theBrownLlama
Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2017
- Messages
- 794
when you rush out premature tech, then expect it to die off soon.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
3D Box Office Hits Lowest Levels in Eight Years
- Thread starter Megalith
- Start date
when you rush out premature tech, then expect it to die off soon.
kidstechno3
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2016
- Messages
- 201
Avatar made more money than TFA (700 mil more according to Wikipedia). But in essence, it boils down to:
Avatar was made for 3D. Other films just merely adopted it as an afterthought, forcing stupid 3D mechanics in stupid areas.
Make your films with 3D in mind, and maybe you can convince people to choose 3D instead of Standard next time.
Krixon
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2015
- Messages
- 371
I actually just ordered the wife and I our cards yesterday. Half of the nearby theaters are blacked out from the service, but this might mean I start to see movies regularly again.
Chupachup
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2014
- Messages
- 435
I might agree, if they'd use a standard 3D format that would incur a one time cost for the stupid glasses. Then have 3D movies cost the same as their 2D counterparts, if we bring our glasses.
After watching several 3D films and their 2D counterparts, there simply hasn't been a 3D film that's really been worth the $5 upcharge for the "experience" or lack thereof.
only recentish film id say that made use of the 3d effect was dr strange. what pisses me off is local ciniemas showing films that hardly make use of it like last jedi etc on the biggest screens in 3d only. the tech works buts most if not all filmakers dont give a shit about it.
Wrecked Em
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2004
- Messages
- 8,169
Did they even film a 3d movie in 2017? The studios are the reason it failed, not the consumers.
I think the last good 3d movie I saw was Life of Pi. I'd gladly pay a premium for another 3d production like this.
I think the last good 3d movie I saw was Life of Pi. I'd gladly pay a premium for another 3d production like this.
Post-production 3D is what the vast majority of films do for their 3D experience and it's just the worst. The first time I ran into it was Alice In Wonderland (2010) and I spent the entire film wishing I could actually appreciate the sets/artwork instead of feeling like the movie was dictating where my eyes must focus. Never saw Avatar but heard it was incredible in 3D, since it was intended to be 3D from the get-go. As it is, I'd simply rather not see a movie at all if the only option is post-production 3D.
Interesting site: http://realorfake3d.com/
Uh no it's not. The only reviewers that are extensions of a movies marketing or the oddball reviewers that end up in adds for otherwise panned movies. And if you don't think Reviews matter, you should go talk to the studios, because aside from a few critic proof movies (typically genre movies), reviews matter. Was it Baywatch that crashed and burned based on reviews or Chips?
I can promise you for movies that I know nothing about, I look at reviews. If they suck, I don't part with my cash in most cases and I go to a lot more movies than all the [H] whiners (aka movies all suck now why dont' they make movies like when I was a kid).
I said it earlier, but back then 3D was not much more than 2D. I think it was a buck more for Avatar (maybe 2). Now it's 4-5 bucks more.
Also, as I recall, the brightness for Avatar as well as the color pallet was adjusted for 3D showings. Most 3D presentations are not adjusted and as a result we lose almost all reds. I don't know if that's the fault of the theater or the studio, but it's a problem (as is the 3D premium)
Yes, but they often give thumbs up to fake 3D. To me it's all about getting the brightness and colors right and too often that doesn't happen
Krenum
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2005
- Messages
- 19,193
Jurassic Park in 3D iMax was amazing. Also, Lion King was awesome & The Jungle Book.
Other than that, the movie industry has been putting out some turds recently.
I would say that in some cases yes and in some cases no. There are movies that were rated very well and didn't make a lot of money, then there are movies that were rated terrible like Suicide Squad that made over $550m more than the budget.
Like you I see a lot of movies. Actually spent an entire day at the theater a few weeks ago going from one movie to another to another. However I personally have never bothered to look at reviews as I know what I like and have found many cases where I like a movie but others hate it or others like it and I just find it to be eh.
lucidrenegade
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2011
- Messages
- 388
The only movie where I actively sought to watch it in 3d was Avatar. Otherwise I'll always choose 2d over 3d if I have a choice.
Yes, but they often give thumbs up to fake 3D.
I suspect Suicide Squad falls under Genre movie. I check reviews, because I like to see movies that may fall outside of what I'd normally see. That said, I sometimes Just check the tomato meter and maybe look a a blurb from a few reviewers I like, but skip the full blown review until after the fact.
But as an example, I ignored the reviews for a Wrinkle in Time, and I shouldn't have. It was not very good (though I suspect kids liked it). I think it wanted to be a modern Never Ending Story but it's just not that good (though I haven't seen that since the mid 80s...but I was no kid when I saw it.
My problem might just be that I watch a little of everything, so there is really no such thing as a movie outside of my normal range. Just more of a movie that I wasn't in the mood for at that time, and when done with a movie don't expect it to stay with me forever. Back before digital or Netflix I used to go see a movie every weekend, if there wasn't anything I actually planned on seeing i would just randomly pick something. With Netflix DVD, i was receiving a movie every single day. Once digital came out started watching multiple movies a day. Some good, some bad, some so bad they were good (good old b grade horror movies). I could go from watching A Serbian Film, to PS I love you, to Terminator, to Finding Nemo in one sitting and that would be normal.
Have a slight memory of Never Ending Story, but have seen about 6000 movies since then so don't recall much detail. I had thought Wrinkle in Time looked like a eh movie to start with so was saving that for a digital release movie to watch if it shows up on Netflix.
I've been to one 3D real-action type of film, and it made me want to throw up. I don't often get motion sick, but this did me in. It also kills me how 3D changed the way movies were shot, so you would end up with these scenes that were solely for the benefit of 3D, and didn't really contribute anything to the storyline.
jnemesh
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2013
- Messages
- 1,084
The problem is that only James Cameron (and a couple of others) have used 3D properly...by properly, I mean using specific 3D cameras to film and having the cinematography planned for 3D (longer time spent on each shot, to let the eyes naturally adjust to the 3d information on each individual shot...too many cuts, too fast, like most movies are filmed these days, gives you eye strain and a headache!).
The incentive to do a quick 3D conversion in post was huge. Spend a little more money, and you can charge customers another $3-$5 a ticket! So the market was flooded with crappy conversions, and even big studios like Disney/Marvel were soon making EVERY movie 3D, whether the content justified it or not.
It only takes the public so long to catch on. See 2 or 3 crappy conversions, and all of the sudden, you are searching for the standard, 2D showings instead of the 3D showings!
I was a HUGE fan of the new 3D technologies when they were introduced several years back...both in theaters and on TVs and projectors for home use. But the experience has always fallen short. Now, I can't wait for the final nails to be put in the coffin (again!) and we can wait for another decade before 3D rears it's ugly head in movies once again.
The incentive to do a quick 3D conversion in post was huge. Spend a little more money, and you can charge customers another $3-$5 a ticket! So the market was flooded with crappy conversions, and even big studios like Disney/Marvel were soon making EVERY movie 3D, whether the content justified it or not.
It only takes the public so long to catch on. See 2 or 3 crappy conversions, and all of the sudden, you are searching for the standard, 2D showings instead of the 3D showings!
I was a HUGE fan of the new 3D technologies when they were introduced several years back...both in theaters and on TVs and projectors for home use. But the experience has always fallen short. Now, I can't wait for the final nails to be put in the coffin (again!) and we can wait for another decade before 3D rears it's ugly head in movies once again.
Avatar was just so awesome in 3D, I think I watched it 3 times. Then my next 3D movie was Alice in Wonderland, and it was horrible and nausea inducing "3D" (let's be honest, post-production 3D isn't 3D! It's a lame height map practically.)
And that's just it: there could be some incredible work being done with 3D right now, but I don't really feel like gambling with 2+ hours of my time nor my movie-going experience in general. I get to pay more money and if their implementation of 3D doesn't meet my standards (whatever they might be) then I'm horribly distracted in a movie theater for the duration of the film - plus the film itself is ruined for me. I'll pay extra for an IMAX version but 3D in its current iteration is just unnecessary to me.
Did I say anything they should not make any more 3d movies? No. Don't blame me for what other are saying.
I did say I would never go watch a 3d movie, even if someone gave me free tickets.
But free tickets would likely be the only way I'd even go watch a 2d movie in the theater.
Bingo, gimmicky crap.
If they just naturally filmed in 3d and left it at that... I would probably watch one occasionally. No need to purposefully emphasis so much.
sanders4617
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2009
- Messages
- 114
Price is big turnoff.. plus it always gave me a headache. Would've loved to see more of it though.
Jeez I feel sorry for you man. It's gotta be rough to live in a place where every movie theater sucks. I, OTOH, have several good to great theaters and if you catch a matinee, the prices are 7-9 bucks. Obviously if you do Dolby Cinema it's insanely expensive (and I generally don't think it's worth the 10 dollar premium), but Dolby Digital and Amos theaters are available in that range and those nice recliners are so comfy. And no, people aren't talking or on their phones during the movie. I wont say it never happens, but it's extremely rare. I did have some dude a month or 2 back on his phone as the move started and then that was it...I can't remember the last time before that.Did I say anything they should not make any more 3d movies? No. Don't blame me for what other are saying.
I did say I would never go watch a 3d movie, even if someone gave me free tickets.
But free tickets would likely be the only way I'd even go watch a 2d movie in the theater.
Sorry for me?
Don't bother, there are dozens of theaters within an short drive like the Irvine Spectrum 21, the Edwards 20 in Aliso Viejo, or the Regal Cinemas Foothill Towne Center 22. We even have a couple Cinépolis Luxury Cinemas and Regency Theatres Director’s Cut Cinema nearby.
I just don't like the experience (crowds, noisy/rude people, ect.) or the high ticket and food prices. ($15 for a regular ticket, $10 for matinee). Also hate that the volume is usually so loud it ends up distorted, and my ears hurt the rest of the day.
I'd rather watch the movie at home with my family, sitting on my comfy recliner, with a fresh bowl of gourmet popcorn from my home popper.
Even better I have a volume control, pause and even a rewind button if need it.
theBrownLlama
Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2017
- Messages
- 794
Baywatch and Chips are not good examples. Both have been off air for too long, Baywatch the movie focuses on male bodies (completely the opposite of the series), Chips is unknown outside the US
but the main reason they bombed was because studios budgeted them way too high.......probably deliberate ( hollywood accounting and all that) cause no one , from a movie goer to a studio exec would be dumb enough to pour so much money into these IPs
jlbenedict
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 22, 2005
- Messages
- 2,207
how about just the box office "in general"... remakes.. garbage.. nothing original... just straight up trash that comes out .. not just specific to 3d
DejaWiz
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2005
- Messages
- 21,825
The only 3D movies I've seen that were done worth a shit are animated features done by huge production companies.
And, even then, I usually prefer the 2D version because paying the extra for my family and I, plus fighting the 3D glasses to stay put over my regular glasses sucks...
And, even then, I usually prefer the 2D version because paying the extra for my family and I, plus fighting the 3D glasses to stay put over my regular glasses sucks...
LIke I said, I feel sorry for you. I go to movies in a handful of theaters and the crowds are not noisy/rude. 10 bucks for a matinee is a little more than I pay, but not by much and it's a 2 hour movie. I don't have to buy a drink or popcorn.
Home theaters are great, but unless your movie theaters suck donkey dick, your home theater isn't in the same league. I"ve watched movies in 30k+ home theaters and they're not even close to the best screens in Look Cinemas, Galaxy 10 or even the AMC in the mall (much less the newer AMC in Addison).
I hear what you'r saying. I hear others say, but I havne't had that kind of experience with a bad audience on a regular basis since The Dark Knight. Back then people on their phones was an issue, but this decade, it's incredibly rare. And I'm not just talking about here in Dallas. I've been in Mississippi and LA and it's mostly the same. I will admit if I'm in a theater with old people talking can be a problem but even that isn't as bad as it was 5 or 10 years ago.
That said, maybe you only go to theaters at night. I only go to matinees, because they're both cheaper and less crowded, which makes it easier for me to reserve the seats I want (and there are literally less than a dozen seats in any theater that I'll sit in)
Baywatch tanked in the U.S. (it did much better outside of the US) and it was in large part due to it's horrible reviews (18% positive)
CHIPS had a paltry 25 million dollar budget and failed to make it's money back in the US (which you correctly note is the only real market for that movie) (17% positive).
There's a reason why Rotten Tomatoes is a popular web site (and top 5 among movies sites).