Is 3D Dying?

Jeremy of The Daily Rotation wrote, "Star Trek Into Darkness came out this past weekend. The movie isn’t all that great (read my review here), but one thing that most theaters were pushing was the IMAX 3D. Now, usually people flock out and pay the premium when it comes to event films like Into Darkness or even Iron Man 3, yet both films have had weaker 3D grosses than expected. Have viewers finally understood the difference between post converted 3D and real 3D or are they just sick of the gimmick altogether?"

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
RetrospectRealm1250d ago

No, it's not really dying... people just don't like it as much as they used to.

adorie1249d ago (Edited 1249d ago )

Not to mention many people would rather not spend double the money for the same movie. 3D is expensive and I wonder if the cost to watch it in 3d is justified by the overhead needed to film a 3d movie.

RetrospectRealm1249d ago

Double the money? It's only about 3 dollars more over here in South Cali...

ironfist921249d ago

Why do you assume they live in California?

RetrospectRealm1248d ago

I never assumed anything. I'm saying I live in California. Lol

Hergula1250d ago

I personally despise 3D, and while I can understand the point and concept of it, I hardly like it. It becomes more of an experience when watching a film in 3D, and you can hardly enjoy the movie for what it is.

Garethvk1249d ago

The biggest issue is that studios and cinemas are tricking fans. The vast majority of 3D films are in fact lab converted 3D which is a far inferior product to shot in 3D. People do not know this, they pay the surcharge and get a bad taste for 3D. I have long maintained that they need to disclose in the ads, posters, and box office if a film was shot in 3D or converted so consumers can make a better informed choice.

MinimeJer051249d ago

Sounds like a genius idea! That way 3D won't get a bad rap and people won't have to waste their money on post converted garbage.

And to RetrospectRealm - I believe he was referring to double the money when it comes to a full 3D IMAX experience.

Usually it's an extra $3 for 3D and then maybe another $3-5 for IMAX.

Garethvk1249d ago

Thing is the studios and cinemas do not want this. I did an interview with one chain who said they have no desire to do this. When I pressed it they said there are movies filmed in 3D that do not look good and movies converted that looked better than shot in 3D. I asked for examples and they could not give me one. The fact is cinemas had to pay the very costly upgrades needed to show 3D. Studios said we will make sure you have plenty of options and a 2D option for those that do not want to pay the surcharge. The surcharge was meant to pay the cost of the upgrades not be a long term profit model. Well cinemas demand more and more 3D so the studios run a movie through a lab and say here you go with no regards as to how they are harming a promising new 3D technology.

StarWarsFan1241d ago

It's not dying. The hype is just stabilizing and it's becoming clear to even the most enthusiastic that 3D is not going to become the dominant way people watch movies.

aDDicteD1240d ago

yup pretty much the problem is that some films are just using it and forcing it but the fact remains that it will only work well if the director and the movie has the vision of it to maximize the experience of the movie. Some movies really works well on this so pretty much 3d is here to stay, it's just a matter of fact that audiences needs to be aware of which movie to see that will give a complete experience on this feature.