I’m still here, Justin. Nice to know you’re thinking of me. I just haven’t had much to say lately. I do check the site when I get the email alert. Regarding the swings in shares of these companies every time a particular movie succeeds or “doesn’t meet expectations”, that’s going to happen. It’s part of the overall nuttiness of the stock market. Traders are influenced by sneezes, coughs, burps, hiccups and other disgusting bodily sounds by the minute. The Shrek franchise was probably just running out of steam anyway. There will be those who will inevitably find some way to blame 3D because of the higher ticket prices…until the next moneymaking blockbuster (Toy Story 3?) proves them wrong. And now, where’s SlimShady these days?
Justin, the second piece, entitled “Oven Clean Sparked Fire” was my close friend’s house. I was with him today. He and his parents are in temporary housing on Route 10.
I wonder how many of those WB IMAX movies will be 3D. If we’re talking 2013, I bet almost all. What will be on the IMAX screen after AVATAR and DRAGON leave? SHREK doesn’t start until May 21st. BTW, it’s getting lousy reviews but that won’t stop SHREKKIES (not to be confused with TREKKIES) from seeing it.
Great question, Justin! Don’t know about Rockaway, specifically, but, from what I’ve researched, here are the top five (after ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW which has been showing continuously since 1975 mostly at midnight): E.T. (over a year), STAR WARS (44 weeks), TITANIC (41 weeks), BACK TO THE FUTURE (37 weeks), BEVERLY HILLS COP (30 weeks). If you include the old Rockaway (inner and outer), I’ll bet their numbers run pretty close.
I do remember Smell-O-Vision. The movie was “Scent of Mystery” (1960) and theatres would emit fragrances into the auditorium to correspond with what was on the screen. Then there was Odorama. The movie was “Polyester” (1981) where you received a scratch n' sniff card and were told to scratch a particular number when that number appeared on the screen. “The Tingler” (1959) had certain seats “tingle” whenever the Tingler came on the screen. How bout Sensurround (“Earthquake”, “Rollercoaster”, “Midway”, “Battlestar Gallactica”) with that low frequency vibrating sound…pretty effective. Today’s theme parks call some of this stuff 4D and use water mists, air, moving seats (like D-box), etc. to further enhance the 3D experience. Wonder if we’ll see 4D become more mainstream.
Conversion Madness: The Last Airbender, Green Hornet, 300. But I’m reading that it’s getting better (more roundness on otherwise flat layered objects). I think we’ll see the day when we can’t tell the difference and they won’t need to announce which movies were converted in the first place. Most people don’t understand (or care) about the technical stuff.
Interesting question! So far, I think the concert movies were all native (originally shot) in 3D (U23D, Hannah Montana, Dave Matthews, Kenny Chesney, and the upcoming Phish). And portions of X-Games 3D were also native. I don’t think they’ll go the conversion route for concerts, sports, documentaries and other non-plot movies. It would only make them look like the “pop-up” books you buy for kids. BTW, just read that MEN IN BLACK 3D has been announced.
My two cents on post-production 3D conversions: They work ok on CGI (CHICKEN LITTLE, TOY STORY) but not on live action. ALICE was only fair (the live portions) and CLASH was a total disaster. The 3D added NOTHING. Of course, any conversion by Cameron (TITANIC) would probably set the standard for conversions just as AVATAR appears to be the new standard for native 3D. Regarding any of the past “classic” blockbusters (the planned STAR WARS TRILOGY, etc.), they’ll have to get them right or, once again, 3D’s reputation will suffer.
This coming week will be a first…five 3D movies in the same week. CLASH shares a RealD with KENNY, ALICE shares a RealD with DRAGON which, in turn, shares the IMAX with AVATAR. And AVATAR returns this August with six additional minutes of footage. Theaters with only one digital screen must be flipping coins. I’m surprised Disney didn’t shoot OCEANS in 3D. Cameron could have shown them how effortlessly.
The last I read was that it was at Disney World and Toronto and planned for some big cities (Los Angeles, Dallas). Haven’t seen any rollout schedule. Also that shares of IMAX are under pressure because of this IMAX-like experience. Hopefully, we’ll see it installed in at least one auditorium at Rockaway.
Actually, it’s the fourth if you count AVATAR’s spillover into 2010, followed by ALICE, DRAGON, then CLASH. All held the No. 1 spot. Fewer people saw CLASH in 3D than they did for previous entries due to 1-higher ticket prices, 2-competition with ALICE and DRAGON, and 3-negative publicity over the “conversion”. Yet, it did well domestically and worldwide. They need to get this conversion stuff right if they’re going to do it at all. We’re undoubtedly going to be dealing with some bad 3D movies eventually (as with 2D) and don’t need to add another layer of mediocrity. This crunch period will end soon and these movies will start achieving their full revenue potential as more screens are added.
Are you sure they added a third 3D screen? According to MovieTickets, TITANS appears to be in 2D on two screens and in 3D on only one.
Why is everyone comparing the “disappointing” (as they describe it) results of DRAGON to last year’s MONSTERS VS. ALIENS? There’s no comparison. MONSTERS VS. ALIENS didn’t have the price increase to contend with…nor any 3D competition, i.e., ALICE. I think $43M is pretty darn respectable, considering the circumstances. I don’t have a good feeling about TITANS though. Neither the movie nor the conversion looks up to par with what’s been out so far. Hope I’m wrong.
My above post is referring to the IMAX documentaries which, I believe, ski was also referring to. That would exclude the full-length movies which can play on screens of various sizes and shapes.
You’re absolutely right. I certainly don’t remember any of them playing at a regular theater. They were designed specifically for the IMAX screen.
Talk about history repeating itself: 1.4:1 was the ratio used by Paramount when they introduced VistaVision in 1954 as their high-resolution “widescreen” alternative to CinemaScope (letterbox). CinemaScope had the width but VistaVision had the sharpness. Along comes true IMAX and the sheer height of their screens kinda kills any sense of “widescreen”. But they appear to more closely resemble the combined field of vision of our eyes to which, from everything I read, no one has been able to assign an aspect ratio.
Right! If TITANS were being shown in IMAX, we would have seen the trailer this morning. I wonder if we’ll ever see any of these shorter IMAX movies, e.g., HUBBLE 3D at Rockaway, and for a smaller ticket price. Probably not at this point with back-to-back 3D movies slated for 2010 and beyond. They would be great fillers though in between blockbusters. Why then did Rockaway bother to show the HUBBLE 3D trailer if they didn’t plan on showing the movie?
Went to the 11:00am IMAX showing of DRAGON. Another winner!!! However, I did notice the aspect ratio was standard letterbox, i.e., the picture did not fill out the top and bottom of the screen. I found that disappointing since, for my extra $2 (now $12), I expected IMAX size. Do they not release these movies with different aspect ratios to fit the screen? I could have just as well seen it in RealD and saved a couple of bucks. But how can we know this in advance? The theatre was about 90% full so I guess people are still willing to pay the price increase. DRAGON pulled in over $43M this weekend…not bad considering it’s competing with ALICE which made $17M. Could we assume DRAGON could have made $60M if not for ALICE?
Another thought just occurred to me besides their deploying the “value-added” concept, i.e., pay a premium for a premium product or service. I wonder if they anticipate this 3D HDTV thing to take off and they figure “let’s draw as much blood from the consumer before they start buying these sets and staying home again”. It just might offset their anticipated losses on the big screen. Then maybe they’ll reduce the prices again once they have to compete with the home theater systems. Just a theory.
Some theatres are raising prices for 3D screens only (RealD and IMAX) while some theatres are raising prices across the board (but minimally for 2D presentations). Rockaway is still charging $6 for a 2D movie (before Noon). Then $8.50 and up for the rest of the day.
Not happy about the $1 increase for RealD 3D and $2 increase for IMAX 3D at AMC theaters (before Noon). Now we’re talking $10 and $12, respectively. Welcome to Capitalism at it’s worst…charge what the market will bear and screw everyone who is already struggling. I guess it’s our fault for making AVATAR and ALICE such big successes that 3D deserves an even bigger premium going forward. Hope that extra cash will at least accelerate the remaining digital installations and not wind up in the pockets of the fat cats.
Oops! I meant over $100 million, not thousand. And to clarify, I was speaking only domestically, not worldwide. Thanks for catching that. It does make a slight difference. Also, from what I read, the 3D showings outperformed the 2D showings in terms of revenue.
Ski, I cheated a little by including 2010 as the 5th full year. Here’s the rundown for the digital 3D period to-date: Chicken Little (Nov. 2005, $135k), Monster House, Nightmare Before Christmas, Meet the Robinsons, Beowulf, U23D, Hanna Montana Concert, Journey to the Center of the Earth, Fly Me to the Moon, Bolt, My Bloody Valentine 3D, Coraline, Jonas Bros. Concert, Monsters Vs. Aliens, Battle for Terra, Up, Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs, G-Force, X Games 3D, Final Destination, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, Toy Story/Toy Story 2, A Christmas Carol, Dave Mathews’ Larger Than Life Concert, AVATAR, Alice in Wonderland, How to Train Your Dragon. (27 titles to-date, 24 of them before AVATAR and 12 of them making over $100k). You probably have heard of most of these titles (if not all) but the lack of public awareness that they were in 3D may have been due to the lack of 3D screens (only 2 screens in NJ for Chicken Little). So they only played in 2D in many markets. In spite of that, the overwhelming majority of them still made big bucks due to the 3D surcharge. No doubt AVATAR helped tremendously to advance 3D but 3D definitely had a lucrative life before it.
And for the remainder of 2010: Clash of the Titans, Piranha 3D, Kenny Chesney’ Summer in 3D, Shrek Forever After, Toy Story 3, Despicable Me, Cats & Dogs: Revenge of Kitty Galore, Step Up 3D, Friday the 13th – Part 2, Resident Evil: Afterlife, Legend of the Guardians, Alpha and Omega, Jackass 3D, Saw VII, Megamind, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Pt. 1, Tangled (Rapunzel), Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Trader, Tron Legacy, Yogi, Gulliver’s Travels. (21 titles)
I count 20 more with firm release dates through 2012. There were approximately 50 titles during the 2-year period in the 50s (shot in 3D but not always shown in 3D since the “novelty” had worn off by late 1954), about 10 in the 60s and 70s combined (excluding the adult stuff), about 17 in the 80s, and 1 in the 90s (Nightmare on Elm Street: the Final Nightmare). I don’t include Spy Kids 3D: Game Over (2003) or Adventures of Sharkboy and Lava Girl (2005) since they were anaglyphic (red/blue) or the IMAX titles (Polar Express, Ant Bully, Open Season, etc.) since they were not digital. Whew!
Welcome aboard, ski…I always appreciate a convert (ha). And you show them, Justin, that people who wear glasses can adapt for the length of a movie.
I guess I’m the “oldster” in this group. My first 3D movie was 1953 (BWANA DEVIL). I was 8 years old (now 65). 50s 3D lasted approximately 2 years (1953-1954) with only one or two more in 1955 (REVENGE OF THE CREATURE). There were a couple in the 60s and 70s (ANDY WARHOL’S FRANKENSTEIN)(excluding the adult stuff). The 80s only lasted about 3 years (1982-1984) with STARCHASER in 1985. We are now in our 5th full year of digital 3D, so digital rules!
Just my opinion: There were many good 3D films in the 50s (HOUSE OF WAX, CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON, IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE, DIAL M FOR MURDER [HITCHCOCK], KISS ME KATE, HONDO, MISS SADIE THOMPSON, to name a few.) But, like 2D movies, there were a lot of bad ones too in terms of script, acting, dialog, etc. The problems leading to its demise was mainly poor projection (causing headaches), exploitation (hurl stuff in your face) and expense (dual-strip, e.g., twice the prints). You’re right about JAWS 3D. That and FRIDAY THE 13TH-3D did well, but the problem with 80s 3D was the switch to a a single-strip system (avoids the out-of-sync problem). A “beam splitter” provided the left and right images. The picture was neither as bright nor as sharp as dual-strip. It was lousy (so were most of the films). COMIN' AT YA! was downright unbearable to watch. Today’s digital 3D is far superior to anything that precedes it AND it’s being used much more wisely, as evidenced by the support it’s getting from the industry and the viewers. Even the glasses are more comfortable (BTW, red/blue was NOT used in the 50s, a common misconception…those films were polarized). I wish people would stop complaining about having to wear “dopey” glasses to see a 3D movie. We wear prescription glasses, sun glasses, swimming goggles, skiing goggles, etc. Get over it already!
Last week I asked the ticket taker when they will be getting more digital projectors. He thought I meant IMAX and said not anytime soon because of the expense. I then asked about RealD and he said that they will be adding a couple more of those but didn’t say when. As of this Friday, there will be three 3D movies playing: AVATAR (reduced to 2D), ALICE, AND DRAGON…and it’s going to get tighter throughout the year. I think we’ll see a significant growth rate in 3D screens this year cause “that’s where the money is”. This current “unnecessary, goofy glasses, gimmicky, headache-inducing, short-lived trend” (BLAH, BLAH, BLAH) has now outlasted both the 1950s and 1980s 3D waves and shows no signs of stopping!!!
I’m still here, Justin. Nice to know you’re thinking of me. I just haven’t had much to say lately. I do check the site when I get the email alert. Regarding the swings in shares of these companies every time a particular movie succeeds or “doesn’t meet expectations”, that’s going to happen. It’s part of the overall nuttiness of the stock market. Traders are influenced by sneezes, coughs, burps, hiccups and other disgusting bodily sounds by the minute. The Shrek franchise was probably just running out of steam anyway. There will be those who will inevitably find some way to blame 3D because of the higher ticket prices…until the next moneymaking blockbuster (Toy Story 3?) proves them wrong. And now, where’s SlimShady these days?
Justin, the second piece, entitled “Oven Clean Sparked Fire” was my close friend’s house. I was with him today. He and his parents are in temporary housing on Route 10.
Thanks, Justin. I should have been able to figure that out. I forgot about the 2D stuff IMAX shows occasionally. DRAGON II coming 2013.
I wonder how many of those WB IMAX movies will be 3D. If we’re talking 2013, I bet almost all. What will be on the IMAX screen after AVATAR and DRAGON leave? SHREK doesn’t start until May 21st. BTW, it’s getting lousy reviews but that won’t stop SHREKKIES (not to be confused with TREKKIES) from seeing it.
Great question, Justin! Don’t know about Rockaway, specifically, but, from what I’ve researched, here are the top five (after ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW which has been showing continuously since 1975 mostly at midnight): E.T. (over a year), STAR WARS (44 weeks), TITANIC (41 weeks), BACK TO THE FUTURE (37 weeks), BEVERLY HILLS COP (30 weeks). If you include the old Rockaway (inner and outer), I’ll bet their numbers run pretty close.
I do remember Smell-O-Vision. The movie was “Scent of Mystery” (1960) and theatres would emit fragrances into the auditorium to correspond with what was on the screen. Then there was Odorama. The movie was “Polyester” (1981) where you received a scratch n' sniff card and were told to scratch a particular number when that number appeared on the screen. “The Tingler” (1959) had certain seats “tingle” whenever the Tingler came on the screen. How bout Sensurround (“Earthquake”, “Rollercoaster”, “Midway”, “Battlestar Gallactica”) with that low frequency vibrating sound…pretty effective. Today’s theme parks call some of this stuff 4D and use water mists, air, moving seats (like D-box), etc. to further enhance the 3D experience. Wonder if we’ll see 4D become more mainstream.
Conversion Madness: The Last Airbender, Green Hornet, 300. But I’m reading that it’s getting better (more roundness on otherwise flat layered objects). I think we’ll see the day when we can’t tell the difference and they won’t need to announce which movies were converted in the first place. Most people don’t understand (or care) about the technical stuff.
Interesting question! So far, I think the concert movies were all native (originally shot) in 3D (U23D, Hannah Montana, Dave Matthews, Kenny Chesney, and the upcoming Phish). And portions of X-Games 3D were also native. I don’t think they’ll go the conversion route for concerts, sports, documentaries and other non-plot movies. It would only make them look like the “pop-up” books you buy for kids. BTW, just read that MEN IN BLACK 3D has been announced.
My two cents on post-production 3D conversions: They work ok on CGI (CHICKEN LITTLE, TOY STORY) but not on live action. ALICE was only fair (the live portions) and CLASH was a total disaster. The 3D added NOTHING. Of course, any conversion by Cameron (TITANIC) would probably set the standard for conversions just as AVATAR appears to be the new standard for native 3D. Regarding any of the past “classic” blockbusters (the planned STAR WARS TRILOGY, etc.), they’ll have to get them right or, once again, 3D’s reputation will suffer.
Yes, but not in 3D Blu-ray. That will come later.
This coming week will be a first…five 3D movies in the same week. CLASH shares a RealD with KENNY, ALICE shares a RealD with DRAGON which, in turn, shares the IMAX with AVATAR. And AVATAR returns this August with six additional minutes of footage. Theaters with only one digital screen must be flipping coins. I’m surprised Disney didn’t shoot OCEANS in 3D. Cameron could have shown them how effortlessly.
The last I read was that it was at Disney World and Toronto and planned for some big cities (Los Angeles, Dallas). Haven’t seen any rollout schedule. Also that shares of IMAX are under pressure because of this IMAX-like experience. Hopefully, we’ll see it installed in at least one auditorium at Rockaway.
Actually, it’s the fourth if you count AVATAR’s spillover into 2010, followed by ALICE, DRAGON, then CLASH. All held the No. 1 spot. Fewer people saw CLASH in 3D than they did for previous entries due to 1-higher ticket prices, 2-competition with ALICE and DRAGON, and 3-negative publicity over the “conversion”. Yet, it did well domestically and worldwide. They need to get this conversion stuff right if they’re going to do it at all. We’re undoubtedly going to be dealing with some bad 3D movies eventually (as with 2D) and don’t need to add another layer of mediocrity. This crunch period will end soon and these movies will start achieving their full revenue potential as more screens are added.
Are you sure they added a third 3D screen? According to MovieTickets, TITANS appears to be in 2D on two screens and in 3D on only one.
Why is everyone comparing the “disappointing” (as they describe it) results of DRAGON to last year’s MONSTERS VS. ALIENS? There’s no comparison. MONSTERS VS. ALIENS didn’t have the price increase to contend with…nor any 3D competition, i.e., ALICE. I think $43M is pretty darn respectable, considering the circumstances. I don’t have a good feeling about TITANS though. Neither the movie nor the conversion looks up to par with what’s been out so far. Hope I’m wrong.
My above post is referring to the IMAX documentaries which, I believe, ski was also referring to. That would exclude the full-length movies which can play on screens of various sizes and shapes.
You’re absolutely right. I certainly don’t remember any of them playing at a regular theater. They were designed specifically for the IMAX screen.
Talk about history repeating itself: 1.4:1 was the ratio used by Paramount when they introduced VistaVision in 1954 as their high-resolution “widescreen” alternative to CinemaScope (letterbox). CinemaScope had the width but VistaVision had the sharpness. Along comes true IMAX and the sheer height of their screens kinda kills any sense of “widescreen”. But they appear to more closely resemble the combined field of vision of our eyes to which, from everything I read, no one has been able to assign an aspect ratio.
Right! If TITANS were being shown in IMAX, we would have seen the trailer this morning. I wonder if we’ll ever see any of these shorter IMAX movies, e.g., HUBBLE 3D at Rockaway, and for a smaller ticket price. Probably not at this point with back-to-back 3D movies slated for 2010 and beyond. They would be great fillers though in between blockbusters. Why then did Rockaway bother to show the HUBBLE 3D trailer if they didn’t plan on showing the movie?
Went to the 11:00am IMAX showing of DRAGON. Another winner!!! However, I did notice the aspect ratio was standard letterbox, i.e., the picture did not fill out the top and bottom of the screen. I found that disappointing since, for my extra $2 (now $12), I expected IMAX size. Do they not release these movies with different aspect ratios to fit the screen? I could have just as well seen it in RealD and saved a couple of bucks. But how can we know this in advance? The theatre was about 90% full so I guess people are still willing to pay the price increase. DRAGON pulled in over $43M this weekend…not bad considering it’s competing with ALICE which made $17M. Could we assume DRAGON could have made $60M if not for ALICE?
Another thought just occurred to me besides their deploying the “value-added” concept, i.e., pay a premium for a premium product or service. I wonder if they anticipate this 3D HDTV thing to take off and they figure “let’s draw as much blood from the consumer before they start buying these sets and staying home again”. It just might offset their anticipated losses on the big screen. Then maybe they’ll reduce the prices again once they have to compete with the home theater systems. Just a theory.
Some theatres are raising prices for 3D screens only (RealD and IMAX) while some theatres are raising prices across the board (but minimally for 2D presentations). Rockaway is still charging $6 for a 2D movie (before Noon). Then $8.50 and up for the rest of the day.
Not happy about the $1 increase for RealD 3D and $2 increase for IMAX 3D at AMC theaters (before Noon). Now we’re talking $10 and $12, respectively. Welcome to Capitalism at it’s worst…charge what the market will bear and screw everyone who is already struggling. I guess it’s our fault for making AVATAR and ALICE such big successes that 3D deserves an even bigger premium going forward. Hope that extra cash will at least accelerate the remaining digital installations and not wind up in the pockets of the fat cats.
Oops! I meant over $100 million, not thousand. And to clarify, I was speaking only domestically, not worldwide. Thanks for catching that. It does make a slight difference. Also, from what I read, the 3D showings outperformed the 2D showings in terms of revenue.
Ski, I cheated a little by including 2010 as the 5th full year. Here’s the rundown for the digital 3D period to-date: Chicken Little (Nov. 2005, $135k), Monster House, Nightmare Before Christmas, Meet the Robinsons, Beowulf, U23D, Hanna Montana Concert, Journey to the Center of the Earth, Fly Me to the Moon, Bolt, My Bloody Valentine 3D, Coraline, Jonas Bros. Concert, Monsters Vs. Aliens, Battle for Terra, Up, Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs, G-Force, X Games 3D, Final Destination, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, Toy Story/Toy Story 2, A Christmas Carol, Dave Mathews’ Larger Than Life Concert, AVATAR, Alice in Wonderland, How to Train Your Dragon. (27 titles to-date, 24 of them before AVATAR and 12 of them making over $100k). You probably have heard of most of these titles (if not all) but the lack of public awareness that they were in 3D may have been due to the lack of 3D screens (only 2 screens in NJ for Chicken Little). So they only played in 2D in many markets. In spite of that, the overwhelming majority of them still made big bucks due to the 3D surcharge. No doubt AVATAR helped tremendously to advance 3D but 3D definitely had a lucrative life before it.
And for the remainder of 2010: Clash of the Titans, Piranha 3D, Kenny Chesney’ Summer in 3D, Shrek Forever After, Toy Story 3, Despicable Me, Cats & Dogs: Revenge of Kitty Galore, Step Up 3D, Friday the 13th – Part 2, Resident Evil: Afterlife, Legend of the Guardians, Alpha and Omega, Jackass 3D, Saw VII, Megamind, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Pt. 1, Tangled (Rapunzel), Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Trader, Tron Legacy, Yogi, Gulliver’s Travels. (21 titles)
I count 20 more with firm release dates through 2012. There were approximately 50 titles during the 2-year period in the 50s (shot in 3D but not always shown in 3D since the “novelty” had worn off by late 1954), about 10 in the 60s and 70s combined (excluding the adult stuff), about 17 in the 80s, and 1 in the 90s (Nightmare on Elm Street: the Final Nightmare). I don’t include Spy Kids 3D: Game Over (2003) or Adventures of Sharkboy and Lava Girl (2005) since they were anaglyphic (red/blue) or the IMAX titles (Polar Express, Ant Bully, Open Season, etc.) since they were not digital. Whew!
Welcome aboard, ski…I always appreciate a convert (ha). And you show them, Justin, that people who wear glasses can adapt for the length of a movie.
I guess I’m the “oldster” in this group. My first 3D movie was 1953 (BWANA DEVIL). I was 8 years old (now 65). 50s 3D lasted approximately 2 years (1953-1954) with only one or two more in 1955 (REVENGE OF THE CREATURE). There were a couple in the 60s and 70s (ANDY WARHOL’S FRANKENSTEIN)(excluding the adult stuff). The 80s only lasted about 3 years (1982-1984) with STARCHASER in 1985. We are now in our 5th full year of digital 3D, so digital rules!
Just my opinion: There were many good 3D films in the 50s (HOUSE OF WAX, CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON, IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE, DIAL M FOR MURDER [HITCHCOCK], KISS ME KATE, HONDO, MISS SADIE THOMPSON, to name a few.) But, like 2D movies, there were a lot of bad ones too in terms of script, acting, dialog, etc. The problems leading to its demise was mainly poor projection (causing headaches), exploitation (hurl stuff in your face) and expense (dual-strip, e.g., twice the prints). You’re right about JAWS 3D. That and FRIDAY THE 13TH-3D did well, but the problem with 80s 3D was the switch to a a single-strip system (avoids the out-of-sync problem). A “beam splitter” provided the left and right images. The picture was neither as bright nor as sharp as dual-strip. It was lousy (so were most of the films). COMIN' AT YA! was downright unbearable to watch. Today’s digital 3D is far superior to anything that precedes it AND it’s being used much more wisely, as evidenced by the support it’s getting from the industry and the viewers. Even the glasses are more comfortable (BTW, red/blue was NOT used in the 50s, a common misconception…those films were polarized). I wish people would stop complaining about having to wear “dopey” glasses to see a 3D movie. We wear prescription glasses, sun glasses, swimming goggles, skiing goggles, etc. Get over it already!
Last week I asked the ticket taker when they will be getting more digital projectors. He thought I meant IMAX and said not anytime soon because of the expense. I then asked about RealD and he said that they will be adding a couple more of those but didn’t say when. As of this Friday, there will be three 3D movies playing: AVATAR (reduced to 2D), ALICE, AND DRAGON…and it’s going to get tighter throughout the year. I think we’ll see a significant growth rate in 3D screens this year cause “that’s where the money is”. This current “unnecessary, goofy glasses, gimmicky, headache-inducing, short-lived trend” (BLAH, BLAH, BLAH) has now outlasted both the 1950s and 1980s 3D waves and shows no signs of stopping!!!