3D bubble about to burst? (or at least start to deflate...)

[AEJim]

It seems people may already be losing interest in 3D, or at least the pricing of it in cinemas during tough economic times...

http://www.deadline.com/2011/05/kung-fu-panda-2-kicks-up-anti-3d-sentiment-on-wall-street/

Now I've never been a fan and am already a little irritated seeing some newer movies start to pander to 3D (the old waving objects/things flying at the camera gimmick is starting to creep in) so I'm actually pleased if it starts to phase out. What does this mean for people who've heavily bought into it though, or manufacturers putting all their eggs in the 3D basket?

This article is by no means conclusive of course, though I have always had the feeling it's another short lived trend rather than "the future of entertainment" as it's always made out to be - after all 3D has been popping up every now and then since the 50's. There are too many issues with it still for it to become the norm.

What do others think now we've had a little more time to absorb the latest round of 3D? Still going strong or likely to disappear as quickly as it came around?

 

[D3CYPH3R]

It's here for a while at least, might not stick but certainly a good few years, i think Sky have done well from it with all the recent finals in 3D.

Wimbledon will be a nice test of it if the broadcast or show in the cinema.

Must say i sat and watched the latest pirates in IMAX 3d an the glasses were so uncomftable it was unreal. the 3D was alright, but the film wasn't that great either.

 

[Andrew Everard]

http://www.deadline.com/2011/05/kung-fu-panda-2-kicks-up-anti-3d-sentiment-on-wall-street/

Now I've never been a fan and am already a little irritated seeing some newer movies start to pander to 3D

See what you did there...

But I gather the box-office figures for the opening of Pirates of the Caribbean: Stranger on the Shore (feat. Acker Bilk and His Jazzmen) show that people are choosing to go and see it in 2D rather than 3D.

 

[DandyCobalt]

Must say i sat and watched the latest pirates in IMAX 3d an the glasses were so uncomftable it was unreal. the 3D was alright, but the film wasn't that great either.

Putting a poor film already into 3d (like Jack Sparrow and his merry fellows) just makes a bad film leap out at you...and gives you a sore nose afterwards, it seems.

 

[The_Lhc]

http://www.deadline.com/2011/05/kung-fu-panda-2-kicks-up-anti-3d-sentiment-on-wall-street/

Now I've never been a fan and am already a little irritated seeing some newer movies start to pander to 3D

See what you did there...

But I gather the box-office figures for the opening of Pirates of the Caribbean: Stranger on the Shore (feat. Acker Bilk and His Jazzmen) show that people are choosing to go and see it in 2D rather than 3D.

Is it possible to tell that, rather than previous films (Avatar I think) that were simply available to see in more 2D screens than 3D so more people end up seeing it in 2D because they're not bothered enough to wait for a 3D seat to become available?

Without being able to determine the percentage of 3D showings selling out compared to 2D ones or the number of 2D sales in a given cinema when there were still 3D seats available there's no way of knowing whether people are actively choosing the 2D version or whether they're just going with whichever one they get to see first.

Or something, I know what I mean...

 

[idc]

I went to see Pirates 4 with my son and his friend. They specifically requested the 2 D version as they do not like 3 D and the cinema was almost full. It still cost £17 to see it and that is the slightly lower priced matinee time.

My son and I tried some 3 D TVs at Currys/PC World. They had fixed glasses on poles and it was difficult to get a proper image. Even using some glasses didn't help. Were we doing it wrong? Do you have to sit straight on to the TV?

Widescreen, flat screen, DVD, 3D all have been or will be bought when I have no choice.

 

[AEJim]

Is it possible to tell that, rather than previous films (Avatar I think) that were simply available to see in more 2D screens than 3D so more people end up seeing it in 2D because they're not bothered enough to wait for a 3D seat to become available?

Without being able to determine the percentage of 3D showings selling out compared to 2D ones or the number of 2D sales in a given cinema when there were still 3D seats available there's no way of knowing whether people are actively choosing the 2D version or whether they're just going with whichever one they get to see first.

Or something, I know what I mean...

I know what you mean, but I think as Andrew highlighted there is definitely some concious decision making steering viewers back to 2D - I'm off to watch Hangover 2 tomorrow (I'm not expecting it to receive Oscar nominations) and I'm pretty sure that if there is a 3D option we'll still be seeing it in 2D.

3D seems a fun option to take the kids out for but little more for me, though given the dearth of great films in recent months it may be a welcome distraction from some of the storylines on offer...

 

[Andrew Everard]

Or something, I know what I mean...

Thank heavens for that, because I haven't got a clue what you're on about, beyond 'is this the five minute, or the full half hour?'

Anyway, I gather that seats for the 3D are going unfilled, while more people are going to see it in 2D where they have a choice. Mind you, as the good doctor put it, I'd rather have my thumb slammed in a car-door than go and see Pirates of the Caribbean: The Tide Is High after the endless shambles that was the third one.

 

[BenLaw]

Is it possible to tell that, rather than previous films (Avatar I think) that were simply available to see in more 2D screens than 3D so more people end up seeing it in 2D because they're not bothered enough to wait for a 3D seat to become available?

Without being able to determine the percentage of 3D showings selling out compared to 2D ones or the number of 2D sales in a given cinema when there were still 3D seats available there's no way of knowing whether people are actively choosing the 2D version or whether they're just going with whichever one they get to see first.

Or something, I know what I mean...

I know what you mean, but I think as Andrew highlighted there is definitely some concious decision making steering viewers back to 2D

If this is true, I'll be very happy. Personally, I don't get a problem with headaches and paying extra wouldn't bother me if the experience were better (tho the price of the cinema generally is fairly extreme). I'm in the Mark Kermode camp; 3D doesn't improve films and generally makes them worse.

I know what The_Lhc is getting at - the experience I've often had is that the film can only be seen in 3D (this definitely happened with Alice in Wonderland and Tron). Proponents of 3D, such as the studios, used high 3D viewing figures to support their argument - when in fact most people had had no choice but to see the film in 3D.

If it can be shown that for blockbuster films there is a choice and people are refusing 3D in favour of 2D, the phenomenon will justifiably die a death, save for films where a director and studio wants to do it for artistic reasons (such as Werner Herzog's Cave of Forgotten Dreams). It will be interesting to see the full stats.

 

[Sizzers]

And then we have holographic TV to look forward to.

 

[Anonymous]

And then we have holographic TV to look forward to.

and after that? hmmm. was inception so far fetched

 

[The_Lhc]

Or something, I know what I mean...

Thank heavens for that, because I haven't got a clue what you're on about, beyond 'is this the five minute, or the full half hour?'

What I'm on about is the point that for any given 3D film there's probably still far more seats available in a 2D theatre than a 3d one, so any popular film is naturally going to sell more 2D tickets than 3D.

Anyway, I gather that seats for the 3D are going unfilled, while more people are going to see it in 2D where they have a choice.

Right, that's what I was getting at.

 

[Lost Angeles]

Will this get locked as well ?

 

[BenLaw]

Will this get locked as well ?

Seems to me like reasonable, on-topic debate so far, so I can't see why.

 

[Andrew Everard]

Will this get locked as well ?

Don't see any reason why...

 

[chudleighpaul]

It won't be very long before people who rushed out and bought the new technology will regret their haste.

 

[daveh75]

It won't be very long before people who rushed out and bought the new technology will regret their haste.

No they won't... You seem to forget that '3D ready' kit also does 2D very well indeed and the majority of owners will be using there 3D kit for mostly 2D viewing anyway given the current lack of 3D content available

 

[Andrew Everard]

No they won't... You seem to forget that '3D ready' kit also does 2D very well indeed and the majority of owners will be using there 3D kit for mostly 2D viewing anyway given the current lack of 3D content available

Indeed: as the guys at Panasonic said a few months back when I was in Japan, although they know how many 3D-capable TVs they're selling, they don't have any data on how many buyers are actually using them to view 3D content.

 

[Anonymous]

Just to add my tenpenath....

Received my lg 47lw650t on tuesday, with my seven pairs of colourfull shades, and amazed at the picture. Watched tangled 3D and how to train your dragon 3D with the family and we enjoyed it more than the piccy's.

Only prob is watched NCIS in HD on 5 and while pic was sharp and indulging it felt too indulging and looked like it was filmed live or an american soap.????

Old programmes look fine but any new material looked good but strange....

 

[strapped for cash]

I'd rather have my thumb slammed in a car-door than go and see Pirates of the Caribbean: The Tide Is High after the endless shambles that was the third one.

You didn't learn after the first installment?

 

[hammill]

I'd rather have my thumb slammed in a car-door than go and see Pirates of the Caribbean: The Tide Is High after the endless shambles that was the third one.

You didn't learn after the first installment?

You didn't learn by listening to Kermode's review of the first installment?

 

[Andrew Everard]

You didn't learn by listening to Kermode's review of the first installment?

The reason why I quoted the GD in the first place.

 

[D3CYPH3R]

Only prob is watched NCIS in HD on 5 and while pic was sharp and indulging it felt too indulging and looked like it was filmed live or an american soap.???? Old programmes look fine but any new material looked good but strange....

Try playing with the motion setting, things like IFC and motionplus (no idea what the LG variant is) tend to make the motion look very odd, swithcing it off or turning down seems to greatly improve what you have described.

 

[True Blue]

Personally I think the fundamental problem is that, HD ready, full HD together with the digital switchover has really confused a lot of people.

Before we moved into 3d it would have been nice that ALL stations were broadcast in HD to allow users to get used to the experience. I am not saying the advances in technology are a bad thing, far from it. But we seem to be running before we can walk and it would have been better to sort out the digital switchover and HD first before plunging headfirst into 3D.

I am positive that 3D will be around for many years to come, but at the moment it just seems like another fad to extract more and more cash from buyers.

what we really need is decent full coverage HD without the extra cost ie HD to be the standard not SD. Remember there are still people out there, not as tech savvy as us lot who still have CRT TV's. When they come to replace them it must be really daunting and perhaps many are put off by this.

 

[Anonymous]

I have the 550t and it's a great tv, stunning in 2d and 3d, loads of tweaks you can do to get the picture looking top class. I would suggest turning trumotion off that should do the trick. Great deal too £1069 with 5 yr warranty and 3d bluray for 47"