Are 3D movies getting out of hand?

zeptron

Superhero
Joined
Jan 22, 2005
Messages
5,445
Reaction score
654
Points
73
Ever since Avatar, there has been a constant amount of 3-D movies coming out. Nearly 75 percent of movies coming out this year are 3-D. Spider-Man and Transformers 3 will even be 3-D movies. Do you think this 3-D movie craze is going to far or is this really the wave of the future like Movie industries says it will?
 
i am scared that in the future 99% 3D movies are 2D convertions and dont have a 2D realese in theaters.
 
Yes they are. And the 3D tv's are overrated, overpriced. Bore.
everything is overpriced that comes out.

did you see the new 3D tv's with glasses on? i wonder if the 3D looks good.
 
It will fizz out when people get used to it and realize 3D won't enhance the plot of a bad movie.
 
3D films are great.

2D films converted to 3D suck ass.
 
3D films are great.

2D films converted to 3D suck ass.

That's pretty much what I think too. If you shoot it in 3D, like Avatar, then I'm all for it, but I don't like this conversion of 2D films that it going on. I want to see the film as the director/cast/crew/etc. originally intended, not what the studio ended up doing because they want more money.
 
Ever since Avatar, there has been a constant amount of 3-D movies coming out. Nearly 75 percent of movies coming out this year are 3-D. Spider-Man and Transformers 3 will even be 3-D movies. Do you think this 3-D movie craze is going to far or is this really the wave of the future like Movie industries says it will?

Well Avatar has definately shown the potential of what you can get with 3d. fIf look at the topics posted at Marketsaw you'll see that sports events are slowly being broadcast in 3d and tv's as well as blu-ray players are also being upgraded to the 3d format.

I dunno if this really is the new wave of the future but it certainly is a beginning. As for movies , it's more to do with BO revenue. I saw Alice in Wonderland in IMAX and i thought the 3d was pretty good. It wasn't as good as what i saw with Avatar but i didn't get a headache which was something i suffered with Beowulf , Superman Returns , Final Destination and My Bloody Valentine. Post avatar Alice In Wonderland opened pretty big with the help of 3d. However if you compare the BO with Avatar you'll see that AIW is falling behind which goes to show you that a movie ultimately will determine how it succeeds after the first few days. 3d or IMAX may definately help to keep the BO a little higher but by no means is it a guarantee that minimalise drop offs.

What studios are seeing now is that audiences are willing to pay more to see 3d. And as with all things , if something is done right people will see it. So personally i don't agree with dark_b post of more and more movies being converted. Hell i saw My Bloody Valentine in 3d and that was also shot with 3d cameras . And it still gave my a headache. So it's not a question of shooting something in 3d or not. It;s about doing something right. Let's face it the same thing is happening with IMAX too and we still are getting excellent results there. Before Avatar the only movies where i thought that 3d conversion was done well were the last 2 potter movies and AIW. Going back to what the studios are doing , one has to also realise that techniques are improving daily. 3d conversions are getting better and better and first with the succes of Avatar and now AIW , studios can see that their invesments can pay off. I've read that the average conversion price lies somewhere around 15-20 million per movie. If you put that against a potential 100 million extra at the BO , you'll see why studios are going for 3d . I would do the same thing if i were a company exec. Money talks and not the average fanboy.
 
matrix_ghost you think they can convert watter and sand to 3D? or flowers for example? everytime they will have something that has a complex shape they will have trouble.
 
matrix_ghost you think they can convert watter and sand to 3D? or flowers for example? everytime they will have something that has a complex shape they will have trouble.

Water in 3d looked quite cool when i watched harry potter and the order of the phoenix in IMAX 3d.

Flowers ....i thought were also pretty well done Alice in Wonderland. But if you think about it also in Avatar we didn't have scenes with flowers constantly popping up. In alot of scenes the the plant life was put in the background with the characters in the front getting th 3d treatment.

You are right in saying that complex shapes will definately take more to recreate in 3d. And that also applies to camera moves. But remember that Cameron also had quite complex camera moves in Titanic and he's also converting that in 3d. So yeah....

The point is that if you want the best results , you'll need
1) to shoot the movie in 3-d
2) to also have a director who understands the process.

But even so i think that what i have seen with Potter and AIW , the results were pretty good. Hence why i used IMAX as an example. Ideally the best results would be if a movie would have entire sequences or better yet the entire movie shot with an IMAX camera. It's a pain for the VFX but the results are stellar. But practical complications lead studios to simply convert the movie to the IMAX format.

You are right in saying that converions can lead to problems. IMAX has the advantage that they themselves have the monopoly on giant screens as well converting movies. So they know that something they'll churn out will be of high quality. It's a different thing with 3d conversions because there are many companies out there who offer conversion services. If studios are willing to pay the price you'll get good results. The problem can be that some studio decides not pay alot of money or chooses a lesser company and you go back to the original problems that plagued 3d ( eye strain etc.)

But even so i think studios are smart to convert their big budget blockbusters to 3d because they know that they can increase the profits big time there as well warrant the investment . For example a studio exec. can think that he may want to spend 15 million to convert Alice in WOnderland and spend 15 million to convert a horror movie like Saw. But which movie will have a bigger audience :cwink:
 
3D is definitely getting out of hand, not every movie needs it. If a movie is planned and shot for 3D then I'm all for it, but too many movies are just getting a few sequences upgraded just to drive up profits is ridiculous. Although I've only paid for 3D twice once for Avatar and the other on the kids movie I took my nieces and nephews too.

The 3D television thing is a joke, I just can't see it catching on. The general public just got on the HD TV craze, you can't expect them to shell out the big bucks for a new TV, just a couple years later. Also, who's really going to always put on a pair of 3D glasses to watch TV and if you have friends over, you've gotta shell out money for extra pairs of glasses. Early adopters will get it, but I really don't see it catching on with the general public and especially not in this economy.
 
3D TV is stupid because no matter how big your TV is, you gonna lose that sense of scope because you can see the borders on your tv. on the big movie screen, it's more of an experience.

however, 3D TV could be cool for video games.
 
In a simple answer for the OP...YES!

It's sad too because my gf last night was watching TMZ and one of the camera men caught up with Bryan Singer and asked him if the new X-men film might be in 3D and he said possibly and that he it's all about either filming it in 3D or converting it later. He knows his tech stuff because he went into explanation about layering and what happens when you do the 3D after the film is done.

I hope he doesn't go that route though.
 
3D TV is stupid because no matter how big your TV is, you gonna lose that sense of scope because you can see the borders on your tv. on the big movie screen, it's more of an experience.

however, 3D TV could be cool for video games
.
70% of people dont even realize that a big reason for the 3D TV's are the games.
 
yes i think is, I hate 3d sometimes because studios use it to disguise a movie with a ****** plot and no substance. Take alice in wonderland for example, you take 3d away and you have a really boring movie. Not every movie needs to be in 3d anyway. Would someone really pay to see the hangover in 3d? Its just a stupid gimmick for the most part designed to get extra money from people.

instead of 3d why dont studios focus on making all movies high def on the big screen with amazing sound?
 
3D like Avatar and Tron Legacy= great
2D to 3D conversion with gimmicky shots just so something comes towards the screen=lame

Either way they are not needed, but in the case of Avatar/Tron 3D it is cool for films where it takes place in a HUGE different kind of world
 
yes i think is, I hate 3d sometimes because studios use it to disguise a movie with a ****** plot and no substance. Take alice in wonderland for example, you take 3d away and you have a really boring movie. Not every movie needs to be in 3d anyway. Would someone really pay to see the hangover in 3d? Its just a stupid gimmick for the most part designed to get extra money from people.

instead of 3d why dont studios focus on making all movies high def on the big screen with amazing sound?
i think no3D movies in the last 4 years were made just for the 3D. and Alice was in noooooooo way made just for the 3D.
 
The problem isn't 3D, it is that studios are trying to milk money by using crappy quality 3D (converted 3D.) Avatar was great because it was filmed in 3D. Alice in Wonderland sucked (other than the actual movie sucking) because the 3D was cheap.
 
70% of people dont even realize that a big reason for the 3D TV's are the games.


Good point. On the news last night they had a report about how 3D TVs are already out and that the glasses will rougly cost $100 each.

Honestly, I'm going to wait quite a long time before I get one. I plan on upgrading my TV this year at some point and plan on going BIG but I think I'll avoid the 3D TVs...unless they have an option to switch it to non 3D.
 
they both sucked story-wise and the 3d didnt help
 
3D like Avatar and Tron Legacy= great
2D to 3D conversion with gimmicky shots just so something comes towards the screen=lame

Either way they are not needed, but in the case of Avatar/Tron 3D it is cool for films where it takes place in a HUGE different kind of world

I agree.

Just because it's 3D doesn't mean things have to fly at the screen like some films do.
 
after Avatar, what's the next movie to be filmed in 3D from the beginning (meaning no conversion)?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"