A couple of weeks back I wrote an Advocate where I talked about the coming storm for 3D: a flood of post-production conversion movies. These films were shot in 2D and made 3D through technological gimmickry in post; it’s cheaper and easier to do this, on average, than to actually do the work required to shoot in 3D. It’s still exceptionally expensive, especially when done on the quick, but it’s so much easier than asking directors to learn to shoot in new ways. And, should the 3D boom bust (as it will), not shooting in 3D means a studio isn’t stuck with a stereoscopic boondoggle.
Since I wrote that first Advocate, things have changed, and they’ve changed in ways that prove my beliefs. First, 3D ticket prices were jacked way up. Second, I saw the post-converted Clash of the Titans in 3D.
Prices rose this past weekend, buoying the box office takes of How to Train Your Dragon and Alice in Wonderland. 3D screens were always more expensive (a reality that Avatar boosters don’t like looking at when confronted with the idea that the movie’s record-breaking total should have an asterisk next to it), but they got pricier by up to 3 bucks. It’s a simple price gouge – exhibitors saw that people were willing to pay more for a 3D ticket and now they’re seeing how much more they’ll pay. My local theater’s Digital 3D screening of How to Train Your Dragon is a 15 dollar ticket; it’s even pricier to see it in IMAX.
Fifteen bucks is a lot of money. If you don’t live in a major market your ticket price is probably lower (and if you live in New York it’s probably higher), but the point remains that a 3D movie costs more than a 2D movie – by quite a bit. By an amount that really adds up when you’re bringing your family of four to the theater. By an amount that’s noticeable, and that’s going to have people looking at their 3D movies with a critical eye.
Not that critical of an eye. The fact that Alice in Wonderland – a film that is rancid as both cinema and as a 3D experience – is doing so well proves that the general movie audience remains as easily duped as ever. The quality of the film has never mattered much to the general audience, something anyone who watches box office learned long ago. But the quality of the 3D will begin mattering to them very soon.
Maybe as soon as next week. While I thought Alice in Wonderland had simply wretched, barely-there 3D, Clash of the Titans manages to top that with 3D that swings wildly from barely there (taking your glasses off during the film resulted in only a slightly fuzzy – but much brighter – image) to atrociously rendered. Post-conversion creates pop-up book 3D, where everything is a flat plane that is separated from other flat planes, offering illusory depth, but Clash takes that to the next level. Some characters, apparently in an attempt to give their forms depth, exist on multiple planes – sometimes the front of Zeus’ head appears to be three feet before the back of his head. Director Louis Leterrier flew all over the world to get impressive backgrounds for the epic, but in post-converted 3D many of these landscapes are ruined, with the planes being all over the place. In other scenes where the camera moves around a foreground object the object itself seems to be morphing as the planes are shifted to maintain a 3D image.
It’s a goddamn disaster, frankly. I keep talking to people who simply took their glasses off for most of the movie – while the image was fuzzy it wasn’t as bad as it looked through the glasses, which made the entire film look like it was shot through the dusty rear windshield of a Dodge Dart left in a garage for six years. I’m almost hesitant to review the film because I can’t tell which of my problems with it stem from the movie and which stem from being irritated by the presentation the entire time.
But once people drop 15 bucks to see Clash of the Titans in 3D they’re going to begin wondering why they’re throwing away good money when it’s playing in 2D for five fewer dollars in the theater next door. In a lot of ways the hike in prices and the rush to post-convert – expect a dozen such films this year – are creating a perfect storm of self-destruction for the exhibitors and the studios alike. I think the studios could get away with shitty post-conversion if ticket prices remained reasonable, and I think exhibitors could get away with a price hike if every movie used 3D like Avatar, Coraline or How to Train Your Dragon. But when you put the two together it’s a mess waiting to happen.
I won’t be sorry to see 3D sunk by the greed and stupidity of Hollywood; I think it’s a gimmick and even when used well isn’t that interesting beyond the most base spectacle level. I will say that Clash of the Titans is the first 3D movie I’ve seen where I want to see it at home, in 2D, because I’d like to give the film a second chance without the wounds Warner Bros has inflicted upon it.
In the meantime, keep an eye out for general audience dissatisfaction in the coming months. Over the last three decades Hollywood has learned the trick of getting these people into theaters on opening weekend; I think they’ve finally overextended themselves and will find that their old marketing gags won’t work anymore come 2012.





42 comments
Does 3D cost more to see, yes… but not alot more…
Saturday night showing of Alice here in Milwaukee
Regular Ticket – 12.50
3D Ticket – 14.50
2 bucks Devin… 2 bucks
wow…….14.50 to see a movie!? glad i don't live in milwaukee……….
18.00 for 3D IMAX in New York.
10.50 dollars 2D in New York.
An Imax 3d showing of How to Train Your Dragon set me back $48 for 2 adults and a kid. That's the last time i do that.
I also think the 3D television "revolution" will bust as well. Everybody's fresh off of spending 2k on a HD tv, they're not gonna go back out and spend 3k on a 3D tv AND 85 to 100 dollars for frickin' GLASSES.
Oh good fucking CHRIST. 2.6 Billion dollars and counting. Let's say, for arguments sake, that 3D tickets cost twice what normal tickets do. They don't, not nearly, bit let's pretend.Take that away from
the total, factoring in that a lot if straight 2D tickets were sold, and you still have a movie which has grossed as much as Titanic. And changed the game, totally. Again you bleat about 'gimmicks'. Shooting in 3D is the ONLY way the evolution has legs, as Cameron and Bay both pointed out. Swallow your reedy hatred and look on the bright side. Clash will likely kill the retrofit 3D nonsense. This is a good thIng.
I was at that ArcLight screening last night and my issues weren't so much with the 3D as they were with the dim print as seen through the glasses. 3D films usually get brightened up since audiences will be watching 'em through 3D shades. This didn't happen for the Clash print last night but Warners better get it right for the theatrical release. The whole film looked like it was darkened a stop or two.
#6 3D is a gimmick. you are dumb. it will be over within 3 years. End.
PS It's awesome how this site doesn't care or acknowledge there is a problem with their shitty verifcation. Way to run a for-profit website and not give a shit.
They don't acknowledge the problem with the verification because Chud hates us. Devin no one gives a shit about 3D, go back to your hysterical rants about Kevin Smith.
How does your clearly unbiased opinion that the 3D in Clash of the Titans sucks "prove" your own half-baked theory about the inevitable death of 3D? In other words, your subjective opinion is proved correct by…your subjective opinion. Dubya would be proud.
Let us not forget Beowulf. And you had.
Oh and I really enjoyed your thought provoking article, Dev. You da man, sire!
Sounds like the foil glossy multi cover comicbook collapse of the '90s all over again.
We'd made it a few days without mentioning the white whale. Glad to see it back. No I'm not. But Avatar is the good side of the 3D equation and this retrofit process for films never intended by the director to be 3D is the really bad side. It is a gouge by studios and exhibitors and I think it will bite them in the ass. But there's cash to be had and studios are panting at the take from Alice and Avatar. Plus a lot of money has been invested in new screens with high hopes for capturing those premium ticket buyers. I'll save my cash and see Clash in 2D, thanks.
You should see it again in 2D in a few weeks and do another review. At leasts an entry on Year of Livind OCD.
I agree w/ Dev here. Every word.
Stupid Hollywood. Theater attendance has actually gone up in recent years and then they turn around and gouge the living hell out of the audience.
I know that I for one will only see the 3D version if it was actually filmed (or animated) in 3D and if I see in reviews that the film uses it well.
Devin – two points. 1) If you expect to review a film by seeing it for the first time in 3D instead of 2D, then it's you who is the asshole. See it for the first time in 2D and judge it's merits as a film, then see if 3D enhances or detracts from that in any way. 2) Do you really think Hollywood gives a shit about sustaining 3D for the next 20 years? Like everything else, they will rape and plunder it for all it's worth while it's hot and relevant; once it becomes the tired old whore they will kick it out the door without even giving it cab fare home, in favor of the next big thing. But they will still make billions on it between now and then. These two points make your article a useless waste of energy, seconded only by my typing this shit.
Everything Devin says angers me and I'm gonna take it out on my anime body pillow!!!! (I'm only bluffing baby, I won't hurt you…)
#18, while I don't totally agree with Devin, I think it is unfair to tell him that judging the film based on the 3D run is unfair. The studio is pushing the fact that this film is 3D on the general audience. They delayed the film a week to do this. The advertising is clear that it is also available for the few purists out there who are out of touch with the rest of the world. If they were marketing this as a 2D movie with a few special 3D showings, then you would have a point, but Warner Bros. has marketed this as a 3D film.
As for the gimmick itself, I think Avatar did the best job with the 3D and some of the animated films have been good. Still, this conversion process is nonsense and it has to go. We don't need 3D to tell a good story and the technology isn't there to truly make a jump into 3D anyways. A well shot 2D movie has depth and richness and the brain processes that well enough. Most of the true depth of the shot is lost in 3D films.
In Australia its about $17.00 for a 2D and $20 for a 3D so to me $15 doesn't sound too bad. However something weird happens when the lights go down. The audience actually goes quiet and nobody uses their phone and everyone watches the movie.
#20, my problem with this whole thing is this quote from the article: "I'm almost hesitant to review the film because I can't tell which of my problems with it stem from the movie and which stem from being irritated by the presentation the entire time. " Seeing a film for the first time is a special thing that can only happen once; influences not related to the the actual film that alter the experience cannot be undone. Devin is not a sheeple being led by the advertising; he's an insider. He KNOWS the film was shot in 2D and converted to 3D in a shitty marketing decision. Thus, he should have avoided the 3D until having seen the film in 2D first, as it was shot and originally intended, IMHO. Review the film as a film, then go back and add that the 3D sucks and adds no value. Based on his statement, I will not trust any further reviews of this movie from him. And that is a slippery slope for someone in his occupation to travel down.
There's something about all the trolls on these boards that are constantly shrieking about how pathetic Devin's obsessive hatred of Avatar, Kevin Smith, etc. is that seems…oh, I don't know…pathetic? Thanks for speaking yr mind Dev, whether or not I agree with it.
Devin, was there even a 2D screening available, or did you have no choice but to see it in craptacular 3D?
cant wait for arrogant know it all Devin to be completely wrong yet again. Yust as he often is about almost everything.
And Avatar should have an asterix next to it? Goog God man, get over your Avatar jihad and grow the fuck up ypu pathetic cunt.
Nevermind that you neatly neglect the fact that by far most people around the world saw it in 2D as there are nt that many 3D screens worldwide. That it also says something that people were willing tom pay the higher price, and pay it several times as any movie can only make almost 2.6 Billion with REPEAT business. And finally, while yes its important to note the higher 3D ticket prices, we also need to note that the overall cinema going audiance has been dwindling for years. How many people over a certain age go to the cinema often, or even at all anymore? Ever since Hollywood started gearing almost all its films to younger audiences thanks to Star Wars
If we HAVE to acknowledge the higher ticket prices, then so too do we have to acknowledge the radically different entertainment market of today.
But of course why should we let facts get in the way of what Devin need to believe so that he can sleep at night without waking up in a cold sweat because a film he hates made by a directer he has declared jihad against has become the biggest grosser of all time.
Really fat man? you really need to somehow believe that Avatar's successo somehow was nt real because it should have an asterix next to it? fucking pathetic……you really are the quintessential internet fanboy, and the reason the mainstream makes fun of fandom, and thinks we are all insular, anal retentive, socially retarded losers. Way to go Devin!
Who even wants to be the one to predict when a new innovation will collapse? You're so much a useless bitter dickhead these days, a good talent of writing wasted in narcissism and old man shaking your first at the newfangled way things are changing. Some of us like to watch movies and find a way to be entertained by them. Even if the technology isn't perfect, it's an exciting step in the right direction. You're more concerned with being right and arguing about how much Avatar did/did not make. It's irrelevant to movies, completely and totally. And you whine about people that run non-stories. Go spend time fixing your piece of shit verification system.
I"m sure if Devin got a set visit to Clash of the Titans…well, we all know the rest.
Remember when Alice in Wonderland killed 3D before it went on to gross over $300 million?
It doesn't take a genius to see that the retrofit 3D thing is not going to be anything more than a fad, and once the tit is dry Hollywood will let it go. Stereoscopic 3D is here to stay. BTW i'm a patient man but either fix the fucking message boards or make an announcement as to why they aren't working, just from a customer-service point of view
@southafricanguy why don't you give the keyboard a rest and go be seperate and equal or some shit. Devin you are a scholar and a prophet my good man keep up the good work.
@ #25
There actually are a lot more 3D screens worldwide than you think. I work for the company that provides the movie showtime info to moviefone, movietickets.com, yahoo, hollywood.com, etc. I cover a couple regions outside the US and I can assure you, the major movie markets, Latin America and Europe, have 3D screens in nearly every major movie house.
The amount of 3D screens in Latin America alone easily outnumbers the US, so factor in Europe, Asia, Australia and that's a ton of 3D screens. Now add the fact that the euro and british pound are valued higher than the US $, and that ticket prices in many parts of Europe are higher than in the US and you've got a pretty fucking big asterisk right there. Yes, without it Avatar would have still raked in more dough than Titanic, but probably a billion less than it did.
And I still don't understand people who defend 3D so passionately. It's funny to me, you know how people talk about movies: quoting them, mentioning favorite parts, etc. Everyone I hear talking about Avatar just talks about the 3D, not the movie (except the poking fun at "I see you"*hand gesture*), people who saw Alice in Wonderland, the same thing. "Well the 3D was okay/good/meh." Is this happening to other people's social circles?
3D gets in the way of the movie IMO.
as long as they keep pumping out 200+ mill. due to ticket prices, 3D will not die.. if 3D TVs don't catch on, than dvd sales may take a hit, since these 3D movies have 2D story development so far. 3D will be the drug necessary to endure such mediocre futures -_-
@#21: "The audience actually goes quiet and nobody uses their phone and everyone watches the movie." — Wait, what's this about? You mean at a 3D movie, because of the glasses and price-point, people actually stop fucking about and watch the movie? That's actually a point I haven't heard raised before. Clash: I'm tempted to see it as described…on LSD…
Is it too soon for the advent of WHINY-D technology? Incessant, know-nothing talk-backers would indicate otherwise.
@ #27 did you not actually read the review or this site???? he did a set visit report AND mentioned it in this review… unbelievable some people here.
and i believe critic screenings for movies that have been converted are always in 3D. it's up to the reviewer if they want to wait and pay for for the 2D showing (thus giving us a review later than we'd like and also not of the product being sold to us).
"In the meantime, keep an eye out for general audience dissatisfaction in the coming months. Over the last three decades Hollywood has learned the trick of getting these people into theaters on opening weekend; I think they've finally overextended themselves and will find that their old marketing gags won't work anymore come 2012"
What if the above quote from DEVIN doesn't pan out that way and the general public still continues to pump $$$ into seeing just any old movie converted to 3-D??? Then what??? The above quote and rant from DEVIN will have been a waste of time and that it'll show the public is easily pleased unlike website movie nerds..
Yep, agreed. Bad movies that are just okay, even if a good 3D presentation, will sour the filmgoers with their price. When those films hit the home market and all their vast story faults show in 2D future theater sales will start to plummet. Even the few with home 3D setups will sour on the experience with their poor setups – bad lighting and smallish (for 3D) screens. 3D will have some decent films, but its own bloat will kill it.
I can't wait for Chud's next series, "The Long, Slow Death of Devin Faraci's Credibility."
I love that photo of the guy eating pizza in the theater.
18.50 (or 28 dollars) per ticket in Londons leicester Sq odeon (for Alice') an absoulte rip off! Terrible film too. Seeing as it was the missus' birthday guess who got stuck paying for both tickets?!?!?!?!
How long before Lucas/Spielberg/Ted Turner start up the crusade to 3D-ifize older/classic films in the interest of making them more relevant to current audiences?
This article truly sums up the sentiment I had towards my first (and consequently last) 3D cinema experience – Avatar.
I thought I owed it to myself to give it a shot, despite the hypewagon. It was a woeful film which flowed predictably from cliche to cliche, while the edge of the screen were in a constant blurry state. The 3D sequences were interesting for the first 30 minutes or so but after that were overshadowed by the groan-tastic story.
Someone tried to sell me on the idea of 3D TV's in a retail store this past week. I laughed at him while I debunked it and walked out with a heavily discounted 54" plasma.
Personally I'd like to see my next TV not as a 3D one, but one of those Visio 21:9 cinema aspect panels (or something equivalent). I think a 21:9 TV would be a much better home theatre experience.
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.