AfterDawn: Tech news

Analyst: World will tire of 3D films very soon

Written by Andre Yoskowitz (Google+) @ 29 Jun 2011 14:44 User comments (16)

Analyst: World will tire of 3D films very soon One analyst is very bearish on the future prospects of 3D movies.
Analyst Richard Greenfield of BTIG has sent a note to clients this week, urging them to begin to sell any shares they may have in RealD, the company behind the 3D tech seen in most movie theaters.

Greenfield believes that RealD's projection of "75 percent of movies in theaters being 3D" is completely "disconnected from reality" and impossible.

The analyst believes that "consumers will increasingly reject 3D" and ticket sales will fall.

A main problem Greenfield sees with 3D films is how dim they are, especially when adding in special glasses. It has even been reported that Paramount asked exhibitors to brighten up their projectors for Transformers 3, but given that the request will cost more for exhibitors, it is doubtful we will see brighter 3D movies anytime soon.

Tags: 3D RealD
Previous Next  

16 user comments

129.6.2011 14:53

3D has always been very gimmicky and short lasting.
No one will really be shocked when it fades away again.

229.6.2011 15:14

At least someone in the industry sees it.

329.6.2011 15:14

The solution is to make the technology better. The dim picture and too low framerate makes the movie seem jerky in some cases. Make the picture brightness same as 2D and CHARGE the same price. It's totally outrageous that some of the new 3D films are up to 13 euros.

Plus: make the 3D matter. Some of these films its just slapped on with couple of lame CG effects to justify the higher price. Nobody wants to see Schindler's List in 3D. What extra value would it add...

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 29 Jun 2011 @ 15:16

429.6.2011 17:54

Agreed with RichardvonBacon. It has potential, but it's just a cash grab at the moment, adding almost no value in most cases.

529.6.2011 22:54

I was tired of it before it even started, only some movies are made to be good on dvd. Not all movies should be produced for 3D.



630.6.2011 0:40

I don't think 3D will ever be viable in the long-term until active shutter technology/glasses are done away with, and 3D effects like those in the movie Minority Report are invented. As it stands now, "3D" technology looks like a high-tech pop-up book, with flat images that simply appear at different depths.

730.6.2011 4:08

i suspect that the majority of the people who are against 3D, simply cant afford to buy a decent TV.

i have a top of the range panasonic viera 3D tv, and i think its superb.

there are crap 3D tvs available, then there are good ones. pay the money for a decent tv and youll get good 3D results.

i admit the glasses arent great, but while sitting in your own home, who sees you anyway?

My TV was the best 1800 ive spend in a long time

830.6.2011 4:20

Originally posted by djdave01:
i suspect that the majority of the people who are against 3D, simply cant afford to buy a decent TV.

i have a top of the range panasonic viera 3D tv, and i think its superb.

there are crap 3D tvs available, then there are good ones. pay the money for a decent tv and youll get good 3D results.

i admit the glasses arent great, but while sitting in your own home, who sees you anyway?

My TV was the best 1800 ive spend in a long time
I own Samsung's flagship 2011 55" LED model (55D8000), and the 3D is superb. Unfortunately, active shutter tech. gives me massive headaches (literally), so it's difficult for me to sit through an entire movie. I'm glad I didn't purchase the TV for its 3D capability. Bottom line is that it's not about being able to afford it or not (let's not be elitist), it's a matter of it being a fad that hasn't really evolved much technologically speaking in the past decade or so.

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one"

-George Bernard Shaw

930.6.2011 4:30

Originally posted by jackalguy:
Originally posted by djdave01:
i suspect that the majority of the people who are against 3D, simply cant afford to buy a decent TV.

i have a top of the range panasonic viera 3D tv, and i think its superb.

there are crap 3D tvs available, then there are good ones. pay the money for a decent tv and youll get good 3D results.

i admit the glasses arent great, but while sitting in your own home, who sees you anyway?

My TV was the best 1800 ive spend in a long time
I own Samsung's flagship 2011 55" LED model (55D8000), and the 3D is superb. Unfortunately, active shutter tech. gives me massive headaches (literally), so it's difficult for me to sit through an entire movie. I'm glad I didn't purchase the TV for its 3D capability. Bottom line is that it's not about being able to afford it or not (let's not be elitist), it's a matter of it being a fad that hasn't really evolved much technologically speaking in the past decade or so.
Its unfortunate that you , and some other people, get headaches with 3D tv's. it seems to happen with the nintendo 3DS too.

I dont seem to have that problem, ive watched 2 films & a football game in the same day with no issues.

I agree that the technology hasnt really evolved, but im more than happy with it as it is. Hopefully one day you wont need 3D glasses, but i suspect thats a few years away yet.

101.7.2011 12:05

Originally posted by djdave01:
i suspect that the majority of the people who are against 3D, simply cant afford to buy a decent TV.
Is that the reason?? Thanks for knowing "the majority of the people" better than they know themselves. ;)

Originally posted by djdave01:
i have a top of the range panasonic viera 3D tv, and i think its superb.
That's how I feel about my amazing Samsung HDTV. And that's all i need and care for.


Originally posted by djdave01:
i admit the glasses arent great, but while sitting in your own home, who sees you anyway?
Again with the assumptions, although this time indirect. According to you, the only reason why the glasses suck is b/c i'm worried about others seeing me. It couldn't possibly be that I don't wear glasses or sunglasses and don't want to wear 3D glasses just to watch tv. ;)


Some people can like it. And some people can not. Simple as that.

111.7.2011 15:49

Originally posted by tripple6:
Originally posted by djdave01:
i suspect that the majority of the people who are against 3D, simply cant afford to buy a decent TV.
Is that the reason?? Thanks for knowing "the majority of the people" better than they know themselves. ;)

Originally posted by djdave01:
i have a top of the range panasonic viera 3D tv, and i think its superb.
That's how I feel about my amazing Samsung HDTV. And that's all i need and care for.


Originally posted by djdave01:
i admit the glasses arent great, but while sitting in your own home, who sees you anyway?
Again with the assumptions, although this time indirect. According to you, the only reason why the glasses suck is b/c i'm worried about others seeing me. It couldn't possibly be that I don't wear glasses or sunglasses and don't want to wear 3D glasses just to watch tv. ;)


Some people can like it. And some people can not. Simple as that.




121.7.2011 19:02

3D TV is novelty left over from the 1950's, which didn't last long then. Anyone from that era remember wearing the paper blue and red glasses that wouldn't stay on? I'd rather have a 100 inch OLED TV on my media room wall!

132.7.2011 13:23

SInce I have a realtively strong glasses Rx, not only does 3D tend to give me headaches, I also get very little actual 3D effect, except when it's grossly exaggerated, such as when something pops "out of the screen", into your virtual lap. Definitely NOT worth beans to me.

142.7.2011 18:50

the solution is to stop charging a surcharge.

155.7.2011 16:03

When the color came to the movies ,The expert told the same and they said it with the first movie with sound ,with no extra charge and no grasses, few years from today almost all movies will be 3D

165.7.2011 21:23

My opinion......3D is a gimmick which rears it's ugly head once every decade.

For your average effects-laden silly nonsense it's ok (to a point) but it simply is not essential to good story telling.

In fact, with the way Hollywood can be relied upon to constantly try to 'wow' viewers it is often intrusive & annoying.

The fact that this time out (despite looking better than ever - in a few hugely budgeted for effects films) the fad is drawing to a close does not surprise me in the slightest.

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive