DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum 3D Movies: Good or Bad?

Resistance Forms Against Hollywood’s 3-D Push

Yahoo News

LOS ANGELES — A joke making the rounds online involves a pair of red and green glasses and some blurry letters that say, “If you can’t make it good, make it 3-D.”

The fans of flat film have a motto. But do they have a movement?

While Hollywood rushes dozens of 3-D movies to the screen — nearly 60 are planned in the next two years, including “Saw VII” and “Mars Needs Moms!” — a rebellion among some filmmakers and viewers has been complicating the industry’s jump into the third dimension.

It’s hard to measure the audience resistance — online complaints don’t mean much when crowds are paying the premium 3-D prices. But filmmakers are another matter, and their attitudes may tell whether Hollywood’s 3-D leap is about to hit a wall.

Several influential directors took surprisingly public potshots at the 3-D boom during the recent Comic-Con International pop culture convention in San Diego.

“When you put the glasses on, everything gets dim,” said J. J. Abrams, whose two-dimensional “Star Trek” earned $385 million at the worldwide box office for Paramount Pictures last year.

Joss Whedon, who was onstage with Mr. Abrams, said that as a viewer, “I’m totally into it. I love it.” But Mr. Whedon then said he flatly opposed a plan by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer to convert “The Cabin in the Woods,” a horror film he produced but that has not yet been released, into 3-D. “What we’re hoping to do,” Mr. Whedon said, “is to be the only horror movie coming out that is not in 3-D.”

A spokesman for MGM declined to discuss “The Cabin in the Woods.” But one person who was briefed on the situation — and spoke on the condition of anonymity because the studio was in the middle of a difficult financial restructuring — said conversion remained an option.

Meanwhile, a spokesman for Marvel Entertainment said that studio had not decided on two or three dimensions for “Avengers,” a superhero film Mr. Whedon is directing.

With the enormous 3-D success of “Avatar,” directed by James Cameron, followed in short order by “Alice in Wonderland,” by Tim Burton, film marketing and distribution executives have been clamoring for more digitally equipped theaters to keep 3-D movies from crowding one another off the screen.

By year’s end, there will be more than 5,000 digital screens in the United States, or 12.5 percent of the roughly 40,000 total, easing a traffic jam that has caused 3-D hits like “Clash of the Titans,” from Warner Brothers, to bump into “How to Train Your Dragon,” from DreamWorks Animation, to the disadvantage of both.

Tickets for 3-D films carry a $3 to $5 premium, and industry executives roughly estimate that 3-D pictures average an extra 20 percent at the box office. Home sales for 3-D hits like “Avatar” and “Monsters vs. Aliens” have been strong, showing they can more than hold their own when not in 3-D.

A 3-D movie can be somewhat more costly than a 2-D equivalent because it may require more elaborate cameras and shooting techniques or an additional process in the already lengthy postproduction period for effects-heavy films. But the added costs are a blip when weighed against higher ticket sales.

Behind the scenes, however, filmmakers have begun to resist production executives eager for 3-D sales. For reasons both aesthetic and practical, some directors often do not want to convert a film to 3-D or go to the trouble and expense of shooting with 3-D cameras, which are still relatively untested on big movies with complex stunts and locations.

Filmmakers like Mr. Whedon and Mr. Abrams argue that 3-D technology does little to enhance a cinematic story, while adding a lot of bother. “It hasn’t changed anything, except it’s going to make it harder to shoot,” Mr. Whedon said at Comic-Con.

In much the same spirit, Christopher Nolan recently warded off suggestions that his film “Inception,” from Warner — still No. 1 at the box office — might be converted to 3-D.

On the other hand, Michael Bay, who is shooting “Transformers 3,” appears to have agreed that his film will be at least partly in 3-D after insisting for months that the technology was not quite ready for his brand of action.

“We’ve always said it’s all about balance,” said Greg Foster, the president and chairman of Imax Filmed Entertainment, which has long counseled that some films are better in 2-D, even on giant Imax screens. “The world is catching up to that approach.”

A willingness to shoot in 3-D could persuade studio committees to approve an expensive film. But the disdain of some filmmakers for 3-D — at least in connection with their current projects — was on full display in San Diego.

Jon Favreau, speaking at Comic-Con about his coming “Cowboys & Aliens” for DreamWorks and Universal, said the idea of doing the movie in 3-D had come up, but he was not interested. Contemporary 3-D requires a digital camera, and “Westerns should only be shot on film,” Mr. Favreau said. He added: “Use the money you save to see it twice.”

Stacey Snider, the DreamWorks chief executive, said Mr. Favreau and the studios involved had mutually agreed that 3-D was not right for the film. But, she added, a discussion about 3-D was inevitable.

“It’s naïve to think we wouldn’t be having it on any movie that has effects, action or scale,” Ms. Snider said.

Earlier at Comic-Con, Edgar Wright, the director of “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World,” an action-filled comic-book extravaganza from Universal, similarly said that his film would arrive in two dimensions, at regular prices.

(People briefed on Universal’s approach to the film said 3-D had been considered very briefly. It was rejected, however, partly to avoid straining what promises to be a young audience with high ticket prices, partly because the already busy look of the movie might have become overwhelming in 3-D.)

The crowds cheered, as they had in an earlier Comic-Con briefing by Chris Pirrotta and other staff members of the fan site TheOneRing.net, who assured 300 listeners that a pair of planned “Hobbit” films will not be in 3-D, based on the site’s extensive reporting.

“Out of 450 people surveyed, 450 don’t want 3D for ‘The Hobbit,’ ” a later post on the Web site said.

But in Hollywood, an executive briefed on the matter — who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the delicate negotiations surrounding a plan to have Peter Jackson direct the “Hobbit” films — said the dimensional status of the movie remained unresolved.

Asked by phone recently whether die-hard fans would tolerate a 3-D Middle Earth, Mr. Pirrotta said, “I do believe so, as long as there was the standard version as well.”

In his own family, he said, the funny glasses can be a deal-breaker.

“My wife can’t stand 3-D.”



Wondering what your takes are on this? I absolutely HATE 3-D movies ... and I'm glad there seems to be some resistance against continously making everything 3D.

I've only seen one 3D movie and I thought it was too blurry. I hated it.

I haven't seen a 3d movie in the theatre, but I was impressed with a 3d tv at best buy showing monsters vs aliens.

Why are you happy there Is resistance to it? If you don't like it, just don't go see it. That's like saying, I hate steak, and Im glad people are pushing to eliminate it?

Yes/no?

Nothing wrong with 3d if it is done well. Unfortunately there are a lot of things that can make it aweful. Avatar's 3d was done really well (shot in 3d unlike most which are done post-production). Still, if you wear glasses, have a crappy seat, etc it is a miserable experience.

Edit. Gotta love auto complete changing 3d to 3some LOL

The 3-D is alot better than it used to be. I took the family to see Shrek and Alice in Wonderland but it isn't worth the money imo. I think it cost us $9 for a ticket and then $3 for glasses...and after the film they had employees reminding us to drop them in the 'recycle' bin.

Alice in wonderland was done post prod...

Quote:

---

.and after the film they had employees reminding us to drop them in the 'recycle' bin.

---

why don't people just keep the glasses for next time?

I loved Monsters vs Aliens, Up and Avatar in 3D. I will see other movies in 3D when they come out. I don't see a lot of movies in the theater, so I'm not sure if they really cost more than other movies to see, but I really enjoyed these movies.

I highly doubt it becomes the norm. Right now what, 2-5% of all movies are produced in 3-D? Even then there are 2-d options for that movie

I think people are worrying over nothing. Im actually surprised the whole 3-d has received any backlash. Im gonna stick with, if people dont like it,just dont watch it. No need to worry.

Then again I could be wrong and by 2020 75% of all movie screens will be 3-d Then again the 3-d expereince in 2020 will probably be like going from vhs to blu ray.

by October, anyone that has a PS3, will also have a 3d blu ray player

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20010230-1.html

now Excl, dont start getting all twitchy on me

i've never seen a movie in 3d, old school 70's 3d or new school stuff.

I haven't seen a 3d movie yet, but am not really eager to see one either.

I've seen a couple 3D movies on newer flat screens that support them. It's OK, but it's definitely a feature I wouldn't want to pay extra for. I doubt I would use it. ::shrug::

Me neither.
A great movie, like a great book or song, can draw you in and carry you away, and doesn't need to be gimmicked up.

I do know people who have seen 3D movies and loved it. My father-in-law was awed by that horror 3D film that came out last fall... Final Destination, IIRC?

Not only is 3D in the movies.. get ready for 3 D football. In fact the OSU Miami game will be the 2nd OSU game in 3D.

web page

Ohio State-Miami Game To Air In 3D
Thursday, July 29, 2010 11:54 AM
Print StoryE-mail StoryCOLUMBUS, Ohio — ESPN announced on Thursday that Ohio State's Sept. 11 game against Miami will be featured in 3D.

Kickoff between Ohio State and Miami is set for 3:40 p.m. and will be broadcast by ESPN. The game will be the first between the perennial powers since the Buckeyes defeated the Hurricanes 31-24 in the 2003 Fiesta Bowl to win the 2002 BCS National Championship.

The game will mark the second time that the Buckeyes have been seen in 3D. Last year's game against Southern Cal served as a test telecast for the network.

SPECIAL SECTION: Ohio State Football

The ESPN 3D network will telecast a featured college football game almost every week of the season, according to the network. It will announce additional programming, including NBA an college basketball games throughout the year.

Stay with 10TV News and 10TV.com for continuing Ohio State football coverage.

I don't really go to the movies enough to care but I see both sides. I saw that Christmas movie a year or so ago in 3d.. it was ok...

I guess some movies are good and some are not... but it does seem like a lot of them put more thought and effort into the CGI, the 3D, etc than they put into the story and the acting..

I've not seen a movie in 3D yet, so I don't have an opinion on them.

However, when I read the article I couldn't help but drawing from it that the directors were getting a little bit annoyed that the movie executives have been trying to bully them ino 3D for the dollar signs they see dancing in their heads as they sleep.

jc


It's about money.

If they can get another $3-5 a ticket to view a 3D, it's money on the bank.

it's the reason I ignore the "Film made 500 million worldwide" titles, because 500 billion at $10 a ticker is 50 million tickets sold. Which back when tickets were $1.50 would only be 75 mil. Same viewers a lot less money made, so is the 500 million making movie really 6x more popular/better?

Do sporting events say "We have $1,760,000 worth of attendance at today's game"?

As for the 3D TV's, they are sweet, wouldn't mind having one for the occasional movie, but I'm fine with a good HD movie on a big HD screen in simple 2D.

Until 3d requires no glasses at all... 3d is a no go for me.. glasses tend to irritate my eyes too much.. but I've only seen 3d as only a gimmick that they have already used and failed on before... I'm holding out for hologram movies...

That's why I like this site:
http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

Avatar doesn't even crack the top 10 all-time. Pretty easy to break all-time gross records when you're charging $15-$20 for tickets. (And the value of the dollar isn't much either)

I hate 3D movies.

This about sums it up.



The 3D craze sucked the first time they did it. The 3D craze still sucks now that they are trying it again.

I go to the theater to see a movie. Not have to watch a movie through glasses on top of the glasses I already wear.

As someone that wears glasses to see distances and then has to layer funky 3D glasses over top, I hate it. Very uncomfortable and ruins the movie experience.

I've seen one 3-D movie (Avatar). They actually did a great job with playing down the "things jumping into your face effect". They used the 3-D to create a realisitc world and show action. Outside of the glasses, I didn't really pick up on it being too obvious. Looked great!

As far as home 3-D, it's nice.....but until most TV and movies are in that format, why would I bo buy a crazy expensive 3-D tv and player for a few live events and some home movies (of movies I could have seen in 3-D at the thearter)?

Home 3d may be bigger for the gaming market than anything.

Here's a good link on how to build it (wall-sized 3d gaming) yourself for about $1000: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/3d-vision-projector-acer-h5360,2687.html

More evidence that the new 3D is not going away and is going to be getting pushed from all fronts:


Sharp Launching 3D Smartphone This Year

Apparently Sharp is incorporating its parallax barrier display and 3D module camera in a smartphone.



Wednesday a spokesperson for Sharp Corp said that the company will release a smartphone that will feature a 3D screen that won't require special glasses. Although no hardware specifics were given, the upcoming device may also include a 3D capable camera and ship worldwide by the end of the year.


The upcoming device will presumably use the parallax barrier display revealed back in April. During the presentation, Sharp showcased a 3.4-inch, 854 x 480 resolution touchscreen LCD utilizing the new glasses-free technology. The 3D effect was achieved using a series of vertical slits that controlled the direction of light from the screen. This allowed different images to be directed to the left and right eyes, creating the 3D illusion.


Later in May Sharp added a 3D camera module for mobile devices to its arsenal, capable of capturing 720p 3D video images. Although Sharp said that samples would begin to ship in July, mass production would commence within 2010. At the time Sharp didn't specify its intentions to incorporate the display and camera technologies into its own smartphone, however the plan should have been obvious from the start.


While Sharp is Japan's biggest mobile phone manufacturer, the company recently tanked with Microsoft's Kin in the North American market, canceled in just under three months after the initial launch. It will be interesting to see how 3D will be incorporated into a smartphone environment--we're still waiting to get our hands on the Nintendo 3DS, the handheld gaming platform that uses Sharp's parallax barrier display technology.

I can't wait until "they" release 3-D goggles for normal day usage. I want my life to be in 3-D too!