I sure hope so. It is expensive enough to take a family to the movies without having to pay the surcharge. If they want 3D to take off even more they need to remove the surcharge.
Roger Ebert attacks 3-D Movies and makes some really good points.
- Thread starter televisionarchives
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 57
- Views 6K
I sure hope so. It is expensive enough to take a family to the movies without having to pay the surcharge. If they want 3D to take off even more they need to remove the surcharge.
Like companies have stop charging extra for HD? Oh, wait, what about Disney?
Ghpr13
The jury is still out on that one...
Cameron reportedly is converting Titanic to 3D.
And claiming it takes 18 months to do that... properly.
Diogen.
Alice in Wonderland is a conversion and I liked it... one thing about 3D, not everyone appreciates it in the same way for one reason or another due to differences in perception, some people do not have "3D eyes" and cannot see 3D properly if at all...
It will be very interesting to see if he can pull off a realistic version. Then of course all the oldies will probably start being redone... Star Wars, Indiana Jones, etc.
James Cameron trying to defend 3D said,
“When color came out, was it overkill? It’s just the way things are. Everything is in color now. It’s not in black and white. Everything will eventually be in 3D,”
“When color came out, was it overkill? It’s just the way things are. Everything is in color now. It’s not in black and white. Everything will eventually be in 3D,”
But , here is the problem. We don't see 3D in real life like we see it in the theater. We do however see it in color. It's the same reason color photos became popular over black and white photos . But as I have said before, Movies are art. Photography is art. You can take a good photo in black and white and it's still a good photo. It will still make people admire it even with no color. How many of you prefer your photos to be 3d or are happy with color photos in 2d?
Last edited:
I could care less what Roger Ebert says or what any movie critic says for that matter. Most of the time, a good review from a movie critic means, baw-ring. I have seen a few 3D movies in IMAX, AVATAR included, and enjoyed them immensely but, I could care less about wearing 3D glasses in my home and watching movies on my 3D tv. It's far more appealing and enjoyable on a giant screen.
Now Roger is 100 percent correct on this one.
9. WHENEVER HOLLYWOOD HAS FELT THREATENED, IT HAS TURNED TO TECHNOLOGY: SOUND, COLOR, WIDESCREEN, CINERAMA, 3-D, STEREOPHONIC SOUND, AND NOW 3-D AGAIN.
In marketing terms, this means offering an experience that can’t be had at home. With the advent of Blu-ray discs, HD cable, and home digital projectors, the gap between the theater and home experiences has been narrowed. 3-D widened it again. Now home 3-D TV sets may narrow that gap as well.
Television made the Movie industry very nervous when it became popular back in the 1950's. They tried the 3d gimmick . That didn't work but the widescreen did. A note to Hollywood. Just make a good movie. That's what it's really all about.
9. WHENEVER HOLLYWOOD HAS FELT THREATENED, IT HAS TURNED TO TECHNOLOGY: SOUND, COLOR, WIDESCREEN, CINERAMA, 3-D, STEREOPHONIC SOUND, AND NOW 3-D AGAIN.
In marketing terms, this means offering an experience that can’t be had at home. With the advent of Blu-ray discs, HD cable, and home digital projectors, the gap between the theater and home experiences has been narrowed. 3-D widened it again. Now home 3-D TV sets may narrow that gap as well.
Television made the Movie industry very nervous when it became popular back in the 1950's. They tried the 3d gimmick . That didn't work but the widescreen did. A note to Hollywood. Just make a good movie. That's what it's really all about.
But this is not really about Critics. Roger and many others have said what I've thought about 3D. It's about what appears to be happening at the Box Office. Hollywood pays attention to the Box Office . And if people stop going or don't make it profitable for the studios then it's bye bye 3D. In fact I believe I heard that Phantom Menace is going to be released but if it doesn't make the profit they want it will be the only one they release. And here is another point. It's about money . While I really didn't have a problem with Lucas updating the old Star Wars movies, It didn't really make the movies better. It was good as it was. But it was good because it gave a chance for many younger people that never got to see it on the big screen.
http://www.techdigest.tv/2011/06/phantom_menace.html
Last edited:
That is the wrong one to release to see if they can make a profit from 3D.
I think what's happening with the box office isn't that people aren't going to 3D showings of movies, they just aren't going to the poorly rendered 3D showings of movies. Pirates was probably the worst 3D I've seen, and it also had the lowest percentage of 2D to 3D movie showings this summer. Cars was also not very good 3D wise and that also hurt. That said Transformers was incredible and it had the highest percentage since Avatar. If the studios do 3D right and not on every piece of trash film that comes out 3D will thrive. However, if the trailers I saw yesterday when I saw Transformers were any indication it looks like they are putting every crap film coming out in the next six months in the 3D format.
I agree but I guess they want to release it from Chapter 1 first. Perhaps he's also going by the Box Office. As much as I didn't like it, it made money and lots of it.
Of course it did, it is Star Wars, but this is a rerelease and it will not make the amount it did the first time.
I don't think any of them will make money , no matter what one. But I could be wrong.
It's Star Wars.
It's the movies field of dreams.
Show it and they will come.
I wouldn't have thought that every version of the same film would not have made money but it did. Now I get to throw more money at them soon as they will all be out on BD
I can't find the interview but one director said he wouldn't do any movie in 3D because he would have to always be thinking about putting a 3D effect in the film. And it would have nothing to do with the movie or the story.
If the movie is done right they wouldn't have to think about putting in an effect. The movie itself will fall into place just fine. There are also many types of movies that should never be 3D.
