I personally think it's a cheap gimmick. The quality on SuperBowl Sunday was pretty horrible. I'd have to get into a movie theater to check out the real-deal, but so far I don't get it. I'd rather be in an immersive environment with a headset and surround sound plus the rest of my senses being stimulated: smell and touch...let's bring that into the arena of "3-D"!!
Permalink | Report

I think it's a gimmick. Special equipment is needed (glasses), which are inconvenient and uncomfortable. While wearing them, no other activity is feasible - and who doesn't multi-task now?
I haven't seen any substantial improvement from the 3D work produced in the 60's. We went on a 3D binge for a week or two quite some time ago, and the best visual was some strange jungle film (Bwana Devil, 1952 perhaps?) that had a striking snake. "Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare" (1991) was probably my favorite, although that might only have been the frame of mind I was in. I remember laughing throughout the film.
I vote "gimmick".
Source(s):
The Illustrated 3D Movie List at http://www.3dmovielist.com/list.html

Permalink | Report

I think it's too early to say yet. I think that movie houses especially are looking for ways to bring people back to theaters, by giving them a "value-added" experience that they can't get at home. With the great home theaters now, and Netflix, it's cheaper and more enjoyable to sit at home and watch a flick rather than go out to see one many times.

I see the 3D being focused on kids movies mostly. The occasional Horror flick, or sci-fi flick, like My Bloody Valentine, may benefit from 3-D as well.

I think 3-D for home viewing will flop. I tried to view the 3-D commercials during the superbowl, and, on the big, flat-panel screen where I was watching, I couldn't see it.

In fact, the 3-D showed up a lot better on my teeny YouTube screen on my laptop than it did on a screen dozens of times bigger. I don't see the technology working on the home-theater scale. Maybe, just maybe for videos on the computer, but I don't think so.
Permalink | Report

It's a gimmick, but it's a little bit more complicated than that.

It's been tried before, in the exact same circumstances of an economic depression. The idea is to get audiences hooked on the concept of 3D. Personally, I think 3D just makes my head hurt.

However, this next generation of 3D is more than just color overlays. It has advanced to needing specialized projection equipment. The equipment is very expensive and patented.

Who owns this equipment? Movie studios. Who would need it? Movie theaters. Once upon a time, movie studios "owned" theaters. This 3D is an attempt to gain studio control once more over theater houses. If the audience demands, or there is a perceived demand for 3D, those theaters will need to install the equipment for each screen.

Of course, if you are a theater owner, the price is prohibitive, and the studios won't sell you the equipment. They are more than happy to lease it to you! In return, you will have to effectively submit to the control of the movie moguls.
Source(s):
Boffo!: How I Learned to Love the Blockbuster and Fear the Bomb by Peter Bart

The Movie Business Book, Third Edition by Jason Squire

Leonard Maltin's Movie Symposium Class, University of Southern California

My personal theory.

Permalink | Report

Well, therobloe could not be more wrong about projection gear ownership. There are a number of independent vendors that sell digital cinema gear. The standard for digital cinema (or D Cinema) was set by DCI, which is "an organization that was founded in 2002 by the major Hollywood studios" but the studios do not own the gear and they have no interest in putting a bunch of depreciating projectors on their books.

There is one exception to this rule, which is Viacom. Viacom is the only studio which also owns a large theater chain, and the cost of 3-D gear (which was paid by the theater chain) is actually sinking the theater chain. Viacom is currently trying to unload the entire chain (see my GreenScreenCinema article series on this).

Now, as far as the impact of the latest digital advent, digital 3-D, I think I can answer that with an example from my own life. I forced my son to sit through "Bolt 3-D" a while ago, and I was astounded at how much the Disney Digital 3D treatment actually hurt the production. I've now seen the film in both the 2D and 3D versions, and while the 2D version is a decent animated film, the only images that I can actually recall from the 3D version are: a tire, a pink flamingo, a tree branch and a casino sign. These images were front and center in the 3D production, even though they had nothing to do with the plot.

The animation glut is causing producers to throw technology at a problem that doesn't exist. My son has never asked to see beautifully textured fur or prominent 3D casino signs. That's not the key to Pixar's success. When Pixar's "Up" turns in another $500,000,000 gross for the company it will finally show that even in a crowded marketplace storytelling is what matters.
Source(s):
Sumner Redstone Shakes Down My 2 Year Old
http://greenscreencinema.com/article.php?story=20081231130404798

Can Pixar's 'Up' Save Paramount Pictures?
http://greenscreencinema.com/article.php?story=20081201152441188

Sumner Redstone Pushed to Sell Paramount Pictures
http://greenscreencinema.com/article.php?story=20081103113130961

Sumner Redstone Shakes the Paramount Piggy Bank
http://greenscreencinema.com/article.php?story=20081015162440562

and finally, on the DCI
http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=9121

Permalink | Report

It's a total gimmick - maybe they'll improve the technology of it in the future but for now and for a long time to come people will be happy with their big HD flat pictures.
Permalink | Report

The 3D movie Coraline is getting great reviews. Some said it is the best 3D movie yet, in the sense that the technique fits the movie and enhances it. It's just a matter of time. It took a number of attempts and several formats before 3D sound became the dominant type of recording.
Permalink | Report