- Review: John Wick 3 (C)
Scott Sycamore - Weekend Box Office
May 17 - 19 - Crowd Reports
Avengers: Endgame - Us
Box office comparisons - Review: Justice League (C)
Craig Younkin
See The Future...Again
By Philip Friedman Published March 27, 2008
Despite the amazing leap in digital projectors, 3D movies are hardly a new phenomenon.
New technology is changing the way people enjoy media entertainment. The movie industry feels threatened and looks for ways to improve the business model. 3D offers theaters an edge, something that can’t be duplicated at home. The future is 3D movies. That might sound like a recap of current events, but it’s actually ancient history. Recent releases like U2 3D and Hannah Montana have seen great reviews, packed theaters and a possible competitive edge against the internet and home theaters. However, despite the amazing leap in digital projectors, 3D movies are hardly a new phenomenon.
Half a century ago, the movie industry looked to the extra visual dimension in order to combat the upstart technology of the television. I was not around to witness that revolution, but this marked the end of the golden age of movies. Yet, why are all the box office records held by recent movies? That’s largely a product of inflation. Several studies have shown that the all-time box office as measured in tickets sold is Gone with the Wind released in 1939. That likely marked the zenith of pre-television period. Movie ticket sales would never fully recover. In a similar sense, the 1997 release of Titanic, the current unadjusted box office champ, marked the zenith of the pre-internet and DVD age.
Enter the 3rd Dimension. It offers theaters an experience that cannot be easily duplicated at home, is resistant to piracy, and offers higher profit margins. However, why didn’t 3D become as crucial as sound or color? Perhaps the technology wasn’t up to par in the 1950s, but is that the only reason? Could it be that 3D is merely a novelty, a quick-fix marketing tool that most movies would never benefit from? Would you pay $3 extra to see Juno 3D – how about $.25 extra? Certainly, some movies are better contenders than others, but will 3D become as essential to movies as sound and color? It would be hard for me to watch a silent two hour movie. Will future moviegoers find it difficult to watch a non-3D movie?
It's hard for me to imagine 3D as essential to any movie. That might be because directors have yet to fully utilize it, but it has not been from lack of enthusiasm. One of the most disappointing examples for me was Brian Singer and Superman. I didn't like the movie, but I the sporadic usage of 3D was even more disappointing. The technology can be impressive, but the audience isn't in the theater to see a technology demonstration. Will directors use 3D in ways that aid the story as much as sound and color do?
It’s hard to judge the impact of future development. As this ad shows, there are many amusing quotes concerning people who didn’t appreciate the significance of the changes before them: “Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?” or “Television won’t last because people will soon get tired of staring at a plywood box every night.” I wouldn’t want to be included on that list by saying 3D is a fad, but the technology alone isn’t going to change the moviegoing experience. Directors, writers and producers will have to change the way they imagine new movies, and by then, we won't even notice it.
Half a century ago, the movie industry looked to the extra visual dimension in order to combat the upstart technology of the television. I was not around to witness that revolution, but this marked the end of the golden age of movies. Yet, why are all the box office records held by recent movies? That’s largely a product of inflation. Several studies have shown that the all-time box office as measured in tickets sold is Gone with the Wind released in 1939. That likely marked the zenith of pre-television period. Movie ticket sales would never fully recover. In a similar sense, the 1997 release of Titanic, the current unadjusted box office champ, marked the zenith of the pre-internet and DVD age.
Enter the 3rd Dimension. It offers theaters an experience that cannot be easily duplicated at home, is resistant to piracy, and offers higher profit margins. However, why didn’t 3D become as crucial as sound or color? Perhaps the technology wasn’t up to par in the 1950s, but is that the only reason? Could it be that 3D is merely a novelty, a quick-fix marketing tool that most movies would never benefit from? Would you pay $3 extra to see Juno 3D – how about $.25 extra? Certainly, some movies are better contenders than others, but will 3D become as essential to movies as sound and color? It would be hard for me to watch a silent two hour movie. Will future moviegoers find it difficult to watch a non-3D movie?
It's hard for me to imagine 3D as essential to any movie. That might be because directors have yet to fully utilize it, but it has not been from lack of enthusiasm. One of the most disappointing examples for me was Brian Singer and Superman. I didn't like the movie, but I the sporadic usage of 3D was even more disappointing. The technology can be impressive, but the audience isn't in the theater to see a technology demonstration. Will directors use 3D in ways that aid the story as much as sound and color do?
It’s hard to judge the impact of future development. As this ad shows, there are many amusing quotes concerning people who didn’t appreciate the significance of the changes before them: “Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?” or “Television won’t last because people will soon get tired of staring at a plywood box every night.” I wouldn’t want to be included on that list by saying 3D is a fad, but the technology alone isn’t going to change the moviegoing experience. Directors, writers and producers will have to change the way they imagine new movies, and by then, we won't even notice it.
