Has the 3D bubble burst?

[SpacePhoenix]

There is a story in one of the newspapers (Movie fans fed up with 3D cinema prices opt for traditional 2D screenings | Mail Online) that people are getting fed up with the prices of 3D films in the cinema. Will anyone still watch 3D films by the time that Avatar 2 comes out (assuming it's still 2014 for that film)?

[exostrike]

While I wouldn't look at the daily mail much, they are ultimately right (even if this story isn't that new).

The problem is two fold. Firstly many 3D movies (or should I say £D) haven't really used the 3D well, there has been many a slapped on 3D effect with actual effect on screen. This is I suspect the problem of still inexperienced film maker, scripts written in a 2D mindset (by which they view the film as a normal film with some added bits of something pointing towards the camera), and half done projects being turned into 3D at the orders of executives.

The second part of the problem is the price differences between 3D and 2D screenings of films. When you are paying signifiantly more for a 3D experience that does WOW you, eventually your going to ask whether or not theres any point in seeing it in 3D. Especially if your cash strapped because of the economy and the government making you pay more tax. The film industry saw 3D as a way to save the cinema and pushed it heavily, leading to people cashing in on it.

Ultimately if the 3D bubble does burst if think that 3D will stick around, it might not be as massive as it is now, but providing there is still films that use 3D effectively it won't disappear. Eventually people will get the hang of the technolgy and then 3D will become standard, just in time for them to be replaced with holograms!

[ScottWashburn]

I hope it has burst! I hate 3D! I saw Avatar about 12 times in the theater. Once in 3D and that was enough. Toward the end of its run, I had to search out theaters that were showing it in 2D.

['itan Ateyo]

The only 3D movies I saw and actually liked the 3D aspect of were Avatar and Tron. I think there has been a lot of 'cheap' 3D post-processed affairs that were obviously just thrown in to get more money and cash-in on the 3D craze.

A lot of times, the 3D is simply not worth the hit on brightness/picture-quality and the up-charge. The big studios are actually killing 3D by releasing all these poor excuses of 3D cinema and creating the general impression that all 3D is created equal. Avatar 2 will be in 3D, and I have no doubt it will be an amazing immersive experience.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

Avatar 3D is in a category all it's own,as it was shot with real 3D cameras,and not a conversion like 90% of the 3D films out there. Avatar 3D is also quite different from all other 3D films,in that the 3D effects are used to enhance the story,are very subtle,and a lot of the effect is also only used at key moments,so it is not in your face. i also love the 2D just as much as the 3D,which is unique. i'm sure that i am not the only person that is getting a 3D television (eventually,price of course) strictly for Avatar 3D,as i could care less about 3D sports,animated kids films,and 99% of 3D films out there.

i would like to see a 3D version of The Abyss.

[prowler]

Since i only seen one 3d movie i can't really say how 3d is.. But far as i know 3D can be improved alot

[allrock123]

Like others have said James Cameron and John Landau put a huge amont to work into developing a 3D camera system that can film perspective correct 3D and then scripted and structured the film around what works for the 3D format, film makers who dont do the research and film 3D in such a way as its not perspective correct or use it to throw objects in your face will "Kill" the format as 3D improves with much higher framerates and directors that make effort to learn how to use the format with in a artistic manor like Martin Scorsese did with "Hugo" I think there will allways be a place for 3D, I am not saying all films should be 3D and that the locked stereo space all current 3D films have wont have to be improved apon. with new projectors that can project both the right and left eyes at the same time and much higher framerates coming there should be a big improvement in ease of viewing and image judder elimation.

[Wameyn]

Avatar 3D is in a category all it's own,as it was shot with real 3D cameras,and not a conversion like 90% of the 3D films out there. Avatar 3D is also quite different from all other 3D films,in that the 3D effects are used to enhance the story,are very subtle,and a lot of the effect is also only used at key moments,so it is not in your face. i also love the 2D just as much as the 3D,which is unique. i'm sure that i am not the only person that is getting a 3D television (eventually,price of course) strictly for Avatar 3D,as i could care less about 3D sports,animated kids films,and 99% of 3D films out there.

i would like to see a 3D version of The Abyss.

I'm with you Jak...Id rather watch most films in 2D and save 3D for films truly worth it like Avatar...I've only seen a handful of films in 3D and Avatar was awesome and Transformers 3D looked cool, I bought both of them in 3D for the new tv I have but for the most part I don't care to watch 3D at home or at the cinema. Redoing cartoons in 3D seems like a joke, I went and watched Lion King and it was a lame attempt.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

thanks for posting the video,allrock. i love seeing Avatar videos and JC,and now i want to see Avatar 3D again. *sighs and throws some change in my 3D television piggybank*

[RD-701]

I think 3D has been turned into a pretty annoying gimmick. You've got some film, people convert it to 3D, it becomes all washed out and dim and difficult to watch, and then people basically sell it as "Here's a completely mediocre, unremarkable, slightly boring film. IN 3D!!!!!!!11!1!111!!".

Now, I can't really compare Avatar, since I unfortunately never saw it in 3D (or the big screen), but from what I gather reading comments here and elsewhere that it was really filmed around the 3D technology, and the 3D really added to the film. But not all 3D is necessarily done as well, or done in a way that is positive for the viewing experience at all. 3D is a technology (at least in present, this may change as technology advances) that is more limited than colour, and to some films (and not others, like Avatar, which are meant to be highly visually exciting films) it really doesn't add a lot, so it perhaps isn't appropriate, even if done well.

I think in addition to the fact that 3D has become a gimmick, there's a big follow-the-leader-effect after Avatar (Avatar was good, Avatar grossed over 2 billion dollars, so if we slap 3D onto Shrek 18 just like we apparently think they did with Avatar, then it's bound to be a success!).

I just hope that by 2016 people (and theatres) aren't so sick of paying higher prices for washed out, badly done, gimmick 3D, that they won't bother with a 3D Avatar sequel. But we'll see. Maybe Avatar 2 will cement 3D as a filmmaking tool and not primarily a marketing one.