The future for 3D not so bright?

[nightflier]

Sure 3D is great in theaters, but in the home? Not so fast. Many of the points brought up by people on this forum are echoed in this article:

The Word For The Day is Autostereoscopic When It Comes To 3D

Then there is the issue that it makes people sick, and that color-blind people can't see the same effects. Yes, it's only a small percentage of people who went to the theaters, but in the home, it will affect many more people, children and disabled people too. So why is everyone an their mother trying to convince us to that 3D is the next big thing? Simply because it's making beaucoup bucks in theaters? Well, that's not exactly true either.

Perhaps for Avatar and to a lesser extent Up, it was a good year. But for the rest of the 3D pack it wasn't such a rosy picture at all. And then there's the surcharges and all the other wrangling to get people to pay more and again for entertainment (old Hollywood tricks we should now all be quite familiar with). Here's Paul Young's take on this sordid aspect of 3D, from Screen Rant:

3D Movies Run Amok: A Fad That Should Stop… But Won’t

The major point being that there is a huge difference between what Cameron did (shooting everything in 3D from the start, which also costs bundles of money) and the many copy-cat schemes to get movies to carry the 3D label, but with far less impressive effects. Sure it works most of the time with cartoons, after all, they are designed to be 3D on the designer's screen, but that's not all people want to watch (even if Disney and Dreamworks think otherwise).

In the end it's all to get people to shell out 40% more for a movie ticket. And that goes a long way to bolster claims that 3D is a huge commercial success. But whether that kind of success is then transferable to the home market is never discussed. Funny how that little detail just seems to slip through the cracks.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You grab two opinion pieces and declare that the future of 3D is not so bright?

Please tell me you are joking, because if not, then I have to conclude that you are not so bright as well.

People will vote with their feet. If the storytelling is compelling, and the 3D is well done, the masses will go in mass to see the movie. If it is junk(whether 3D or not) they will not support it. This goes for ANY film, 3D or not, and it has been that way since the beginning of film making. When the studios get burned financially, they will be more discerning about what will be work in 3D and what won't. No opinion pieces are going to change that dynamic. People will make up their own minds about 3D whether in the theater, or at home. What is NOT needed is anymore one sided posts featuring one sided opinions.

How you can say that Avatar and Up are the only 3D successes shows just how lightweight you are on this issue. Alice in Wonderland made $325 million in US box office alone, and a little over $500 million world wide. What an utter failure.

Clash of the Titans(horrible movie IMO) made $70 million in one week in the theaters, How to Train Your Dragon almost $100 million in two weeks in the theater. So far, total disasters at the box office.

Your opinion on anything film related is so twistedly stupid and moronic, my best advice to you is to just back away from it all together. This level of ignorance helps no one.

It is really to early to tell how well 3D will do in the home, there is not disc product on the market. Is it your habit to declare something either dead or unsucessful even before the products roll out is complete?

[pixelthis]

Sure 3D is great in theaters, but in the home? Not so fast. Many of the points brought up by people on this forum are echoed in this article:

The Word For The Day is Autostereoscopic When It Comes To 3D

Then there is the issue that it makes people sick, and that color-blind people can't see the same effects. Yes, it's only a small percentage of people who went to the theaters, but in the home, it will affect many more people, children and disabled people too. So why is everyone an their mother trying to convince us to that 3D is the next big thing? Simply because it's making beaucoup bucks in theaters? Well, that's not exactly true either.

Perhaps for Avatar and to a lesser extent Up, it was a good year. But for the rest of the 3D pack it wasn't such a rosy picture at all. And then there's the surcharges and all the other wrangling to get people to pay more and again for entertainment (old Hollywood tricks we should now all be quite familiar with). Here's Paul Young's take on this sordid aspect of 3D, from Screen Rant:

3D Movies Run Amok: A Fad That Should Stop… But Won’t

The major point being that there is a huge difference between what Cameron did (shooting everything in 3D from the start, which also costs bundles of money) and the many copy-cat schemes to get movies to carry the 3D label, but with far less impressive effects. Sure it works most of the time with cartoons, after all, they are designed to be 3D on the designer's screen, but that's not all people want to watch (even if Disney and Dreamworks think otherwise).

In the end it's all to get people to shell out 40% more for a movie ticket. And that goes a long way to bolster claims that 3D is a huge commercial success. But whether that kind of success is then transferable to the home market is never discussed. Funny how that little detail just seems to slip through the cracks.

what I have been saying, basically.
A lot have already bought new HDTV's, most will think that 3D is something they can get by with only in theaters.
BE great if 3D on TV makes it, but the track record isnt too good.
AND original media will be expensive.
I saw a program on TV the other day, brought to you in HD by DIRECT TV.
Not in ads, but subsidies.
Yes, third parties are still subsidizing HDTV.
If the stations cant pay for HDTV years down the road, will they be willing to take on 3D?
Will set manufacturers be willing to underwrite the venture when most are bleeding red ink.
In a collapsing economy will 3D make it?
IN a good economy?

[nightflier]

According to the article (which I guess you didn't read), only Avatar and Up made a profit. If it costs too much to produce 3D and they aren't making any money at it, then how long do you suppose they will continue doing this? It's expensive to do 3D right, especially for movies that aren't cartoons, or did you want to ignore that detail, too?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You guessed wrong AGAIN!(when will you tire of looking like an idiot?)

Only the studio knows if a movie made a profit, not some pundit guessing. Unless they have direct access to a studios balance sheets, they are making a assumption, not a fact.

Alice in Wonderland and The Night Before Christmas made Disney a nice profit, and opinion maker didn't note that. So much for the accuracy of the information. This is what happens when you use opinions as a basis for your posts.

As far as live action 3D, it is up to the studios to decide what material is up to the task. If they feel it is too expensive to make, and the ROI is too low, it will not be made. That would apply to 2D as well.

[poppachubby]

I saw a TV spot for Samsung 3D TV's. It better be bright or Samsung is in trouble.

[nightflier]

lil't, I see you're still talking about cartoons. I guess we all know what grade-level you're in.

[blackraven]

My son was over at a friends house the other day and they had just bought a 55" 1080p LED 3D tv. He said the picture is only darker when wearing the battery powered 3D glasses, otherwise it function just like a regular LCD TV and gives a bright picture. He thought the 3D was nice.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

lil't, I see you're still talking about cartoons. I guess we all know what grade-level you're in.

First idiot, the proper distinction would be animation, not cartoons. Cartoons(your stupidness) are rough hand draw television entertainment shorts, not full length movies.

Second dumb a$$, it does not matter one bit whether it is live action or animation 3D, the topic is 3D period.

Now once again, are you still going to advance that 3D in the home does not have a rosy picture in spite of the fact not one piece of software has been released? Before you answer that remember your rather "atrocious" track record of predictions.

As far as my grade level, it is something you have yet to achieve, especially when it comes to audio and video.

[pixelthis]

First idiot, the proper distinction would be animation, not cartoons. Cartoons(your stupidness) are rough hand draw television entertainment shorts, not full length movies.

CARTOONS and "animations" are basically the same thing, your craziness.
AND cartoons are anything but "rough"

Second dumb a$$, it does not matter one bit whether it is live action or animation 3D, the topic is 3D period.

You got something right, I guess the end of the world is around the corner

Now once again, are you still going to advance that 3D in the home does not have a rosy picture in spite of the fact not one piece of software has been released? Before you answer that remember your rather "atrocious" track record of predictions.

Again, the past record is not too good

As far as my grade level, it is something you have yet to achieve, especially when it comes to audio and video.

And which grade is that, the third?
Thats the way you're acting.
your depends needs changing or something?
You are downright cranky.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

CARTOONS and "animations" are basically the same thing, your craziness.
AND cartoons are anything but "rough"

To you one tooth brainless folks this may be the case, but in the film industry they have a distinction that is separate based on their length and where they are commonly viewed. Cartoons are short in length compared to animation, usually hand drawn, and are more associated with television than film. Animation is usually 2D or 3D computer modeled images that have the length of a typical movie, and is more associated with movies than television.

You got something right, I guess the end of the world is around the corner

If you use "right" as a precursor to the end of the world, it would have been over a long time ago.

Again, the past record is not too good

The past is not today, and 3D has never been afforded to the home theater in the past. Things are much different now, the technology is different, and unlike the past 3D has far more legs than 3D had in the past. 3D now is close to 7 years old and going strong. By the time 3D was four years old in the past, it was already going downhill. 3D of old was strictly anaglyph 3D with just a few 3D releases using polarization.. The "golden age" of 3D lasted 3 years before dying, and today we are already well past 3 years. Things change except perhaps in your mind.

And which grade is that, the third?
Thats the way you're acting.
your depends needs changing or something?
You are downright cranky.

Whatever grade you decide, it is far beyond both you and nightstupid's

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

My son was over at a friends house the other day and they had just bought a 55" 1080p LED 3D tv. He said the picture is only darker when wearing the battery powered 3D glasses, otherwise it function just like a regular LCD TV and gives a bright picture. He thought the 3D was nice.

Was it a Samsung, Panasonic, or LG? What software did he use?

The fact the a 3D television also functions as a regular 2D television is one of its selling points. Pretty soon most all televisions will have 3D support, and it will just be another piece of candy in the jar.

[nightflier]

You do realize that all the name calling and insults sound more like the playground bully in third grade than the media mogul you claim to be, right? As far as my educational level, I don't need to get into a peeing contest behind the lockers either. Suffice it to say that from your command of the English language, I am guessing that your Thunderbird U. education didn't take either, lol.

Go ahead, keep on with the childish rants, I doubt you can dig that hole any deeper.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You do realize that all the name calling and insults sound more like the playground bully in third grade than the media mogul you claim to be, right? As far as my educational level, I don't need to get into a peeing contest behind the lockers either. Suffice it to say that from your command of the English language, I am guessing that your Thunderbird U. education didn't take either, lol.

Go ahead, keep on with the childish rants, I doubt you can dig that hole any deeper.

You know what nightstupid, I am not moved by your stupid diatribe, it means nothing to me. But the reality is, a peeing contest is not something you can do, because A) you do not have anything other than your short sighted, deep as spit in a spoon opinion to contribute and B) even your opinion is often wrong as a man with one right leg, and one left shoe. Woochifer (has on every occasion he has posted to your comments), has shot enough holes in your shallow opinions to turn your sorry a$$ into a spinning sprinkler. Your opinion does not mean a damn thing, it is facts that reign supreme, and you have yet to offer a single one except trying to take a wiki quote out of context.

I never claimed to be a media mogul, and if you cannot find proof that I have stated that, then you need to STFU and never mention that again.

Once again, are you going to proclaim the death of 3D in the home before a single piece of software is released? You keep avoiding the answer to this, which plainly shows me that you haven't a single clue on anything 3D, and you should just stop posting on the subject.

Are you ready to really use the opinions of others to support your rants even though those opinions are clearly devoid of facts?

Please do not cowardly run from answering these questions like you have from dealing with question you couldn't answer factually in the past.

[3LB]

3D for TV is a gimmick, but IMO it'll be a hit because it will appeal to the average joe's love of all-things-TV. The very people who wouldn't own more than a boombox for music only purposes back in the '80s were buying into 5.1 systems for movies and TV in the '90s. The subwoofer/satellite concept has been around since the '70s.; powered subs since the '80s. They were a rare sight in any home besides that of the audiophile, because who cares about the lowest octave, but if it'll make explosions and dinosaur steps more realistic...

I have to admit, I naysayed 5.1 back in the day as a fad. I actually told a store owner it'd die a quick death unless the music industry bought into it. Boy was I wrong.

I agree 3D will further dumb down movies, but it won't matter. The public at large doesn't like thought provoking film and music, but it loves entertainment. Even if 3D never really translates to TV shows, you can bet it will to video games.

I'm not buying it...I'll hold out for the virtual reality helmet.

[pixelthis]

Was it a Samsung, Panasonic, or LG? What software did he use?

The fact the a 3D television also functions as a regular 2D television is one of its selling points. Pretty soon most all televisions will have 3D support, and it will just be another piece of candy in the jar.

Yes a lot will have "3D" support, and like a lot of other gimmicks that passed by the wayside, it will be a constant reminder of the money wasted on this fad.
Kinda like the cassette player in an old car.

[harley .guy07]

STtT I think you need to find out your favorite out of the house hobby, go do it for a few days and get the aggression out of your system. My god man! I like the concept of 3d but I be damn if I am going to wear some goofy looking glasses that take batteries to watch movies at my home. For one, I don't need anything else that takes batteries.Two If I liked glasses that much I would not have contacts and go back to glasses all the time which brings up a good point, If a family member or friend came over that wore glasses all the time what would they do, do they make blue blocker versions of the 3d glasses that would fit over normal glasses and would they wear the goofy ass looking things.

My opinion is until they can make 3d tv's that don't need the glasses I am out, I will stay with my nice led lcd samsung that treats me wonderfully without glasses.

STtT- I have some jazz I can send you that I use when I get worked up to chill me out, I will send you double copy's if you want.

[GMichael]

And that’s when all the dogs started running. No one knew why they were running, until the eruption hit.

[nightflier]

And then came a sound. Distant first, it grew into castrophany so immense it could be heard far away in space.
There were no screams. There was no time.
The mountain called Monkey had spoken.
There was only fire.
And then, nothing.

[GMichael]

There is no sound in space.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

STtT I think you need to find out your favorite out of the house hobby, go do it for a few days and get the aggression out of your system.

Harley, there is no aggresion in my system, it is called frustration from dealing with stupid people, stupid uneducated opinions from folks that know nothing about the film industry or the CE industry.

My god man! I like the concept of 3d but I be damn if I am going to wear some goofy looking glasses that take batteries to watch movies at my home. For one, I don't need anything else that takes batteries.Two If I liked glasses that much I would not have contacts and go back to glasses all the time which brings up a good point, If a family member or friend came over that wore glasses all the time what would they do, do they make blue blocker versions of the 3d glasses that would fit over normal glasses and would they wear the goofy ass looking things.

While I respect what you state, everyone does not share your irritation with the glasses. It is apart of the 3D experience, and those that don't like them don't have to buy into the technology. It is that plain and simple. I wear glasses, and have never had a problem fitting 3D glasses right over my current pair.

My opinion is until they can make 3d tv's that don't need the glasses I am out, I will stay with my nice led lcd samsung that treats me wonderfully without glasses.

3D televisions that do not require glasses are a bit down the road, and can only be viewed from a narrow angle. Not good for a family or group viewing.

STtT- I have some jazz I can send you that I use when I get worked up to chill me out, I will send you double copy's if you want.

I am not worked up, so there is no need to really chill out.

[blackraven]

Was it a Samsung, Panasonic, or LG? What software did he use?

The fact the a 3D television also functions as a regular 2D television is one of its selling points. Pretty soon most all televisions will have 3D support, and it will just be another piece of candy in the jar.

It was one of those thin Panny's.