So why not 3-D?

Wykith · Post by **Wykith** » Fri Jan 17, 2003 10:19 am

I was watching this lame ass Spacestation movie the other day in IMAX 3-D. I couldn't help thinking. Why not make motion pictures like this? I know movies like StarWars II and Apollo 13 hit IMAX and didn't exactly break the box office? But a big budget production of a well known movie...like say....something like......a Matrix prelude, you know. Have them bullets fly straight at you. I can't get it out of my head how cool that would look.
I probably shouldn't be posting this without doing a little reseach...but eh.....we're all entitled to be lazy at some point neh?

SSJVegita0609 · Post by **SSJVegita0609** » Fri Jan 17, 2003 10:24 am

Basically, the theaters are too expensive to run. However, most major cities have one giant theater or two (DC has the uptown) with a massive screen. But the thing is, if you can only play one movie at a time you better not have any competition, or you're fucked.

The Wired Knight · Post by **The Wired Knight** » Fri Jan 17, 2003 11:31 am

Too expensive, a theater is lucky if it can afford ONE imax screen, let alone enough to accomodate for multiple movies, this is why they are forced to rotate at awkward times when there are two to show. IT is also very expensive to shoot for an Imax especially if you mean 3D, and considering how many movies go overbudget allready, it would more than likely drive a lot of them to bankrupcy if they were to try and make everything in 3D.

paizuri · Post by **paizuri** » Fri Jan 17, 2003 11:53 am

SSJVegita0609 wrote:Basically, the theaters are too expensive to run. However, most major cities have one giant theater or two (DC has the uptown) with a massive screen. But the thing is, if you can only play one movie at a time you better not have any competition, or you're fucked.

The Uptown has a big-ass screen, but it's not an IMAX theater.

SSJVegita0609 · Post by **SSJVegita0609** » Fri Jan 17, 2003 12:26 pm

paizuri wrote:
SSJVegita0609 wrote:Basically, the theaters are too expensive to run. However, most major cities have one giant theater or two (DC has the uptown) with a massive screen. But the thing is, if you can only play one movie at a time you better not have any competition, or you're fucked.
The Uptown has a big-ass screen, but it's not an IMAX theater.

I'm aware, I was just saying that its the same concept. One huge screen playing one movie at a time.

BogoSort · Post by **BogoSort** » Sat Jan 18, 2003 12:19 am

I thought he was meaning some variant of Imax that displays the movie in 3d. Though interesting that he should mention Episode II, because the Carnegie Science Scenter(in Pittsburgh, PA) has an Imax theatre, and they played it on there I'm told. I never bothered to see it, as I'm not sure if I could sit through that movie in its entirety again.

Sub0 · Post by **Sub0** » Sat Jan 18, 2003 12:31 am

Wykith wrote:I was watching this lame ass Spacestation movie the other day in IMAX 3-D. I couldn't help thinking. Why not make motion pictures like this? I know movies like StarWars II and Apollo 13 hit IMAX and didn't exactly break the box office? But a big budget production of a well known movie...like say....something like......a Matrix prelude, you know. Have them bullets fly straight at you. I can't get it out of my head how cool that would look.
I probably shouldn't be posting this without doing a little reseach...but eh.....we're all entitled to be lazy at some point neh?

Moonwalker was teh bomb!!

AnimeMusicVideos.org

So why not 3-D?

So why not 3-D?

Re: So why not 3-D?