I'd say Avatar was a bump on a downward trend line.
It showed the industry if you invest the money with the right people They will come and you will make a handsome ROI.
Problem is the industry is driven by bankers.
Here's their thinking: So if Avatar made $5,000M on $500M, we can make $50M on $5M, we just flick a switch and make it "3D". Money for jam.
Of course it doesn't work that way but there's a queue of people scrambling to whore themselves to get their hands on a piece of that $5M pie.

Here's a question. Would you pay $1 per ticket to get DTS sound, $0.50 more for Dolby?
That choice has never been given to cinema goers. Down here at least the cinemas made that choice for them. DTS is clearly superior but the "cost" of keeping track of the print AND a stack of CDs caused them to abandon DTS. The problem with Dolby is if the print isn't upto scratch it reverts to the optical track. I only know one person whose noticed that and asked for his money back. 99.5% of cinema goers don't. They just come away with a slightly less rewarding experience and the slide continues.

Another question.
Would you pay a few dollars more for the same music on SACD compared to CD, would you pay quite a few dollars more for a CD compared to mp3?
We know the answer to that obviously. The end result for the music industry though is it's pretty well dead. There's a whole generation growing up who probably don't know what music really sounds like.

On a positive note it was pleasing to read that the industry has spent the money with those who know what they're doing to make Inception. It'll be interesting so see how it fares at the box office. So far it seems to be doing very well.

Bob.

A movie like The Last Airbender shows that 3D makes a bad movie even worse. 3D will hang on, but most movies and TV broadcasts will stay 2D for the foreseeable future.

I'll quote Adam Wilt: "I hope so".

"A movie like The Last Airbender shows that 3D makes a bad movie even worse"

The Last Airbender seems to have been shot in 2D and faux 3D done in post. Rubbish like that will put the public off 3D very quickly.


Somewhat on topic someone whose heavily into the wedding business called in to pickup a repair I did for him this morning. He'll shortly be shooting his first wedding in 3D with the new Panasonic camera. OMG!

Bob.

I trust Roger Ebert and here's what he sez:

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/30/why-i-hate-3-d-and-you-should-too.html

Bob, you're technology analogies are lacking. You're acting like 3D is a step DOWN from the norm, and people are being snookered into paying MORE for it.

In fact, the choice is yours. Pay more for 3D or go watch the regular film.

"It was never alive. The health issues alone are enough to keep it that way. Who wants to permanently damage their child's eyes with this garbage."

I'm guessing you haven't seen a 3D movie since the 80's. There is no eye strain with today's systems.

I think many folks are holding out for 6-D. ;-)

"There is no eye strain with today's systems."

That simply isn't true. Do some research and you'll find plenty of information online regarding a myriad of health issues on viewing 3D.

"In a just-published article, Consumer Reports says about 15 percent of the moviegoing audience experiences headache and eyestrain during 3-D movies." from 'Why I Hate 3-D (And You Should Too)', Roger Ebert.

Even Sony and Samsung have issued health warnings regarding their 3D televisions.

Don't know what exactly the health issues are, but saw a Sony TV demo ( 200 inch screen ) a couple of days ago and they had warnings about stopping if you felt any nausea or dizziness.

The demo itself was better than expected. 3D was really good. I'd never watch a 2 hour movie in 3D, but for some things like that demo ( underwater stuff, sharks, whales and so on ) it may work.

People used to go to the theaters to get the "movie experience".

Then people got big screens, high resolution, and deluxe sound systems at home and could get a similar "movie experience" at home -- and weren't so motivated to go to theaters when they could rent the DVD.

I suspect 3D won't catch on (in big numbers) at home for some time, so if 3D movies in theaters eventually become the norm and have no associated cost penalty, it might be the next "movie experience" that motivates people to go to theaters rather than watch the DVD at home.

My teenage daughter got a terrible headache at Avatar 3D, but had no trouble at all with Toy Story 3D (which was wonderful, by the way).

Maybe a solution for those with problems would be to offer glasses where both lenses are polarized the same way, so you see just a 2D movie (i.e. the just right-eye view for both eyes, for example).

I hope they kill it, and the sooner the better. Like Ebert says, serious films cannot be appreciated in 3D, and even if they perfect the system to the point where it looks as real as seeing the action on screen with your own eyes and doesn't cause any headaches, I still wouldn't want it. There's something about the picture quality of 2D film that makes it unique, even when it's transferred to Blu-Ray.

I rarely go to the theater because I don't like to be robbed, and the current prices are a robbery. I appreciate good cinema much more on Blu-Ray at home without annoying people talking around me or the noise of popcorn chewing. I just hope that this 3D fad doesn't stay and gets to a point when I will be forced to see a movie in 3D or I can't see it at all, whether it's at home or the theater if I want to.

...no trouble at all with Toy Story 3D

Leo Unkrich (Director of the movie, quoted in Post Magazine):
We're not interested in 3D gimmickry and stuff flying out of the screen.

The current debate looks like the early days of feature films in color.

Public theaters showing color films started in the U.K.

People liked it (in spite of the exaggerated colors that were tuned to give maximum eyeball tan for the money), so the early color filmmakers went to Hollywood, expecting a triumphant reception.

But Hollywood had just spent decades perfecting black and white film and lighting for it, to the point of absolute art and beauty.

Then came this obviously ugly and immature attempt to supersede all their hard work, and color was laughed out of town.

Later, Technicolor had some successes, but it was an uphill battle for a long time, and certainly few artistic directors wanted to be associated with this new tacky stuff.

Perry Mason had a long run on TV in beautiful black and white, then they wanted to switch to color. After only one episode they canceled the series for eternity, because with color it just wasn't the same thing. The "noir" aspect was difficult to capture with all of that rainbow spectrum distracting.

I think that if more filmmakers treat 3D as an adjunct to the story (like in Toy Story 3), 3D can be successful.

The premium will shrink as the novelty wears off of course, so it will be just yet another way to try to pull people into theaters so they can sell them $10.00 popcorn buckets and $7.00 SuperGulps (where the real money is).


BTW, I just heard that there is a Facebook page where 8,000 people admitted to crying during the final scene of Toy Story 3.

Most of them grown men apparently...

The chart associated with that article is flawed. There is no reference to the percentage of 3D vs 2D theaters for each of the films. If Avitar had (say) 50% of it's showing in 3D but Despicable Me only had 20% .. then, of course, Despicable Me would have lower dollar amount for 3D.

3D is here to stay. It is still in it's infant stage. Many (most?) filmmakers don't know how to "do" 3D properly. It will take a while for them to learn.

No, the chart isn't flawed, you just misunderstood it's content. Go back and read the chart's heading.

3D is not the future. The future is moving holograms. The next generation will project a scene (much like Princess Leia) in the middle of the room. It will project in the round, but could be a square box. In color. This will blow everything else off the screen along with the screen.! Watch for it.

No, the chart isn't flawed, you just misunderstood it's content. Go back and read the chart's heading.

I did .. it says "Percentage of opening weekend box office revenue that came from 3D screens"

But then it charts INDIVIDUAL films, not every film released in 3D. So if an individual film has a lesser percentage of theatres available in 3D .. the percentage of revenue from those films will likely be less. Without that information the chart is useless.

They could have adjusted the values to compensate for differing percentage of 3D theaters, but no such adjustment was made ( or at least stated)

I thought the graphics quite stunning in Avatar, even in 2D. But this didn't make the corny and totally predictable plot any better.

I don't think 3D would have made the plot, acting, etc, any better either ;-)

I'd setlle for a good movie (or TV) whichever format. But not if I had to wear special glasses. Don't know if I'm typical....

geoff

You still don't get it... "box office revenue THAT CAME FROM 3D SCREENS [for these films]."

It never said every film released in 3D. Each of those movies listed did open in 3D and 2D. The chart's showing ONLY the revenues that came in from the 3D showings, e.g., "screens" for those specific films as compared to the 2D showings for those specific films.

That means of all the money Avatar made it's opening weekend (it's gross), 71% of that total come from the showing of 3D version (the other 29% was earned from the 2D showings). It's the same comparison for each film.

The chart shows that from December's opening of Avatar to March's opening of How to Train Your Dragon that apparently the audience was not as interested in seeing another 3D film. So it's opening weekend receipts suffered on the 3D side. Where as Avatar made 71% of its total from 3D showings, HTTYD only made 68% on it's opening weekend from 3D screenings. That means that 3% fewer people elected to buy tickets to the 3D showings as compared to the 2D showings, and so on with the other films on the chart.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with other films, it's simply showing a decline in the audience's buying tickets for 3D on the opening weekends for those specific films. No more, no less.

I think there is a valid point on the graph not telling then whole story.

The number of available screens is relative and the graph does not appear to account for that. If Avatar had a larger number of screens showing in 3D, then more customers could see it that way. If another movie had a overall significant number lower available screens showing in 3D, then it could possibly not meet the demand. Perhaps many of those that went to see it wanted to - or would be willing to pay to - see it in 3D couldn't because the 3D showing was full.

So if Avatar had 25% more screens available, then it's increased overall revenue for 3D would be affected by that increased availability of seats. While I am no statistician, my guess is that the diffence between 71% and 68% would fall into a margin of error in overlooking the total number of available tickets in 3D for each movie.

Did Avatar have any 3D competition in it's first week? What about the other films? If Avatar had all 3D screens in a given theater during it's opening, while the other films had to share the available 3D screens with other films, again it's customer potential would be limited by the number of seats available.

Did Avatar have less available 2D seats? This would also affect the graph as perhaps some had no choice but to see it in 3D.

While the decline may be due to movie goers losing interest, the number of 3D and 2D seats should be considered before the 3D revenue can be used to support this argument.

Peter

After 10 minutes in Avatar 3D, I got sick . I started sweating, my heart raced and I had such strong nausea that I had to leave the theater real fast. There were other people with the same symptoms. Besides, the glasses were so dark that they darkened the whole film by at least 2 stops. I got my money back and went to see it in 2D the next day - what a relief. I also found most of the 3D effect inconsistent, there were scenes where some of the elements in the picture would be almost exaggeratedly 3D and literally stand out , while others remained flat. In a few other scenes it looked quite good, but I actually did not want to see any 3D...I just wanted to see a movie.
When I looked up the nauseating effect later on, I read that it comes from the brain being confronted with contradictory information - like the eye perceiving movement in a 3 dimensional space that the body did nit confirm, as it is sitting there without any motion.
I for one will not see anything in 3D again.

Which 3D system was used at your theater?

I found RealD 3D to work well, but there is also IMAX 3D (for example) that made me feel a bit funny too.