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.
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
Scott – regarding the argument, ” People who just bought an HDTV are not about to buy a 3DTV,” there is some concern among TV manufacturers about potential 3D TV sales. The largest-selling category of HDTVs is still 32 inches (diagonal), with about 20% of the market (NPD). And that’s too small to really enjoy active shutter 3D.
The puzzler here is that TVs measuring 52 inches and smaller are now down to $16 – $17 per diagonal inch – very affordable. 50-inch plasmas can be had for less than $800, and 52-inch and 55-inch LED-backlit LCDs are dropping below $2,000. Yet consumer continue to buy 32-inch sets more than any other size.
There was a surge in HDTV sales (LCD and plasma, plus some RPTVs) during the 2005 and 2006 holiday selling seasons. This is when a large number of consumers finally junked their old CRT TVs and went with flatscreen technology. So, there is legitimate concern that consumers won’t fully embrace 3D sets simply because so many of them already upgraded their primary TV a few years ago.
Depending on whose numbers you believe, we’re at about 50% penetration of HDTV sets in American homes, so there may not be as much demand for 3D as forecast, beyond early adopters. The solution, of course, is for manufacturers to build 3D functionality into ALL new HDTVs 42 inches and larger, going forward. From a perspective of manufacturing economies of scale, that makes a ton of sense.
But will TV brands do it?
Hey Scott, you make some good points, although I’m not sure your reading glasses analogy stands up – after all, no one *needs* to watch 3D – but reading is a must for most people. But I’m more interested in your fervent defense of the 3D format. In your “About” section you say that you took over control of this site from the studio consortium that created it to boost the Blu-ray format. The question is, who currently backs this site? Is it just you, or are there other stakeholders? I’m not finding a lot of balance in your reporting and so I’m trying to figure out if you have a vested interest in the success of 3D. Do you?
Simon, thanks for your comment. To answer your question, nope, it’s just me here; 100% funding and populating this site and companion e-newsletters myself. I’m open to any suggestions you have for investors/advertisers! 🙂
Only vested interest is my own, being a lifetime fan (and 20-years-plus journalist/editor) of entertainment and proponent of new technologies that enhance the experience, like HiDef and 3D in all forms that are done well.
Balance is subjective, of course, but as I’m sure you’ve read here, I don’t hesitate to challenge anything that comes up short, such as my blog from last week bashing a June 8 3D DVD release (http://hollywoodinhidef.com/2010/05/sorority-girls-3d/); my multiple blogs suggesting that studios, networks, and filmmakers are endangering the future success of 3D by not being aggressive enough with approach to 3D and that 3DTV ads are misleading consumers (http://hollywoodinhidef.com/2010/04/1727/); and my scoop about Samsung 3D Blu-ray players not working properly (http://hollywoodinhidef.com/2010/03/samsung-3d-blu-rays-dont-work/).
Best, Scott
I generally agree with everything you said. One point worth adding is that 3D is not an expensive technology on the manufacturing side. Sony has it in new BD players for $200. Any 120 Hz display can be made 3D with a few minor changes. Eventually, it’ll likely be included in all upscale TVs. It’s not like, say, LED backlighting, which does add significant manufacturing cost.
The exception is the glasses, which are expensive now, but they’re simple devices that should someday drop to much lower prices.