Re: [photo-3d] Re: P3D Decline of the stereo market

["John A. Rupkalvis" <stereoscope@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

A lot of good points.  An addendum regarding "Dial M" and some other 1953
3-D films as well.   Another reason that these films were exhibited flat.
At that time, two complete (and expensive) prints were required to project
stereoscopically.  It did not take distributors very long to figure out that
by splitting these up and sending them to separate theaters, (nearly) the
same film could be shown flat in twice as many theaters for the same print
cost.   Money talks.

JR

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob" <lilindn@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2000 7:28 PM
Subject: [photo-3d] Re: P3D Decline of the stereo market


> Chuck Holzner" <cfholzner@xxxxxxxx>  wrote:
> > Subject: Decline of the stereo market
> >
> > Does anyone know the reason(s) for the decline of the stereo market
> > back in the 50/60 era?  Maybe we can prevent it from happening again.
> >
> >
>    One major factor in the decline was how movie producers took to 3-D
> movies when they became popular circa 1953 - they started using 3-D
> strictly as a marketing gimmick rather than as an improvement of the
> stereo art.  With few exceptions, 3-D movies showed more comical scenes
> of props being thrown right at the audience that realistic 3-D scenes
> with natural depth.
>    It was not long before schlock movie producers began using 3-D to try
> to make money off a movie they knew was going to have lousy screenplay,
> acting and production, and "3-D movie" became synonomous with
> "gimmick-laden bad movie".
>    By 1954, you had theater chains releasing movies that had been filmed
> in 3-D as 2-D movies - Hitchcock's "Dial M for Murder" as a case in
> point, to save the film's reputation from critics before it was
> released.
>    The same thing would have happened to color movies if they had all
> been set up to exploit color - like "La Cucaracha".  A movie which was
> filmed in color, even though it had many plain gray and brown scenes -
> "Gone With The Wind" - changed that.
>    The still-picture art community was not kind to stereo, either.
> Editors of photography magazines of the 1950s, 60s and 70s derided
> stereo as a gimmick for those who lacked artistic vision.  At that time,
> it was considered passé to use photography as a means to portray
> reality.  The way to get your picture in Pop Photo was to have a picture
> of a purple horse against a pink sky, shot with a fisheye lens!
>     Finally, there was the shift in the American lifestyle that hurt
> stereo, as well as slides (which peaked well after TV was popular) and
> home movies (which virtually disappeared long before anyone had heard
> the word "camcorder").  Men were always more likely than women to use
> stereo, slides of home movies than women, and the 1970's saw the camera
> being taken out of the hand of the married father and put into the hand
> of the single mother.  (note - this is only *statistically* significant,
> many women have made excellent images in all three of the above media!).
>     I've always thought that stereo was on the verge of a comeback, and
> see two ways it could happen:
>     1) if a respectable movie producer were to secretly film a good,
> modern movie with stereo equipment, release the movie in 2-D, let the
> movie receive rave reviews and box-office success, then, a year later,
> re-release it in a 3-D version.  This could clean stereo's reputation
> and stir up some interest in it.
>     2) televise major sporting events (NFL, for example) with stereo
> HDTV cameras at the site, provide a 2-D feed for the TV network, but
> beam (via 12GHz digital satellite private channel) the stereo HDTV
> version to stereo HDTV receivers in sports bars, who would pay a fee to
> draw many customers to the equipped taverns to see the game in stereo.
> Eventually, customers would want the stereo image at home as well.
>
>     Rob
>     "Day 13490 - creativity held hostage"
>
>
>
>