Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

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


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
113 replies to this topic

#1 of 114 OFFLINE   todd s

todd s

    Lead Actor



  • 6,935 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 08 1999

Posted March 08 2010 - 05:50 AM

Let me start this by saying I like how some of the new 3-D movies look. They are much better than they used to be.  But, the fact that they are charging an extra $3 for each ticket is outrageous.  It's the reason Avatar has made the amount of money it did.  You are adding 30-50% to the price of the ticket.  Luckily, they still do show some of these movies in standard 2-D.  But, that is also getting harder to find. 
Bring back John Doe! Or at least resolve the cliff-hanger with a 2hr movie or as an extra on a dvd release.

#2 of 114 OFFLINE   Jason Roer

Jason Roer

    Supporting Actor



  • 977 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 05 2004

Posted March 08 2010 - 06:19 AM

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



#3 of 114 OFFLINE   Holer

Holer

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 233 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 10 2007

Posted March 08 2010 - 07:00 AM

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...

#4 of 114 OFFLINE   Chuck Mayer

Chuck Mayer

    Lead Actor



  • 7,996 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 06 2001
  • Real Name:Chuck Mayer
  • LocationNorthern Virginia

Posted March 08 2010 - 07:03 AM



Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Roer View Post

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.
 
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.

Hey buddy...did you just see a real bright light?

#5 of 114 OFFLINE   Steve_Tk

Steve_Tk

    Screenwriter



  • 2,833 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 30 2002

Posted March 08 2010 - 07:04 AM

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.

#6 of 114 OFFLINE   Michael Reuben

Michael Reuben

    Studio Mogul



  • 21,769 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 12 1998

Posted March 08 2010 - 07:22 AM


Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve_Tk 

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. /img/vbsmilies/htf/smiley_wink.gif
COMPLETE list of my disc reviews.       HTF Rules / 200920102011 Film Lists

#7 of 114 OFFLINE   TravisR

TravisR

    Studio Mogul



  • 22,335 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 15 2004
  • LocationThe basement of the FBI building

Posted March 08 2010 - 07:29 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by todd s View Post

Luckily, they still do show some of these movies in standard 2-D.  But, that is also getting harder to find. 

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.

#8 of 114 OFFLINE   SilverWook

SilverWook

    Screenwriter



  • 1,615 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 11 2006

Posted March 08 2010 - 08:01 AM

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?


#9 of 114 OFFLINE   Jose Martinez

Jose Martinez

    Screenwriter



  • 1,113 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 18 2003

Posted March 08 2010 - 08:25 AM

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.

Live Free or DIE!!!!!

#10 of 114 OFFLINE   Lucia Duran

Lucia Duran

    Screenwriter



  • 1,089 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 30 2005

Posted March 08 2010 - 09:17 AM

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.
NO SHIRT

NO SHOES

NO SHELDON

#11 of 114 OFFLINE   Edwin-S

Edwin-S

    Producer



  • 5,713 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 20 2000

Posted March 08 2010 - 11:17 AM

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.

Quote:
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.
 

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.
"You bring a horse for me?" "Looks like......looks like we're shy of one horse." "No.......You brought two too many."

#12 of 114 OFFLINE   DaveF

DaveF

    Executive Producer



  • 14,322 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 04 2001
  • Real Name:David Fischer
  • LocationOne Loudoun, Ashburn, VA

Posted March 08 2010 - 10:30 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by todd s 

But, the fact that they are charging an extra $3 for each ticket is outrageous.
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!


#13 of 114 OFFLINE   Steve_Tk

Steve_Tk

    Screenwriter



  • 2,833 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 30 2002

Posted March 09 2010 - 02:23 AM

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.

#14 of 114 OFFLINE   Hanson

Hanson

    Producer



  • 4,461 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 01 1998
  • Real Name:Hanson

Posted March 09 2010 - 03:04 AM

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.


#15 of 114 OFFLINE   Joseph Bolus

Joseph Bolus

    Screenwriter



  • 2,193 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 04 1999

Posted March 09 2010 - 03:26 AM

 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!
 

Joseph
---------------

#16 of 114 OFFLINE   TravisR

TravisR

    Studio Mogul



  • 22,335 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 15 2004
  • LocationThe basement of the FBI building

Posted March 09 2010 - 03:37 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanson Yoo View Post

I'm not sure about Alice, but the decision to make Clash a 3D release was decided after it was shot.
 

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.

#17 of 114 OFFLINE   Bobby Henderson

Bobby Henderson

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 91 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 28 2001

Posted March 09 2010 - 05:25 AM

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. IMHO, if a movie studio wants a movie to be in 3D at all they need to shoot the movie natively in 3D using two camera/eye views.

#18 of 114 OFFLINE   Hanson

Hanson

    Producer



  • 4,461 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 01 1998
  • Real Name:Hanson

Posted March 09 2010 - 06:06 AM

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?


#19 of 114 OFFLINE   Michael Reuben

Michael Reuben

    Studio Mogul



  • 21,769 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 12 1998

Posted March 09 2010 - 06:22 AM



Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanson Yoo 

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.
 
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.c...oryid=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.
COMPLETE list of my disc reviews.       HTF Rules / 200920102011 Film Lists

#20 of 114 OFFLINE   TravisR

TravisR

    Studio Mogul



  • 22,335 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 15 2004
  • LocationThe basement of the FBI building

Posted March 09 2010 - 06:31 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Reuben View Post

However, Burton made the decision to film with 2D cameras and convert to 3D in post-production, which drew criticism.

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.