furrybastard
Posts: 5100
Joined: 30/9/2005 From: Ireland
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: sauchieboy I'd heard that statstic too, furrybastard, but I've more or less stopped paying attention to any new information regarding 3D thanks to Mark Kermode's interminable fucking propoganda on the subject. Anecdotal, I know, but most people I've asked about 3D say they're not fussed either way. I've no idea if DNA/Lionsgate/Entertainment intend to offer audiences a choice of 3D or 2D. He probably got that statistic from the same place as me. I first saw it from a Roger Ebert tweet (Ebert's a good source of industry info on twitter actually)... Hollywood Reporter: (CLICK) As for anecdotal most people I know tend to choose 2D cos' it costs less and/or they hate 3D. I know some cinema staff too and they say people seem to prefer 2D now, with some even giving out if it's not an option and choosing something else to see (again, that's obviously purely anecdotal and only really representative of one cinema!) I'm sure Lionsgate will be offering both. I hope so anyway. I think going with that awful DR3DD thing is a terrbile idea EDIT : Another article from HR, this time an interview with Jeffrey Katzenberg about "the decline of 3D profitability": CLICK So Harry Potter 7, Green Lantern, Pirates 4, Thor, Kung Fu Panda 2 are mentioned between both articles...
< Message edited by furrybastard -- 20/4/2012 11:32:27 PM >
|