3D media - fad or mainstay?

[proserpina]

Lately I have been wondering about the prominence and staying power of this second strike of what could be considered the 3D fad, with films especially. With this in mind, I stumbled across this blog from Kieran Turner-Dave under The Independent.

"Despite the number of 3D films being released increasing by 75%, revenue for 3D movies dropped by $400 million between 2010 and 2011.
...
It would not be surprising if imperfection were also a contributing factor to the current decline in interest in 3D. After all, it is estimated that 12-30% of audience members are unable to properly perceive images in 3D due to a variety of medical conditions. Moreover, the 30% light loss from 3D film, blurred edges surrounding moving objects, and high proportion of seemingly 2D scenes within 3D movies are often cited as drawbacks of electing to watch movies in the format.

Considering the technical problems with 3D, coupled with the increasing amount of 2D movies retro-fitted into the format, it is no surprise that Hugo is so far the only movie shot in 3D to pick up an Oscar for art direction, cinematography or visual effects (a pretty bad showing for the alleged future of the medium).

This is somewhat unsurprising when viewed as the latest chapter in the history of the format of course. 3D has been utilised as a gimmick to boost the box office receipts of action, horror, animated or soft-core pornographic movies that would usually be dismissed as mediocre were it not for the novelty to see characters look like they’re trying to poke out at you through the screen. Unfortunately, each successive generation of movie-goers eventually tires of the novelty when they realise how much they’ve paid to watch quite low quality movies.
...
Given the 24% rise in the cost when a family opts to see a film in 3D rather than 2D at my local multiplex, not including the pricey drinks and snacks, it is not at all surprising that interest in 3D is falling."

Source

With issues and statistics like these (although I'm not surprised by them) I have to wonder if there is a pattern emerging; the repeated rise and fall of 3D media, particularly film. As technology has allowed for it we have seen the return of 3D visuals, except this time there is a wider variety of its use - we have 3D televisions and, of course, the 3DS. I and many others, however, are not convinced that 3D will remain this time around. I'm no expert but it seems that with another generation companies have cashed in on novelty only for expense and practicality to win out in the end. Although I am as sure as ever that technology will improve and effects may be put to good use with greater ease, I'm not entirely sure 3D as a medium will remain even once it is done well. Of those I know who have tried 3D televisions, for example, most have quickly gotten bored of seeing most things in 3D. With those people, I have genuinely begun to wonder if 3D will always be a novelty for most regular visual media (outside of games, which I feel may very much permanently benefit and be changed once high quality and practical 3D effects can be implemented safely).

What do you think (and why)?

 

[dig]

Nah, I don't think it's going to stay, but it'll go and come back. That's just how pop culture goes. Remember when indie rock dominated the air waves? There will be a revival, probably this decade for that sort of music.

I personally hope 3D does a horrible, painful death, I personally don't go to the cinema, pay an over charged ticket and then get a headache. Not for me.

 

[Ghetsis-Dennis]

The 3D gimmick is older than you think, dating back to the early mid-20th century. It has history of fading and coming back from the dead to rake more cash in cinema when better technology has been developed. Perhaps the current 3D fad will fade away once again and come back a couple of decades later using glasses-free effects like the 3DS.

 

[Robo-Floatzel]

I personally see it as a fad that's a cheap way to make more money, all the signs are pointing to this trends downfall once more as it did several times before, then we wait a few decades and it will be back again, repeating the cycle.

 

[proserpina]

I personally don't go to the cinema, pay an over charged ticket and then get a headache. Not for me.

Ah, but what about when it eventually becomes cheaper and more convenient to show and integrate into home entertainment?

The 3D gimmick is older than you think, dating back to the early mid-20th century. It has history of fading and coming back from the dead to rake more cash in cinema when better technology has been developed. Perhaps the current 3D fad will fade away once again and come back a couple of decades later using glasses-free effects like the 3DS.

My thoughts exactly. I am quite sure it will come back, I just wonder how long it will be before it makes a solid return, if at all, and if it will ever become used so widely that it becomes a norm. Despite their issues, 3D technologies in the home are slowly becoming something quite common (at least among those I know), so I can't help but wonder if maybe what has been a fad might just make a permanent place for itself soon.

I personally see it as a fad that's a cheap way to make more money, all the signs are pointing to this trends downfall once more as it did several times before, then we wait a few decades and it will be back again, repeating the cycle.

As I've said above, yes, I personally think it will fall again, but it seems to come back with more of a vengeance each time.

 

[dig]

Ah, but what about when it eventually becomes cheaper and more convenient to show and integrate into home entertainment?

There will always be people who prefer black and white films, and there will always be people who prefer 2D films. I just don't like the gimmick of it because it cheapens the film. I think it can only really improve action or children's films, the kind where visual stimulation is more important than plot or character development.

3D is a short lived gimmick where by film studios make action films and convert them to 3D, fewer are shot in 3D, and make a quick buck because the experience and ticket draw comes from 3D, not from cinema purists who want to experience emotion and fine story telling.

Tl;dr, 3D is basically a way to market dumb films, the kind where explosions and tits take precedence over a compelling story. There are of course good films that have 3D, such as Pixar films, but I'd rather watch them 2D style.

 

[Shinobu]

Yahtzee Croshaw's thoughts on 3D are the same as mine:

Don't be fooled by 3D. Just ... don't. 3D is nothing more than an expensive experiment being carried out by the entertainment industry. Not a technological experiment, mind, a psychological one. The entire entertainment industry is trying to determine if it's possible to pass off an inferior gimmick as the next step towards the technological singularity simply by having every media outlet on the planet tell everyone that it is.

 

[Dorothy LaRouge]

I don't mind it so much so long as there's an option to watch the film in 2D.

 

[IcyNinjaX]

I don't mind it so much so long as there's an option to watch the film in 2D.

Agreed. I remember Transformers: Dark of the Moon had two versions. 2D and 3D. I went with the 3D version since many people are lining up for the 3D version! Haha. Not many people were lined up for the 2D version so I decided to buy tickets for the 3D version. I guess I would consider 3D a "fad"

But I sometimes get annoyed when directors take advantage of 3D to pull in more cash rather than producing quality work into their movies. A prime example would be Resident Evil. I think starting at After Life or Extinction is when they started to pull off the greedy attitude of "Hey let's produce this movie in 3D since many people like 3D Movies." and the outcome? Overused slow motion effects just to show off the 3D effects? C'mon, really? I'm sure you could do better with 3D than just slowing down the damn movie for no reason.

 

[Dragonfyre]

I think it's a fad. Movies with truly good 3D are still rare, and the ones that cannot be classified as 'good' are too headache-inducing, to the extent that it makes you wonder why people are still going for them. I think people are going to snap out of it soon and cause 3D to fade into the shadows until the tech gets better.

 

[Glitchipedia]

You know, they said talkies were a fad, too, and now they're the norm. Widescreen presentation started out as a cinema gimmick to compete with television, and now it's the norm, too. Is 3D headed in the same direction? Maybe not in the short term, but I expect another victory in the long run.

 

[John Understands]

Nah. I expect it to go the way disco did, then it'll make a comeback in 30 years or so.

 

[Proxima Centauri B]

I expect it to die down soon. I personally have only watched one film in 3D and I couldnt get through the whole movie in 3D because of eyestrain. I probably wouldnt pay to see another film in 3D, it's not really worth it IMO. It'll probably come back eventually though, though when is anyone's guess.

 

[Dolce]

Like most of the posts above have said already I think it'll be a fad that comes and goes. Though I personally would be happy to have the option of sticking to 2d because wearing two sets of glasses is really irritating to me. xD