Is 3-D dying a quick death at the box office ?

I think it is too early to draw any longer-term conclusions about 3D, even though personally I have felt for sometime now that it is a classic example of the emperor's new clothes. I know I always pick the 2D version (did so for Thor) as do my kids - neither of whom like 3D. I do expect it to fail in he marketplace for a whole host of reasons, but that point is still a ways off.

The broader problem as I see it for the industry is a deplorable lack of quality movies. To many bad buddy films, uninspired sequels or remakes of TV shows that were crap in the first place. Eventually the audience catches up and decides the money is better spent elsewhere.

You would have to pay me to go and see the new Pirates movie - the last two were so bad.

One of these theater chains should try out offering 3D for the same price as 2D and find out if it was price or that people just got tired of 3D that accounted for the drop in attendance.

I agree with ca1ore. The film industry is only interested in profit and not quality. It's all cookie cutter themes with the actor du jour. Still they make millions on opening day ?

"It's the content, stupid."
Hollywood totally misread the $$$ generated by Avatar. It's the exception, not the rule. Has there been any compelling 3D release since then? NO!! Would The King's Speech be more enjoyable if it were released in 3D? ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! Are folks going to continue to pay a premium for crappy movies poorly displayed??? You know the answer, even if Hollywood is deluded.

I know every time I post how 3D = FAIL, CINERAMAX reaches for the Maalox, but it's over.
Period.
End of discussion.

Ok Mister Crystal balls, the Kings speech looks incredible in converted 3D the room were the king has therapy in with the sponged walls, and the smaller rooms in the therapists home all aid in getting involved in the plot, the Westminster Cathedral for the coronation.Well... I cannot imagine how one would get inside the predicament of the King to be WITHOUT 3D, these spaces define the movie.

And Alan, please stop creating this post that act as Bully Pulpits for the same 2 3D nay sayer trolls.

Quite right! I actually find the feeding-frenzy to 3D comical - 'just because you can doesn't mean you should'. I remember being quite impressed that Deathly Hallows Part 1 was not released in 3D bcause the producers didn't feel they had the time to do it properly .... kudos!

I've become increasingly unimpressed with the brains behind Hollywood (perhaps this is a normal as one gets older and more curmugeonly). My biggest complaint is their inability to apparently recognize that movies are being consumed in different ways (home now rivalling theater) and to anticpate this ahead of time rather than after the fact.

Hey, we all seize on the things that support our point of view - yourself included. A troll is as a troll does, eh? Veiled insults when no logical argument to be had .... once again.

You love technology, Peter, and I know I'm grateful that you post here and share your enthusiasm for the latest and greatest. I've learned a lot from your posts, really

That said, your rah-rah enthusiasm for all things 3D is causing lots of :facepalm: and here and the reason is simple: 3D is problematic, expensive to implement properly, and most importantly, gets in the way of "story telling". Those of us who have spent considerable $$$ over the years have done so, not for technology's sake, but for the pure enjoyment of watching a good story properly told. You need to read Jeff's thread several times to understand this concept.

Amen. I'm waiting for a re-mastered Ben Hur in 2D, not some damn cartoon I don't care about in 3D !!

cineramax you are a bigger troll then anyone here.. check yourself...

Its clear that Alan started this thread to give YOU a bully pulpit to troll us how great 3D is!!!@@

Anyone else think its a bit funny that people are insulting each other on a thread started by one of the owners of AVS as if that won't get noticed.

Insulting - no. A good passionate exchange-yes. I have utmost respect for Peter, and my loyalty to Alan and AVS is unquestioned.

I think Peter is wrong regarding 3D's future. That said, I hope some day to buy a 4k projector from him.

Great post, but I seem to always get that films are no better or worse than ever when I make this comment.

Art

Yeah, well, it's probably true. Maybe I'm just getting old and less tolerant of crap - dunno. I suppose crappy films from the past quickly slip from memory, whereas the current ones are in my face. Sturgeon's law I imagine.

Certainly I go to the movie theater with far less frequency than I used to. Partly due to a dearth of worthy viewing, but also because of young kids and the appeal of just waiting for the blurray. Even with the kids movies it is about the same price to take them as buy the blurry - and I know they are going to want to see it 500 times.

....and Alan.

Well, 3D doesn't work for me due to a lazy left eye. I've tried many setups, no 3D happens for me. I have had a zillion emails and questions regarding CRT and 3D, but from the people I talk to, even some that have implemented, it's an expensive toy at best.

I don't know of anyone that swears by it, most people either outright don't like it, or say that it tires the eyes, and it's a novelty.

The thing that depresses me about 3D is how little the basic technology has changed since I first saw it used.

This was some 30 years ago, I was working as a researcher on a polymer technology program. We had a computer simulation system that calculated the shape of the polymers in 3D. The shapes were displayed on an Evans and Sutherland display, and to see the shapes in 3D we held a device in front of our eyes that was the mechanical equivalent of the LCD glasses that are used today. The shutters were synchronized with the frames displayed on the display.

This is exactly the same basic principle that is being used today, and the issues are about the same now as then.

Until there is a real breakthrough on how 3D images are generated I'm going to be very skeptical that this is going anywhere.

This.

I personally feel that it isn't a rose colored glasses thing but instead that we really are in something of a low point. I'm hoping that it is just point and not the new normal.

Art

The thing is, where do we go from here? Arguably audio processing has improved over the last few years, but I think some would say that the actual sound quality hasn't changed much in the last 20-40 years. Amplifiers outside of the high end realm have come way down in price in the last 10-15 years, the $ per watt ratio is about 1:2 to 1:4 when it comes to pro power amps (and I'm talking 'real' RMS power, not the stupid peak power rating that's used).

While digital displays have gained resolution, the hype about the LED TVs is way overstated. The LEDs may be rated at 100,000 hours, but the chassis will still die and will be nonrepairable in well under 20,000 hours.

So what's next? I believe there would need to be some new technology to really create a 'WOW factor, such as:

-holographic TV that would project the image into the middle of the room, and you could walk around the movie/image 360 degrees.
-wireless energy transmission so that a powered speaker could be wire free, and both the audio signal and the power for the internal amp would be done via transmission.
-invent a method to reproduce sound that uses some other method than a mechanical driver to convert electrical energy into audio energy via a speaker diaphragm. Surely there's another way to hear sound other than a speaker cone. The HF dome that Magnat put out about 30 years ago was very interesting to me, but it was finicky and it never went anywhere.

Curt,
I think we are talking about commercial theater here but you make some good points.

Art

I saw the new Tron in 3D, and expected it to suck, as all other 3D movie experiences I've had in the past. Couldn't have been more wrong. Even the previews for dramas looked utterly believable in 3D, and I was pleasantly shocked. There were multiple instances where I had to resist the urge to reach out and touch something. It's not dying for anyone that's experienced it. There's no purist argument here. Things just look more real, which is the goal, right?

I saw it in IMAX 3D, and really didn't feel the 3D added to the overall experience. I hear you, but for me I'm not sure what the goal is. I'm missing something, I guess.

That said, the Blu-ray of Tron Legacy is stunning, the new "wow" disc for my theater. It has all the depth and realism I could want (and the soundtrack is well ... visceral). YMMV.

Roger Ebert had some interesting things to say about 3D and what the craze may be doing to our enjoyment of film in general.

The Dying of the Light

Note: this post is NOT intended to enflame things but merely advance the discussion.

YMMV