Yeah!!!!!!!! 3D is beginning to tank.

I wouldn't say that was so much 3D's fault directly. If anything it was the concept and execution. As my GF stated it "that movie looks awful."

Mind you it may be a mix of the "3D" ticket price, and the poor execution of the film which comes through in the advertisements. No one wants to spend more on a film that sucks, and 3D isn't enough to draw people in.

It's not as if no one is seeing it simply because it's in 3D, which I'm sure is what a lot of us here are hoping.

Perhaps the ticket price for 3D will be its undoing though.
 
I wonder if 3D actually warrants such high ticket prices, or if the studios are just gouging people, and they COULD lower prices to almost reasonable.
 
The cost of making a 3d movie is not much more than your typical movie. Seems their all incredibly expensive to make these days, but thats mostly due to the overpaid actors, and lots of waste. I always said I could shoot a decent film on their water budget. lol And im being serious.
 
I'm not a fan of 3D, but I think it's too early to point out a correlation in the failure of one shoddily marketed 3D animated movie in a glut of 3D animated movies. Why not say, "Yeah! 3D animation is beginning to tank" or, "Yeah! The movie industry as a whole is beginning to tank"?

Also, I don't get the weird contempt for 3D. Isn't this film available in 2D in most markets? If you don't want to see it in 3D, don't. But c'mon, would you have seen this film either way? I think there lies the real problem. No need to crash the party for fans of the format.
 
I'd say problem area #1 is the title. WTF is going to see a movie called "Mars Needs Moms"? What does that even mean? Now Battle: Los Angeles….that makes sense!
 
I like 3D movies, but only those SHOT in 3D, not that post crap that some movies use. Also has to have the right amount of 3D (ie lens offset the same distance as our eyes to make it more real).

The big thing with 3D i hate is those damn shutter glasses for 3D TVs....I aint paying $100+ a set so my friends can come over and watch the football in 3D
 
How much do you guys pay for a 3D movie?

Mackay, Australia -$19.50 + $1 for glasses.

Sucks because I really wanted to see The Green Hornet but it was only playing in 3D.
 
It depends on how you look at it. 3D is one of the main reasons why Film is not dying quite as fast as Music.

Without 3D, the film industry could really start to decline.
 
MrHeavySilence said:
It depends on how you look at it. 3D is one of the main reasons why Film is not dying quite as fast as Music.

Without 3D, the film industry could really start to decline.
Click to expand...
I seriously doubt that. The result would be the studios would have to stop making films that cost 200-300 million dollars each.

Filmmakers wouldn't stop making films. People wouldn't stop watching them, or paying for them.
 
Yeahhhh!

Having said that,

“Mars Needs Moms,” “The Adventures of Pluto Nash,” “Cutthroat Island” and “The Alamo.” are films that suck as a film anyway.
They would not be a success in 2D also - maybe just not such a big financial loss, cause it´s cheaper in 2D.

Frank
 
it is pretty a good news for 3D..
Lesson 1) Bad movies won't be saved by 3D, so make good movies.
Lesson 2) People are not willing to pay more for 3D than for 2D, so make 3D movies same price as 2D.
Lesson 3) 3D alone will not bring people in theater anymore , it is the movie doing that. People are buying 3D TVs and for the cost of 2 seats, you get the 3D Blu-ray.
. you can watch it as much as you want with has many people as you want. So make 3D movies and realease the 3D blu-ray out asap.
. (silly enough, avatar 3D BD not scheduled before 2012 while some lucky people can watch it at home since month by buying a panasonic BD-Player)

lesson 4) People start to learn what is good or bad 3D, so only good 3D will sell in the future.
 
nosys70 said:
it is pretty a good news for 3D..
Lesson 1) Bad movies won't be saved by 3D, so make good movies.
Lesson 2) People are not willing to pay more for 3D than for 2D, so make 3D movies same price as 2D.
Lesson 3) 3D alone will not bring people in theater anymore , it is the movie doing that. People are buying 3D TVs and for the cost of 2 seats, you get the 3D Blu-ray.
. you can watch it as much as you want with has many people as you want. So make 3D movies and realease the 3D blu-ray out asap.
. (silly enough, avatar 3D BD not scheduled before 2012 while some lucky people can watch it at home since month by buying a panasonic BD-Player)

lesson 4) People start to learn what is good or bad 3D, so only good 3D will sell in the future.
Click to expand...
The problem with this reasoning is that suits don't define "good" and "bad" movies the same way filmmakers and the audience does.

Filmmakers define "good" as "well crafted" while the audience define it as "something I enjoyed watching".
Producers and executives define a "good" movie as "successful".

"Bad movies won't be saved by 3D, so make good movies."
wouldn't make sense in the ears of a producer because it would mean "Movies that don't make their money back won't be saved by 3D, so make movies that WILL make their money back".

See the problem?

"People are not willing to pay more for 3D than for 2D, so make 3D movies same price as 2D."
becomes
"People are not willing to pay mroe for 3D than for 2D anymore, so make 2D movies since it's cheaper and easier".
 
People have already proven more than willing to pay more for 3D than for 2D up to this point. People just don't seem willing to pay for this particular movie, period. I wouldn't declare a format dead on the failure of one mismarketed animated movie in a month saturated with animated movies. IMO, this film was DOA. Lets see how Thor does before forming strong opinions on 3D's future. Not that I'll be watching that one in 3D, though I probably won't be watching it at all. Kinda getting sick of the comic book movies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top