out twice to create the 3D look and it can take several hours if not whole days sometimes depending on how complex a scene is. I'm sitting here waiting for a fairly straight forward scene from an animated tv series to render and it will be sometime this afternoon before it's ready.

right there rfom a quick search from Nick Cages mouth what more could you ask for

playback on-set 3d http://collider.com/drive-angry-3d-interview-nicolas-cage-on-set-interview/38421/

TheIrishGrover · 13-06-2011 11:02PM

I've a few problems with 3D. First problem is my own. I have poor eyesight in one eye so, bar the odd whoooooaaaaa-things-flying-straight-into-the-camera I don't really see much in 3D on the screen (Avatar looked good but pretty much everything else I was underwhelmed by). Plus I really don't like the motion blur you get with 3D. Especially in fast scenes or pan shots. Peter Jackson is shooting The Hobbit in 48FPS because he reckons it will give a smoother picture. I'm sure he is right. But I'd say at least part of it is because of 3D's motion blur. The last main problem I have with 3D is that the polarised lenses really darken the picture. Tron Legacy looks far far better in 2D on Blu-Ray on my 46 inch tele than on the big screen in 3D in my opinion (Although that floating head STILL looks terrible).
I'll go to see Avatar 2,3 and The Hobbit films in 3D when they come out but, given the chance, I'll see most other things in 2D. Example, The Lion King is being re-released in September for a week for the Blu-Ray release. It's being released in the cinema in 3D and I hope to God it will be released also in 2D. It was good enough the first time in 2D, it's good enough NOW in 2D

Victor · 13-06-2011 11:23PM

The only film that I've felt it was worthwhile in was Avatar. In most films, I haven't noticed much meaningful 3D

I saw Resident Evil: Afterlife

and the only good 3D effects were on the lettering on the opening titles.

don ramo · 14-06-2011 12:06AM

i dunno about the hobbit in 3D, could be a lot of dark scenes in there, it could be an issue, maybe the 48fps will help the smootness but what will help the blindness, avatar was fairly bright when its in 2D, and 3D took a lot of it away, a lot,

Magic Eight Ball · 14-06-2011 11:29AM

Victor wrote: »

The only film that I've felt it was worthwhile in was Avatar. In most films, I haven't noticed much meaningful 3D

It all comes back to Avatar for me regarding 3D. I found it to be fairly average and a bit dull when watching it in a big screen cinema with 3D glasses, sure it was probably the best 3D film i've seen but thats not saying much frankly. However when it came down to watching Avatar on high definition Blu-ray it comes together so much better, whilst the film is still ho-hum the cinematography and effects are so vivid it creates a 3-dimensional vision that no amount of tacky glasses is going to better!

jaykhunter · 14-06-2011 11:44AM

Magic Eight Ball wrote: »

It all comes back to Avatar for me regarding 3D. I found it to be fairly average and a bit dull when watching it in a big screen cinema with 3D glasses, sure it was probably the best 3D film i've seen but thats not saying much frankly. However when it came down to watching Avatar on high definition Blu-ray it comes together so much better, whilst the film is still ho-hum the cinematography and effects are so vivid it creates a 3-dimensional vision that no amount of tacky glasses is going to better!

I couldn't agree more!

Galvasean · 14-06-2011 12:48PM

Magic Eight Ball wrote: »

It all comes back to Avatar for me regarding 3D. I found it to be fairly average and a bit dull when watching it in a big screen cinema with 3D glasses, sure it was probably the best 3D film i've seen but thats not saying much frankly. However when it came down to watching Avatar on high definition Blu-ray it comes together so much better, whilst the film is still ho-hum the cinematography and effects are so vivid it creates a 3-dimensional vision that no amount of tacky glasses is going to better!

I was cynical about the BluRay release. I thought it would be no use without the 3D, but I ate those words when I say it. The BluRay looks stunning! You also get a very similar sense of scale/immersion. Very impressive.

ztoical · 15-06-2011 10:28AM

expectationlost wrote: »

right there rfom a quick search from Nick Cages mouth what more could you ask for playback on-set 3d http://collider.com/drive-angry-3d-interview-nicolas-cage-on-set-interview/38421/

I've seen on set playback for 3D and it's pretty rubbish. Your looking at rough scenes on a tiny ass screen that gives feck all depth.

Is This The Beginning Of The End For 3D?

Comments