5 years then it's all 3D?

Gonzo_Entertainment said:
Most people I talk to are ALREADY getting to the "3D, yawn who cares" stage with this current fad. Hollywoood WANTS 3D to sell tickets, but I persoanllly think it has already pretty much started to fade.
Click to expand...

That's probably true. But I'll betcha a certain sequel will knock everyone's socks off, in about 3 years. ;)
 
I don't know, guys.

Smurfs 3D is undoubtedly going to be a much better experience than regular 2D.



for those of you who don't know me, I'M JUST KIDDING


True dat, Cracker Funk!
 
No doubt. There will be big FX driven movies that take advantage of it. Making going to the movies an 'event". That's the role 3D is SUPPOSED to have. A gmmick, that used correctly, can turn an otherwise complete steaming hunk of shit (like Avatar) into an "experience" that everybody wants to have. You just can't go down that road too often or people start to say "This isn't an "event", it's just another movie".
 
Cracker Funk said:
That's probably true. But I'll betcha a certain sequel will knock everyone's socks off, in about 3 years. ;)
Click to expand...

I have no doubts that AVATAR 2 and 3 will do very well in the theaters in 3D and rightfully so - they are going to be spectacles that utilize the format. How does that translate into sales for 3DTV and whole networks broadcasting in 3D for everything? How does that make a low budget 3D indie film successful?

I guess other than the obvious plug for James Cameron, I don't see how it relates to the topic.
 
sonnyboo said:
How are the masses going to afford 3D being 5x-10x more expensive for players and TV's when they won't even buy Blu Rays at 20% more expensive? I think this hypothesis on economics is contrary to the realities of retail, but I who knows?
Click to expand...

This. ^^^^^^

As much as the folks in charge of these things want to sell 3-D, the fact is that it will be some time before at-home 3-D display tech is affordable to the masses. The state of the economy is only partially to blame. Hell, it's been almost 20 years since the first time I logged onto a UNIX server connected to the internet, and we still don't have 100% of households in the US with internet access. Also note the dramatic difference between the "access" and "broadband" numbers for 2010.

http://www.internetworldstats.com/am/us.htm

William Gibson said:
The future is here, it's just not evenly distributed.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
sonnyboo said:
I have no doubts that AVATAR 2 and 3 will do very well in the theaters in 3D and rightfully so - they are going to be spectacles that utilize the format. How does that translate into sales for 3DTV and whole networks broadcasting in 3D for everything? How does that make a low budget 3D indie film successful?

I guess other than the obvious plug for James Cameron, I don't see how it relates to the topic.
Click to expand...

I think it was at least somewhat related. I mean, I've already agreed with you and most other people, in saying that the craze will most likely die-down, quickly. But, like I've said before, I think it'll stick around, and those movies that use it well (like Pixar and Dreamworks animation, and "Avatar") will continue to be successful with it. I'm just saying it's not gonna disappear, like so many people on this thread have argued.

Yes, it was an obvious plug, and a bit of an aside, though.

To contribute to the conversation between you and LFO -- LFO, though I agree with your sentiment in so many other threads, I personally would not invest any of my time or money (both of which are sparse) in 3D. I'll leave that to the big boys, especially considering that there really haven't been any successful live action 3D movies, unless you count "Avatar". They've all been crap, and people are wisening up to that. And nobody wants to wear those stupid glasses in their household. I think any hypothetical widespread proliferation of this technology is more than a few years off.

Gonzo, I disagree with you, but I'm pretty sure you're not Hitler (sorry, quoting Jon Stewart is the only thing I can think to do right now, to keep this conversation from getting all Avatar'd). ;)
 
Things get cheaper. I remember when DVD players cost like £150, now you can get one for £30. Blu-Ray is getting cheaper as well. It's the basic rules of supply and demand, whilst demand is low supply will be low and prices will be high, the higher the demand the cheaper the prices will get.

I really don't think that 3D can conquer the world unless they make a way to watch it without the glasses. I have no scientific knowledge, but that feels kind of difficult.

As for Avatar/Smurfs, they are making a new Smurfs movie. A.) I wonder whether it will be in 3D, B.) I wonder if James Cameron will sue...
 
That South Park episode was fantastic- it was like Cartman was inside my head, feeding off my thoughts and fears...

Katy Perry is in the Smurfs movie. Might brave 3D to see it...
 
Gonzo_Entertainment said:
I have the cheapest $99 Blu Ray player you can buy.
Click to expand...

Yes, the players have become very affordable. I just need that 65" 1080P TV to go with it. :lol: Eventually, I will, when things pick up. The thing is, many people (even those buying HD TVs from Wal-Mart) are quite satisfied with DVD quality. It still looks great.

HD will be everywhere, eventually. I don't know if it will be Blu-ray. It might be the drive based format (next gen Ipod type system) that takes off - full HD quality and your whole library that you can take with you and plug into any TV.
 
sonnyboo said:
How are the masses going to afford 3D being 5x-10x more expensive for players and TV's when they won't even buy Blu Rays at 20% more expensive? I think this hypothesis on economics is contrary to the realities of retail, but I who knows?

Maybe 3D is here to stay. I will concede that this is the first time I've seen studios and manufacturers push a product line this hard in a long time. It's a very fast conversion, but the consumers have not dived in head first. If they don't in the next 18 months, I doubt this trend will last. I don't know. It's hard to say.

3D may or may not be the future of indie film. I'd say it's less likely to happen, but not impossible. Everyone is waiting to see if it catches on with these 3D networks/broadcasts. The 3D players and 3D TV's are not selling at Best Buy..... yet.
Click to expand...

People are still buying have you seen the latest sales numbers? People love junk we love to stay in debt grab a beer and sit in front of the TV and be entertained. Las Vegas was hit the hardest in the foreclosure melt down my friend is trying to buy a house now, and we she makes an offer they counter with like 16 offers.

Boo stop watching the news pick up Forbes magazine or something. Business is booming and we are just to lazy to see it, and filmmakers are the worst.
 
learnfilmonline said:
People are still buying have you seen the latest sales numbers? .
Click to expand...

Yes, because of the abysmal retail market, the prices of HDTV's (and yet NOT 3D TV's) are going to drop to record lows in November because of overstocks of product because they are NOT selling well.




learnfilmonline said:
Boo stop watching the news pick up Forbes magazine or something. Business is booming and we are just to lazy to see it, and filmmakers are the worst.
Click to expand...

Indeed, in 1980, the top 10% of the wealth in the United States was in 3% of the population. In 2010, the top 23% of the wealth is in the top 1% of the population.

So yes, the billionaires are doing GREAT in this economy. There are only 1% of the population. Even if they buy 1 3DTV for ever room in their mansion, that isn't going to compensate for the 20% of the population who can NOT afford a 3DTV or Blu Ray player.

This is incredibly basic math that is hard to argue. Unemployment is at the highest number of people since the Great Depression. Unfortunately, they aren't unemployed millionaires, so FORBES isn't doing a story on the way most consumers in America (and the world) cannot afford the toys and they can't get credit because, as you say, the value of the houses is worth less than they are paying for it, and therefore cannot get a home equity loan to buy frivolous things like a 3DTV or a 3D BLU RAY player... So kudos for your friend trying to buy a house. She gets a deal, the owner gets screwed, and that's IF your friend gets approved for the mortgage because the banks are still NOT approving many loans these days because credit is tight as a snare drum even to those with great credit scores.

I'm not sure what it is you think is compelling about your side, but it seems off base and unrealistic.... especially to indie filmmakers.

You did not address any of the valid business concerns for why an indie should NOT do a 3D film at this time. Do you have any thoughts on those?
 
We will just leave it at that. Just wanted to get the idea of what folks thought about 3D, and I have my answer. Thanks

You guys freakin ROCK!!!
 
learnfilmonline said:
You guys freakin ROCK!!!
Click to expand...

No, YOU do!

So, anyway, I had a thought, yesterday, pertaining the question of why 3D has been used so wonderfully in animation, over the last few years, but not so effectively with live action.

Animation is fake. 3D, for me at least, makes it a little more real. Something that is drawn becomes tangible, as if you could throw a rock at it from your seat.

Live action obviously doesn't have the problem of being fake. The only way to make it more real would be a realistic-looking holograph, which today's 3D clearly isn't. So, conversly, 3D has the effect of making live action less real. Kinda takes you out of the moment.
 
Cracker Funk said:
So, anyway, I had a thought, yesterday, pertaining the question of why 3D has been used so wonderfully in animation, over the last few years, but not so effectively with live action.
Click to expand...


Actually AVATAR is the only live action movie (aside from Cameron's previous 3D documentaries) to be truly shot in the newer form of 3D where there is more than BACKGROUND, MID GROUND, FOREGROUND of old.

3D animated (CGI) movies translate to the 3D presentation very well because they are created entirely in a virtual 3D space and therefore it's literally a click of a few buttons (with some tweaking for presentation) and their universe is setup for that presentation and they way the 2 frames combined create 3 dimensional depth.

For live action, they can only do that with all CGI environments (ALICE IN WONDERLAND/AVATAR) or they have to go in after the fact and attempt to take all these 2D frames of environments and try to create depth that was not shot that way (CLASH OF THE TITANS).

To simplify, BUZZ LIGHTYEAR is a 3D CGI Character. He has depth to him because he was MADE that way in the computer so translating that to the 3D presentation format is automatic. When you shoot a human being, even with 2 cameras, they are still a flat 2 dimensional shape to the camera, just separated from the background. There is no depth or bevel to the person or foreground objects when shooting live action.
 
it's money, money, money, money.......

james cameron is going to re-release Titanic in 3d. Imagine the cash he's going to get.
It's the ultimate hook-in for todays audience...

honestly, kids aren't that smart nowadays. most of them think "Inception" is the greatest movie ever made. Go talk to some of them.... 27 dresses made $159,633,944 gross revenue and it is one of the most God-awful scripts ever written....

All investors and people working in hollywood (90% of them) care about is MONEY, MONEY, MONEY....

3d is in right now.

Francis Ford Coppola HATES it. It's also very bad for your eyes. It works for some movies like Avatar, but for others (Alice in Wonderland), it SUCKS....

And I don't know about you all, but I would prefer a phenomenal script with brilliant acting, cinematography, ect compared to a garbage movie that looks great....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top