3-D struggles at box office

[Smokey]

It was a very good weekend for the domestic box office, but a very bad one for 3-D. Cracks are showing again in the rose-tinted glasses as stateside moviegoers largely passed on the opportunity to see "World War Z" and "Monsters University" in extra dimensions.

The 3-D box-office breakdown for Pixar's "Monster University" was the lowest percentage for any animated title in modern history, while Paramount's "World War Z" represented the weakest 3-D showing for an action film, according to a report by B. Riley analyst Eric Wold.

Only 31 percent of the $82 million "Monsters University" debut came from 3-D screenings, while roughly 34 percent of the "World War Z" $66 million bow came from the format.

In contrast, the previous lowest-grossing 3-D action movie, "Captain America: The First Avenger," took 40 percent of its opening grosses from screenings in that format, while Pixar's last animated film, "Brave," earned 34 percent of its domestic opening from 3-D.

That's bad news for Hollywood, which is enamored of the surcharge that comes with 3-D tickets.

3-D equipment manufacturer RealD suggested that they may need to install more 3-D screens to reverse the trend and noted that 3-D's contribution to the domestic openings of many event films have stabilized in the 30 percent to 45 percent range.

3-D hits new low domestically with 'World War Z,' 'Monsters University' - MSN Movies News

[markw]

3-D equipment manufacturer RealD suggested that they may need to install more 3-D screens to reverse the trend and noted that 3-D's contribution to the domestic openings of many event films have stabilized in the 30 percent to 45 percent range.

Of course, they need MORE 3D theatres.

The additional price forced upon the users when it's only available in an Imax theater (effectively doubling the price of a ticket) has absolutly nothing at all to do with this.

[Smokey]

Of course, they need MORE 3D theatres.

The additional price forced upon the users when it's only available in an Imax theater (effectively doubling the price of a ticket) has absolutly nothing at all to do with this.

And also throw in the fact that majority of 3-D films are just converted 2-D as oppose to being real 3-D, might be another reason why 3-D is struggling at the theaters.

Last one I saw in 3D as the most recent Star Trek flick, (what was it's name?): I had a headache for the first 40 minutes or so though I was OK after that.

Most people usually get the headache after watching 3-D for an hour or so. But your reaction to 3-D seem to be opposite of that.

[Feanor]

And also throw in the fact that majority of 3-D films are just converted 2-D as oppose to being real 3-D, might be another reason why 3-D is struggling at the theaters.

After Avatar, the next 3D I saw was Conan the Barbarian (2011). Overall this flick was pure crap in general and the 3D aspect was the same: 2D objects floating around on a stage background. This really gives 3D a bad name; nobody wants to watch that.

[harley .guy07]

Yeah I can understand the headache thing. My wife suffers from migraines and even a couple of minutes on 3d puts her into an instant headache and I remember one day I was at the area BB Magnolia and looking at a higher end Elite panel that was 3d and after around 8 minutes or so of watching it even I had a headache. I just like a clean high def picture and really don't care about the 3d thing. To me it was a gimmick in the 80's and it is a gimmick now.

[Smokey]

Yeah I can understand the headache thing. My wife suffers from migraines and even a couple of minutes on 3d puts her into an instant headache and I remember one day I was at the area BB Magnolia and looking at a higher end Elite panel that was 3d and after around 8 minutes or so of watching it even I had a headache.

This is not a scientific conclusion, but I believe we get headache when looking at 3-D because what the eyes are seeing is not natural and we are trying fool the brain.

Headache is just one way of brain saying that it does not like what it is seeing.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

And also throw in the fact that majority of 3-D films are just converted 2-D as oppose to being real 3-D, might be another reason why 3-D is struggling at the theaters.

Smokey, this is no longer a factor since post 3D has gotten so good, nobody can tell the difference between shot in 3D, and 3D done in post. It is no longer a factor as long as the studio budget enough money to do it right.

Most people usually get the headache after watching 3-D for an hour or so. But your reaction to 3-D seem to be opposite of that.

Most people don't get a headache at all. The few that do - you are right, it happens after people have been watching it for a while.

[Feanor]

Most people don't get a headache at all. The few that do - you are right, it happens after people have been watching it for a while.

I guess I'm not a person because I got the headache almost right away and it when away after I got used to it. My eyesight is no longer good, though, and I frequently suffer eye strain.

[TheHills44060]

Saw my first contemporary 3D movie (Superman) last weekend and frankly i found it annoying. Prior to that the last 3D flicks i saw in the theaters was Friday the 13th part 3 and Jaws 3 in the early 80's and I enjoyed that tech better.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I guess I'm not a person because I got the headache almost right away and it when away after I got used to it. My eyesight is no longer good, though, and I frequently suffer eye strain.

I am willing to bet it is difficult for you to focus on centrally located images, as it requires more muscles straining to focus the eyes tightly to the center of a screen.

[Smokey]

Smokey, this is no longer a factor since post 3D has gotten so good, nobody can tell the difference between shot in 3D, and 3D done in post.

I don't know Sir TT. That is just like saying that pseudo suround sound like discreet suround.

The extra money, manpower and eqiupments that shooting in real 3-d require will give more satisfying result than what can be achieved in post production 3-D. Wouldn't you agree?

[Feanor]

I don't know Sir TT. That is just like saying that pseudo suround sound like discreet suround.

The extra money, manpower and eqiupments that shooting in real 3-d require will give more satisfying result than what can be achieved in post production 3-D. Wouldn't you agree?

I think there's some analogy to multi-channel music. Done right it's great and adds significantly; done badly and it's a nuisance.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I don't know Sir TT. That is just like saying that pseudo suround sound like discreet suround.

Not quite Smokey. With pseudo surround the elements are not separate but decorrolated. With post 3D the elements are actually seperate first, and then combined with non 3D elements just like a actual 3D camera would do. Avatar had some scenes done with post 3D, as did the latest Transformer movie, Alice in Wonderland, The Avengers and I could go on. Could anyone really tell the camera 3D from the post 3D? The answer to that is no.

The extra money, manpower and eqiupments that shooting in real 3-d require will give more satisfying result than what can be achieved in post production 3-D. Wouldn't you agree?

Absolutely not, that is a myth. Even if you do 3D in post, all shots have to be planned and staged for it just like camera based 3D. 3D camera's today only require one person, not two. Set design is exactly the same for both, and the only thing really different is in camera 3D is shot live, and post 3D is created at a post production house. The cost of doing both is nearly the same(post 3D may be a little more expensive now that the price of renting a 3D camera's have dropped a bit).

[Feanor]

I'm less keen for 3D than I was immediatel after Avatar. Last one I saw in 3D as the most recent Star Trek flick, (what was it's name?): I had a headache for the first 40 minutes or so though I was OK after that. I'll go with the family if they want 3D but personally I wouldn't spring the extra dough for 40 minutes of headache.