My many experiences with 3D, shall we say since Avatar, have been brutal. Dark prints, shoddy projection, you know the feeling. That said, it seems to be very dependent on the cinema you go to. And I’m not even going to mention the whole up-conversion thing. Earlier, I was reading the THR and came across a very interesting article, which may well signal another nail is about to be put into the 3D coffin. For the last number of years now, we have been paying a premium price for a so called premium product. Like everything, it’s always about the money. And now Sony Pictures Entertainment have notified cinema owners in a letter that it will no longer pay for 3D glasses as of May 1st, 2012.

Yes, I hear the collective gasps, whats and holy f$%ks. You read that right! The studio pays for the glasses. I didn’t know that until today. I was under the impression the extra cash you splashed on a 3D cinema ticket, was soley for the 3D glasses. I always wondered why you had to hand the damn things back after paying a surcharge. So what ARE you paying the extra moolah for? I have absolutely no idea! So where does this lead us to? Well, if the studio won’t front up the cash, the cinema will have to take on the burden. Does that mean higher ticket prices again, it’s too early to tell. But those of you with a simple understanding of mathematics should be able to answer the question. And we’re not talking about a few thousand bucks. We are talking about millions of dollars. For a major 3D move release, a studio can spend anywhere between $5 million and $10 million worldwide on the glasses alone.

I launched digital projection in Cork cinemas, way back in the day and talking to the man behind it, he was mentioning about 3D and how we may all eventually end up buying our own 3D glasses. Major designers would come on board. I recall Bono and the lads from U2 had their own branded 3D glasses for the premiere of U2:3D. Then again, that’s not going to be a solution either. After all, you don’t go to the car wash with your own car shampoo.

So with millions of dollars on the cards per 3D release and the studios pulling the cash, it doesn’t bode well for cinema owners, who obviously have spent quite a bit on upgrades over the last number of years. What happens to the film makers? If there’s no screens or cinemas refuse to show their latest 3D flick, the last number of years have been pointless. And the greed of the cinemas is unprecedented. Double and treble the amount of 3D screenings than their 2d counterparts. All because they could make a fast buck and charge extra. And I’m still none the wiser about what that extra charge is for, since a few paragraphs back. Maybe they turn on extra air con?

It’s funny though, the mad scramble to do everything in 3D after Avatar was a huge success, was nothing but greed. A short term bank rolling session with little thought given to the long term. And now, the long term for 3D, looks to be after getting shorter.

My many experiences with 3D, shall we say since Avatar, have been brutal. Dark prints, shoddy projection, you know the feeling. That said, it seems to be very dependent on the cinema you go to. And I’m not even going to mention the whole up-conversion thing. Earlier, I was reading the THR and came across a very interesting article, which may well signal another nail is about to be put into the 3D coffin. For the last number of years now, we have been paying a premium price for a so called premium product. Like everything, it’s always about the money. And now Sony Pictures Entertainment have notified cinema owners in a letter that it will no longer pay for 3D glasses as of May 1st, 2012.

Yes, I hear the collective gasps, whats and holy f$%ks. You read that right! The studio pays for the glasses. I didn’t know that until today. I was under the impression the extra cash you splashed on a 3D cinema ticket, was soley for the 3D glasses. I always wondered why you had to hand the damn things back after paying a surcharge. So what ARE you paying the extra moolah for? I have absolutely no idea! So where does this lead us to? Well, if the studio won’t front up the cash, the cinema will have to take on the burden. Does that mean higher ticket prices again, it’s too early to tell. But those of you with a simple understanding of mathematics should be able to answer the question. And we’re not talking about a few thousand bucks. We are talking about millions of dollars. For a major 3D move release, a studio can spend anywhere between $5 million and $10 million worldwide on the glasses alone.

I launched digital projection in Cork cinemas, way back in the day and talking to the man behind it, he was mentioning about 3D and how we may all eventually end up buying our own 3D glasses. Major designers would come on board. I recall Bono and the lads from U2 had their own branded 3D glasses for the premiere of U2:3D. Then again, that’s not going to be a solution either. After all, you don’t go to the car wash with your own car shampoo.

So with millions of dollars on the cards per 3D release and the studios pulling the cash, it doesn’t bode well for cinema owners, who obviously have spent quite a bit on upgrades over the last number of years. What happens to the film makers? If there’s no screens or cinemas refuse to show their latest 3D flick, the last number of years have been pointless. And the greed of the cinemas is unprecedented. Double and treble the amount of 3D screenings than their 2d counterparts. All because they could make a fast buck and charge extra. And I’m still none the wiser about what that extra charge is for, since a few paragraphs back. Maybe they turn on extra air con?

It’s funny though, the mad scramble to do everything in 3D after Avatar was a huge success, was nothing but greed. A short term bank rolling session with little thought given to the long term. And now, the long term for 3D, looks to be after getting shorter.

Daniel Craig, who I honestly believe is the best Bond in the history of the series, has been talking to MTV News about his future as 007. “I’m always of the opinion that tomorrow could be my last day.” said Craig who refused to even talk about Bond 24. So maybe he’s just keeping the cards close to his chest. But, you’d want to dead not to see that Craig isn’t highly suitable to continue as the super spy. Granted, he probably wants to widen his horizons a bit more, instead of being tied into a franchise for too long. And you can’t blame him for that I guess.

On a more positive note, he did shoot the proverbial about the upcoming Bond ““Listen, we’ve got a great script this time.  I’m as excited about this script as I was about the ‘Casino Royale’ script.  I think in Sam [Mendes] we’ve got the perfect director.  The cast is coming together now. I can’t wait to get going on it really. I start in two weeks time.”

Via MTV News

Daniel Craig, who I honestly believe is the best Bond in the history of the series, has been talking to MTV News about his future as 007. “I’m always of the opinion that tomorrow could be my last day.” said Craig who refused to even talk about Bond 24. So maybe he’s just keeping the cards close to his chest. But, you’d want to dead not to see that Craig isn’t highly suitable to continue as the super spy. Granted, he probably wants to widen his horizons a bit more, instead of being tied into a franchise for too long. And you can’t blame him for that I guess.

On a more positive note, he did shoot the proverbial about the upcoming Bond ““Listen, we’ve got a great script this time.  I’m as excited about this script as I was about the ‘Casino Royale’ script.  I think in Sam [Mendes] we’ve got the perfect director.  The cast is coming together now. I can’t wait to get going on it really. I start in two weeks time.”

Via MTV News