3D movie technology, as it stands, is a load of go-nowhere rubbish. If Hollywood thinks that the tech will convince moviegoers to leave the comfort of their homes, filled with HDTVs and Blu-ray (or upscaled DVDs), it’s got another thing coming.
Basically, Hollywood recognizes that home entertainment options—HDTV, Blu-ray, streaming Netflix, playing Fallout 3 in 1080p with a Dolby Digital setup, etc.—are just as satisfying as going to the movie theater; some would say that home entertainment is MUCH better than going to the movie theater. (Hah! You want me to leave my warm house, drive/subway to the theater that has uncomfortable, non-stadium seats, sticky floors, loud teenagers who are more interesting in texting their friends that watching the movie? Sure, that’ll happen.) So, in order to save the theater business Hollywood has turned to 3D, investing millions of dollars with the hope that it’ll get John and Jane Doe out of the house. It hasn’t, and it won’t.
Neither the movie studios nor the movie theaters want to pay for the upgrades. (It costs about $100,000 to upgrade the standard movie theater to a 3D one.) To pay for this amazing moviegoing experience, theaters will charge a premium for the ticket, as much as $25. (Oh, sure, a family of four is gonna spend $100+ to see a two-hour cartoon.) Never mind that 3D can be described as nothing more than a gimmick, and one that Scott here, who recently saw Bolt in 3D, adds “nothing to the show.”
All this to say, no, Hollywood, not too many people are going to spend $arm and $leg to see your terrible films in “3D.” We got mouths to feed; besides, “24” is back on TV, and it’s broadcast in high-def. Looks great on the big, shiny LCD in the living room.
I agree.
For years movie theaters have focused on the number of screens they have, creating these “mega theaters” and driving out the mom-and-pop theaters. Little has been done to improve the overall experience itself. The larger theaters smell horrible, usually have projector problems, and charge as much as $12 for popcorn and a soda (for one person).
Why would I do that when I can enjoy my home theater with takeout for less? No cell phone disturbances, no projector issues, no lines, no people with hats/hairdos/BO sitting in front of you or talking around you.
The theaters need to scale down the number of screens and scale up the experience itself. Make it more like going to Dave and Busters and less like going to the DMV.
worse than smaller theaters.
Now with home theater systems they’ve failed to adapt and change to improve the experience itself.
This is unfortunate. I as an avid fan of the theater experience saw Beowulf in 3D and was blown away! Ever since I have been eagerly awaiting the arrival of regular 3D to no avail. As Norville points out home entertainement competes quite nicely with the traditional counterpart.
So, now with 3D implementation in question and fewer and fewer high quality features being made, it cant bode well for the future of this awesome visual technology.
I enjoy the movie theatre experience however, I’ve never really seen the benefit of 3D films. More often than not, I find them more distracting than enjoyable.
Movie theaters keep raising the prices while doing very little to increase the experience or even comfort. The industry needs to wake up or don’t act surprised at hearing their death knoll.
This company to be able to deliver 3D movies on an XBOX 360 NOW…
http://marketsaw.blogspot.com/2009/01/ces-2009-next3d-offers-free-in-home-3d.html
http://www.next3d.com
After having seen Coraline in 3D with the new stuff, and comparing (putting my hand over one eye, pulling up the glasses), it’s really impressive that it looks more real than fake. Part of it felt like I was on a theme park ride, in a good way.
I think 3D has a future.