3D + Digital Projection SHOULD be cheaper than single 35mm movies. Two digital cameras save 1.6 million dollars in celluloid expenses alone: lab, inter-positive and dailies (according to 2002 figures). So, the film industry should have the same price for 3D and get rid of 35mm projection altogether (all films do digital intermediate anyways). 35mm is so expensive to print and transport, and in a weak economy, it will keep Digital prices up. Digital Bails out 35mm. Trash 35, keep 3D = cheaper txs
@alecton Finally someone makes sense, I've been trying to get the ball rolling telling people about it, but people just hear digital and think that it's supposed to be more expensive. That's why ticket prices are so hight, the noobs haven't made a case for cheaper ticket prices.
and that's the move that's making the studios tell the directors to make 3D movies. and why an unprecedented amount of 3D films are coming out this year.
3D immersion does not depend on IF it's 3D, but how the 3D is used. a paddle ball illusion is annoying. scenic views and huge explosions are immersive. there's a difference.
>>> effects, well at least in the 70's, and your movie is OH SO GOOD. NO, star wars was bad, watching it now I thought it was dull. The equivalent of what you are probably trying to talk about, aka, bad movies with 3d effects tacked on. Except back then it was a bad movie with at the time amazing visual effects. So heres to you George Lucas, you fucking dick.) WOw, I randomly covered a lot in my comments huh? Never commented this much before and never want to again. If I do please betch slap me.
>>> So yeah, said what I wanted to say, which is, grouping movies together all in some category is stupid. I dont say, Avatar the 3d movie, I say Avatar. I odnt say Coraline the 3d movie, I say coraline. (btw I say coraline in 2d, and you know what? It STILL was good, and I would STILL give it 5 stars. I never even saw it in 3d). Though I will agree that some movies are just trying to cash in with 3d from a bad, or maybe ok movies. (Go die George Lucas, you make a movie with new visual>>>>
DONT group all 3d movies together. Avatars 3D was done perfectly. THAT is why it has broken so many records...The time of cheesy effects are done with (things flying directly at screen, something hitting camera), well I should say mostly in adult 3d movies. (Monsters vs aliens has those cheesy things). Avatars 3d was done so forground, background, and middle ground objects were distinguishable from one another. To make the background actually LOOK like the background. I was immersed in Avatar..
well in Australia were I'm from we pay a whopping 20 dollars for a 3D film, 19 if you have those stupid glasses. I won't be seeing Clash of the Titants in 3D.
Of course they want more money. That's capitalism and I don't fault them for it. Of course, I don't want 3D. It doesn't add anything.
They were also wrong on their assessment of the economy. A bad economy usually INCREASES movie going since it's relatively cheap. When economy rebounds viewership will likely drop. Then 3D movies at a premium will be even more of a gamble.
The 3D experience per se is not flawed. The current method of delivery IS though. If they can figure out a way to make a 3D film that doesn't require the viewer to wear something to watch it, they might change movie going as we know it. After seeing Avatar 3D while wearing glasses (over my regular glasses)that kept sliding down my nose, a noticeably dark picture, and annoying optical artifacts, I know this 3D system is not worth the money. I'm saving my money for the next step in 3D.
Perhaps not where you reside within Canada. Ticket prices differ from province-to-province, after all. I am speaking specifically of Mississauga/Toronto prices., The Greater GTA, that is. And YES, they are $12.50 here. =S
I seriously agree with u man. It is kinda hard to get into a movie when u r focused on the whole 3d aspect and the glasses ur wearing. You really give me topics to talk about with my professors ^^d
Hey Grady, you should definitely take a job with investment banks that specialize in investment in entertainment companies. You have pretty good understanding of the economics of the industry.
Any public company is expected to grow over time otherwise its share price will tank. 3D is a way for internal growth. So here we go.
@debarunthepsychic Ha, I'd been editing for about 5 days, and I had one shot left, and that was it.... I was just like, "Let's get some recognizable film people." I wish I'd taken one last minute to do my homework! Thanks for the info.
Wanting more money equates to "conspiracy?" Hogwash. A simple understanding of basic economics is all it takes to understand WHY 3D is taking off the way it is, and yes, it involves greed. Greed has always driven the market, and always will. There's no "conspiracy" there, and your reasons for not liking the technology itself don't make much sense.
@digerati1974 you're right. It's not wrong to capitalize on capitalism. I guess I was more trying to point out the studios' greed, which shouldn't be surprising. I just like to remind everyone that they're evil! :D
For what it's worth, Ebert is actually a big critic of 3D.
I really don't like 3D. Depth is out of wack and everything's dimmer. It really is nothing but a gimmick, and while I know I'm in the minority, I liked Avatar more in 2D. I couldn't see what was so revolutionary about Cameron's technology.
Hope it's just a fad that goes away like it was in the 50's.
@deltajuliet His face capture tech man.....are you serious that man made the realest looking CGI ever to date looked like a real face, plus the 3d wasnt that hard on the eye
I agree with Judge on the same point. Movie industry will loss their competitive edge to DVD and piracy if they do not come up with some new ways to entertain audience. Although 3D is nothing new, it does provide relatively "new" experience that otherwise will draw less customers to big screen in our challenging economy.
@cjosephwu good point! I hope we can work out a better system, though, for the pricing. Maybe you could get in at a discounted price if you bring your own 3D glasses?
When I see a movie that sacrifices film quality for other things, I will agree with you, but I get just as immersed in either version, and love the visuals of 3D, and am fine paying extra money for the right movie (I have no reason to see Up In The Air in 3D).
And of course it's about profit, what isn't? But it only makes profit if the consumer agrees to it, and like you said, it costs them millions of dollars extra as well.
It's a free market, and people can choose their movie of choice. Avatar was released in not 3D as well, at least here at home, so people can go there if they so choose. But it seems the American populace IS willing to spend extra money to see 3D. I enjoyed it immensely in Avatar, a movie that was very visuals-focused, and the Toy Story movies. It's a free market, and they can choose.
Hey Grady, one of the reasons is that 3D + IMAX is the only way that the studios can beat piracy. Because of piracy and DVD sales, the studios are suffering a gradual loss of audience. 3D + IMAX experience is something that you cannot otherwise have at your own home or on your own computer. It's something that we can only afford collectively.
@JudgeHades For now... There was a time when you had to go to the cinema just to see a movie. Just as movies became available in home, so will 3D movies. Sure, you may need a new TV, but eventually the technology will catch up.
Did you ever notice that films have been done FOR FINANCIAL GAIN? Gawwd you tool, whatev...
alecton 9 months ago
Even though I didn't like your accent as much, I'd trust everything you've said simply cuz you're hot.
ClaudYeung 1 year ago
3d isn't even that impressive.
fads90 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
if 3d remains holywood cenima wil disapear, by d way , u r a hot guy.
shebishobi 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
if 3d remains holywood cenima wil disapear, by d way, u r hot
shebishobi 1 year ago
Comment removed
shebishobi 1 year ago
Mate, you think $14.75 is expensive? I live in central London & the normal ticket here costs roughly £15.00 and in $ that is around 20-25.......
04artwil 1 year ago
3D + Digital Projection SHOULD be cheaper than single 35mm movies. Two digital cameras save 1.6 million dollars in celluloid expenses alone: lab, inter-positive and dailies (according to 2002 figures). So, the film industry should have the same price for 3D and get rid of 35mm projection altogether (all films do digital intermediate anyways). 35mm is so expensive to print and transport, and in a weak economy, it will keep Digital prices up. Digital Bails out 35mm. Trash 35, keep 3D = cheaper txs
alecton 1 year ago
@alecton Finally someone makes sense, I've been trying to get the ball rolling telling people about it, but people just hear digital and think that it's supposed to be more expensive. That's why ticket prices are so hight, the noobs haven't made a case for cheaper ticket prices.
alecton 9 months ago
This is new world order mind control in action. BEWARE OF 3d
JASONANDTRACI 1 year ago
It's not even new technology, its 1930's technology. It would be like Ford Rolling out the Model T "New for 2011, the old Model T".
It's repackaged obsolete technology. It's the iMac of big screen entertainment.
unillenium 1 year ago
people call Avatar in 3D immersive...
and that's the move that's making the studios tell the directors to make 3D movies. and why an unprecedented amount of 3D films are coming out this year.
3D immersion does not depend on IF it's 3D, but how the 3D is used. a paddle ball illusion is annoying. scenic views and huge explosions are immersive. there's a difference.
TheTechzorro 1 year ago
fuck 3d!! the way of the future?? FUCK!! THAT!!!
greedy hollywood fuckers and the stupid sheep that just bend over and take it!!!! fuck em. things were fine the way they were!
i'm seriously considering blowing up a 3d movie theatre or something, just to scare people off. i'm not even joking.
Serpico69 1 year ago 2
@Serpico69 PLEASE DO IT DO IT IT NEEDS TO HAPPAN
dimor696 1 year ago
>>> effects, well at least in the 70's, and your movie is OH SO GOOD. NO, star wars was bad, watching it now I thought it was dull. The equivalent of what you are probably trying to talk about, aka, bad movies with 3d effects tacked on. Except back then it was a bad movie with at the time amazing visual effects. So heres to you George Lucas, you fucking dick.) WOw, I randomly covered a lot in my comments huh? Never commented this much before and never want to again. If I do please betch slap me.
CaramelDancen 2 years ago
>>> So yeah, said what I wanted to say, which is, grouping movies together all in some category is stupid. I dont say, Avatar the 3d movie, I say Avatar. I odnt say Coraline the 3d movie, I say coraline. (btw I say coraline in 2d, and you know what? It STILL was good, and I would STILL give it 5 stars. I never even saw it in 3d). Though I will agree that some movies are just trying to cash in with 3d from a bad, or maybe ok movies. (Go die George Lucas, you make a movie with new visual>>>>
CaramelDancen 2 years ago
DONT group all 3d movies together. Avatars 3D was done perfectly. THAT is why it has broken so many records...The time of cheesy effects are done with (things flying directly at screen, something hitting camera), well I should say mostly in adult 3d movies. (Monsters vs aliens has those cheesy things). Avatars 3d was done so forground, background, and middle ground objects were distinguishable from one another. To make the background actually LOOK like the background. I was immersed in Avatar..
CaramelDancen 2 years ago 2
uhhhh......ever crossed ur mind not to go to the dumb movies???
that way they never make money....but u americans are simply addicted to that shit....
suckers.....fck hollywood, read a book
hollandbovenaan 2 years ago
well in Australia were I'm from we pay a whopping 20 dollars for a 3D film, 19 if you have those stupid glasses. I won't be seeing Clash of the Titants in 3D.
straightedgesteveo 2 years ago
Of course they want more money. That's capitalism and I don't fault them for it. Of course, I don't want 3D. It doesn't add anything.
They were also wrong on their assessment of the economy. A bad economy usually INCREASES movie going since it's relatively cheap. When economy rebounds viewership will likely drop. Then 3D movies at a premium will be even more of a gamble.
TheZarbodShow 2 years ago
The 3D experience per se is not flawed. The current method of delivery IS though. If they can figure out a way to make a 3D film that doesn't require the viewer to wear something to watch it, they might change movie going as we know it. After seeing Avatar 3D while wearing glasses (over my regular glasses)that kept sliding down my nose, a noticeably dark picture, and annoying optical artifacts, I know this 3D system is not worth the money. I'm saving my money for the next step in 3D.
WeegeeSteichen 2 years ago
James Cameron said he's working on making Titanic 3D -- crazy!
j1train 2 years ago
Lol Here in Canada ticket prices are $12.50 to begin with. XD
phantomsdaydreams 2 years ago
@phantomsdaydreams wrong...
j1train 2 years ago
Comment removed
phantomsdaydreams 2 years ago
Perhaps not where you reside within Canada. Ticket prices differ from province-to-province, after all. I am speaking specifically of Mississauga/Toronto prices., The Greater GTA, that is. And YES, they are $12.50 here. =S
phantomsdaydreams 2 years ago
Your right, 3D does take you out of the movie, or you get so engrossed in a movie you forget its even in 3D for most of it.
Your best vid so far. Keep up the good work.
thetruthishere66 2 years ago
3D is good!
g3nov3s3 2 years ago
I seriously agree with u man. It is kinda hard to get into a movie when u r focused on the whole 3d aspect and the glasses ur wearing. You really give me topics to talk about with my professors ^^d
AZN411 2 years ago
Hey Grady, you should definitely take a job with investment banks that specialize in investment in entertainment companies. You have pretty good understanding of the economics of the industry.
Any public company is expected to grow over time otherwise its share price will tank. 3D is a way for internal growth. So here we go.
JudgeHades 2 years ago
Ebert actually speaks against 3D and you pictured him at the end.
debarunthepsychic 2 years ago
@debarunthepsychic Ha, I'd been editing for about 5 days, and I had one shot left, and that was it.... I was just like, "Let's get some recognizable film people." I wish I'd taken one last minute to do my homework! Thanks for the info.
goGradygo 2 years ago
Wanting more money equates to "conspiracy?" Hogwash. A simple understanding of basic economics is all it takes to understand WHY 3D is taking off the way it is, and yes, it involves greed. Greed has always driven the market, and always will. There's no "conspiracy" there, and your reasons for not liking the technology itself don't make much sense.
digerati1974 2 years ago
@digerati1974 you're right. It's not wrong to capitalize on capitalism. I guess I was more trying to point out the studios' greed, which shouldn't be surprising. I just like to remind everyone that they're evil! :D
goGradygo 2 years ago
4:48
For what it's worth, Ebert is actually a big critic of 3D.
I really don't like 3D. Depth is out of wack and everything's dimmer. It really is nothing but a gimmick, and while I know I'm in the minority, I liked Avatar more in 2D. I couldn't see what was so revolutionary about Cameron's technology.
Hope it's just a fad that goes away like it was in the 50's.
deltajuliet 2 years ago
@deltajuliet Haha, whoops about Ebert!
goGradygo 2 years ago
@Grady - Regarding Ebert, maybe you should put a note in your video of the mistake.=)
AndyNRK 2 years ago
@AndyNRK Done! Good idea!
goGradygo 2 years ago
@deltajuliet His face capture tech man.....are you serious that man made the realest looking CGI ever to date looked like a real face, plus the 3d wasnt that hard on the eye
WeThePeopleInc 1 year ago
I agree with Judge on the same point. Movie industry will loss their competitive edge to DVD and piracy if they do not come up with some new ways to entertain audience. Although 3D is nothing new, it does provide relatively "new" experience that otherwise will draw less customers to big screen in our challenging economy.
cjosephwu 2 years ago
@cjosephwu good point! I hope we can work out a better system, though, for the pricing. Maybe you could get in at a discounted price if you bring your own 3D glasses?
goGradygo 2 years ago
It costs them (the movie makers) millions of dollars extra as well.
Avatar's revenue is about 1/6 from 3D and Imax, last I checked.
Reebee52 2 years ago
When I see a movie that sacrifices film quality for other things, I will agree with you, but I get just as immersed in either version, and love the visuals of 3D, and am fine paying extra money for the right movie (I have no reason to see Up In The Air in 3D).
And of course it's about profit, what isn't? But it only makes profit if the consumer agrees to it, and like you said, it costs them millions of dollars extra as well.
Reebee52 2 years ago
I dunno, dude. I have some disagreements.
It's a free market, and people can choose their movie of choice. Avatar was released in not 3D as well, at least here at home, so people can go there if they so choose. But it seems the American populace IS willing to spend extra money to see 3D. I enjoyed it immensely in Avatar, a movie that was very visuals-focused, and the Toy Story movies. It's a free market, and they can choose.
Continued:::
Reebee52 2 years ago
Hey Grady, one of the reasons is that 3D + IMAX is the only way that the studios can beat piracy. Because of piracy and DVD sales, the studios are suffering a gradual loss of audience. 3D + IMAX experience is something that you cannot otherwise have at your own home or on your own computer. It's something that we can only afford collectively.
JudgeHades 2 years ago
@JudgeHades For now... There was a time when you had to go to the cinema just to see a movie. Just as movies became available in home, so will 3D movies. Sure, you may need a new TV, but eventually the technology will catch up.
Erikthe2nd 2 years ago