HUH? Where did this come from? Martin Scorsese is an old school guy, but he’s suddenly said three of his more popular films would fit well in 3D. What the heck does he mean?
If at the time, in the early 1970s, when I made ‘Mean Streets’ or ‘Taxi Driver,’ or even ‘Raging Bull’ in 1980, if 3D was the norm, I think those stories would have fit in perfectly in 3D.
Oh, well, OK that makes a little more sense. They probably would well in 3D in that 3D doesn’t add anything to the film at all. Scorsese even reportedly had lots of trouble shooting Hugo in 3D, which lead to a longer shoot. But if 3D was the norm back in the day Scorsese would probably have been used to it.
People were in love with 3D a while ago. Avatar got all the money it did because it was in 3D and ticket prices were higher. Seventy percent of people saw Alice in Wonderland in 3D.
This makes studios a tad greedy so they make everything in 3D, or convert it to 3D in post (which makes the 3D terrible) so they can reap extra profits. That also happens to hurt the overall public perception of 3D.
So, now, the majority of the time you’re paying a higher ticket price just because the studios wanted to make more money.
James Cameron told Reuters that once 3D becomes the norm and more people shoot with it (it’s kinda expensive to shoot with) prices will come down and 3D ticket prices will become the norm and 2D ticket prices will be discounted (YEAH!). Here’s what Cameron said in full:
As time goes on over the next couple of seasons, it will be harder and harder to defend the premium pricing. Not because the quality is not being maintained, but because more and more films are being made in 3D and at a certain point the majority, meaning 51 percent or more of major movies will be made in 3D. When 3D is the norm, you have to give a discount for 2D movies. You can’t charge a premium for 3D ones.