Early this year media pundits were declaring that 3D was revolutionizing the industry.
Now those same people are declaring that it was only a novelty that is already fizzling out.
As usual, neither is true and both are exaggerations and over-simplifications of the natural evolution of the format. 3D is not dying; it is maturing.
When the first couple of movies with sound and the first couple of movies in color bombed at the box-office, those prone to superficial assessments back then no doubt dismissed sound and color as merely passing fads. It’s as if once a new technology is introduced, every film using that technology must be a major hit or the technology will be blamed rather than the movie. That’s as ludicrous as pinning the disappointing performance of “Charlie St. Cloud” on the fact that it was filmed in traditional 2D instead of 3D.
And how come those journalists who were quick to point out that the 3D percentages of box-office grosses have dropped from 71% on “Avatar’ and two-thirds of movies like “Alice in Wonderland” to 45% of “Despicable Me,” didn’t use that same barometer when claiming that the weak opening of “Step Up 3D” confirmed that the plug is being pulled on 3D. In fact, more than 80% of the grosses for “Step Up 3D” were from 3D ticket sales.
Once again, the truth is too nuanced or not sexy enough for quick-hit pundits looking for a headline, a quote, and a booking on a TV program. Only responsible and knowledgeable reporters like Carl DiOrio at The Hollywood Reporter took the time and responsibility to note that there are many factors contributing to the decline in overall boxoffice for 3D movies and the percentage each generates from 3D. First and foremost is the limited number of 3D screens which becomes a critical issue when multiple 3D movies are released at once, as is happening now with four major studio films released in the past six weeks, and all those shortly after the summer’s biggest 3D movie, “Toy Story 3” was still in theaters. (By the way, TS3 is now the biggest animated film in history and 56% of those grosses came from 3D, according to Paul Dergarabedian of Hollywood.com Box-Office — you want to dismiss 56% as being small when that represents more than half a billion dollars?)
Do the math: the fewer available 3D theaters, the smaller the percentage of your overall gross.
Further, as I pointed out in an interview with Patrick Seitz of Investor’s Business Daily, the loss of IMAX in the equation has been a major factor. The chain that consistently accounts for a disproportionate percentage of all 3D business of any release (7% – 12%) due to its lure of the most rabid movie aficionados and its higher-than-average ticket prices, has not showcased any of the last four 3D releases and was contractually bound to bail out on “Toy Story 3” after only two weeks in order to present “Inception.” 3D represented 59% of TS3’s record-setting opening weekend grosses when IMAX was in the mix.
The bottom line, as I told Patrick, is that 3D has already become mainstream to the point that people are continuing to show that they will pay a premium price to see quality 3D, as was clearly evident with more than 80% choosing to see the very good 3D in “Step Up 3D.” And I have no doubt that the 3D percentage for upcoming films such as “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1” and “Tron: Legacy” will be back up near two-thirds or more. But moviegoers will not pay extra to see poor quality 3D; they won’t go see a movie they wouldn’t otherwise see just because it’s in 3D; and they won’t wait to see a movie in 3D if it is not available in 3D when they want to see it but it is showing in 2D.
And none of that has anything to do with the consumer losing interest in 3D technology. Just the opposite; it means that a 3D movie is being judged by the same standards as any other movie.
And that’s how it should be.
— By Scott Hettrick
Great article. I think the new 3d technology is simply amazing. It’s funny how on the article from Gizmodo “3d is dying” that I tried multiple times to leave a comment. None of my comments ever got posted. Gizmodo would just send me emails to say that my comment was in review and would be posted if approved. So Gizmodo was picking to put out the comments that were against 3d, except for the people who were already approved before. Thanks for the info. Hopefully more great 3d movies come out.
As I read the posting about how Gizmodo is screening their posting to support their point of view, I could not help but reflect upon the situation with “Headline Grabbing Pundits”, The vocal minority. As a journalist myself, I cannot help but question their ethics. They appear to be skewing their facts and figures to fit their personal point of view, without regard for the truth.
Shame on them.
This last week my company shot a 3DTV project for an upcoming 3DTV network. It was a crazy rush, seven 3D cameras being used at a pace that would be a whole lot easier in 2D. It was wild, but it was so fun.
After the production phase ended, I have been left with the feeling that we are still just learning how to use the medium. There is so much left to explore. The viewer’s experience is getting better and better. Though it is not a fact, simply my own opinion, I am of the belief that time will reveal many additional benefits of working in 3D. The medium itself is rising to it’s own defense against Naysayers.
Scott:
If you’re sure this is all going to be wildly successful, then I take back everything I wrote about it. And no, I never did get on that talk show.
–D.F.
The way to go is true holographic 3d. Why? Because this won’t give you a headache or hurt your eyes. With current 3d people are reporting headaches with long usage. This is because of the false perspective your eyes are being forced into viewing. With holographic 3d (which is currently in very, very early development) you are seeing true 3d. You need no special glasses and it will be 3d from whatever angle you view it at.