PDA

View Full Version : Do the revenues of GREEN LANTERN signal a decline in the popularity of stereoscopics?



Dexter2999
06-22-2011, 05:27 PM
This is a discussion based on the data presented here, http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2011/06/mr_poppers_penguins.html

The interesting bit (to me) was that although the movie was screened 70% in stereoscopic and 30% traditional 2D screens, the stereoscopic screenings only accounted for 45% of the revenues.

Are people over the novelty of 3D? Are they just making an economical choice? Have they just decided that the 3D isn't worth the extra cost? Are they tired of wearing the glasses? Or is this just a fluke, a hiccup in the overall scheme of things?

I'm curious as stereoscopic has been all the "buzz" for the last couple of years. Newtek even doing really excellent work in listening to those using the tech and making improvements in LW.

hrgiger
06-22-2011, 06:05 PM
A) People realize that movie stuidos are ripping them off with the significantly higher ticket prices or
B) The novelty has worn off just like it has before.

I'm going with B. 3D movies are a fad. So are those ridiculous 3D tvs. In a few years, you won't be able to find a movie made in 3D as more and more people stop paying the higher prices for it. The poor state of the economy will reduce the number of 3D movies even faster. Invented in the 50's- popular for a while in the 80's and then 90's. Now around for a few years in the 2000's. I'm sure in another 10-15 people will forget once again that 3D movies just aren't worth it and some fool movie company will make another one and start the cute little trend all over again.

Titus
06-22-2011, 06:11 PM
Stereoscopy has been coming and going for the last 175 years. So, who knows?

achrystie
06-22-2011, 07:33 PM
Well, I avoid the 3D showing in most cases for two reasons:
1) I don't do well with the 3D I think because of a large difference between the focusing of my right eye and my left eye.
2) The price isn't worth the experience.

I'll note though, for this particular movie, it's one of the movies that has somehow managed to miss the most popular local theater near me. It always seems that when this happens, the revenues are significantly lower than expected, and I do keep track of this type of stuff. This was true with iRobot and a few other "pseudo blockbusters" over the past 8 years. I'm not sure if that's cause and effect or just coincidence, but it seems like certain big time movies just don't get runs at the best theater locally, for whatever reason. I don't go to the other theaters because they're even more expensive, there are no early shows (no matinee pricing either), and the seating is not stadium and therefore sucks.

Sekhar
06-22-2011, 07:52 PM
A) People realize that movie stuidos are ripping them off with the significantly higher ticket prices or
B) The novelty has worn off just like it has before.

I'm going with B. 3D movies are a fad. So are those ridiculous 3D tvs. In a few years, you won't be able to find a movie made in 3D as more and more people stop paying the higher prices for it. The poor state of the economy will reduce the number of 3D movies even faster. Invented in the 50's- popular for a while in the 80's and then 90's. Now around for a few years in the 2000's. I'm sure in another 10-15 people will forget once again that 3D movies just aren't worth it and some fool movie company will make another one and start the cute little trend all over again.

I tend to agree, Avatar timed it really well I guess (or got lucky). Since then I for myself haven't seen a single one and don't plan to. Did you try those glasses NT sent with the DVD? May be I'm doing something wrong, but they were absolutely terrible on everything I tried.

Dodgy
06-22-2011, 09:48 PM
The problem is the studios being cheap with the 3d as well, only converting to 3d in post for many films, then only showing the movies in 3d so they can scoop the extra revenue. I certainly wouldn't have seen Thor in 3d (awesome as it was) if I had the choice (it was only offered in 3d in Australia) because it was post converted and didn't really improve the experience.

The studios seem to want it both ways, people to pay more for 3d and shoot in 2d and post convert to save them money. That really isn't washing with the average film goer, and most films they aren't going to be bothered to see in 3d (unless locked into it by studio greed) unless they're really getting something special 3d-wise like Avatar.

Dexter2999
06-22-2011, 09:59 PM
I didn't see THOR because my local theater only offered in 3D. I could have driven a little farther and seen it in 2D, but between the cost of gas and the aggravation of traffic, I couldn't be bothered.

FWIW, I may not see the sequel to AVATAR in 3D either. An hour wait in line to buy a ticket for a showing three hours later. I found the movie too long and left with a headache (from the glasses, low blood sugar, or caffein withdrawal I will never know.) Then a traffic jam in the parking deck to get out. I just didn't find the movie, stunning as it was, outweighed the negative in the experience.

I just don't see myself ever trying to sit through a 3+ hour long movie with no intermission ever again. I'm just getting too old and cranky I guess.

I literally, LOL'ed when I heard about the guy selling glasses to make 3D movies 2D. He's putting the same lens in both sides so you only see one image. I guess some people may buy them but [email protected] if it'll be me.

probiner
06-22-2011, 11:15 PM
I didn't see THOR because my local theater only offered in 3D. I could have driven a little farther and seen it in 2D, but between the cost of gas and the aggravation of traffic, I couldn't be bothered.

FWIW, I may not see the sequel to AVATAR in 3D either. An hour wait in line to buy a ticket for a showing three hours later. I found the movie too long and left with a headache (from the glasses, low blood sugar, or caffein withdrawal I will never know.) Then a traffic jam in the parking deck to get out. I just didn't find the movie, stunning as it was, outweighed the negative in the experience.

I just don't see myself ever trying to sit through a 3+ hour long movie with no intermission ever again. I'm just getting too old and cranky I guess.

I literally, LOL'ed when I heard about the guy selling glasses to make 3D movies 2D. He's putting the same lens in both sides so you only see one image. I guess some people may buy them but [email protected] if it'll be me.

I must say i don't like 3d effect much and it's a pain to see original versions here without 3D too. But... last movie i saw, Kong Fu Panda I felt 3D more confortable and the movie actually used it to tell things or enhance them, other than just have 3d effect sitting there. That said, yes it must go! :D

OnlineRender
06-23-2011, 03:58 AM
I don't like 3D movies much and I'll pick the classic 2D version every time. I hope this 3D fad dies off soon, I don't think it enhances the classic cinema experience in any way.

that's mental your doing yourself out of work saying that ... I understand your reasoning but still mental .

stiff paper
06-23-2011, 04:38 AM
I think what Green Lantern proves is that people definitely don't want to pay extra for 3D when it's on a movie that they suspect might royally suck.

So far Avatar is the only thing that's come close to a worthwhile experience in 3D. And Avatar was exactly as good a movie in 2D as it was in 3D. Anybody that thinks Avatar was "better" in 3D probably doesn't really like movies anyway, all they really like is having lovely colored lights flashing in front of their eyes while loud bangs are being played on the sound system. 3D gives you lovelier flashing lights, that's all.

Given that almost the entire world seems happy with the quality of MP3 and watching video on YouTube, I think 3D is doomed. Not enough people give a toss about lovelier flashing lights.


that's mental your doing yourself out of work saying that ...

I can't see this being true, to be honest. If you're a compositor type that's doing all the post-conversion work on movies that have been shot in plain old 2D, then yes. But 3D guys? Naah. Whether you make the movie in 2D or 3D you still need the 3D guys to do exactly the same amount of work for the VFX.

OnlineRender
06-23-2011, 04:53 AM
Let's stick to facts and put the above quote into context .... I hope the 3d fad thing dies out.. I agree with your point its valid and good argument but if the 3d fad dies out as with it applications such as tv ,3ds and any other relevant tech .... again doing yourself out of work ,its never going away not now ,way to much tech being invested

VonBon
06-23-2011, 06:04 AM
3D Movies are not good for your eyes or your brain, but that movie didnt
make any money because they picked the WRONG leading man.

OnlineRender
06-23-2011, 07:14 AM
not seen it but every direction I hear it sucks . but meh !

stiff paper
06-23-2011, 08:04 AM
Well, I didn't say that Green Lantern sucked, and more importantly it's irrelevant to my point whether it actually does suck or not.

People are being asked to pay a premium for seeing a movie in 3D. All that needs to happen is that people feel like there's a chance that the movie could suck, because once they think that, there's not much chance they'll want to pay out more money than they really need to.

Avatar was a one-off. It was the first big movie with the new technology and it was hyped up to be the once in a lifetime event that was going to change movies forever. They successfully turned it into an event rather than just a movie. That'll work once, maybe twice. Modern Hollywood thinks that movies sell on nothing more than gimmicks, so they employ endless "tricks" to fool an audience into seeing them. 3D is just another trick. Given that it's costing them money to do the 3D thing, if it stops working as a trick then Hollywood will drop it like it's infectious.

And everybody that thinks home 3D is not going away... I assume you sit there every night with your 3D glasses on watching the news and thinking how much better the news is in 3D?

I'm tellin' ya... the only thing that can save 3D is if they manage to get the p0rn makers on their side. That would probably sell gangbusters.

Dexter2999
06-23-2011, 11:19 AM
Well, I didn't say that Green Lantern sucked, and more importantly it's irrelevant to my point whether it actually does suck or not.

People are being asked to pay a premium for seeing a movie in 3D. All that needs to happen is that people feel like there's a chance that the movie could suck, because once they think that, there's not much chance they'll want to pay out more money than they really need to.


I was kind of wondering the same thing. I think this could be a valid point. People may have seen the trailer and said, "Well, I'll go see it but I'm not going to pay the extra $3 for the glasses."

I think this brings up an issue with production and distribution. If the consumers show that they are unwilling to pay more for a mediocre/crappy film in 3D, will studios have to exercise more discretion when green lighting a 3D production? The production costs are certainly higher. More cameras, more footage, more effects work, and if the project doesn't pull the revenues in the 3D screens, what's the point? And that leaves the door open for more of the crappy, post production 3D conversion doesn't it? I mean for real deal 3D you need to shoot it that way which means you need the cash up front. But if the production companies think they can hedge their bets with post conversion, they will won't they? Unless the consumers speak again by refusing to see these types of films.

Will future 3D films need to be "sure fire" box office gold to get 3D approval up front? Will a 3D version become a sort of hallmark of confidence from the studios?

safetyman
06-23-2011, 02:01 PM
You guys haven't seen Piranha 3D yet. It'll change your minds about this whole 3D "fad". LOL.

stiff paper
06-23-2011, 04:54 PM
You guys haven't seen Piranha 3D yet. It'll change your minds about this whole 3D "fad". LOL.

Ha ha ha ha...

Well... it might. It might.

I saw Friday 13th Part 3 in 3D back in the day, and the whole thing was full of actors poking sticks at you out of the screen and all kinds of other suspect behavior. It even had an eyeball pop out of somebody's head and fly out at the audience. And you know what? Easily the best ever use of 3D in a film. Waaaaay better than the 3D in Avatar.

Iain
06-24-2011, 07:54 AM
People are being asked to pay a premium for seeing a movie in 3D. All that needs to happen is that people feel like there's a chance that the movie could suck, because once they think that, there's not much chance they'll want to pay out more money than they really need to.


I think that hits the nail on the head here. Bad reviews mean a change in attitude from wishing to pay top dollar for the full experience right down to waiting for the cut price DVD.

Not only do I have very little interest in Green Lantern but I just know the 3D version would add nothing.
Avatar, on the other hand, was a truly amazing 3D cinema experience. I knew it was going to be from the hype (which is rarely wrong, imho.) On my 2D TV, however, it was pretty average.

And yes, 3D TV is surely a fad. Until Nintendo 3DS style screens are available, anyway.

Cageman
06-24-2011, 09:22 AM
The only stereo movie that I've seen that worked for me regarding stereo, was Avatar. I would love to see it in IMAX, but there are so few IMAX theaters here in Sweden. :(

I never felt that stereo makes a movie better, except for Avatar, since the environments etc made it an experience rather than just a movie per see.

All this said and done, I prefer to not watch stereoscopic movies. I rather see the 2D version. But I guess that Avatar 2 and 3 will most likely be a nice experience with 3D, so I will watch those in 3D.

:)

biliousfrog
06-24-2011, 09:38 AM
3D has never taken off because it is seen as a substitute for something else. Apparently Avatar was a life changing experience in 3D, on DVD it was possibly the worst film I'd ever seen and I can't imagine how adding depth could improve it. Unfortunately people have been duped into believing the hype - 3D is 1D better...you haven't experienced a film until you've worn cheap sunglasses in a dark room that give you a headache and reduce contrast.

I hope it disappears again soon. I don't see it as putting anyone out of work, if anything it should creat more jobs because the emphasis will be on quality again to sell films rather than gimmicks.

evolross
06-24-2011, 10:40 AM
Transformers 3 will be a good litmus test... since it's a blockbuster movie that has a built-in fan-base. The revenue numbers on that one will be interesting.

I still keep reading article after article of studios ramping up or building new state-of-the-art stereo-divisions, so we'll see.

souzou
06-24-2011, 11:13 AM
I'd rather they spent the money on filming/creating it for IMAX, than on stereoscopic. Seeing The Dark Knight and Inception in IMAX blew me away. For me that's worth paying the extra few quid for, rather than 3d.

Dexter2999
06-24-2011, 02:27 PM
I was listening to the RCPodcast and they mentioned that GREEN LANTERN was converted to 3D in post. Don't know that as gospel but there it is.

They did mention that it looked much better than earlier attempts such as CLASH OF THE TITANS.

Unrelated to the OP but they also brought up an interesting disection of the post process to correct the current 48fps features being shot to account for the motion blur not looking proper when converted for home video. 48fps meaning a different shutter angle, meaning less motion blur. When extra frames get omitted for DVD they surmise that it won't look right. So there may need to be a post process to add motion blur.

Interesting.

Iain
06-24-2011, 02:44 PM
Well, you can't polish a turd, as they say.

clagman
06-24-2011, 03:10 PM
3d with IMAX is a bit different.

Hieron
06-24-2011, 03:30 PM
Green Lantern was converted I think, so it's a no go for me, period. Things like that are truly a fad. Besides that, interesting to see the strong points vented here, mostly anti S3D on a 3D forum :)

In principle imho S3D adds to the experience. If kept rather subtle and lifelike and done correctly. (read: no conversion..)

There's even shots in Avatar with hugely messed up stereo that would hurt anyones brain. So it doesn't help that it is harder to do than 2D sometimes. Also, there are occasions in real life, that your eyes have a hard time focussing as well. Like reflections on bent reflective materials.. can't focus those either but in S3D movies people would try.

Less contrast, shutters etc. It's all fixable. At home I use passive polarized dual projector rig with a 70% transmission of light. You'd be hard pressed to notice the loss of light or contrast. However, the one thing that can not go together is DoF and S3D. DoF in itself is an odd thing.. it's extremely handy to bring focus in a scene etc but it's not quite how we perceive the world either. When S3D comes in, DoF gives headaches as the eye goes searching through the image and is trying to get the blur in focus.

Losing DoF in movies would be a pity.. yet a person focussing in S3D on your object of choice would have sort of the same effect he would have irl.

All imho ofc.

Whelkn
06-24-2011, 05:17 PM
The Green lantern was converted. The company I am at now was finishing up their portion when I started there a few months back.

silviotoledo
06-27-2011, 07:18 PM
I hate 3D. Double rendering times :) I can't afford it!

Ernest
06-27-2011, 10:00 PM
In principle imho S3D adds to the experience. If kept rather subtle and lifelike and done correctly. (read: no conversion..)No, subtle is bad! When the 3D movie is about to start, they show a huge logo shooting off at you. That's what we pay extra for! Then the movie starts and you only get a hint of depth that just gives you a slightly more immersive 2D movie, really. That's what is killing 3D. The only decent and satisfying use of 3D I've been to was in Epcot and a couple of shots in Avatar.

(BTW, if Avatar is one of the worst movies you've ever paid to watch, you really don't pay to watch much at all, do you?)
Have there been BAAD movies this year!


Apparently Avatar was a life changing experience in 3D, on DVD it was possibly the worst film I'd ever seen and I can't imagine how adding depth could improve it.

There was a scene in pretty woman where Richard Gere takes Julia Roberts to the opera and explains that people's first reaction to opera is very interesting. If they don't like it the first time, they can learn to appreciate it but it will never be part of their soul (or some **** like that).
The rain forest is sort of like that.

stiff paper
06-28-2011, 10:06 AM
Well, you can't polish a turd, as they say.

No, but at several of the places I've worked, I've seen people varnish one until it was super shiny...

toddd240
06-28-2011, 10:20 AM
Unless it improves the movie don't add 3D. Avatar was a good example of this. Without 3D Avatar was a very simplistic movie with no depth. With 3D, Avatar was improved and I could ignore the rushed plot.

3D is a money gimmick that most movies don't benefit artistically from.

But Hollywood is capatilism, so unless people stop buying into 3D, it will be here to stay.

Dreamcube017
06-28-2011, 10:30 AM
Bottom line... if it's not actually COMING OUT of the screen or unless it's truly going back INTO the screen... it's not 3D. It's 2.5D.

Kind of reminds me of the old days of video games where they would say "THIS GAME IS 3D!!" and it was just isometric top-down gameplay (See Sonic 3D Blast for the Sega genisis.)

If we didn't need glasses (like for the 3DS) I don't think I'd have too big of a problem with 3D TVs.

Oh, I DO however think video games can bennifit from 3D as the entire game would be rendered in 3D all the time and you would be free to explore and walk around... Especially if you have three monitors, then it could almost be like the 3D stuff that NASA has and THAT is 3D!!

Danner
06-28-2011, 01:32 PM
No, but at several of the places I've worked, I've seen people varnish one until it was super shiny...

Mith Busters proved that you actually can polish a turd..


Transformers will do better than green lattern for sure..

digitaldoc
06-28-2011, 03:20 PM
Avatar and How to Train Your Dragon, only ones worth the extra $$ for 3D for me.

Hieron
06-28-2011, 03:40 PM
No, subtle is bad! When the 3D movie is about to start, they show a huge logo shooting off at you. That's what we pay extra for! Then the movie starts and you only get a hint of depth that just gives you a slightly more immersive 2D movie, really. That's what is killing 3D. The only decent and satisfying use of 3D I've been to was in Epcot and a couple of shots in Avatar.

No subtle is not bad! I don't mean "flat" or "bland" btw. Lots of the best S3D parts in Avatar (to me and people I asked) were the jungle shots, the slow moving camera looking down on the praying blue people, looking into the deep when the flyer jumps down etc. If the movie needs to constantly poke a spear into the lens, throw a punch into the camera etc that will grow old real soon.

And no, that is not what's killing 3D. Conversion movies do a good job and people just having insane headaches anyway. DoF + S3D is a pain for many who are used to have a wandering eye, keeping track of what may be lurking at the edges of the screen etc.

Avatar had a few painfull scenes as well, I remember one in the beginning with a long hangar with the main protagonist arriving. That one had a insane outward seperation in the depth of about 1m+ on screen. Eyes do not like to tilt outward.

I've produced animations and played countless hours in S3D, and while lotsa pop out and overdoing 3D is fun for a bit, for many it isn't. Some movies last 3 hours.. you'd lose half the audience in 5 minutes.

Also, people tend to overdo S3D. The real world isn't that deep.. it's quite subtle, but informative.


(BTW, if Avatar is one of the worst movies you've ever paid to watch, you really don't pay to watch much at all, do you?)

Is that for me? I pay enough to watch thank you but it wasn't me who said it. Avatar was fine since it was big and S3D and I'm an afficionado. Story wise, actor performance etc.. blah.. even worse: unobtanium. w t f

Only movie I ever walked out of was 10.000 BC. Pretty nice CG actually but the rest was just painful to watch.

Ernest
06-28-2011, 10:51 PM
No subtle is not bad! I don't mean "flat" or "bland" btw. Lots of the best S3D parts in Avatar (to me and people I asked) were the jungle shots, the slow moving camera looking down on the praying blue people, looking into the deep when the flyer jumps down etc. If the movie needs to constantly poke a spear into the lens, throw a punch into the camera etc that will grow old real soon.

I'll agree with you on the "constantly." I admit that it would quickly grow old if it was used throughout the movie. However, if a movie is selling 3D tickets, you expect it to have 3D-able scenes. Those scenes should not be subtle. They should tell you in no uncertain terms, "This is what you paid extra for!" When your balloon-supported house is about to enter a storm cloud it is clearly NOT the time to be subtle! On those scenes the 3D should let all its guns loose. Then it can go back to a dormant state until the next one.

If you think that will get old, remember how long it has taken big explosions and natural disasters to stop selling tickets.



Is that for me?

No, it was meant for the post that used almost the exact same wording I did. Yes, Avatar's script was bland, but it was Victor Hugo's best when compared to some of the movies I've seen this year! (let alone in the 80s!)

gristle
06-29-2011, 01:58 AM
Sorry to go off topic, but another trend I hope dies a sudden death is the overcomplication of things. A prime example - transformers. I tired to figure out my nephews transformer model the other day, what a bloody disaster! The original transformers worked, were logical and were not assemblies of hundereds of parts. I'd be pissed if I was a kid today.

I guess it they needed to refresh the characters in the movie... no way the new toys will become classics. They look like someone ran a broken glass filter over them.

stevecullum
06-29-2011, 08:29 AM
Until 3D works without silly glasses I can't ever see it catching on in the way Hollywood would like it to. While I enjoyed Avatar 3D I equally enjoyed the 2D Version, but Clash Of The Titans was just painful to watch in 3D. I'll stick to watching 2D versions for now, until they resolve the glasses issue.

SBowie
06-29-2011, 08:44 AM
I was interested to see Avatar in 3D - once. Having done that, and having accidentally bought tickets to 3D showings online (rather than 2D) since then, for the foreseeable future I'll be looking very closely to make sure I don't repeat that mistake ... 2D all the way for me until they come up with something a good deal better.

Steve Warner
07-01-2011, 03:20 PM
It's interesting to see the comments here. Most seem to think 3D is a fad and will die out. They cite low box office revenue for questionable quality films or the public's annoyance with having to wear glasses as the reason for this. However it's worth noting that when sound was added to film, people made similar claims. The technological limitations of the day didn't help matters. Poor sync with the image, bad microphones and inadequate speakers for playback made "talkies" seem like a novelty. But as the technology got better, so did the acceptance of sound. And those saying it was a fad were soon proven wrong.

The same thing happened when color was introduced. And then later it happened again with surround sound. Each time a bit of technology moves the movie experience forward, there are naysayers who claim that it's a fad and will go away.

There are already 3D displays that do not require glasses. There are apps for the iPad that use eye tracking to create a stereo3D effect. There are glasses-less 3D laptops, cameras, camcorders and phones. It's only a matter of time before the technical hurdles that most find annoying are removed. So you can't look at the modern implementation and expect things to remain as they are today, because things are changing faster than you think.

It's also important to note that audience preference is not the only determining factor in a technology's success. You have to look at the money being put into the tech, not necessarily the money being made from it - especially at this early stage.

Sony, Nintendo, Discovery, DirecTV, Samsung, and LG are all investing heavily into 3D. Companies like Deluxe, Prime Focus and Digital Domain are hiring hundreds of people to handle 3D conversion. Sony CEO Howard Stringer recently said (http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/03/ff_sony_howard_stringer/) that "3D will sweep the world" and he is betting the future of the company on the acceptance of 3D.

If all of these companies are investing countless millions on the acceptance of 3D, do you really think poor 3D ticket sales at the box office are going to matter?

It's also important to note that 3D is not just a movie phenomenon. There are dozens of 3D TV channels popping up. And the 3D game market is beginning to explode. So again, the fact that a movie doesn't sell a lot of 3D tickets doesn't mean a whole lot.

Hieron
07-01-2011, 04:28 PM
There are already 3D displays that do not require glasses. There are apps for the iPad that use eye tracking to create a stereo3D effect. There are glasses-less 3D laptops, cameras, camcorders and phones. It's only a matter of time before the technical hurdles that most find annoying are removed. So you can't look at the modern implementation and expect things to remain as they are today, because things are changing faster than you think.

There may be displays that do not require glasses, but their tech and resolution is far from ideal. Some years back, when Philips was pushing their no-glasses WOWVX TV's (never really made it to market) I spoke with some of their engineers, and they admitted the current shortcomings.

Glasses less S3D may be the future, but current implementations are far from ideal. Very far, imho. Probably nothing that insane funds can't fix though.. who knows. But I'm yet to see a product that is watchable for any length of time, with decent S3D quality.




And the 3D game market is beginning to explode. So again, the fact that a movie doesn't sell a lot of 3D tickets doesn't mean a whole lot.

/agree there. Games *really* benefit. I played many games in S3D (hey, partly as R&D you know) and the immersion can be intense and amazing.

DoF etc related issues are much less common, and much easier averted in games as well.

my DIY thread of a dual passive polarized rig:
http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=509

with almost 17k views, from back in 2007. Now that's a great gaming experience...

NanoGator
07-01-2011, 04:32 PM
I wish the internet was around when B&W films started going to color. I'd love to have read the comments about how the 60's, in particular, were abusive of color. Heh.

To clarify, though, I'm not saying people are wrong. However, I don't think we've been exposed to enough good 3d to really be able to make that call.

SBowie
07-01-2011, 04:36 PM
Maybe it's great for gaming, I've no idea ... but for cinema experience, I'm done with it for the foreseeable future so long as I have the ability to avoid it. It is my considered opinion that generally, rather than enhance the movie-going experience, 3D degrades it. Having seen a few in the last year or so, as it stands right now I would sooner pay extra to see a movie in 2D than 3D, until such time as the experience improves quite a bit. This is, of course, a purely subjective evaluation, but I suspect I'm not the only one who feels this way.

cresshead
07-01-2011, 05:17 PM
Avatar was good in 3d [stereo vision] but i did not like the "guided depth" much as i realised i missed quite abit from the film when i saw it in 2d via DVD which i preferred given the choice as i could look anywhere on screen and SEE stuff and not be pulled/tugged away by the director's depth cuing what he wanted me to look at

Titus
07-01-2011, 05:19 PM
I wish the internet was around when B&W films started going to color. I'd love to have read the comments about how the 60's, in particular, were abusive of color. Heh.


Specially since colors weren't what they are now, and the grading process was more a witchcraft than a certain science.

I love watching stereo movies, and also making stereo animations. I've small kids and the use of 3D glasses has been banned by their pediatrician, I watch 3d movies in rare ocassions, nobody is putting a gun in my head, right? I don't understand why people feel akward to use glasses a couple of hours, I've been using glasses since I was a kid.

Fortunately, now the stereo technique is more mature than in the 70's movies. Producers now know that throwing things to the audience is not cool, it's discouraged. All the modern 3D movies I know have a more subtle 3D, and even there are movies with a limited use, like Tron.

NanoGator
07-01-2011, 05:21 PM
I remember feeling like the 3D was on autopilot in during the first half of Avatar, during the last half I completely forgot I was wearing the glasses at all. That happened on both screenings. I don't tihnk it's a coincidence that the scenes in the beginning were the first ones filmed/created and the scenes at the end where I noticed this were among the last to be completed. I've yet to have this experience on any other film.

This is also why I made the comment about how we haven't been exposed to enough good 3d.

OnlineRender
07-01-2011, 05:30 PM
I remember feeling like the 3D was on autopilot in during the first half of Avatar, during the last half I completely forgot I was wearing the glasses at all. That happened on both screenings. I don't tihnk it's a coincidence that the scenes in the beginning were the first ones filmed/created and the scenes at the end where I noticed this were among the last to be completed. I've yet to have this experience on any other film.

This is also why I made the comment about how we haven't been exposed to enough good 3d.

Geeeeeeeeeze you think a comment like would come from someone who worked on avatar , phew ..................... :devil:

I seen beowulf , and I thought it was wicked , first time I actually went mmm this 3D is going to be huge .....

I said earlier way too much tech involved , and its only getting better .

I must also add I need to sit with my right eye closed over ever so slightly to get it to work in the Imax , which is a complete nightmare , NO 3D GLASSES FTW . . .

Hieron
07-01-2011, 06:10 PM
Maybe it's great for gaming, I've no idea ... but for cinema experience, I'm done with it for the foreseeable future so long as I have the ability to avoid it.

It also depends on the S3D method used. Shutterglasses can be quite bad, and the alternating polarisation method is hardly ideal either. Also, both methods cut out quite alot of the light. Besides that, the position in the cinema matters alot too. There's a huge difference in relative depth considering the position of the viewer. Alot of cinemas do not really invest alot to "go S3D". If you go cheap, you can get a polariser window from RealD, get cheap *** glasses, forget about the massive lightloss of such a cheapo system, and boom. Your cinema is "3D". See my point?

Also, do not consider conversion movies. They do not count.

People have been wearing glasses for ages, so the glasses part in itself can't be the worst part. If you consider the rig I built here at home and duplicated commercially later: it has a 70% light transmission compared to normal and there is no shuttering. So this makes the experience practically as vivid and without any annoying flickering etc.

Games are ideal in a sense, since a good S3D driver (I still prefer IZ3D) allows you to manipulate the depth at will (which is GREAT for R&D, honest). Some people like alot of seperation, others like the convergence far away etc. Something one can not customize in a cinema.

The best setting for gaming is when the 3D becomes "normal", you experience it as you normally would. Which is more subtle than the settings a person may choose at the start "OMG see the deeeepth!". But it allows you to game for hours, while occasionally you get reminded it is stereo, reallife.

Some examples:

-In Call of Duty 2, alot of levels are played in snowy russia. When hearing the wind and come running out of a building, the snow *will* get into your eyes. It's intense... lifelike. When played in 2D, the snow is just a visual whatever. Or the grenades getting tossed towards you. Looking around a corner into the distance feels great too.. sense of scale.

-In HalfLife 2, when using the gravity gun, pulling object towards you is quite exciting. Nevermind the headcrabs jumping right at you. I usually turn off any HUD, and when displayed 2 meters wide.. it's quite for real. Much more so then when 2D.

-Left 4 Dead. The zombies running at you, the boomer vomitting into your eyes, the smoker sticking his tongue onto you from 30 feet away. Scary.

I suppose first person games work best in S3D... especially on big screens.

LW_Will
07-01-2011, 09:07 PM
Just as an aside, watching Transformers Dark of the Moon (named that because they didn't want to pay Pink Floyd any cash) I was struck by the profound effect 3D had on Micheal "What's a Tripod" Bay. Because of the persistence of vision, his moving camera, frentic action, and physical motion are slower, more languid.

As a result you can actually see the Autobots in the movie. Nothing seem to collapse under the weight of his frantic, twitchy editing style.

Having said that, the film is still a piece of robo-dodo. Avoid at all cost.

But, I thought that if you could improve Bay, 3D can't be all bad.

stiff paper
07-02-2011, 09:37 AM
But, I thought that if you could improve Bay, 3D can't be all bad.

This, surely, is the most obvious case of damning with faint praise that I've ever seen.

Doing almost anything at all to a Michael Bay film would improve the experience of actually having to watch it. Let's see... smear peanut butter all over the film? Yep, improved. Set fire to it? Yep. Feed it to a goat and then come back the day after to stare at it once it's passed through? Yep, much better. Play it backwards? Well it won't be any worse... and it won't make any less sense... and the action sequences will be exactly as coherent...

Steve Warner
07-03-2011, 04:06 PM
I find it quite interesting to see these ever same pro-stereoscopy comments here as well. You might want to inform yourself about the importance of your "second eye" to percieve depth in images, and then reconsider why some think it's not worth the hassle. *snip* Nobody is "against 3D" per se. Please, try to understand that. :thumbsup:
For someone who's profile sig says "Let's NOT speculate" you seem to have had no problem speculating about my stance on stereo. :tsktsk:

Please re-read my post. I never stated that I'm in the pro-stereo camp. Instead, I stated a series of facts about previous advancements in film technology. Then I presented the argument that ticket sales and personal preference are not necessarily the driving force behind the development of stereo 3D. More specifically, I stated that there are monetary forces outside of the box office which are driving the development of stereo. It's no different than any other instance where monetary interests push something on the populace that they might not otherwise want (*cough* Iraq war, Afghanistan, etc.). I'm not arguing in favor of stereo. I'm saying that its development is not being driven by the box office revenue, but by a concerted effort from major corporations to make this a standard - whether the people want it or not.

Now, so that you can stop speculating, I will state unequivocally that I am neither for nor against stereo. I don't own a 3D TV nor do I have plans on getting one. (I don't even own a Blu-Ray player.) I won't be rushing out to get a 3D laptop, a 3D camera or a 3D phone. I actually prefer to see movies in 2D. That said, I think that stereo is creating jobs (especially in the US) at a time when most VFX work is being shipped overseas. And that makes me very happy. I also think that in order for entertainment to advance, it's important to show support for new developments. Stereo movies may be a fad, but the underlying tech may yield breakthroughs that affect everything from advertising to military simulation. So I'm not inclined to revile stereo in any form, because I view it as forward progress.

I don't know where stereo is going. But I think it's foolish to look at the box revenue as an indicator. There are simply too many outside factors in the equation for that to really matter. :thumbsup:

evolross
07-03-2011, 08:54 PM
So this weekend I saw Transformers 3 and Green Lantern, both in 3D. I'll have to say, while both movies had cool moments that utilized the 3D effect well (like the 3rd person paratroopers shots in Transformers and some of the space scenes in Green Lantern), it seems like you forget it's in 3D for about 97% of the movie. It really doesn't ADD a lot to the experience. I'm kind of over it.

VictoryX
07-03-2011, 09:35 PM
I think it really isn't fair to base the future of S3D movies on the box office of two really bad movies in the first place (Green lantern & Transformers 3). There are alot of movies that go well with S3D such as, Avatar, Green Hornet, Kung Fu Panda, & Thor. All of which had either been fully post conversion shows or had some percentage of them converted. Of course I'm biased to the future of S3D because I work in that industry and want it to succeed. It can however add to the story and really immerse the audience. Such as a man feeling trapped or confined in an emotional way the depth can change shallow. Or as he reaches the climax and feels free the depth opens up to a much deeper shot. It can also help tell a story like looking from a giants perspective shifting the depth very deep. As opposed to a humans view where it would be shallow. I have never had issues with staring at S3D, shoot I do it for 12+ hours a day at work. I hope that S3D has a long future and a solid place in moviemaking.

praa
07-04-2011, 12:31 PM
that's all I want to add

MAUROCOR
07-04-2011, 12:59 PM
Do the revenues of GREEN LANTERN signal a decline in the popularity of stereoscopics?


If the numbers ( I mean $) about TRASFORMERS 3 - Dark of the Moon 3D are corrects, I would say no to that answer.
Maybe the problem is the movie itself (that I didnīt see yet).

Danner
07-04-2011, 02:30 PM
I like stereoscopic movies. I just watched T3 and I was like a little kid saying wow every few minutes. The fad might eventually fade.. or evolve, either way it's gonna be here for a while.

evolross
07-04-2011, 04:13 PM
Well I thought Green Lantern was WAY better than Transformers 3. Transformers 3 is 100% well-worn territory with a story just as bad as Transformers 2, they just sprinkled in some name actors. The first Transformers is by FAR the best and actually a decent movie. Though there are some amazing effects sequences in Transformers 3.

Green Lantern isn't as bad as the horrible critical reviews. It's has some really creative CG work, some great characters, and isn't half-bad until the ending. The last 20 to 30 minutes of Green Lantern get a little silly and far-fetched.

The last 30 minutes of Transformers 3 made me want to walk out of the theater. So boring, loud, and pointless.

Dexter2999
07-05-2011, 07:47 PM
http://goto3dstereoscopic.wordpress.com/2011/06/29/3d-decline-economy-quality-of-projection-home-3d/

Balanced report. Basically, I interpret it to mean money is tight and people aren't just going to throw money around to see everything in 3D.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/box-office-preview-can-transformers-205959
http://www.disassociated.com/2010/09/06/decline-in-popularity-of-3d-films-is-being-hastened-by-3d-films/

It is worth noting that 3D TV sales are through the roof. However, I'm not sure everyone buying one is actually using the 3D option (much like most people who buy 4x4 SUV's don't go offroading.) I could be wrong but I think gaming is the biggest future for 3D over movies and television content. Something about the idea of it being an active participation by the viewer rather than passive indicates that the immersive environment has more to offer the experience. Just my opinion there though.

rapscallion
07-05-2011, 09:11 PM
As a couple other people have said, the issue of stereoscopic vs non-stereoscopic is not nearly as important as whether or not the movies suck.

A sucky movie in stereoscopic won't be any better in 2D. Suck=Suck, regardless of how many dimensions.

It will take alot more than one GreenLantern movie to stop the '3D' train from rolling. Hopefully the industry insiders will get the hint that people won't buy into it just for the sake of it - audiences want a well told story with thoughtful usage of the stereoscopic imagery, and if they are consistently delivered that, they will consistently pay the extra buck or two (or three or five or whatever) at the box-office.

Dexter2999
07-05-2011, 09:44 PM
Well, there have been a couple of things said here that I don't personally agree with. How do you define a bad movie before you see it? Green Lantern and Transformers 3 were both panned by critics. Yet Transformers succeeded where Green Lantern failed. So, what is the element that showed the public which to see in 3D?

I also disagree with statements that say revenues earned aren't
a deciding factor. I think you will find ROI is infact BOTTOM LINE.

I think 3D has a niche. But next year 48fps will be the "flavor of the week." Luckily they won't have to pour buckets of gold into new projectors because the digital infrastructure is already in place.

rapscallion
07-05-2011, 10:13 PM
So, what is the element that showed the public which to see in 3D?

Big Robots that people are familiar with. Without a doubt, that was the deciding factor. GreenLantern is a lesser known and lesser loved story/character set-up from the get go; If enough people fall in love with it, they might see a sequel outperform the original - but this first flick never should have been expected to compete with Transformers3, regardless of relative quality. The studio definitely overspent on GL and even said as much during pre-release interviews.

Dexter2999
07-05-2011, 10:27 PM
Big Robots that people are familiar with. Without a doubt, that was the deciding factor. GreenLantern is a lesser known and lesser loved story/character set-up from the get go; If enough people fall in love with it, they might see a sequel outperform the original - but this first flick never should have been expected to compete with Transformers3, regardless of relative quality. The studio definitely overspent on GL and even said as much during pre-release interviews.

Actually GL didn't go up against TRANSFORMERS 3. It went up against an even bigger unknown, SUPER 8. And it lost there as well, even though it had the built in comic book audience and a bigger star power draw with Ryan Reynolds.

Movie making is a gamble, 3D makes it a bigger gamble.

rapscallion
07-05-2011, 11:28 PM
Actually GL didn't go up against TRANSFORMERS 3. It went up against an even bigger unknown, SUPER 8. And it lost there as well, even though it had the built in comic book audience and a bigger star power draw with Ryan Reynolds.

Super 8 wasn't a 3D movie, so it isn't really relevant to the discussion - but I'd have to say that Ryan Reynolds hardly qualifies as 'star power' up against the duo of J.J. Abrams and Steven Spielberg.

As for the built-in comic audience, I think you're drastically over-estimating the appeal of GreenLantern; as a die-hard comic reader for my entire life, I can tell you that GL was always a second-tier comic character who never really had strong appeal unless he was guest-appearing in a book alongside better-loved characters. Fresh content like Super 8 was much more strongly poised for success than an over-bloated and underwritten fx showcase based on a character that most comic fans never really liked.

But, yes, movie-making is a gamble regardless of the '3D' status...

SBowie
07-06-2011, 08:38 AM
Now here's 3D technology put to good use (your girlfriend will approve): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14030720

Iain
07-08-2011, 11:21 AM
Actually GL didn't go up against TRANSFORMERS 3. It went up against an even bigger unknown, SUPER 8. And it lost there as well, even though it had the built in comic book audience and a bigger star power draw with Ryan Reynolds.


I don't know if it's as obvious as that. My kids are desperate to see Super 8 whereas they have zero interest in Transformers 3. They thought the first two were ok.

They have loved some recent 'spectacle cinema' like Harry Potter and Thor but I think they want a break now-something to charm them rather than give them a headache.
Green Lantern just looks........odd to them.

Ryan Reynolds? Meh.
Give me Burt any day.

G-Man
07-11-2011, 09:45 AM
It's the friggin' Green Lantern! I grew up with the Super Friends etc. and he just wasn't that popular. I'm sure there are avid fans, but The Green Lantern just doesn't have the popularity of Superman, Batman, Spiderman, Hulk. Look what happened to Daredevil. I thought Iron Man was risky but they made it work well.

As for stereoscopic, I personally am getting kind of tired of it. I saw Transformers and Cars in 3D and it had some cool shots but just not enough to justify the extra cost. I took my two sons to Transformers in 3D and the tickets alone were almost $50.00 for the three of us! Add another $25.00 for drinks and candy and damn!

I wear glasses and I'm tired of putting the 3D glasses over my prescription ones. I'm really kind of over it.





Just my opinion.

NanoGator
07-11-2011, 09:51 AM
I liked seeing Transformers in 3d. Not only did it make it easier to see what I was looking at, but I think it forced Mr. Bay to use more conservative camera moves.

Pity the movie was stinky...

Dexter2999
07-11-2011, 10:28 AM
For those that haven't read comics in a while (I actually fall in that category) the GREEN LANTERN title has come off of a two year stretch following the DC 52 series, where they have been a major title. A year of full on war with the Sinestro corps, Anti-monitors, and Synapse. Followed by the newer series with the separate rings for each emotion.

I absolutely agree when we were growing up Green Lantern was a second tier hero, alongside my favorites back then The Flash, and Green Arrow. I'm just saying that hasn't necessarily been the case recently. I'm also not saying that the Green Lantern has any appeal outside the US where this relatively recent trend in English language comics has taken place.

toddd240
07-11-2011, 10:32 AM
Green Lantern has always been my favorite super hero since I collected his comics when I was a kid.

I would have seen it in 3D if the movie was any good.

The movie just plain sucked.

G-Man
07-11-2011, 02:07 PM
I'm not meaning to down anybody's liking of a particular comic. I'm just saying that no matter how much 3D, special effects, stereoscopic mojo you put into a film, the majority of moviegoers know that Green Lantern is a comic hero they know nothing about except that he never made it big enough to capture their attention.

A $300 Million dollar movie can't make it on die hard fans alone.

achrystie
07-11-2011, 02:43 PM
Well, I think it's also a function of how the movie makers approach the characters/subject matter.
I get the distinct impression that most movies that make an active effort to appeal to as many demographics as possible, and this includes trying to appeal to kids 8 through 12, fail as a general rule.
I didn't go see GL because it seemed to me, and my daughter, that they were attempting to be too goody goody and "joky" which generally ends up being "hokey". This was my impression from the first trailer that was put out. I didn't grow up reading comic books wanting to see a comic book movie as an adult, unless it was one of the deeper graphic novels. I grew up with comic books and want to see the same characters adapted to film with maturity and respect for the audience. The Dark Knight did it properly, as well as the first two spiderman movies, although they toed the line a bit too much in certain parts. The third spiderman was commercially successful, but jumped the shark with too much whackiness, too many characters, and trying to outdo the previous two with spectacle and half-hearted attempts at humor.
To be honest, I didn't find the third transformers to be that bad, because at least they haven't gone "too far" with trying to fit a joke in or child like messages at every corner. All these movies are eye candy, I assume that going in. However, I want at least some semblance of not trying to speak to me like I'm 9 years old. This is where many films fail, the Star Wars prequels, the third spider man, the last two of the first run of Batman, and the Green Lantern looked to be a lot of the same, 3D or no 3D.

Dexter2999
07-11-2011, 03:19 PM
Some of what is wrong with the movies you have mentioned is that the makers have forsaken character development in favor of spectacle. They introduce too many characters so all characters have to remain two dimensional.

You are correct that some people attemtpting to make comics into live action, mark them up as throw away movies that need no particular challenging plot lines or character growth with the phrase "ah, it's for kids."

I would like to say that "kids" deserve better than that. We the viewing public do. Anyone that takes their responsibility so lightly should just go make a movie made for Disney Channel on cable rather than something meant for theaters.