Iron Man 2 is on track to rake in more than $130 million in its opening weekend–an impressive haul, though not enough to break The Dark Knight‘s $158 million record. But Iron Man 2 would have a good shot at shattering that benchmark if it had been released in 3D and taken advantage of those higher ticket prices. Robert Downey Jr. acknowledged as much in EW’s recent Iron Man 2 cover story, saying, “Whether or not we think we have [left money on the table], we have.” Make no mistake: record or no record, Iron Man 2 is a big, fat hit. But in a post-Avatar world, as Hollywood tries to figure out whether 3D is a temporary fad or a genuine game-changer—an especially pressing question given sinking DVD revenues—armchair studio executives (not to mention real ones) will study Iron Man 2‘s grosses closely and wonder how much higher they could have soared with some of that sweet, sweet 3D booty.
Studio bean counters can wonder all they want. The real question is, would you even have wanted to see Iron Man 2 in 3D? Audiences have given the movie a Cinemascore grade of A, suggesting they were plenty satisfied with it as is. But would the spectacle of Tony Stark zipping through the sky in his metal suit or Ivan Vanko slashing race cars in half with his electro-whips have been significantly cooler with an added third dimension? Given the choice between taking the first blockbuster of the summer straight-up or on the 3D rocks, which way would you have gone? Those Hollywood bean counters are hanging on your answer.
Haven’t seen it (yet), but there’s no way in hell I’d have seen it in 3D. Learned my lesson when I shelled out $15 to see Alice in Wonderland — what a waste of money!
instead of 3D i like plot, script, dialogue. instead of box office, i like entertainment value and the ability to move me, make me think, make me laugh.
Yup, and Iron Man 2 seems to be lacking some of that.
I’m waiting until it reaches my local $5 theater. I can’t afford to be paying $10-$15(!) for a movie.
spoken like a typical chick
Yes-script, story and EDITING is high on my list
Yep, that’s why it’s gotten mostly decent reviews and goo audience scores. Iron Man 2 is better than Iron Man1, which is a pretty good achievement.
Funnier, wittier, and the oblitory bigger and better effects and fights. A cast of genuine actors helps in the drama stakes too.
F 3-D. I’m tired of gimmicks.
I second that.3D is a stupid money making gimmick.
No it isn’t. It’s a tool, in this case a tool that enhances the visual experience. Like all tools, especially artistic ones it can be wielded skilfully or sloppily, blame the film makers for sloppy work, not the medium. Colour isn’t to blame for all the bad films made since it became the film stock (or pixels) of choice. Neither is sound or 70mm film.
Blaming 3D is almost like blaming surround sound for a film being poor, or electric guitars for ruining music.
next they will make romcoms in 3D.
I totally agree lol. 3d is stupid and pointless it doesn’t make a bad movie good… not that iron man 2 is a bad movie or anything, just saying.
Neither ds surround sound, colour or widescreen are they pointless? Should we scrap DVD and BLu-ray and go back to VHS because good looking bad movie is still a bad movie?
3D is a poor technology, and it’s appearance has more to do with projector companies and film studios wanting to make $ than it being an improvement in moviemaking technology. Many people have trouble going to see 3D movies, http://www.newsweek.com/id/237110, and that doesn’t even include the aproximately 10% of the viewing audience that is totaly incapable of resolving a 3D image due to a legitimate visual issue. It’s a gimick, pure and simple
3D is not a passing fad. Nor is it to blame for a bad movie. There are films that have shown its potential by using it artfully and effectively (Coraline, Up), and there are films that use it in a very gimmicky way (Beowulf, My Bloody Valentine). Glasses-less 3D TVs are on the way. We already have the technology. And I’m guessing that NFL fans will eventually be responsible for the technology’s proliferation, just like with HD TVs. NFL fans had a major role in the adoption of HD.
I don’t recall ever being charged more to see a movie in widescreen, in color, with DTS or Dolby surround. 3D, on the other hand…
You were, the cinema owners just hid it in a standard price hike, rather than throwing it in our faces as a “surcharge”.
Damn straight. 3D only works best with a fundamentally good story, and great visuals. Alice was no doubt a typically Tim Burton flick but it would have still worked on 2D. For IronMan2 I think with all the action, a 3D would have made it better; though the movie was muddled up at times and the Whiplash character was not maximized, esp at the climactic battle.
3D is only good when it’s used to enrich depth of field. I could see swinging through New York’s buildings “with” Spider-man or flying with Superman being awesome. If it’s just “poke the audience with a stick” 3D, it’s boring and useless.
Admittedly, 3D glasses mess with my eyes for the first 15 minutes or so, so that limitation (and maybe the glasses altogether) needs to be dealt with before I’m fully on board with 3D. That, and the price has to go down to where normal tickets are. It’s just too much money for not much added quality.
I disagree
Agreed. 3D is a passing fad, nothing more. People like to make such a big deal out of it because “clearly people are seeing it in 3D”, but they’re missing the point that in a huge number of theatres, they’ll only show it in 3D. There’s no chance to see it the normal way. 3D, and everyone pushing it, need to go away.
I have not noticed that at all. In fact I’ve never seen it nor heard of it. Plus people aren’t forced to do anything, they choose to see a film or not to, and the kind of grosses you see are down to repeat business; a lot of repeat business. The films that don’t hit with audiences, the Christmas Carols and Clash of The Titans of this world don’t make anywhere near as much as the ones people do like; in other words 3D may bump the grosses but people don’t rush out to see anything JUST because it’s in 3D.
It isn’t something ” Hollywood tries to figure out whether 3D is a temporary fad or a genuine game-change”, they know it’s a game changer, that’s why they are flogging it to death with short sighted “conversions”. It aint the end of a “fad” that’ll kill 3D it’s Hollywood making sub-stndard “converted” movies that kill the beast.
I respectfully disagree. Hollywood hasn’t seen it as a “game-changer”, they’ve seen it as a way to make money. You’re correct that people don’t rush out just because it’s 3D, they just want to see the movie. The fact that you make this arguement kinda proves my point though. The 3D is just an excuse for Hollywood to charge more money. I’m located near a major city, and nowhere around here will show a 3D movie the standard way if they can instead show it in 3D and charge more money for it. Avatar here played for a few months, and it was ALL in 3D, I had no choice to see it in 2D (unless I wanted to see it in a rundown theatre from the 80′s that hadn’t converted any screens). I agree that conversions are a terrible idea, but 3D is a joke. James Cameron did the movie industry a great disservice with Avatar. While the 3D in his film was very good (vastly superior to any other 3D film out there), it was still the main selling point of the movie, which was substandard as a film. At the end of the day, 3D does not make a film better. It is this fact alone that makes 3D a gimmick.
Skip182
To respectfully disagree with your respectful disagreeing, I’ll quote a decent movie from the past, “you proceed from a false assumption”; several in fact.
Firstly you seem to assume that Hollywood, and the rest of the entertainment “display” industry (makers of TV sets etc) seeing 3D as a way to make money precludes them seeing it as a game changer. It can be and is both. Of course it’s a way to make money; Hollywood is a business so everything they do is a way to make money. Even the smaller, Oscar courting films they make with the profits from the bigger movies (lest we all forget that the Hurt Lockers of the world only get made because of the profits from films like Transformers 2) have the job of giving a studio more prestige and more money making ability. The extra features on DVDs can be great, but they are there for money making reasons. Synchronised sound was a game changer but of course Hollywood saw it as a way to make more money. In fact from the most famous, early film to use sound “The Jazz Singer and others were used in a very gimmicky way to get more cash out of punters. It didn’t mean the increasing use of sound wasn’t a game changer. Colour had been around for years but when Hollywood (and other countries’ film studios) starting using colour, especially 3 colour Technicolor it was a game changer, but of course it was also a way to make more money. Widescreen movies were a way to draw back audiences from Television by using something that TV just couldn’t replicate. The irony here is that there’s as big a push for 3D TV, aided by the Hollywood studios, meaning that there won’t be an added cinemas only factor for very long.
I do know that the cinema system I America is very different to the UK so I apologise for making a generalisation based on a situation that doesn’t apply to the majority of people on this talkback. Over here there’s always a 2D version, annoyingly t often means that specialty and / or foreign language films disappear after about 5 days or only ever screen at around 22:30!
Your Avatar argument is completely erroneous and not supported by any of the facts. We’ll leave your opinion of the film’s quality alone as it isn’t really an issue. The sales of Avatar, with no features, and a well in advance announcing of two further versions of the film to be released over the next 12 months goes to prove that the 3D had absolutely nothing to do with people’s liking of the film. Now it obviously had a major impact on the viewing experience, just as digital projection, immersive surround sound and large screens, but just as a home viewing of, let’s say Raiders of the Lost Ark, Lawrence of Arabia, The Godfather Part II, Lord Of The Rings and Star Trek (2009) will be diminished at home, even on a mid range HD home theatre system, or a top of the range one, it doesn’t stop the film, if it was good OR liked being bought , watched and enjoyed in the home. There simply would not be the response to a chance to take home Avatar if it was simply the 3D that interested people. I’m not saying that you are one of these people, but a lot of the viewers who just couldn’t understand why so many people enjoyed Avatar so much were kinda leaning on this crutch that it was all the pretty colours in 3d that did it. It wasn’t and the proof is out there in the sales. They also ignored the number of people who gave the film just as excellent scores when they saw it in 2D as those that saw it in 3D. (And a lot of people saw it in 2D) There was also the number of people who appeared to upgrade. Saw it in 2D then had to see in 3D; Saw it in 3D and had to see it in IMAX.
3D does not improve the quality of the film being watched, if the acting is poor, and / or the script is poor and / or the direction is poor 3D will do nothing to change that, in fact a “conversion” can, on the evidence s far, simply highlight those flaws and make what may have been the only redeeming features poor too. I.E the action in Clash of The Titans, which was almost unwatchable.
What it can do is make the viewing experience better. Great sound effect don’t make a bad film into a good film but it does sound better with THX / DTS etc surround sound on. The fact that 2012 is in colour doesn’t make it an Oscar contender but it does make for a better viewing experience. (A blank screen may have done the same though!
You honestly believe that a beautiful sweeping epic, like Lawrence of Arabia wouldn’t have been enhanced, visually, if it could have been shot using 21st century 3D tech? There’s a film that could benefit hugely from a depth of field. Ditto The Good The Bad & The Ugly, Amadeus, Ben Hur, Gladiator, Lord of The Rings and The Lion King? There’s nothing wrong with any of those films, visually and please God no one convert them, (even if it’s done properly with time, love & attention to detail like Toy Story 1 & 2 or, allegedly, Titanic) If the original director can’t supervise then don’t do it: There’s no need to do it anyway as I’m still unconvinced about adding a dimension to a film that was never considered when making the film and placing cameras, lights, props and actors.
You’re also taking my “people don’t rush out to see a movie JUST because it’s in 3D” point to its illogical conclusion. If the 3D experience is good, in other words if it enhances the viewing experience and doesn’t worsen it people will go to see the film again. (Well assuming they’re the multiple viewing type and they liked it that much). People aren’t refusing to watch a film because it’s in 3D or refusing 2nd or 3rd viewings because they didn’t like the 3D; not in significant numbers anyway.
Any tool can be misused and seem like a gimmick, the colour wash of Sin City and 300 isn’t a gimmick; it’s an artistic choice that enhances those stories. (Whether you like them or not that’s what it is), It isn’t really a gimmick in The Spirit either, at least not in intent but the poor use of it and the fact that pretty much everything in that film was poorly handled make it come across as just a gimmick. Sin City sequels aside it’s hard to see a reason to use that technique in anything other than a gimmicky way. You can say the same for colour, sound, reverse zooms, steadicams or crane shots (is the opening of Goodfellas a gimmick or a masterstroke to you?)
A child may play with a gun or a knife as if it is a toy, that doesn’t make it a toy.
Thanks Skip, in answering you I’ve almost got my next article for The SyFy channel UK mapped out, a Change here and there and I may even make it fit under 1100 words, which I never do!
Here’s a 3D article I wrote last year and one I wrote about how Hollywood could kill 3D before it gets started by using it like a Gimmick. Which you may have gaathered I don’t believe it is.
http://www.syfy.co.uk/blog/the_avatar_effect
and………..
http://www.syfy.co.uk/blog/science-technology/3d-back-to-the-future
Yes I know I need to sort a lot of the syntax out too but I have been up all night and I should be eating breakfast now!
Actually these 3d movies are not shown on that many 3d screens. About 65 % of the screens showing a 3d movie are 2d screens. About a year ago it was even less. So many people through out the country and the world have easy access to a 2d showing. We do here in Fort Myers Florida, my parents do in Springfield Missouri. Screen conversion to 3d has been rather slow. To imply that 85 or 95% of the screens are showing a 3d movie in 3d is false.
Thanks for the update Tony
Except I never made the claim that it was 85 to 90 percent. My statement was that I live in a major city (sorry, Ft. Lauderdale falls far short). A large portion of movie screens aren’t located in major metropolitan areas, and the majority of them are not in 3D, but that does not change the fact in other areas (the populated areas), that’s all you can see (especially during the summer months with so many new movies each week and limited screens). The long run of Avatar on these screens was not in 2D, but the more expensive 3D format. I also did not argue people didn’t like the Avatar, only that the story was weak (as far as Cameron movies go). Clearly more people enjoyed Avatar than did The Hurt Locker. The very fact that Avatar on DVD and Blu-Ray is doing so well goes to show that 3D is not important. These people are buying Avatar because they enjoyed the story and beautiful special effects, which still look amazing on HD televisions. If 3D really mattered, these would not be selling as well as they are. All of the “game changers” you mentioned (which I’d debate the extent to which they changed the industry) fall into a different category than 3D. Everything you mentioned went to improve either picture or sound quality. 3D does not impove either of those, it merely changes the image. 3D fundamentally changes the viewing format, it does not improve the existing format. You can obviously argue that is a matter of opinion, but the fact is with the exception of Avatar and, curiously, How To Train Your Dragon, the 3D in current films has been widley criticized for either being of poor quality, or, MUCH more common, being unnecesary to the film. There is a reason you don’t see any dramas being made in 3D, and that’s because real directors understand story is more important than 3D (Christopher Nolan is refusing to shoot in 3D. Though his use of IMAX technology could possibly fall under gimmick as well, though I would argue with the abundance of HD televisions, his use of IMAX is far more acceptable than any 3D). James Cameron has been a terrific director throughout his career, but he has fundamentally shifted from story teller to movie maker and self-proclaimed leader of the movement. He spent nearly a decade creating this technology, which will now be used by NASA (which is actually a fantastic use of the format) but he ignored the story. This is 3Ds biggest threat to filmaking. Cameron says he will never make another movie without shooting in 3D. For a director like him, who largely focuses on action, this could possibly fit him well, but he is preaching its use for all films. Looking at dramatic or comedic films, the argument that 3D would make these films seems to fall short. To answer your question, yes I would argue that Lawrence of Arabia would not be better off with 3D, and I would expand that by saying it would possibly make the film worse. Your idea suggests that the exact same film we love now would have been shown on screen in 3D. This ignores the fact that the director would more than likely use this technology in a different way. Your favorite scene would possibly be shot drastically different. I’m not just referring to the camera angles and cinemtography, but also the actors performances. An example would be the recent Star Wars prequils. The acting was attrocious, and (poor script asside) all of the blue-screen work has been pointed too as a leading cause in the failure of both actors and director. Granted this is a different technology than 3D, but the basic argument remains the same. I would like to point out that I enjoyed Avatar in 3D and James Cameron was able to do a fantastic job given the new technology, and I have nothing wrong with its use in certain movies, but any push to make it the standard format (without significantly improving the technology, such as finding a way to not require special glasses) would be a huge mistake, and only serve as a means for studios to make more money. There is an excellent interview with Robert Downey Jr. reguarding the current success of Iron Man 2 being in 2D instead of 3D I recommend you take a look at (sorry, I’m too tired to find the link right now, but I believe it can be found on http://www.comingsoon.net). It seems as though this is one of those “agree to disagree” things, though I’m glad you’re able to write your article. Don’t you love when work accidentally gets done?
Sorry to bust your bubble guys. 3D is here to stay. I personally don’t care either way, but if you go on imdb, SOOO many younger viewers seem to think a movie’s already outdated if it doesn’t come out in 3D. Just read the reviews of recent non-3D movies.
But in a way, don;t you like it? It’s going to force certain filmmakers to slow down their editing style.
Yeah, just like the 50′s.
Read Ebert’s take on 3D film.
It’s nothing like the 50s, nothing. For one thing the tech is so much better it’s like comparing the sound work, camera style and HD colouring in the Lord of the Rings trilogy to an early Lumier Brothers reel of a train coming towards the camera or “feeding The Baby.
An easy way to know if you are seeing a movie in 3D or not is whether you have to wear the goofy glasses. 3D technology has not changed a great deal over time regardless of what the hype says. Instead of using color shift they use image shift, but the end result is the same – eye strain, headache, and a 3D “experience” similar to a Viewmaster.
It has changed a lot, the screening, viewing and colour tech is far better than before and far more accessible; it’s nothing to do with hype a little research will show you that.
As for eye strain and headaches, I’m sure some unfortunate people have that, but by no means all people. In fact given the numbers of people that go to see 3D movies and go again the issues you mention are, in big picture terms, nugatory.
There were some cool action sequences in Iron Man 2 that probably look really good in 3D, so yeah, I would shell out the extra money.
Avatar made me hate 3D movies. I was happy to see Iron Man in 2D and was more thrilled that I was actually engaged. 3D is a fad. When you try to replace story with a gimmick, you’ll be disappointed. Ask the producers of Clash of the Titans about it.
All of you people decrying 3D sound like the old guy on the corner of my block… He’s always yelling, “You damn kids have no respect… In my day, blah blah blah, yak yak yak.”
Relax. You, too, are old. New technology is passing you buy. Better go buy that walker now.
Hey stan, you young menace of a whipper snapper when I was your age I saw black and white movies, and I appreciated them. You should be thankful you even have color films and “surrond sound” 3d kills movies.
you are mistaken, stan. some of us just have taste and don’t appreciate 3d movies when its sole purpose is to squeeze more money out of our pockets. 3d action can’t make a crap movie better. the first iron man and the dark knight certainly didn’t need it to be utterly awesome.
p.s. you must be one of those young people who can’t type without the use of automatic grammar/spell check. please learn the difference between “by” and “buy”. bye.
it was freakin’ $15 just to see it in IMAX at the theater I went to.
3D is the future but I don’t want to pay extra, prices are high enough already.
I would because this movie was pretty good!!!
No, it really wasn’t even worth seeing in IMAX, seeing it in a regular theater would suffice. Its a good movie, just not remarkable. Too many movies needlessly and mindlessly follow a trend even if it doesn’t suit them. Take the success of Dark Knight – great dark story, suitable for the character, and amazing shots of Hong Kong, etc that looked great in IMAX. After that, every jerk and their sister wanted their movie to take on a dark tone and be in IMAX. I read somewhere they want Superman to be dark now, the stupidity of Hollywood knows no bounds.
it’s not stupidity. it’s a complete lack of originality from the majority. karate kid remake? wall street sequel? no thanks, hollywood.
IMAX…there’s something that doesn’t add much of anything to a film.
Saw it yesterday and honestly I think it was perfectly find without 3D. Not every movie that comes needs to be 3D.
I agree! No 3D for me.
no please, 3D it’s already nauseating, keep iron man in 2D!
No kidding–they give me headaches and make me sick. I’ve only ever had ONE good 3D experience, and that was just recently at How to Train Your Dragon.
I think the medium works best with animated films. Kids clearly are the age-group most interested in 3D–let ‘em have it.
No more 3-D. Unless you can make the glasses more comfortable for eyeglass wearers. They give me a headache! BTW, I’m in Iron Man 2 and can’t wait to see it! After I get paid, of course.
It probably isn’t because you wear specs. Many people do without trouble. Unfortunately, as with all things, some people are fine and some people just aren’t. Of course there are even those poor souls who can’t see the effect of Stereoscopic 3D because their vision simply isn’t able to “see the con” that makes us think where seeing depth of field.
I don’t waste my money on 3D movies anymore because the effects pop in and out for me–my brain “corrects” the effect and after a while the rest of the movie is in 2D for me. Also, Elle is right, the glasses are really uncomfortable for eyeglass wearers.
That’s a shame, you not being able to see the effect. When it’s a film that was intended to be 3D and is well made, well filmed it’s great. The mundane, things like a bookcase seeming to be over in the background, just having a genuine (tricked) background is just excellent and improves the experience, just as colour does..
Oh and Elle is not right; the 3D glasses are uncomfortable for SOME glasses wearers; I’m guessing Elle and you or some people that you guys know. No one that I know personally, including me,(when I’m not in the mood to wear my contact lenses) have no trouble at all with them. Children under 6 though do have troubles, in my experience, and we could really do with kid sized specs i cinemas.
I would not have watched it in 3D. The only way to do 3D is to film it in 3D like Avatar. I refuse to spend money on a cheap conversion because they always look like crap.
Finally someone who caught that. Alot of people here are commenting that it’s a fad or not a fad.. I’d like to know what they base those claims on. If the only 3D people whave seen are Clash of the Titans, then I can understand it. But if you’ve seen proper 3D, you know it’s gonna stay.
Not to mention the new monitors coming out that convay 3D to the viewer without the use of glasses or goggles.
What new monitors are you talking about? The latest 3D monitors only convey 3D with the use of optional glasses.
There are lenticular based 3D TVs being developed now. At the moment they are only good for giant outdoor advertising as there are too many “sweet spots”. Just like a lenticular postcard or picture you have to be looking at it from a certain angle to get the 3D effect. Move your head and you’ll find the picture has blurred and is no longer 3d. I think it’s a terrible idea but I have never minded the 3D glasses; those of you that do may be best off waiting for the lenticular 3d TVs to arrive. There’s one out in China right now
HELL NO!!! I DONT LIKE 3 D AND I THINK ITS A HUGE SCAM!! If a movie comes out in 3D THEN ILL LOOK FOR IT IN 2D
I’m so DONE with 3D. I mean, enough already. No, no I wouldn’t have seen Iron Man 2 in 3D, even if that means not seeing Robert Downey Jr in all of his gorgeous glory in 3D.
All his gorgeous glory indeed.
And if we ladies don’t shell out for the Downey in 3D, you know the fad won’t stick XD
I Just don’t think it is appropriate for every movie to be in 3D
I could see how an action film maybe should be in 3D but putting something like breaking dawn in 3D would be ridiculous and just a money grab
I think people are smart enough to realize when studios are trying to suck every penny out of a hard worker, and I think after a while people are not going to want to pay the extra cash to see a 3D movie
No, I would not have paid extra to see it in 3D. It was amazing as it was. 3D is not a necessity with every movie!
Hell noooo!! No more 3D
It was a perfect killing of 124 minutes of my time. The opening race car track sequence was best of all, but after that, everything else paled in comparison.
I would pay to see Iron Man 2 in 3D but honestly I’m glad it’s not. I don’t mind 3D but seriously does *every* movie have to be in 3D? I think it’s sunk to a new low when Step Up is in 3D.
YEs it does; and then again no it doesn’t. Does every new movie have to be in colour? Do they have to use a sound mix that mimics sound coming from different direction? Do they have to have sound at all? The answer to all of those questions is yes and no. There’s always an artistic reason to do, or not to do various things. The chief question should always be will it enhance the viewing experience, will it help or hinder the way they film is trying to connect with audiences. Many people dislike the shaky cam of the 2nd and 3rd Bourne movies, but there’s no doubt that was a choice, made to enhance the film. Tim Burton’s Ed Wood, The Elephant Man and Psycho are examples of films that made a deliberate choice to shoot in black and White, proving that not ALL films need to be in colour; but in most cases colour is “best”, because it best reflects the way we see the world. Stereoscopic 3D is no different; it makes for a much more immersive and “realistic” viewing experience. The depth of field alone (and the manipulation of it by the skilled director, see Coraline for a master class in 3d depth of field manipulation), is reason enough for the majority of films to be shot in 3D. It simply looks better. All things being equal then over the next decade years we should see the cost of filming in 3D level out and equal or even becoming cheaper than standard 2D filming. That being so we’ll see 3D become the standard and 2D the cheaper more “artistic” way of moviemaking: With films in 2D to change the viewing experience.
Of course in Hollywood all things are NOT equal and a slew of “converted films”, like Clash of the Titans, and the increasingly worrying The Last Airbender, could kill 3D in its cradle.
Do all movies have to be in color or have sound you ask? No but do they charge extra becouse they do? The question was would you pay extra to see it in 3D? No I would not pay extra. If it was included just like sound and color is now with out chargeing extra then that would be fine. If they made a new black and white silent film would they charge less for us to see it? No they would charge the same standard price for a movie ticket. So they should charge the same price to see it in 3D.
Sorry but your arguing fro an incorrect position, hence your conclusions are erroneous.
first of all your assuming that none of the price increases in movie history have ever taken into accounnt the money that it took to build wider screens, to instal improved sound technology, the higher price of projectors etc. Well they did prices don’t only rise with inflation and it it isn’t justthe overpriced food that claws money back for exhibitors and studios. There are cinemas who charge extra for digital presentations by the way. That asside my argument is towith the legitimency of 3D as a film technique and / or tool. I happen to think the 3D surcharge is both too high and going on for too long. Cinemas must have made a pretty oenny by now, and yes I know it is very expensive but I’m not sure people are too keen on this difference going on forever.
Also whilst your circular logic works well for those of us who would rather see the surcharge dropped, (even if ony by 50% and absorbed into the standard price hikes), the fact is that black & white films are more expense to make than colour ones because of the rarity of the fim stock and the processing of said stock. Of course now that we have digital cameras that may no longer be the case (?)
Anyway, as i said I’m not sure why you were asking me questions as my comment here was clearly aimed at the “does *every* movie have to be in 3D?” comment above.
As to paying to see a “genuine” 3D Iron Man, of course I would, Iron Man is a good character and the Marvel Movieverse is really an exciting prospect, unprecidented too. Do I like paying extra for 3D? That’s a whole other question, isn’t it?
Maybe it would be better if we could all take your approach and stay away untill the prices drop, but then all that would happen is the loss of 3D films, and like sound, colour and even the reverse zoom, (used wisely) I’d hate to see that. although at least I’d still be able to watch Football, Opera and play 3D games at home.
Not at all. Unless it was filmed in 3D from the beginning like Avatar. It would have been post processing and would have looked bad, like Alice in Wondrland. Studios as doind a lot of post processing now to make a quick buck, because they know we as lemmings will pay the extra money to wear glasses.
Yes and definitely not unless it was filmed in 3D.
If you thought the 3D in Alice in Wonderland was bad you need to see Clash of The Titans.
Hold on, nobody should see that film. Ever!
A poor film with a rushed 3D conversion to help make a profit out of a film they knew would likely lose a fortune because it was so poor.
After Christmas Carol and Avatar I was all about 3D. Then I saw Clash of the Titans and Alice in Wonderland and realized the studios were just ripping people off claiming these movies were in 3D. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I won’t be going to any more 3D movies. Unless of course I hear from multiple sources that the 3D was fantastic, otherwise I’m done with it. And what’s with the $10 ticket price for regular movies? Really? $10 bucks…really? When are we going to stop being led like sheep to see movies at these ticket prices? Netflix is looking better every day, especially since I now have my own big screen TV w/surround sound. Who needs theaters and all the annoyances that come with it anyway?
^No kidding wizard!
I’m sorry, but its almost NOT worth paying to see ANY movie, much less one in 3D, because it practically comes with a guaruntee that people will talk through it.
I will not pay 10+ bucks to sit through someone else’s conversation.
People need to learn to respect the media they and OTHERS have payed to see.