3-D movies are already heading for the exit.

[Drewbacca]

I don't particularly care about 3D enough to celebrate its death. I just never used it.

[Frogacuda]

Did you even read the Slate article that started this thread?



Toy Story 3 might have "made bank" by your standards, but not by real world how money works standards. If they had only done the 2D version they would have made a larger profit margin.

I'm curious as to how they rationalize this as a loss when we're talking about an animated movie. If slightly less than half you audience is paying a premium price to see you movie, I would see that as a gain.

When we're talking about an animated movie, producing it in 3D is basically free. When we're talking about a live action movie, there are added production costs to make it 3D and I could see someone saying that the premium ticket cost adds up to less than the added production cost, but that's just not the case with an animated movie.

[Shin Johnpv]

When we're talking about an animated movie, producing it in 3D is basically free.

It's not though. While it is yes cheaper than converting a 2D shot live action movie to 3D, there is still a cost associated with mastering an animated movie in 3D. Stereoscopic compositing can be expensive and labor intensive, it also at least doubles the cost of rendering the film. Which yes does have a cost associated to it. Plus most anmation studios that do stereo 3d releases will bring on folks who just work on the stereo 3D aspects of the film, which adds to the cost. Which yeah not as high as taking a 2D shot live action movie and turning it into 3D, but there's still a cost associated with it.

[Space Pirate Roberts]

And that's not even getting into distribution and exhibition costs.

[Frogacuda]

It's not though. While it is yes cheaper than converting a 2D shot live action movie to 3D, there is still a cost associated with mastering an animated movie in 3D. Stereoscopic compositing can be expensive and labor intensive, it also at least doubles the cost of rendering the film. Which yes does have a cost associated to it. Plus most anmation studios that do stereo 3d releases will bring on folks who just work on the stereo 3D aspects of the film, which adds to the cost. Which yeah not as high as taking a 2D shot live action movie and turning it into 3D, but there's still a cost associated with it.

Yeah, I meant to put an asterisk in there, I know there's a cost, but even compared to filming natively in 3D (at least with modern standards), I'd imagine it's a lot less and it doesn't seem like that's what they're weighing the profits against.

[Shin Johnpv]

Doing an animated movie in 3D isn't that much cheaper than doing a live action movie shot in 3D. So your assumptions are wrong, there's a very significant cost in even making an animated movie stereoscopic 3D.

[YellerDog]

Same amount of compositing and fine-tuning either way.

[A Robot Bit Me]

It Not a single one made me say OMG THIS IS SO AWESOME!. But none of them made me say THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER HAD IT BEEN 2D.

Really? Maybe it's my threater, but the 3D movies I've seen have had poor picture quality and dark, muted color.

[Some Stupid Japanese Name]

Everyone cries about how dark they are, but it doesn't really bother me. I've never experienced a 3D movie that was Alien Vs Predator Requiem or Pathfinder dark.

[Dolemite]

Everyone cries about how dark they are, but it doesn't really bother me. I've never experienced a 3D movie that was Alien Vs Predator Requiem or Pathfinder dark.

Me either. Darkness has never been a complaint I've had about 3D movies. The worthless, barely-existent 3D effect shoehorned in only to jack up ticket prices is what I complain about.