Fred here, I’m so sorry I’ve been quite absent for some time. I didn’t maintain this site as much as I wished, but this will change from now on…
So, a lot of things happened last year; 3D finally became mainstream, even if it wasn’t as accepted as hoped (those glasses alienating everyone…), it still has a very bright future.
On the technology/3D adoption side:
There have been serious discussion about 3D’s future among analysts; that 3D was a fad, etc. That Avatar was successful because it was a novelty and that people swore off 3D because they were tired of the poor experience…
Well, that last statement is quite right: a lot of the so-called 3D movies that were released last year were made with post-production conversion (which is NOT the same as native 3D) and the audience could tell that (The Green Hornet being the worst offender…). So they refuse to accept it and rather go for normal 2D screenings.
With that said, movies like Thor, Captain America: The First Avenger, The Smurfs, etc. were quite successful even being filmed in 2D and then post converted. So there was still a market acceptance for it.

Even that these films were originally filmed in 2D, they've found success in the 3D conversion process
However, I don’t know much if the market is really accepting it or it is the studios that are trying to shovel the 3D format into the audience’s throat. It looks like the latter, but who can blame them?:
It reduces bootleg piracy, the tickets are premium priced and it pushed the adoption of 3D home theater setups (which Sony loves because it’s part of their business).
So yeah, they have all rigged the game so that 3D can’t fail. Or so we think…
But anyways, I’m biased to say that I can see 3D as a good tool for film-making, IF DONE RIGHT. So I think that film-makers should embrace it and start experiment with this tool (just like Martin Scorsese did) and then come with their real arguments against it.
Keep reading after the jump
Continue reading “Update and 3D movies bits news” »