The Amazing Spider-Man SONY stops paying for 3D glasses...what does this mean?

[chaseter]

http://www.craveonline.com/film/art...ps-paying-for-3d-glasses-everyone-gets-pissed

It means that I am not seeing this in 3D.

 

[Spiderman6592]

I'm missing why this would prevent you from seeing this in 3D. Also, you don't seem like the type of person who purchases 3D tickets in the first place...

 

[VenomSpawn]

I'll still be seeing it in 3D. I don't really care.

 

[socool]

How much do the glasses cost?

 

[Spiderman6592]

OMG I HAVE TO PAY 2 EXTRA BUCKS WHEN I WAS ALREADY GOING TO DROP 15 PER TICKET!?

 

[chaseter]

I'm missing why this would prevent you from seeing this in 3D. Also, you don't seem like the type of person who purchases 3D tickets in the first place...

It means you will be paying more for your ticket. Theatres now have to foot the cost which means they pass the cost on to you.

Is that some sort of dig? You seem like someone who will see every movie in 3D Boom got you

What does this mean for Sony as a company? Are they that worried about $10 million bucks or does this say they have no faith in their products?

 

[Spiderman6592]

Oh my god. Sony not wanting to pay for 3D glasses means TASM will suck....



This thread:

 

[chaseter]

OMG I HAVE TO PAY 2 EXTRA BUCKS WHEN I WAS ALREADY GOING TO DROP 15 PER TICKET!?

Must be nice to get money from mommy and daddy.

 

[Spiderman6592]

Annnnnd reported.

 

[socool]

Annnd this argument is dumb.

 

[chaseter]

You are so childish...but then again you are like 17.

 

[Spiderman6592]

Annnnnd reported again.

 

[chaseter]

Annnnnd reported again.

If you can't discuss a topic like an adult then don't come in here.

 

[Spiderman6592]

LOL


Discuss a topic like an adult? Take some of your own advice before you make the assumption that my "mommy and daddy" pay for all of my things and that I'm 16 years old. Pathetic. I hope they suspend or ban you, you contribute nothing but negativity.

 

[chaseter]

Didn't you tell me to go suck a ****?

As for everyone else...how will this affect the box office? 3D movies are already declining. Will having to pay $2-4 extra dollars turn people away from 3D? Why is Sony doing this when they are touting this movie will be awesome in 3D? What is $10 million when you stand to make 30x that at the box office?

 

[Spiderman6592]

I probably did because as I said, you contribute nothing but acute negativity, and inexplicable assumptions (IE: Sony must not want to pay for 3D glasses because they don't have faith in the movie).

To answer your question, they are likely doing it because of the rapidly declining 3D sales. Less and less people are seeing films in 3D and they could potentially be worried about the movie's 3D sales. If 3D movies continue to be as ****** as they are, that means that that 3D audience is only to get smaller and smaller by the time TASM rolls around. I wouldn't call it a lack of faith in the product so much as a lack of faith in the 3D market.

 

[socool]

Didn't you tell me to go suck a ****?

As for everyone else...how will this affect the box office? 3D movies are already declining. Will having to pay $2-4 extra dollars turn people away from 3D? Why is Sony doing this when they are touting this movie will be awesome in 3D? What is $10 million when you stand to make 30x that at the box office?

I doubt that few dollars is going to make much of any difference. I don't think it will really hurt the film at all. If anything, it may slightly increase sales if people think like me and don't care for the few dollars.

 

[Spiderman6592]

That's what I was saying. Generally if people are already planning on spending 15 dollars on a ticket, an extra dollar or two really isn't going to push them away. No if it ends up being something like 5 bucks then yeah, count me out. It's the economic law of utility. If people think they'll get enough out of the experience to pay 15 dollars for it, those same people probably won't have a problem shelling out 17.

 

[VenomSpawn]

 

[chaseter]

Theater owners may be showing more 2D shows than 3D shows now as opposed to having more 3D screens as they have been doing. 3D is already rapidly declining...this may speed up that death.

Theater owners are pissed apparently...if they make the same amount of money or close to a 2D showing as a 3D showing...what do you think is going to happen?

 

[Spiderman6592]

This could very well be the death of 3D. But at the same time, Sony only has two 3D movies coming out next year so it won't be HUGELY devastating, but over time, it's likely to act like a cancer. Again, I see this as an act of a lack of faith in the 3D market more than I do a lack of faith in the film itself. I mean, just from seeing the trailer in 3D I can tell how amazing the visuals were and are going to be.

The big problem with the 3D market is the completely lazy and ****** studios that use 3D as a short cut to boost B.O numbers by post converting their films. If the only 3D films that were released were films actually SHOT fully in 3D, it's very likely that 3D would be a HUGE hit. Unfortunately, most "3D" movies are ****tastic post converted ones.

 

[chaseter]

But why now? Why not in 2013? Why do anything negative that could have any detrimental impact on your 2012 tentpole movie? Why is Sony pinching pennies? $10 million is nothing for a billion dollar franchise.

I agree that this shows a lack of faith in 3D but then why spend all that money to shoot the thing in 3D? I am not saying that this means that Sony thinks the movie will suck and do poorly, but...that may be the reason. I don't know. I am posing questions hence the thread title.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

If it's 2 exra dollars, I'll still be seeing it in 3D. However, I think 3D is stupid to begin with. Well, most of the time.

 

[Spiderman6592]

Again, 3D is stupid most of the time because studios post convert their films. Compare the 3D quality of Avatar to that of say, Captain America. That's the difference. The 3D in Avatar provides a sense of immersion while Captain America's just makes everything look like bad CGI. Seeing the TASM trailer in 3D provided that sense of immersion because it was actually shot in 3D and not post converted in a crappy manner.


Here's a good article on it:
http://gizmodo.com/5460282/how-regular-movies-are-converted-to-3d

Now that Avatar is officially the highest grossing movie of all time, it's inevitable that studios will continue to push 3D as the new frontier of cinema. But actually filming in 3D is prohibitively expensive. Here's how they fake it.

Not many directors share James Cameron's obsession with three dimensional authenticity, and not many films have the budgets to support the directors who do. Filming in 3D requires the use of two cameras, barely offset, capturing all the action in tandem. The technology involved, and the people who know how to use it, come with a high price tag (to the tune of seven figures). So most of the 3D movies that will be coming out of Hollywood in coming months, including the two new Harry Potter films as well as Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland, create the effect in post-production.

 

[Curmudgeon]

I'm not sure if I want to see this film in 3D. Seeing the trailer in 2D at the theater gave me a little vertigo so I can only imagine what 3D would do to me. I feel like I'd be missing out if I didn't see it in 3D though since it's meant to be seen in 3D. Maybe I'll just see it in 3D anyway and power through whatever first-person web-swinging they decide to put in.