Fortune Magazine says 3-D is dying already
 

Not sure if the problem is 3-D, or 3-D movie prices.

Why 3-D is already dying - Jul. 27, 2010

HD was a homerun hit.


3D is not.


Oh ......... and they're trying to ram it down our throats ....... for their own purposes, to serve themselves, to line their own pockets.


HD is value added, big time and people (like me) were willing to pay for it, and, again, 3D is not.

This is not the whole picture of what's going on.

Nintendo has the 3DS, Sony is about to go full force on 3D gaming on the PS3 and you have Panasonic about to release a consumer 3D camcorder. On top of all that, 3D TVs are becoming more and more popular in the stores so it wont take long for 3D to seam standard on TVs even if you don't want anything to do with 3D.

Still, their is the question of negative health effects that's currently being studied and we know that some people can handle 3D much better than others. I'd say by around mid 2011, we'll have a much better understanding and see if people who are used to it now will develop problems by then or even after 2012 if 3D gets bigger than ever. The health effects are really the only thing that can stop it if it's really an issue. We'll see.

Some things look so obvious at times and large corporate entities seem to miss these huge objects from time to time.

The very first time I heard wind of 3D I knew it would fail, as it has everytime before. What amazes me is the rush to make all of the cameras & TVs etc... so quickly. What are you going to do wiht a 3D camera if 3D dies a quick death?

I see it a total greed. HD took like 15 years to develop in the marketplace and now when it is finally getting some traction they have to come out and say the "next thing" is here already. All of this format switching just turns consumers off to being in the game at all. If they try to mess with Blu-ray I am going to storm the bastille!

Just a quick thought...

Anybody else remember Nintendo Virtual-Boy? Gaming seems to always be more adaptive, so if it really fails, they'll just stop making them.

Now, if only we could stop them from making really bad films...

Most importantly to us, content producers, you have half a dozen new 3D networks that have already launched or will launch before the end of the year, both here and in the UK.

Someone needs to produce all of the 3D content for these new networks.

Dan

I think part of the 3D push has been to offer movie-goers an experience that can't be downloaded for free off the internet (yet) but I just find 3D movies irritating. I have no problem seeing 3D die a quick death.

"Sing it high, Sing it low!
Hey ho, the Wicked Witch is dead!"

;-)

LOL... Best thing I've read this am!

No-one wants to look like an idiot with those glasses.... most people struggle not to loose reading glasses and sunnies let alone 4 pairs of 3d's for the bloody television.

At Expo 2010 in June we saw no glasses 3D TV in the Siemens pavilion. There was a lot of interest in it, 90 degrees in front was great but 45 and more either side was kinda 2D.

With the present infrastructure and growing, I think it's here for the long haul.

But at present 3D is like the very first stereo LP recordings, everything was hard left and right.
Cheers.

I was noticing a few movie news sites mentioning major filmmakers are already saying they don't want to do 3D. Avatar was the best and worst thing for 3D.

When I met with Ari Presler and his team at Silicon Imaging, I really dug the 3D camera (I think it was both 07 and 08), and I saw the NBA Vegas game shot with the Pace/Cameron Fusion 3D System and projected with a Sony 4K projector in 07 and I loved it.

I wanted to make my next film in 3D, and I still might, but I wanted to use 3D as a tool to help me make my film. I was going to make 3D work for me.

Heath

The article mostly pointed out the higher fees levied to watch a 3D movie, and they are correct. Some movies simply aren't worth the extra coin to see them in 3D. Some, like "Avatar," are. Also, 3D is not some revolutionary device that will boost the movie attendance slump. I'm not sure anything will ever fix that. It's just a sign of the times. Too many other ways to get films, from cable and satellite TV, to DVDs and internet downloads. Don't blame 3D for that, or expect it to be the savior that increases attendance.
And the article really lambasted "The Last Airbender." That movie was pretty much skewered in 2D or 3D!

I see 3D as another evolutionary step in visual entertainment. Talkies, color films, CG effects, HD movies, now polarized 3D. When the prices for 3D movies are the same as 2D, then I think people will be more likely to watch it. And when they ever develop no-glasses 3D, then there'll be wide acceptance of the format.

"Avatar" showed how effective 3D can be as a story-telling tool. I'm not about to write the format off just yet, nor do I think it has matured as a technology. I think the Fortune article fortelling the end of 3D movies is a bit pre-mature.

Going 3D from 2D is a mistake, and I still have my reservations about Captain America and Thor shooting 2D but converting to 3D.

When the studios and theaters raised prices on 3D tickets, attendance dropped. It's economics 101. And there hasn't been a good 3D movie in a while (I probably won't see Toy Story 3 in 3D). Avatar was visually great, but don't get me started on the story...

heath

I don't understand the 2D-3D conversions - they're a hack attempt at more money at best.

True 3D is (to me) a novelty. For nearly a century filmmakers have been more than capable of creating depth and texture with great lighting and great lensing. I keep seeing 3D films where everything is in focus because depth is now part of the 3Dness and I just hate it. On top of that I have to try to put up with uncomfortable, stupid-looking glasses for 2 hours and somehow have to convince my 3 year old she should do the same. Half way through the movie she's tired of them, takes them off and gets bored because she can't watch the screen or a headache because she tries and we're done at the movies. Sure I could take her to a non-3D showing... if the theaters didn't have their 3D to 2D showtimes at a ratio of 4:1 (or higher).

I'm tired of techno tricks, CG, and plot twists taking the place of good story telling and solid production. Can't we just go back to making great movies that move people?

I agree, 3D to 2D is a mistake. If you want 3D, shoot in 3D.

Toy Story 3D was fantastic. If anything, it reinforces the use of 3D.
But yeah, 3D glasses on a 3 yr. old girl probably won't work. But hey, take her to a 2D movie, then. I myself can wear the glasses, no problem.

Avatar's story? Heh, yeah, just watch Pocahontas for the same plot. Or Dances With Wolves. Still, it was a great flick.