Next Up On Movie Theaters' List To Remain Relevant: 3D Movies

from the well,-it's-a-start dept

Wed, Apr 16th 2008 1:52am — Mike Masnick

It is beginning to look like movie theater owners are finally (finally!) coming to terms with the fact that they can't just sit back and whine about home theaters. Instead, they need to actually compete and offer a better experience, not easily replicated at home. In the last month, we've seen a few different stories suggesting that theater owners at least understand part of this. As we've noted, they're investing in IMAX screens and building luxury theaters. The latest is that they're trying to do a lot more 3D movies where the overall experience is enhanced by seeing it in a big theater. These are all steps in the right direction, and things that need to be done, but it would be nice if they fixed the core problems first: making the theaters comfortable, clean and mostly free from distraction. Also, it appears that all of these stories focus on how the theater owners are looking to increase prices for these "new" types of movie experiences. Considering how overpriced some folks already think movies are, theater owners might want to be careful about how much extra they're charging, or no one will come check out these innovations in the first place.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: 3d movies, movies, social experience, theaters

42 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Rekrul, 16 Apr 2008 @ 2:23am

3D movies won't make a bit of difference to me. I'm blind in one eye, so none of the 3D processes work for me. If the film can't be watched normally (without the glasses and such), this would actually keep me out of the theater.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- moe, 16 Apr 2008 @ 3:22am
  
  Re:
  I'm not belittling your point. But theaters aren't marketing to one person, they're marketing to the masses. It doesn't make sense to decide against a course of action because a very small fraction of potential customers wouldn't turn into actual customers.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JJ, 16 Apr 2008 @ 8:39am
  
  Re:
  "3D movies won't make a bit of difference to me. I'm blind in one eye, so none of the 3D processes work for me. If the film can't be watched normally (without the glasses and such), this would actually keep me out of the theater."
  
  And we all know that one eyed movie enthusiasts are the majority of the theater-goer population... I'm sure they won't miss your $12.95.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Emily, 14 Jun 2009 @ 3:47pm
  
  Re:
  My mom is blind in one eye too and she could never see the 3d movies that had the red and blue glasses, but I thought she might be able to see the ones that just have the gray glasses. Have you tried? She hasn't, seeing as how it doesn't work with red and blue she didn't want to take the chance and waste the money.
  
  She is hoping it is possible though!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nobody, 16 Apr 2008 @ 3:17am

Price problems
Matinee tickets for 2 adults + 2 children ~$30.
Popcorn & Drinks ~$15.
Gas to get to the theater ~$5.

Total $60

And for this I get to watch the movie once. I also have to deal with: Limited choices of snacks/drinks, talking over the dialog, idiots that won't turn off their cell phone, screaming and crying infants/children that should have been left with a sitter, I can't pause or rewind if I need to use the bathroom, parking and traffic, etc.

Or....

Wait 3-9 months and buy the movie on DVD ~$20.

Even if I just watched it once and threw it in the trash I save money and aggravation. Plus, I generally get some nice extras like commentary tracks, behind the scenes videos and such.

Gee, I wonder what is going to happen if the prices keep going up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jake, 16 Apr 2008 @ 6:33am
  
  Re: Price problems
  Prices in England seem to be slightly more reasonable; a single adult ticket is normally about 40% of the price of a new-release DVD, though the drinks and snacks are almost invariably overpriced and no cinema I've yet been in has offered decent hotdogs or coffee.
  There does seem to be a trend towards less mainstream cinema, though; Indian and Chinese films turn up quite frequently, and there's a surprising amount of indie stuff going on general release these days.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dave, 16 Apr 2008 @ 3:38am

Apperently 3d also is (or will be soon) available for home theaters.
Of course you'd need specialized equipment.
No idea about the price though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
William, 16 Apr 2008 @ 3:50am

Try ticket prices in the UK
Prices are WAY too expensive as they are. I've lived in North America and moved to Britain, where ticket prices are about £8 - £11 each.

So with just two adults going to catch a film, you would have to pay ...

£10 x 2 = £20
Popcorn & Drinks = £15
Transit = £5 for each way or petrol = £10

Approx. £40 - £45, which means at least $80 - $95 in the US.

No one will pay for prices even higher than that!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ryan, 16 Apr 2008 @ 3:50am

What about...
...just ensuring you have digital projectors that also output the same high-def video i watch on my blu-ray player. My video quality is better than a movie theater, so why should I pay to go there? I've seen *one* movie on a digital theater projector and it was amazing, but that one was the last one I've been able to find for anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Twinrova, 16 Apr 2008 @ 4:02am

3D isn't going to help theaters
I'm sure 3D will grab the initial hype crowd, but it will eventually fall into obscurity when people truly see the downside to 3D, which has been well known for years.

First, there's the uncomfortable factor of having specialized equipment to view. While not a huge downside, eventually it will become a nuisance.

Second, there's the time constraint of forcing one's eyes to focus on objects within a dark room. People will begin to complain of headaches and this will definitely hit the media stream as "OMG! Look what 3D can do to your health! It's an American crisis!"

Third, there's the 10% of viewers who, due to their eyes, can't view 3D successfully, thus alienating this market instantly.

The movie industry needs to be more flexible, not restrictive. What you failed to tell people is that many movie studios are going 3D with future releases, including George "I'm so damn greedy" Lucas who is working on 3D versions of his franchise.

What bugs me about this is that not once does the industry say this is best for the consumer. In every bit of news I've read, it's always (and I mean ALWAYS) published with the fact it's a competition against home theaters.

How can the consumer win with this? By default, we've already lost. Oh, did I mention ticket prices will increase for this? Yes, this will most likely drive every consumer to the theater for sure, especially when gas is about to hit $4 a gallon!

I do believe the theater industry is in need of a restructure to help draw in consumers, but this isn't the answer and will last short term.

What will drive consumers back to the theater? Dropping prices, for starters. Does a large popcorn really cost $5 for them to make?

Oh, right. They have to adjust this price because the damn media industry forces unheard of prices for theaters to show the movie to begin with.

The final nail in the coffin to theaters is how the movie industry releases new movies to DVDs much faster than ever before.

Why go when it's going to be out in 3 months?

I've waited. So have many other consumers.

So far, I've yet to see any reason why I would return and 3D isn't going to be it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Znith, 16 Apr 2008 @ 4:36am
  
  Re: 3D isn't going to help theaters
  Twinrova have you ever went to see a 3D moving in a theater? It's not red/cyan anymore. The polorized glasses are just like wearing sunglasses.. I'm sure you've worn those before, they aren't specialized equipment.
  
  There is no eyestrain viewing stereoscopic 3D in a theater, if that was a fact then they movie makers would not be considering these options, this includes the big guys like Disney.
  
  Yes there are a certain few that cannot view 3D that is why there are theaters that show the same exact movies without the 3D on non-DLP projectors.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Alimas, 16 Apr 2008 @ 6:06am
  
  Re: 3D isn't going to help theaters
  I saw a 3D movie that used polarizing lens to produce the effect. I found having to wear the glasses to be no problem and experienced no headache.
  
  In fact, the experience is something I look forward to repeating (the legitimate 3D movies mind you, not the horribly converted ones that are actually 2D) with friends of mine.
  
  I saw Boston Aquarium's Deep Sea 3D...I kept automatically trying to swat the jellyfish out of my face. Mildly embarrassing. It was getting all up in my grill.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
PaulT (profile), 16 Apr 2008 @ 4:23am

One step, but a small one
Yes, that's right. 3D is a good step in the right direction but it only recoups some of the audience potential that has been lost to home theaters - that is giving people a spectacle that they can't see at home.

However, that's only a small fraction of why the cinemas have lost their customers - the rest are related to high prices and noisy crowds as well as a poor selection of movies. The average multiplex plays the same movies as the next one while some movies don't get played at all, meaning the selection isn't there - e.g. There Will Be Blood and No Country For Old Men didn't play in certain areas while Meet The Spartans was everywhere. Talk about alienating part of your potential audience!

At home, I can play a movie in comfort with no annoying people talking and texting while the movie's on, get to eat the snacks I want, watch the movie I want and not have to sit through 30 minutes of ads and "you're a dirty pirate" propaganda before it starts - and all at a reasonable price.

When the cinema experience matches that, it'll improve the attendance. Until then, 3D is a gimmick that's not guaranteed to work any better than the last 3D craze in the 80s for long-term success. However, it will cost the industry a lot in new equipment, raising prices again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Headley, 16 Apr 2008 @ 4:24am

Just Stop Ripping Us Off
Drinks and snacks at 2 to 3 times the shop price leave a very nasty taste. In terms of brand perception, Odeon comes just below Microsoft and the Tax office in my perception because of the way they rip me off. Now some cinemas are saying that you can only take in snacks bought in the cinema -- I'll wait for the DVD, thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TodC, 16 Apr 2008 @ 5:00am

It's the experience that stinks!
It is the over paying for bad movies and the bad experiences with other "patrons" that cause me and many others not to go to the movie theater.

Mostly, it is the other people in the theater that drove us away.

Obviously, I'm not in their target audience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DocRings, 16 Apr 2008 @ 5:24am

3D movies are indeed coming to the home theater. My Samsung LED DLP television is already "3D capable". it's a bit pricey to upgrade, and something I probably won't do (yet).
3D shutter glasses are about $100 apiece, and movies are currently pretty limited.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Haywood, 16 Apr 2008 @ 5:30am

I do go to IMAX
That is the only theater I still attend. 3D or not, it is generally a good, though expensive, experience. I've seen the last few Harry Potter releases there, in 2D, and it was amazing, not something I can duplicate at home. I generally speak out against the theater experience, I don't really like annoying people, ETC. I feel IMAX will survive and even prosper, due to offering something truly cinematic. They run the volume at ear bleed level, and that I could do without, but it does settle the crowd, very little conversation can be heard, I don't know if it is nonexistent or just masked by the major DBs. I take Ear plugs, so it is all good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2008 @ 5:44am

Hey Mike just because you can't get a date doesn't mean that movie theaters aren't still revelant. Have you been to one lately (my bad the date thing)? It is like preteen Woodstock every Friday night.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2008 @ 6:00am

We have a small theater in the city that shows independent and foreign language films(subed) here. I go to it alot. The ticket prices are about the same, but I get films which aren't playing at the big megaplex, a larger selection of snacks(including a decent beer selection), and the crowds are more respectful of actually staying silent. The theater is also nicer, it has a nifty throwback feel to it from the golden age of hollywood. If theaters want to prosper, they need to do more things like this. It targets a specific type of crowd in what it offers, and it caters to them and them alone. It doesn't try to pull in the teen demographic, or the children, and with the movies it shows.. you rarely see anyone below the age of 23-24 in it. And you know what? Its always packed. Stop building megaplexes, and start building targeted theaters toward different demographics of customer base.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Alimas, 16 Apr 2008 @ 6:09am

Movie Selection
I just wish the movies weren't so restricted in where they were shown.
If I want to see a good looking movie, I have to go way out of my way to drive to a city that has a theatre in it thats not playing the same stupid trash as every other theatre around it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Alimas, 16 Apr 2008 @ 6:10am

Movie Night
More than once have me and friend's canceled prospective movie nights cause of the horrible selection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2008 @ 6:47am

Don't increase prices, improve the experience.
Mike is right, Theatres need to improve the experience of going to a movie, make it more fun and worthwhile. Sure i could sit at home and watch a movie by myself, or invite a couple friends over, but does that really beat getting the whole "gang" together for a guys night out, and catch a movie and a couple beers afterward? The main thing that ruins going to the movies for me and my friends is the prices, 7-8 bucks for a movie? The little kids aren't such a problem as we strategically plan showings after 10 at night(our city has a curfew, and the cops are always at the theatre at 10 shooing them away). The main problem is price. You have to make me feel like the experience is worth the money i give you. So spend a little money improving the experience and instead of raising prices to make the money back up, me an my friends will go to the movies more often, and so will a lot of people, so you'll increase your customer base and make your money back there rather than raise prices and drive a few more people away and keep most coming back and make only a little more money in the short run rather than increasing profit over the long run. Theatres and the entertainment industry in general have to start thinking long term rather than what's the quickest way they can squeeze the next couple million out of their customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TheDock22, 16 Apr 2008 @ 7:11am

Not a fan of the 3D
I went and saw my favorite movie in 3D (Nightmare Before Christmas just this last October) and it was great and all, but kind of pricey. Also it is not just people with severe eye trouble that can't see 3D movies. I have astigmatism in both eyes and while I could "see" the 3D everything was sort of fuzzy. Kind of a waste of money to see a fuzzy movie.

I actually wanted to go watch a movie in the theater until I found out it was only being offered in 3D. Needless to say, some people will flock and others will be deterred. In the end I do not think 3D will attract more people to the theater; the movie going population will stay about the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some one, 16 Apr 2008 @ 7:17am

Find a 2nd reviune stream leave the ticket price alone
I think if people want to do food at the movies they might want to take a different tack... I have been to this chain years ago it was quite fun. leather seats and a diner like menu and the tickets where the same price as a normal theater.

http://www.chunkys.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2008 @ 7:18am

Uhmmm...the Pirate Bay has them when you want them. And don't say you don't use bit torrents or any other kinda of related software. We all know most people here do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Cory, 16 Apr 2008 @ 7:39am
  
  Re:
  I've also heard the argument that 3D is another form of combating bootlegged movies. What's the use of taking a camcorder into a theater if you're recording a double image, right? Apparently they didn't think to just throw on a polarizing filter and record just one of those double images.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brent J. Craig (profile), 16 Apr 2008 @ 7:35am

The real reason for 3D movies?
The real reason that the studios are pushing 3D movies is because they cannot be shot with a camcorder and distributed on the Internet!

Certainly 3D is a great way to see a movie (even better for concerts) but the driving force economically is that 3D projection is copy-proof.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dashriprock, 16 Apr 2008 @ 7:48am

movie theaters relevant?
I am in total agreement with many of the other posts here.
I have a big screen and surround sound, yet still for big-bang special effects laden productions, I'd be willing at times to fork over some extra dough. What really has curtailed my desire to see movies in theaters are the morons who talk/laugh/joke through the whole thing; let ring/talk on their cell phones; laser pointers; kicking seats; bratty loud/screaming kids...need I go on?
If theaters want my money, they'd better be far more proactive in making the experience a good one - that means empowering ushers etc. to remove self-indulgent assholes who ruin it for the rest of us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2008 @ 7:56am

The dang movie industries charge WAY too much for their tickets. They typically get at least 90% of the profit from the ticket sales, so to pay the employees, utilities, equipment, theaters are forced to charge ridiculous prices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2008 @ 9:08am

I'm with Mr. Nobody. Going to the theater is a crappy experience and I hate it whenever I'm forced to do it (usually when I'm visiting the in-laws and they all want to go see a movie). A decent home theater (not the crap you get at Best Buy and Circuit City) provides a much, much better experience. I'll wait for the DVD, thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
3D guy, 16 Apr 2008 @ 9:41am

I quit going to the (Hollywood type film) theatres years ago. Unless I win a free pass, and that was 3 years ago. But why should anyone invest in anything more than the movie? Forget the popcorn and pop, really! Drink a lot of water before and after the show, as well as a home cooked meal either before or after. Save on that!

This thread is about 3D, which I love. Having said the above, the ONLY flicks I go out of my way to see are the 3D ones. And I see maybe one a year. I just U2 3D, and I am not a fan of U2. But it was great because, being a musician, I could see much more than what one would see on a flat screen. Plus, it made the music more exciting. So these types of concert 3D films are welcome. May help to boost lost CD revenue, too?

I say bring on the 3D!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sel.B, 16 Apr 2008 @ 10:17am

I'll continue to go to my $6.50 small theater where I get waited on, that has the big releases too!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Silverwolf, 16 Apr 2008 @ 1:33pm

My $0.02
I agree with most of what people are saying in this thread, 3d movies is a pretty big step in the right direction. However, they need to address the larger problems before it will have a significant impact.

The Main Problems as I see it are :

1. Ticket Prices are way too high
2. The Commercials (Ads) shown before the movie must be stopped.
3. Food (Concession) prices are ridiculous.

Now,#'s 1 and 3 are directly caused by Greedy Hollywood because essentially all the revenue from ticket sales goes strait to Hollywood, the theaters don't get to keep any of it.

So, in order to make any money the theaters inflate the price of Food and that's where their income comes from.

I don't know where the revenue for the pre-roll ads goes to but my thoughts about it are this; People put up with Advertising (Commercials) on public access TV because they don't pay to receive it, The Ads are the payment, but we pay (through the nose) to see a movie in a theater and thusly, there shouldn't be any ads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John (profile), 16 Apr 2008 @ 3:23pm

About the whole camcording issue
Some people say that 3D movies are the way for studios to combat the "camcorder menace".

I'll assume you've never been to a p2p site or used p2p software. If you have, you'll notice that most movies and TV shows usually come with descriptions in their titles such as "DIVX" and "HDTV" and even "XVID".

In plain English, these terms mean that the copy which is available to download was made from a high-definition source, either broadcast on HD-TV or copied from a HD master source. These copies may even have Dolby or THX surround sound!

In further plain English, why the **** would anyone download (or even share) a crappy, jittery, horrible-audio camcorded movie when they can have an HD copy?
(For all the marketing types out there, this is called supply and demand: if there is no demand for camcorded movies, there will be no need for people to supply or create it.)

In further, further plain English, the "camcorder menace" is a LOT, LOT less than the "screener menace". Where do you think these HD copies come from? Yep, people who screen the movies for awards, people who get advanced copies for review, people who know people in the industry, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2008 @ 4:35pm

I can't help but cringe whenever IMAX is mentioned, now that the IMAX Corporation wants to cheapen the brand by replacing their signature ultra-high-resolution 70mm film format with digital projectors that probably won't measure up. Such is the price of progress...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rekrul, 17 Apr 2008 @ 3:45am

And we all know that one eyed movie enthusiasts are the majority of the theater-goer population... I'm sure they won't miss your $12.95.

Your level of compassion is amazing. You truly are a wonderful human being!

I can't help but cringe whenever IMAX is mentioned, now that the IMAX Corporation wants to cheapen the brand by replacing their signature ultra-high-resolution 70mm film format with digital projectors that probably won't measure up. Such is the price of progress...

I've never been to an IMAX movie, but I was skeptical of digital projectors too. I don't go to the movies all that much, but the last film I went to see was at a theater that uses only digital projectors. I have to say that the image was sharper and clearer than any other film I can remember seeing in the theater.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Apr 2008 @ 6:31pm
  
  Re:
  I've never been to an IMAX movie, but I was skeptical of digital projectors too. I don't go to the movies all that much, but the last film I went to see was at a theater that uses only digital projectors. I have to say that the image was sharper and clearer than any other film I can remember seeing in the theater.
  
  Digital projection will be better than 35mm film in most theatres and chains where projection is regarded as one of those annoyances of the business. In the few theatres where film handling is taken seriously and projectors receive regular maintenance, 35mm can provide a clear, scratch-free presentation for hundreds of showings, despite what the pro-digital hypesters may say.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2008 @ 4:30am

What a waste of Space! As long as the economy continues the way it is - noone will even be able to afford the DVD, let along the costs of going out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Allison, 27 May 2008 @ 1:34am

I hate going to the movies!
Do you remember a time when you could go to the movies and no one would talk, no one would answer their phones, no one would text message, no one would be rude and if they were - all it took was a backwards look and they knew they disrupted your movie and would be quiet the rest of the time.

It's not like this anymore. I know why - parents. My kids at school do this same thing. We watch a movie in class (pertaining to our work, of course) and my kids sit and talk all the way through it. They yell at the screen, they participate in the story, they repeat lines the character's said for emphasis, they laugh absurdly loud at unfunny parts . . . and I blame their parents. Who taught them that it is ok to ruin someone's $30 movie (a couple with snacks and drinks) by talking all the way through it? Why do they think this is an acceptable way to act?

We went and saw Iron Man tonight - the 11pm showing on a Monday night. We were the only ones in the theatre until the movie started and then people showed up (late of course). 3 people came and sat behind us, and immediately started talking TO the movie. Commenting on everything, saying "get it" when Robert Downey banged some chick, saying "oh shit!" when something blew up - it was great. THEN, the girl with them decided to answer her phone and TALK ON IT while the movie was playing. A fairly open theatre with no one in it and we have THESE people sitting directly behind us. I looked back a few times, I even went outside to complain and of course the manager came in, stood there for awhile and left (and of course they were silent while he was there). 3 more girls showed up to meet them, and then they proceeded to LOUDLY fill them in on what they missed - 20 minutes into the movie!!!

This is why we never go to movies.

I used to love to go to the movies. When I knew I was being loud, even in high school, the minute someone looked back at me I shut up. When I went to the movie I went to actually WATCH the movie, not socialize, not talk on the phone, not text, not to make out - it was a weird concept but I actually wanted to WATCH THE MOVIE!!!

People used to get kicked out of theaters if they were loud. All it took was someone to complain and you were gone. Now, someone comes in, stands there acting important and leaves. Even when we left and asked for our money back no one apologized, no one made them leave - they got to just stay and watch them movie. I even said, "thanks you guys are awesome" as we were walking out and the guy said, "have a good night!" I hate him.

I am going to open a movie theater. It will be just for people who enjoyed the good old days when people actually watched movies. I WILL kick people out, I WILL NOT refund anyone's money if they get kicked out and I will make movie going a PLEASANT experience once again.

Or maybe, I should start a company called "the movie police." Theaters can hire us to come in and watch the movie with the crowd and the minute we see someone's phone, hear someone loudly talking - we police them right outta there. That is genius!

Is there something we can do about this? Will theaters even listen? Does anyone agree with me? Am I alone on this? Do people actually ENJOY watching movies with these RUDE people? I feel like I am the only one that feels this way - does anyone else feel my pain?

Ugh, we OF COURSE got two free passes for walking out tonight but I won't use them because I am never going to the movies again.

I'm so sad, we saw 30 minutes of Iron Man and now have to wait for it to go on video :( I hate those rude kids and I hope that one day someone is talking during their movie when they get older and they remember me!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Christopher Robert Mohr Sr., 24 Jan 2009 @ 7:17am
  
  Re: I hate going to the movies!
  If you could be more than 100% right, that's what you'd be. When I was a kid, if you caused a ruckus . . . out you would go. Going to the movies in today's world is just plain dumb. You have to pay a sitter probably. You have to pay for dinner. You have to pay for parking. Then there is the exorbitant cost of the movie ticket. And now, for 3D (which is good) they charge more (which is bad and dumb). The topper is all you have to put up with once you are in your seat. I think you covered it quite well. A few things I think you left out is all the coughing and sneezing you have thrust upon you. The overloud music and sound effects. And half the time you freeze your ass off, at least I used to. I rent movies. I can watch nude if I wish. I can control the temperature and the volume. I can stop the movie and go to the bathroom without missing ten minutes of the movie. I can go back and watch something I may have missed while bending over to pick up a drink that didn't cost a small fortune. In the event it was a really great movie I can watch it again without paying another ten bucks or so. No doubt about it, you hit the nail on the head.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Christopher Robert Mohr Sr., 24 Jan 2009 @ 6:48am

3D
I am an 80 year old retired photographer who has been shooting stereo slides since 1952 with the same Stereo Realist camera. I would like to make a few comments on the current 3D controversy. When will people reporting items concerning the renewed interest in 3D going to get their facts straight. If someone feels that a subject is worth writing about they should at least do some basic research. An article called, "NVIDIA Takes Video Games Into 3D" states: "This approach is called stereoscopic because the computer sends separate images to each eye. Objects in the two images are slightly offset from each other—a gap the brain interprets as depth, resulting in a compelling 3D illusion." The 3D image is NOT an illusion. An illusion is an erroneous perception of reality. A misleading visual image. When you observe something, the parallax difference between the left eye image and the right eye image enables the brain to construct the stereoscopic image. When you observe a 3D image through some kind of visual aid you are experiencing that same difference in parallax, which means it is a real image and not an illusion. The same question applies to most reporter's erroneous belief that the 3D movies of the fifties were anaglyphic and presented through red and blue pieces of cellophane. I cannot think of one first run 3D feature film of the fifties that was presented that way. They were all presented with a two projector system through polarizing filters shown on a silverized screen so as not to depolarize the images. The glasses were also polarizing filters that separated the left and right image. And, when the projectionist did his job properly (which seldom was the case) the 3D image was superb. Cardboard red and blue cellophane filters were usually reserved for cheap 3D ads and comic books. And, it saddens my heart that there are greedy fools around now, ready to present that anaglyphic garbage to young people today who are not familiar with 3D, and suggest that this is what 3D on television is all about. This kind of greedy stupidity will set 3D back several years in the minds of those who are unfamiliar with sterescopic principles. This is what happened in the fifties. Email me and I'll tell you that story. Lastly I would like to correct the following quote: "In recent years several companies have developed 3D computer displays, with results ranging from disappointing to, literally, nauseating. Graphics specialist Nvidia (NVDA) has a new approach that promises to take computing into the third dimension." This is certainly NOT a new approach. The field-sequential system that utilizes shutter glasses has been around for years. It is probably true that NVIDIA has a quality system that I am sure is state of the art. But then, so is the price. Not only for the system, but the cost of a brand new extra expensive TV set. I have a system I spent less that $100.00 on and the only drawback is that it can only be used on a CRT (cathode ray tube) TV set. But right now, that's what most poor people have anyway. Speaking of people. In today's world most people wear glasses. If for nothing else, to shut out the sun's glare. Is it so inconceivable that they would wear glasses to view a film in the way most of them actually see the world. If one is fortunate enough to have binocular vision, isn't viewing still and moving pictures on a flat surface that mushes everything together rather antiquated? When we view a regular image, the only way we can get any feeling of depth is through perspective and relative size. Can this truly be enough? Christopher R. Mohr Sr.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Liberty, 13 Mar 2010 @ 12:44am

Vindicated with 3D
Dear Mr. Mohr,

You are a true visionary and Hollywood salutes your efforts in stereoscopic film. Thank you for your insights and you have been vindicated by the success of "Avatar" in 3D as the highest grossing film of all time.

Best regards,

Hollywood
[ link to this | view in chronology ]