Posts Tagged ‘3D’
Please stop pushing 3D.
The Hollywood Reporter has revealed that Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides has underachieved in terms of earning first weekend grosses for 3D showings, with more audiences opting for 2D prints. Now, with $90.1 million earned its first weekend in just the U.S., and over $400 million to be earned worldwide by the end of its first full week, the film can hardly be considered unsuccessful. However, numbers show that American audiences’ interest in 3D could be waning. What everyone is trying to figure out is whether fewer 3D tickets sold means audiences are no longer seeing the value in 3D technology or they are becoming less inclined to fork over the extra cash for a 3D ticket.
Guess what Hollywood – if Americans are indeed sick of 3D it’s because of both reasons.
The list of recent movies released in 3D where the extra dimension actually added to the viewing experience is extremely short, including only Avatar, Tron: Legacy, How to Train Your Dragon, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, Coraline, and Monster House. Notice how four of those six are 100% animated, and the two “live action” films are ones which were greatly reliant on digital effects to the point where one could justifiably consider them mostly animated as well. This is not a coincidence, and such a pattern does not help the argument that 3D is the future of the medium. Personally, I won’t give that claim any consideration until I see a truly live action film wow me like the six just mentioned.
Much has been talked about in recent months about the growing tensions between Hollywood studios and movie theaters, and no greater tension exists than the one over profits. The advent and popularity of 3-D technology has added to this issue, and nowhere is it being felt more than the pockets of patrons. The high prices of 3-D tickets is easy enough to understand, though many still fail to find them excusable, and it appears the “gimmick” is here to stay for at least the foreseeable future. With some audiences getting what they want with more movies being shown in 3-D and other audiences vexed about the higher ticket prices, what’s to be done? The answer may lie in film history. Read the rest of this entry »
There is a big debate going on about the influx of 3D movies that has been going on the past few years, and continues going on strong. Some claim that the technology has already reduced itself to a gimmick, while others believe wholeheartedly that it is the future of cinema. Who is right? Can anyone be wrong? In order to come to any kind of conclusion, we first have to look at the facts.
Much of this topic comes down to economics. An article in Variety by Pamela McClintock examines this angle in-depth, and answers a lot of questions regarding why the film industry is so keen on this latest and greatest technology. To put it simply, there is a lot of money in it. The unfathomable success of James Cameron’s Avatar has driven a number of studios into a frenzy, spurring them to make some 2D movies into 3D in order to cash in on the popularity. The upcoming Clash of the Titans (April 2nd) is one such film that was made into 3D at the 11th hour. For some, these half-baked conversions are one of the major points of contention. The claim is that such last-minute conversions are adding to the thinking that 3D technology is nothing more than a money-grabbing gimmick. This may be true, but consider this: producing a film in 3D from the get-go adds $20 million to its budget almost automatically, while converting a film into 3D during post-production only adds $10 million to the budget (some studios even claim $5 million). The issue over post-production conversions, then, may not entirely be an issue about getting more money from audiences, but also about saving money. So, it is not completely about the first goal of business (making profit) but also the third (reducing cost). But what about the second goal (increasing revenue)? Read the rest of this entry »
IGN.com recently published an article where author Eric Moro compared the 3D image quality of the theatrical version of James Cameron’s Avatar with its Blu-Ray copy being designed for home theater use.
Almost everyone who has seen the movie in theaters praises the 3D technology for making the experience highly immersive, and Moro is no different. That being said, he claims the scenes he was able to witness for the special 3D Blu-ray player looked even better than they did in the theater. You can read the full article here.
So for those who were worried that Avatar was destined to be solely a theatrical experience that would force home viewing to be lackluster by comparison, there seems to be at least a little bit of hope. One report is hardly the final word on the issue, but it does allow for some optimism.
Much has been made about James Cameron’s newest cinematic juggernaut Avatar. With the film’s production said to exceed a record-setting $400 million, it has made back roughly 75% of that cost just 5 days after its release (domestic + foreign). The vast majority of that price tag is due to the groundbreaking special effects and 3D presentation (as I’m sure you’ve all heard), which required the kind of technology and personnel that only the likes of a Hollywood studio can provide. Many like to deride Hollywood because of its “gross” financing for projects intended for mass consumption, however on occasion (such as with Avatar) we are reminded that Hollywood is capable of delivering us something truly striking and amazing. Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings trilogy is another example that can be referenced from this decade. Big name studios love cashing in on such films, and audiences love paying to see them. When done right (unlike with, say, Waterworld) big budget extravaganzas have the ability, and by all accounts likelihood, to be very notable and even pivotal artifacts within the world of movies. So, then, what could all of this mean? What could the tremendous success of Avatar lead to? Read the rest of this entry »
ComingSoon.net has published a transcript of a panel discussion that took place in London involving director James Cameron and the cast of his new movie Avatar. The documented Q and A session is moderately long, and goes into great detail about the film and how its creators felt about it on various levels. The questions are precise and demand complex answers, and said answers are elaborate and insightful. Cameron and the cast seemed to make sure to be as articulate as possible, and as a result they provide a wealth of information about both themselves and the film. The questions range from the typical “how did ___ make you feel,” to discussing the difference between seeing and “really seeing” and their relationship to the film and its story.
If you’re curious and/or interested about Avatar we would like to strongly recommend that you take a close look at this transcript. It contains less than a handful of the most minor of spoilers, which if you’re someone who’s been keeping up with the film they might not be new to you anyways.
It was announced today that director Martin Scorsese will be the recipient of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association’s Cecil B. DeMille Award for his outstanding contributions to the field of entertainment at the 67th annual Golden Globes on January 17th. He joins a list of fellow recipients that includes the likes of fellow director Steven Spielberg, Warren Beaty, and Anthony Hopkins.
In Other News…
Vice chairman of Lionsgate Michael Burns has officially announced plans to make a Saw 7, which will reportedly be shot in 3-D. The news comes shortly after Saw VI concluded a relatively unsuccessful box-office run (making less than $23 million), even though it landed Lionsgate in the black.
“As long as we make money on it we’ll keep doing this,” Burns said, pointing out that such franchises tend to have a long shelf life across different platforms. “Dirty Dancing,” he pointed out, still sells 2,000 DVDs a day for the company, and that’s after 20 years. – The Hollywood Reporter
[The rest of this full article also details Lionsgate's plans to push other brands under its control, such as the critically acclaimed Precious and various Tyler Perry projects.]
Source: The Hollywood Reporter
This year, because the number of films submitted to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences reached at least 16, there will potentially be 5 final nominees for Best Animated Picture for the 82nd Academy Awards. The academy has not yet viewed all 20, and so nothing is set in stone, but the odds that five or more films will be disqualified (lowering the number of nominees down to 3) are thought to be minimal.
The 20 submitted features are:
- â€œAlvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquelâ€
- â€œAstro Boyâ€
- â€œBattle for Terraâ€
- â€œCloudy with a Chance of Meatballsâ€
- â€œDisneyâ€™s A Christmas Carolâ€
- â€œThe Dolphin â€“ Story of a Dreamerâ€
- â€œFantastic Mr. Foxâ€
- â€œIce Age: Dawn of the Dinosaursâ€
- â€œMary and Maxâ€
- â€œThe Missing Lynxâ€
- â€œMonsters vs. Aliensâ€
- â€œPlanet 51â€
- â€œThe Princess and the Frogâ€
- â€œThe Secret of Kellsâ€
- â€œTinker Bell and the Lost Treasureâ€
- â€œA Town Called Panicâ€
Two records have been made, with 6 submissions being made in 3-D and 4 films being shot in stop-motion.
The last day for a film to be submitted for nomination is next Monday, which also means that all films in the list above have until then to have their L.A. qualifying run.
All Academy Awards nominations will be released Feb. 2nd, with the awards show on March 7th.
Director: Robert Zemeckis (Beowulf, Forest Gump)
Screenwriter: Robert Zemeckis, Charles Dickens (story)
Cast: Jim Carrey (Yes Man), Gary Oldman (The Dark Knight), Robin Wright Penn (State of Play), Bob Hoskins (Hollywoodland), Colin Firth (Love Actually)
Length: 1h 36m
Synopsis: A retelling of the Charles Dickens classic where when an old, greedy curmudgeon named Ebenezer Scrooge (Carrey) is visited by various spirits on Christmas eve who try to teach him the error of his ways in order to save his soul.