3-D Article via NY Times

Just posting here:

3-D Starts to Fizzle, and Hollywood Frets
By BROOKS BARNES and MICHAEL CIEPLY
LOS ANGELES — Has the 3-D boom already gone bust? It’s starting to look that way — at least for American moviegoers — even as Hollywood prepares to release a glut of the gimmicky pictures.

Ripples of fear spread across Hollywood last week after “Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides,” which cost Walt Disney Studios an estimated $400 million to make and market, did poor 3-D business in North America. While event movies have typically done 60 percent of their business in 3-D, “Stranger Tides” sold just 47 percent in 3-D. “The American consumer is rejecting 3-D,” Richard Greenfield, an analyst at the financial services company BTIG, wrote of the “Stranger Tides” results.

One movie does not make a trend, but the Memorial Day weekend did not give studio chiefs much comfort in the 3-D department. “Kung Fu Panda 2,” a Paramount Pictures release of a DreamWorks Animation film, sold $53.8 million in tickets from Thursday to Sunday, a soft total, and 3-D was 45 percent of the business, according to Paramount.

Consumer rebellion over high 3-D ticket prices plays a role, and the novelty of putting on the funny glasses is wearing off, analysts say. But there is also a deeper problem: 3-D has provided an enormous boost to the strongest films, including “Avatar” and “Alice in Wonderland,” but has actually undercut middling movies that are trying to milk the format for extra dollars.

“Audiences are very smart,” said Greg Foster, the president of Imax Filmed Entertainment. “When they smell something aspiring to be more than it is, they catch on very quickly.”

Muddying the picture is a contrast between the performance of 3-D movies in North America and overseas. If results are troubling domestically, they are the exact opposite internationally, where the genre is a far newer phenomenon. Indeed, 3-D screenings powered “Stranger Tides” to about $256 million on its first weekend abroad; Disney trumpeted the figure as the biggest international debut of all time.

With results like that at a time when movies make 70 percent of their total box office income outside North America, do tastes at home even matter?

After a disappointing first half of the year, Hollywood is counting on a parade of 3-D films to dig itself out of a hole. From May to September, the typical summer season, studios will unleash 16 movies in the format, more than double the number last year. Among the most anticipated releases are “Transformers: Dark of the Moon,” due from Paramount on July 1, and Part 2 of Part 7 of the “Harry Potter” series, arriving two weeks later from Warner Brothers.

The need is urgent. The box-office performance in the first six months of 2011 was soft — revenue fell about 9 percent compared with last year, while attendance was down 10 percent — and that comes amid decay in home-entertainment sales. In all formats, including paid streaming and DVDs, home entertainment revenue fell almost 10 percent, according to the Digital Entertainment Group.

The first part of the year held a near collapse in video store rentals, which fell 36 percent to about $440 million, offsetting gains from cut-price rental kiosks and subscriptions. In addition, the sale of packaged discs fell about 20 percent, to about $2.2 billion, while video-on-demand, though growing, delivered total sales of less than a quarter of that amount.

At the box office, animated films, which have recently been Hollywood’s most reliable genre, have fallen into a deep trough, as the category’s top three performers combined — “Rio,” from Fox; “Rango,” from Paramount; and “Hop,” from Universal — have had fewer ticket buyers than did “Shrek the Third,” from DreamWorks Animation, after its release in mid-May four years ago.

“Kung Fu Panda 2” appears poised to become the biggest animated hit of the year so far; but it would have to stretch well past its own predecessor to beat “Shrek Forever After,” another May release, which took in $238.7 million last year.

For the weekend, “The Hangover: Part II” sold $118 million from Thursday to Sunday, easily enough for No. 1. “Kung Fu Panda 2” was second. Disney’s “Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides” was third with $39.3 million for a new total of $152.9 million. “Bridesmaids” (Universal Pictures) was fourth with $16.4 million for a new total of about $85 million. “Thor” (Marvel Studios) rounded out the top five with $9.4 million for a new total of $160 million.

Studio chiefs acknowledge that the industry needs to sort out its 3-D strategy. Despite the soft results for “Kung Fu Panda 2,” animated releases have continued to perform well in the format, overcoming early problems with glasses that didn’t fit little faces. But general-audience movies like “Stranger Tides” may be better off the old-fashioned way.

“With a blockbuster-filled holiday weekend skewing heavily toward 2-D, and 3-D ticket sales dramatically underperforming relative to screen allocation, major studios will hopefully begin to rethink their 3-D rollout plans for the rest of the year and 2012,” Mr. Greenfield said on Friday.
 
I hate to say it but...
I told you so.

The only film I have seen in the theater in the past month was Thor and I saw the 2d version.
We'll see you again in another 15 years or so 3D.
 
Man, I wish I had seen Thor in 2D! That said, Kung Fu Panda in 3D fantastic. There's still a place for it, just not the place that the industry wanted it to be.

Of course, I remember going to the grocery store to pick up red and blue glasses to see Creature From The Black Lagoon broadcast on TV in 3D. Mid-80s, I think? This go-round for 3D is pretty awesome. Maybe next time the tech will have advanced even further so it'll stick the way they want it to.
 
When they have a no glasses version it'll have some traction for animation and action movies. There will never be reason to shoot a standard drama/comedy in 3D. It takes more tools out of your hands as a filmmaker than it puts in them.
 
I just read the Hollywood Reporter article with interviews with Michael Bay and James Cameron together, because Cameron personally convinced Michael Bay to shoot 3D (withi his own patented Cameron-Pace 3D rigs of course).

In it, there are several whole scenes still shot with standard 35mm film for close ups and emotion, according to Michael Bay. They were a ton of technical problems on the shoot with 3D. The entire first day's shooting was scrapped because of a faulty hard drive before it even got to redundancy.

I am not against 3D per se, but it simply will not replace standard filmmaking in it's current form. As stated by Gonzo, once the next generation 3D sans glasses TV's come out, then it might make headway in the home market, but there will always be a place for non-3D dramas and even action movies.
 
It's just gratifying to know the old codgers were corrrect when the kids came in here a year ago talking about how EVERYTHING would be 3D in a couple of years.
 
I think it's way too early to write it off. I don't recall too many people in this forum (were there any?) predicting that everything would switch to 3D. Here's the article sonnyboo mentioned:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/michael-bay-james-cameron-talk-190315

I think most of us (myself included) predicted this backlash. The vast majority of the 3D films that have come out recently just haven't used the format to it's full potential. So, consumers have been paying 3D prices for movies in which the 3D improved nothing (and in the case of "Thor", actually damaged the movie). Of course there's a backlash!

I've said all-along that it's animated movies that have benefitted most from this format, and I'd be shocked if they stopped making animated movies in 3D. It's not a significant extra cost for them to make a 3D version, and every animated movie I've seen in 3D has looked great (and definitely worth the extra three bucks admission).

As far as live-action is concerned, little-by-little, slowly-but-surely, you'll see movies that actually get the 3D right. "Jackass 3D" finally showed that it can be done, and based on this article sonnyboo mentioned, it sounds like "Transformers 3D" also uses it well.

One important difference between the latest 3D craze, and any prior, is that this one has required a sizeable investment, by many different production companies and theater chains across the nation. I wouldn't expect them to just write-off that investment so quickly. With Jimmy-C building 30 of his fancy-pants 3D rigs, I think you can expect to see more and more 3D films done right, and eventually you'll see a rebound.
 
James Cameron's personal involvement is having an affect. He begged and pleaded, then got Peter Jackson to commit to not only 3D, but shooting at 48 Frames Per Second on the 2 HOBBIT movies, a radical and risky move. It's forcing the best presentation to be digital projection 3D, as opposed to prioritizing the standard 24 frames per second shooting that looks good in both 3D and 2D.
 
Back
Top