It's really quite simple:
... I think 3D is right smack in the middle of its terrible twos. We have disappointed our audience multiple times now, and because of that I think there is genuine distrust -- whereas a year and a half ago, there was genuine excitement, enthusiasm and reward for the first group of 3D films that actually delivered a quality experience. Now that's been seriously undermined. ...
Or maybe there's a simpler explanation. Although there are 3-D films that are relatively well done (and DWA's would be high on that list) the whole format smacks of overpriced gimmickry. If you don't see IMAX, the images are dim. And nobody sees reality the way they see a 3D film, with floating objects and flat, cardboard pop-up effects. Color, on the other hand, has a grounding in the real world. You might have more saturation than you'd like, or too little, but good color films work to draw you in rather than push you away.
For me, 3D has its moments, but overall its distracting. Because forty-five years ago a famous old-timer was saying this about another film format:
"I hated Cinemascope. You've never seen a painter use that kind of composition. Even in the great murals, it still wasn't this huge tennis court. Your eyes pop back and forth, and it's very difficult to get a close up."
-- John Ford
So I don't know. Maybe 3D is the greatest thing since talkies. Maybe it's me and I'm just looking at it wrong, and it's way more than moving View Master.
Add On: Apparently Wall Street is losing its love for Dimensional Cinema:
... RealD's stock price fell 13.2% to $20.90 the day after executives responded to the Street's concerns with talking points that simply urged people not to read too much into disappointing 3D sales for just a few films. RealD shares now have lost 41.3% of their value since May 19. ...
Exhibitors also are losing patience. Regal Entertainment's stock price is down 16.7% since mid-May. Cinemark is down 12.6% since this beginning of this month. ...
Posts
11 comments:
I've never really felt the bad color 3D thing... mostly because I only see 3D in IMAX or not at all. I'm willing to pay the extra money to get the best experiance possible.
That being said, if I recall my history correctly, movie studios were one of the few buisnessses that, maybe not thrived, but did rather well all things considered during the Great Depression. Why? Ticket prices were really low, and movies were great escapism that wouldn't kill your budget for the week. I absolutly doubt any studio or theater chain is going to try and cut ticket prices... but maybe if they did more people would show up to them in the first place (At least according to BOM movie grosses may be up, but attendance is way down).
DaVinci's "Last Supper" is pretty widescreen at 1.9:1 although not as wide as Cinemascope.
On the movie biz in the depression... it didn't do "well" it just did conspicuously OK.
MGM was the only studio that never lost money in the 30's. Paramount went bankrupt in 1935. Many of the small independents of the 20's disappeared.
I do hope there's a shakeout in ticket prices. $15 is too high for a moive.
Try close to $20 in metro areas here in Australia.
In the past I practically never thought twice going to a movie when it was around the $9 - $12 mark, but now I have to pick and choose what I really want to see. The ironic thing is that I reckon I actually spent more on movies in the past than I did now. I can't really understand the psychology of that though.
The color and contrast of stereoscopic films are diminished--even at the best IMAX screens--just a fact. Jeff katemburg's views on the subject are irrelevant.
The only way to know the truth is if the theaters suspend the extra charge for a few months. If the attendance at 3-D films rises dramatically, it will mean that price is the issue. If it doesn't, it would mean that the novelty has worn off and audiences just don't care for it.
If the issue turns out to be the increased price point, the studios will just have to resign themselves to making up the difference in higher attendance.
My rule of thumb:
If it's from Dreamworks, see it in 3-D (especially if Capt. 3D was the principal stereographer, which, admittedly, he probably is on all of them now.)
If it's anybody else, see it in 2-D (especially Pixar, it's not really worth the extra dollars for their meek tries at 3-D.)
(One exception, Werner Herzog's latest documentary.)
p.s. Calm yourselves, Pixies....
"Pixie" here, and I agree. Seems like they never really invest much effort in 3D; like it was just mandated from the parent company so they have to do it.
Hell, I'd be happy if they just didn't charge me for a pair of glasses every damn time...
Hint: They're not charging you for the glasses. They're charging you for the expensive projection system and expensive silver screen. Almost no theaters will give you a break for bringing your own glasses. Maybe they'd kick back 25 cents to you.
I agree that the quality of 3d has been all over the map. I'd GLADLY pay extra for Avatar-level 3d or How to Train Your Dragon 3d (which was better than Avatar in some scenes).
I'd also point out that early color movies were ALSO weird, gimmicky, fake-looking and obviously a stunt. Look at 1920's 2-strip Technicolor and tell me if that looks anything like "grounded in reality". Heck, movies like "The Ten Commandments" (1923) was both black and white, with the Exodus scenes in color. It positively screams "gimmick".
When people stop trying to guess the reason everyone will know. Sequalmania maybe. Franchisitus. Who can be bothered. Hope something fun comes along to watch.
3d is done.....again
Post a Comment