IMAX Admits 3D Sucks, Increasing 2D Offerings

[fatih yıkar]

I hope every movie theater accept that fact.

 

http://www.thewrap.com/imax-moving-away-3d-consumers-shown-strong-preference/

Foster cited the strong early performance of Christopher Nolan’s WWII drama “Dunkirk,” which was filmed on IMAX cameras and generated nearly a quarter of its box office gross from IMAX theaters its opening weekend.

 

And it was not shot in 3-D — unusual for IMAX’s recent tentpole releases, but something Foster said to expect a lot more of going forward.

 

“It’s worth noting ‘Dunkirk’ was showing exclusively in 2-D, which consumers have shown a strong preference for,” Foster said on the call.

“Dunkirk” grossed more than $50 million domesticcally after its July 21 opening — impressive for a period war movie that does not involve the United States.

“We’re looking forward to playing fewer 3-D versions of films and more 2-D versions,” Foster added, mentioning that Warner Bros. “Blade Runner 2049” will be shown in 2-D exclusively at IMAX theaters when it opens in October.

http://freebeacon.com/blog/imax-admits-3d-sucks-increasing-2d-offerings/

 

The giant-screen exhibitor on Wednesday said it will play more digital 2D versions of Hollywood movies domestically, given a "clear preference" from consumers for 2D in North America, according to Imax CEO Richard Gelfond.

 

Imax Entertainment CEO Greg Foster confirmed during an analyst call that his company will start playing fewer 3D versions of movies and more 2D versions. "The demand for 2D films is starting to exceed 3D in North America," Foster said.

For example, the domestic release of Bladerunner 2049 will be shown in Imax theaters only in 2D this fall.

 

https://www.themarysue.com/imax-3d-phase-out/

[Keith Walters]

My local cinema only occasionally shows 3-D, and it's been that way for about a year now. All the projectors have the capability, but it's seldom used.

[Tyler Purcell]

Here, most big movies are ONLY shown in 3D. The two best (digital) IMAX screens, rarely ever show 2D content at all.

 

I personally hope filmmakers stop spending millions converting 2D movies to 3D just so they can make more money.

 

I'm completely OK with a filmmaker who shoots and designs their entire movie for 3D, that's great and I will go see it. However, MOST filmmakers don't do that, 3D is an afterthought and it's rarely any good as a consequence.

 

3D didn't work in the 50's, it didn't work as a home medium either and it's failing at the box office. People just don't care for it because it makes the image look strange and foreign. Plus it complicates things for many people.

[Max Field]

This may be an unpopular opinion, but when I saw Amazing Spiderman 2 (Spiderman 5) in theaters, the moments without action featuring just close-up dialogue felt more intimate in 3D for some reason. Probably not worth the price of conversion but just my bit on it, have yet to hear from another party.

[Manu Delpech]

BWAH AHA AHAHAHA, thank the lord. Not a surprise for BR 2049, I can just imagine Deakins growing pale at the idea of it.

Edited July 28, 2017 by Manu Delpech

[Ravi Kiran]

What about 3D non-IMAX screenings? How are those doing? And isn't 3D doing well internationally?

 

3D does seem to be a studio imposition on films, rather than something that filmmakers themselves are into, with exceptions like James Cameron and Ang Lee. Frankly, I'm surprised that more filmmakers aren't excited about playing with it.

[Landon D. Parks]

3D, rather IMAX or RealD, sucks in my opinion. If your story is not good enough to draw people in, you need to rework the story.

[George Ebersole]

I think the question you have to ask yourself is this; "Do I really enjoy 3D films?" People here familiar with me have read my previous rants on 3D technology, but for those not in the know you go to films to see things and stories that you normally don't. If you're viewing the world in 3D everyday, then how does 3D technology enhance the movie going experience?

[Guest]

When 3D started it was intended as a gimmick. Oh no look a monster claw coming out of the screen, cool.

 

3D adds nothing to the cinematic experience.

 

I don't even think that IMAX, er excuse me "LIMAX" is needed for narrative films, there is a specialized type of film that works well for IMAX and that's what it should be used for. If you watch the world's first true IMAX movie in a real IMAX theatre, then you will know what I am talking about. That first IMAX movie was North Of Superior fyi, yes a Canadian film made in Northern Ontario.

 

R,

[George Ebersole]

When I saw Captain Eo down at Disneyland back in the 80s the 3D was kind of interesting, and much improved over the old blue and red glasses or green and red paper glasses technology. It was interesting and impressive for the kind of film that it was. And when I saw Avatar I thought the technology was again impressive.

 

But you really don't need it to enjoy a good film. An old scifi animated film that I enjoy is "Starchaser the Legend of Orin", which was released in 3D in the theatres. But the film holds up on its own as a simple scifi "Star Wars" adventure clone. It's not the greatest animated film in the world, and 3D might add something to that specific film, but I'm happy just to see it in regular 2D format.

 

I'm not sure that something like "The English Patient" or some other drama would benefit from 3D. And the same goes for any other film of any other genre.