Flat expectations

3D films, cinema’s great hope, have become niche products

Jul 21st 2011 | from the print editionTEN years after it took off, Hollywood’s biggest film franchise has finally alighted from its broomstick. Between July 15th and July 17th Americans shelled out $169m to see “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2”—a record for any film, in nominal terms. But barely a third of the audience opted to watch the boy wizard battle his snake-faced foe in three dimensions.

Two years ago it seemed as though a new, improved 3D projection system could rescue a film business battered by falling DVD sales. Fully 71% of the box-office spending on “Avatar” on its opening weekend, in December 2009, went on the 3D version. The 3D showings of “Shrek Forever After” (amusing green monsters rather than earnest blue ones) accounted for 61% of American box-office spending. Cinemas generally charge at least $3 more for a 3D showing—far more than the glasses cost.

This lucrative business is now looking flat. Despite rapid growth in digital projectors and 3D-capable screens, the proportion of total box-office spending that goes on 3D has dropped this summer (see chart). Four of the past five 3D blockbusters—“Pirates of the Caribbean”, “Kung Fu Panda 2”, “Green Lantern” and “Harry Potter”—made more money from 2D screens on their opening weekend than from 3D ones. That was true of only one widely released 3D film last summer, and none the year before.

Richard Gelfond, the boss of IMAX, reckons customers have become picky. “People used to see something just because it was in 3D,” he says. Now they ask how much pleasure the glasses will add. The explosive “Transformers 3” did well in 3D; perhaps the 2D version was not sufficiently headache-inducing. The key to three-dimensional profits, then, is to put out hugely popular films with extraordinary special effects. Easy.

http://www.economist.com/node/18988914

So what's the take on 3-D? I did see Deathly Hallows 2 in 3D. I saw Transformers in 2D however. Even watching a 2D movie you get a good sense of what the 3D effects would be.

3D is definitely for special effects. But I do think someone can make a compelling one that isn't all action.

I must admit watching Transformers 3 in 3D really HELPED (as in made it LESS headache inducing) where in the 2D versions of the previous 2 films I saw the action was a blur, the 3D really helped to define things.

Apart from that and Avatar, I've not been tempted to see films in 3D

It costs more to see, and that's probably ultimately the deciding factor!

good!

not every movie needs a 3D version and having one doesn't make it any better. just because one or two films banked using 3D doesn't me the next 20 will. and tickets too bloody expensive anyway.

i dont know why but i get very bad head aches from them....so i dont go c any

People can barely afford to go to a non 3D movie. It's rough out there!

I really could give a rat's ass if my movie is in 3D. I'm so over it!

[Edited 7/28/11 9:00am]

I agree not every film needs to be in 3D, and I agree the price is too high, but I don't think they're going anywhere. Not with so many theaters adding or converting to digital projection. There's just been a couple of movies that had crappy 3D in the last year and its made people gun shy. Business will pick up again when the right directors are releasing the right movies instead of producers forcing it on their movies, adding it in post (Clash of the Titans, ugh!). I believe I read that Harry Potter 7 Part 2 did some big 3D business.

everyone in my family got headaches from watching Avatar in 3D.

imo, they need to make the screen image 3D, instead of messing with our visions through those slightly cross-eyed glasses we all have to wear to get the 3D effect

I AVOID 3D movies - and it's not even about the money, I just don't see the point...

I liked Harry Potter in 3d

It looked wicked when voldermort died

[Edited 7/28/11 9:55am]

They have always been a niche.

Graycap23 said:

They have always been a niche.

Yeah it is gimmicky. They still have things jumping out from the screen just because they can. I don't believe it really helps to tell a story, though it is an amusing effect.

I still prefer 2D, and novels to pop-up books

[Edited 7/28/11 11:33am]

NDRU said:

Graycap23 said:

They have always been a niche.

Yeah it is gimmicky. They still have things jumping out from the screen just because they can. I don't believe it really helps to tell a story, though it is an amusing effect.

I still prefer 2D, and novels to pop-up books

[Edited 7/28/11 11:33am]

That's the whole thing, it doesn't make a movie better. It's just a visual thing, which gets boring after a while.

Hmm, don't know if seeing HP in 3D enhanced the experience or not, I do know I enjoyed watching it. Clash ot Titans, the 3D didn't help a bit, at one point I just took the glasses off I saw just as much of the action with them off as I did on. Alice in Wonderland the 3D helped a bit, but I enjoyed the 2D just as well. In most cases I choose 2D when I plan, I only see 3D when we just show up at the movie and that's the one playing next.

robertlove said:

NDRU said:

Yeah it is gimmicky. They still have things jumping out from the screen just because they can. I don't believe it really helps to tell a story, though it is an amusing effect.

I still prefer 2D, and novels to pop-up books

[Edited 7/28/11 11:33am]

That's the whole thing, it doesn't make a movie better. It's just a visual thing, which gets boring after a while.

Seems these Hollywood folks MISSED that point.

Graycap23 said:

robertlove said:

That's the whole thing, it doesn't make a movie better. It's just a visual thing, which gets boring after a while.

Seems these Hollywood folks MISSED that point.

Kind of the same trap action movies have fallen into, where the story gets left behind in favor of bigger, louder, faster...

3D films are CRAP!

Old 3D movies would only allow for the experience of items flying out of the screen. The entire purpose was to make you jump, or scream, or whatever.

Avatar changed 3D in that its now a completely different form of technology. When its filmed digitally it allows you to add depth of field without using the shit flying at your face trick. This type of 3D must be shown on a digital projector and it uses a different kind of specially polarized glasses, not the old red/blue lenses. It also made every studio head believe that they would have a hugely successful film if they used this technology, which hasn't proven to be true.

Part of the issue with films released in 3D post-Avatar is that many of them have been "converted" in post-production. Clash of the Titans is the worst example of this. It looked like complete and utter crap. So much so that it probably hurt the film much more than it helped it. The movie was trashed by nearly everyone who saw it in 3D. I've only ever seen it in 2D and I didn't find it to be near the pile of shit so many people made it out to be.

They've since corrected some of the post mistakes that COTT had and more people are filming with the 3D cameras now than they were before (Tranformers 3 was filmed with the Avatar cameras). I still fully agree with anyone who says 3D isn't meant for every film, but I don't believe for one second that its going anywhere. Avatar was only a couple years ago and they're still working out exactly how to best use the technology and what kind of films to use it on. For me, when they get it right its pretty damn spectacular. But when its bad it can ruin the entire movie going experience, and that ain't cheap anymore, so it pisses people off.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lucky for me, I guess, I don't get headaches, including those caused by 3D glasses. I know people who do, but if they take the glasses off for a couple minutes every half hour or so they don't seem to have any problems.

Are there 3D porn films????? That would b great.....A women squirts u see it comming and duck..Looks like its gonna hit u in the face...

I don't go to the theater EVER. The only time I go is when my family makes me take them.

The tickets are overpriced.

The concessions are overpriced.

The seats are a biohazard.

Screaming babies.

Yelling teens.

Idiot adults.

On top of all that, my TV and surround sound is better at home.

3D is alright, I guess. Only the movies that are specifically shot for it though. The ones where they just do a transfer look like ass.

I do think they are overdoing it though. Far too many are released in 3D, I can only assume for added revenue.

Playstation in 3D, now that's all that.

Hollywood should focus on writing better, more original content and leave 2 tricks 2 magicians.

Graycap23 said:

Hollywood should focus on writing better, more original content and leave 2 tricks 2 magicians.

From your lips to God's ears

Graycap23 said:

Hollywood should focus on writing better, more original content and leave 2 tricks 2 magicians.

This is why I watch mostly indie films. Action films and romantic comedies that clog up the multiplexes almost never get my money.

JerseyKRS said:

I don't go to the theater EVER. The only time I go is when my family makes me take them.

The tickets are overpriced. - I only go to matinees

The concessions are overpriced. - I take in my own

The seats are a biohazard. - There is a theater I will not go to again until they replace them

Screaming babies. - Hate

Yelling teens. - Hate

Idiot adults. - Hate

On top of all that, my TV and surround sound is better at home. - Hmm, I was going to say mine isn't, but other than the size and lack of bone rattling loudness, it probably is.

3D is alright, I guess. Only the movies that are specifically shot for it though. The ones where they just do a transfer look like ass. - I said that, too.

I do think they are overdoing it though. Far too many are released in 3D, I can only assume for added revenue. - Yep. The Avatar Syndrome. 3D really was a niche before that film, after it every studio head knew they could make more money that way if their film caught on.

Playstation in 3D, now that's all that. - Really?

sextonseven said:

Graycap23 said:

Hollywood should focus on writing better, more original content and leave 2 tricks 2 magicians.

This is why I watch mostly indie films. Action films and romantic comedies that clog up the multiplexes almost never get my money.

I totally agree and I go out of my way to see them. However, when you start looking behind the scenes, nearly every independent director, producer or production company is partially (if not fully) owned or backed by a major studio, or by someone working within the major studio system. Distribution is the same way. There really isn't a lot of truly independent filmmaking going on right now. Which makes it even more sad, because that means they already know where the good films are being made and that the pablum they force upon the movie going public at large is about nothing but the bottom line.

Cerebus said:

sextonseven said:

This is why I watch mostly indie films. Action films and romantic comedies that clog up the multiplexes almost never get my money.

I totally agree and I go out of my way to see them. However, when you start looking behind the scenes, nearly every independent director, producer or production company is partially (if not fully) owned or backed by a major studio, or by someone working within the major studio system. Distribution is the same way. There really isn't a lot of truly independent filmmaking going on right now. Which makes it even more sad, because that means they already know where the good films are being made and that the pablum they force upon the movie going public at large is about nothing but the bottom line.

Whether the film is indie or "indie", the fact remains that there is more risk-taking in these smaller budgeted films. I'm much less likely to be disappointed watching those movies than the latest vehicle for Julia Roberts or Vince Vaughn.

sextonseven said:

Cerebus said:

I totally agree and I go out of my way to see them. However, when you start looking behind the scenes, nearly every independent director, producer or production company is partially (if not fully) owned or backed by a major studio, or by someone working within the major studio system. Distribution is the same way. There really isn't a lot of truly independent filmmaking going on right now. Which makes it even more sad, because that means they already know where the good films are being made and that the pablum they force upon the movie going public at large is about nothing but the bottom line.

Whether the film is indie or "indie", the fact remains that there is more risk-taking in these smaller budgeted films. I'm much less likely to be disappointed watching those movies than the latest vehicle for Julia Roberts or Vince Vaughn.

Why?! Why must you do that to me?!

Totally agree. But I still wish there was more true independent filmmakers out there. Digital cameras were supposed to usher in an age of great indie films, but I'm not sure it ever happened. But I still seek them out and enjoy watching them more than another beat me over the head "Hollywood blockbuster".

Cerebus said:

sextonseven said:

Whether the film is indie or "indie", the fact remains that there is more risk-taking in these smaller budgeted films. I'm much less likely to be disappointed watching those movies than the latest vehicle for Julia Roberts or Vince Vaughn.

Why?! Why must you do that to me?!

Totally agree. But I still wish there was more true independent filmmakers out there. Digital cameras were supposed to usher in an age of great indie films, but I'm not sure it ever happened. But I still seek them out and enjoy watching them more than another beat me over the head "Hollywood blockbuster".

Yeah, I go to the cinema a lot, but it's rare for me to see something that's really different. The last film that totally made my head spin might have been Enter The Void.

sextonseven said:

Cerebus said:

Why?! Why must you do that to me?!

Totally agree. But I still wish there was more true independent filmmakers out there. Digital cameras were supposed to usher in an age of great indie films, but I'm not sure it ever happened. But I still seek them out and enjoy watching them more than another beat me over the head "Hollywood blockbuster".

Yeah, I go to the cinema a lot, but it's rare for me to see something that's really different. The last film that totally made my head spin might have been Enter The Void.

Enter The Void was crazy. I enjoyed it, but I think it tried a little too hard to be different. Love that the Blu-Ray has an epilepsy warning at the beginning.

The last film to really grab me was Winter's Bone, which totally moved me. That's more along the line of what I dig about indie cinema. I loved the slow deliberate pace and the almost noir detective style story. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford is another recent one that aboslutely blew my mind with its style and pace (the use of natural light in that film is stunning). I'm really looking forward to seeing The Tree of Life a few times - I need to get on that.

Cerebus said:

sextonseven said:

Yeah, I go to the cinema a lot, but it's rare for me to see something that's really different. The last film that totally made my head spin might have been Enter The Void.

Enter The Void was crazy. I enjoyed it, but I think it tried a little too hard to be different. Love that the Blu-Ray has an epilepsy warning at the beginning.

The last film to really grab me was Winter's Bone, which totally moved me. That's more along the line of what I dig about indie cinema. I loved the slow deliberate pace and the almost noir detective style story. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford is another recent one that aboslutely blew my mind with its style and pace (the use of natural light in that film is stunning). I'm really looking forward to seeing The Tree of Life a few times - I need to get on that.

I forgot about The Tree of Life. The film is very different. I have to see it again because the first time I couldn't grasp the big picture even though I knew what it was supposed to be.

Winter's Bone was great--intense, solid acting without any bells and whistles.

Have you ever seen Wendy and Lucy? I bet you'd like that film a lot too.

sextonseven said:

Cerebus said:

Enter The Void was crazy. I enjoyed it, but I think it tried a little too hard to be different. Love that the Blu-Ray has an epilepsy warning at the beginning.

The last film to really grab me was Winter's Bone, which totally moved me. That's more along the line of what I dig about indie cinema. I loved the slow deliberate pace and the almost noir detective style story. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford is another recent one that aboslutely blew my mind with its style and pace (the use of natural light in that film is stunning). I'm really looking forward to seeing The Tree of Life a few times - I need to get on that.

I forgot about The Tree of Life. The film is very different. I have to see it again because the first time I couldn't grasp the big picture even though I knew what it was supposed to be.

Winter's Bone was great--intense, solid acting without any bells and whistles.

Have you ever seen Wendy and Lucy? I bet you'd like that film a lot too.

No! And I meant to! (added to the list) I dig Michelle Williams and its distributed by Oscilliscope Laboratories (owned by MCA from the Beastie Boys) who ARE actually really, trully independent.