# 3D Backlash Begins...



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

In the midst of this "enthusiasm" for 3D, I have cautioned that this isn't the first time this tune has been played.

The Backlash has started.

Jon Favreau, director of upcoming "Cowboys & Aliens" says no to 3D conversion.. "westerns need to be shot on film, save your money and see the movie twice!"

JJ Abrams, "when you put the glasses on, everything gets dim, this isn't the way it is meant to be seen".

Josh Whedon says he is going to advertise his much anticipated horror film "Cabin In The Woods" as the only horror film NOT in 3D!

Negotiations with Peter Jackson over the Hobbit films are said to be hingeing on Jackson's NOT wanting to do 3D. When this was announced at Comic Con the audience cheered.

Christopher Nolan "Batman 3 will NOT be in 3D"

Josh Whedon is currently negotiating the 3D issue for Avengers with the studio.

The studios have seen 3D as a way to make up lost revenues coming from people who would rather stay at home and watch a movie. 3D generates $3-5 more per seat in revenue.

Some Hollywoood big name directors are saying NO loudly to 3D, and they have the clout to make it stick.


----------



## dod1450 (Dec 16, 2009)

Larry,
Thank you for this info. I have a family member that gets migraines after seeing a 3D movie. Before anyone say go and see another movie. The first movie was Caroline and the second was Avatar. The family member had the same result, migraine headache. 
3D in the house will not be in our future entertainment adventure.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

I'd be willing to bet that the national pocketbook wins this debate.


----------



## jerrylove56 (Jun 15, 2008)

Never have seen a 3d flick. however, if and when one of my hd tv's need replacing, I will buy a set that is 3d. Just seems like technology was made for sporting events


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Already seeing it this summer... with "Step up 3D" not doing well... a movie that probably isn't that good anyway, and isn't the kind that would even benefit from being in 3D if you like 3D... and it is not faring well at the box office.

So just like there is overreaction to Avatar and 3D being a box office hit... there will be overreaction the other way now and some things will not be 3D that would have on the previous bandwagon.

Eventually we will settle back to the normalcy where most people really don't care most of the time.


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

The problem here is simple:

*Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.*

This isn't the first time Hollywood has held this dance. Each time they swear that 3D is the wave of the future. Each time the problems are basically the same. The necessity of the glasses. The headaches. The inability of many people to "see" the 3D. The cost.

The only thing that has really changed this time is that there are more movies available and HD has been added to the equation. Some of the TV manufacturers are also looking to the technology for the same reason that the studios are... the ability to increase their profits for flat panels that have already become a commodity.

I strongly suspect that within a year the 3D televisions will be available at no premium at all.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Each time the wave comes around, the quality of the 3D technology improves at least... but yeah, the wave also always goes back into the ocean again and soon it is like it was never there at all.

I like the novelty of it... and might even be curious if it were available at a non-premium... but no way would I pay money just to get 3D. Frankly, for as much as I love HDTV and the higher quality... I have no real desire to have 3D even if it were uber-realistic.

Now IF we get true holodeck technology like in Star Trek where you can interact... THAT would pique my interest


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Read a article awhile back about holographic TV. Made interesting reading.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

LarryFlowers said:


> The only thing that has really changed this time is that there are more movies available and HD has been added to the equation.


Actually, the big difference this time is CGI effects, or in many cases, that whole movies are computer graphics. Computerized movies allow for 3D to be made for a very small additional cost over standard 2D, and allows both a 2D and 3D version to be made.

But, I agree: it's a fad that will be dead in 2-3 years.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

I may see one more 3D film, Tron. Or maybe once 3D and once 2D. Other than that, I'm done.

The director should be able to refuse 3D. I do think Martin Scorcese went off the deep end when he said Precious should have been 3D.


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I'd be willing to bet that the national pocketbook wins this debate.


And according to figures published about a month ago, 3D movies in theaters are already seeing drastically diminishing returns. Seems that movies like Avatar, which was concieved from teh beginning as 3D and shot with the special cameras do decently, but movies made into 3D after the fact or without strong thought and planning (most movies made in 3D or otherwise) don't do so well.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

LarryFlowers said:


> The problem here is simple:
> 
> *Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.*


The problem here is simple. You keep repeating how history is repeating itself yet you fail to illustrate how. I can see drawing parallels between color, widescreen or surround sound, but you haven't.

For future reference George Santayana said:

_Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it_.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Lee L said:


> And according to figures published about a month ago, 3D movies in theaters are already seeing drastically diminishing returns. Seems that movies like Avatar, which was conceived from the beginning as 3D and shot with the special cameras do decently, but movies made into 3D after the fact or without strong thought and planning (most movies made in 3D or otherwise) don't do so well.


Too early to tell...the latest 3D runs are quite new to the market. There will be over 20 3D flicks issues this year in theaters...and 3D Blu Rays released as well. Too early to tell...but again....a year from now we'll likely know if there is momentum on 3D or a loud fizzling sound. In the end...wallets will speak the votes.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Could just be a bump in the road, but I don't think so. I think there will continue to be a limited market for 3D. It may be good for a few summer tentpoles to get people into the theatres but I still don't see it going completely mainstream.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

BattleZone said:


> Computerized movies allow for 3D to be made for a very small additional cost over standard 2D, and allows both a 2D and 3D version to be made.


Which is why we seek out the 2D versions of these movies. I just don't like 3D. So we end up having to travel 10 miles to a theater that shows both version instead of the theater 2 minutes away that only shows the 3D versions.

But what I am afraid of is that at some point, they will figure out that people want the 2D version and will raise prices so that both 2D and 3D are the same.


----------



## klang (Oct 14, 2003)

So far at least, I'm not interested in wearing special glasses at home to watch TV.

I'm holding our for a holodeck.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Could just be a bump in the road, but I don't think so. I think there will continue to be a limited market for 3D. It may be good for a few summer tentpoles to get people into the theaters but I still don't see it going completely mainstream.


The most optimistic things I've read are for achieving 12-15% or the overall move/BR disk market share some day. I'd agree with you that mainstream isn't likely to ever happen.


----------



## Hutchinshouse (Sep 28, 2006)

LarryFlowers said:


> In the midst of this "enthusiasm" for 3D, I have cautioned that this isn't the first time this tune has been played.
> 
> The Backlash has started.
> 
> ...


This is one of my big beefs with 3D. To me, proper color and contrast means much more than 3D.

3D doesn't add to the director's storytelling. It distracts from the storytelling. I fully understand the director's POV.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

It occurs to me that the name of this thread would be a good name for a movie...

Backlash! ... in 3D!

In a world where no one is sure of their next paycheck, a new technology was born... a technology that helps you escape the real world... and enter a world... of 3D! But all is not what it seems... and there will be a reckoning.


----------



## Spoffo (Jan 1, 2007)

Because I was buying a new plasma anyway this spring (and going top of the line) I wound up with a 3D-capable Panasonic and a couple of sets of glasses. I hated the world Cup in 3D and quickly switched to the regular coverage for games I cared about. Ditto for the All-Star game, where they had too few 3D cameras to adequately cover the game, and the announcers were pitching 3D so hard it was like a SNL satire. After a couple of forgettable 3D movies, the glasses went back in their cases and have been gathering dust ever since.

The best thing about 3D BluRays is that they play beautifully in 2D.

We should start a pool on how long it will be before DirecTv drops their 3D channels.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Spoffo said:


> Because I was buying a new plasma anyway this spring (and going top of the line) I wound up with a 3D-capable Panasonic and a couple of sets of glasses. I hated the world Cup in 3D and quickly switched to the regular coverage for games I cared about. Ditto for the All-Star game, where they had too few 3D cameras to adequately cover the game, and the announcers were pitching 3D so hard it was like a SNL satire. After a couple of forgettable 3D movies, the glasses went back in their cases and have been gathering dust ever since.
> 
> The best thing about 3D BluRays is that they play beautifully in 2D.
> 
> We should start a pool on how long it will be before DirecTv drops their 3D channels.


Was it just because you didn't like the content or was it a technical reason that you've stopped using 3D?

I do agree with the comment about 3D coverage not being up to par with the 2D coverage. Having two seperate feeds/crews is exactly what happened when HD first started rolling out, lack of cameras and the D announcing crew. I think we're still in the demo period for 3D and hope in the coming months things will pick up on the content side.


----------



## Hutchinshouse (Sep 28, 2006)

Spoffo said:


> Because I was buying a new plasma anyway this spring (and going top of the line) I wound up with a 3D-capable Panasonic and a couple of sets of glasses. I hated the world Cup in 3D and quickly switched to the regular coverage for games I cared about. Ditto for the All-Star game, where they had too few 3D cameras to adequately cover the game, and the announcers were pitching 3D so hard it was like a SNL satire. After a couple of forgettable 3D movies, the glasses went back in their cases and have been gathering dust ever since.
> 
> The best thing about 3D BluRays is that they play beautifully in 2D.
> 
> *We should start a pool on how long it will be before DirecTv drops their 3D channels*.


3 months from today.


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

Spoffo said:


> We should start a pool on how long it will be before DirecTv drops their 3D channels.


December 31, 2011


----------



## matt (Jan 12, 2010)

I have no clue what Cowboys & Aliens is, but I want to see it just because they remain true to their craft using film. It's nice to know that Hollywood still knows what's king. 

Yeah, I know, I know, digital is great. Tape is cheap, SSD is the ultimate in non-lineararity, all that stuff but you'll never match that perfect natural "something" that film provides.


----------

