Oh it will. It's gotta run its course though.

The whole Michael Jackson thing is gonna run until his death stops producing dollars which it isn't. He's one of the top earning celebrities of all time after death.

I have no problem with making new movies in 3D (I mean, we've had stereo since like forever, so why not?) but the thought of converting older films to 3D disturbs me. Remember colorization? Remember how well that worked out? Yeah... I can see this producing really awkward, Uncanny Valley-looking crap.

>>754

>Oh it will. It's gotta run its course though.

Just like the last time. This is only a fad because the movie-going public isn't old enough to remember how the last time sucked.

>>757

Admittedly the 3D now is better than the 3D then, but I agree that it's probably a passing fad. Everyone raving about how 3D is going to be the next revolution in movies to the point that all regular glasses-lenses will be designed to turn into 3D lenses in the movie theater is a nutbar.

3D will never be the standard, basically because not everyone can watch it. There's a small but still notable portion of the public that gets motion sick or headaches from it. Almost no one gets that from a regular movie. Everyone can go to a regular movie, not everyone can go to a 3D movie. And 3D isn't going to start making people who just didn't go to movies suddenly go to them to make up for it.

>>758
not to mention the demographic of people who can only see out of one eye.

>>758
I feel the main problem with movies made for 3d is just that, they're MADE for 3d. Like the 3rd Friday the 13th most of what's going to happen is a bunch of shit going towards the camera and little else. (Goddammitv SpyKids3D....)

Now if more 3D movies were like My Bloody Valentine 3D this wouldn't be an issue, a sight ploy here and there but nothing screaming "YOU SHOULD BE WEARING 3D GLASSES!". Much better for DVD releases and ppl like me who don't watch 3D movies

>>760

Speaking of old 3D movies, I wonder if it's easier or harder to translate them to "new" 3D?

>>761
you mean like coding on DVDs or legitimate film alteration

Once people start making serious movies in 3D, everyone will be hailing 3D like it's the biggest motherfucking best thing since sliced bread.

Kind of reminds of how the playstation made video games cool because they allowed a bunch of developers to create some grown up software for it.

>>761

Depends on what form they're in. I would hope they were smart enough to save the untinted masters, which of course they could just digitize and encode in whatever form they use these days. The older, black-and-white ones should be easy as well; just make two copies, run one through a red filter and the other through a cyan one, then re-untint them both. Child's play.

It's when we have full-color, red-cyan films and no masters that we run into issues because each channel has already lost some critical color information and will lose even more when you run it through the filter. I guess they'd have to make corrections manually, and end up with something that looks like a colorized black-and-white film. But it'll probably still look better than it did when you had to watch it through tinted glasses.

http://www.411mania.com/movies/news/133639/James-Cameron-and-Michael-Bay-Hate-3D-Conversion.htm

>>782

The irony, it burns!

The 3D glasses do nothing!

http://twitter.com/ebertchicago/statuses/11000639962

Ebert speaks the truth.

I like how they get all butthurt about it. James Cameron accusing Hollywood of just trying to make more money...lolwut? This coming from a guy that just made a movie in 3D that charged extra to see it that way?

Oh and I'm still waiting for Cameron to donate his profits to the natives.

>>785

The thing is, Cameron actually filmed his movie in 3D; what he and Bay are railing against is the conversion of films shot in 2D into 3D films just to try and capitalize on the new 3D craze.

>>786

Maybe, but its hard to deny that Avatar is probably to blame for this fad.

>>787

Actually, it probably started with Beowulf. Though yes, Avatar is probably responsible for it being slapped on damn near EVERYTHING, but stuff like Beowulf and Coraline were already doing it before Avatar was crapped onto the screens.

>>788

Ah, but it hasn't really caught on before now.

Then again, perhaps My Bloody Valentine is the real culprit. I shook my head when I heard it was in 3D, wondering to myself why the hell the producers thought that archaic gimmick would.

Apparently, it has.

>>786

Sure, but who cares? They're complaining about something meaningless. If it's truly not as good as being filmed in 3D, then people will note the difference with their wallets.

>>790

It's the wallet-vote that predicates the existence of organizations like the MPAA and the RIAA.

Remember, Hollywood wants your money, and it doesn't particularly care about how it gets it.

>>791

Yup rightfully so. Just don't be a tard and buy the snake oil.

Guess what? Ticket prices are going up by $1-$2 Friday.

Feel free to blame Avatar because of the huge 3D trend making studios pay more.

>>799

Must mean concessions are going to go up $4-$5.

>>800

Popcorn can be $8 a bag for all I care, that shit's delicious. D:

>>805
eh, I always just go to the dollar store and buy a box of candy to sneak in.

Ticket prices cover the cost of the film.
Concessions cover the cost of having employees.
Movie theaters rent the film from the studios to show, then have to return them after a set period of time (I don't know the precise details of the contract). To cover that cost, they hope the movie does real well and sells lots of tickets, otherwise the theater is losing money. To pay for the workers to be there to clean up after people who leave their shit in the theaters, as well as general maintenance, they have to charge the prices they do on concessions (popcorn seeds, oil, lard, and soda syrup is really cheap, btw)