3D Movies

I've been to a bunch of 3D movies now. It seems to be all the rage in the movie theaters these days. I have to say that I am not a fan. I have yet to go to a 3D movie where I didn't want to take the glasses off and watch in 2D. That doesn't work, but I sure wish it did. And I've been to the films that people say are the best of the 3D medium (Avatar, Hugo). So it's not that I haven't been to the right films. I just don't think 3D improves the experience in any meaningful way.

What's worse is that 3D films cost more to see in the theaters than 2D films so you get a worse experience for more money. And judging by trailers I've seen in the theaters recently, it seems that Holywood is using 3D as an excuse to reissue some old favorites with a 3D facelift. 

I feel like 3D is a gimmick. One the other hand the new HD display technologies like OLED and quad-HD are getting us to crisper and higher definition displays that produce some of the same effects of 3D without the gimmicky stuff.

I'm hoping 3D will turn out to be a fad and that wearing glasses in the theater (and god forbid at home) will be something we look back on in ten years and say "did we really do that?"


Comments (Archived):

  1. Rayhan Rafiq Omar

    If you want to see REAL 3D, check out Captain EO at Disneyland – 20 years old, pioneered by Francis Ford Coppola, George Lucas and Michael Jackson.The new ‘3D’ movies are just not 3D is comparison. It’s like calling mobile technologies 4G prior to LTE/LTE Advance

  2. Harry DeMott

    With two kids (11 and 9) I’ve seen most of the the 3D stuff as well and agree completely.The only one I thought was special was Avatar because the 3-D was immersive – and drew you into the world – it was 3-D without trying to be gimmicky. And to me that’s the trick – use the technology not as a gimmick – but to draw you in – then it’s cool

    1. William Mougayar

      Do kids like 3D more than Adults?

      1. Harry DeMott

        No.We’ve seen movies in the theaters and at home – and the kids respond to the story more so than the effects.That’s what made Avatar so interesting in the theater – the effects were immersive and hid a so so story line. Watch that movie at home and it won’t stand the test of time.Watch Inception at home or in the theater – and despite all the opportunities for 3-D effects – they are unnecessary because of the inventive story.

        1. LE

          “and the kids respond to the story more so than the effects”Same with “kids” and travel. You can take them on an expensive trip to the caribbean but they are almost equally as happy with, say, an indoor pool at a Holiday Inn off the turnpike in Edison NJ. Also true with food.

          1. panterosa,

            I second LE and William. It’s all about making magic and fun the easy way and experiencing the possibilities

        2. ShanaC

          Nor did star wars episode Iv, but I watch that all the time

        3. panterosa,

          I thought Avatar was a big production design ad seeing it at home. Was so flat.

  3. William Mougayar

    I’ll admit I’ve not been to a 3-D movie theatre yet….and haven’t been too interested either.QuadHD is still expensive, no?

  4. Brandon Burns

    as an obsessive movie buff: amen.though i will say Tron + 3D was a perfect match, if you want to give it one more shot.

    1. Alex Carney

      I completely agree on Tron. I was on the fence for 3D movies until I watched the scene in Tron where they are riding the elevator up to the Daft Punk club. The camera is overhead and I could actually feel the elevator moving in the third dimension towards me, an experience I have never seen 2D replicate.I agree that 3D is not great in it’s current state but I hope it doesn’t die out as a fad and instead continues to exist for directors who actually understand how to use it.

      1. Brandon Burns

        alex carney, as in alexandre carney, friends with onken/dauner/dawson? or random coincidence? 

  5. falicon

    Same feelings here…didn’t we ditch the glasses in the 80s after jaws? No, we just switched from cardboard to plastic I guess….And from a kid view, my 8yr old likes the 3d now, but my 5yr old has trouble with it (glasses never fit him and are an uncomfortable exp even if they do)…Given the choice, I go Imax (reg), then reg, then imax 3d, then 3d…

  6. nickgs

    I agree although I felt Avatar was a good implementation of 3D. It was more subtle… not in your face as much. Overall I agree, very gimmicky. 

    1. Bill

      NIck, I agree.  3D Avatar blew me away.  Still, I just got a new Samsung LED (not the 3D version, thank you) and watched Avatar on it.  Just amazing in 2D.  One of the best visual experiences one can have. 

  7. jason wright

    History repeats itself. Whenever a technology is used to sell art the art will be found wanting.The third dimension to have in a movie theater is that of your own imagination. It can’t be manufactured, packaged, or sold. Only an artist can help you to enhance its ‘value’.

    1. K.C. McLeod

      Like Christensen says in the “Innovator’s Dilemma,” traditional market leaders cannot innovate with new technology.  3D movies are being made by those who leader the film industry, so we’re still going to see “stuff exploding towards the audience.”Werner Herzog’s “Cave of Forgotten Dreams” was in 3D at the insistence of its producers, a stipulation he at first fought, but came to realize was essential for the film.  The film is a doc about cave paintings, and to realize how uneven or jagged the cave walls were, and how the painters used the shape of rock formations to accentuate animals, made for an unbelievable theatrical experience.True there are still issues with the annoying glasses and the pricing, but don’t discount the art just yet.  There are plenty of creative people out there in the world who could probably do wonderful things with the form if given a shot.

      1. raycote

        Seems like a good match up.Makes me wonder if one just switched to 3D for portions of a film where it truly enhanced the experience; then would the audience crave all 3D over reverting to all 2D ? 

    2. panterosa,

      Beg to differ on tech leading bad art.Thought Matrix pretty well integrated both.

  8. Austin Clements

    I completely agree. 3D film feels like something thats being force fed to the public. I’m not so sure anyone demanded it.The theatrical release is so profitable for movie studios that they have to come up with new approaches to keep the people going to theaters. I’m sure 3D is being promoted so heavily because its not easily replicated at home on your laptop.

    1. Harry DeMott

      Actually, theatrical releases are not that profitable for most companies. Some movies are – but in the aggregate, if you generate a low teens margin you ave done extremely well.However, theatrical box office is the standard by which films get sold into all ancillary markets – and it is there where studios make all of their money (DVD, Netflix, HBO, TV, Cable, etc…)So there is an incentive to pump up the box office numbers.Fewer people going – so you have to raise the price!

      1. Austin Clements

        Thanks for the clarification. More specifically I meant ‘a successful theatrical release is profitable for the studios’ for the very reasons you describe. They need people to come out and see the movies (vs sit at home and download them) so they can drive profit.Nice blog by the way. 

        1. raycote

          Maybe more effort to produce high quality materials for non-teen audiences and then deliver those materials direct to the home at a premium price might prove profitable.But then again Hollywood executives would need to use their imaginations and take some serious marketing risks.They are missing the homebody, over 30, not so long tail, market opportunities. 

      2. ShanaC

        This sounds like taxes, the prices of tickets have hit the point of no return of getting people in the theater’s in volume, so even if you make more per ticket, you’re losing money because the cost is too high

  9. disqus_lQclrQLxP6

    Amen. I remember going to see Pirates of The Carribean. A complete fraud if I ever saw one.The movie was at least 90% 2D with a sprinkling of 3D.Utter rubbish

  10. Rohan

    That’s Hollywood sniffing opportunity to make another easy 10 bucks (per person).It’s the new ‘remix’ fad. Make a 2d movie in 3d and make easy money. But like all other easy money, the masses will soon see through it .And it won’t be easy no more.

    1. Harry DeMott

      Look at the statistics. Box office around flat – but the number of tickets keeps declining year after year.With all the other things to do – aggregating an audience in the theater gets harder and harder.Think about the economics. Where I live tickets are about $10 each – so $20 for me and the wife – but throw in a baby sitter ($40) and dinner out and you are over $100 to see a movie.How many movies are worth a year of HBO? or 6 months of Netflix.Pretty high bar.

      1. Rohan

        Agree, Harry. As LED technology develops, becomes cheaper and as the ordinary person has access to huge flat screen technology in their living rooms, the bar is only get higher.

  11. Dan Sweet

    We are likely still in the part of the cycle where execs fear getting fired for not having done enough 3D. Right now 3D just equals higher revenue so they all say lets do more. I think 3D movies have really just revealed theater movie demand may be more price elastic than thought. With a good excuse to break the $10 barrier nationwide (3D) they may have found a way to move the whole market up $3 a ticket. The end result may just be a return to normal movies at new higher prices after a couple non-3D blockbusters remind studio execs that content is still king.

  12. Yalim K. Gerger

    My sentiments exactly. What’s interesting is that virtually everyone I know hates the experience. It is odd that a feature that is loathed so much by its consumers, continues to gain momentum. The worst part is that I cannot take my 3 year old to the movies he wants to go because there is no way he is putting those glasses on.

  13. Henry

    I totally agree. Aside from getting a headache, I also feel like my eyes are going blind after watching a 3D movie. A technology that focuses on volumetric display would deliver a much better experience imo, but I imagine that would be in the very distant future.

  14. Seenator

    Absolutely on the money. I am a huge movie fan and I was Hugo’s 3D version on Friday night but walked out within 15 mins because the experience was horrible.2D movies with an small budget & made in a non-English language (e.g. An Argentinian movies such as Secret in their eyes or an Iranian movies such as Separation) is much better than a crappy 3D movie in English with no story 

  15. testtest

    disagree. didn’t think i’d see it in my lifetime.3d web will be better.imagine being able to rotate the top of the cube an see previews of all the links on page.comments to the left stacked at a downward angle with transparency.real-time updates of the web on the right shuffling. 3d javascript == kickass

    1. raycote

      Just sound like a formula for annoying perceptual overload to me.Marshall McLuhan “push something far enough and it flips into its opposite” from being a tool into being an impediment (i.e. – present financial industry) (i.e. – present tax system) (i.e. – present patent law system) (i.e. – present election financing laws)even human biology has limits which need to be accommodated by appropriate perceptual ergonomics !

      1. testtest

        great quote. he said that in the debate with norman mailer — he got it from a friend at IBM in relation to information-overload and then flipping to pattern matching.

    2. ShanaC

      Add in some eye tracking technology and we’ll live with awesome sci-fi ness

      1. testtest

        indeed.if it’s remotely in the right direction i’m probably being too conservativecould be augmented reality, eye tracking, etc, as well  

        1. ShanaC

          You probably are being too broad in the short term and too conservative in the long term.I think that is a common problem though. I’m probably the same way if I think about it.  Mostly because 20 years is a lot of time for some huge changes.

    3. Jon Michael Miles

      This reminds me of both William Gibson’s cyber space and the best line from the Event Horizon – “Where we’re going, we won’t need eyes to see.”  Soon enough the brain input barrier will be overcome and we’ll all being having much difference conversations on the nature of art and perception. 

      1. testtest


    4. Luke Chamberlin

      And I look forward to writing a browser plugin to turn off all of the features you just mentioned.

    5. Rahul Deodhar

      I guess. 3D web will be able to render the complex data types shown in Project Xanadu. But will that make it easy to understand? I guess Steve Jobs may have had the answer.But I think 3D on phones does not make any sense, particularly at this stage.

  16. Sean Dague

    Roger Ebert had a very good article on why he hates 3D movies, which resonated very much with me – http://www.thedailybeast.co…Given that it’s not actually 3D (as there remains only 1 focal plane for your eyes, even though they are being fed 2 different images) it’s always going to feel unnatural and awkward. I’m with you on hoping that we get out the other side of this fad soon.

    1. Sam Parker

      One of the points in the Ebert article is my major problem with it: 3D projections are too dim. 

      1. awaldstein

        Light has always been the challenge.That is why the rollout had to wait until projector technology changed and, btw, is still changing and getting better.The chemical composition of the screens needed to change as well.

      2. ShanaC

        light is a huge challenge for films period.  3d makes it worse because you effectively need 1.5(ish) times the light to make it work.  Which is too bright for normal movies. And more power consumptive.All in all a negative.  That being said, I’m not sure how many theaters regularly check how their bulbs are doing for their regular equiptment

      3. panterosa,

        I just saw Pina in 3D. Came out to 6th avenue at night and it was like we had taken a tab of acid or had the drops from the eye doctor – overwhelming brightness and saturation. Made the film seem so dim. It was not tremendously enhanced by 3D either so a waste of technology. It detracted from the films possibly elegance and simplicity.

    2. LE

      In that article he says:”It is driven largely to sell expensive projection equipment “Well first, why would he just single out projection equipment and not the cameras that are required as a reason? (Or, even the glasses.)But more importantly I am not aware of anyone in the film business benefiting from the sale of the equipment other than the manufacturers of the equipment who as far as I know don’t have ties to the film studios, agents, talent, production companies etc.  Do they?http://www.arri.com/camera/http://www.panavision.com

      1. awaldstein

        Change happened with the roll out of digital projectors. No stereoscopic 3D without digital projector.Studios had connections to the distribution of films (loosely) and once ‘film’ was gone, everything in that chain was disrupted

      2. Luke Chamberlin

        I think he singles out projection equipment because of the relationship between the studios and the theaters.The studios benefit because they want the theaters to pay for the new projectors (i.e. take the risk in capital investment) but they want the majority of the extra ticket price for the 3D films.As far I as know they do not benefit directly from the sale of the equipment. It’s an odd title for that paragraph.

    3. panterosa,

      I really enjoyed that article. Thanks.I hate 3D for many of the same reasons, but on top of it I have strabismus – intermittent stereoscopy. I put the idiot 3D glasses on on top of my distance glasses and that’s messed up to see and very uncomfortable to manage for 2 hours holding them in the right position. So lame.

  17. Dhiraj Kacker

    A 3D technology that has not yet seen significant traction is from http://puredepth.com/ – site says it all but is the only immersive, glass-free, strain-free technology out there. There are of course challenges in mass commercialization, but over a period of time these kinds of innovation could change our perception of what 3D movies, games etc mean to the experience. But for now, could not agree more; neither I or my young kids could care much for 3D. 

  18. Ela Madej

    Totally agree. I don’t like the experience. My imagination is more asleep while watching a 3d movie. 

  19. perfy

    I agree one billion percent Fred.  I feel like there were a few movies that had success in 3D and were designed with it in mind, and the hollywood industry saw a chance at increased ticket prices and followed like sheep.  Now every movie coming out is offered in 3D, even when it has no benefit, and previously released movies are being re-issued in 3D, and the customer here receives nothing but a sub-standard experience at an increased price.  Lose-lose.The only signal hollywood seems to respond to is ticket sales.  Speak with your wallet and don’t attend 3D movies.

    1. panterosa,

      I agree with voting with 2D ticket dollars. And I have a kid and we most of these films.

  20. Shripriya

    3D has come and gone before. This is just the latest version. Hugo, to me, was the best, version of it (not Avatar) – encompassing, providing a real sense of the world. But I still didn’t think it was needed.Scorsese, in the Q&A after the movie, said that he thinks all movies should be 3D. That he’d make The Departed as a 3D movie if he were to shoot it now. That surprised me. The good thing is that indie cinema can’t afford 3D – the rig to set up a RED camera for 3D is too complex for someone who wants to focus on good, compelling storytelling on a reasonable budget. So at least the non-hollywood movies are going to be 2D for a long time to come… 

    1. borzoos

      Martin Scorsese sees 3D as a game-changing technology for movies the way Color was in the 30’s (or Sound in 20’s  – see movie The Artist). Scorsese’s vision for 3D is to use it to do what he does best, i.e., making personal movies. Basically, if you can introduce depth and bring the characters forward, you enhance the human experience.Granted most other directors see a very different (perhaps exclusively commercial) type of opportunity in 3D. But if you can imagine the day when watching 3D movies do not require glasses and when making 3D movies is affordable for indie directors, you might want to help create Scorsese’s vision, especially if you believe in the power of storytelling.btw, he says all of ‘his’ movies going forward could be done in 3D. Here’s the full interview: http://www.deadline.com/201

    2. fredwilson

      that scorsese quote bums me out

  21. Jan Schultink

    Exactly! The 3D is not really 3D, it is multiple layers of 2D. Like watching a puppet theater…

  22. alphaG77

    In ten years they might have 3D without the glasses – holographic displays might change the experience.The technology although still kind of crude exists today:http://web.mit.edu/newsoffi…See the youtube demo reel about half way down the page.

    1. raycote

      So if we throw enough money at it we can get some small few-degrees of freedom at second guessing the director on her 3D angle of view.I’d rather see the money invested in more imaginative risk taking.Hollywood is just leaving a big opening here for lower-budget imagination-based retro disruption.

  23. awaldstein

    I’m going to have to take the contrary view on this.3D is hard. Both technologically to get right. And as a new medium to really tell a story with. But when done right, Avatar and Hugo, it provides a new fabric to the storytelling. And more and more are figuring out how to this.Sure, there is a lot of crap 3D. There is a lot of crap movies as well. Slasher movies in 3D are somehow worse than worse?I understand the sentiment here but just don’t agree that entertainment for entertainment sake even is bad.But of course, good or bad, the market votes with its dollar and even though the stock prices of platform providers have been hammered, the box office numbers are strong enough to drive profits.As this community knows I’m a significant movie geek.And for the sake of disclosure, I was personally involved in the roll out of this medium to the cinemas at the beginning and the first 3D movies, starting with Chicken Little.So…blame me I guess 😉

    1. William Mougayar

      Give me 3D, but without the glasses…How about Quad-HD? 

      1. awaldstein

        Don’t know much about this William. Not involved in this any longer.The percentage of 3D movies I see is very small. But to blanket entertainment technology as ‘all bad’ seems silly to me.

        1. Rohan

          I don’t think its ‘all bad’.It’s being overdone though. For easy money. That’s my problem with it.

      2. Rob Hunter

        There are a number of patents being issued for various glasses-less implementations of 3D.  Apple has some of the more interesting (that I’ve seen), and I think that it’ll be a good change.  Presumably, it could give multiple viewers the option to watch in 3D or not, which I suspect would make life better for all viewers (at least in split preference households) and would help the technology adoption along.If anyone’s seen articles on WHEN these technologies might be available, I’d love to see it.

        1. William Mougayar

          I don’t doubt Apple’s next TV will have some 3D flavor. – posted via http://engag.io

      3. andyidsinga

        hehehe.. isn’t there an SNL skit (or similar – can’t remember ) for 4d .. where there’s a dude who punches you in the face when the character in the movie gets punched in the face?

        1. William Mougayar

          That’s a “mean” 4D! Lol – posted via Engagio

    2. Aaron Klein

      Where it supports the art, I’m all for it.But if you were still involved, I’d bet you’d be advising them that slapping “3D” onto every movie is a sure way to destroy the long term brand for very short term profits.

      1. awaldstein

        Not arguing that there is a lot of garbage.Not arguing that most implementations are good.And…certainly not arguing that the branding and controls of this are really poorly done. If fact, it is not the tech but the management of the perceptions and controls that was a major error.But…the technology is amazing. I know. The core technology behind the majority of 3D systems came from a little company called Stereographics and was invented by a truly amazing individual, the ‘father of stereoscopic 3d’, filmaker and songwriter, Lenny Lipton.  Used by the military, exploration, manufacturing and research.Been out of the influence circle for many years so no longer involved.Biggest technology rollout I was every involved in. Everything had to change.

        1. Aaron Klein

          Good point.

    3. andyidsinga

      I only blame you for dissing slasher movies in 3d 🙂 🙂

    4. fredwilson

      i’m happy to have someone to blame!

      1. awaldstein

        Glad to play the role!Interesting tidbit for you Fred. Lenny Lipton, founder of the company we bought who had the technology for 3D was also the musician who wrote “Puff the magic dragon”. Cool guy. Wacky intersection of talents. 

  24. Tracey Jackson

    I so agree Fred. Not only is is annoying and lame to wear those silly glasses. It is one more giant nail in the coffin of the adult film. Can you imagine watching The Graduate in 3D?Anything by Hal Ashby. Not that those films haven’t been history for some time. But even the best of the 90’s…..Please let it be a fad..But I fear it is not.

    1. fredwilson

      if enough of us vote with our feet, it will be

  25. jason wright

    1. Light.2. Movement.3. Imagination.Stereoscopic vision is required for hunting prey.

    1. raycote

      So Hollywood is hunting us down with1. Light.2. Movement.3. ImaginationI hope they start investing a lot more in the imagination part of the formula.;-o)

  26. kevinmurphy

    Hearing that the next olympics will be shot entirely in 3-D. Not sure exactly what this means. Given my opinion matching Fred’s on the movie theater 3-D experience, I hope it doesn’t mean wearing glasses at home.

  27. Barabare

    I also hate 3D.The biggest problems for me are:1) The glasses darken the image. It’s like watching a regular movie with sunglasses on. I think the very best theaters use much more powerful bulbs to try to counter this effect, but in an average movie theatre it’s especially bad.2) Wearing the glasses gives me the sensation of shrinking the screen, or of sitting further away. I feel less immersed, like I’m watching a TV rather than a huge movie screen.The only movie I remotely enjoyed the 3D experience in was Avatar. What’s worse, lately movies are ONLY playing in 3D. I don’t even have a choice to watch Hugo in 2d.

  28. Wesley Verhoeve

    Agreed. I never see movies in 3D, always pick the 2D option. Luckily I am more of a fan of movies that don’t make sense in 3D anyway, those focused on the basics (great writing, acting, composition) rather than the action. I am not worried that Woody Allen will reissue Midnight in Paris in 3D.

  29. Carl Brackpool

    A longtime colleague at Disney was developing some new glass-less multi D experiences…I think the momentum and market appetite are driving the innovation.  No longer feels like fad…but when all the economics (producer and audience) level out, then I’ll go.  And I don’t like migraines from watching a cartoon 🙂

  30. Irving Fain

    I tend to agree (and think the same thing about Blue Ray technology – only a “nice to have”). That said, I’ve seen a few in-home 3D tv’s and the technology is impressive. I just don’t feel like it’s ever necessary.

  31. Casey Winters

    I also hate 3D. Whenever a film is available in 3D and 2D I see the 2D version.This is a gimmick to provide an experience that can’t be as easily pirated for viewing online. They need a better gimmick.

  32. jpball

    3D movies seems another perfect example of the movie indutry’s inability (unwillingness) to embrace usefull technologies for the right reasons. Instead they jump on a gimmick to increase revenue per transaction. Screw the lifetime value of the customer, because ever time I see an ad for a 3D movie, all I can think is someone is trying to exploit my deep interest in being part of the here and now. Not good for lifetime value; each attempt pushes me farther away from that brand.

  33. Alec Perkins

    The only film I’ve seen where 3D was a meaningful part of the story is *Day & Night*, the short by Pixar that was in front of *Toy Story 3*. The short used traditional 2D hand animation as a window into a 3D, computer animated world. (And it also told the whole story without any words from the characters!) Unfortunately, such cleverness on the scale of a full-length feature will probably not be widely received, nor greenlit in the first place.

  34. Alberth

    Problem is that proper 3d needs headtracking too to look real, not just preprogrammed left-right eye parallax sequences (see Johnny Lee headtracking demos with wii on youtube). Our micro head movements that occur all the time change our visual scene. The static head orientation of all todays 3d movies is like seeing the world with your head taped to the back of your chair, it looks wrong. Solving this is only possible in one screen per user systems adjusting 3d scenes on the fly to micro head movements, which is why I think gaming systems will get it right first.

  35. Aaron Klein

    Totally agree. 3D is just an attempt to paper over Hollywood’s falling revenues. Delivering a better core product is the only way to fix that.Speaking of Hollywood, I was pondering whether they had learned anything from the SOPA debacle, and the thought struck me: what if Hollywood movie moguls had to use tech the way we watch movies?I predict you’ll laugh at this, Fred: http://www.aaronklein.com/2

    1. Rohan

      Loved the post. Looks like it went viral on HN! 🙂 

      1. Aaron Klein

        Thanks! Yeah, it’s been #1 or #2 since yesterday at 4pm or so. A little unusual for my blog. 🙂

        1. Rohan

          AH! Just saw it. 495 points!Wicked. Nicely done and well deserved Aaron.It takes 10 years to become an overnight sensation. Long may it continue.. 😀

          1. Aaron Klein

            Thanks 🙂

  36. gleslie

    Reminds me of how last year they cut away to the 3D viewing bar during the Superbowl and you see a bunch of clowns watching the game with goofy glasses on. Is your viewing experience so much better that you are willing to wear those? Avatar is the only time I’ve said yes. I walked out of there feeling like I had experienced something between a movie and an amusement park ride.I did visit a friend this weekend who had just splurged on a brand new living room flat screen over the holidays. The classic NYC setup where the tv is ridiculously big for such a small living room. But the picture did provide depth and clarity that I’d never seen before. The image was so clear it was almost annoying. I couldn’t focus on the movie because I was blown away by the picture. But he said you get used to it and then can’t go back, just like HD. They are making some serious strides without the glasses.

    1. fredwilson

      i have the “classic NYC setup” too

    2. LE

      “the tv is ridiculously big for such a small living room””I couldn’t focus on the movie”There are calculations for the correct size depending on how far you sit from the screen. If to large the experience won’t be right. http://hdinstallers.com/cal…http://myhometheater.homest…Same with HVAC. You can’t oversize it or you have humidification issues (as well as excess energy usage).

  37. bjorg

    There will always be naysayers.  When talkies cames out, some people didn’t like them either. Innovators need to embrace the new and silly.As for Quad-HD, that will go nicely with my collection of SACDs. 🙂

    1. raycote

      Ok, maybe when it becomes the holodeck experience and we all get to walk around watching the action from within but even then all those other ticket holds will just clutter up the whole scene.;-)

  38. chrisdorr

    I wholeheartedly agree! The movie industry trots out 3D every few years as a way to increase the value of their movies–and it always fails. And the TV manufacturers have also gotten on board–and are discovering it has not helped them as well.

  39. doug_eike

    I agree.  3D movies are ineffective, because they are projected onto a two-dimensional plane. The slight-of-hand in which they engage will always render disappointing magic.  Thanks for your insight!

  40. Brad

    Seems like I am in the minority but my two sons love 3D and I enjoy watching their reaction to it.

    1. Jon Michael Miles

      They will grow up with it and come to find regular TV as flat no doubt!

    2. andyidsinga

      right on Brad — thats because 3d is awesome! 🙂

    3. Jim

      I am with your sons….LOVE 3D. I can’t imagine Hugo or Avatar in 2D. 

  41. LE

    I have to say that critics here agree 3D is bad. But more interesting is the hollywood sucks sentiment. And how binary people are.To wit (various commenters):”3D is just an attempt to paper over Hollywood’s falling revenues.” “3D movies seems another perfect example of the movie indutry’s inability (unwillingness) to embrace usefull technologies for the right reasons. Instead they jump on a gimmick to increase revenue per transaction. Screw the lifetime value of the customer””This is a gimmick to provide an experience that can’t be as easily pirated for viewing online””the hollywood industry saw a chance at increased ticket prices and followed like sheep””That’s Hollywood sniffing opportunity to make another easy 10 bucks (per person).”It’s amazing how people just want to pile on (especially lately) and complain about Hollywood. The studio system in this country has been the envy of the world. We don’t watch many movies made in other countries but they watch many movies made here, right? And those movies (made by the Hollywood system) have greatly changed the worlds perception of this country to our benefit more than detriment. Those movies have manipulated the world and served as a big advertisement that I’m sure have even driven people to want to live in this country in the past. I have a question for any foreign readers of this blog. Have you been influenced by what you saw on film about the US? Even about particular cities portrayed such as NYC? Hollywood has been a well oiled machine of entertainment for many years. That may not last, and you may not like it, but you might want to consider the entire picture. There is good and bad in everything.

    1. fredwilson

      i don’t subscribe to the “kill hollywood” or “holywood sucks” memebut i have a few beefs (as the kid calls them) and i find myself writing about them a lot latelyi don’t write with plan ahead of timeit’s pretty much stream of consciousness

      1. LE

        I know, wasn’t directed at your post but at the comments (here and elsewhere).I started to watch “These Amazing Shadows” on netflix last night. It’s might be of interest, particularly the part near the beginning where they pile on Ted Turner for colorizing movies and seem to make a connection that that was what got congress to set up the National film Registry. They have film of the congressional hearings.It began when media mogul Ted Turner purchased the entire MGM film library and proceeded to colorize many of the black and white films.  According to Turner he was improving the movies and had every right to colorize them. “Last time I checked, they were my films,” Turner said.But this did not sit well with members of Hollywood-directors and actors alike were furious.”“Last time I checked, they were my films,”” – why it’s great to be an entrepreneur!http://www.theseamazingshadhttp://cometoverhollywood.chttp://en.wikipedia.org/wik

      2. Donna Brewington White

        Did you read @Jason:twitter Calacanis’s post  “We Need to Empower Hollywood–Not Kill Hollywood” http://bit.ly/xYkMCx Personally, really enjoyed it but as often happens when reading Jason’s posts, said “ouch” a lot.

        1. fredwilson

          i saw it. i agree with him

    2. raycote

      Hollywood use to be a place that took risks in order to breath life into imagination capable of enhancing, questioning or shattering our daily perceptions/precepts.Hollywood has now officially flipped into its oppositeavoiding risk at all cost by reuse, rehash, recycle of all proven formulasThere is still the odd good movie that escapes the imagination/risk/cost compactor.I’d love to see more low budget efforts that could free up that imagination/risk/cost formula.Is there suddenly some world wide shortage of great books and idea?

      1. LE

        “Hollywood use to be a place that took risks in order to breath life into imagination capable of enhancing, questioning or shattering our daily perceptions/precepts.”Well, like they said in Dirty Harry “it’s a whole new ball game Callihan”. The economics have changed so they have changed. The competition for entertainment dollars and choices are much greater than back in the heyday.  Also, among other things, it’s a change from people to corporations. Corporations are horses by committee unless of course they are run by someone who is such a prima donna that they can do and say whatever they want without reproach (Jobs, Larry Ellison, Phil Knight for example.) Normally that behavior is an option only for entrepreneurs and specifically the ones with “fuck you” money to boot. By the way, what Phil Knight did for Joe Paterno really stood out the other day. You practically never see things like this, nobody has any balls anymore (which is what you are saying) especially because of fear of the crowd response and public opinion:However, one person at the service not named Joe Paterno did manage to steal the show. That man:Nike Chairman Phil Knight, who spoke about Coach Paterno for a few minutes and, somewhat surprisingly, used his time to talk about the fact that he doesn’t believe Joe Paterno deserved to go out the way he did. He ripped into the trustees at Penn State who fired Paterno for his role in Jerry Sandusky‘s sexual abuse scandal. He revealed that he was very close to Paterno and that he considered him a mentor and a “hero” of sorts. And he eventually earned a round of applause from the crowd that lasted for a few minutes when he revealed that he doesn’t think Paterno should have been blamed for the scandal that took place on his watch.http://bleacherreport.com/ahttp://live.drjays.com/inde

    3. andyidsinga

      here here LE.my comment – 3d is awesome – and I would go see it if I had to wear a whole helmet 🙂 in fact, that would be crazy awesome – like a star wars or buck rogers helmet – sign me up. I’ll pay for the ride too and buy the rubber toy afterwards…all the motherfuckers complaining about glasses – I don’t want to see one of you wearing sun-glasses 😉

      1. LE

        “complaining about glasses”It’s very couch potato. Some people might also drive an automatic (rather than manual trans.) and prefer a power boat to a sail boat.  Or better yet just pay for an afternoon ride on a harbor excursion with 200 other people.(If I ever sit in a theater again I plan to give it a try.)

    4. panterosa,

      Have you read Daniel Boorstin’s The Image? Interesting take on our film industry.

      1. LE

        No but just took a look and it looks interesting thanks for pointing that out.

        1. panterosa,

          Loved that book for years. Reread 2 years ago and decided to buy a box and give them for holiday gifts.So ahead of it’s time. Like it was written tomorrow.- posted via Engagio

  42. Robert Calise

    Fred, something I’ve been contemplating for ages (okay, well, months since I found out they existed?) Buying a pair of 2D glasses. They basically filter out one of the levels of 2D imagery, leaving behind only a single, clear 2D movie instead of the 3D nonsense. Pretty cool concept, if they work. Unfortunately, it still requires wearing glasses. http://www.2d-glasses.com/

    1. fredwilson

      thanks. i plan on buying a pair immediately

      1. andyidsinga

        dont do it 😛

    2. Sean Dague

      Points to that guy for coming up with an easy solution here. The theory is sound, so it should work.As an aside, The Real-3D glasses use some interesting polarization techniques. After you next 3D movie, keep your pair, cut out the lenses, and overlap and rotate them with respect to each other. Very interesting color and darkness changes that you get.

    3. panterosa,

      Sounds like a great idea. I only wish they made clip on lenses for my own glasses so I don’t wear 2 pair glasses and have the bridge of my nose cry.

  43. Luke Chamberlin

    The only 3D films I’ve ever enjoyed are the rides at Disneyland. Captain EO!

  44. ErikSchwartz

    I am writing this with the caveat that I am about to take my daughter to Beauty and the Beast in 3D in about an hour…I think it is largely a marketing thing. It’s like during the discussion about release windows last week, it’s another bite at basically the same apple. It’s a reason to go see it in the theater (because 3D TV is never going anywhere while there are glasses involved).And since I am about to go shell out $30 for 2 tickets to a 20 year old movie, I must say it seems to be working.

    1. awaldstein

      Well said.The technology is here for glasses free 3D TV viewing. Or the beginnings of it.Form factor change. A horizon in the years for roll out.Enjoy the movie!

  45. mavignon

    I have enjoyed watching Pina in 3D a lot… Pure art. The extra depth adds so much.But since it’s not Hollywood, that might be not what you are looking for! Still, I hope you have the chance to watch more styles of movie before dismissing 3D. I agree we lack a good reference movie but I am confident someone will come up with something very creative.

  46. kenberger

    This exact post, identically worded, could have been written in 1959.And it was.

  47. Jon Michael Miles

    I have a different perspective. (Ha ha)For me 3D movies are a different emotional experience than 2D. I often A/B test this to see what the experience feels like in the different formats. I test this again against seeing the BluRay at home. Invariably 3D has a more complex feel – like a better wine.To carry the wine analogy further – it’s like drinking good wine out of a plastic cup, it’s often the simplest fix – a better glass – that drastically improves the experience. I actually think that’s the simplest fix for 3D as well –  better glasses. 

  48. ShanaC

    Point a) Black and white films, and silent films, are still occassionaly made.  I think it is possible that 2d may go that way as well.  Especially if we can figure out how to get rid of the glasses when you are sitting in the theater.Point b) I always get freaked out by HD, it;s a little too real.  It isn’t always right for every situationPoint C) I’m actually more interested in post shoot technologies in the processing phase, they can really change the “look” of the film.  And I think those will only get better and better as techniques and styles develop that are independent from using actual film.

    1. andyidsinga

      re (b) – I think people must have said that when film got color and sound 🙂

      1. LE

        I remember very clearly the day dad brought home our first Trinitron.

        1. andyidsinga

          🙂 me too .. well, we had a fake trinitron – I think it was a citizen. Anyhow it didn’t take 5 minutes to “warm up” so I could actually watch TV when I came home from school for lunch.

      2. ShanaC

        Probably, doesn’t mean it isn’t true for me. 🙂

        1. andyidsinga


  49. Jason Hirschhorn

    I think 3D has been misused on films it does not enhance and therefore the medium is devalued. Real proponents and creators agree. But a movie like Avatar or some of the docs shot in space or in the sea have been great, “worth-it” 3D creations.

    1. andyidsinga

      thats a really good point …certainly not all scripts should just be shoehorned into 3d. But for the ones that makes sense – they are spectacular aren’t they? 🙂

  50. Kris Halvorsen

    Agreed with you on 3D until I saw Wim Wenders’ movie Piña, which makes dance come alive in the most amazing way.

  51. JimHirshfield

    Went to Hugo in 3D with the kids when it first came out. Half way thru they took the glasses off and watched the rest of the movie without them. Definitely a gimmick.

    1. fredwilson

      i tried that but it gave me a headache so i put the glasses back on

  52. jeffyablon

    Happy/Sad to report that I said this almost two years ago: http://answerguy.com/2010/0…Man, I HATE 3-D

    1. fredwilson

      better late than never!

      1. jeffyablon

        True enough!

  53. Scott Barnett

    here here!  Could not agree more. I just saw Avatar in 2D after watching it in the theatre in 3D and I enjoyed it just fine in 2D.  What really bugs me is a lot of movies are hard to find in 2D, so you have little choice.  I too hope they stop this, it’s a gimmick and a costly one.

    1. andyidsinga

      ahhh COME ON! [friendly tone of voice 🙂 ] … I also enjoyed avatar in 2d while watching it at home for the 2nd time. But it was *NOTHING* like watching it in the movie theater in 3d.thing is.. who goes to the theater to enjoy something “just fine” ..the whole point is to get packed in like sardines while watching a giant screen + sound system.

      1. Scott Barnett

        LOL…. when I was watching Avatar in the theatre, I kept taking the glasses off, but as Fred mentions, a 3D movie is unwatchable without the glasses.  I hate the feeling of the glasses, the experience doesn’t “move” me… maybe I just don’t register the 3D like most people, I don’t know – but I do know I totally prefer 2D.  And I really do like the movie theatre experience – even moreso than my home theatre.  not sure about liking being a sardine though 🙂

  54. DogmaStudios

    As a shareholder in Real D – I hope you are not correct, at least until I can get out of it.

  55. kidmercury

    you all heard about acta? need more discussion and awareness about this, it’s come back since the feds couldn’t get sopa through: http://tech.fortune.cnn.com…as any seasoned kook can tell you, if the feds don’t get what they want via the legislative process, they just declare it via the executive. increasingly it will be seen that there are two options:1. scaredy cat route: you sacrifice the future and comply with declared laws2. honorable, sexy route: you stand for the future and obey what’s right by uniting and planning for civil disobediencei’m confident that most people are ultimately honorable and sexy — they just need it pulled out of them, which the goverment is sort of doing, albeit with negative tactics. to win with civil disobedience, you’ll need the truth……

    1. LE

      “to win with civil disobedience, you’ll need the truth……”It never scares me how little people know about things but it always scares me when people seemed qualified to make a decision on something knowing so little about it. As well as not wanting to put the effort into learning about something before coming to a conclusion.Here’s a clip showing DC college students – I know there are also ones floating around where students don’t know the Vice President’s name as well.http://www.youtube.com/watc

    2. panterosa,

      Fraidy cat vs sexy disruptive cat. Love that you define it as honorable!No doubt which one is more appealing! Sexy disruptive cat sound like a friend of Grimlock’s baconinjas.

    3. ShanaC

      Yes, I’ve heard.  This is turning into wack-a-mole legistlation.  And I don’t want to play wack-a-mole for the rest of my life.  Or even the rest of the year. 

  56. another cultural landslide

    In the film biz, it is being quietly whispered – for some time now – that 3D has already run its distance. Again. For the 3rd time. Receipts are already showing the same tell-tale death spiral, as the audience has started to opt-out of the higher-priced tickets for the same reason they opted out in the ’80’s, and in the ’50’s:No compelling stories.Furthermore, no compelling stories that are furthered by the use of 3D. Or ones where 3D is essential to telling the story.Again, innovation is much more than advancing a new (or new version of) technology.

    1. fredwilson

      i sure hope you are right!

  57. george

    I’m not an expert in this technology but one of my closest friends has been in the 3D industry for over 25 years and I’ve developed some raw understanding. There are reoccurring themes here, lack of content, standardization, silly glasses and price (value) dissatisfaction. Believe it or not, I’ve been listening to these points for the past 10 years of my life and it has only marginally improved. There are a few prevailing problems with this new technology platform.The equipment manufacturers are catering to the professional segment (filmmakers) and they are all vying to be become the standard. Its Beta vs. Vhs all over again, this is where you find to a great degree the root of the problem, inconsistency, qualitative fragmentation and lack of customer choice.When you see the equipment development really shift into the hands of consumers (affordable cameras, with easy integration), then you’ll know all this is for real – a few movies here or there, really lack significance. These companies are too fixed on the old model, controlling equipment, production (content) and distribution; prime industry for disruption – small developers possibly like GoPro are going to move upmarket and leapfrog over the convention.

  58. Rob Hunter

    I think that 3D as it stands is lacking, but even right now I think there’s some low-hanging fruit to make it better – some things that have been talked about in the comments.  As a fan of technology, I hope that they do (my girlfriend can’t stand 3D as it is, I’m kind of indifferent).But the technology is super cool!  I think it’s just not used particularly well.  I have a 3D TV at home, because the TVs that I wanted didn’t come without it – I just didn’t buy glasses.  I suspect that many are in this boat – I bet that you have one too, @fredwilson:disqus .  Given that you have one, it’s not difficult to send different images (from different sources) to the right and left eyes.I’m working on a side project to have a pretty simple set top box that lets two different viewers (with glasses) watch/do two different things on one TV.  The gist is that my girlfriend can watch Glee whilst I watch anything that’s not Glee.  You’re both wearing glasses where the shutters are synchronized, so my glasses only see the left image while her glasses only see the right image.  We get our separate audio through our iPhones (or Android phones or iPads).It’s been a liberating project because I don’t really care about making any money on the project – it’s just a thing that I want to have for myself.  I think that sometimes, consumers get technology that they don’t want/need shoved down their throats (3D TVs in this case), and it’s kind of up to us to make that technology work for us.  I’ll let you know if I ever get something working.

  59. matthughes

    The YES Network and FOX Sports co-produced a Yankees/Mariners game in 3D two years ago.I didn’t see it because I don’t have a 3D TV.The reviews of the broadcast were mixed at best and they have not broadcast another 3D game since. Whether in theaters or TV the 3D experience is generally not commensurate with the hype. 

  60. obscurelyfamous

    I’ve seen some good 3D movies, but they were sillier, animated/CGI movies that took advantage of the gimmick. It can be amusing in the way that one of those 3D Disneyland attractions can be amusing — that is, in a very limited way.Overall, the 3D movie trend is a shitty one. There’s immense pressure for action/family productions to be in 3D because they draw the audiences. They need new, different things to pull people away from the growing quality of home/streaming entertainment.Fortunately, the novelty can’t and won’t last forever. It won’t be an enduring age of the cinema story… I can totally see this being a footnote in the history of movies of the 2000’s.I’m okay with rereleasing older movies in 3D, though, because it is what it is. A gimmicky way to get people to watch popular flicks of yesterday. It’s like singalong The Rocky Horror Picture Show (but not as cool).The model will be changing in a big way in the coming years, so that’ll be interesting to see. Maybe it will be to release feature films at near-identical times in theaters and home streaming (maybe a tiny head start for theaters). Charge a little more for theaters but make the experience significantly better. Bigger screen and speakers isn’t enough — serve food/alcohol, have a live opening act, organize themed events, let audiences take home the movie… etc.

    1. Cynthia Schames

      Rocky Horror FTW.That is all.

    2. andyidsinga

      can’t and wont last forever? ..hasn’t it kindof already been going on forever ? …started in the 50s, “resurgence” in the 80s, 90s, 2000s, 🙂 🙂 🙂 http://en.wikipedia.org/wik…

      1. obscurelyfamous

        And when it dies again, I’m sure it’ll have the same type of resurgences that we saw in the 80s. This latest trend is bigger than anything we’ve seen before, and I don’t see that shaping the future of cinema.

        1. Logo Design Company

          Valuable Benefits of Working in a Brand Logo Design Company : Working in a brand logo design company can provide you with various benefits. These can include paid holidays, stable income, and updating your knowledge at seminars and workshops.

        1. andyidsinga

          thats really neat – isnt that the same train film was shown in hugo?

          1. James Barnes

            Exactly the same, yes.

  61. Bala

    I think Hollywood really did not do what a good startups would have done! Ask the question is there a real problem we are solving with this 3D thingy? The answer is NO. But they are shoving it anyway because of the monopoly they have on the production business and the distribution business. Fred, you have already written about why scarcity is a shity business model, I think you need to write why dishing crapy upgrades like 3D is worse for the movie business. Hollywood needs to focus on making good movies and that is what interests me to go to the movies not gimmicks. I hope someone from the movie business is taking notice else they are going to loose this crowd. I really do not enjoy paying for the crappy glasses and not such a great experience. Thanks for nothing Hollywood.

  62. Adam Feldman

    I hope 3D movies go away sooner rather than later. I hate how I can’t see movies in IMAX without this 3D nonsense.And do companies seriously think people will buy TVs that require goggles for all users? 

  63. Guest

    Agree 100%.  3D movies give me migraines too.  Even worse is 4D.  



  64. Cody Robbins

    Werner Herzog’s ‘Cave of Forgotten Dreams’ is in 3D and it’s the only time I’ve seen 3D used right. It’s one of the best movies I’ve seen in a long time and the 3D makes it absolutely stunning. It’s about the Chauvet-Pont-d’Arc Cave in France, which has the earliest known human cave paintings. I don’t think it would have been possible to get a true appreciation for how beautiful the paintings are without seeing it in 3D—the painters used the shape of the rocks to give three-dimensional form to the animals. It was playing at the IFC Center not long ago but I’m not sure if it’s still there.

  65. Ruth BT

    I can’t wait for the end of the 3D fad. As a vision impaired person it is of no use to me anyway but I did wonder about what it actually did to kids eyes. I am in no way an expert but asking your brain to focus simultaneously on close and far away things for 2 hours is not helpful to developing brains. Speaking with my surgeon last week he agreed saying short term exposure up to 20 mins is fine but after that kids may have difficulties focusing after watching the a full length movie.My Mom experience is that the kids love it for 5 mins and then they have had enough. We recently went to a movie in 2D whilst the other families saw it in 3D – guess who joined us around the 20 min mark – all the kids!

    1. fredwilson

      you are about the fourth or fifth vision impaired person to raise that issue in this thread. it’s clearly a big issue

  66. Carl J. Mistlebauer

    Yes, the wonders of technology!Lets see, in my basement I have a Bob Carver, Sonic Holography C-9 pre amp; when you set it up and get your speakers just right it can put you dead center of whatever music you are listening to.  Then I have a couple of Mobile Fidelity “Quad” records…Oh, then I have a set of three, six feet tall metal tube contraptions that when placed one in the middle of your speakers and the other two on the outside of each speaker you can really stretch and broaden your soundstage.All of these are really AWESOME!  Oh, and all of them at one time were touted as “changing the audiophile world…”So, I have a basement full of wonderful technology that never sees the light of day anymore….Guess if I was a movie buff, 3D would have been something to add to my basement collection.Us humans are really something aren’t we!? 



    1. panterosa,

      yes. Makes you wish you’d invented string and duct tape, no?

    2. LE

      Cheaper and more annoying always win over more expensive and clearly better.(Windows)

    3. fredwilson

      that’s what i was trying to say in about 1/10 the words i used to say it

  68. andyidsinga

    I guess I have soft spot for 3d on the big screen 🙂  I saw my very first 3d movie when I was a kid – 1983 – Dad and I went to see Blue Thunder and I saw “Space Hunter in 3d” on the listing and begged him to see that instead. We went ..and it was awesome – wont ever forget the asteroid floating over the audience near the beginning  ( http://www.imdb.com/title/t… )   I also enjoyed beowulf in 3d.

  69. Dustin Renner

    I love 3D movies and would choose to watch a 3D movie over a 2D any day.  I will admit that the glasses are a little akward but other than that I think they are great.

  70. lazerow

    I couldn’t agree more. I have crossed eyes and monocular vision (my two eyes work, just not together). So I can’t sit through 3D movies. 

    1. panterosa,

      Interesting. Can you explain more, monocular? I have strabismus and hence intermittent stereoscopy since 20 years. Actually my brain is so wired for 2 images now that I can see double out of one eye. Just plain freaky. Saw Oliver Sachs talk recently about his new vision issues. Fascinating.

  71. Tony Yi

    I went to CES 3 yrs ago and noticed everyone from content, capture devices, editing, tv’s all focusing on 3D. Utterly disappointed in the user exp, I ranted about it but it was like the elephant in the room. Nobody else called out the simple fact that the quality isnt quite there yet and wearing those silly glasses isn’t convenient. Hopefully we’ll build some momentum and get past this so we can find some real innovation. Thx Fred

  72. panterosa,

    Fred, Thanks for calling out lame on the 3D trend. Hate it. I see double intermittently all day for the last 20+ years due to strabismus. So my life looks like a 3D movie without the glasses. You can imagine my joy at putting on the lame glasses over my prism and distance glasses and holding them at the correct angle for 2 hours. It blows. I love the recc for 2D glasses provided in the comments.On the other hand my vision is really interesting – the split 3D is what Picasso had and hence where Cubism came from. Growing up I was perfect hyper 3D until 19, a 7 out of 10 shot which is so rare for females. A very interesting trajectory for a visual artist.I’ve been waiting for OLED for years now.

  73. underplank

    I think the most interesting aspect of 3D is that its a step to replacing a whole set of techniques to create a 2d plane into a 2d plane.Cinematographers already use depth of field and lighting to create depth and dimensionality in a shot. This also helps to draw the viewers eye to certain parts of the screen.3D is getting to the same end point but with a different technique. So I think thats why a lot of filmakers are so taken with it.Also with digital capture and projection you can actually do 3D “right” now, by which I mean accurate synchronisation of left and right eye, which with mechanical film cameras and projectors you couldn’t in the past.I also dont know what Roger Ebert was talking about with his reference to selling equipment, as the digital projectors compared to film projectors are pretty cheap. Although most film projectors have already been paid of by the theatres. I think that its actually a push to one-up tv/internet media, just like widescreen/cinema scope was in the 40’s, and 50’s, rather than anything to do with selling equipment. The theatres and Hollywood have enough incentive to go digital considering the cost of distributing a movie on film, and the cost of making it 3d digital i imagine is pretty negligible.

  74. Donna Brewington White

    First of all, this would have been a great post for a Quipol.  I find myself mildly curious about what AVCers think of 3D and can’t stay up to read all the comments if I am going to make it to my 7:30 .a.m. meeting (which is really 5:30 a.m. in my normal time zone).Although I didn’t have to read far for @andyidsinga:disqus ‘s opinion to come through loud and clear. ;)Even though I am not wild about 3D and one of my son’s says that it gives him a headache, we opt for the 3D version when we have a choice because it somehow seems that this is the premium choice and we are settling for less with 2D. I am so embarrassed by this!  Never even realized that I was falling for this marketing ploy — walked right into it.   One of the reasons, however, it that the times I see 3D films, I am with my kids and so my natural inclination is to opt for the more expensive version — thinking it is the “better” version and, therefore, a more special experience.Can’t believe I fell for that!  Ughhh.   

    1. fredwilson

      good point about the quipoll. should have done that

  75. hypermark

    One irony to the “upsell” aspect of 3D movies is that while it seemed on paper like a great way for the studios to make more money, I think that the effect has been the exact opposite.Any way you slice it, most movies don’t warrant a 30-40% ticket price increase (once the $5 3D fee is factored in).  By raising the cost of going to the movies without commensurately making the experience better, they’ve given consumers yet another reason NOT to go to movies. Put another way, between getting gauged at the concession stand, and the all too often occurrence of young rowdies disrupting movies, the added 3D hit just incentivizes people to spend more money on feeding their home theaters.

  76. Edoardo Piccolotto

    3D technology (and movies), has been implemented by Production Companies, just to try to fight piracy and keeping up the charm of the movie theater.  Indeed Movie theaters are finding themselves in hard times, because their customer base is decreasing, cause of ticket cost and the easy movie availability on Internet. To fight this tendency they need to offer to customers, a new and exclusive experience, that couldn’t be experienced elsewhere, in this case the 3D movies.  As cited before and on your post @fredwilson:disqus  , those movies can be seen by the user, only by using those uncomfortable glasses, or the image would be almost nonsense. For this reason some people stopped recording the movies during the show (by using cameras), thats because all that they can get is a picture that people can’t look comfortably on their not-3D computer screen. 

    1. fredwilson

      hmm. a conspiracy theory. i like it!

  77. BoochZilla

    Agreed on many levels. It seems like an early stage tech gimmick, not a complete technology.Also it is completely unnatural to force your eyes to focus and converge at the same point. In lay person’s terms: the headaches and dizzyness will most likely continue for more than just a few 3d moviegoers.

  78. Ben Apple

    3D movies are indeed quite the scam!

  79. Ray

    @domainregistry:disqus ..my neighbor’s aunt made $7,385 last month. she works on the internet and drives a Mercedes-Benz. All she did was get lucky and follow the information you can find here..cgx.me/oXGsh

  80. Nzubechukwu Ezudo

    I’m a 100% with you on this. My reasons are;The fundamental building block of movies are good old fashioned storytelling. Storytelling needs concentration and imagination of the viewer but not necessarily participation. It’s just a lot of work and discomfort wearing those glasses and in some cases they would do okay in enhancing the story (Movies for the younger audience whose imagination are not as enhanced as that of older folks).However i believe 3D is a lovely piece of advancement, but for sustained growth, i believe it’s targeted at the wrong. These are areas i believe 3D would be appropriate; 1.Virtual medical consultations 2. Online classrooms (as a piracy guard for illegally downloaded online classes {2D can be downloaded, while 3D version will be streamed}).These are my views though, and that’s how i would approach 3D in order to create value for customers. 

  81. paramendra

    So the emperor is naked? 🙂

  82. Mile

    I haven’t tryed it yet and maybe I’ll not, it doesn’t attract me either.

  83. Blogs9000

     here we can download racha movie songs free. Manisharama is the music director of racha movie and Sampath nandi is the director for the racha. producer is N.V.Prasad.http://racha-movie-songs-fr

  84. Mike Calder

    The only time in the last decade I felt like my theatre-going experience was worth the money was watching Avatar in 3D, when I felt completely immersed in the film.I understand that watching in 3D gives some people headaches or makes them uneasy (maybe you’re just too old?), and I agree that it’s mostly a gimmick, but there’s no doubt that it adds a new, meaningful, ‘dimension’ to the decision of seeing a film in theatres vs. simply downloading it at home.

  85. ErikSchwartz

    Ha.Talk about the utterly meaningless co-opting of a brand.Hybrid Digital Radio.

  86. fredwilson

    its interesting that you raise this. i got a new car this weekend and was listening to our local jazz radio station (WBGO) in HD and it sounded so great. i think HD is alive and well and pretty much in every car now.it was not a good investment though. i learned a lot from that one. the last money in will make all the money on it.

  87. LE

    Where are you getting that “HD Radio is dead”? Audi, Bentley, BMW, Cadillac, Ford, Hyundai, Jaguar, Kia, Land Rover, Lexus, Lincoln, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz, Mini, Porsche, Rolls Royce, Scion, Subaru, Tesla, Toyota, Volkswagen, and Volvo have all extended their commitments to the technology with new announcements, a mix of new vehicle launches, broader application, new services and even standardization.http://www.ibiquity.com/pre

  88. awaldstein

    Thanks John.I’m a bit out of the current loop but at least the second one doesn’t sound right.The lens, the” Z” screen, simply slips down in front of the projector for a 3D movie. I’ll ping a buddy and see if I can get some more details on this.