3-D will probably be pushed again for Avatar sequel(s) - how many will be onboard?

[Marcel Birgelen]

Ever since Avatar, movies have become more over-the-top with CGI-filled action sequences. While Avatar looked great and had by far the superior 3D compared to many other movies out there, I'm not sure it really looked so much better than your average Marvel movie, of which there have been plenty since the end of 2009.

I guess that if you're in a competitive market, offering the movie in 3D makes sense, but if you're a single or duplex with little competition, I doubt you'll sell much more tickets by offering it in 3D.

It will be interesting to see if there is still any HFR left. There is conflicting information out there about Cameron to only want to use it as a "tool" in certain situations and it being completely scrapped.

[Carsten Kurz]

One interesting aspect about Avatar 2 may be that James Cameron tried a selective HFR approach - I heard that it has been shot (or postproduced) partially in 48fps and 24fps. Originally, he was after 60fps, but then gave up on it. Given Camerons undoubted experience and talent, it will certainly be interesting to see his first major HFR work. Yes, 'Billy Lynn' came with both standard and high frame rate as well, but there it was just switched between some major segments of the movie only. Let's see how Cameron does it.

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

I was sitting in the Imax in Salt Lake City watching a WW-2 movie whose name escapes me. It was partially shot in Imax and the rest in 2.35. During one of the Imax sections, a lady sitting behind me remarked to her friend that "why doesn't the whole movie fill the screen?". I pretty much feel the same way she does about it. I wonder if the average Joe's and Jane's attending this movie will even notice the change?

[Marcel Birgelen]

I wonder if the average Joe's and Jane's attending this movie will even notice the change?

The switch between a full IMAX frame and 2.35 is extremely noticeable, so there must be a lot of average Joe's out there that notice it, but have no clue why this is happening...

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

Yep! over here it's mostly your average Joe and Jane. The idea is really pretty stupid... If the switch over actually conveyed something to the audience, then fine... but I have yet to see it that. It only annoys, a few might be impressed. So few that the expense of Imax is hardly worth it. And then there are the TV versions....

[Carsten Kurz]

Well, obviously, the switch to scope AR is there so people notice how gorgeous the full IMAX screen is ;-)

A bit like having popcorn on the counter and telling people 'Sorry, not for you!'

[Marcel Birgelen]

If we continue the popcorn analogy, it's like buying this BIGGEST bucket of popcorn, only to find out that there is a fake bottom in there and you're just getting half of what's promised. Yet, the bucket is one mighty thing to look at!

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

Well, obviously, the switch to scope AR is there so people notice how gorgeous the full IMAX screen is ;-)

A bit like having popcorn on the counter and telling people 'Sorry, not for you!'

Real Imax is dead Carsten.... Are there ANY film based Imax theaters left in Germany? The ones that are left here could be counted on one hand and are mostly Omnimax.

[Jesse Skeen]

3D could have gotten me back into theaters, but as with many other things they botched it. There was no reason to charge extra for it, especially if you brought your own glasses (I always have and then kept the sealed ones to use at home.) With all the problems it had previously, I would've thought in the digital era there would've been a lot more quality control, but there hasn't been. One movie I went to was so dark that they should have just cancelled the show. I should have left but I had my dad with me and it was a movie I wasn't sure I'd be able to see in 3D again (The Last Jedi, which I ended up importing on 3D Blu-Ray) and my schedule was very tight at the time- but I'll never go back to that theater again. There's been lots of complaints about 3D being too dark, yet theaters don't seem to care enough to do anything about it. (I've seen lots of 2D shows lately that were too dark also, enough to basically give up on theaters altogether in my area.) I've also heard of having the left and right eyes flipped, the 2D version being shown by mistake, or the polarizer not working so you get a double image even with the glasses on.

It's pathetic though that theaters have just reduced 3D showings rather than trying to fix anything. The studios shouldn't even allow that- but they shouldn't allow bad presentations either. If I were Disney I wouldn't even make 2D versions of any 3D titles available, and I'd send people to check that the presentation was as it should be.

Don't even get me started on the backwards-ness of IMAX trying to sell the narrower aspect ratio as the bigger and better one. Proper screens are WIDER, not taller. I generally give IMAX theaters a pass for showing letterboxed movies but I don't go back to any regular theater that letterboxes scope movies.

[Buck Wilson]

I've noticed in the advanced ticket sales for Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness, all the local theater chains - AMC, Cinemark and Regal - are offering 3D showtimes, either IMAX or RealD as appropriate.

As you're in Nashville, that's true for the theater chains I pulled up there, too.

We're forced to, and at least our location, people have pretty strongly avoided the 3D showings for at least 5 years. Anymore, we're only scheduling one 3D showing per day and it still undersells 2d. The 3D booking is typically gone after week 1

[Jesse Skeen]

“Pretty strongly avoided 3D shows”? Have the owners figured out why and tried to do anything about that? Is the 3D picture too dark for example? If the upcharge is keeping them away, why not drop or at least lower it?

[Abraham Robinson]

“Pretty strongly avoided 3D shows”? Have the owners figured out why and tried to do anything about that? Is the 3D picture too dark for example? If the upcharge is keeping them away, why not drop or at least lower it?

speaking for myself, it’s not about the upcharge or the picture being too dark. Probably the most frustrating part is it requires me to wear two pairs of glasses simultaneously. It’s uncomfortable and the effect is never worth the discomfort. I’m happy to see the trend fade away, on the other hand I’m also the oddball who loves seeing good presentations of 35mm prints so I understand that I’m not the typical audience member.

[Philip Jones]

“Pretty strongly avoided 3D shows”? Have the owners figured out why and tried to do anything about that? Is the 3D picture too dark for example? If the upcharge is keeping them away, why not drop or at least lower it?

For a lot of people it's nothing to do with the upcharge or the brightness, they just hate 3D

[Mike Blakesley]

There was no reason to charge extra for it

Yes there was -- the 3-D equipment itself was expensive. And in the case of Dolby 3-D, you don't have the option of throwaway glasses. Their glasses are expensive and have to be washed -- another expense.

I sincerely wish Dolby would come out with disposable glasses. Then we could sell the glasses for $2 or $5 or whatever and do away with the per-movie surcharge. But, there are probably not enough Dolby 3-D capable theaters to make it worth anyone doing that. As long as the glasses have to be re-used... there is definitely an ongoing expense.

[Jesse Skeen]

Well, if people are no longer willing to pay the upcharge what are you going to do? A lot of theaters have reduced 3D showings, so that expensive equipment is just sitting there doing nothing. It makes no sense to run any 3D movie in 2D in a 3D-equipped auditorium- if there were an upcharge for surround sound and people didn't want to pay it, would you just run shows in mono instead?

For a lot of people it's nothing to do with the upcharge or the brightness, they just hate 3D

To me that makes as much sense as hating a big screen. But what's wrong with just telling them "This is the way the movie was made, if you don't like it, see something else"? I wear regular glasses and never have problems with RealD glasses over them; I've kept them on all day in some cases watching my LG TV.

But I guarantee that technical problems are the main reason why people avoid 3D; every time a big 3D movie comes out I hear complaints of some sort of screw-up. The comments here show that some operators don't even care; they see 3D as an "inconvenience" in the first place- pretty much contradicting the perception that theaters love it since it gives them a reason to charge more.