High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource

Go Back   High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource >
Rules HDTV Forum Gallery LINK TO US! RSS - High Def Forum AddThis Feed Button AddThis Social Bookmark Button Groups

High Definition News & Informative Articles Get the Latest High Definition News & Informative Articles Here! Please post newsworthy information here only! This forum is NOT for your first post. Thank you!

Analyst: America Tired Of 3D Movies

Reply
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-28-2011, 04:21 PM   #46  
mmmmm High Def
 
soupnazi's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 1,152
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stew4HD View Post
i do agree that 3D in the home is a niche market and certainly not for everyone but it does at a new dimension to movie watching... add in the great HD audio and the 3D works great..
You can take it literally that 3D adds another dimension. I agree entirely that many will enjoy the feature but what if I'm not interested in 3D? It's being forced on me by the movie and electronics industries.

I agree that using Pirates of the Caribbean is not very accurate but they also used Avatar as an example to base the popularity of 3D on. I only saw Avatar in 2D and it was still a fantastic movie experience. Visually better than any movie I have seen before. Was 3D the only reason for it's success? No, but these industries make you believe it so.
soupnazi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2011, 04:35 PM   #47  
UNOTIS
 
unotis's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: FLORIDA
Age: 64
Posts: 4,139
Default

I've seen the universal glasses for at $79 per pair, I cannot remember the link, but I suspect we will see glasses this year in the $40 to $60 range especially as increased awareness by the public comes about.

And I don't mind the glasses at all, if you don't wear glasses for vision like I do then many people still wear sunglasses on sunny days for comfort, if according to some of you those arguing that the biggest problem with 3D adoption are the glasses you need to wear then people would refuse to go outside on sunny days because they would need sunglasses to really enjoy themselves.

Last edited by unotis; 05-28-2011 at 04:38 PM..
unotis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2011, 07:08 PM   #48  
Muscle Cars Forever!
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 47,094
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by soupnazi View Post
You can take it literally that 3D adds another dimension. I agree entirely that many will enjoy the feature but what if I'm not interested in 3D? It's being forced on me by the movie and electronics industries.

I agree that using Pirates of the Caribbean is not very accurate but they also used Avatar as an example to base the popularity of 3D on. I only saw Avatar in 2D and it was still a fantastic movie experience. Visually better than any movie I have seen before. Was 3D the only reason for it's success? No, but these industries make you believe it so.
80% of Avatar's worldwide box office return came from the sale of 3D tickets. That's why they cite Avatar.
Lee Stewart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2011, 07:11 PM   #49  
SD HURTS MY EYES
 
Stew4HD's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Tejas Baby
Posts: 9,989
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by soupnazi View Post
You can take it literally that 3D adds another dimension. I agree entirely that many will enjoy the feature but what if I'm not interested in 3D? It's being forced on me by the movie and electronics industries.

I agree that using Pirates of the Caribbean is not very accurate but they also used Avatar as an example to base the popularity of 3D on. I only saw Avatar in 2D and it was still a fantastic movie experience. Visually better than any movie I have seen before. Was 3D the only reason for it's success? No, but these industries make you believe it so.
I am sorry it is being forced on you. I know in my area, they show the 2D version as well. I don't know what else to say.

I never saw Avatar in 2D, but ABSOLUTELY LOVED the 3D experience. I mean no disrespect but I am 3D is here and watch it every chance I get.

I watched Saw 3D and Resident Evil in 3D recently.. 3D added so much to the experience...

Anyway, it's beating on the same old wall. I am done.
Stew4HD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2011, 03:14 AM   #50  
mmmmm High Def
 
soupnazi's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 1,152
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post
80% of Avatar's worldwide box office return came from the sale of 3D tickets. That's why they cite Avatar.
That's part of my point. It costs what, 20% to 30% more for 3D tickets. They use revenue instead of tickets sales for marketing purposes. Plus it's only shown in 3D in some places whether you like it or not. This logic used to say 3D is that much more popular than 2D is inaccurate but that's marketing for ya. I agree that 3D was a big part of Avatar's success but it's not as much as they say it was.
soupnazi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2011, 03:25 AM   #51  
mmmmm High Def
 
soupnazi's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 1,152
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stew4HD View Post
I am sorry it is being forced on you. I know in my area, they show the 2D version as well. I don't know what else to say.

I never saw Avatar in 2D, but ABSOLUTELY LOVED the 3D experience. I mean no disrespect but I am 3D is here and watch it every chance I get.

I watched Saw 3D and Resident Evil in 3D recently.. 3D added so much to the experience...

Anyway, it's beating on the same old wall. I am done.
I'm glad you enjoy 3D so much. You have every right and I hope they keep making progress for better quality experiences. I blame the movie industry for taking away my right to view quality 2D in some cases. They didn't integrate it properly, in my area anyway. It was just a sudden change whether you wanted it or not.
soupnazi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2011, 07:09 AM   #52  
High Definition is the definition of life.
 

Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 224
Default

So he uses ONE movie as an example? Maybe people are just tired of Pirates of the Caribbean movies?
Eddie501 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2011, 08:25 AM   #53  
High Definition is the definition of life.
 

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 121
Default

I might be wrong, but to implement 3D on a monitor is not a siginficant cost.

When I bought my Panasonic plasma, it came with 3D, but the price was right in line with all the other plasma TV of the same size.

I do not see a significant enhancement of presentation in 3D. Do you see anything that you would not have seen in conventional 2D screen? 3D as we know it does not let you get behind or around anything. From what I have seen is it can only put space between objects.

I think your eye/brain combination does a very good job of this anyway. Isn't the main method used by the brain to judge distance is by percieved size of objects? Something known to be big and is small must be far away. Something small but appears large must be close. You also know how close something is by where you had to cross your eyes.

I have heard there will be 3D NFL games broadcase this year. (will there be any NFL games broadcast this year?) I do not expect there to any new visual information that can only be seen by those wearing the 3D glasses for the games.
videomot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2011, 11:41 AM   #54  
Muscle Cars Forever!
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 47,094
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by soupnazi View Post
That's part of my point. It costs what, 20% to 30% more for 3D tickets. They use revenue instead of tickets sales for marketing purposes. Plus it's only shown in 3D in some places whether you like it or not. This logic used to say 3D is that much more popular than 2D is inaccurate but that's marketing for ya. I agree that 3D was a big part of Avatar's success but it's not as much as they say it was.
They have always used revenue for determining the success of a movie. Been that way for decades. There are two top box office earner lists; one with revenue and the other with revenue adjusted for inflation.

For Avatar, the 3D presentations were more popular than the 2D ones. There were numerous stories at the time about all 3D showings being sold out while 2D theaters were practicaly empty.

Do you have any links that say 3D was not a big part of Avatar's sucess? I know I can come up with a bunch that say it was.
Lee Stewart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2011, 11:48 AM   #55  
Muscle Cars Forever!
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 47,094
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by videomot View Post
I might be wrong, but to implement 3D on a monitor is not a siginficant cost.
Correct. I believe the upcost is around $50, most of it the emitter. For the new FPR 3DTVs it is the cost of the manufacturing process to add the FPR. (FPR = Film Pattern Retarder)

Quote:
When I bought my Panasonic plasma, it came with 3D, but the price was right in line with all the other plasma TV of the same size.

I do not see a significant enhancement of presentation in 3D. Do you see anything that you would not have seen in conventional 2D screen? 3D as we know it does not let you get behind or around anything. From what I have seen is it can only put space between objects.

I think your eye/brain combination does a very good job of this anyway. Isn't the main method used by the brain to judge distance is by percieved size of objects? Something known to be big and is small must be far away. Something small but appears large must be close. You also know how close something is by where you had to cross your eyes.

I have heard there will be 3D NFL games broadcase this year. (will there be any NFL games broadcast this year?) I do not expect there to any new visual information that can only be seen by those wearing the 3D glasses for the games.
You can't compare the way we normally see to how we see 3D using glasses. Under normal viewing, each eye sees a 3D image. You can see 3D even if you only have one eye. With manufactured 3D, each eye sees a 2D image and the brain puts them together to form a 3D image.

As far as NFL games, I doubt it unless ESPN is broadcasting them. The Networks have shown no interest in 3D and there is yet to be a broadcast 3D standard, though SMPTE is still working on it.
Lee Stewart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2011, 12:18 PM   #56  
mmmmm High Def
 
soupnazi's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 1,152
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post
They have always used revenue for determining the success of a movie. Been that way for decades. There are two top box office earner lists; one with revenue and the other with revenue adjusted for inflation.

For Avatar, the 3D presentations were more popular than the 2D ones. There were numerous stories at the time about all 3D showings being sold out while 2D theaters were practicaly empty.

Do you have any links that say 3D was not a big part of Avatar's sucess? I know I can come up with a bunch that say it was.
Quote:
soupnazi Quote:
That's part of my point. It costs what, 20% to 30% more for 3D tickets. They use revenue instead of tickets sales for marketing purposes. Plus it's only shown in 3D in some places whether you like it or not. This logic used to say 3D is that much more popular than 2D is inaccurate but that's marketing for ya. I agree that 3D was a big part of Avatar's success but it's not as much as they say it was.
Huh?
Do you have links that show tickets sold instead of revenue?

Yes, they have always used revenue instead of ticket sales because of marketing. Since the dawn of nature a large part of marketing is about exaggerating to make something seem better or bigger. Even animals will 'ruffle their feathers' to make them appear bigger or more colorful for different purposes. It's all about perception.
soupnazi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2011, 12:33 PM   #57  
Muscle Cars Forever!
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 47,094
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by soupnazi View Post
Huh?
Do you have links that show tickets sold instead of revenue?
That number is never published. Stop asking for something that doesn't exist. There were many reviews and blogs written about Avatar. Post some links that say the 3D wasn't a big part of it's success.

Quote:
Yes, they have always used revenue instead of ticket sales because of marketing. Since the dawn of nature a large part of marketing is about exaggerating to make something seem better or bigger. Even animals will 'ruffle their feathers' to make them appear bigger or more colorful for different purposes. It's all about perception.
Tickets sold is always published - as a yearly number:

http://www.mpaa.org//Resources/653b1...17de30df1e.pdf

http://www.mpaa.org/Resources/091af5...5466c1c5e5.pdf
Lee Stewart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2011, 01:25 PM   #58  
mmmmm High Def
 
soupnazi's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 1,152
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post
That number is never published. Stop asking for something that doesn't exist. There were many reviews and blogs written about Avatar. Post some links that say the 3D wasn't a big part of it's success.



Tickets sold is always published - as a yearly number:

http://www.mpaa.org//Resources/653b1...17de30df1e.pdf

http://www.mpaa.org/Resources/091af5...5466c1c5e5.pdf
I reposted my statement that said I agree that 3D was a big part of Avatar's success and you still missed it? I even highlighted it.

The ticket numbers aren't released because it is a lower number than the sales. You understand my point.
soupnazi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2011, 03:01 PM   #59  
Muscle Cars Forever!
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 47,094
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by soupnazi View Post
I reposted my statement that said I agree that 3D was a big part of Avatar's success and you still missed it? I even highlighted it.
I saw it:

Quote:
I agree that 3D was a big part of Avatar's success but it's not as much as they say it was.
So if it wasn't as much as they say it was, you could provide some links backing this up right?

Quote:
The ticket numbers aren't released because it is a lower number than the sales. You understand my point.
No - I really don't. We have access most of the time to the production budget of a film. That is listed in dollars. So why wouldn't the films BO take also be listed in dollars? Apples to apples. This is what it cost, this is what it earned. Just have to add marketing and print costs to the budget to get the total cost of a movie. Subtract that from the gross earnings and you can get a rough idea if the film made money in the theaters.
Lee Stewart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2011, 04:09 PM   #60  
mmmmm High Def
 
soupnazi's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 1,152
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post
I saw it:



So if it wasn't as much as they say it was, you could provide some links backing this up right?



No - I really don't. We have access most of the time to the production budget of a film. That is listed in dollars. So why wouldn't the films BO take also be listed in dollars? Apples to apples. This is what it cost, this is what it earned. Just have to add marketing and print costs to the budget to get the total cost of a movie. Subtract that from the gross earnings and you can get a rough idea if the film made money in the theaters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart
80% of Avatar's worldwide box office return came from the sale of 3D tickets. That's why they cite Avatar.
The only number you used to suggest that Avatar was so successful was 80% of sales was 3D ticket revenue. This is the best number to use for 3D marketing purposes but it's not the only number involved and is inaccurate.

Avatar wouldn't have made as much money if it was 2D but it still would have made a lot and the 80% revenue of 3D ticket sales is irrelevant when comparing apples to apples. Remember, you are arguing my point that 3D is not as big a reason for a movies success as some numbers used suggest.
soupnazi is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Go Back   High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource >
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:41 PM.



Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004 - 2018, MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands