Critics are saying that 3D is on the downturn. Given the choice between 2D and 3D movie goers are starting to vote with their feet and choosing the old school option. What do you think, which do you prefer? And where do you see cinema going in the future?
It's really too soon to say for now, as you could make an argument going either way. On the one hand, you can't say that 3-D is on the decline, as more and more movies are being released in 3-D. Plus, with the way 3-D tvs have just been introduced onto the market, you can expect to see a lot more 3-D movies on DVD and Blue Ray shelves soon.
However, on the other hand, you can argue that 3-D is starting to go on the decline. Films like the "Green Lantern" earned extra revenue because of 3-D sales, but what many people fail to understand is that part of the reason why it's production cost was so high at 200 million was because of the extra money it took to shoot the film in 3-D; which drove up the cost of production, as the film barely struggled to break even. Therefore, it's a bit of a double edge sword. On the one hand, 3-D is a rather expensive gamble for any movie, but it can definitely pay off if it works out.
To be honest, I'm just going to say lets wait and see. It's too early to tell at this time. I know a few years ago, I would've definitively said that 3-D was a fad, but after hearing about 3-D TVs becoming more compatible to show 2-D programs as well, and the idea of other channels being exclusively available in 3-D, it does seem it could go either way. Sure, there's still some things that I'm sure about like Blue Ray being a fad, but 3-D is something I'm just going to say we'll have to wait and see.
After the release of Avatar in 3D, most of the other Hollywood movies began producing 3D movies too. They hardly have any 3D effects. Its just a gimmick to attract crowd. Movies like Rio, POC 4 and a so on have 3D effects only for a few seconds. I rather prefer watching movies in 2D.
We always go to the 2D showing, unless it is a movie that is really made better by the 3D effects. For instance, I wish we had seen Avatar in the theater when it was 3D. It seems that every movie now has a 3D version, though, and it just isn't worth the extra price. Smurfs in 3D? I don't want to fork over the money to see that in 2D, much less 3D (with double the ticket price)!
We rarely get out to see adult movies, and when we take the kids to the children's movie options, it is simply too expensive to see the 3D version. Plus, my little four year old has a tiny nose and the glasses won't stay on (and he has a lazy eye so he can't perceive the 3D effect, anyway).
I far prefer the regular 2D effects, and have a feeling that the 3D movies will reduce in the future.
The BBC is to use next year's London Olympics to debut a new broadcasting technology, Super Hi Vision, that delivers picture quality 16 times better than high-definition television.
In 2012 the BBC intends to erect custom-built 50ft-high screens at three locations around the UK to allow the public to catch a glimpse of the future of television, although consumers will have to wait until at least 2022 before TV sets will be available on the high street.
"When you sit and watch it you really get the experience of being in seat D5 in the stadium," said Roger Mosey, director of London 2012 for the BBC, speaking at the MediaGuardian Edinburgh International Television Festival. "Super Hi Vision might be a better long-term prospect than 3D in some ways a it gives you the feel of being in the stadium.
Do you see this as the long term future for the movies then?
You cannot stop developement, but the problem is always manufactors agree on same stanards, ie vhs or beta. 3D has taken a similar path. Now the BBC has developed what jumps ahead, sets the standard, yes I do see it taking over, wearing glasses would always be a yawn.
My thoughts... After seeing Avatar in 2D, I later went and saw it at an IMAX in 3D. Then I bought a 55" Sony 3D HDTV (which came with the DVD) and I love it. There are only a few 3D movies that have come out since that I have bothered to get or watch. It's all about the cinematography, the scenery. No Smurfs for me, but the opening few minutes of Monster House in 3D are incredible! The leaves blowing in the wind is awesome. Things like that are what capture your eye in 3D. Many of the nature movies produced in 3D are simply spectacular.
As for GOING to the movies, that goes back to the first part of this. If there is great cinematography and scenery, then I would go to see it in 3D and probably get the DVD too.
I live in a rural area, which does have a small theater, 2D of course. The closest 3D theater is a 100 mile round trip. Unless a theater is part of a big chain operation they will likely remain 2D until the demise of movie theaters, which will probably be in the next 10-15 years. The advent of downloadable movies from Netflixs and the like will eventually make theaters obsolete.
I hate 3d. Them red and blue glasses just change the color for me. Its weird I dont actally see it in 3D just the colors....
Maybe there is something wrong with my eyes, i dont know...
3D has a shelf life of 2 years. It is a generic 'pink elephant', just like every gadget in the tech world, slowly eating each other out of existence.
by crankalicious6 years ago
Among my least favorite films are SHINING THROUGH and I AM SAM.My least favorite movie experiences usually involve somebody talking. What's that Darren Aronofsky film with the tree? I forget, but I do remember two old...
by Christopher Floyd6 years ago
I miss being scared by a story. More often than not, especially in the cinema, I find that what is presented as horror isn't very scary, it's just splashy. Anyone else feel this way? Anyone else miss being scared when...
by OpinionDuck6 years ago
Week after week I look to see if there is any new movies worth spending twenty bucks to see.Week after the week the only thing out there are new 3d animation movies.Last summer had hot weather but the new movies were...
by John Paolo B.Magdaluyo4 years ago
what do you prefer in all the editions that twilight has on book and on screen.
by CrystalSingleton9 years ago
I just want to say I was outraged that I was charged $7.25 for my 13 month old to attend the new Dr Suess movie "Horton Hears a Who" with her older siblings of age 6 and 4. It's bad enough I pay for my own...
by MrMidNight6 years ago
Mine, when the theater was packed, and two people were squeezing by some dude in the 3rd row below me, his response, oh no, no, no, BUTT IN MY FACE, BUTT IN MY FACE!!!!!!! The whole theater was LAUGHING THEIR FAO...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.