Let’s see if I have this straight: “Shrek Forever After” didn’t open as as strong as hoped; therefore that proves that 3D is doomed; the fad-ish fascination is over. It’s the beginning of the end of the road for 3D.

Scott Hettrick

Also, some people may have physical problems with 3D, and therefore that will kill any chance of 3D taking hold with the mass population.

And, of course, there’s no way people will wear glasses for the entire length of a TV program or videogame in 3D.

Finally, no one who just bought a new HDTV is going to spend another couple thousand dollars replacing it with a 3DTV.

Conclusion: 3D is once again a passing fad that will not catch hold any better than it has in its past incarnations.

Are you kidding me with all this shallow-minded, uninformed malarky?

First of all, do you really believe that six months after a 3D movie became the top-grossing movie of all-time and was followed immediately by another that also ranks among the all-time top performers, and that after every consumer electronics manufacturer has introduced 3DTVs, 3D Blu-ray players, and 3D videogame systems while programmers are launching dedicated 3DTV channels, that all of that is going to go the way of 8-track tapes, pet rocks, and… previous 3D incarnations?

I’m not saying 3D is going to be wildly successful on every level or that there are not still plenty of issues to be resolved. But make no mistake, 3D is now a permanent part of our lives.

What’s amazing to me is the knee-jerk contrarian responses and comments by some otherwise respectable media and industry executives.

Let’s take each of the doomsayer forecasts one at a time:

• A disappointing 3D movie portends the end of 3D. Are you telling me that every new movie produced in color was a blockbuster? How come no one forecast the end of color films or 2D movies last weekend when “MacGruber” tanked? There will be an equal number of 3D bombs as there are flops in 2D. 3D won’t make a bad movie a good movie anymore than color or sound did, or than widescreen or surround sound did; a bad movie is bad in any format.
• Physical reactions to 3D. A small percentage of people have physical reactions to everything from rollercoasters and airplanes to Pokemon cartoons. That doesn’t mean none of those things ever get produced. Some people get nauseous riding on boats or facing backwards on a train or riding in a car on a winding road. Those people take a Dramamine, drink some wine, or open a window. 3D has been around in various forms for more than a century and throngs of audiences have been enjoying 3D movies in theme parks and at IMAX theaters for decades. Guess what; people who are bothered by 3D don’t spend their time or money watching it! Pretty simple.
• People will not wear glasses to watch a TV program or videogame. Let’s see now; don’t a lot of people wear glasses 24-hours a day to see everything? That’s different, some say; these are special glasses that can only be used to watch the TV program. If you want to answer the phone or do something else, you’d probably want to take them off, and then put them on again to go back to watching the movie. Too much of a pain. Hmmm, that sounds an awful lot like how millions of people use reading glasses specifically to read a book for hours at a time.
• People who just bought an HDTV are not about to buy a 3DTV. This is the most ignorant argument of all. Of course the people who just bought an HDTV will not be buying a 3DTV anytime soon. No one expects them to. Those people are not the first to buy any new technology — they were not the first to buy DVD players or Blu-ray players, and they were not the first to buy HDTVs. The first people to buy 3DTVs will be the same people who bought the first HDTVs more than five years ago. That’s how every new technology works; there are early adopters and gadget freeks, and then rich people who want to be on the cutting edge, and then, in a year or two, the average guy with a little extra money and an interest in sports, videogames, and action movies, and eventually, several years down the road, homes with families where the mom makes these decisions.

Perhaps everyone could try to keep some of this in perspective the next time there is an inevitable and normal bump in the road, rather than treating it as if the 3D industry just ran over an IED roadside bomb.

– By Scott Hettrick

The producers hit all the right marketing buttons with the titilating title of “Sorority Girls” and the hot trend of 3D with the upcoming June 8 release of “Sorority Girls 3D” (DVD, $19.98).

Scott Hettrick

.

But “B” movie veteran Fred Olen Ray’s (“Inner Sanctum,” “Hollywood Chainsaw Hookers”) Retromedia Entertainment, launched in 2001, and distributor Infinity Entertainment Group miss so badly on delivering the goods on every level that this program may have a negative impact on the adoption of 3D on home discs.

.

Here’s why:

• The 3D is not the new Blu-ray 3D but the old school DVD version with the cheesey cardboard glasses with colored lenses.
• The 3D is even worse than normal traditional 3D in this format — almost non-existent; certainly not noticeable
• It’s not even made clear how to wear the glasses, which are pre-folded to make it appear that the red lens goes over the left eye even though the pictures on the box indicate the opposite (the only difference seeming to be a shift in which color is washed out more).
• The 2D version offers a far superior picture.

And just to make it a complete whiff, the 54-minute program — the 2D version has a copyright of 2009 under the title “Sorority Sisters” — isn’t even satisfying in any way on 2D since it’s  nothing more than seven naked women sitting on two sheet-covered couches in a broadly-lit room playing a pretty lame game of Truth or Dare.

– By Scott Hettrick

While walking around the show floor at this week’s Cable Show in Los Angeles, I was reminded again of a pet peeve I have had for years about cable network names.

My peeve: network names have come to mean nothing at all.

Scott Hettrick

As I walked past the booth for TV Guide Channel promoting all its celebrity and entertainment programming, I wondered when was the last time anyone turned to the TV Guide Channel to find a TV guide?

Likewise, the Cartoon Network now promotes its live-action shows; TV Land shows movies; ABC Family aims mostly at teens these days with programming decidedly not family-oriented.

It’s nearly impossible to find headline news stories on CNN’s Headline News channel these days between shows such as Nancy Grace, Joy Behar and Showbiz Tonight, just as MTV: Music Television long ago abandoned music videos and VHI: Video Hits One seldom offers video hits.

While we’re at it, are “Mr. Mom,” “Tigerland,” and the 2007 film “The Astronaut Farmer” really classics befitting the name American Movie Classics (no wonder they go by AMC now)?

And I’m not even mentioning the networks whose names are a little more forgiving but whose programming has changed entirely from the original format, like Bravo, which began as a high-brow network of opera, concerts and eclectic interviews. The network now features an announcer who incessantly yells at viewers the names of upcoming low-brow fare such as “Kathy Griffin: Balls of Steel” and “The Real Housewives of Wherever.”

With the advent of satellite signal delivery, cable proliferated in the late 1970s and ealry 1980s with the great promise of providing 500 channels of niche programming. Now we have 500 channels of networks that mostly all look like broadcast networks with a hodgepodge of formerly fun specialty channels like USA and TNT that now deliver a familiar mix of reruns, original series and whatever else sells to the lowest common denominator — aka, the easiest and widest audience.

Cable may not have the exclusive on brands that no longer relate to their product — how many radios do you suppose Radio Shack has sold recently? — but the industry must surely dominate that category.

– By Scott Hettrick

First of all, thanks to Roger Ebert for joining my warnings to the industry about their approach to 3D in his recent posting for Newsweek.

But while I agree to a certain extent with some of Ebert’s specific concerns, I do not agree with his overall premise that 3D is being over-used and I do not agree with many of his nine points, which I will tackle individually below.

Scott Hettrick

Let me start by reiterating my concern that unless 3D is created with a consistent “wow” factor impact that comes out of the movie and TV screens and into your lap, audiences are going to stop paying the $3 to $5 extra for a movie ticket (where are you paying a $7 premium, Roger?), and are not going to spend thousands of dollars on new 3D TVs and Blu-ray players.

And I will also disagree with Ebert that 3D, when done correctly, could not enhance the experience of nearly any movie, including his beloved “Lawrence of Arabia.”

With that as my starting point, here are my responses to each of Ebert’s bullet points:

1. IT’S THE WASTE OF A DIMENSION.
When you look at a 2-D movie, it’s already in 3-D as far as your mind is concerned. Our minds use the principle of perspective to provide the third dimension. Adding one artificially can make the illusion less convincing. When you see Lawrence of Arabia growing from a speck as he rides toward you across the desert, are you thinking, “Look how slowly he grows against the horizon” or “I wish this were 3D?”

> If the best entertainment experience is to be left to the imagination, then why did we invent movies and TV, Roger? Are you saying we should have stopped with books and radio dramas that leave visualization to the mind’s eye?

2. IT ADDS NOTHING TO THE EXPERIENCE.
Recall the greatest moviegoing experiences of your lifetime. Did they “need” 3-D? A great film completely engages our imaginations. What would Fargo gain in 3-D? Precious? Casablanca?

> Many people felt the stage versions of everything from the Marx Bros. “Cocoanuts” to “West West Side Story” were just fine in the live theater. Should Hollywood not make adaptations of any stage production?
“Gone with the Wind” worked just fine as a book — should Hollywood not adapt books either?
And what would be wrong with well-produced 3D versions of “Fargo,” “Precious” and “Casablanca?” Can’t you imagine the wood chipper scene in 3D?

3. IT CAN BE A DISTRACTION.
In 2-D, directors have often used a difference in focus to call attention to the foreground or the background.

> This can be, and is being done in 3D as well. No reason to be any more of a distraction than real life is a distraction for you in 3D.

4. IT CAN CREATE NAUSEA AND HEADACHES.

>The technology will improve and eventually not even require glasses. In the meantime, it’s such a small percentage of people who are bothered, are you suggesting that there should be no theme park rides that make some people queasy, and that production of Pokemon should have ceased when a few people got seizures? How about the people who are bothered by noisy movies? C”mon, using this as a reason not to make movies in 3D is reaching too far.

5. HAVE YOU NOTICED THAT 3-D SEEMS A LITTLE DIM?
>Yes, some systems are better than others and all will improve over time.

6. THERE’S MONEY TO BE MADE IN SELLING NEW DIGITAL PROJECTORS.

>So what? It’s a business, Roger. If more people are paying higher premiums to see 3D versions of movies, why shouldn’t theater owners upgrade their systems that are essentially the same mechanical dinosaurs that were invented a century ago?

7. THEATERS SLAP ON A SURCHARGE OF $5 TO $7.50 FOR 3-D.
> No one is forcing anyone to buy a movie theater ticket. If you feel it’s too expensive (once again, where is the ticket price $7.50 higher in 3D than in 2D?), then go see the 2D version, or don’t go at all. If enough people stop paying, theaters will drop the price. So far, most people seem to be quite happy to pay a premium to get a premium experience.

8. I CANNOT IMAGINE A SERIOUS DRAMA, SUCH AS UP IN THE AIR OR THE HURT LOCKER, IN 3-D.
>Despite your concerns about varying focus points and a little darker image, there really is no downside to adding 3D to a movie, if done correctly. There is no image that should look any worse than 2D. You think there are no scenes in “The Hurt Locker” that could not be even slightly enhanced by 3D? You think that by drawing you in a little closer visually to the scenes in “Up in the Air” where George Clooney is on one side of the table dismissing the poor soul on the other side, that might not create an even bigger impact on you?

9. WHENEVER HOLLYWOOD HAS FELT THREATENED, IT HAS TURNED TO TECHNOLOGY: SOUND, COLOR, WIDESCREEN, CINERAMA, 3-D, STEREOPHONIC SOUND, AND NOW 3-D AGAIN.

>Yes, did you ever hear the expression that necessity is the mother of invention? You would prefer Hollywood never have created sound, color, or stereo? And what would your beloved “Lawrence of Arabia” have looked like without widescreen?

– by Scott Hettrick

If Hollywood filmmakers and TV producers are going to insist on having the latest wave of 3D push only behind the screen rather than popping out, then they need to alert advertising people.

Scott Hettrick

Is there any ad you’ve seen yet for 3D TVs or, really, anything else 3D, that doesn’t show stuff coming way out of the screen into your lap or over the head of the person sitting on the couch?

Two new Samsung 3D TV ads for theaters and in-stores show the “Monsters vs Aliens” character’s eyeball popping out of the screen(left), and a sting ray and many other fish swimming right out of the TV (lower left). Kids and parents are excitedly reaching out trying to touch the illusion.

That’s exactly the great effect you get with IMAX 3D documentaries like “Under the Sea” and “Hubble 3D” and the precise experience you get when you see a 3D attraction at Disneyland and Universal Studios. But it’s not even close to what we’re experiencing with mainstream Hollywood 3D movies or TV programs.

Comedians and talk show hosts make the same kinds of gestures when referencing 3D in passing. It’s because that’s what 3D has always meant — images popping out of the screen to within inches of your face. But that’s not the reality of what we’re now being provided and paying a premium to enjoy.

The problem and even danger with this disconnect between what’s demonstrated in ads as compared to what’s being offered in movies and sports TV programs is that consumers may soon become disappointed or even upset that their expectation based on the advertising and the long-held perception about 3D is not being met; not by a longshot.

That poses a challenge for advertisers of 3D products. There’s no wow factor in advertising images that simply show a little more depth deeper and behind the screen, the preferred 3D approach by 21st century Hollywood, it seems. And that’s exactly the point, there’s no wow factor in that kind of advertising because there is no wow factor in the experience.

So, either the ads or the product needs to make a dramatic shift so they are in alignment. As for me, I would much prefer Hollywood start pushing the images way out into the audience, exactly as it looks in all these ads!

– By Scott Hettrick

There’s a lot of 3D to take in at theaters these days.

Scott Hettrick

Within just a few hours on Saturday night at a single Krikorian theater in Monrovia, California, I saw the first Final Four game in 3D, the big-screen world premiere of the We are the World 25 for Haiti music video in 3D, and “Clash of the Titans” in 3D and 2D.

I also sat next to a young adult couple who said they were attending their first 3D movie. The husband was immediately bowled over (I could tell by his verbal gasps and pointing at the screen to his wife) by the DLP digital projection system promo and then the way the words pop off the screen even on the rating page preceding the trailers.

The first thing promoted near beginning of trailer for "Resident Evil: Afterlife"

It was my turn to be silently intrigued by the promo for the September 10 release of “Resident Evil: Afterlife.” Apparently the people behind specific 3D processes are now already prominent enough to be the first thing mentioned in a trailer: the words “Filmed with the James Cameron / Vincent Pace Fusion Camera System” push out on the screen in the same way that a major star or filmmaker would appear (See embedded trailer below).

As for “Clash of the Titans,” I watched the 2D version on a large format screen and then the 3D version on a standard screen with MasterImage glasses. Although much was written about the poor 3D conversion, I didn’t notice it being a problem. It looked about the same as most 3D mainstream films to me: so subtle that I could hardly tell it was in 3D — almost nothing ever came off the screen, just a little depth pushed back into the screen.
More bothersome was how monochromatic much of the movie was even in 2D. The climatic action scene is almost all shades of brown, making it look very dark, and therefore darkerstill with the 3D glasses.

Krikorian theater in Monrovia, Ca.

But back to the primary reason I was there — to see Cinedigm’s live Final Four semi-final basketball games, which looked much better than last year’s NBA All-Star event. By far the best shots were from the camera facing down through the hoop from  directly above the backboard, backboard camera catching a 3-pointer coming straight at the camera, the shots directly behind the heads of the crowd, and the close-ups of the band and mascots — the bulldog’s head and the trombone slide appeared to be in front of the score graphic heading into commercial breaks.

There is still some work to do: fast camera movement creates an uncomfortable blur — moreso than 2D — and graphics should not be superimposed over close-ups of moving people as they create a perceived break in the graphics that is visually disconcerting.

As for the We are the World music video (the standard short version), certain new shots of the singers worked pretty well — the standout shot was Janet Jackson digitally superimposed singing a duet with her late brother Michael. The separation depth between the two siblings was impactful. Other shots of hurricane-ravaged Haiti appeared to still be in 2D.

The block of commercials from the same three or four sponsors gets old when repeated at every commercial break, and though a couple of the commercials are in 3D, none is particularly dynamic, even those promoting 3D TVs.

Finally, the $19 admission price for the Final Four games and the $22 fee for Monday’s championship is just too steep. The only other person in my theater for the first game Saturday was one old, very heavy guy with a walker who slept through much of the broadcast. Even with the better marquee attraction of Duke, only about eight tickets were sold for the second game.

April 5 update: That number grew slightly when I went back to championship game on Monday but still less than 30 people in the entire theater.

Is it just me or does anyone else get as impacted by the pre-movie branding logos in 3D as I do?

Scott Hettrick

For some time now I have been telling people I go to the movies with to be sure to watch the IMAX visual and audio countdown before each film (actually, you can’t miss it). I still think those progressively bigger numerals coming at you — 8, 7, 6, 5… — on the giant 70-foot-tall screen are the most visually dynamic 3D you have seen yet; moreso than any movie. Those few moments never fail to draw an audible reaction from the audience, many of whom are reaching out to try to touch the images. The accompanying soundtrack adds to the feeling of complete immersion.

Of course, like many film fans I also enjoy good trailers for upcoming films — the trailer for “Tron Legacy” that starts out in 2D and then shifts to 3D for maximum impact of the light cycles and the world inside the computer game was my favorite part of going to see “Alice in Wonderland” at an IMAX theater.

Similarly, when I went to see “How to Train Your Dragon” at an IMAX theater at the Harkins Theaters in Tempe, Arizona Friday, one of the most memorable parts of the experience was the opening DreamWorks Animation logo which has been re-animated once again for 3D. That now-familiar young boy with his fishing rod who winds up sitting on the bottom hook of the moon never had more impact.

And, of course, the Disney logo that was revised years ago — I think with the debut of one of the “Pirates” movies — is perfectly suited for 3D as the camera flies over that river with the pirate ship and over the iconic castle. After that, followed by the trailer for “Tron Legacy” and then that IMAX countdown, it’s hard for any full-length feature film to measure up to that level of impact I’ve already experienced.

Is it just me?

DirecTV, Fox Sports, and Major League Baseball may be pitching baseball in 3D a few days earlier than expected with discussions taking place to telecast the New York Yankees at the Seattle Mariners the weekend before the July All-Star game in 3D.

Scott Hettrick

And sources say ESPN will deliver the Home-Run Derby in 3D the day before the All-Star game, though ESPN has not confirmed this yet. (Update: 48 hours after this report was filed here, ESPN confirmed that the network will create the first State Farm Home Run Derby 3D.)

These were a couple of the topics being discussed amongst big guns out in force at Angels Stadium in Anaheim today — execs from MLB, Fox Sports, and DirecTV — on the field and in the production truck monitoring baseball players performing in front of the most cutting-edge TV cameras and equipment.

But these weren’t high-priced superstars on the monitors — they were kids from local high schools who had a momentary shot at tasting life in the Bigs for a few hours Wednesday. They had been recruited to practice on the field of the vast stadium to be test subjects for the execs and the production crew of 3D guru Vince Pace. (Story continues following video below from the field and inside the production truck.)

Fox Sports senior VP, field operations Jerry Steinberg told me that there will be six dedicated 3D cameras at the All-Star game and a crew of about 40 additional people for the 3D broadcast that will be separate from the regular HD telecast. DirecTV, which has said it will launch three 3D channels in June (now said to be later in June), is making 3D programming like the All-Star game available at no extra charge to subscribers of the satellite provider’s HD service who also have a 3D-enabled TV.

As for the favored camera angles, Steinberg and DirecTV executive vice president Eric Shanks liked a low angle camera shot from behind home plate while Fox Sports president Ed Goren liked shots where the camera was positioned at the end of the dugout railing as players leaned on the top rail while standing on the steps. The object in the foreground emphasized the depth of people further away from the camera. Pace was pleased with the long zoom lens shot from a camera in center field that showed clear spacial distance between the pitcher and batter.

No handheld cameras are planned as there were for the Globetrotters game. Although it wasn’t clear whether the small ball in flight traveling fast from the pitcher or flying off the bat will be enhanced much by 3D, all seemed generally impressed with the first test of a baseball game in 3D.

Perhaps the most relevant question some were discussing relative to the business end of all this is whether broadcasters like Fox will be able to generate any additional revenue for commercials in 3D. It’s the same concern the network had when converting to HD. A Disney exec said on a recent iHollywood panel that their research shows that sponsors will indeed pay a premium for 3D advertising. Goren said he has yet to find an advertiser willing to pay more for a spot in HD and doesn’t expect any different for 3D.

Shanks at DirecTV may have the answer: a premium price for on-screen 3D ads at the bottom of the screen that could literally appear to pop out of the TV during the program.

Sounds like there is still a lot of testing to do with the money-making potential of 3D TV as well.

– By Scott Hettrick