As an Amazon associate we earn from qualifying purchases. Thanks for your support!                               
×

Best Blu-ray Movie Deals


Best Blu-ray Movie Deals, See All the Deals »
Top deals | New deals  
 All countries United States United Kingdom Canada Germany France Spain Italy Australia Netherlands Japan Mexico
Superman I-IV 5-Film Collection 4K (Blu-ray)
$74.99
21 hrs ago
The Howling 4K (Blu-ray)
$35.99
6 hrs ago
The Bone Collector 4K (Blu-ray)
$33.49
14 hrs ago
Back to the Future Part III 4K (Blu-ray)
$24.96
1 day ago
Back to the Future: The Ultimate Trilogy 4K (Blu-ray)
$44.99
 
Death Wish 3 4K (Blu-ray)
$33.49
16 hrs ago
It's a Wonderful Life 4K (Blu-ray)
$11.99
2 hrs ago
Death Line 4K (Blu-ray)
$34.99
6 hrs ago
Spotlight 4K (Blu-ray)
$35.99
12 hrs ago
Vikings: The Complete Series (Blu-ray)
$54.49
 
Jurassic World: 7-Movie Collection 4K (Blu-ray)
$99.99
1 day ago
The Toxic Avenger 4K (Blu-ray)
$35.33
 
What's your next favorite movie?
Join our movie community to find out


Image from: Life of Pi (2012)

Go Back   Blu-ray Forum > Movies > Movies
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-13-2009, 08:52 PM   #1
toef toef is offline
Blu-ray Champion
 
toef's Avatar
 
May 2008
Isla Nublar
229
545
1
4
Default 3D Movies = the future?

Interesting article from Newsweek about the use of 3D in upcoming movies. I'll post the text below.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/178815/page/1

I think Katzenberg is a little too optimistic about it's use, but it's certainly a lot cooler now than the old 3D.

Last edited by toef; 01-13-2009 at 08:54 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2009, 08:53 PM   #2
toef toef is offline
Blu-ray Champion
 
toef's Avatar
 
May 2008
Isla Nublar
229
545
1
4
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Newsweek
Three years ago, Jeffrey Katzenberg, one of the most powerful men in Hollywood, had a "Eureka!" moment while watching Robert Zemeckis's "The Polar Express." The adventure-filled Christmas story, starring Tom Hanks, used performance-capture technology to incorporate the movements of live actors into animated characters, a novelty at the time. But what made the viewing truly memorable for Katzenberg was that he was watching it in 3-D in an IMAX theater. For the CEO of DreamWorks Animation, who has overseen such hits as the "Shrek" franchise and the recently released "Madagascar 2," the experience was a revelation. As soon as he got back in his car, he called his team: "I've seen the future of cinema, and it is 3-D," he said. "We've got to go and figure this out because it's a tidal wave of opportunity, and whoever gets on it at the beginning and rides it is going to profit the most."

He's not talking about the 3-D of the Eisenhower era. Back in the 1950s, the film industry, threatened by the rise of television, developed a crude form of three-dimensional projection. Two cameras captured two separate images and then superimposed them to create an illusion of depth. But this stereoscopic imaging often strained viewers' eyes, causing headaches and nausea, and it never really took off. The rise of digital technology has changed all that; a digital projector can now create a three-dimensional picture by sending two images—one for the left eye and one for the right—eliminating eyestrain as well as the blurred lines that marred many earlier 3-D experiences. Instead of goofy cardboard red-and-blue glasses, viewers wear sleek, fashionably tinted specs to keep their focus. "It's unfortunate it's still called 3-D because it has nothing to do with the 3-D of the past," said Steve Schklair, CEO of the California-based 3-D technology company 3ality Digital Systems, during the inaugural 3D Film & Entertainment Technology Festival in Singapore in November.

Ever since his "Polar Express" epiphany, Katzenberg has become one of the most vocal proponents of 3-D movies, believing the improved technology could be the third revolution for his industry, akin to the introduction of sound in the 1920s and color in the 1930s. "The first two were about bringing a better film experience to the audience," he says. "This one is about bringing audiences into the film experience itself." Indeed, DreamWorks Animation has announced that all future films will be shot in 3-D, beginning with "Monsters vs. Aliens," a spoof of a 1950s science-fiction movie scheduled for release in March—making history by being the first animated work designed from start to finish in 3-D.
clear pixel Quantcast

It will have plenty of competition. An onslaught of new releases is expected to open audiences' eyes to what the technology can do in the hands of such master craftsmen as Zemeckis—whose 3-D "A Christmas Carol" starring Jim Carrey as Scrooge is expected in November—and James Cameron, who is directing the much anticipated $220 million live-action 3-D film "Avatar." Other Hollywood luminaries are also working on 3-D films; Steven Spielberg is planning to turn "Ghost in the Shell" into a 3-D action film and is working with Peter Jackson on a "Tintin" series in 3-D, and George Lucas plans to release all six "Star Wars" movies in 3-D. Meanwhile, Disney's first full effort, "Up," about two unlikely explorers in a lost world, will be released this summer. In addition to "A Christmas Carol," the studio has another 16 3-D films in development, including Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland," with Johnny Depp in the role of the Mad Hatter, and Jerry Bruckheimer's live-action "G-Force," a spy comedy starring animals. Fox will release the animated 3-D "Ice Age 3" this summer.

At a time when the movie industry is trying to meet growing audience demand for fresh experiences and new media, many Hollywood bigwigs believe 3-D films could bring back some magic to the silver screen, re-energizing moviegoers and increasing profits. "The key to a good film has always been story, story, story; but in today's environment, it's story, story, story and 'Blow me away,' " Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures Group president Mark Zoradi told the audience at the Singapore festival during the world premiere of Disney's 3-D film "Bolt."

The technology also offers a solution to one of the industry's biggest problems: piracy. About 90 percent of pirated movies come from a camera brought in to a movie theater, and no camera can yet capture a 3-D film. But it doesn't come cheap; the additional average cost of making a 3-D movie will range from 15 to 20 percent of the overall budget, says Jim Gianopulos, chairman and CEO of Fox Filmed Entertainment. So far, audiences have shown they are willing to pay a 20 percent premium for the experience; a 3-D theater showing the same film as a 2-D theater sells 3.5 times as many tickets. But that means higher ticket prices; Katzenberg has been suggesting theaters charge an additional $5 per ticket for a 3-D movie—roughly 60 percent more than the current North American average of $7.

Some of the larger studios are so convinced that 3-D is the key to their future profitability that they are willing to share the financial burden of helping North American theaters convert to digital by replacing their current projectors with 3-D ones. So far there are only about 1,400 3-D ready screens—including IMAX theaters—in the United States and another 700 around the world, mainly in the U.K., France, Germany and South Korea. But Zoradi believes the number is now approaching "a critical mass" that will soon be big enough to justify 3-D-only releases. (Typically, 3-D films like "Bolt" also have to be released in 2-D to make them cost-effective.) "Without question, we're close to a meaningful tipping point," Dan Glickman, chairman of the Motion Picture Association of America, said at the Singapore festival. "The technology is a genuine revolution in the experience of enjoying a film."

A key difference between today's 3-D films and those of the past is that the third dimension has become a central part of the storytelling. "In the past, the technology was used for moments and gimmicks," says Greg Foster, chairman and president of filmed entertainment at IMAX Corp. "The 3-D was rather gratuitous. So, for example, you would have a spear coming at you and it would be thrown dead-center screen because that was the only way you could experience the 3-D. Now the entire frame is in 3-D and you're able to experience the 3-D environment from beginning to end." Filmmakers appreciate the new artistic opportunities; when the DreamWorks Animation team decided recently to "re-tackle" in 3-D Tai Lung's escape scene in "Kung Fu Panda," 70 percent of the shots turned out differently from a cinematographic point of view, explains Katzenberg. "And the scene was 11 seconds longer, so everything changes," he says. The "Kung Fu Panda" sequel will be produced entirely in 3-D.

Ever the optimist, Katzenberg believes that in five to seven years all movies will be made in 3-D. Others are more cautious. "I don't think 3-D is the cure for everything that ails the movie business," says Foster. "You have to pick the right movies. Not everything is suited to 3-D." He says that, inspired by the success of "The Polar Express," IMAX tried to make a few more 3-D movies, which didn't turn out nearly as well. "That's when we realized we have to be a bit more discerning about our decision-making process when it comes to 3-D films," he says. Among those that have since made the cut: "Under the Sea 3D," a documentary about marine life narrated by Jim Carrey and coproduced with Warner Bros. that is scheduled for release next month.
Quantcast

Yet it's only a matter of time before 3-D technology is so prevalent that it's even available at home. Companies like Samsung and Mitsubishi have started rolling out "3-D ready" TV sets, which refresh images at high speed and use either rear-projection models or plasma TVs. "Glasses-free" sets by Philips—which operate like a holographic greeting card—are in development. DreamWorks Animation and PepsiCo will each air 3-D spots in the Feb. 1 Super Bowl as part of a joint initiative that includes distributing 125 million pairs of special 3-D glasses to American households. Still, most professionals agree it will take years before the technology can achieve its full potential. Those who have invested in a 3-D future are gambling that it's no trick of the eye.

© 2009
.......
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2009, 09:08 PM   #3
thedarkangel1975 thedarkangel1975 is offline
Blu-ray Guru
 
thedarkangel1975's Avatar
 
Jun 2008
Pennsylvania
34
374
12
357
1
Default

I dunno if every movie can go 3-d, but that is basically really the only improvement to hi-def. The pixels you see on on a 1080 TV is the mose a human eye can see. The only other route to go is 3-d or virtual reality.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2009, 09:10 PM   #4
Hamburglar Hamburglar is offline
Active Member
 
Hamburglar's Avatar
 
Apr 2008
Maryland
Default

They have to think of a way so that I can enjoy a 3D movie without wearing those stupid glasses.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2009, 09:11 PM   #5
thedarkangel1975 thedarkangel1975 is offline
Blu-ray Guru
 
thedarkangel1975's Avatar
 
Jun 2008
Pennsylvania
34
374
12
357
1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamburglar View Post
They have to think of a way so that I can enjoy a 3D movie without wearing those stupid glasses.
They would have to make a projecter that shows the movie in 3-d
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2009, 09:19 PM   #6
4K2K 4K2K is offline
Special Member
 
Feb 2008
Region B
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thedarkangel1975 View Post
I dunno if every movie can go 3-d, but that is basically really the only improvement to hi-def. The pixels you see on on a 1080 TV is the mose a human eye can see. The only other route to go is 3-d or virtual reality.
That can't be true. The human eye can see more than 1080p. Especially more than 800p (which is around what most movies really are on Blu-ray).
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2009, 11:03 PM   #7
steve1971 steve1971 is offline
Blu-ray Samurai
 
steve1971's Avatar
 
Feb 2008
Saint Paul Minnesota.
15
352
119
1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamburglar View Post
They have to think of a way so that I can enjoy a 3D movie without wearing those stupid glasses.

I agree!!!



  Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2009, 11:12 PM   #8
jj5206 jj5206 is offline
Power Member
 
jj5206's Avatar
 
Jan 2008
Illinois
22
36
243
288
238
Default

man i hope not...i can't watch 3D movies...they give me a splitting headache...
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2009, 01:28 AM   #9
statikcat statikcat is offline
Blu-ray Guru
 
statikcat's Avatar
 
Jul 2007
Washington, DC
67
Send a message via AIM to statikcat Send a message via Yahoo to statikcat
Default

3d glasses at theater hardcore hamper the pq. It's fuzzy and dark. Not worth it 9/10 times. 3d was cool back in the late 80s early 90s.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2009, 01:28 AM   #10
mikejet mikejet is offline
Banned
 
mikejet's Avatar
 
Sep 2008
Los Angeles, CA
5
29
Default

Avatar will prove 3D movies can work.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2009, 01:53 AM   #11
Septimus Prime Septimus Prime is offline
Blu-ray Samurai
 
Septimus Prime's Avatar
 
Jan 2008
164
2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4K2K View Post
That can't be true. The human eye can see more than 1080p. Especially more than 800p (which is around what most movies really are on Blu-ray).
Hey, man, those black bars look WAY better in HD!
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2009, 12:50 AM   #12
toef toef is offline
Blu-ray Champion
 
toef's Avatar
 
May 2008
Isla Nublar
229
545
1
4
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by statikcat View Post
3d glasses at theater hardcore hamper the pq. It's fuzzy and dark. Not worth it 9/10 times. 3d was cool back in the late 80s early 90s.
But that's the thing. 3D today isn't the same as 3D from the 80s and 90s. I've yet to actually see it, but apparently it's supposed to be pretty good.

I was hoping to catch U23D at the local IMAX when it was playing, but never got around to it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2009, 01:09 PM   #13
Sussudio Sussudio is offline
Blu-ray Champion
 
Sep 2008
1
1
11
Thumbs down FOX Refuses to Pay for 3D Glasses for its 3D Movies

Quote:
While almost every major studio spent ShoWest this week lauding 3D as the future of their industry and pushing for ways to make it more mainstream, Fox is as usual, going their own way. They have three 3D movies coming in 2010, but they aren’t interested in providing the eyewear people will need to watch them.

Business Insider reports that Fox is refusing to pay the $1 million per movie it’ll cost to provide movie theaters with the polarized, 3D glasses necessary for viewers to watch their movies in 3D. Instead, they want movie theaters to pay for them on their own and as a result, the nation’s major theater chains are revolting.

Regal Cinemas for instance, has already decided they’ll pass on showing Ice Age 3 in 3D, as long as they’re stuck holding the bag for the glasses. AMC theaters and Cinemark are also expected to oppose Fox’s demand that they buy the glasses themselves. So in an environment where Hollywood is desperate to push 3D as a format, get it on more screens, get it in front of more faces, Fox has effectively accomplished the exact opposite.

It is however, sort of easy to understand Fox’s position. Generally they make the movies and theater owners are expected to buy the equipment necessary to show them. Fox doesn’t pay for their projectors or their screens or their theater seats. Why should they pay for the glasses? On the other hand, on a big-budget movie like Ice Age 3, $1 million dollars is really just a drop in the bucket. They’ll spend tens of millions on marketing it alone. $1 million bucks is chump change to Fox and they aren’t in the power position here. 3D hasn’t reached the point where it’s a necessity for these theater chains. They’ll do just fine without it. Fox on the other hand, if they truly believe 3D is their future, desperately need as many theaters as possible to use the 3D format. If they’re smart, they’ll just give in and pay it.
Source: Cinemablend

In an age where Hollywood is really starting to push 3D, you'd think a decision like this would be highly frowned on. So who do you side with...Fox or the theaters?
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2009, 01:18 PM   #14
fatediesel fatediesel is offline
Blu-ray Count
 
Nov 2007
Iowa
410
47
Default

I side with the theaters since they already are hardly making any money off the movie itself. The theaters are already spending hundreds of thousands of dollars equipping their projectors for 3D and if more studios start trying to make the theaters provide the 3D glasses theaters that haven't converted to 3D (currently around 80% of theaters) may decide that they will never recoup their investment and not upgrade.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2009, 01:21 PM   #15
Moefiz Moefiz is offline
Blu-ray Knight
 
Moefiz's Avatar
 
Jul 2007
288
20
15
70
Default

If the movie theaters have to pay for the glasses which the shouldn't have to anyway then its will be pass on to public which doesn't make any sense, the studio is just shooting themselves in the foot..
Its already expensive for a family to goto the movies.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2009, 01:26 PM   #16
bajor27 bajor27 is offline
Blu-ray Guru
 
bajor27's Avatar
 
Nov 2007
BC, Canada
1031
2
5
Default

I'm not sure who I'm with. I know theatres don't make much on the movies themselves, but the theatres where I live charge more to go to a 3D movie

Since I can't think of a good reason it costs more, than they probably should be forking out the bill.

On the other hand, since Fox is choosing to make the movie in 3D, part of that choice should include the cost of providing the theatres with glasses.

Any way they can do something like with Imax 3D and just reuse the glasses?
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2009, 01:30 PM   #17
LOTR07 LOTR07 is offline
Blu-ray Guru
 
LOTR07's Avatar
 
Dec 2007
Delaware, USA
50
628
440
16
6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moefiz View Post
If the movie theaters have to pay for the glasses which the shouldn't have to anyway then its will be pass on to public which doesn't make any sense, the studio is just shooting themselves in the foot..
Its already expensive for a family to goto the movies.
the 3d movies are already more to watch...MvA was 3 dollars more to watch in 3D than 2D so passing 3d glasses cost along is insane. We pay enough for tickets and food fare already all be dammed if i have to pay for glasses too...however we did keep our glasses from MvA so for me its a mute point as we have our own now and i guess i will put them away for safe keeping that way we won't have to pay if the studio's force that on the theaters and the public...
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2009, 01:40 PM   #18
ScarredLungs ScarredLungs is offline
Blu-ray Champion
 
ScarredLungs's Avatar
 
Dec 2007
Utah
65
1433
1
8
4
Default

To me, it is the similar to the idea for an IMAX movie. Since Hollywood makes a movie for the IMAX, they should not have to provide an IMAX theater to every theater that wants to show the movie. Instead those who have already built and purchased an IMAX theater will get an IMAX version. Likewise, if a theater wants 3-D, they should pay for the glasses. I side with the theaters on this one.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2009, 02:52 PM   #19
zicmubleu zicmubleu is offline
Expert Member
 
Dec 2008
Default

How does Fox know how many glasses to provide if they are to provide them? Wouldn't that number be dependent on the actual success of the movie? I think the theater should bear the cost of the glasses, they charge more for the 3D version as mentioned previously, and if that doesn't include the cost of the glasses then they can tack that on as well, but allow the movie-goer to bring their own glasses to avoid that cost. I am sure if the theater charges for the glasses they will have a hefty markup on them and be able to recoup all costs easily. They are recylcing the glasses at my theater so they might need to provide a deposit return for people that don't want to keep the glasses for viewing the next 3D movie.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2009, 03:04 PM   #20
Diesel Diesel is offline
Blu-ray Archduke
 
Diesel's Avatar
 
Jan 2009
-
-
-
-
31
10
Default

fox is a d***
and that is totally ignoring their other faults
they should pay for the glasses without question
especially since the movie being in 3D was their decision
1million (like it says) for something like ice age is chump change
and if the 3D gets good word of mouth it will bring in even more viewers and make their 1million back 100fold

count me on the theaters side
  Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Blu-ray Forum > Movies > Movies

Similar Threads
thread Forum Thread Starter Replies Last Post
The Future of Movies: 3-D or IMAX Movie Polls Jsheth 65 06-10-2013 04:29 AM
Future Paramount Movies..... Wish Lists ahoward1126 22 09-13-2009 04:10 PM
top 4 future paramount movies Blu-ray Technology and Future Technology magic blu-ray 51 02-22-2008 05:48 AM
BD - The Future Of Movies Blu-ray Movies - North America DrinkMore 9 05-17-2007 08:56 PM
BR Movies - Future Prices? Blu-ray Movies - North America kilofox 13 03-06-2007 08:04 AM



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:42 PM.