Re: "Every type of 3D..."

[P3D Gregory J. Wageman <gjw@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Dr. T. writes:

>Since bad 3-d movies is what prompted my comments, I am tempted to ask 
>if these movies, the ones that turned Allan Carrano off the 3-d theaters 
>and many people off 3-d in general, are still a good thing just because 
>they are stereo 3D correctly presented (but bad movies.)

Unfortunately no, they are not a good thing.  The problem as I see it is
that your major studios have no incentive to make a 3D film.  As they
have been proving, they can set new box-office records with F/X films
like "Independence Day" without the need for the added expense and
complication of 3D.

On the other hand, small, independent, no-budget productions need
*something* to get people to go see what would otherwise be a
direct-to-video release, so they add the "gimmick" of 3D to get people
into the theatre, since most people can't get polarized-projection
stereo at home.  Sadly, 3D is all most of these films have going for
them.

What is going to happen (if it hasn't already) is that the average,
uneducated movie-goer is going to start associating "3D" with "bad
film" as George suggests, if the trend continues.  And without some
interest from the majors, there won't be anything to stop the trend.
I'm afraid that 3D films are becoming "ghetto-ized".

The only counter-examples to these bad films are the 3D IMAX and
OMNIMAX films, and of course the 3D attractions at Disney and other
parks.  But these reach only a tiny fraction of the audience that a
major film release can, and I doubt whether your average park-goer
(present company excepted, of course) makes the connection that they
could be seeing *all* of their films that way (that is, excellent 3D
doesn't have to be a novelty seen only at amusement parks).

What we need is someone with the $ to back one major 3D film release.
If it's a blockbuster, Hollywood will follow its usual course and
make a dozen clones, all in 3D.

        -Greg


------------------------------