Slashdot Mirror


Movie Theaters Aim for Live 3D Sports

teutonic_leech writes "ZDNet has an article claiming that movie theater operators plan to be screening live 3D sports events by 2007 in a bid to lure sports fans away from their home theater systems and bolster sagging mid-week ticket sales." From the article: "Other chains are looking to much-improved digital three-dimensional projection for an experience theatergoers can't get at home. But while the projection has greatly advanced from the early 3D days, special glasses must still be worn to achieve the full effect."

9 of 150 comments (clear)

  1. watching sports in groups by mieses · · Score: 4, Insightful

    i can imagine watching ice capades this way (dark room, stadium seating) but not competitive sports.

    how are you supposed to watch sport in a movie theatre? are you supposed to be loud? order drinks? heckle the other fans? get up to the bathroom, step on someone's toes and block their view? it seems very awkward, formal, and not very relaxing.

  2. Good idea but.... no. by DeadboltX · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The appeal to watch a sports game on a huge screen is very appealing.
    The appeal to watch sports in 3d is nonexistant.

    When people get together to watch a game they are always cheering booing, having fun, being noisy.. This is what you would find at a sports bar where it is acceptable.
    I can't imagine this going over very well inside a theater where you are confined to your small seat.. the atmosphere is a lot different and I can see a lot of people getting annoyed at other people for being loud.

  3. Re:Beer? by RajivSLK · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A little off topic but what the fuck do you need a 42oz coke for? Personally, I think the theatres are doing you a favour buddy. I'm guessing this is an american thing.. (are the seats wider too?)

  4. 3d video games by Statecraftsman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They've got the 3d part right but it's not 20th century sports we want to watch. It's 21st century video games. I would seriously love to go watch Counterstrike or Doom3 in a theater in 3d. The games don't have to be played live but if they wanted to go the extra mile, there's a lot of potential. For example, supply wireless controllers, create games that use them cleverly and the theater could turn into an amazing 3d interactive environment.

  5. Re:Auto Racing by Scarletdown · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I would love to see this happen, just as long as they don't focus on only football/baseball/basketball.


    Mmmmm... Katerina Witt or Michelle Kwan in 3D on the big screen... I'd be a regular theater patron for that.
    --
    This space unintentionally left blank.
  6. Re:Beer? by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I would pay $8 or so a ticket if I could get a 42oz Coke for under $2 or so.

    I see it as a good thing that theaters charge so much for food and drinks. They need to make money. If they make it from people paying absurd amounts for popcorn that means that my cost is subsidized.

  7. Visual overload by dangitman · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I dunno, I think we're all getting so visually overloaded. It's enough looking at computer and TV screens. Most 3D technologies also cause extra brain-strain trying to perceive a virtual object as "real" or solid. I don't think we're going to get enough resolution and solidity to get around this problem any time soon.

    2D screens also suffer from this problem, but to a lesser degree, because there is another layer of abstraction there. We aren't trying to trick ourselves into thinking it's real - we just go to watch a show. I'd prefer to spend more time looking at natural objects, anyway. Mmmmm. Boobies.

    --
    ... and then they built the supercollider.
  8. Theater + Sports = Lame by joel8x · · Score: 2, Insightful

    -Will they allow you to drink beer and eat wings? Probably not

    -Will they let you pause the DVR so you can take a phone call or take a piss? Definitely not

    -Will you be allowed to scream obscenities at the top of your lungs when you team screws up? Most likely not

    Sports viewing in public belongs in Bars. A movie theater seems like a lousy place to watch a game.

    --
    Sound waves should be free!
  9. Theaters should deal with the real problem by Simonetta · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Theaters should deal with the real problem. Which is that the film distributors, and film is what the theaters do, demand 90% of their box office receipts for the first two-three weeks of any new movie that shows in the theater. With this type of arrangement, there is no way in hell that any theater can make any money from showing films. Which, as mentioned eariler, is what they do. So there is all this desperate nonsense, er... explorations into alternative revenue sources like 3D sports and digital film image projection.

        Problem is, these other things aren't revenue generators. Au Contraire, they are revenue burners because the theaters have to absorb the costs of this new presentation technology without any assurances that the public will be willing to pay more for film and video services that they already get from their 'home theaters'. In fact it is unlikely that the people who put up many thousands of dollars for 'home theaters' (which are just big screen televisions and loud stereos) can be brought back into the theaters by anything that the theaters offer because the people who bought the 'home theaters' don't have any money left.

        So that just leaves the people who used to go to movies but don't anymore. And usually why they don't is because the films are either too expensive or too stupid. And the reason that the films are too expensive is because Hollywood has lost the ability to make high-quality reasonably priced entertainment products.

        We are at the end of Hollywood cycle now; this one has been the 'BlockBuster' era that started in 1977 with the original Star Wars movie. So there is going to be a period of contraction in the industry and the same time that there will be bursts of huge amounts of money thrown at projects of truly dubious artistic and commercial merit. Huge projects with no realistic expectation generating any real profit [stuff like Peter Jackson's King Kong, Disney's Treasure Planet, and Oliver Stone's Alexander] will continue to pop out of Hollywood as the industry goes into its final crash-and-burn cycle.

        This has all happened before. The most recent Hollywood down cycle started in the mid-1950s and lasted until the mid 1970s. The defining bomb movie of that era was Cleopatra(1964) staring Elizabeth Taylor, who was the Lindsay Lohan of the 1950's. Cleopatra cost about $500-$600 million in today's equivalent dollars and brought in about 1/10th of its cost in box office. Check it out on DVD or VHS if you want to get an idea of what kind of projects are being currently planned in Hollywood for the 2007-2009 season.

        Anyway, the theaters are the only people who can stop the Hollywood descent in madness by demanding a much better return schedule on box office receipts and forcing Hollywood into developing higher quality, less-expensive product.

        But the theaters are unlikely to take this opportunity because they are run by mediocre, narrow-minded, business and marketing majors who would be challenged should they ever have be called to operate anything as complex as a K-Mart Men's department. You know these guys; they're the ones with the white shirts, bad haircuts, and vaguely worried looks on their faces that you see when you stop at McDonald's for a MuffinBurger before going to work in the morning. These guys are not going to be generating solutions to Hollywood's basic problems.