So...there was a debate about 3D on "The John Campea Show" a day or two ago (depending on when this goes up) that I just KNEW I would have to comment on for this blog! It concerned a question sent in by a viewer who was upset that his local theater was showing the 3D version of "Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker" in coveted earlier time slots, where as his preferred choice of 2D was being shown at inconvenient times like 1:45am (I personally think he's lucky; I have the exact opposite problem). This resulted in Campea going into one of his famous rants about how no one likes the 3D format, how it needs to die, and that no one wants to see 3D (while at the same time admitting some 15% of people do...oddly enough). The discussion was then turned over to Robert Burnett who had some unique insights of the format (being a fan himself) and Erin Cummings, who admitted to being burned by 3D but open to learning more about the process itself.
Overall, it was a great discussion from everyone all around, and it's certainly worth talking about here. If you want to watch the whole segment (and I strongly recommend you do) I have embedded the video below...
For those who might not have time, I'll summarize the points made by all three individuals the best I can and give my response to the points made in the order of appearance (though I also think watching the video will be faster than reading this but, eh, if you want to help me feel like my work is being appreciated... ^_^;).
John Campea
Out of the three, Campea is by far the most vocal about his hate for 3D. This is unsurprising because he sees 3D not as a means to tell a story but as a way to gouge customers for extra money at the box office (which, to be fair, is sometimes the case). He strongly condemns the theaters who are "forcing people" to see "Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker" in the 3D format as people would much rather see it in 2D. He uses a poll he set up on his Twitter account as support for his argument, as from a total of over 2,400 responses, 89% percent said they would prefer to see the film in 2D (Editor's note: As of this writing the poll has over 6,500 responses and the number of '2D preferred' shrinks slightly to 87%). He claims that this means that theaters should only devote about 15% of their screen time to 3D movies (a fair argument, I will admit). However they instead choose to price gouge their customers for a format they don't like, have never liked, and don't want to see. He then goes into a huge rant about how no one likes 3D and it needs to die (and yesterday, if he had it his way). Campea also makes some points about theaters making a bad movie experience with too many previews that I am almost 100% in agreement with, but it's not important to the topic of this blog (another reason to watch the whole video).
My Take
I love John Campea! He's my favorite person in the world to disagree with! While there is a good portion of the time I agree with what he has to say, when I disagree with him it is both frustrating and fun to watch someone who is so well versed in movies giving a perfectly plausible argument that I ultimately disagree with, but I can't help respect. If we were sparring vocally with each other in the same room, he'd be my Siskel: Someone I would fight like hell with to prove wrong, but ultimately not take it so seriously we wouldn't shake hands after our sparring match and say "well done, sir!"
That out of the way...boy does he $%^# up his own argument in more ways than one this time.
First off, we have him complaining that theaters are price gouging customers on 3D and forcing them to see a version of the movie they don't want to see. Well, as someone who DOES prefer to watch 3D (and already has his "Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker" IMAX 3D ticket in hand) it sometimes feels like I'm part of the small group that gets shafted all the time just because the version I want to see isn't as popular. When I got my ticket for the movie, I had ONE show time to pick if I wanted to see it in IMAX 3D (my preferred format)! The fact that it is at 4:15pm doesn't mean they are forcing people to see a version of the film they don't want to, it just means they are providing that 15% capacity rule to the people who want to see it as a reasonable time. Also, as someone who DOES prefer the 3D format, it's interesting that he doesn't stand up for my desire to see the 3D version at a reasonable time (thus forcing me to see "Avengers: Endgame" in IMAX 3D at the 'ripe' time of 11:45pm...yay...). He does admit that this isn't every theater in the world though, so I will give him that. What about his complaint that theaters are forcing 3D on people with more prime show times though? Well, I decided to look up the AMC Burbank 16 show times (a theater we both LOVE by the way) and...
...well, on preview night, there appears to be a lot more 2D showings than 3D showings (and there are a couple of 2D show times that are almost sold out, confirming that Campea is likely right about there being more demand for those showings). However, what about the premium screenings?
In this case we have a rare (I want to stress that point) case in which ALL the IMAX screenings that night are in 3D! In contrast, all the Dolby screenings are in 2D (even though they are perfectly capable of projecting some excellent 3D images). So in this case there is a 50% choice between the two, and if you are a fan of 2D and want to see the movie on preview night and those Dolby premium screenings are sold out...well, I guess you're forced (sorry, couldn't resist) to see the film in IMAX 3D or a standard screen. On the positive side, IMAX 3D almost never costs more money than a IMAX 2D screening (those surcharges are typically for regular screens, and when IMAX does charge more, it's usually by only $1). Still, this is more 3D on opening night than we usually get, so does this add some credence to the complaint that theaters are forcing 3D on 'Star Wars' fans here? What does Friday (the actual opening day) look like?
Well, well, well...it appears on opening day there is only one IMAX 3D show time. While there ARE more 3D screenings of "Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker" than usual, the 2D show times still easily outnumber the 3D screenings (particularly in Dolby)! As more times are announced, I bet you those screenings will be 2D, meaning that there will be a healthy balance. I will admit that the added amount of 3D screens might come off as "price gouging" in Campea's eyes, but seeing as that the previous 'Star Wars' films (with "Solo" being the exception) were all EXCELLENT in 3D and made those movies better on a visual level, it's difficult to determine if this is the theater 'price gouging' as he says, or whether there is simply more demand to see a movie like "Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker" in 3D (movies with flight and water are especially helped by the 3D format). Either way, there appears to be a good balance here and there are still FAR more 2D screenings than 3D screenings!
For Campea one IMAX 3D screening may be too much in his eyes, because despite the fact that he admits by his own poll the theaters should be serving 10%-15% of their screens with 3D, he then goes on one of his famous rants about how no one likes 3D, no one wants to see "Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker" in 3D, and that the format needs to die already. Um...weren't you just saying there were 10%-15% of people who LIKE 3D movies?! Doesn't that suggest that maybe 3D shouldn't go away per se, but rather change with the specific demand (his co-host Erin has an interesting idea that we'll discuss in a minute)? 10%-15% may not sound like a lot, but to an industry that sells I don't know how many millions of tickets a year (particularly to movies like this), that's a LOT of people you are saying doesn't matter! That's also a LOT of money being left on the table!
Sure, not having the choice for 3D at all doesn't mean people will stop going to movies, but that is still a substantial amount of people who want to pay for them none-the-less, and so the format doesn't need to die, it simply needs to evolve or change focus. Also...I do want to throw in one more thing before we move on to Burnett. This wasn't specifically brought up during the segment, but I want to bring it up anyway. Campea has been commenting on the whole 'Martin Scorsese vs Marvel' situation (and has been one of the more fair commentators on the subject). When Scorsese first made his comments about Marvel movies, he said he didn't watch them. Sure, he tried to watch them, but they just weren't for him. Campea (in a much more respectful tone than he gave to 3D fans) suggested that while Scorsese was a god amongst film makers, as someone who didn't watch Marvel movies, maybe he wasn't technically qualified to be making comments on them (saying they aren't cinema, they are more like amusement park rides, etc, etc).
Personally, John, I would like to humbly suggest (as someone who is not as big as you and will NEVER be watched/read as much as you) that maybe you aren't qualified to be making comments on 3D as a viable format/business? After all, you don't watch them. You have no idea if these movies would be helped or hurt by being in 3D. You really don't see how good the format can and how much better it's gotten ("Alita: Battle Angel," "Gemini Man," "Mad Max: Fury Road"). For that matter...to my knowledge, you don't own a theater. You don't know how many tickets to 3D films are sold in general. I don't think your Twitter poll (being as limited in scope as it is) gives you the right to say 3D needs to die because no one wants it. If that were TRULY the case, then no one would be buying tickets at all, and the theaters wouldn't show them period! The fact that IMAX made a big deal about going '2D only' (and I've written extensively about that) yet still manages to squeak in some 3D showings suggest that there IS an audience for them! It suggests that people DO enjoy them!
And as someone who admits to not watching them, and (again, to my knowledge) doesn't own a theater, I would like to humbly suggest you aren't qualified to be making comments about this particular subject. On a side note, I too get to go to critic screenings sometimes, and in most cases there appear to be the choice of 3D or 2D (particularly with Marvel movies), and there have been a couple times ("Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.2" and "Gemini Man" come to mind) where there were people actively picking the 3D version over the 2D version, so it's not like critics who like 3D don't exist. Personally, I think it just depends on the movie and whether or not the critic wants to see that particular one in 3D. That's just me though. Alright, let's move on to Robert.
Robert Burnett
Of the three, Robert Burnett is the biggest fan of 3D. He admits to owning a 3D TV and projector (if I heard correctly) and imports many 3D films from Europe (like many of us do). He is, however, very critical of the theatrical 3D experience and says it needs to die, but for very different reasons than Campea. Instead of blaming the format itself as being the problem, he believes the problem is that for years it has been projected poorly by theaters who want to save money on bulbs (long story, but read up on it here). He mentions that "Avatar" is the only theatrical 3D experience that was met with overwhelming positive reception because James Cameron demanded that theaters project it a certain way (and left instructions on how to do it). Otherwise he claims 3D screenings are usually dim, dark, and theaters have been too slow to address the issue.
By not addressing the issue for so many years, it has burnt out too many people who will never give it another chance ("done in by our own greed" as he so excellently puts it). He claims that home 3D is a far superior experience and prefers to wait until he can watch it at home (while he laments on the fact that 3D TV's are no longer being made). He says the only 3D screenings he trusts now are IMAX 3D with laser projection. Otherwise...he skips it. The risk of a sub-par display is too great these days. Taking all this into account, he feels there is no saving the theatrical 3D market at this point, and it's probably best to let it pass by and save it for Europe and Asia who are doing it properly. Oddly enough, he doesn't comment on the fact that even in Campea's poll, there are 10%-15% of audiences who still see 3D.
My Take
With all due respect to Campea, Robert Burnett is my favorite member on the show. He is incredibly smart, very insightful, and I think he does a good job at looking at the other side of issues and explaining them in a ways that is understandable to everyone (not that Campea doesn't do that as well, but...Burnett's just a little bit better at it). I think he and Campea work great with one another and I am more than happy that he is a semi-regular on the show. In contrast to Campea, Burnett IS a fan of 3D! I appreciate this because it kept the conversation from being too one sided. And yes, I actually agree with him to a certain extent. As a 3D fan myself, I am VERY particular about where I see my 3D movies and what screens I see them on! I prefer IMAX and now that I've seen 3D in laser their projection with "Ne Zha" I am even more sold that this is the best way to experience it. Beyond that, Cinemark XD is a good screen. AMC PRIME actually has consistently great 3D projection, and should always be picked over a regular 3D screen.
Dolby has great 3D, but I haven't seen them do a 3D film in a LOOOOONNNNG time (so long in fact that the last time I saw one in the format was "Inside Out" all the way back in 2015)!!! If given a regular screen AMC is better than most. Regal is the worst. Don't know why, but they are. If you are in Orange County, Starlight 4 Star Cinema does great 3D when they decide to do it at all. I think I got off topic there for a bit...well, the point is there ARE great places to see 3D! However, the fact that I am surrounded by almost a hundred theaters within 60 miles and limit myself to less than a dozen of them to see a 3D movie speaks volumes about the quality of most 3D screenings. And Burnett is right when he says this problem has gone on for far too long and has ruined the perception of 3D. I don't know if I agree with burning the whole thing to ground, but there is a LOT of work to do if it is to turn around and survive!
I personally think there is something there to save, but do theaters want to put in the effort? I'm not sure if they do. We know the TV market isn't interested in trying again until glasses free TV's become a reality. But people keep asking about it, which means someone clearly loves it. I think Burnett went a little extreme that it was too late to save the format, but he was spot on about pretty much everything else (and even with the one thing I disagree with I admit it will take a lot of work to turn around). Finally, co-host Erin Cummings gives her two cents. It's the briefest, but it also contains the best "ah ha" moment in the entire segment.
Erin Cummings
Oh the three, Erin Cummings is the most indifferent. She claims to have been burnt by bad 3D screenings one too many times to want to give it a serious go again. After hearing about Robert's complaints she does wonder out loud if a movie theater that is designed specifically for the niche market of 3D would be better (because they would - in theory - optimize ALL their showings to be the best). She ends with comments about how she doesn't need things flying around her all the time (the joke too graphic to reprint here), but does admit that she enjoys the five minute rides at Disneyland (she just doesn't want that for two hours).
My Take
From the perspective as a casual viewer, I hear comments like Erin's a LOT! Been burnt too many times, 3D tickets cost too much money, fine for theme parks but not more than that, all the usual bullet points. Funny enough though, she makes the best suggestion about having 3D exclusive theaters whose reputation on great 3D makes a lot of sense in more ways than one. If there was a theater house that specialized in quality 3D and didn't cost much more than a regular ticket, you would be killing two birds with one stone. First of all, a 3D dedicated theater would be where that small but dedicated 3D crowd could go and see their movies, freeing up the average theater to not have 3D showings at all. Since they would be 3D only, they would make sure that their screenings would be of the highest quality, meaning people would be walking away with mostly good experiences (and likely to recommend it to their friends).
So these theaters would be filling a niche, freeing up the AMC and Regal theaters to not have to deal with the format in the near future, AND the reputation of 3D could slowly be built up again! Sounds like a win-win situation all around! Now, who would run these theaters? I don't know. It's a thought experiment right now, so give me a break! All joking aside, she does admit she liked "Avatar" and some of the theme park attractions. I think those comments backs up Burnett's points because that movie and those attractions WERE properly projected for the best possible experience! Most movies are not, which is one of the major problems with 3D today. Whether she realized it or not, she made a strong case for keeping 3D, but doing it right by the audiences. Also, she made a comment at one point she needed to read up more on how 3D works. Well...I may not have the most technical blog (and without an editor the occasional spelling error occurs), but I can point in her the right direction if she wants to see some great 3D experiences and movies (shameless plug, I know).
In Conclusion
Phew...THAT was a lot to unpack, right?! I have to say, it was a VERY interesting 14 minutes! I obviously sided with Burnett the most, but Campea and Cummings made great points as well. It was a big reminder of why I love this show so much! Either way, these are my thoughts on what was said. Why do all of you think? Is there a viewpoint you agree with more than the others? Leave your comments below and keep an eye on this space for more 3D commentary! Also, whatever format you see "Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker" in, hopefully it is a good movie that we all can enjoy! And live long and prosper. Oh, wait, that's the OTHER sci-fi series people gripe about online. Um...may the force be with you, always!
Yeah...nailed it! ^_^;
Overall, it was a great discussion from everyone all around, and it's certainly worth talking about here. If you want to watch the whole segment (and I strongly recommend you do) I have embedded the video below...
For those who might not have time, I'll summarize the points made by all three individuals the best I can and give my response to the points made in the order of appearance (though I also think watching the video will be faster than reading this but, eh, if you want to help me feel like my work is being appreciated... ^_^;).
John Campea
Out of the three, Campea is by far the most vocal about his hate for 3D. This is unsurprising because he sees 3D not as a means to tell a story but as a way to gouge customers for extra money at the box office (which, to be fair, is sometimes the case). He strongly condemns the theaters who are "forcing people" to see "Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker" in the 3D format as people would much rather see it in 2D. He uses a poll he set up on his Twitter account as support for his argument, as from a total of over 2,400 responses, 89% percent said they would prefer to see the film in 2D (Editor's note: As of this writing the poll has over 6,500 responses and the number of '2D preferred' shrinks slightly to 87%). He claims that this means that theaters should only devote about 15% of their screen time to 3D movies (a fair argument, I will admit). However they instead choose to price gouge their customers for a format they don't like, have never liked, and don't want to see. He then goes into a huge rant about how no one likes 3D and it needs to die (and yesterday, if he had it his way). Campea also makes some points about theaters making a bad movie experience with too many previews that I am almost 100% in agreement with, but it's not important to the topic of this blog (another reason to watch the whole video).
My Take
I love John Campea! He's my favorite person in the world to disagree with! While there is a good portion of the time I agree with what he has to say, when I disagree with him it is both frustrating and fun to watch someone who is so well versed in movies giving a perfectly plausible argument that I ultimately disagree with, but I can't help respect. If we were sparring vocally with each other in the same room, he'd be my Siskel: Someone I would fight like hell with to prove wrong, but ultimately not take it so seriously we wouldn't shake hands after our sparring match and say "well done, sir!"
That out of the way...boy does he $%^# up his own argument in more ways than one this time.
First off, we have him complaining that theaters are price gouging customers on 3D and forcing them to see a version of the movie they don't want to see. Well, as someone who DOES prefer to watch 3D (and already has his "Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker" IMAX 3D ticket in hand) it sometimes feels like I'm part of the small group that gets shafted all the time just because the version I want to see isn't as popular. When I got my ticket for the movie, I had ONE show time to pick if I wanted to see it in IMAX 3D (my preferred format)! The fact that it is at 4:15pm doesn't mean they are forcing people to see a version of the film they don't want to, it just means they are providing that 15% capacity rule to the people who want to see it as a reasonable time. Also, as someone who DOES prefer the 3D format, it's interesting that he doesn't stand up for my desire to see the 3D version at a reasonable time (thus forcing me to see "Avengers: Endgame" in IMAX 3D at the 'ripe' time of 11:45pm...yay...). He does admit that this isn't every theater in the world though, so I will give him that. What about his complaint that theaters are forcing 3D on people with more prime show times though? Well, I decided to look up the AMC Burbank 16 show times (a theater we both LOVE by the way) and...
...well, on preview night, there appears to be a lot more 2D showings than 3D showings (and there are a couple of 2D show times that are almost sold out, confirming that Campea is likely right about there being more demand for those showings). However, what about the premium screenings?
In this case we have a rare (I want to stress that point) case in which ALL the IMAX screenings that night are in 3D! In contrast, all the Dolby screenings are in 2D (even though they are perfectly capable of projecting some excellent 3D images). So in this case there is a 50% choice between the two, and if you are a fan of 2D and want to see the movie on preview night and those Dolby premium screenings are sold out...well, I guess you're forced (sorry, couldn't resist) to see the film in IMAX 3D or a standard screen. On the positive side, IMAX 3D almost never costs more money than a IMAX 2D screening (those surcharges are typically for regular screens, and when IMAX does charge more, it's usually by only $1). Still, this is more 3D on opening night than we usually get, so does this add some credence to the complaint that theaters are forcing 3D on 'Star Wars' fans here? What does Friday (the actual opening day) look like?
Well, well, well...it appears on opening day there is only one IMAX 3D show time. While there ARE more 3D screenings of "Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker" than usual, the 2D show times still easily outnumber the 3D screenings (particularly in Dolby)! As more times are announced, I bet you those screenings will be 2D, meaning that there will be a healthy balance. I will admit that the added amount of 3D screens might come off as "price gouging" in Campea's eyes, but seeing as that the previous 'Star Wars' films (with "Solo" being the exception) were all EXCELLENT in 3D and made those movies better on a visual level, it's difficult to determine if this is the theater 'price gouging' as he says, or whether there is simply more demand to see a movie like "Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker" in 3D (movies with flight and water are especially helped by the 3D format). Either way, there appears to be a good balance here and there are still FAR more 2D screenings than 3D screenings!
For Campea one IMAX 3D screening may be too much in his eyes, because despite the fact that he admits by his own poll the theaters should be serving 10%-15% of their screens with 3D, he then goes on one of his famous rants about how no one likes 3D, no one wants to see "Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker" in 3D, and that the format needs to die already. Um...weren't you just saying there were 10%-15% of people who LIKE 3D movies?! Doesn't that suggest that maybe 3D shouldn't go away per se, but rather change with the specific demand (his co-host Erin has an interesting idea that we'll discuss in a minute)? 10%-15% may not sound like a lot, but to an industry that sells I don't know how many millions of tickets a year (particularly to movies like this), that's a LOT of people you are saying doesn't matter! That's also a LOT of money being left on the table!
Sure, not having the choice for 3D at all doesn't mean people will stop going to movies, but that is still a substantial amount of people who want to pay for them none-the-less, and so the format doesn't need to die, it simply needs to evolve or change focus. Also...I do want to throw in one more thing before we move on to Burnett. This wasn't specifically brought up during the segment, but I want to bring it up anyway. Campea has been commenting on the whole 'Martin Scorsese vs Marvel' situation (and has been one of the more fair commentators on the subject). When Scorsese first made his comments about Marvel movies, he said he didn't watch them. Sure, he tried to watch them, but they just weren't for him. Campea (in a much more respectful tone than he gave to 3D fans) suggested that while Scorsese was a god amongst film makers, as someone who didn't watch Marvel movies, maybe he wasn't technically qualified to be making comments on them (saying they aren't cinema, they are more like amusement park rides, etc, etc).
Personally, John, I would like to humbly suggest (as someone who is not as big as you and will NEVER be watched/read as much as you) that maybe you aren't qualified to be making comments on 3D as a viable format/business? After all, you don't watch them. You have no idea if these movies would be helped or hurt by being in 3D. You really don't see how good the format can and how much better it's gotten ("Alita: Battle Angel," "Gemini Man," "Mad Max: Fury Road"). For that matter...to my knowledge, you don't own a theater. You don't know how many tickets to 3D films are sold in general. I don't think your Twitter poll (being as limited in scope as it is) gives you the right to say 3D needs to die because no one wants it. If that were TRULY the case, then no one would be buying tickets at all, and the theaters wouldn't show them period! The fact that IMAX made a big deal about going '2D only' (and I've written extensively about that) yet still manages to squeak in some 3D showings suggest that there IS an audience for them! It suggests that people DO enjoy them!
And as someone who admits to not watching them, and (again, to my knowledge) doesn't own a theater, I would like to humbly suggest you aren't qualified to be making comments about this particular subject. On a side note, I too get to go to critic screenings sometimes, and in most cases there appear to be the choice of 3D or 2D (particularly with Marvel movies), and there have been a couple times ("Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.2" and "Gemini Man" come to mind) where there were people actively picking the 3D version over the 2D version, so it's not like critics who like 3D don't exist. Personally, I think it just depends on the movie and whether or not the critic wants to see that particular one in 3D. That's just me though. Alright, let's move on to Robert.
Robert Burnett
Of the three, Robert Burnett is the biggest fan of 3D. He admits to owning a 3D TV and projector (if I heard correctly) and imports many 3D films from Europe (like many of us do). He is, however, very critical of the theatrical 3D experience and says it needs to die, but for very different reasons than Campea. Instead of blaming the format itself as being the problem, he believes the problem is that for years it has been projected poorly by theaters who want to save money on bulbs (long story, but read up on it here). He mentions that "Avatar" is the only theatrical 3D experience that was met with overwhelming positive reception because James Cameron demanded that theaters project it a certain way (and left instructions on how to do it). Otherwise he claims 3D screenings are usually dim, dark, and theaters have been too slow to address the issue.
By not addressing the issue for so many years, it has burnt out too many people who will never give it another chance ("done in by our own greed" as he so excellently puts it). He claims that home 3D is a far superior experience and prefers to wait until he can watch it at home (while he laments on the fact that 3D TV's are no longer being made). He says the only 3D screenings he trusts now are IMAX 3D with laser projection. Otherwise...he skips it. The risk of a sub-par display is too great these days. Taking all this into account, he feels there is no saving the theatrical 3D market at this point, and it's probably best to let it pass by and save it for Europe and Asia who are doing it properly. Oddly enough, he doesn't comment on the fact that even in Campea's poll, there are 10%-15% of audiences who still see 3D.
My Take
With all due respect to Campea, Robert Burnett is my favorite member on the show. He is incredibly smart, very insightful, and I think he does a good job at looking at the other side of issues and explaining them in a ways that is understandable to everyone (not that Campea doesn't do that as well, but...Burnett's just a little bit better at it). I think he and Campea work great with one another and I am more than happy that he is a semi-regular on the show. In contrast to Campea, Burnett IS a fan of 3D! I appreciate this because it kept the conversation from being too one sided. And yes, I actually agree with him to a certain extent. As a 3D fan myself, I am VERY particular about where I see my 3D movies and what screens I see them on! I prefer IMAX and now that I've seen 3D in laser their projection with "Ne Zha" I am even more sold that this is the best way to experience it. Beyond that, Cinemark XD is a good screen. AMC PRIME actually has consistently great 3D projection, and should always be picked over a regular 3D screen.
Dolby has great 3D, but I haven't seen them do a 3D film in a LOOOOONNNNG time (so long in fact that the last time I saw one in the format was "Inside Out" all the way back in 2015)!!! If given a regular screen AMC is better than most. Regal is the worst. Don't know why, but they are. If you are in Orange County, Starlight 4 Star Cinema does great 3D when they decide to do it at all. I think I got off topic there for a bit...well, the point is there ARE great places to see 3D! However, the fact that I am surrounded by almost a hundred theaters within 60 miles and limit myself to less than a dozen of them to see a 3D movie speaks volumes about the quality of most 3D screenings. And Burnett is right when he says this problem has gone on for far too long and has ruined the perception of 3D. I don't know if I agree with burning the whole thing to ground, but there is a LOT of work to do if it is to turn around and survive!
I personally think there is something there to save, but do theaters want to put in the effort? I'm not sure if they do. We know the TV market isn't interested in trying again until glasses free TV's become a reality. But people keep asking about it, which means someone clearly loves it. I think Burnett went a little extreme that it was too late to save the format, but he was spot on about pretty much everything else (and even with the one thing I disagree with I admit it will take a lot of work to turn around). Finally, co-host Erin Cummings gives her two cents. It's the briefest, but it also contains the best "ah ha" moment in the entire segment.
Oh the three, Erin Cummings is the most indifferent. She claims to have been burnt by bad 3D screenings one too many times to want to give it a serious go again. After hearing about Robert's complaints she does wonder out loud if a movie theater that is designed specifically for the niche market of 3D would be better (because they would - in theory - optimize ALL their showings to be the best). She ends with comments about how she doesn't need things flying around her all the time (the joke too graphic to reprint here), but does admit that she enjoys the five minute rides at Disneyland (she just doesn't want that for two hours).
My Take
From the perspective as a casual viewer, I hear comments like Erin's a LOT! Been burnt too many times, 3D tickets cost too much money, fine for theme parks but not more than that, all the usual bullet points. Funny enough though, she makes the best suggestion about having 3D exclusive theaters whose reputation on great 3D makes a lot of sense in more ways than one. If there was a theater house that specialized in quality 3D and didn't cost much more than a regular ticket, you would be killing two birds with one stone. First of all, a 3D dedicated theater would be where that small but dedicated 3D crowd could go and see their movies, freeing up the average theater to not have 3D showings at all. Since they would be 3D only, they would make sure that their screenings would be of the highest quality, meaning people would be walking away with mostly good experiences (and likely to recommend it to their friends).
So these theaters would be filling a niche, freeing up the AMC and Regal theaters to not have to deal with the format in the near future, AND the reputation of 3D could slowly be built up again! Sounds like a win-win situation all around! Now, who would run these theaters? I don't know. It's a thought experiment right now, so give me a break! All joking aside, she does admit she liked "Avatar" and some of the theme park attractions. I think those comments backs up Burnett's points because that movie and those attractions WERE properly projected for the best possible experience! Most movies are not, which is one of the major problems with 3D today. Whether she realized it or not, she made a strong case for keeping 3D, but doing it right by the audiences. Also, she made a comment at one point she needed to read up more on how 3D works. Well...I may not have the most technical blog (and without an editor the occasional spelling error occurs), but I can point in her the right direction if she wants to see some great 3D experiences and movies (shameless plug, I know).
In Conclusion
Phew...THAT was a lot to unpack, right?! I have to say, it was a VERY interesting 14 minutes! I obviously sided with Burnett the most, but Campea and Cummings made great points as well. It was a big reminder of why I love this show so much! Either way, these are my thoughts on what was said. Why do all of you think? Is there a viewpoint you agree with more than the others? Leave your comments below and keep an eye on this space for more 3D commentary! Also, whatever format you see "Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker" in, hopefully it is a good movie that we all can enjoy! And live long and prosper. Oh, wait, that's the OTHER sci-fi series people gripe about online. Um...may the force be with you, always!
Yeah...nailed it! ^_^;
