The Death of 3D!

[bassman]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...glasses-240837 You know that three-to-five extra bucks you may have paid to see a film in 3D? Turns out that price hike didn't include the price of the glasses at all. Studios were coughing up the extra cash for the glasses, but now they're calling it off. Well...Sony is, anyway. I'm sure the other studios will follow. Exhibitors aren't likely to react well to a Sony letter saying the studio will stop footing the bill for RealD glasses, which can cost studios $5 million to $10 million per blockbuster release. So with theater owners likely to get angry over this news, do you think they'll continue to support and advertise 3D? Now to sit back and wait for the steady decline and death of 3D. Hopefully...

[JDFP]

It won't affect me at all as I've never gone to a 3D film and don't see the appeal of it at all really. Then again, I'm very old fashioned (as has been pointed out) about most things. Going to the theatre to see a film is a special event for me which I do maybe once-twice a year (if that). I just can't bring myself to spend $10-$12 for a ticket to see a film in the theatre (and God forbid you get any munchies -- that's another $5-$6) when I can own the actual film for just a few dollars more 4 months down the road or renting it from Netflix for about a dollar as part of my membership. With having a 50" plasma-HDTV with a blu-ray player there just isn't really any need to waste money to see something in the theatre when I don't have to either. Then there's the issue with the fact you have to deal with one of the worst things in existence with going to a theater -- other people. I don't think theatres will die out in the 21st century (at least in the next 20 or so years) but I can see their appeal continue to dwindle as ticket prices go higher and higher. Dollar theaters (more like $3 theaters now) are still a good alternative though and if I *must* see something in the theater I'll wait 4 weeks to see it in the "dollar"/discount theater. j.p.

[bassman]

I've only seen about two 3D films. It's an event and entertaining when it's done correctly(Avatar), but when it's attached in post-production to every shit film released(Alice in Wonderland), it's shooting itself in the foot. If anything is to blame for the demise of 3D films, it's the studios for not using it correctly. I would be all for 3D being the future of cinema if it were experimented on and used correctly by people that want to further the technology(James Cameron), but instead they turned it into a gimmick and attached it to everything. It was the studios that gave it a bad name.

[Danny]

couldnt give a toss. 3d is a theme park novelty and detracts from the film. I want a filmmaker to direct the eye with subtlety and genuine film making techniques, not by adding fake blur around a central point thats being made to look like its coming right at you. 3D has always been just an experimental fad to try and get people back into the cinema which, in some respects like magazines, is something modern culture seems to have less and less of a place for. It allowed them to get in extra money for a while but it couldn't have lasted forever when people would much rather have a home cinema system and stay at home or go round a friends to watch a movie 3d or not.

[Purge]

No loss. Of all the 3-D adaptations I've seen over the past few years, only the last Saw film was worth the effort.

[MinionZombie]

Here in the UK you have to buy your glasses anyway - but you just re-use them for every 3D movie you see. When I went to see Avatar, it was an extra £2.10 ($3.28) or something for the 3D, and then 80p ($1.25) for the glasses (still seems to be the case) - so us Brits have been paying for them anyway. It's a bloody cheek we have to pay extra anyway - and the multiplexes are filled with one movie taking up as many as three screens simultaneously (cross over screenings in 2D and 3D), and when you've got four films in both sets of dimensions that's eight ruddy screens taken up (and at my multiplex there's 13 screens), so it cuts down the amount of movies and screenings on offer. 3D is still a gimmick, it doesn't add anything worthwhile or long-lasting. It was a diversion for a while, but the movie companies have been taking the piss with it.

[Danny]

It's a bloody cheek we have to pay extra anyway - and the multiplexes are filled with one movie taking up as many as three screens simultaneously (cross over screenings in 2D and 3D), and when you've got four films in both sets of dimensions that's eight ruddy screens taken up (and at my multiplex there's 13 screens), so it cuts down the amount of movies and screenings on offer. its f*cking bullshit that ive seen things like saw in 3d on 5 screens at my local for 3 months whilst moon got ONE F*CKING SHOWING DURING THAT TIME!. ONE!?!

[MinionZombie]

its fucking bullshit that ive seen things like saw in 3d on 5 screens at my local for 3 months whilst moon got ONE FUCKING SHOWING DURING THAT TIME!. ONE!?! As in one single solitary one-time-slot-only on one single day showing?!

[Danny]

As in one single solitary one-time-slot-only on one single day showing?! yep. as in miss this single showing in the smallest screen this once and never see it in a cinema because we are only showing it in 5 cineworlds across england... for the record: totally fucking worth it, bowie jr done good.

[bassman]

for the record: totally fucking worth it, bowie jr done good. Indeed. Moon is the best original science fiction film in a decade or so, imo.

[Neil]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...glasses-240837 You know that three-to-five extra bucks you may have paid to see a film in 3D? Turns out that price hike didn't include the price of the glasses at all. Studios were coughing up the extra cash for the glasses, but now they're calling it off. Well...Sony is, anyway. I'm sure the other studios will follow. So with theater owners likely to get angry over this news, do you think they'll continue to support and advertise 3D? Now to sit back and wait for the steady decline and death of 3D. Hopefully... As MZ said, in some UK cinemas you spend a a coulpe of quid to buy them, and then you just use them for any future films you go to. I just keep mine in my glove box in my car, so they're always with should I go to the cinema.

[EvilNed]

In Sweden, they're free and a one-time thing. You pick new ones up before each showing and throw them away afterwards. What a fucking waste. As for 3D, I've begun to grow pretty tired of it. Last film I saw in 3D was Capt. America and I hardly noticed the effects. Why even put it in 3D if that's the case?

[Tricky]

The worst part is that you still have to pay the full whack whether you have your old 3D glasses or not, I think if you wave them in the guys face when paying you should get at least £2.50 off entry! If all 3D films were done as well as Avatar then I would have no problem whatsoever going to see anything in 3D, but unfortunately not many producers have the financial clout of James Cameron so things get done on the cheap & the film suffers for it (Clash of the Titans as a prime example)

[bassman]

As MZ said, in some UK cinemas you spend a a coulpe of quid to buy them, and then you just use them for any future films you go to. I just keep mine in my glove box in my car, so they're always with should I go to the cinema. We also have the option of keeping the glasses but it's still the same 3D price when you go back, isn't it? It was for me. New glasses or old, we still pay the same price here. At least in my local theater. EDIT: Tricky and I posted at the same time. He answered my question...

[blind2d]

Finally something everypony here can agree on! I'm just so happy...