“It’s amazing! You just put on a pair of these glasses and everything looks like it’s popping out of the screen!”
There’s a line you may have heard in 2012. And, if you’re old enough to remember, you could have heard that very same sentence in 1952 — you know, when 3D cinema was invented. Perhaps congratulations are in order; it’s quite the marketing coup to re-package a 60 year-old technology and make it look new.
For many people, as presently constituted, 3D movies just aren’t an enjoyable experience. The glasses make them feel silly, not to mention uncomfortable, and if they’re prone to motion sickness or headaches, they’ll likely suffer from both by the end of the movie. Don’t believe us? Scout around social media for a while. There are dozens of anti-3D groups on Facebook. On Amplicate, an opinion-polling based social-media site, 54 percent of the 65,779 who have voted expressed a negative opinion towards 3D. Iconic figures in the industry even hate it. Ask ubercritic Roger Ebert. He wrote an entire article for The Daily Beast decrying the technology: Why I Hate 3-D (And You Should Too).
Audiences never demanded 3D, it was thrust upon them as a way to justify a higher price point, and save a struggling industry. Why it’s happening again with such renewed ambition is anybody’s guess, but it probably started in earnest after the release of Avatar.
When James Cameron released Avatar, the film promised to revolutionize the 3D experience, and it did. For what would eventually become the highest 
grossing movie of all time ($2.7 billion), Cameron commissioned the construction of special cameras from the ground up, and created the entire experience with 3D optimization in mind. The result was a visual tour de force that had everybody talking.
If every 3D movie was “Avatar,” the movie industry would be on to something. Problem is, virtually nobody has followed in the filmmaker’s footsteps. In an interview with MTV, Cameron lamented Hollywood’s short-sightedness.
“People are now starting to not accept inferior forms [of 3D] which is good, but it’s typical of Hollywood getting it wrong,” Cameron said. “We do a film [Avatar] that’s natively authored in 3D, shot in 3D, so they assume from the success of that, that they can then just turn movies into 3D in eight weeks.”
By “inferior forms,” Cameron means post-production converts – the flood of films that were shot with standard cameras and updated later to feature 3D, so they could up-charge at the box-office. How much you ask? Hard numbers are hard to come by, but according to Variety.com, as of 2010, the average 3D surcharge was between $2 and $3. That figure event went as high as $5 in big cities like New York and Los Angeles. That may not seem like much, but if you consider the average ticket price for the same year, which came in at $7.89, the upcharge represents anywhere from 26 to 38 percent. So here’s the obvious question: Does 3D provide an experience that is 26 to 38 percent better?
In the case of post-production converts, the answer to that question is a resounding no. Glasses are cumbersome, the screen is darker, and the ad-hoc 3D feels more gimmicky than immersive. Yet we’re still having the new (old) technology repeatedly rammed down our eye sockets. Even worse is the fact that many new releases aren’t available in standard definition, so you can’t opt out.
Even in the case of movies shot in 3D, results have been underwhelming. Earlier this year, both Prometheus and The Amazing Spiderman made last-minute decisions to shoot with a new 3D camera from 3ality. The result? … Meh. These movies may have been shot in 3D, but they certainly weren’t created for 3D. 3D does provide a unique method through which a filmmaker can tell a story – but the novelty has worn off. No longer is a movie that wasn’t enough without 3D, enough with it.
What is new in 3D tech is 3D Televisions. We certainly didn’t have those six decades ago. But if you think a few bucks is an upcharge, compare a 3D TV to two-dimensional options. Again, numbers are difficult to nail down, and depend on many different factors, but according to Cnet, the average upcharge for a 3D model is roughly $300. Perhaps that’s why TVtechnology.com reports that a recent survey showed that 40 percent of owners felt their
3D TV’s weren’t worth the price they paid for them. That may sound like a positive number, but for a major purchase, 60 percent satisfaction doesn’t quite cut it. With the at-home 3D option, you can add all of the same bugaboos of the theater, plus a paucity of available programming. Our advice: Keep the $300 in your pocket. So far, that seems to be exactly what the public is doing.
In lieu of new, movie theaters have decided to re-mold the old, and TV manufacturers have followed suit. As consumers, we’re ready for a real revolution in entertainment. Provide us with something that we’ve truly never seen before, and few consumers will fret about forking over a few extra bucks, but reintroduce us to a dimension we’ve already visited, and we’ll just feel ripped off.
Holography is the only way 3d will work well.
Avatar was the first and the only film I have watched that I came away thinking “wow” this 3D thing is amazing, it seemed to accentuate the crispness and detail of the characters within the environment, it added to the feeling you were along way up or things were along way down and it absorbed you into the world that the story was set.
Maybe it was due to the cinema having real IMAX projectors and screens, maybe it was because I was sitting in the optimum position within the cinema, maybe it was because it was all new and exciting.
Or maybe it’s because it’s a completely unnecessary encumbrance to 99.9% of all films made and Avatar was the 0.1% that utilised the effect properly. Since struggling to watch the dark gloomy screen during Tintin and a long list of other films I have vowed never to watch another film with a pair of pointless sunglasses on ever again.
My brain is not so inept that I need some visual effect to tell me the difference between an elephant on the horizon and a mouse by my feet.
Prometheus was visually stunning without the goggles, I dread to thing how much more grey and gloomy it for have been for those poor souls that payed to see it in 3D.
^it’s about depth, not bruce willis’s nuts in your face
I’m so surprised Virtual Reality hasn’t become a bigger reality by now.
I was a lot more impressed in the 80s, either because the movies were all gag shots or because I was a kid. Still its fun to take my boy to see the movies in 3d and watch him stick his hands out to touch things that aren’t really there.
its a fun fad but until they make immersive 360 3D then I don’t see the purpose…to make 3D something everyone wants you would need a massive screen in the house the equivalent to an IMAX screen in scale…then and ONLY then will 3D be fun…the new Ultra HD or 4K and 8k movies might be able to fill that need but the cost of the screens must come way way down to under $500 and be a minimum of 65 inches to make a difference..IMHO
That’s not true it’s the best
hes not even looking at the tv….
Oh, where to begin…. Firstly, saying 3D is as bad as it was 60 years ago belies your ignorance in a big way. The projection technology was nowhere near ready for 3D back then: two film projectors had to be used and getting them to sync was very difficult. Achieving proper alignment was no walk in the part, either. And let’s not forget they had to shoot 3D on film, using gigantic cameras, with extremely limited means for correcting 3D in post-production. Honestly, apart from the basic principle of 3D, there’s practically nothing similar between 3D now and 60 years ago.
Glasses feel silly and uncomfortable? I’ve been wearing glasses for almost 40 years and I disagree. I suppose I should be thankful you didn’t claim glasses make people look silly, too :) Roger Ebert has praised the use of 3D in several movies, including “last-minute decision” (which it wasn’t) Prometheus which does indeed benefit hugely from its natural use of 3D.
I do however agree completely with what you say about studios using 3D to boost their bottom line. They’re totally shameless about it, too. Just look at all the post-conversion titles coming out, including James Cameron’s Titanic! I guess Mr. Cameron is not above making a quick buck out of something he derided earlier.
As far as post-conversions go… I absolutely detest them. 3D is much more than simply providing two different views; it affects set design, lighting, costumes, props, compositions, camera positioning, editing and rhythm, for starters. No amount of expensive conversion work can transform a movie designed and shot for 2D into a movie designed and shot for 3D. Converting old movies like Top Gun and I, Robot is downright insulting as it implies studios think we simply don’t know better and are willing to pay top dollar for anything with “3D” slapped on the title. Let’s leave movies shot for 2D in peace and concentrate on making new, exciting 3D titles that really take advantage of the possibilities, OK?
There’s more I would like to add but running a fever and coughing my lungs out forces me to stop here.
“walk in the park”, I meant to write. Duh.
hes not even looking at the tv….
I’m justt waiting for when your television is replaced with a 24th century holodeck. Just imagine, you can actually be in your favorite books, tv shows, and movies
“James Cameron made Avatar for two reasons. First, to prove he is the unquestioned “king of the world” and to further push moves in the wrong direction.”
3D is just another step in cinema (still in its infancy). As acceptance prevails and vendors make the technology cheaper, a standard will stand-out and we’ll advance in that direction. The ultimate goal will be to have the human experience 3D without glasses. Trust me, the content producers know that. The company who creates 3D without visual aid will be the next Dolby, Pixar, or ILM; becoming the de facto in 3D video creation.
I am not sitting in my living room with a full face helmet on, just saying.