Originally Posted by Airion
Well sure, most people don't have 3D displays, so you're stating a given as a negative. The fact that most gamers aren't playing in 3D doesn't suggest a lack of interest or potential for growth.
The lack of 3-D growth in gaming, however, would suggest growth. I admit I don't have stats, but I believe 3-D gaming is not growing. It's certainly not growing quickly.
I think a lot of this is the result of poor conversions. We've had quantity over quality since Avatar. Conversions like the latest Harry Potter movie don't deserve to sell 3D tickets. You can take it as a bad sign for 3D in terms of sales. Artistically, you can take it as a positive, as people are aware of what good and bad 3D is. Bad for short term gain, probably good for the long term.
I think it's more than bad conversions, although I absolutely agree that bad conversions do not help. The fact that exhibitors want the extra revenues, but don't want to pay to run projectors at the appropriate brightness, however, is hard to spin. There is widespread interest in the money and widespread indifference for the technology and the "art".
You don't say it's the end, but you paint a bleak picture while bashing the technical implementation and showing little appreciation for the artistic merits of 3D.
The picture is bleak. And for every Hugo or Avatar, there are 10 films where there is no artistic merit to 3-D. But I'll go farther, most films do not benefit from being made or shown in 3-D
. Do you think that's going to change? If so, I'd call that an overly optimistic view of the future. 3-D exhibition dates back six decades
. There are reasons beyond technology that video and still reproduction are almost exclusively two dimensional.
I can appreciate that you don't want to be seen as a 3D naysayer, but your words (other than your self definitions) speak otherwise.
They don't. You choose to read them that way even though they never say "3-D is doomed" or any such thing. They paint a realistic, matter-of-fact picture of a technology that is struggling in the marketplace and is arguably on a precipice. If things don't change soon in terms of adoption, you can assume there will be a pullback even from Hollywood -- which is currently the only bulwark of support that exists at all
. Should that bulwark fall, then we talk about 3-D being doomed.
This is what I was talking about. Sales from 3D re-releases will be just as valuable as sales from new releases from a business perspective. Money earned from 3D is money earned from 3D. But, you try your best define it otherwise.
No, it's not just as valuable. Rehashes of old movies are not going to drive the industry even though Disney gets to use The Lion King 3-D to paper over the failure of Cars 2 (Note: Cars 2 made money; it just made a lot less money than they wanted it to because it was the first Pixar movie that didn't generate a preponderance of critical acclaim and that hurt its audience. And will hurt its DVD/BluRay business too.)
The movie business has a problem: People are not going as much as they once did. Part of the reason is high ticket prices. 3-D is actually making that problem worse. If 3-D doesn't deliver audiences to theaters, it's not going to get people to pay money to have 3-D at home.
Your notion that 3-D re-releases are important to 3-D adoption is like saying Imax is important for Imax adoption. If 3-D becomes nothing more than a niche to sell some high-priced tickets it will (a) be limited to movies where selling a 3-D version is capable of even doing that (e.g. Transformers) and (b) further recede as a home technology.
There is not going to be some massive re-release of old DVDs in 3-D where people go spend money on them -- again. And currently, the video owning/rental business is shifting rapidly away from older models (buying discs, Blockbuster/video store rentals) to new ones (streaming, digital PPV, Redbox). The latter are barely supporting HD. It's simply fantastical to believe they are going to be big supporters of 3-D.
I'm with Taffy Lewis though, I don't care about how much money is made off of 3D as long as it sticks around and I can enjoy it. Destined to be popular? Awesome. Destined to be a niche? Great, I'm in!
It might survive as a niche, it's hard to know. The reality is: If it isn't popular, it might not survive as a niche either. Or, alternatively, it might be limited to very few films going forward. It might also be limited to 30-40 studio releases and virtually no broadcast / cable content. All is hard to see right now; but the trajectory is not exceptional -- which is my entire point.