Roger Ebert is sick of the 3D trend in Hollywood. Since he's Roger Ebert, he's not shy about telling us why. I agree with every point, and, now that digital projectors are becoming the norm, can't help but wonder if the higher frame-per-second techniques he talks about may have another shot. Film is expensive and film projectors mechanically limited in what they can project. Hard drives are cheap and getting 48 fps out of a digital projector may just be a firmware upgrade away.
Those are some good reasons, but they do rather sound like a "back in MY day" rant. Personally, I say let the free market have its way with it... if people like it enough to shell out enough extra money to make someone a profit, then it's the wave of the future, and our kids may someday wonder how we could ever stand to watch movies in 2-d. If there isn't, it'll go the way of any of half a hundred other faded fads.
Posted by: Tatterdemalian on May 2, 2010 11:54 PMActually, he's got a point. I've seen multiple 3D features now, and none of them--yes, not even Avatar--looked like anything more than a 2D movie with the occasional slightly-hallucinatory parallax shift.
What's going on here is that studios have realized that there's a core movie-going audience of teenagers and lower-class families who will NEVER stop going to the theater. And these people will A) never read reviews, B) never turn around and go home because nothing looks good, and C) will pay any amount you ask for the ticket. Adding "3D" is really just a dodge to get out of explaining why tickets just suddenly cost $5 more.
Posted by: DensityDuck on May 3, 2010 04:54 PMJust like how the majority of early CD based video games were really movies with puzzles and/or quick time events determining if you saw the next movie sequence or the "death" sequence. 3D movies are still being produced by movie producers that have worked in 2D all their lives, and still haven't figured out anything to use 3D for except the occasional "look at the special effect!" sequence. Someone with a truly groundbreaking idea that can only be done in 3d might yet come along, just as people with new ideas eventually joined the CD-based video game industry and started using the extra capacity to make huge sandbox worlds instead of unnecessarily realistic movie and/or voice sequences, and completely change the game for 3d movies.
Posted by: Tatterdemalian on May 4, 2010 08:34 AMHe's not incorrect at all. It's purely a marketing gimmick at this point. That being said, lots of marketing gimmicks eventually became very useful. I think what's going on here is that people are paying for the novelty right now - but that'll wear off as we get more jaded. What that should mean to the consumers is that studios will start to lose money on the venture unless the effects are used well or their capabilities are expanded.
This could mean holographic movies in the future. Pr0n in true 3D and all.
Posted by: Ron ap Rhys on May 4, 2010 08:45 AM