3-D Revolution at movie theaters

im surprised no one has ever done a documentry about the evolution of 3d films and movie theaters for the 50’s to the wave in the 80’s onto today

Todays 3d is no gimmick…….Go see one first…Digital 3d is amazing……

Yes, the new 3D is much better than its predecessors which date back as early as the 1920’s, then called “Plasticon”. But whether or not 3D’s latest reincarnation will remain a novelty is a big question – and the zealouts that feel it will revolutionize the movie industry have not learned from the lessons of history.

Douglas Gomery writes about the 1950’s 3D in his book “Shared Pleasures” (1992): “The innovation of 3-D was over almost before it began. By mid-1954 it was clear that with all the expense involved with special attachments to projectors and glasses issued to patrons, the added revenues from 3-D never proved worth the investment”.

Currently it seems some people are willing to pay extra to experience 3D – many for the first time. But if every theatre had 3D capability, as Katzenberg would like to see, then the novelty of 3D will be gone and it will be business as usual.

No matter how good the 3D process, it is still a gimmick when it is attached only to bad films that stand no chance otherwise.

JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH, BOLT, MY BLOODY VALENTINE, CORALINE, THE JONAS BROTHERS, ICE AGE 3, FINAL DESTINATION IV, CLOUDY WITH A CHANCE OF MEATBALLS.

Audiences can already smell the desperation

Gimick or not, Digital 3D is the future. My only complaint is that the auditoriums they have are about 40' tops, not including your IMAX-lite installs at the AMCs. If you don’t have the bigger screen, you’re not really immersed into the movie. While many of the Digital 3D releases may have lacked somewhat, I think James Cameron’s Avatar will change people’s minds about the format. :) Who knows, it may be another Titanic-hit.

Like everything else it takes money …….. See attached from the London Financial Times

Theaters Halting Switch To Digital, Says IMAX Chief

3 February 2009 1:41 AM, PST

The conversion of movie theaters from film to digital projection “has virtually come to a halt,” IMAX CEO Rich Gelfond has told the London Financial Times. While studios and exhibitors have reached an agreement under which the theater owners would receive a “virtual print fee” for every film they run from digital media to cover the costs of the equipment, the economic slowdown has made it difficult for the exhibitors to borrow money. Gelfond, however, said IMAX plans to open 100 digital 3-D screens worldwide in 2009. The FT said that by next month, there will only be a total of 1,500 digital 3-D screens in the U.S., far fewer than the 5,000 that DreamWorks Animation had counted on for the release of Monsters vs. Aliens. Gelfond said that the movie will appear on 200 IMAX screens.

The last I heard it cost Universal over 10 million dollars to do ten minutes of JAWS before they abandoned the project.

“Gimick or not, Digital 3D is the future.”

How many times have we heard that one before! Here’s COMIN' AT YA,
WINGS OF COURAGE, CHICKEN LITTLE.

“In 1953 and 1954, 3-D was used for some very good films- including House of Wax, Kiss Me Kate, Inferno, Dial M for Murder, The Glass Web, Creature from the Black Lagoon, Hondo, Miss Sadie Thompson, etc.”

Which one of those films are you accusing of being good?

I’m a fan of 3-D, have been since the 1950’s when contrary to popular opinion when presented in the right way (dual projector polaroid with perfect projection) it was pretty damn good…and downright amazing for 1950’s technology. I’ve attended both of the more recent 3-D Festivals in Hollywood (where it was also presented in the right way) and thoroughly enjoyed re-visiting those 50’s 3-D classics and not so classics (who can forget “Robot Monster” and “Cat Women of the Moon”?) I’ve even seen a few of the recent animated 3-D digital productions as well as the live action “Journey to the Center of the Earth” and enjoyed them too. However for me 3-D remains a novelty to be experienced just once in a while. No way I would want to see every new flick, even the majority of new flicks in that process. If the industry goes bonkers with their 3-D mania I predict it will die just as quick death as the 1950’s version and the 1980’s version. People still don’t like to wear those damn glasses! If they are selective in what films are shot in 3-D and don’t go overboard well it may be around for a while. Only time will tell.

Digital 3d is far better than any other 3d.Bolt was a good kids movie that did not need 3d but was far better with it.3d this time is here to stay …..like it or not……

Lol….Times are a changing mostly for the better…….I dont have 3d in my theater but love to go to those who do…..

3D porn wow, now just add those squirting chairs from the disney attractions and you got yourself a great night at the movies

Don’t believe all the hype and spin from Katzenberg, Cameron and the folks at Real D.

When projected properly, 3-D movies of the 1950’s have greater depth, higher resolution and are generally much better quality than any stereoscopic productions of the past 40 years.

Of the 50 English language Polaroid 3-D features produced in the 1950’s, only 20% could be considered gimmicky with an excessive amount of objects thrown at the camera. That trend didn’t become prevalent until the 1970’s and 1980’s with films such as “Andy Warhol’s Frankenstein,” Comin' at Ya” and “Treasure of the Four Crowns.”

During the Golden Age of 3-D, talented directors and cinematographers such as John Alton, Raoul Walsh, Douglas Sirk, Roy Baker, George Sidney, William Cameron Menzies, Jack Arnold, Budd Boetticher, Charles Roscher, Hal Wallis, and Alfred Hitchcock utilized the stereo cinematography to create a dimensional window to the action on screen. This is not a new concept in motion pictures.

All this current ballyhoo that digital 3-D is “better than ever” is a lot of nonsense being spouted by people that have never seen a 3-D movie from the 1950’s properly presented. They should have gone to the two World 3-D Expo’s in Hollywood!

Digital is fine and I have no problem with it. It does eliminate the human factor/skill of presenting a quality 3-D presentation on 35mm film.

But don’t try to sell it as better than what was done 55 years ago. It’s not. The resolution is far less; the image is considerably dimmer, and the cinematography leaves much to be desired.

Having seen most of the ‘50s (and even '30s and '40s) titles, I must agree with Bob F. that the reputation of the 1950s 3-D films is grossly maligned by the press of today. As mentioned, a cross-section of the '50s titles is actually a far better representation of ANY films made in 1953, as opposed to today’s fare, which is mainly oriented towards kids (animated children’s films) or teenagers (your MY BLOODY VALENTINES, and so on). Whether you like films from 1953 or not, you cannot deny that films such as KISS ME KATE, DIAL ’M’ FOR MURDER, MISS SADIE THOMPSON, MONEY FROM HOME, CEASE FIRE and I, THE JURY were all prestigious pictures in their day.

Mr. Furmanek is also correct in that the image of modern 3-D is technically lower than the standards of the ‘50s 3-D, which utilized the full film resolution on two prints, rather than the digital files on the single-projector systems that have less-than-HD resolution, and surprisingly low light output.

The biggest obstacle that modern 3-D films have to overcome is for the producers to learn the rules of stereoscopic photography. FLY ME TO THE MOON 3D was a perfect example of “breaking the rules,” leading to headache and eye strain.

The lack of product, however, is what will doom the modern 3-D to failure. There is simply not enough product coming from studios to make a successful business model. A film a month isn’t going to cut it.

Here is the current slate for 2009 in 3-D:
Coraline (tomorrow)
Jonas Brothers: The 3-D Concert Experience (Feb. 27)
Monsters vs. Aliens (Mar. 27)
Battle For Terra (May 1)
Up (May 29)
Ice Age: Dawn Of The Dinosaurs (Jul. 1)
G-Force (Jul. 24)
Final Destination: Death Trap (Aug. 28)
Toy Story (reissue, Oct. 2)
A Christmas Carol (Nov. 6)
Avatar (Dec. 18)
The Princess and The Frog (Dec. 25)

You’re right Al, it is extremely subjective and I dis-agree with you. The 50 3-D movies of that period are on a par with all other studio product of the time.

KISS ME KATE opened flat at the Music Hall for technical reasons. They were concerned with the loss of seating on the extreme sides of the orchestra. However, it did open city-wide in 3-D on the Loew’s circuit just in time for Christmas.

You’re the first person I’ve ever heard describe KATE as “unbearable!”

13 GHOSTS wasn’t in 3-D. It utilized a “Ghost Viewer” with red and blue filters. Look through one filter and the ghosts disappear, and visa versa.

KISS ME KATE played every major engagement in 3-D, including neighborhood theaters. In fact, there was such a demand for 3-D bookings, Technicolor had to strike additional left/right prints!

For the facts about HONDO, check out:

http://3-dfilmpf.org/info.html

Oh, crap. I got the name wrong.

Mr. Furmanek is correct about KISS ME KATE. It played many theaters in 3-D during its initial run, and helped rejuvenate 3-D during the winter season of 1954, which included some of the titles I mentioned.

Whether you like the pictures or not, they were commercial successes— in 3-D— in their day.

Yeah, the FROM HERE TO ETERNITY playdate couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the fact that Columbia was pushing for an Oscar that year.

Al, judging from your posts, you seem to have a personal grudge against 3D films from that era, even though you haven’t seen most of the films in their stereoscopic format (can you see 3D?). Given the wide range of films that were made during that time, I find it hard to believe one could call the entire output “cheese.” You overlooked the fact that HOUSE OF WAX was one of the top grossers of the year.

Call January a dead month if you will, but the point is that most of the theaters were not only still playing 3D, they were advertising it, too. HONDO had a nice five-week run at the Paramount in 3-D, followed up by a 3-D booking on the RKO chain (31 theaters).

Do you have a source for the Variety article that states that bad movies were to blame for 3D’s diminish?

All studios push for Oscars every year. Loews decided the give the bigger hit FROM HERE TO ETERNITY that key Christmas playdate.

As you may know, Variety articles did not always carry writer’s credentials back then but here are a couple I have at hand that express the disdain already taking place, not only by audiences, but also exhibitors, in 1953-54:

November 6, 1953 MUSIC HALL FEARS KATE IN 3D

“Shady reputation of 3-D in the public’s mind is giving Radio City Music Hall, NY, a first-rate headache in trying to decide whether or not to present Metro’s “KISS ME KATE” in 3-D or flat.’
It goes on to explain the technical issues that add to the problem including the loss of about 300 seats.
“But if technical difficulties exist, the real stigma on 3-D is its past performance”
October 13, 1954 BECAUSE KIDS LIKE ‘EM 3-D LINGERS IN THE STICKS
This article refers to the fact that films made in 3-D are only playing to kids in small towns with larger towns opting out and showing them in 2-D.

Even if HOW TO MARRY A MILLIONAIRE was not a musical, of the top rental receipts of 1953 KISS ME KATE came in at an unimpressive number 31. At 2.5 million it was beaten by the musicals PETER PAN, HANS CHRISTIAN ANDERSON, GENTLEMEN PREFER BLONDES, MOULIN ROUGE, ROAD TO BALI, CALL ME MADAM, APRIL IN PARIS, THE BAND WAGON, and EASY TO LOVE.

To compare, HOUSE OF WAX, the biggest 3-D hit of the era made 5.5 million in receipts. THE ROBE alone made somewhere between 20-30 million that year. Cinemascope was the real revelation.

I do not have a grudge against 3D. WINGS OF COURAGE in 3D was an amazing flop. I do take issue with revisionist history and anyone trying to pass off a fiasco like 1950’s 3-D as some kind of success, when it was in reality a seriously failed experiment. A little research will confirm that.

Actually, Wings Of Courage has made back its $15 million budget though it took many years to do so. I’d cut it some slack considering that the film didn’t even hit 30 theatres at its widest.

All this 3D banter did induce a trip to the local cinema yesterday to see “Bolt” in “Disney Digital 3D”. I had seen it in 2D and enjoyed it. Here’s the skinny:

I shared the theatre with six other people, mostly young kids. Right from the start I was irritated by the polarized glasses. Ever wear sunglasses in a theatre? The dark glasses washed the brilliant color out of the image and seemed to highlight the poor digital resolution at times.

The depth of image was impressive at first, but after fifteen minutes of fidgeting with my sunglasses I had had enough and left the kiddies to enjoy what I consider to be the cinematic equivalent of my childhood Viewmaster.

I’m not old enough to have experienced the 3D of the 50’s but if it was anything like this, I can see why it died a quick death. I don’t believe that this technology will be well received by anybody over the age of thirty and since you can’t watch the movie without the “sunglasses” I can imagine a lot of parents wandering aimlessly through theatre lobbies everywhere.

I enjoyed “Dial M for Murder” in 35 mm (not 3D)when Warner Brothers showed it as one of the four 1950s films they showed as part of their 75th Anniv festival. It was a popular film at the time. Philadelphians can have extra pride in that Grace Kelly stars.

I know mature adults who enjoyed seeing “Polar Express” in 3D at the King of Prussia Imax. Both 3D and Imax are indeed gimmicks to attract people into the theaters, including young people who are too used to tiny screens they carry around. If the studios produce good 3D movies, they will do well. Let’s wish them luck!

Jack, the Variety article did NOT refer to any technical problems outside of Radio City but my main point here is that audiences were avoiding 3-D and these films were not big hits.

HONDO, which buried the fact that it was in 3-D in ads, is was mostly seen in 1954, only showed $4.1 in receipts and came in at number 16 that year. THE HIGH AND THE MIGHTY had done $5.2 that year in 2-D.

DIAL M FOR MURDER, (Hitchcock was ‘compelled’ by Warners to film it in 3-D) was not even advertised as being in that format in any New York run to avoid the stigma. It made $2.7 compared to $5.3 for REAR WINDOW that same year.

MONEY FROM HOME made $3.5, the same as THE CADDY in 2-D but less that LIVING IT UP $4.2 in 2-D that same year.

1953
The Robe $20-30
From Here to Eternity $12.5
Shane $8.0
How to Marry a Millionaire $7.5
Peter Pan $7.0
Hans Christian Anderson $6.0
House of Wax (3-D) $5.5
Mogambo $5.2
Gentlemen Prefer Blondes $5.1
Moulin Rouge $5.0
Salome $4.7
The Charge at Feather River (3-D) $3.6

1954
White Christmas $12.0
The Caine Mutiny $8.7
The Glenn Miller Story $7.0
The Egyptian $6.0
Rear Window $5.3
The High and the Mighty $5.2
Magnificent Obsession $5.0
Three Coins in the Fountain $5.0
Seven Brides For Seven Brothers $4.7
Desiree $4.5

My point is that the whole history of the 3-D in the 50’s lived and died in one year and was killed by audience rejection. Whether it was head-ache inducing sync or bad films remains a matter of opinion. I was a theatre manager during the COMIN’ AT YA! era and gave out many refunds to unhappy patrons. You might argue we have come a long way but the last HARRY POTTER gave me a headache after only ten minutes of IMAX 3-D.

If Cinemascope and Cinerama had novelty blockbusters to lead with why didn’t the 3-D ever produce one?

If you add all the receipts for every 3-D film from BWANA DEVIL to HONDO you still get less than $30 million.

View link

Unfortunately, if you adjust for inflation on that same site you will find HOUSE OF WAX is still as good as it gets.