Drawing parallels in 2D
3D movies. Does anyone actually enjoy them? Once was enough for me, and that was purely curiosity.
Now every movie, from Spiderman to Ice Age Tres, (and the Avengers, and Snow White, and several ridiculous kids movies), seems to feature the Real3D logo. Which is interesting, because Real3D is a packaged technology, so any movie can shell out a fee to RealD Inc without any forethought or intent to shoot a 3D experience, bolt on their logo and BAM! They have a non-native, passable, only-slightly-nauseating but still generally shitty 3D movie. Cine-files everywhere are surely rejoicing.
I’d be interested to see actual revenue figures behind 3D ticket sales, especially the relative number of repeat buyers and comparisons to non-3D sales of the same films. Maybe it’s justified by profits. But I suspect it’s equally likely that someone in the film industry tried it once, and now to “stay hip” the other studios feel like its simply a required cost of doing business. Which is a shame for audiences because 1) Studios, by virtue of their actions (continually pimping Real3D), seem to really think that this is a good experience that people want more of, and will keep doing it, and 2) The price of licensing and implementing Real3D will be passed down the chain to the viewers' wallet, even though only a small fraction of movie-goers would actually elect to pay extra for quasi-3D films, if they were given a choice.
How many arcane business decisions in how many industries are foregone conclusions of this sort of perceived necessity? Such a waste, an such a poor business decision to ultimately treat your customers so callously.