3-D movies or "How Hollywood figured out to suck more money out of moviegoers" (1 Viewer)

todd s · Mar 8, 2010

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.

Jason Roer · Mar 8, 2010

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

Holer · Mar 8, 2010

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...

Chuck Mayer · Mar 8, 2010

Originally Posted by Jason Roer

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.

Steve_Tk · Mar 8, 2010

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.

Michael Reuben · Mar 8, 2010

Originally Posted by Steve_Tk /forum/thread/298725/3-d-movies-or-...uck-more-money-out-of-moviegoers#post_3668289

TravisR · Mar 8, 2010

Originally Posted by todd s

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.

SilverWook · Mar 8, 2010

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?

Jose Martinez · Mar 8, 2010

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.

Lucia Duran · Mar 8, 2010

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.

Edwin-S · Mar 8, 2010

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.

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.

DaveF · Mar 9, 2010

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!

Steve_Tk · Mar 9, 2010

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.

Hanson · Mar 9, 2010

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.

Joseph Bolus · Mar 9, 2010

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!

TravisR · Mar 9, 2010

Originally Posted by Hanson Yoo

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.

Bobby Henderson · Mar 9, 2010

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.

Hanson · Mar 9, 2010

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?

Michael Reuben · Mar 9, 2010

Originally Posted by Hanson Yoo of the whole debate.

TravisR · Mar 9, 2010

Originally Posted by Michael Reuben

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.

Home Theater

Entertainment & Streaming Content

Physical Media

Home Theater Equipment and Hardware

Other Diversions

Bargains and Classifieds

Home Theater Forum

Archives

3-D movies or "How Hollywood figured out to suck more money out of moviegoers" (1 Viewer)

Supporting Actor

Stunt Coordinator

Screenwriter

Screenwriter

Stunt Coordinator

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread

Sign up for our newsletter

and receive essential news, curated deals, and much more

Forum statistics