AliasMan02 said:
TCTTS said:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/filmmaker-steven-soderbergh-on-hbo-max-the-death-of-cinema-and-vibing-with-meryl-streep
So is the eventual transition to immersive 3D going to help or hurt theaters? The next elite cinema experience will be using 3D rigs like Oculus. But will it be sitting at home watching, or will it be sitting in a space with other people while wearing a headset for $15 instead of buying your own rig?
Immersive 3D won't be your home option if you're watching reruns of 30 Rock while doing the dishes, but to watch the next Star Wars or MI or whatever? That's probably a "plugged in" experience.
I re-read this entire article, thinking I missed some mention of "immersive 3D." That said, A) I don't think there will ever be any kind of out-in-public, in-the-same-space, Oculus 3D experience. I think that will remain an at-home activity, and increasingly grow in that space, as it gets cheaper and cheaper to own/experience. But B) I also don't see it as something that explicitly competes with theaters either, and I definitely don't see it taking over blockbuster filmmaking. They're two completely different experiences, as different as playing a sport and watching a movie. I'm not saying more and more blockbuster franchises won't *also* have some kind of Oculus 3D gaming component, but the beauty of movies and television, in their current form, for the majority of today's viewing audiences, is the
passive nature of the experience. We can just
sit and watch. Yes, our minds and imaginations are engaged, but the last thing I and so many others want to do is participate in some kind choose-your-own-adventure version of a movie where we have to interact with sh*t and walk around and explore. I'm not saying I won't want to do that every so often, from home. But there will always be an audience who simply wants to stand back and
observe and appreciate the Mona Lisa. I don't need to be inside the painting with her. The beauty of the experience is getting to just sit back and revel at it.