Is the 3D worth it?

Tools    





[quote=LP Quagmire;964570...it's likely here for some time to come.[/QUOTE]
From what I've heard, it's dying. That's not to say it's going to be gone by the end of the year or anything. But, with the possible exception of specifically 3D films, as opposed to refitted ones, it seems to be on the decline.
__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.



On the outside looking in.
From what I've heard, it's dying. That's not to say it's going to be gone by the end of the year or anything. But, with the possible exception of specifically 3D films, as opposed to refitted ones, it seems to be on the decline.
Depends how long the kids will support it.
__________________
"Yes, citizen, there is no cause for alarm -- you may return to your harpsichord."



Yes of course! It gives you a action packed experience. Without 3d it's just a lame on screen film, but with 3D you are jumping out your chair with excitement!



3D is gimmicky IMO and I found it detracts from most films, However after viewing Gravity I have to say it can be done right and benefit the the experience. Unfortunately it's the exception to the rule.



80% of Gravity's take was from 3D. That's the most of any 3D film to date, surpassing Life Of Pi (68%) and Avatar (72%).

‘Gravity’ Represents ‘Turning Point’ for 3D at the Box Office, Analyst Says

“Gravity” has reinvigorated U.S. audiences’ appetites for 3D films after a dreadful summer for the format, B. Riley analyst Eric Wold wrote Monday following the space adventure’s smash opening.

Buoyed by strong reviews and an interest in seeing what a visual stylist like Alfonso Cuaron (“Children of Men”) could do with the format, audiences rediscovered their enthusiasm for the rose-tinted spectacles. Eighty percent of “Gravity”s’ $55.6 opening weekend haul came from 3D showings.

That’s an even stronger showing than other significant 3D milestones like James Cameron’s “Avatar” and Ang Lee’s “Life of Pi,” which generated 72 percent and 68 percent respectively of their opening weekend box office totals from 3D screens.

“With ‘Gravity’ driving one of the highest 3D take rates, we continue to believe this could represent a significant turning point for consumer and investor sentiment around 3D following a dismal summer,” Wold wrote in a note to investors.

The movie stars George Clooney and Sandra Bullock as astronauts who become stranded in space when debris wrecks their shuttle.

“Gravity”s’ sterling performance follows a dispiriting few months for 3D films at the stateside box office. Films like “Monsters University” and “World War Z” struggled to convince audiences it was worth shelling out an additional $3 to $4 to see them in 3D.

And in July, the format hit a new low-water mark when 3D showings of “Turbo” accounted for just 25 percent of its total box office, representing the format’s worst showing yet. That same month,”The Wolverine” eked out 30 percent of its $53.1 million opening weekend from 3D showings – a new low point for 3D action releases.

Wold projects that “Gravity ” is on track to generate between $150 million to $160 million at the domestic box office. He more than doubled his estimates for what 3D will contribute to the film’s U.S. box office take, raising it from$42 million to between $90 million to $95 million based on last weekend’s results.

3D tends to be more popular with foreign audiences than domestic ones, but that was not the case with “Gravity” — roughly 70 percent of the $23.7 million it took from 52 foreign markets came from 3D.

Wold said he is optimistic that films like “Thor: The Dark World” and “The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug” will continue to perform well in 3D.

“For weeks, we have noted that Gravity would represent a significant positive turning point for investor and consumer sentiment around the 3D premium format – and, without a doubt, this definitely seems to be the case,” Wold wrote.

Gravity was also released onto IMAX 3D screens, with the movie generating $11.2 million in box office, or more than 20 percent of the movie’s domestic total from the big screen format.

In the case of “Gravity,” the wide expanses of space, the stars, the earth, the moon and all that action made it a film that benefited from the extra dimensions, Clooney argued to TheWrap last week.

“There has to be a reason for it, and there’s a reason for the 3D in this film,” he said.

Audiences apparently agree.

The post ‘Gravity’ Represents ‘Turning Point’ for 3D at the Box Office, Analyst Says appeared first on TheWrap.
http://ca.movies.yahoo.com/news/grav...140740336.html



but now you have my attention
I can't watch another movie in 3d after clash of the titans remake, it's made me paranoid about spending extra money for a movie not made for 3d.
__________________
"Don't just stare at it, Eat it!"



A system of cells interlinked
Ok...so what about films that were made for 3D, like Gravity? Also...paranoid? That seems a bit harsh for spending an extra two dollars on something...
__________________
“It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.” ― Thomas Sowell



Sorry Harmonica.......I got to stay here.
Not worth it-- I could throw a spare pair of glasses over mine and be uncomfortable for free in my own living room
__________________
Under-the-radar Movie Awesomeness.
http://earlsmoviepicks.blogspot.com/



The People's Republic of Clogher
I've got a 3D PC monitor and, as an experiment, I bought The Hobbit's 3D version and hooked up the Blu Ray to give it a go. I barely made it out of the menus before switching to the conventional disc.

To me at least, the experience hasn't moved on since I was buying 3D comics as a kid.
__________________
"Critics are like eunuchs in a harem; they know how the Tatty 100 is done, they've seen it done every day, but they're unable to do it themselves." - Brendan Behan



Personally I do not care too much for 3D, does not influence me at all when it comes to watch and enjoy a movie. The quality of a movie depends on other factors more important, I consider.



The Bib-iest of Nickels
I've honestly only seen a movie in theaters once that was in 3-D, and that was Gravity, which I enjoyed thoroughly. Whether or not it's actually worth it, I don't know, and I don't really care. It doesn't bother me as much as it used to, and if there's a time when it can enhance the movie like it did with Avatar or Gravity, so be it. I'll be the first to say that it's almost always a gimmick to make a little extra money, however.



It depends on the topic of the film. I wouldn't care a rat's a... if I am gonna watch a Woody Allen monologue shooting off his mouth in 3D but watching Avatar deserves such an spectacle in the same way you could watch Demetrius and the Gladiators in CINEMASCOPE. If there's spectacle and incredible locations or exotic like Tron 2 , Prometheus and Thor or Pacific Rim I think it's worth it. But if it's too confusing or distracting like that terrible unstoppable action in Transformers... well, I'll pass.



I'm pretty skeptical about 3D, but I agree that Gravity is the movie that makes it work. Among all of the 3D flix I've seen it was one of only two where I thought the 3D was anything but a gimmick and an anti-piracy trick. Ironically the other one I liked was the 3D re-boot of Jurassic Park, which, of course didn't start out as 3D. The largely digital fantasy about running, screaming and dinosaurs just didn't have much to lose with the 3D gimmick and having them lunge out at me just made me happy to not have dinos around now.