Muckraker Posts: 268 Joined: 11 Aug 2008 | Hollywood's 3-D Revolution Faces Pushback
With over 30 3-D films currently in production, movie theaters lag behind in adopting the technology while others repeat the mistakes of the past.
In August 2008, DreamWorks Animation chief executive Jeffrey Katzenberg called the new breed of 3-D technology, "the greatest innovation to occur in the movie business in 70 years." Academy Award-winning director James Cameron waited a decade to begin production on his upcoming film, "Avatar," as technology caught up to his original vision, one of the pieces of which is the current crop of 3-D projectors. With some of the brightest minds in Hollywood backing the future of 3-D film making, why is there such a rotten feeling in the air?
Chances are good that if you read any news pertaining to last weeks Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas it had something to do with the return of 3-D viewing technology. Whether it's Panasonic trying to bring 3-D cinema into the home or Nvidia showing off a version of Guitar Hero that pops off the screen, the entertainment industry as a whole seems convinced that 2009 is the year 3-D returns with a vengeance, but it can't succeed in the home were it not to take off in the cinema.
The New York Times reports that currently, only about 1,300 of North America's roughly 40,000 movie screens support digital 3-D films and overseas, where films tend to generate 70 percent of their theatrical profits, only a few hundred are setup with the new equipment. With major releases typically opening on more than 4,000 screens nationwide, the math may not be there to support the new technology.
That is, of course, unless they place a premium on ticket prices for 3-D films, which is exactly what has already taken place as recent 3-D releases such as Disney's "Bolt" and "Hannah Montana: Best of Both Worlds" have run as high as $25 per person, which may not be a sustainable business practice in an economy where consumers are trying to stay at home and save where at all possible. The current economic climate has caused theater chains to hit the brakes on their upgrade plans, as four of the six major film studios had previously agreed to use $1 billion in debt financing to outfit upwards to 15,000 theaters with the new projectors. Unfortunately, their plans came together just as the credit market froze up.
It's not just studios like DreamWorks Animation being forced to debut their new release, "Monsters vs Aliens," on half the amount of screens its originally anticipated, but the public perception of 3-D films and the industry's apparent need to perpetuate the stereotypes. To your average movie goer, 3-D brings to mind cheesy cardboard glasses, second-rate flicks and the terrible migraine that ensues from inadvertently crossing your eyes for 90 minutes at a time. With the new breed of 3-D having evolved into a pain-free and largely dork-free experience thanks to seamless visuals and plastic glasses, the only deterrent now could be the films themselves. Opening this week, Liongate's "My Bloody Valentine 3-D" reeks of the same old, gimmicky film making, complete with obnoxious advertising as though the world has never changed and 3-D is still just about throwing objects directly in viewers faces.
Regardless of how the revolution plays out, there's no denying that the current crop of 3-D films from "Avatar" to Pixar's "Up" have the ability within them to turn the tide of public opinion. The real question is will both parties, consumers and proprietors, pony up the cash and resources to ensure that this time, 3-D isn't just another fad.
Permalink |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1476 Joined: 6 Feb 2008 | Think I only ever seen one film in 3D. Was at Futuroscope when the tech was novel enough to be an experience worth having for the sake of it. Alas, from what I remember while 3D was kewl, it didnt really add much other than some wierd transitions of objects from 3D to 2D. Much as I think 3D could be a kewl addition to film viewing. I dont see it being paticularly revolutionary. Certainly im stubborn enough to think any film that wouldnt work/be crap in 2D, would still suck in 3D |
BANNED Posts: 12958 Joined: 30 Jan 2008 | I still think the modern take on 3D gaming looks pretty cool. |
Beat Writer Posts: 160 Joined: 16 Dec 2007 | Public perception is everything and without educating the masses about the "new" 3D it's a fools errand. |
Pulitzer Laureate Posts: 741 Joined: 19 Dec 2007 | The only good 3D film I've seen is the Muppets 3D at universal studios on my holiday to Florida. Oh and that one they filmed in space |
Muckraker Posts: 345 Joined: 17 Dec 2007 | I've never been impressed with 3D films. I simply don't care to be educated on how far the technology has advanced since it was first introduced into cinema. To me, it's nothing but a gimmick. I'm well aware that gimmicks can be very profitable, but I just don't see how this one in particular will ever work. |
Press Junketeer Posts: 406 Joined: 12 Aug 2008 | I had a chance to watch Journy to the Center of the Earth with this new 3D. It was far from pain free, having developed a bit of a headache after the movie and my eyes ached a bit as well. The movie was crap and you could see it was a gimmick movie for the 3D and though it had a couple of parts where something came off the screen for the most part I wouldn't beable to tell the difference between the 3d movie and a normal one. |
Copy Clerk Posts: 83 Joined: 13 Jun 2008 | To say that 3d is "the greatest innovation to occur in the movie business in 70 years" is just insulting to those engineers and artists that have advanced the art so much over the last 70 years.. What about surround sound, 3d animation, digital compositing, motion-controlled cameras, imax, steadicam, etc. I know Katzenberg is a movie mogul and I'm not, but this seems just like his movies, a bunch of cliche'd gimmicks strung together, without much substance, that will look incredibly dated in the future. |
Hollywood's 3-D Revolution Faces Pushback
With over 30 3-D films currently in production, movie theaters lag behind in adopting the technology while others repeat the mistakes of the past.
In August 2008, DreamWorks Animation chief executive Jeffrey Katzenberg called the new breed of 3-D technology, "the greatest innovation to occur in the movie business in 70 years." Academy Award-winning director James Cameron waited a decade to begin production on his upcoming film, "Avatar," as technology caught up to his original vision, one of the pieces of which is the current crop of 3-D projectors. With some of the brightest minds in Hollywood backing the future of 3-D film making, why is there such a rotten feeling in the air?
Chances are good that if you read any news pertaining to last weeks Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas it had something to do with the return of 3-D viewing technology. Whether it's Panasonic trying to bring 3-D cinema into the home or Nvidia showing off a version of Guitar Hero that pops off the screen, the entertainment industry as a whole seems convinced that 2009 is the year 3-D returns with a vengeance, but it can't succeed in the home were it not to take off in the cinema.
The New York Times reports that currently, only about 1,300 of North America's roughly 40,000 movie screens support digital 3-D films and overseas, where films tend to generate 70 percent of their theatrical profits, only a few hundred are setup with the new equipment. With major releases typically opening on more than 4,000 screens nationwide, the math may not be there to support the new technology.
That is, of course, unless they place a premium on ticket prices for 3-D films, which is exactly what has already taken place as recent 3-D releases such as Disney's "Bolt" and "Hannah Montana: Best of Both Worlds" have run as high as $25 per person, which may not be a sustainable business practice in an economy where consumers are trying to stay at home and save where at all possible. The current economic climate has caused theater chains to hit the brakes on their upgrade plans, as four of the six major film studios had previously agreed to use $1 billion in debt financing to outfit upwards to 15,000 theaters with the new projectors. Unfortunately, their plans came together just as the credit market froze up.
It's not just studios like DreamWorks Animation being forced to debut their new release, "Monsters vs Aliens," on half the amount of screens its originally anticipated, but the public perception of 3-D films and the industry's apparent need to perpetuate the stereotypes. To your average movie goer, 3-D brings to mind cheesy cardboard glasses, second-rate flicks and the terrible migraine that ensues from inadvertently crossing your eyes for 90 minutes at a time. With the new breed of 3-D having evolved into a pain-free and largely dork-free experience thanks to seamless visuals and plastic glasses, the only deterrent now could be the films themselves. Opening this week, Liongate's "My Bloody Valentine 3-D" reeks of the same old, gimmicky film making, complete with obnoxious advertising as though the world has never changed and 3-D is still just about throwing objects directly in viewers faces.
Regardless of how the revolution plays out, there's no denying that the current crop of 3-D films from "Avatar" to Pixar's "Up" have the ability within them to turn the tide of public opinion. The real question is will both parties, consumers and proprietors, pony up the cash and resources to ensure that this time, 3-D isn't just another fad.
Permalink