People Don’t Want 3D Movies

PhotonQ-AVATAR
Image by PhOtOnQuAnTiQuE via Flickr

3D is the future of cinema apparently. I’m not clear exactly when that decision was made, but it seems that Hollywood has made up its mind. In the last couple of years we’ve had more and more movies coming out in 3D, a trend which has culminated with Avatar.

And now there is news that Blu-Ray movies will start coming out in 3D as well so we can experience this in the comfort of our own homes. My question is why?

I don’t mean to dismiss the technical achievement of Avatar, which is clearly substantial, but I can’t help feeling that the move to 3D is driven entirely by money, not storytelling or artistic merit.

There are several reasons why 3D movies are not a good idea currently:

  1. There are at least 4 competing 3D standards
  2. Most cinemas are not capable of playing 3D movies
  3. Shooting a movie in 3D requires special techniques or it is more distracting than anything else
  4. Not everyone is capable of viewing movies in 3D

So with all those problems, why is Hollywood (and the rest of the entertainment industry) pushing so hard for 3D? Well it comes down to money of course. A large part of the entertainment dollar has been siphoned away from cinemas by DVDs, TV and the internet. 3D was something that these outlets couldn’t offer. It gave people a reason to spend $15 or so on the movie ticket and associated snacks. It fed into the idea of movie going as an experience.

Money is also the reason you can now by 3D enabled television sets. People have spent thousands of dollars on big screen TVs and the electronics companies need a big feature in order to persuade them to upgrade again. 3D is the feature they’ve picked.

We are repeatedly told that this is what the viewers want. But do they? In 2008 only 1,400 of the 30,000 screens in the US could actually show 3D movies. In June 2009 there were estimated to be only 5,000 3D screens worldwide.

Avatar is held up as the pinnacle of 3D movie making and it’s been a huge financial success despite the considerable cost. But is that because of the 3D? Well look at the numbers. In the US Avatar has raked in $352,111,000.00 with an average of 3,461 theaters. But most of those theaters will have shown it on multiple screens. Wikipedia reports that it played on some 2,200 3D screens for its midnight showing, and made only $3,537,000.00. The majority of Avatar’s box office came from people viewing this “3D” movie on non-3D screens.

It seems to me that the 3D trend is being driven entirely by companies, not by consumer demand. People don’t hate 3D, but they don’t really want it either. Am I wrong?

Related articles by Zemanta
Posted Sunday, January 3rd, 2010 under Opinion.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

  • Google Blog Search
  • People Don't Want 3D Movies
    by Eoghann Irving
    Add 'People Don't Want 3D Movies' to Del.icio.us Add 'People Don't Want 3D Movies' to digg Add 'People Don't Want 3D Movies' to Stumble Upon Add 'People Don't Want 3D Movies' to Google Bookmarks Add 'People Don't Want 3D Movies' to ...
  • bammargera
    when i see 3 d , most of the times i expect shitty movie
    avatar was succesfull cos the story was good
  • Green-griffin
    Your wrong. I love 3D. it's awesome (most of the time.) and if I could afford it I would deffinately buy a 3D TV good move from the different industries I think.
    and has come far from those blue and red glasses that hurt your eyes.... well mine anyway =)
  • This article got some points but on my personal point of view I'm not convinced to don't try 3D TVs. Everyone wants innovation and new gadgets but that doesn't mean it is perfect.
  • I couldn't agree more on this one. Wanting to see a film in 3D baffles me. I've tried it a few times but, not only is it annoying to have to wear the glasses - over my own glasses as I cannot wear contacts anymore - but the picture quality is degraded as a result of the whole process.

    And is 3D really that important? When people watch plain old 2D films are they confused when one person moves behind another person in 2D space? I think not.

    Some have compared the move to 3D to the move from Black and White to Color movies but color actually does convey more information: Meaningful information. While 3D does technically provide more information to the brain, it's considerably less significant than the color information as our brains are already capable of reconstructing a faux-3D landscape in our minds from the clues in the normal 2D picture.

    I was quite literally having this discussion at lunch today with a co-worker. He was excited that his new Blu-Ray player would be firmware updatable to 3D and a little downbeat that his new TV was not suitable for 3D playback. He's utterly convinced that 3D television will be in everyone's home is a few years, but he couldn't explain why anyone would want it.

    I told him, "the day all TV goes 3D (at least in its present incarnation) is the day I'll finally turn off the TV forever." Perhaps I'm being a luddite, but this seems entirely a manufactured fad by the industry without any real demand from the public.
  • AbbyPenn
    I cant speak for everyone, but I am one of those people that does not want 3D. I have not had a single good experience with it. Not that my experiences with it were 'bad', but i found that the difficulty of maintaining a clear picture and actually seeing what was happening was not worth the minimal 3D effect. In fact, after recently watching a movie in 3D, i found that I had not 'experienced' any of it because I spent the whole time just trying to make sense of the image. I was also extremely disappointed that this very cute little movie was only being shown in 2D at a couple of very inconvenient times. All I want is the choice to see it in 2D.
  • Stacy
    I completely agree with you. Today was my second attempt to see Avatar to no avail. Tried the 3D after everyone said how good it was but I didn't want to see it in 3D because of the past experience I had watching coraline in 3D. I saw Coraline in 2D originally and it felt like it was 3D because of the digital graphics. I personally didn't think the 3D version had anything to offer except a headache. The two other people who saw it with me agreed. Now I tried to see avatar and theaters ACTUALLY don't have it in 2D! Seriously? I am not able to see the movie of the century in the theater because they don't want to show it in 2D???? So...If this trend continues, I am never going to a theater again. I may even just throw my tv out if they start making it for the home too. I think it's all about money and to me it's worthless.
  • Stacy
    My friend and i tried the 3D version against our own judgement but we only lasted 5 minutes. We left and got our money back
  • Yes. You're wrong. :-)
  • I have a feeling you may be a little biased on this one. ;)

    More seriously I don't think that the success of Avatar had much to do with it being in 3D. Most people watching Avatar have seen it in 2D and when people buy it on DVD and Blu-Ray the overwhelming majority will proceed to watch it in 2D.

    3D as currently implemented is a hack at best.
  • Yes I am biased to be sure. However, there is some points to be made here.
    Sure, many people will be seeing AVATAR in 2D and there is nothing wrong
    with that. But from what I hear, 75% of the revenue is coming from 3D, led
    by IMAX. Actually I want people to see AVATAR in 2D first and then hear that
    it is so much better in 3D that they go a second time. This is happening in
    droves. Repeat business is through the roof and I can guarantee you it is 3D
    that folks will be seeing their second and subsequent shows in, not 2D. Why?
    Because the 3D version is much better. It is that simple. I have seen both
    and the difference is amazing.

    Your timing regarding 3D home entertainment couldn't be better. With CES
    2010 opening up in Vegas - you will hear about the exploding 3D home
    entertainment market and how big companies (Sony for example) are betting
    the bank on S3D. Sure they can watch AVATAR in 2D at home. But they can and
    will have the option, this year, of watching it in 3D. It is now just a
    question of family budgets vs. the cost. That's all.

    So 3D as a hack? Hardly. Blu-ray has their 3D specification. HDMI has
    theirs. It is happening THIS year. No hack. Heck there isn't even going to
    be a format war. They have all agreed to agree. Take that one to the bank.

    Cinematic 3D choices? Good for the industry. RealD is big in America, Xpand
    does well in Europe. No bother! The average consumer doesn't care.

    I am amazed there are still some world is flat types out there :-)
  • John Ten
    I hate 3D, period. Hate it. The brightness is like 1/4 of the 2D. I have to constantly squint to make out the dark areas. Also, I am 1-eye nearsighted.

    Because I'm 1-eye, I never wear glasses because I always forget since I see perfect every morning I wake up. After 20 years, I don't wear glasses at all. So to watch 3D, I have to fish out my old glasses, just wearing that alone gives me nausea. Since I promised 3 of the missionary kids to watch Avatar in 3D, I went ahead since I already enjoyed the 2D immensely prior. I had the worst 2.5hrs of pain, nausea, dark, dark movie experiences ever. The only thing I remember is when he came out of the water, for a brief couple of seconds, I said Wow, that's cool in 3D.

    I would never watch 3D ever again. I'm a big 3D fan because in the late 1990's, I have a special adapter that can stereo vision out and split left and right eye using i-Glasses technology. I still got bunch of those videos from the late 90's of 3D home videos I recorded. So I am just as big of a techno geek fan as anyone out there.

    So I hope I give in just how horrible these experiences are. Watching my home brewed 3D videos on CRT monitor was so much comfortable to watch because I can sit up close to the TV without having to wear normal glasses, just the 3D glasses. In the theatre because of the distance, I don't have a choice not to wear the normal glasses. If I get contact lens, I might consider it but it's big inconvenience and the cost involved to get the contacts just for these movies and paying premium while you're at it at the box office.

    My 0.02.
  • Ok - didn't know you had a personal issue with 3D. I know some do but not
    many.

    I believe there will always be a 2D counterpart to 3D releases.

    On brightness, no, it is more like 3/5 as bright. Light is lost as it is
    split between the eyes, but then the brain merges the images together and
    some brightness is re-attained. Projection companies are working on that
    issue right now and hope to have the situation solved soon.

    Would prescription 3D glasses help in your case? I am not exactly sure about
    what condition you are describing.
blog comments powered by Disqus