The 3D Revolution: Scorsese's "Hugo" Wins Golden Globe for Best Director

An amazing interview with James Cameron about 3D.

'Avatar' director James Cameron: 3D promising, but caution needed

Some of the things he mentions are:

1. 3D television (Samsung and Sony) The consumer electronics are too far out ahead of available content. There will have to be 3D television programming before this takes off, since the available library of 3D films isn't large enough to sell the format.

2. Clash of the Titans was converted to 3D in 8 weeks, so Cameron hints that it might not be very good from a technical point of view.

3. Cameron is committed to a 3D re-release of Titanic and hinted at a 3D conversion of Terminator, also mentioned the idea of Lucas doing a 3D convert on Star Wars.

4. And that will be a new phenomenon - 3D conversions of old film libraries similar to the fad many years ago of colorizing old b/w films. And the results may be about that appealing too.

 

They tried it in the 50's, but it proved to be a fad. However, the movies used were downmarket.

 

The studios don't want it to be a fad this time, since the money looks to be so incredible. It's more complicated with tv than a movie theater, which works with vertical/horizontal polarized lenses. The home 3D systems are going to require electronic glasses with LCD shutters on each lens that open and close in synch with the screen. It's hard for me to imagine guys sitting around a tv on a weekend wearing those glasses so they can watch 3D NFL games on ESPN, or families sitting around the tv wearing those things to watch American Idol 3D.

I don't even own a flat panel HDTV yet or have a Blu Ray player, so I'm going to be several formats behind once the 3D tvs come out.

If I had to put money down though, I'd be willing to bet that a decade from now 3D television still doesn't have significant market penetration into households. But that will just mean that movie theaters can continue to charge what amounts to monopoly rent on the format.

 

You could make 3D TV work with the vertical and horizontal polarized lenses. However, it would only work on what I believe are called "front projection" televisions. They would probably cost an arm and a leg, though. You would essentially be buying TWO tvs to project on your home screen. Then the broadcasters have to find a way to make that work with 2 signals or something.

I would NOT buy a product that required me to wear electronic glasses that work in synch with the TV. Sounds like far too much to go wrong and break.

Jabbadabbadoo, I'm with you. I have a DVD player and a normal, 19 inch, tube television. If they stop selling DVD format, I'm SOL along with you.

 

Me neither. I could see 3D TVs carving out a niche for themselves in a home theatre application, but would I watch CNN in 3D? I don't think so. I'm also inclined to want to discourag the conversion of older movies to 3D. There are some franchises, like Star Trek, Bond, Star Wars or Harry Potter might work rather well in 3D but would I watch Psycho or Gone with the Wind in 3D? I doubt it.

 

I have no television. My entertainment system is my laptop and a pair of nice headphones for movies with good scores or interesting sound effects. And Apple has made it very clear that BluRay drives won't be available on their machines anytime soon, so I'm pretty well stuck with DVD!

I agree that there's very little market for 3D televisions right now.

I actually kind of hate the 3D trend right now, as it's going through birthing pains. If a movie was shot in 2D, release it in 2D. Don't give us pointless depth. And don't use 3D technology for gimmicks. Use it to present visual information in ways that 2D movies can't. And remember that having depth is pointless if things still look fake.

Also, I think that if 3D is around to stay, they need to make some changes to theaters. Get rid of the first couple rows in the theater (or have wrap-around glasses or something), because there's little that's more frustrating than paying for a 3D movie and then being so close to the screen that the whole image doesn't fit within your glasses' field of vision. Or, better yet, be a little less cheap and install 3D technology that doesn't require glasses.

 

True, but then, I remember when HD TVs were new and people were saying, well, it's good for movie-watching, but what's the point if I'm just watching the news? And then tons of people bought them anyway. I'm sure they'll find a way to sell them.

 

If there's one thing that could really sell the format it would be a 3D Playstation/Xbox360/Wii. 3D first person shooters? I'm ready to empty out my 401k for that.

 

I think the main problem is the glasses. People will wear glasses for two hours in a theater, because it's an event. They aren't going to wear glasses to sit down and watch the TV at home, because it turns a minor everyday action into a hassle. You can sell people on stuff like HD even if it doesn't seem "necessary" because it's an improvement of the experience; it's not a change of the experience. We're told every day that some new technology is going to be revolutionary, but more often than not it's a gimmick or a fad or a flat-out dud. I'm skeptical that 3D is going to be one of the successes. All that hassle for a slight improvement in the illusion of depth -- I don't think it's going to pan out. It'll remain something for theaters until and unless they get a cheap product that doesn't require glasses and just sits there being a TV like people are used to. And even in theaters, I think the fad could likely pass. Avatar offered the big 3D experience, but if they just keep upconverting forgettable shlock like Clash of the Titans and stuff that it doesn't make a huge difference to, like Potter, people aren't going to be lining up to pay higher ticket prices in the long run. The format has got to be a consistent deliverer or people will dismiss it as a one-off fad.

 

That seems exactly right to me. 3D glasses are an inconvenience, and people aren't going to inconvenience themselves just to watch television. The reason people watch television in the first place is because it's easier and more convenient than doing just about anything else you can thing of.

 

This reminds me of a game I once played at an arcade about 8 - 10 years ago. It was one of the last arcades I knew of. Back to the point:

It was a cops and drug lords type of game. It may have been called Virtua Cop, but I'm not sure. It was a light gun game, but what made it memorable was that you had to stand in these foot prints in front of the game. You were surrounded by a frame that I presume had sensors in it. The bullets of the bad guys moved slow enough that you could dodge them, but not slow enough that it was easy. Anyway, you could duck down and the screen would "duck down" with you so that the bullets would go over your head. Then you had to pop back up and start shooting people again. It was a really cool concept and worked well. Unfortunately, it cost like $10 per play, so I only tried it once.

If a video game system could do something like this in conjuction with a 3D tv, I would be tempted.

Edit: and I don't think glasses would break the 3D TV market due to inconvenience, as long as they aren't heavy and electronic. There are millions of people who wear glasses everyday to watch TV (and drive and work). I used to wear them and preferred them to contacts, which are darned inconvenient.

 

This seems like a bit of a dilemma to me; Nobody's going to bother getting a 3D television set if there's no 3D programming; but nobody's going to bother providing 3D programming if nobody's got a 3D set.

 

I'm not convinced people will bother to provide 3D programming period. It's too much expense for not enough return. There's not just no market for the news in 3D; there's no market for House in 3D, or Glee in 3D, or How I Met Your Mother in 3D. There's maybe a market for 24 and the Discovery Channel in 3D. That's about it.

Yeah, but do you want to have five friends over to watch the Super Bowl and all of a sudden you don't have enough glasses for everybody? You want to have expensive moving-part glasses that you just know will break at least once a year? It's one thing for people to walk around with their own pair of glasses in their pocket because they need them to get through life. It's another thing to have to don a specific set of goofy-looking technology to watch SportsCenter.

You can, of course, respond that most people would set their TVs on 2D for normal watching outside of movies and stuff . . . but then you get to the problem of why people are going to buy expensive TVs for one feature they rarely use. The normal consumer's response to that is going to be, "Well, yeah, I suppose that would be nice to have, but it hardly seems worth it." It just seems like the next picture-in-picture to me.

 

I've yet to be impressed by 3D in any format. Avatar was a huge let down in that department IMO. I don't plan on seeing ANY movies in 3D anytime soon. Especially any like Clash of the Titans where it was added after the fact. And I certainly won't be wasting my money to watch them at home.

 

ESPN has already confirmed they're rolling out a 3D network in the near future.

I truly can't believe there are people who weren't wowed by Avatar. Say what you want about the movie's cinematic worth, but man.

 

I'm with Havac on this. And as 3D technology seems to be vastly decreasing the quality of films in terms of plot and character development, I hope it's just a passing fad that passes quickly.

 

I can't wait for it to go away.

 

I saw Alice in Wonderland in 3-D and it didn't really seem to add much. I actually found wearing the glasses to be a bit uncomfortable and it was hard to focus on the scenery(which looked amazing, when it could be fully taken in) during some parts because of the 3-D.

 

The Top 10 Movies that never should be converted to 3D

 

For those hoping the 3D trend will go away quickly had better pray that Clash of the Titans is an unmitigated disaster, because Alice in Wonderland is not helping your cause at all.

I thought Alice was going to be a modest success, but the movie really was better than I expected, and the public at large seems to think so to. It held up very well in its second week and is now looking like it will make a minimum of $600 - $650 million worldwide, more than enough to justify its $200 million budget.

 

The current 3D trend is a testament to the public's willingness to accept pretty pictures over actual substance. I'd prefer if they would leave old films alone.

 

I have no desire to see any more 3D movies in theatres, so I sure as hell have no desire to see them at home.

-sj loves kevin spacey

 

I have to add a confession, though. I'm all for re-releasing the SW saga in 3D. Not because I care about seeing them in 3D, but just because I want any excuse to be able to see them all on the big screen again. And with theatrical sound.

-sj loves kevin spacey

 

I look forward more to seeing them on Blu-Ray. But I'll probably see them in 3D anyway, just to see how well ILM converts them into it.