Penny Can

Home Entertainment Center => Now Playing: Movies => Topic started by: Mac on September 16, 2011, 10:35:20 am

Title: 3D
Post by: Mac on September 16, 2011, 10:35:20 am
The death of 3D?

Who did it... (

Not news to me, but who am I.

OH, I know, a paying customer who gives a crap.

Title: Re: 3D
Post by: Chiprocks1 on September 16, 2011, 11:30:19 am
It's not going anywhere. But there is of course a backlash due to movie studios that take a regular 2D film and slap the 3D technology on it and say it's 3D, when in fact the movie was never intended to be that way. Factor in the ridiculous prices to see 3D over it's cheaper counterpart, then you have a recipe for disgruntled patrons that aren't getting what they thought they would be getting: a true 3D experience.

3D will go away for awhile and then another hot-shot director will dust it off and bring it back. Remains to be seen if the storytelling will finally catch up to the technology and have a true movie-going experience as opposed to some Special FX experience.
Title: 3D Films: Pros and Cons
Post by: Chiprocks1 on April 01, 2012, 11:35:59 am
3D: Plumbing the depths of your wallet
Title: Re: 3D Films: Pros and Cons
Post by: Mac on April 01, 2012, 05:20:05 pm
Yep, saw this on Sunday Morning and completely agree. I love the one statement... Add 3D is a commercial decision... not a creative one.
Title: Re: 3D
Post by: Mac on May 23, 2012, 03:25:04 pm
G.I. Joe : Retaliation moving to March 2013, to become 3D and capture foreign market

EXCLUSIVE: The sequel G.I. Joe: Retaliation was supposed to come out this summer on June 29th. But I’ve learned that Paramount is moving the movie nine months to March 29, 2013, to add 3D. “We’re going to do a conscientious 3D job because we’ve seen how it can better box office internationally,” one of the studio execs just told me. “Jim Cameron did all of Titanic‘s 3D in post – and look how well that movie turned out.” Paramount has had luck delaying films before: its decision to move Martin Scorsese’s Shutter Island gave the director his biggest box office hit ever. And right now, 3D is huge internationally, with Russia and China building new 3D theaters by the week. Also the execs say that the blockbuster performance of The Hunger Games shows that March can be a prime time of the year to release movies. Of course, Paramount had to talk its partners on GI Joe 2 into the extra nine months of carrying costs – MGM/Spyglass which has 25%, and David Ellison’s Skydance which has another 25%. The $125M-budgeted actioner stars Channing Tatum, Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson, and Bruce Willis and is directed by John Chu.

Really...seriously. That's what their going with?

Something is wrong. It's a bad movie. Running from Avengers. C'mon, what is it really?
Title: Re: 3D
Post by: Chiprocks1 on May 23, 2012, 03:29:45 pm
Yeah, I've NEVER heard of a Studio giving up a prime time slot in the Summer...."willingly". That's at least 75 Million bucks they just lost domestically.
Title: Re: 3D
Post by: Mac on May 30, 2012, 03:45:37 am

It's been nearly a week now since Paramount yanked G.I. Joe Retaliation from its schedules, just over a month before it was due in cinemas. That was in spite of having the merchandising in place, the advertising campaign in full swing, and the promotional work underway.

The officially-given reason for the delay was to add on 3D, which would enable Paramount to recoup more cash from non-US markets, where 3D continues to boom. As such, the film has been bumped back to March 2013.

However, as we speculated here, the 3D sounded like a cover story. That Paramount blinked when it stared into the heart of one of the most competitive seasons of summer blockbusters in years. It basically feared its film was going to get swamped, in much the same way Battleship had been when it took on The Avengers at the US box office a week or two back.

Inevitably, a week down the line, one or two further details have emerged, and we weren't a million miles off the mark.

According to a new report over at Deadline, there are some problems with the film, that will be fixed in the months ahead. Reshoots are planned, after test scores on the movie reportedly weren't encouraging. Furthermore, there was a genuine fear, it seems, that the movie was going to get blasted away at the box office, especially with The Amazing Spider-Man arriving one week later.

But there was a factor that we hadn't considered, that might just turn out to be one of the main reasons behind the delay: Channing Tatum.

Tatum appeared in the first G.I. Joe movie, but the plan was to kill him off early in the second one. However, this year, he's appeared in two big hits to date - The Vow and 21 Jump Street - and his upcoming stripper comedy, Magic Mike, is expected to make it three in a row. Paramount, therefore, is not keen to throw Tatum away.

Thus, moving G.I. Joe's release date first of all stops a direct competition with Magic Mike. And secondly, presumably it means that Tatum's character is now set to survive, and be as beefed up as reshoots will allow.

One interesting point in the Deadline article is a brief line about director Jon M Chu. The site reports that Chu is "shellshocked" about the late-in-the-day delay.

We'll keep you posted on G.I. Joe: Retaliation as we hear more.
Title: Re: 3D
Post by: Mac on January 26, 2013, 06:49:21 am
This is pretty good article pointing out how perception, finances and numbers can be spun...

BLOG Dredded 3D Strikes Again


Dave Golder
It’s been a while since I’ve had a moan about 3D in general and the Dredd 3D release in particular. I really thought I’d said my piece on it, at least enough to get the anger I felt at the way audiences were treated over the release of Dredd in the cinemas off my chest. But no, the 3D pimping tactics have managed to get my back up once again.

Today I read this article over on IGN. The headline attracted me: “Dredd 3D Prevails In The Home Video Market”. I’d heard that Dredd was doing very well since the DVD/Blu-ray had been released. I’d heard tales of the Blu-ray being sold-out in various supermarkets and that the film was flying of the shelves and topping the charts in most others. I’d heard that it was doing well in the US and in other markets. This is all great news and after the poor cinema showing it’s heartening to see. I’m a huge fan of Judge Dredd and it’s great to see the film doing so well and if this leads to a sequel I’ll be very happy, well, at least until the title ends up being Dredd2 3D or some such.

But like every other stage of the release of this film, the home release is being tainted by dodgy 3D sales tactics. It seems the chart-topping success of the home release of the film is being used as a big green light for 3D. Again a production/distribution company has stacked the deck in favour of the result they want and is now patting itself on the back for a job well done.

Back in November, when I saw the formats Dredd was going to be released in for the home market – a single DVD and a Blu-ray combo which included both 2D and 3D versions of the film, but no single 2D Blu-ray – I feared this would happen. I feared that releasing a Blu-ray which contained both 2D and 3D copies would force people to buy the 3D even if they didn’t want it and any sales figures would ignore the 2D version and give the distributors licence to say that 3D was the reason it was selling well.

And it seems that’s exactly what Dredd’s distributors Lionsgate are saying. In the interview on IGN Ron Schwartz , Lionsgate executive VP and general manager of Home Entertainment said, “We’re also pleased that a film released on 3D Blu-ray was able to top the sales charts, a clear reflection of how quality films in this up and coming format can find their audience.”

But it isn’t really is it Ron?

If there had been two separate 2D and 3D Blu-ray releases and the 3D one was far out-selling the 2D one, then they’d have grounds to make this claim. But they didn’t do that. They released just one version, lumping both formats together; if we wanted a 2D version the film on Blu-ray then we had to get the 3D release too – we had no choice – and they are using sales figure to tell themselves that 3D is what everybody wanted. Which if they took the time to read any sci-fi forums or social media they would find just isn’t the case. There are a lot of people who are not very happy about the tactics used to show this film. Half the people I know didn’t get to see the film in the cinema because it was only available in 3D in their area and they either dislike the format or just plain can’t see it. Many of them were waiting for the home release to buy the film and see it for the first time. I know of many of them who were loath the buy a format which contained a 3D version that they would never watch. But for the love of the character of Dredd and a desire to see the film they bought it anyway.

I’ve blogged before about the fact that 3D screening tactics in cinema seem more and more skewed to make 3D look like what everybody wants and it seems that tactic is making its way into the home market too. In my previous blog we included a poll which revealed that 69% of the people who voted either didn’t want 3D or couldn’t see it. Two thirds of people who would quite happily see it disappear and yet here we are again forced to accept it if we want to buy a film we want in our chosen platform.

The film companies and distributors just don’t seem to care about the opinion of people. They have their shiny new toy and no matter how many customers don’t want or can’t see 3D they seem to just want to continue to tell themselves just how brilliant it is while making sure that the money spent on developing this technology was worth the money. Just how will they screw us over next?
Title: Re: 3D
Post by: Chiprocks1 on January 26, 2013, 06:59:29 am
Threads......merged. *Cue Merging Sound FX* Beeeoooop.

Title: Re: 3D
Post by: Mac on January 26, 2013, 07:11:22 am
Threads......merged. *Cue Merging Sound FX* Beeeoooop.

Ah, dreaming of becoming a Foley artist?
Title: Re: 3D
Post by: Chiprocks1 on January 26, 2013, 07:14:56 am
Tap, tap, tap.....KRUNCH!!
Title: Re: 3D
Post by: Mac on January 26, 2013, 07:25:13 am
Tap, tap, tap.....KRUNCH!!

Uh, can you make those sounds 3D? Swirl around the room... please.
Title: Re: 3D
Post by: Chiprocks1 on January 26, 2013, 07:26:41 am
I'm old school 3D, put your damn red/blue glasses on and lean forward. (
Title: Re: 3D
Post by: Mac on April 13, 2013, 08:01:38 am
3D Will Decline for First Time Since 2009, Study Says

Movie theater owners fretting about the box-office slide and 3D companies looking to push those colored glasses are not going to like a new report from Fitch Ratings on the state of the exhibition industry.

The credit rating agency predicts that theatrical attendance will drop this year because the 2013 film slate cannot match last year's franchise heavy offerings and audiences are getting sick of shelling out $3 to $4 extra to see films in 3D.

As a result, the rating agency projects that 2013 will mark the first year there will be a year-over-year decline in 3D's box office contribution since it gained prominence in 2009.

"Attendance likely benefited from the initial proliferation of 3-D films," the study's authors write. "However, the initial excitement has dwindled, and consumers are focused again on the overall quality of the film and are weighing the cost of a premium ticket versus a base 2-D ticket."

That surcharge is also damaging one of the movies' big selling points -- affordability.

"Going to the movies remains one of the lower-cost forms of entertainment," the study's authors write. "However, increased pricing, particularly on 3-D films, may erode this perception over time."


Thanks to global blockbusters like "The Dark Knight Rises" and "The Avengers," box office in North America rose 6 percent to $10.8 billion last year; this as the first time it has grown since 2009. Admissions in the U.S. and Canada also reversed a two year slide, increasing 6 percent to 1.36 billion, according to a recent report by the Motion Picture Association of America.

But while 3D helped bolster the film industry in the wake of "Avatar"s' massive success, the format's contribution to the overall box office in the United States and Canada was flat in 2012 at $1.8 billion.

This year's crop of tentpole films includes such big names as "Iron Man 3" and "Man of Steel," but Fitch projects that it will have a difficult time of matching the record-breaking $34.7 billion racked up by the worldwide box office in 2012.

"Fitch views the expected film slate as favorable, but believes it will result in slightly weaker attendance compared to the 2012 film slate," the study's authors write.

Through last weekend, the domestic box office was down 12.1 percent, a decline whose impact was accelerated by the decrease in enthusiasm for 3D titles.

Perhaps most worrisome for exhibitors is that the ratings agency thinks the rise of newer and snazzier home entertainment offerings will only intensify the fight for entertainment dollars.

Moreover, moviegoers are beginning to get wise to the fact that they have to wait a shorter period of time than before movies start popping up on video-on-demand and make an appearance on store shelves.

For now, exhibitors and studios have reached a tentative truce on when major theatrical releases can make their home entertainment debuts.

Title: Re: 3D
Post by: Mac on June 14, 2013, 09:34:02 am
Another nail.... the coffin is getting built.

Future of 3D TV dims as ESPN yanks in-your-face channel

TV sports in 3D was supposed to be a slam dunk, but viewers never got the picture. And, then there were those stupid-looking glasses, too.

This week, ESPN acknowledged the future for in-your-face screen action looks dim when it announced it was pulling the plug on ESPN 3D, almost three years after launching it with considerable fanfare.

“I would say the 3D network was dead on arrival,” said David Miller, a senior analyst at B. Riley & Co. “The proliferation of 3D networks had to depend on selling 3D glasses, and no one wanted to buy 3D glasses.”

“The whole problem with 3D TV is it was a solution to a problem consumers didn’t have,” said James McQuivey, a media analyst at Forrester Research.

ESPN and ABC Sports president George Bodenheimer had called 3D a “win for fans” in a statement about the channel’s launch, saying it “puts ESPN at the forefront of the next big advance for TV viewing."

Unfortunately, it was a big advance nobody really watched. “Due to limited viewer adoption of 3D services to the home, ESPN is discontinuing ESPN 3D,” spokeswoman Katina Arnold said via email.

“Nobody knows more about sports in 3D than ESPN, and we will be ready to provide the service to fans if or when 3D does take off,” she said.

Analysts say that’s unlikely. While movies in 3D have become popular, the technology never got popular enough to make the transition from the multiplex to the living room. "I felt like sports had the best chance,” said Ben Arnold, director and industry analyst at the NPD Group. “It’s probably just a broader symptom of consumers just not being interested in 3D.”

Although sales of 3D TVs are on the rise, he called this a “false positive.” More manufacturers are throwing in 3D capability on smaller and cheaper sets, but people aren’t using the feature. In just two years, NPD research found that the number of people interested in buying 3D TVs within six months dropped by 10 percentage points, down to 14 percent.

3D also debuted in a lackluster economy when prices of conventional flat-screen TVs were plunging. Many consumers went for big and cheap rather than paying a premium for a relatively unknown technology.

And the complexity of that technology isn’t winning 3D TV many fans either. In an era where media consumption is getting easier and more intuitive, 3D TV isn’t. It has a more narrow viewing range than conventional flat-screen TV and requires the viewer to sit upright (no napping on the couch on game day). Plus, people hate wearing the glasses, which can be goofy-looking and uncomfortable.

Nobody seemed to consider how people’s watching habits, particularly with sports, clashed with the technology’s limitations. For instance, a fan couldn’t just invite a bunch of friends over to watch a game: Everyone would have to have their own pair of glasses, and only a few people would be at an optimal angle to the screen to get a good viewing experience.

“It’s just running against the current of technology today,” McQuivey said. “It started to really make 3D unattractive.”

Tracking down 3D programs also isn’t simple. Arnold pointed out that the delivery of 3D content is fragmented. There isn’t a centralized place where a viewer can go to get access to all of the 3D content available to them.

ESPN 3D’s programming mix also might not have been appealing enough to gain traction, some suggest. “I think they would’ve had a shot if they had NFL games,” said Gary Merson, editor of

ESPN 3D featured college sports, extreme sports, soccer and more niche offerings. Without more mainstream events, “You probably won’t attract large-enough of an audience to make it worthwhile,” said Eric Wold, an analyst at B. Riley & Co. The cost to film in 3D is incrementally higher because it takes additional cameras and crew, which means a bigger audience — not a smaller one — is necessary to recoup the additional cost.

ESPN wouldn’t say how much parent company The Walt Disney Company invested in ESPN 3D, but Miller speculated it might be enough to trigger a write-down.

The future of at-home 3D programming looks fuzzy, and even special glasses aren’t going to bring that picture into focus. “I don’t have high hopes for consumers adopting it,” NPD's Arnold said.
Title: Re: 3D
Post by: Chiprocks1 on June 14, 2013, 09:50:46 am
I thought the cable channel didn't require 3D glasses. Or maybe it's the "new" TV that doesn't. I haven't heard much on either front. It's out of my price range so it wasn't something I was going to get or will be getting anytime soon.
Title: Re: 3D
Post by: Mac on June 14, 2013, 09:58:17 am
I don't think they've developed much for 3D without glasses. There might be some experimental things out there, but nothing in production. An certainly no product from a cable firm.
Title: Re: 3D
Post by: Chiprocks1 on June 14, 2013, 10:01:19 am
Never seen the channel myself. Was this your typical Anaglyph 3D imaging. i.e. Red / Blue color spectrum?
Title: Re: 3D
Post by: Mac on June 14, 2013, 10:49:56 am
I do not know for sure. I believe the Red/Blue is way old technology and not used this go around for 3D
Title: Re: 3D
Post by: Neumatic on June 17, 2013, 04:42:25 pm
I think Avatar pretty much put the nail in the coffin for glyph glasses outside of, say, print (I do have a pair hanging by but that's because they were used in Doctor Who/Torchwood, which is incidentally when I stuck them up there).  It's such a lousy technology but for the longest time it's the only way you could do it across the board (the current glasses tech was used in IMAX screens but didn't go into regular theaters until Avatar).  But the problem is there's still no way to look at one place and see two different things at the same time without those filters, the two eyes have to be seeing two completely separate things and without the glasses you can't control that.

Of course, if we're going to get better 3D display tech we need better 3D tech, the Cameron Pace system is great but it's HUGE, the size and ease of use seriously needs to come down... once it's not a hinderance to use, we'll get more REAL 3D content (not that post-converted bulls*it) and then we'll have the drive to REALLY adopt new tech.

But even after that, the amount of 3D content will be a drop in a bucket to the amount of 2D content we have-- a hundred years of movies, 50+ years of TV, IPTV being created at an astounding rate... while I do like good movies in good 3D a the theaters, I think we can pretty much forget about it at home.
Title: Re: 3D
Post by: Chiprocks1 on June 05, 2014, 08:10:58 am
Top 10 Worst 3D Movies

Most of what's on the list I never saw in 3D format. It's not something I would ever buy into now. Maybe in the 80's yeah, but today. Never. Personally I think JAWS 3D should have taken the #1 spot.
Title: Re: 3D
Post by: Mac on June 05, 2014, 08:17:04 am
Just when I thought 3D was completely dead, there are still movie sites out there saying there is still life beating for them.

I don't see it.

I think we should talk briefly about another fad that will come and go... Curved Screen Television
Title: Re: 3D
Post by: Chiprocks1 on June 05, 2014, 08:18:43 am
I thought you were into Curved TV's.
Title: Re: 3D
Post by: Mac on June 05, 2014, 08:24:06 am
Nope... I don't recall saying much, let alone good.
Title: Re: 3D
Post by: Chiprocks1 on June 05, 2014, 08:25:32 am
Maybe it was Neumatic then. Could have sworn someone on here was into Curved TV. I dunno. I'm too busy staring at the Top 10 Worst 3D Movies Video Thumbnail.  ;D
Title: Re: 3D
Post by: Mac on June 05, 2014, 09:25:15 am
Keep that s hit up and you're going to break it right off.

Like my buddy told me when I was 10, you only have so many you can do (1,000 I think) and then it quits working.
Title: Re: 3D
Post by: Chiprocks1 on June 05, 2014, 10:29:49 am
1011 and still going strong!!!!
Title: Re: 3D
Post by: Mac on June 05, 2014, 10:41:58 am
Uh... you're counting? How are we doing that? scribing little nicks on your balls?

Figured you would run out of room way before now.

Title: Re: 3D
Post by: Chiprocks1 on June 05, 2014, 10:45:02 am
Title: Re: 3D
Post by: Mac on June 05, 2014, 10:49:44 am
Speaking of balls...

Last night, our little dog was on the couch licking itself. I looked down and said "Showoff".

My wife... deer in headlights.

I was surprised this got past my wife. Almost daily, we have the running joke

Me: Oh.... Blow me.
Her: Blow yourself
Me & Her in unison: I would if I could

and she missed the above joke.  :-\
Title: Re: 3D
Post by: Chiprocks1 on June 05, 2014, 10:52:10 am
Title: Re: 3D
Post by: Neumatic on June 05, 2014, 12:53:48 pm
I'm not into curved TVs, I think it's nuts that we spent ALL this time getting our screens flat, to just curve them the other way.  The only time a screen HAS to be curved is if it will fill your entire range of vision (like a gaming chair, big monitor, or a giant cinema screen).   Also, I believe the image has to be cut or distorted for the curve to work, if you watch movies on the big big big screen, you'll notice parts at the top and bottom being cut off.

But for most people, the curved TV will just replace the flat TV on their walls and stick out, they won't be used to their maximum effectiveness, I think, because the people rich enough to afford them are also smart/old enough to sit far away from the screen to avoid eyestrain.
Title: Re: 3D
Post by: Mac on July 16, 2014, 06:18:32 am
3D movies on flights in 3 years

Airbus 's revamped A330 Neo planes will have new in-flight systems enabling passengers to watch 3D films in the air

As in most things, I’ll take a wait and see attitude. I’ve been wrong on occasion. I’ll put it here in 3D, though it could also go in ‘Boeing’, because Airbus being a competitor. Airbus is doing some strange things (at least according to me), so maybe they are genius or freaking nuts. I do have a more plane related article to post.

Airline passengers will be able to watch 3D movies in the sky on board a new fleet of Airbus jets within three years, reports Variety.
The revamped A330 Neo will boast an in-flight system featuring stereoscopic capability for the first time. The first planes are expected to be delivered to airlines in 2017.
It is not yet clear whether the system being adopted will rely on special glasses, or will be built to work without them. Manufacturers of 3D screens have long suggested it is only a matter of time before the eyewear becomes redundant in the event of new technologies. Sharp showed off a prototype glasses-free TV at the Las Vegas Consumer Electronics Show in January.
The A330 Neo's in-flight entertainment will also boast improved high-definition video, along with faster Wi-Fi and improved mobile connectivity using 4G technology.
Airbus launched the new model, which will compete with Boeing 's Dreamliner plane, on 14 July at the Farnborough international air show. The group expects to sell at least 1,000 planes over the next few years.

Title: Re: 3D
Post by: Neumatic on July 16, 2014, 06:32:03 am
How about Oculuses so we forget were in a tiny flying tin can crammed together like sardines?
Title: Re: 3D
Post by: Mac on July 16, 2014, 06:47:22 am
How about Oculuses so we forget were in a tiny flying tin can crammed together like sardines?

Tangent to the discussion of Oculus's, Oculusssses, Ocu-, that thing, there has been lots of innovative idea's of Video Screen as windows (or the floor for that matter). Essentially, instead of a window, you have the video screen and then multiple camera's outside the plane. You might ask why, why not just look out? They go into further discussion of displaying views you can't normally see. Something as simple as viewing the Right Hand side if you're on the left. Or directly below the plane. Or maybe projecting something virtual all together. You're over the ocean... display flying over the Grand Canyon, a volcano, etc. I know this has a ring of Total Recall, but still. I think there are ton of innovations possible with the current air flight business.
Title: Re: 3D
Post by: Chiprocks1 on July 16, 2014, 08:00:54 am
How 'bout we just go back to the inspired invention from the 70's and just give us All- n u d e  Flight attendants, passengers, Lava Lamps and Bean Bags? I'd be happy to travel again if they offered that! The kicker....all of them are REAL 3D!
Title: Re: 3D
Post by: Mac on July 16, 2014, 09:12:13 am
Ohhhhh, it's like those breasts are coming right at you.  ;D
Title: Re: 3D
Post by: Neumatic on July 16, 2014, 11:31:27 am
They'd have to be be d*mn good looking flight attendants.  I doubt Summer Glau's unknown twin sister would be on the same flight as either of us.