3-D movies or "How Hollywood figured out to suck more money out of moviegoers"

Avatar is currently sitting at #14 all time on the adjusted box office gross list. In other words - the "how many asses were in theater seats list". Just wanted to point that out - yet again - to those who think Avatar's only reason for financial success is that it was shown in 3D. Even without the inflated 3D ticket price, it would still be number 1 on the domestic gross list above Titanic.

Cheers,

Jason

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I saw 'Up!' in 3-D and it was definitely immersive but I didn't enjoy the movie any less in 2-D. My reservations though are that I don't really like having to wear those damn glasses - I think the color is better without them, though I didn't see Avatar. I also think there will be a lot of crap films who's only distinction is 3-D and that we will see another retro-fit where the same movies that have been released countless times will get released yet again in 3-D. It seems like a never ending cycle designed to perpetuate mediocrity and hoover all the bucks out of our pockets.

I've been waiting to upgrade to a 1080-P TV and now I'll probably wait for the 3-D tv's that are coming out soon, but I don't think I'll be willing to replace all my existing Blu-rays with the inevitable 3-D upgrades.

It almost feels as though we, as consumers have to make a conscious choice as to where we're going to stick a stake in the ground and say 'THIS is good enough for me.' For me, that point, I think is Blu-Ray. I really don't think I need to see 'The Godfather' in 3-D. The idea of having to put those stupid glasses on every time I want to watch a movie in the future is not terribly appealing. Evidence of my advancing years, I reckon...

Yup.  The only thing the 3D did was pad the margin between #1 and #2. 

That said, I'll pay an extra $3 for a Jim Cameron (or Ridley Scott, etc) film, but if they think I'll shell the extra $3 for any movie they are crazy.  You have to earn that extra money.

Making movies is a business.  The point of a business is to make money.  Every company in the world comes out with a new idea and charges a premium for it.  This is not new.

And yet this simple truth needs constant repetition.

At least with with the movie business, you usually can tell what you're getting charged for. It's not like there's a "hidden" surcharge being tacked on to ticket prices, and no one knows what it's for. 3D is a selling point, and a lot of people are willing to pay the extra freight. The past weekend's box office for Alice in Wonderland made that clear, if there was ever any doubt.

Now, if you want to talk about "hoovering all the bucks out of our pockets", there are some other industries to which that description would more aptly apply.

Between December 18 (when Avatar came out) and today, there's been two 3-D movies released. Between December 18 and today, there's been about fifty 2-D movies released.

It does cost money to install this stuff, so of course they're going to charge more.

Would be nice to see reissues of vintage 3-D movies in the new tech, as opposed to converting flat ones. I enjoyed seeing that old Chip and Dale cartoon Disney tacked onto "Meet the Robinsons". They recently brought "Captain Eo" back to Disneyland.

Does anyone know if ticket prices were higher for Cinemascope movies or 3-D flicks in the 1950's?

I've decided to only watch a 3D movie if it was shot for 3D from the get go, like Avatar.  If it was "upconverted" from 2D to 3D because the studios want to make more money out of it, I'll only watch the 2D version or just not at all.

I hate the 3D glasses they have at the IMAX. It's like they were made for large gargatuan heads. I had to keep holding them up in order to watch Avatar and Alice in Wonderland. It was awful. The thing that ticks me off is that instead of offering different sizes, they only offer the large ones but sell smaller ones at the concession for $5.

Well, I went to see "Alice in Wonderland" on the weekend. I couldn't get in. All shows sold out. The RealD system was installed about two weeks ago. From reading peoples' general impressions "AinW" is a disappointing wreck, but up here it was selling out. Obviously the fact it is in 3D is a huge selling point. Eventually, the 3D fad will burn out with audiences just like any other fad, but the studios would be idiots not to take advantage of it while they can.


Of course, the question has to be asked whether it would be at #14 in terms of asses in seats if it wasn't for the 3D. Frankly, I doubt it. "Avatar" wouldn't have been nearly as successful as it has been if it wouldn't have been for the 3D and the higher ticket price that went with it. I wonder how many people told their friends that they had to see "Avatar" because of the 3D, rather than telling them to go see it because it was a good movie.

Quote: Do the math: it's a great bargain! A typical ticket is about $10 for 2D, so you're paying $5 per dimension. They're selling that third dimension for 40% off!

Edited by DaveF - 3/9/10 at 3:54am

I actually paid $10 to see Avatar in that Real 3D, or whatever it's called.  It was a brand new theater too.  I paid $15 to see it at IMAX, and at the same theater with the IMAX I regularly pay $10 to see a non 3D movie on a non IMAX screen, not sure what the price is if you go early in the day.  I paid $15 to see TDK on the IMAX screen and that wasn't in 3D.  So the price has not impacted me at all.

My complaint about the new 3D wave is that while Avatar was actually shot in 3D (the non-CGI portions, that is), both Alice and Clash of the Titans were shot in 2D and translated to 3D with the same process they are considering for a Star Wars 3D rerelease.  So if you're going to ask me if this is a gimmick, in these cases, they are.  I'm not sure about Alice, but the decision to make Clash a 3D release was decided after it was shot.  So when movie goers are underwhelmed by the 3D experience, as they were with pretty much all the releases before Avatar, there is the possibility of a backlash.  My friend saw Avatar and Alice, and he said tht while the 3D in Avatar was immersive, the 3D in Alice was superfluous and did nothing to enhance the film (and in fact, having to wear the glasses detracted from the experience).  Which is probably what people will say after Clash of the Titans 3D.  What Avatar has shown is that composition and the proper choice of vanishing points is what makes or breaks the 3D experience.  And neither Alice nor Clash have those.

So DaveF, the 40% discount for the extra dimension isn't that huge of a break since the extra dimension in this case is of lesser quality.  It's like if I gave you a 40% discount on a two for one deal, but it involves one BluRay movie and one R5DVD.

I hope that these theater owners rushing to install 3D screens doesn't get burned if a plethora of junk/faked 3D crashes the market.

 I don't think that the theater owners will get burned by 3D.

It's true that "Clash of the Titans" was not shot initially as a 3D movie.  So I'm not expecting the 3D experience to be anywhere near "Avatar" for that flick. 

However, both "Shrek Ever After" and "Toy Story 3" were conceived as 3D projects from day one.  And the next Harry Potter movie will have plenty of post-production time to take full advantage of the new technology.

Due to the success of "Avatar", it's a foregone conclusion that every Summer "Tent Pole" movie released in 2011 and 2012 will be designed from the ground up for 3D.

So we might as well get use to those darn glasses!
 

To the best of my knowledge, they didn't shoot Alice In Wonderland with the intent of it being in 3-D.

I'm wrong. See Michael Reuben's next post.
Edited by TravisR - 3/9/10 at 11:32am

The artificial conversions of 2D movies to 3D have results that often stink. The only 2D conversion I've seen that looked reasonably well at all was The Nightmare Before Christmas. And that conversion was helped by the movie's stop motion nature and often deep depth of field photography. Good edge detail on objects to digitally extract into 3D space. Even then, the 3D effect with that movie was fleeting at times.

In a forum where members routinely make a big stink about little things, I'm surprised that movies like Alice and Clash aren't attracting more outrage.  A studio takes a movie shot and composed for 2D, feeds it through a computer to artificially give it a 3D look, and then slaps a 3D label on the posters and $3 to the ticket price.

How is this really any different from colorizing B&W films?

Clash is a legitimate issue, but Alice isn't. It was intended for 3D from the time it was announced in 2007:

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117976106.html?categoryid=1050&cs=1

However, Burton made the decision to film with 2D cameras and convert to 3D in post-production, which drew criticism. Wikipedia has a convenient summary of the whole debate.

That explains my confusion on the issue.

As for the reason no one complains about 'artificial 3-D', it's probably because most people like 3-D or find it a fun addition to a movie. In my experience, alot of people are only bothered by changes when they don't like them. And if anyone feels that 3-D is an unacceptable alteration to the movie, there is 2-D versions of the movie that they can see.

Isn't that like saying, this move was meant to be color from the start, but was shot black-and-white and colorized in post-production?

I saw the IMAX version of Superman Returns with a couple of scenes in converted 3D. A couple of the people I was with didn't have issues with it but I thought it was godawful. The effect was about as impressive as a colorized movie. Big things work, but when you get a scene with a bunch of fine detail you're never going to get it right. You can get it to look close, but close isn't good enough. And if the filmmakers were willing to put in the effort to make it look right, they would have been willing to do it right from the start by capturing it 3D in the first place, which is probably less work than converting it in post.

Also, Jim Cameron raised the bar for 3D filmmaking way, way higher than it was a year ago. What may have been passable before Avatar may not pass muster now.

Quote:

I think if the public understood the shot in 3D vs post-processing 3D better, there would be a backlash against Clash for charging Avatar prices for a sub-Avatar experience (3D-wise, that is).  After Avatar, audiences are expecting 3D to be like Avatar, and it's a certainty that it won't even come near that bar.  So it's a bit fraudulent that this will probably be the norm until Hollywood gets the hang of Cameron's 3D camera system, and I don't think that will be for a while.

No backlash from me: But I won't pay the money to see movies in post-processed 3D. I'm sure they will be fine in 3D, but after Coraline, Up, and Avatar, there's no need to waste precious popcorn money on 2.5D viewing :)

Given that the whole thing was shot in front of green screens, I'm sure there are technically sophisticated arguments about why post-processing is a workable approach, as long as the people directing the performance capture are planning ahead toward 3D extraction. But I just don't know enough about the technology to make an intelligent evaluation.





A backlash? Unlikely. Nothing will be as big as Avatar, simply because nothing will have its combination of novelty, storytelling and sheer hoopla. But audiences tend not to be as picky as the jaded crew that hangs out at HTF.

The jaded pickiness does get tiresome after a while Michael, I concur. Should I have put "I concur" at the beginning or end of that sentence, does it matter? Now let me see what this thread was all about... hmmm hmmm yes, more 3-D, that's the ticket laddie. Otherwise I'll just stay home and watch them in 2-D.

Star Wars in 3-D? [gasps] The Death Star battle in 3-D [bites fist] Bring it on!

This is my philosophy too. The fake 3D just doesn't work and in fact distracts from my enjoyment of the movie. Avatar in IMAX 3D, incredibly immersive. Superman Returns and Half-Blood Prince in fake 3D at IMAX, distracting and disorienting. The only effective 2D to 3D conversion that I've experienced is The Nightmare Before Christmas. Despite Alice in Wonderland always being intended as a 3D release, Tim Burton only shot it with one camera. That makes it fake 3D in my book. If I had any interest in the film, I'd have caught it in 2D.

I'm going to have make a few exceptions to my 3D viewing.  Peter Jackson's LOTR trilogy and James Cameron's Titanic.  Peter Jackson wants to convert his trilogy to 3D but Warner is hesitant on doing it (although they may have changed their minds).  If it happens, I'm there.  Titanic is going to take a year or so to covert (and it's already in the process) so a re-release in 3D should be around the end of 2011.  I'll definitely be there to help break Avatar's box-office record. 

I was stunned by the 3D in Up last summer. I had always thought of 3D as a gimmick. I realized after Up that I couldn't remember watching any movie in 3D before then, begging the question about what the heck I was basing my negative impression of 3D on, all those years. I am now thinking it may have been a theme park ride.

Anyway based on Up and Avatar, if that's where movies are heading, that's perfectly fine by me. Heck, I want them to head that way.

--
H

Both Up and Coraline had marvelous 3D. It felt as integral to the films as did the use of color or surround sound. They felt like they were created for 3D. My initial impressions was they used 3D more organically than Avatar.