Sony Pictures Home Entertainment confirmed that it will be bringing the first Blu-ray 3D SKU to market "early this summer" with Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs 3D. The first day-and-date Blu-ray 3D release from the studio will be Resident Evil: Afterlife (which opens theatrically in the US in September).
In an interview with Home Media Magazine, Lexine Wong, SPHE senior EVP of worldwide marketing, explained that the company "felt it was absolutely necessary to offer a standalone retail 3D version of Cloudy for our retailers and consumers who want more 3D content for their 3D TVs." As previously reported (see blu-ray.com, May 23), most of the 3D releases expected for 2010 will be available exclusively for the buyers of 3D hardware of one brand or the other.
Wong added that SPHE's Blu-ray 3D titles will also include a 2D high-def version of the film.
When asked about whether Blu-ray 3D titles would carry a price premium, Wong stated that with Blu-ray 3D there are authoring and production costs "above and beyond those associated with 2D Blu-ray." Additionally, she noted that theatergoers are now used to paying more for seeing a movie in 3D than in 2D. Hence, she said, "we do feel that expectation will carry over to Blu-ray 3D."
"Just as Blu-ray offers the best high-def picture and sound," she concluded, "the best quality 3D is only on Blu-ray 3D."
"used to paying more for seeing a movie in 3D than in 2D". Yes we are but thats due to cinemas forking out a lot of cash for a new screens and projectors thus charging more to cover costs. Im suppose to fork out on new hardware and pay a premium for software! The discs still only contain 1 and 0s!!!! Might give it a miss if its all the same
Are there a few typos in this? 3D being above and beyond the cost associated with 3D doesn't make much sense, nor does "3D titles will also include a 3D version." Just saying. Can't wait to see how they price these...
They'd better offer separate 2-D versions than, because I doubt people would love to pay more for their 2-D version just because the 3-d version is included also. I, for one, certainly wouldn't buy into that nonsense.
I doubt it will include a second disc for 2D as all 3D BDs will be compatible with 2D already. But you never know.
I for one love my 3DTV and can't wait to get Cloudy in 3D as well as RE4 and every other title I can get my greedy mitts on. Avatar, Alice in Wonderland and all the Shreks will be in 3D later this year as well, and I'm sure plenty of other titles yet to be announced.
For everything else the 2D to 3D conversion on the Samsung TVs is pretty remarkable.
And don't forget there are 3D games starting to come out. I've been playing Avatar in 3D and it's asbsolutely stunning!
But it doesn't really matter what I say because there will always be plenty of people howling about how stupid and gimmicky 3D is, just like they said about Blu-ray.
You'll be able to put all that money to something else then because unless this tech is aggressively marketed and the price falls sharply and quickly, there will probably only be a handful of films available.
No one asked for it and I don't believe there are many who want it. Except for the Joneses and those who like to keep pace with them.
Sit on the sidelines with the same people who say nobody asked for Blu-ray if you want to.
Make no mistake. The main haters are not the people who bought a $500 BD player and are now faced with buying a $400 3D BD player. Those people are, by and large, just fine. The people complaining are those that went out and spent $6,000 on a projector that isn't as future-proof as they thought it was. Because they have only themselves to blame for spending such a ridiculous amount of money on something that was always going to be obsolete in a couple of years anyway, they're looking for a scapegoat.
It's the EXACT SAME thing as the HD DVD people that just LOATH Blu-ray. It has nothing to do with whether or not BD is a good technology, it's about the fact that they were WRONG.
So they say we are used to paying a premium for 3D at the theaters so we won't mind paying extra for 3D on blu-ray. Funny thing about that is that it cost $3 more at the theater for 3D version so I'm only going to expect for them to charge me $3 more for the 3D blu-ray over the 2D version!!!!!!!!! You just know it will be more than that though. Sigh.
Yay! I've got the whole 3D shebang at home, and the only thing I don't love about it is the lack of titles. Any news like this is good...though I'll be passing on 'Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs,' personally.
Come on, guys, stop waxing cynical about Hollywood in regards to the pricing. It's obviously not arbitrary. The thing about customers expecting to pay more is a reason why they don't think it will be *bad* that it costs more, not their reason to raise the price; that should be obvious from the article. Like the lady says, it costs more to author two different movies (one for each eye) than one, and that cost trickles down. It's not like high prices will last, anyway; they didn't for BD in general.
I agree, though, that a separate 2D-only release should happen for day-and-date titles. It's one thing if you currently have 2D equipment but want to upgrade later--you can't go wrong with the 3D version in that case, as it's backwards-compatible--but it's another thing to force the premium on people who aren't interested.
" Additionally, she noted that theatergoers are now used to paying more for seeing a movie in 3D than in 2D. Hence, she said, "we do feel that expectation will carry over to Blu-ray 3D."
Are you kidding me? What does the 3D bring to the movie except saving money to create cheaper animation which you donít see anyway cause everything moves too fast. 3D doesnít make the story better. Oh now if the movie suck you could said but the 3d was good. I donít want to be in the movie I just want to see it. Start by releasing all the movie on blu-ray before jumping into another technologie who canít be seen by people who have one eye that doesnít want to be near the other.
To me, movies are "art". Not sculpture (3-D) but more like painting or photography. Of course, I tend to gravitate towards the older classic films anyway. Oddly, even though I have a very good surround system, I find that aural immersion to sometimes be distracting. After all, the movie is in a rectangle in front of me. When I hear a glass break over my left shoulder, it's a bit disconcerting. These incremental advances toward a true "holodeck" are feeling kinda awkward to me. I'll pass on the 3-D for awhile.
When you say "The first day-and-date Blu-ray 3D release from the studio will be Resident Evil: Afterlife (which opens theatrically in the US in September)." Does that mean the BD will come out the same day as the film it's self?
I know what I'll be doing after I see the film in theaters:3
I think I'll pass on this 3D stuff. I think it is great to watch a movie in 3D once in a while but still prefer to good old fashion 2D. To me 3D does add bit more immersion to a movie but I can not watch for long period of time. Also this 3D stuff is nothing more that a extruded 2D image. I will totally double dipped when they could do true 3D and that is being able to see 360 degree like the 3D TV commercials.
I can't imagine any reason somebody would be behind 3D for the home outside of those who hold stock and those who just have bucket loads of money to waste on crap. This is a HUGE waste of money and will never take off. 3D is what it has always been, a fad. Avatard, Alice and so on will bring in the cash for now and really that's all they are cash makers, they aren't actual films. But at some point everybody is going to get tired of it and go back to a more relaxing way to watch a screen in the theater. As for the home 3D is already dead and the studios are making a mistake investing all of this time into a fad technology when they should be focusing on simple Blu-ray. I work with over 70 people and am STILL the only person who owns a Blu-ray.l
'When you say "The first day-and-date Blu-ray 3D release from the studio will be Resident Evil: Afterlife (which opens theatrically in the US in September)." Does that mean the BD will come out the same day as the film it's self?'
No, it means the 3D BD will come out the same date as the 2D BD (and the DVD).
Spymaster, how do you figure that current 3D is an extruded 3D image? Each eye sees a separate image captured from a different perspective. If done well, your brain shouldn't be able to differentiate between that and real life.
In a weird way it does make sense for 3D movie-goers and 3D Blu-ray viewers to pay more, because making a movie in 3D really is more work than 2D, and it's not particularly fair to pass that cost on to the 2D movie-goers--people wouldn't be pissed if one kind of car was more expensive than another because more work was involved in making the higher-grade vehicle, but people WOULD be rather upset if all cars carried the same price tag, which was dragged up by the fancy vehicles that the top few percent of car owners want.
Then again, that ignores the fact that we're talking non-physical goods which are already profitable 2-5 times over during their theater run, covering the 2D and 3D development costs. They could probably charge $1 to stamp a disc and still be grossly profitable on movies.
So while charging the 3D customers more for their luxury is fair, charging them more for their luxury when the luxury has already been paid for by the theatrical release is simply abusive pricing.
There's a bigger issue, though. If they stopped releasing the 2D versions altogether and just did the 3D version, for the standard 2D price, they'd have a much better shot at pushing 3D adoption. For every person who thinks that 3D is awesome and wants it, there are 5 people who can't afford it, don't think there's enough selection, are pissed off because they just got a 2D Blu-ray player and TV, and/or simply don't like the tech. Making the 3D version the standard would greatly improve chances of people taking the plunge some day, because they'd already have the 3D media. It's the same idea behind bundling a DVD and Blu-ray together for people who don't have a Blu-ray player/HDTV but intend to get one some day.
In short, the studios are trying to charge more to pay for movies that consumers have already funded ten times over, and they're doing it at the expense of promoting 3D Blu-ray. It's as absurd as a person who loves eating so much that he's going to saw off and eat his own foot, which will make it a lot harder to get to the buffet on the other side of the room.
phatrat1982, you have 43 BDs. I have 570. Some of us are obviously more interested in home theater than others.
All I'm saying is that if we had listened to all the doubters, we wouldn't have BD right now.
So instead of spouting off about how everybody was demanding BD when quite the opposite was true, how about just letting this new technology develop and see what happens? The fact that you seem oblivious to the push back against BD adoption and that you only have a couple dozen discs tells me you just got into it maybe a year ago. So you're probably not the best person to describe the HDM climate 4 years ago.
Here's a thought, instead of complaining about 3D, why don't you actually check it out and see why people like it?
I don't think people ever got charged more for watching a film in colour, or with sound etc. They were genuine technological advancements.
And while 3D is also a technological advancement, it is and always (whether we're talking about the 50's, 80's or today) has been a cold, calculating, cynical money maker. Avatar has to be one of the most aggressively marketed films in history, and without any question the most aggressively marketed 3D movie ever. Hence such high numbers.
they better make 3D and 2D versions separate cuz I am NOT coughing up an extra $5 or whatever it cost to get a 3D version that I will never use....if they don't then I guess bluray has already reached its peak because I dont see alot of people buying them if they bundle both versions together and force us to buy it like that...
meehan, I seem to remember paying more than a nickel last time I went to the movies. Oh, did you think digital projection, stadium seating and DTS sound were all provided free of charge just because the theater chains like you? It's no wonder you're mixed up. Did you forget IMAX, or did you try to pretend I didn't mention it since it completely decimates your argument?
And if marketing could make people spend $1 Billion dollars on something not worth their time, then I guess EVERY movie would make $1 Billion dollars.
Sounds like YOU'RE the cynic to me. so stop struggling to justify things that don't make sense. If 3D was as stupid as you insist, nobody would go to them. You are proven wrong every single day.
I was saying that people have never had to pay an extra premium for a technological advancement. Don't know about you but I never had to pay extra money when my local cinema had Dolby Digital installed.
I took the liberty of omitting IMAX from our discussion as I believe it's irrelevant. Footage shot on the format can only be truly appreciated in their small chain of super cinemas. It doesn't apply at home or regular cinemas.
Not once have I referred to 3D as "stupid". I don't like it and think it's a flash in the pan and that's about it.
Let's face it though, the more generic films that are released with 3D tagged on (ala Clash of the Titans, Alice in Wonderland) the quicker people will become disillusioned with it.
I like the fact you are so passionate about it and sincerely hope you continue to enjoy your films with added dimension for as long as they are around.