Originally Posted by rogo
I just don't buy what you wrote. This weekend, Pacific Rim opens pretty much everywhere. I just checked the local theaters on Fandango within about 60 miles. Every single multiplex that is showing it (which appears to be all of them) has both the 2-D and 3-D version. Nearly every multiplex has the 2-D version with slightly
more showings (5-4, 9-8, etc.). Some have parity. It's possible someone has more 3-D than 2-D, but I didn't find that in my attempt to match theater to theater.
If what you claim is occurring somewhere, it's certainly not happening in the 5th largest market in the country (the greater S.F. Bay Area, including SF, Oakland and San Jose).
My observation for the US markets where based on forum posts from people that complained that they wanted to see a new release but where forced to see it in 3D because they often had to travel far to find a 2D version. This was very apparent at the release of The Hobbit.
In Europe where the 3D versions do better than in the US, I have had complains from friends that could not find a 2D version in any major European city for the opening week of movies.
But your numbers speak for themselves.
That 3D attendance have been steadily declining I did know.
Just show that the movie studios are not as speculative as I thought.
(Incidentally, any film employing the strategy you claim they are running would simply slaughter its top-line box office, hurting its studio badly in the process.)
Anyone who perceives the 3-D business as healthy -- even at the movies where a lot of titles are available -- is quite frankly delusional.
I don't believe that anybody think that 3D business is healthy.
Not only is attendance shrinking, but Hollywood is producing fewer 3D movies this year than previous year.
The Studios also doesn't care much about the 3D quality they are offering. They seems to have completely abandon shooting the movies in 3D and relay completely on Post-Conversion 3D.
Non of the two Live-Shot movies you mentioned, World War Z and Pacific Rim, where shot in 3D.
To produce good 3D quality you need much more resolution than Cinema today can provide and you have to shoot in 3D for Live-Shot movies.
They should have waited with 3D until 4K was fully introduced, and have a minimum standard of 4K for each eye in 3D.
There is also a complete lack of Depth-Standard for 3D (at least for 3D home entertainment), which is very important for the 3D enjoyment both in the home and in the cinema.
Avatar is the best 3D (of course because it is 99% CGI animation) and shows good depth at standard settings (30%).
Comparing to (Live-Shot) Prometheus that needs depth increase to 50%, and Amazing Spiderman that needs 75% in the playback settings to have same depth as Avatar.
Showing that the lack of standards undermine because of under-performance what 3D quality really could and should have been, which has an impact on 3D popularity.
But Hollywood doesn't care much about even a general 2D quality increase in the cinemas to compete with display devices outside the cinema.
Pacific Rim was shot in 5K, but the CGI was created in 2K, and the post production was done as a 2K DI, which is important to know when the movie will be offered in 4K for home devices in the future, it will be a Up-Converted version.
World War Z is even worse. It was shot in only 2.8K. So all future 4K versions will be Up-Converted.
Hollywood happily squanders Millions on 3D conversion of 2D movies, but they are too cheap to use some of the budget on creating the VFX/CGI in 4K. Claiming it is "too expensive."
When we know that most movies are either shot digitally on 2.8K cameras or 35mm film and later will be released as Up-Converted "mastered in 4K " fake mastering, one understands that Hollywood doesn't care.
This seen in light of the fact that more than half of the digital cinema screens in the US have 4K projectors, that are mainly up-converting 2K releases of movies.
Hollywood could easily have set a minimum standard for a movies resolution years ago when they know that 4K will come, but neither the studios nor the film-makers seems to be interested.
In fact, many film-makers seems more interested in argue against a quality increase.
This is very different from before the 1970s.
Movie formats like Cinemascope 2.35:1, 35mm horizontal/VistaVision and 70mm where created with help from the Hollywood studios because they wanted to give the Cinema public an increased quality experience to compete with the increased expansion of TV viewing.
At that time the Hollywood studio bosses where Film-Makers that ended up as studio bosses, and they loved movies and had intimate knowledge of movie making.
Now the studio bosses are more "bankers" than film-makers and are only interested in milking the marked for their Stock-Owners for everything it is worth, with no interest of the future of movie making.
Creativity is not in today's studio bosses interest or ability. Most directors are treated as "Directors for Hire" where they might be allowed to use some of their good ideas, but not their better ideas.
As one famous actress answered when the movie she starred in had lacklustre performance in the Cinema; "We went out with great excitement to shoot a story for a certain type of movie. The movie you see in the Cinema is not the movie we set out to make."
Which illustrate one of the problems with movies today. Particularly the bigger budget movies that the studios are willing to squander a huge amount of money on to promote.
3D is interesting when all the needed technical requirements for good 3D is in place and should really be retired until 8K is in place in the cinemas. For now it is just a milking-machine.
This became a long long rant about today's Film-Industry that started out a as a short response to the standing of 3D movies. Such can happen when one has a long standing interest and passion for Movies and Film-Making and and quality requirements, and has too much time on ones hand.
I apologise for not sticking to the the topic.