Why are 3D movies making such a huge comeback?

[Killah Ray]

Just a question I've been asking myself lately....the fad didn't seem to last too long in the 80s so why is it coming back?

I'm probably in the minority on this but I honestly have no interest in watching movies in 3d just something about it puts me off...and now with the new 3d capable television sets coming out next year seems like it's only going to be getting bigger and bigger...

[Brandon Walsh is Insane.]

You can still choose to NOT watch in 3-D. It's a marketing gimmick that seems to be actually selling this go around -- I don't see anything wrong with it.

The only bad thing is you are FORCED to pay the extra few dollars to watch something in 3D, even if you already have 3D glasses. Why they don't just charge a flat premium price for the 3D movie escapes me.

[Joker]

I really hate the glasses you have to wear, its ok at theme parks because the ride/simulators only last a quater of an hour at the most. A full length feature movie is too much.

I certainly won't have nay urge to wear them in my own home.

[Killah Ray]

Nov 30, 2009 19:25:49 GMT -5 Joker said:

I really hate the glasses you have to wear, its ok at theme parks because the ride/simulators only last a quater of an hour at the most. A full length feature movie is too much.

I certainly won't have nay urge to wear them in my own home.

I honestly think that the goofy glasses is a big part of it to me....that and the color looks sorta washed out when I watch a 3d movie...

[andrew8798]

The Technology has got better it makes the movie more fun especially with horror movies

[PaperStreetBrigade]

No worries, in a year or two they'll start making some awful 3D movies and when people don't show up they'll blame the 3D of course.

Although if TVs are much more 3D capable this time around as compared to the 80s, then I can see this fad lasting a while.

[H-Fist]

The major reason is that the studios needed a new gimmick to boost lagging box office sales. Dramas don't sell quite like they used to, except for those with real Oscar buzz going for them. Comedies are very hit-or-miss (ex: no one saw The Hangover doing as well as it did). Action and horror seem to have a built-in niche audience, as do kids films. And kids films (from Pixar and Disney especially) have done very well commercially and critically, while horror and action can do just fine in spite of poor advance reviews.

Low-budget and mid-range horror and action films with the 3D gimmick allow studios to make a bigger advertising investment and pass along the technological costs to the owners of the theaters. It's the theater owners who need to be able to run 3D technology in their theaters if they want to bring in a large share of the local opening weekend, or even get the film to begin with.

I have no interest in 3D myself, but can see how none of the maneuvering means a thing to the average moviegoer. The gimmick, however, has novelty right now and can draw many demographics. Once the novelty is gone, the issue of quality will come more into play.

Running on a parallel track to 3D is the more widespread use of IMAX theaters for regular Hollywood products. I'm sure that struggling venues like Chicago's Navy Pier and (possibly) the Museum of Science and Industry love to have a big hit like the Harry Potter series available as a special attraction.

People want things that are more immediate and more engaging. There is little attention span or patience for more complex media. There also is a shift toward a safer (gambling on making back money) and more homogenized (genre/subgenre delineation) product within the mainstream Hollywood cinema, even as the art house niche market sees battles between the otherwise unavailable (on the big screen) international/independent niche and the more commercially viable but niche-oriented mainstream Hollywood product.

If nothing else Hollywood is at a moment where they have to throw everything against to wall to see what sticks. The rapid rise of the digital age zoomed by Hollywood, and Hollywood is still trying to figure out how to be viable and profitable and, then, dominant. 3D films are one of the things that seems to stick.

[Jiren]

I think the 3D is crap

I would see the 2D versions but they get like 2 showings a day (Compared to the 10 showings of 3D) & at daft times

[AriadosMan]

3-D is getting a big push because there is no way to pirate such an experience on a computer.

[Deleted]

Nov 30, 2009 19:58:00 GMT -5 AriadosMan said:

3-D is getting a big push because there is no way to pirate such an experience on a computer.

Ironically it encourages me even more to pirate

[Mighty Mouth]

Like someone said earlier, the technology has greatly improved since the days of the red and blue rectangular glasses of the 80's. It's a pretty cool experience once in a while. Also just another way for the industry to make money. I believe it's three extra dollars as well.

[dragonfire53511]

It's annoying to see some of the stuff done in 3d. Because even with all the advancment you still have to were those lame glasses and it pain if you already wear glasses...Which means people trade normal 2nd for distorted 3d if they wear glasses.... Ontop of that if you try to view the 3d film with out those bogues glasses you end up feeling like your suffering double vison.

[Man Moth?]

It seemed to start with Spy Kids a few years back then nothing, then Wall-E, now it's every other movie. At any one time, there is at least one 3d movie in theatres. I enjoy 3d movies but I do agree with not liking the glasses. The glasses are awkward and are irritating on the bridge of my nose. I saw the Toy Story double feature and it was difficult wearing them for three hours.

I did buy Coraline on dvd and it came with 3d glasses (the old red and blue ones) and they were much more comfortable, only the 3d wasn't as impressive as the new REAL-3D technology. If only they could combine the two.

[El Pollo Guerrera]

I believe that another part of it is that the technology is not only better but cheaper. If it wasn't cost-effective, it wouldn't be back (except for special occasions).

[AriadosMan]

So far, its proven effective for:
animation
horror

Avatar and Iron Man 2 will determine effectiveness for live-action tentpoles.

[BoilerRoomBrawler]

How about... because they are making money?

[Johnny Flamingo]

Because we are slowly (or quickly depending on your point of view) returning back to the 80's pop icons (collars on shirts turned up, 3d glasses, Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, New Kids on the Block has a new CD out last year). Bring back the Debbie Gibson/Tiffany feud I say.

[BoilerRoomBrawler]

Dec 1, 2009 1:20:27 GMT -5 Johnny Flamingo said:

Because we are slowly (or quickly depending on your point of view) returning back to the 80's pop icons (collars on shirts turned up, 3d glasses, Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, New Kids on the Block has a new CD out last year). Bring back the Debbie Gibson/Tiffany feud I say.

I'm of the opinion that this past decade (at least for America - sorry international Crappers ) has basically been the "Son of the 70's" from a cultural standpoint, and strangely enough, I'm hoping that the next decade is "Son of the 80's."

[Johnny Flamingo]

Oh yes, an 80's revival is already in motion. "You Spin me round" will be its anthem.

[Seth Drakin of Monster Crap]

Nov 30, 2009 19:25:12 GMT -5 Brandon Walsh is Insane. said:

You can still choose to NOT watch in 3-D. It's a marketing gimmick that seems to be actually selling this go around -- I don't see anything wrong with it.

The only bad thing is you are FORCED to pay the extra few dollars to watch something in 3D, even if you already have 3D glasses. Why they don't just charge a flat premium price for the 3D movie escapes me.

Because the 3D projectors cost more than regular projectors.