3d.groups.io | 3-D Movies "decline..." (2024)

A recent article in Slate attempts to explain why 3-D movies don't produce more revenue that 2-D movies.

My take is that the only interest producrers have in 3-D is the elusive box-office returns.

The article concludes with the obvious (and echoes "The 50s 3-D demise") which is that people are not likely to pay extra to see bad movies.

Unfortunately, to most, if not all, producers 3-D is a gimmick to make money.

If it doesn't work they will move on.

Too bad for us.

toychinook wrote:

A recent article in Slate attempts to explain why 3-D
movies don't produce more revenue that 2-D movies.

In my town, where we got digital projection and a 3D-capable
screen in June, the theater has done what they can to
guarantee revenue from their 3D screenings. When they have a
3D movie, they make the prime-time showing 3D and charge the
3D premium. If you'd rather see the 2D version (like Parry
Hotter which shipped both ways) at the "normal" price, you
have to attend the matinee, or the late-show.

I have no idea if their revenue is up or down.
--
John Thurston
Juneau Alaska
http://stereo.thurstons.us

All too often, journalists make statements about historical occurrences without checking the facts. The reason for "The 50s 3-D demise" was economic, but it was almost the opposite of the situation today.

In the 1950's the theaters did not have any surcharges, not even for the glasses (as was sometimes done in the 1980's). Today we have dim digital pictures. In the 1950's they were bright (dual white flame carbon arc projection), and the audiences loved them (it was nearly impossible to get into the first couple of screenings unless you waited in line for hours). It was this very high quality, made possible by the dual film projection, that was its undoing.

Since there were two nearly identical (in the minds of the distributors) prints of each film, the release cost was twice as high as that of 2-D films. This fact was not lost on the distributors, who quickly realized that if they released the same film in 2-D instead of 3-D, they would make twice as much money. So, they split up the 3-D print pairs into individual 2-D prints and sent them to twice as many theaters without incurring any additional print costs. The "Left coast" and "Right coast" policy. The studios could not do anything to prevent this practice, so they stopped making 3-D movies.

JR

--
stereoscope3d@...

--- In photo-3d@..., JR <stereoscope3d@...> wrote:

All too often, journalists make statements about historical occurrences
without checking the facts. The reason for "The 50s 3-D demise" ...if they released the same film in 2-D instead of 3-D, they would make
twice as much money. So, they split up the 3-D print pairs into individual
2-D prints ...

Thanks... Doesn't apply today though.

You forget the bad (Really bad!) 3-D movies from the 50s.

2 prints of dreck won't earn you 2x the revenue.

Bad 3-D films make the technology look bad, not just the bad movie.

Insisting on doing the "wrong thing" seems to be an American trait, specially if it isn't working.

:-0

Yes, there were a half a dozen clinkers in the 1950's, but that is not bad when you consider that there were over 4 dozen released at the time, and almost all of the rest of them were better than any of the live action ones today.

JR

--
stereoscope3d@...

movies3d@aol.com

Even the so called "clinkers" have become cult favorites. Our localclub has had a lot of fun with Robot Monster, for example. Who couldn'tlove Cat Women of the Moon?

JEH

--- In photo-3d@..., movies3d@... wrote:

Even the so called "clinkers" have become cult favorites...

Key phrase: "have become"

"Then," not so much.

So, which of the 3-D Blu-Ray movies available today are you willing to pay extra to own?

(Native 3-D movies)

-Drive Angry

-Final Destination 3D

-Journey to the Centre of the Earth

-My Bloody Valentine

-Pirates of the Caribbean

-Sanctum

-Saw, Final Chapter

-Step Up 3D

-Yogi Bear

(other available titles are post-production 3-D or "cartoons.")

... and to think I spent all that money on 3-D display equipment, :-(

Own? I wouldn't even rent any of those. Now, If they sold Second Chance, Dial M, The Glass Web, I the Jury, Sadie Thompson, Kiss Me Kate, Hondo, Inferno, Fort Ti, Charge at Feather River, The French Line, or a couple dozen other titles like those,
I would gladly pay double to own any of them.

JR

--- In photo-3d@..., JR <stereoscope3d@...> wrote:

Own? I wouldn't even rent any of those. Now, If they sold Second
Chance, Dial M, The Glass Web, I the Jury, Sadie Thompson, Kiss Me Kate,
Hondo, Inferno, Fort Ti, Charge at Feather River, The French Line, or a
couple dozen other titles like those,
I would gladly pay double to own any of them.

You have made my point.

Apparently folks are feeling like you when it comes to paying the extra fare for the 3-D ticket to see these gems at the theater.

These gems become "representative" of 3-D in people's mind - (yet again!) and bye-bye 3-D again...

Unless... ?

gl

These gems become "representative" of 3-D in people's mind - (yet

again!) and bye-bye 3-D again... Unless... ?

Agreed, which is why they need to drop the 3D surcharges asap. It sets an unrealistic standard which cannot be reached (not every 3D movie is worth a premium). When there is no surcharge, a bad movie is just that, you don't feel like you were ripped off on top and it doesn't taint the entire 3D medium.
--
gl

--- In photo-3d@..., "toychinook" <allanwx@...> wrote

Unless... ?

Unless youth find their own path to S3D, probably via mobile and games. They will rediscover the classics later. The future of a technology cannot be based on a declining demographic that looks backward with fondness and forward with trepidation.

SMcQ

--- In photo-3d@..., "SMcQ" <smcquinn@...> wrote:

--- In photo-3d@..., "toychinook" <allanwx@> wrote

Unless... ?

Unless youth find their own path to S3D, probably via mobile and games. They will rediscover the classics later. The future of a technology cannot be based on a declining demographic that looks backward with fondness and forward with trepidation.

So, the more forward-thinking among us should consider the 3" screen?

Seems a cowardly retreat from insisting on quality content...

But then those such as I expect too much, haviing read: "Man's reach must exceed his grasp, else what is Heaven for?"

Aim low, my friend, aim low, if you feel you must.

Perhaps others will fly.

Wait! You forgot to throw in your views about "kids today," oh brave leader of the Curmudgeon Brigade! ;- )

SMcQ

--- In photo-3d@..., "SMcQ" <smcquinn@...> wrote:

Wait! You forgot to throw in your views about "kids today," oh brave leader of the Curmudgeon Brigade! ;- )

You have seen my true colors!

;-)

Jim Miller

--- In photo-3d@..., "SMcQ" <smcquinn@...> wrote:

--- In photo-3d@..., "toychinook" <allanwx@> wrote

Unless... ?

Unless youth find their own path to S3D, probably via mobile and games. They will rediscover the classics later. The future of a technology cannot be based on a declining demographic that looks backward with fondness and forward with trepidation.

SMcQ

I have to agree with this insight.

And when you split a 3.5-inch screen (hopefully with "retina" display), you get a very satisfying pair of 35 by 50 mm image panes, in vertical or portrait mode, for your Hasbro My3D. Each pane is therefore equivalent to a 7x10 in aspect ratio, not so unpleasant or cramped in width.

Add image by turning your video or still cameras on their sides and you take advantage of all that portrait space. Just make sure to photograph something with verticality, rather than, say, desert landscapes.

I think it's a sleeper of a platform, and just the beginning.

JM

toychinook wrote:

So, which of the 3-D Blu-Ray movies available today are you willing
to pay extra to own?

(Native 3-D movies)

-Pirates of the Caribbean

I don't think this was originally shown in 3-D. I don't see a 3-D Blu
Ray for this movie on Amazon.

The most recent sequel, _Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides_,
was shown in 3-D.

(other available titles are post-production 3-D or "cartoons.")

What's wrong with "cartoons"?

I've never been disappointed by a Pixar movie. I can't say the same
about many 3-D movies I've seen, live or animated. I have all the
Pixar movies, although not in 3-D Blu Ray because I didn't own a Blu
Ray player until recently.

... and to think I spent all that money on 3-D display equipment, :-(

If you're going to be an early adopter, then you have to expect that
you'll pay more, may not have what winds up being the standard, and in
the long run it might wind up being a dead end.

--
Brian Reynolds | "It's just like flying a spaceship.
reynolds@... | You push some buttons and see
http://www.panix.com/~reynolds/ | what happens." -- Zapp Brannigan
NAR# 54438 |

Yes, the animated fare is head-and-shoulders above most of the live action material that is currently available. It doesn't have to be that way, it just is. Right now, at least. I am hopeful that upcoming live action material will be much better.

JR

--
stereoscope3d@...