Comments on: New York Times: '3-D is in danger of becoming Hollywood's latest flub'

By: Tina

Tina — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 01:12:57 +0000

Lawl atl roller… I dunno about you but my family always taught me to not buy food… EVER at a movie theater. The couple of times I do do it though, it's not popcorn… its either a hotdog, candy or an ICEE (usually the latter). My dad always snuck in bag popcorn… but I hate popcorn (I can only stand eating like maybe 10 pieces then my mouth gets unappealingly dry, I need a drink and I have corn shell painfully stuck between my molar and gum).

I'm willing to forgo popcorn money to see 3D… (haha, esp. as I hate popcorn)… I mean… 3 bucks for something that costs them 20 cents to make. Bulls*it.

JC, yah'd better deliver!

By: GregM

GregM — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 12:35:08 +0000

@JM: 3D should be able to add a level of immersion. Currently, the opposite occurs. The gimmick of an object going to and from the audience does nothing but take me out of the story, as if I'm supposed to put my movie watching on hold to appreciate the technology. @atl roller: I disagree. Analog has it's charm but digital is a visual treat. DP's have to step up their game is all.

By: atl roller

atl roller — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 03:03:50 +0000

i hate 3-D! plus alot of theatres dont show movies in digital yet..analog is better anyways, but on 3-D movies there is also a $3 surcharge to see the movie and people now a days dont have the extra money to spend what with there fetish for popcorn with their movies! they should stick to 2-D, i dont have a problem with digital but i love analog so, i dont know why everything has to change, the movies are amazing how they are!

By: Dt Shindler

Dt Shindler — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 20:21:12 +0000

Hey BRAD: It'll be interesting to see how they handle that effort here in Australia. When I first arrived, I was still in shock over the $15-18 ticket costs per movie goer ($10 on discount days, which is either tuesday or sunday, depending on the movie theater — it was $8 or $9, but that jus went up a buck). It costs far too much already to go to the movies in OZ (let alone, buy a new DVD or book — both of which are equally outrageous) because the various industries are _already_ putting the screws to consumers! The cost of a 3-D movie ticket should _really_ drive them away in droves.

By: Steve

Steve — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:36:56 +0000

I have seen three 3-D movies. One was just added after the fact, (Nightmare Before Christmas) and another did not add much (Bolt), and not really worth the extra $3 bucks. But a movie like "Meet the Robinsons" I though made a big difference.

And off-subject, how about the next "big thing". I went to KC AMC "Fork and Screen" over the weekend, it's basically an "Applebee's" during the movie. That might be a money maker. Basically, if you are going out to a eat before or after a show, saves time and about the same amount of money. I would not recommend it for a drama or some action movie, but it's a comedy or in my case a kid's flick, it's fun.

By: JM

JM — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 15:58:27 +0000

3D is a gimmick. Until it is used as an integral part of a movie's story, it'll never become more than that.

There are many gimmicks in filmmaking. There's special effects. There's CGI effects. There's gimmicky plot twists. There's interesting cameos. All of those are gimmicks. And yet none of them will make money for a film if they don't improve the film in some significant way. They CAN improve the film, though; special effects and CGI effects can heighten the excitement and/or artistry of a story. A plot twist can make the entire film worth watching (or rewatching). And a cameo can make the film that more fun to watch. But 3D… well, it doesn't really add to the viewing experience. And what is does add is taken away by the higher ticket prices. If a studio spends more on the other gimmickry they add into a film, it doesn't cost us any more. But with 3D, it means more money for a novelty that wears off extremely effing quickly. And those 3D glasses that turn everything blue and red are really effing annoying. There hasn't been any 3D film so far that I wouldn't rather see in 2D format.

By: rattler76

rattler76 — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 12:02:30 +0000

They're trying to push something expensive in bad times.
The numbers mentioned make it very clear, only 1300 3D cinema's out of 40000 in North America alone.

Katzenberg and Lasseter are wrong. There won't a demand big enough to force theatres to upgrade their place.
They don't have the cash for it and neither does the public for the more expensive tickets.

Personally I'd allso have to travel quite a bit to get to a 3D cinema and I just can't be bothered.
No matter how good Avatar might be, 200 million on what is basically just a few theatres worldwide is just a bad gamble.

And what about the allso very important income of DVD sales? Will they try and force us to sit on our sofa's with those silly carboard glasses on?