3D, Anecdotally

3D in a movie doesn't really add much to me, but now that I have it on my TV it does seem to be a better fit for gaming in my case.

It's like this D-Box thing, I haven't tried it yet (for a full film) but 3D and motion seem more appropriate for thrill rides, not movies that last 2 hours.

Personally, i am staying away from 3D from now onwards. The specs are unconfortable and the experience doesn't do anything for me. I find it a little distracting to tell the truth.

From what i hear from my friends in Singapore, they tend to stay away from the 3D format unless its a properly 3D shot film like "TRON LEGACY".

As someone who's worked in 3D conversion  (Gulliver's Travels, Thor & Captain America) I can't defend it, but I can say that a lot of hard work goes into it.  Besides all that, it's still a gimmick and as long as the studios think that extra money is going to be made, then they will keep it up.  The funny thing is that when given the time, some great work can come from this. Titanic for example looks amazing so far.

 But I do feel that with the advancement of 3D cameras, all it's going to take is a few bad films in the conversion department to just shut everything down.

As far as I know, Sherlock Holmes: Game Of Shadows and Alvin wont be in 3D

Some films on the 3D front for next year, 

Star Wars Ep1

Titanic

Abe Lincoln Vampire Hunter

Spider-Man

The Avengers

Is SHERLOCK HOLMES in 3D? I had no idea. Personally I can't stand it but if we're speaking anecdotally, I work at a cinema and for every 1 customer I get saying they like 3D I'll get 20 saying it's pointless, waste of money etc. They tend to volunteer it themselves when I ask if they're watching the 2D or 3D showing of a certain film. It's been such a breath of fresh air each time this year when there's been a big film that's only in 2D. 

Have we had a confirmed 3D flop? Sure individual 3D movies have flopped, that's just movie making, but has the decision to add 3D to one ever lead to a net loss? It's hard for us plebs to know, but I doubt it. As a quick calculation: if 3D up-conversion costs about $100m, and a film is due a $100m box office then you just need 50% 3D seats and a 20% 3D margin to break even. That sounds totally achievable.

Anecdotally, yes, it seems most people dislike 3D. If there's a choice in my multiplex most the smaller screens showing 2D sell out and the bigger screens showing 3D are half empty. But I think we're at an equilibrium now. 3D films being made at the moment make their additional cost back, so we're sadly going to get years of films blighted by it. That means 3D for all CGI animated films, most blockbusters, and a steady trickle of 3D kids and gimmick films.

3D being forced on the Hobbit, but the Dark Knight Rises/Suckerpunch being 2D probably give you an idea of where the line is at the moment. 2D for particular director's visions or for just short of blockbuster releases like Suckerpunch, other big films will be 3D.

I have a new but strict "killer aquatic life only" 3D policy. I might bend my policy for slasher films.

My twin niece and nephew, godblessem, 17 years old and refuse to go see 3D movies if they can avoid it.

The problem with the latest wave of 3-D is that it's too pretentious and afraid to be the gimmick that it should be*. I've gone through three generations of 3-D, and I'm all but done with this latest round.

* As in past threads, I know someone will invariably come out with a few lone examples (My Bloody Valentine, for instance) where 3-D was used in a fun, gimmicky way. Unfortunately, for every one of those examples, we have ten "immersive experiences"....

I love watching (and shooting) 3D, but I hate how the industry has been selling it. It's inexcusable, this late in the game, that major productions that have been announced as 3D releases are still being shot 'flat' and then post-converted,* as if 3D could only be achieved through some sort of magic high-tech process instead of being the natural result of binocular photography. I hear people using the terms '3D' and 'digital FX' interchangeably and it drives me nuts.

And I'm repeating myself from posts made elsewhere on the boards, but the industry doesn't much care whether YOU like 3D. This boom is, ultimately, all about getting theatre owners to convert from 35mm projectors to digital.

*No offense intended to MoonBaseNick and his hardworking roto-mates. Demand for post-conversion has clearly created a lot of work in Hollywood, and the job on Captain America was excellent, aside from the 'trapped' background figures in Schmidt's hood ornament and Bucky's disappearing ear in that scene at the expo.

It's like any other moviemaking tool: Case by case basis. Anything shot proper in 3D tends to be pretty great. Post-conversions on animation works wonders (Nightmare Before Christmas is a prime example of every hype statement made about the format). Guys like Lucas and Cameron have the time and infinite wellspring of money to be meticulous. Occasionally, there's anomalies like the Harry Potter flicks and Captain America that work. Past that? Whatever. It's there for spectacle, and Ive yet to run into a showing of a film in 3D I couldn't avoid if I had no interest, or a film that looked like runny goat shit to begin with let alone in 3D. That choice has always prevented me from having the boiling hatred for the format some do. I know it's mostly a principle thing, but voting with my wallet and with the direction of my eyeballs has always been more effective. And as it stands, i can already spot 4 or 5 films in those listed I'd gladly blow the extra dollars to do in 3D (The Lion King and Phantom Menace primarily). The rest, im not entirely sure I'd want to see if it was 2D. So, why waste a perfectly good aneurysm?

All CGI animated movies look amazing in 3D, but so far I've only seen four live action films that really benefited from it: Avatar, Resident Evil 4, Tron 2 and G-Force. It either has to be completely gimmicky (Resident) or impressively immersive (Avatar) to really add something for me. Still, I prefer the latter as a bunch of gimmicks tend to make them become fair attractions. Like Terminator 3D the ride. That may be fun, but that's not a movie.

From your list, I'll see

Shark Night 3D

The Lion King (re-release)

Piranha 3DD

The Adventures Of Tintin

in 3D

The Darkest Hour
in 2D

Next year has

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter
Brave*
Clash of the Titans 2
Dredd
Frankenweenie
Ghost Rider 2*
Hansel and Gretel
Hotel Transylvania

Ice Age 4
Jack, the Giant Killer
John Carter
Journey 2
King of Elves
Life of Pi
Madagascar 3
Men in Black 3
Monsters Inc 2
Prometheus*
Resident Evil 5*
Rob Zombies Halloween 3
Star Wars Episode 1*
Texas Chainsaw Massacre 5*
The Amazing Spider-Man*
The Hobbit part 1*
The Pirates
TItanic*
Total Recall
Underworld 4
*these I'll see in 3D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Myers 

All CGI animated movies look amazing in 3D, but so far I've only seen four live action films that really benefited from it: Avatar, Resident Evil 4, Tron 2 and G-Force.

It's worth noting that three of those films shot their live-action in genuine stereo. IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE, PEOPLE.

And responding to Justin: If there was one movie this year where the choice to shoot in 3D was absolutely justified based on the subject matter, it was Cave of Forgotten Dreams.

Drive Angry had some pretty impressive 3D.   The fact that it was shot natively does make a difference.   One small shot in Drive Angry drove this home with a simple pan across some headlights on a car.   You can actually see the curvature on the lights that would have totally been missed with post conversion.   That and no ghosting makes me a purist when it comes to seeing only natively shot 3D.

My fear is that bad conversions will (if they haven't already) sour audiences on the format before they can learn to appreciate true stereo.

Drive Angry boasted it was shot in 3D, really looked no better than Piranha to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hammerhead 

My fear is that bad conversions will (if they haven't already) sour audiences on the format before they can learn to appreciate true stereo.

It's bad conversion mixed in with higher ticket prices that will kill it.. Hollywood is kind of slow to react on certain things.  The conversion studio that I used to work for has enough work that will last them into the middle of next year. So it's still alive a kicking.   The next phase in 3D is going to come from is the conversion of older films for either a re-release in theaters or just to sell some 3D Blu Rays.

I can't wait to see the Hobbit, I'm just not going to see it in 3D.  Even Life of Pie was shot in stereo. I have no idea why.

Ice Age 4
Jack, the Giant Killer
John Carter
Journey 2
King of Elves
Life of Pi
Madagascar 3
Men in Black 3
Monsters Inc 2
Prometheus*
Resident Evil 5*
Rob Zombies Halloween 3
Star Wars Episode 1*
Texas Chainsaw Massacre 5*
The Amazing Spider-Man*