-

Jump to content



Sign up for a free account!

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and you won't get the popup ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

- - - - -

Sony to Stop Paying for 3D Glasses! Are you going to pay for 3D glasses at your next Sony 3D movie?


This topic has been archived.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

#1 of 29

  • 0 posts
  • Join Date: --

Posted September 29 2011 - 05:00 PM

Sony Pictures Entertainment has notified theater owners in a letter that it will no longer pay for 3D glasses as of May 1, 2012.  Fox tried doing this when digital 3D first came out and it was met with stiff resistance.

Theater owners are the ones that have to ultimately decide if they will pass this cost onto consumers, but what do you think they will do?  Theater owners are pretty upset about this as they already spent money on doing upgrades (screen and projector) upgrades (some in the form of Sony projectors) and don't feel that this extra cost is justified.


Sony tries to pass this off to theater owners as a "revnue model" in that they can upsell their consumers by purchasing the glasses (i.e. the ownership model).  This has worked in other markets, including the U.K., Australia, Italy and Spain. However, American consumers are used to getting the glasses for free when they pay a 3D surcharge (usually 3 or 4 dollars),


Personally, if 3D and 2D movies cost the same, then I can see paying some more for glasses.  But I already am paying more to see the movie in 3D.  While I would probably like to own a quality pair of glasses vs the chump ones I would get at the movie theater, I would probaby always forget to bring my glasses!


What are your thoughts?



#2 of 29 Adam Gregorich

Adam Gregorich

    Executive Producer

  • 14,693 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 20 1999
  • LocationThe Other Washington

Posted September 29 2011 - 05:36 PM

I haven't paid any attention to what happens "behind the scenes", but I always thought that's what the "surcharge" was for.  If they tack a second fee on I think that will kill the 3D theatrical market.



#3 of 29 Kevin EK

Kevin EK

    Screenwriter

  • 2,682 posts
  • Join Date: May 09 2003

Posted September 29 2011 - 06:34 PM

I'm going to try to be polite here.

This is the most unintelligent proposal I think I've heard in quite some time.


Expecting the consumer to pay even more to go to the movies, particularly today, is a spectacularly ridiculous idea.  Whoever is proposing this is not living on a budget themselves.


#4 of 29 Radioman970

Radioman970

    Producer

  • 5,688 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 22 2006
  • Real Name:James Perry
  • LocationCould be anywhere

Posted September 29 2011 - 11:26 PM

Wouldn't bother me so much if the glasses were reusable. In my small town I won't see a 3D movie since the theater here is crappy anyway. If (when..?) I move to a larger town...no problem if reusable. I won't buy refreshments though...too expensive.
Silly Party Candidate:  Tarquin Fin- tim- lim- bim- whin- bim- lim- bus- stop- F'tang- F'tang- Olè- Biscuitbarrel

 


#5 of 29 cineMANIAC

cineMANIAC

    Screenwriter

  • 1,844 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 03 2008
  • Real Name:Luis
  • LocationNew York City

Posted September 30 2011 - 12:44 AM

Stupid move by Sony. Number 1: 3-D is already starting to feel like a gimmick WAY past it's "wow" factor. There's also a lot of conversion being done to movies shot traditionally so the "wow factor" is considerably watered down, which makes paying a premium price harder to swallow. Number 2: There's not much out there worth watching in 3-D and Sony is among the worst offenders when it comes to crappy, throwaway films. Big thumbs down from me.
 

 


#6 of 29 Charles Smith

Charles Smith

    Producer

  • 4,110 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 27 2007
  • LocationNor'east

Posted September 30 2011 - 12:49 AM

Originally Posted by Adam Gregorich 


I haven't paid any attention to what happens "behind the scenes", but I always thought that's what the "surcharge" was for.  If they tack a second fee on I think that will kill the 3D theatrical market.


Agree all the way.




#7 of 29 TravisR

TravisR

    Studio Mogul

  • 21,635 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 15 2004
  • LocationThe basement of the FBI building

Posted September 30 2011 - 01:32 AM

My guess/hope is that theater chains are going to fight back by not running any of Sony's 3-D movies until Sony says that they'll continue to give them 3-D glasses. Since 3-D is on its way back to the pop culture graveyard, I can't imagine that they'll get too many complaints from the public if there's no 3-D option on some medium budgeted action movie that Sony puts out. However, with the new Spider-Man movie being in 3-D (which is probably the biggest reason why Sony is going to stop providing glasses), Sony will want that extra revenue from 3-D screens enough that they'll change their position and continue to give theater chains the glasses. Sony hasn't had a big hit in years (probably since the last Spider-Man movie) so they need to make everything they can from this movie.

#8 of 29 Colin Jacobson

Colin Jacobson

    Producer

  • 5,221 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 19 2000

Posted September 30 2011 - 01:33 AM

Until a couple of weeks ago, I woukd've agreed with the thoughts that 3D was fading.


And then Disney re-released a 17-year-old movie in 3D and it made more than $60 million over two weekends! Posted Image


I have a feeling the enormous success of the "Lion King" 3D will give studios the sense that 3D is still popular and not as much on the downward slope as it appeared.


But I also think audiences have their limits, and if you ask them to pay another $5 or whatever on top of the already-existing 3D surcharge, then 3D will tank.  Sure, if you can buy the glasses and reuse them, that'll take away some of the bite, but I don't think it'll make much of a difference: when some schlub is faced with paying $80 so he, his wife and two kids can see the next "Smurfs" movie in 3D, he's not gonna be thinking "we can save the glasses and not pay as much next time!"


If they dropped the standard 3D surcharge, then I'd be fine with this, but that's unlikely.  Continued surcharge PLUS a charge for the glasses makes it a much tougher sell.


Colin Jacobson
http://www.dvdmg.com

#9 of 29 TravisR

TravisR

    Studio Mogul

  • 21,635 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 15 2004
  • LocationThe basement of the FBI building

Posted September 30 2011 - 01:42 AM

Until a couple of weeks ago, I woukd've agreed with the thoughts that 3D was fading.


And then Disney re-released a 17-year-old movie in 3D and it made more than $60 million over two weekends!

Not like I can prove it but I think that a 2-D re-release of The Lion King would have done about as well in terms of number of tickets sold as the 3-D release did. 3-D certainly didn't hurt it (especially since it made the tickets cost more money) but that was more about the popularity of that movie than 3-D.

#10 of 29 mattCR

mattCR

    Lead Actor

  • 9,998 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 05 2005
  • Real Name:Matt
  • LocationOverland Park, KS

Posted September 30 2011 - 01:46 AM

The Lion King made all that money not because it's in 3D, but because it is far and away the best "Kids" animated film released this year.  In fact, it's not even close.. I would have taken the kids in 2D frankly.   If they'd release The Little Mermaid or Beauty and the Beast in a theater, I'd go to that too..


And let me say as a guy who was in college for Beauty and the Beast.. that is a great date flick.    So, I don't credit Lion King's success with the 3D, just the product.

And as someone who already wears glasses, I hate wearing glasses on top of my glasses.. it's an annoying PITA!


trakt.tv

Ask Me about HTPC! (Threads in HTPC / PMs always responded to)

This signature is povided by MediaBrowser 3 Trakt Plugin: Media Browser 3


#11 of 29 Brisby

Brisby

    Second Unit

  • 288 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 11 2010

Posted September 30 2011 - 01:57 AM

Um, I'm already paying five bucks extra for a ticket to a 3D movie, so they're going to tack on even more money for the glasses?! Fuck. YOU.

#12 of 29 Steve_Tk

Steve_Tk

    Screenwriter

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

Posted September 30 2011 - 03:01 AM

I don't pay to see 3D anyway. Only one was Avatar, and eye strain was annoying. The craze doesn't exist for me.

#13 of 29 Jon Lidolt

Jon Lidolt

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 177 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 08 2004

Posted September 30 2011 - 05:25 AM

I would pay extra for the glasses but can't understand why we have to pay more to see a feature film in 3D. Since the films are distributed digitally, it doesn't cost a distributor one penny more to mail out a 3D copy than it does for the standard 2D version. If glasses are no longer supplied there's no way a film company can justify the surcharge for 3D. I

#14 of 29 Carl Johnson

Carl Johnson

    Screenwriter

  • 1,919 posts
  • Join Date: May 06 1999

Posted September 30 2011 - 05:42 AM

If I were running a theater I would charge $3 for the glasses, or give them away free with any popcorn or drink purchase from the concession stand.  The food items cost the theater pennies on the dollar anyway, so worst case a $3 small drink is traded for a $3 pair of glasses.


At the same time offer $1 off a concession discount for anyone who recycles their own glasses.  That way the theater doesn't have to pay for the glasses and the customer feels like they are getting a good deal after paying $10 for a ticket and $2 for a drink.



#15 of 29 Malcolm R

Malcolm R

    Executive Producer

  • 11,520 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 2002
  • LocationVermont

Posted September 30 2011 - 06:01 AM

I've pretty much given up on 3D anyway. Additional cost for glasses would just be the final nail in the 3D coffin.
The purpose of an education is to replace an empty mind with an open mind.

#16 of 29 Michael Elliott

Michael Elliott

    Lead Actor

  • 7,117 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 11 2003
  • Real Name:Michael Elliott
  • LocationKY

Posted September 30 2011 - 06:40 AM

I guess I'm the only one who keeps my glasses, buys a differenent ticket and................ At my local AMC the "mall" charges about $5 for parking and then the theater gives you back $3.75 when you buy the ticket. How about the theaters charge $3 for the glasses and then give you a partial refund when you return them? I'm sorry but I don't see how they can make me buy something and then give it back to them. There's a theater in Louisville that actually ropes off their 3-D movies and people can't leave until they turn the glasses in. I think it's pretty dirty all around.

#17 of 29 Todd Erwin

Todd Erwin

    Screenwriter

  • 2,189 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 16 2008
  • Real Name:Todd Erwin
  • LocationOrange County, CA

Posted September 30 2011 - 07:39 AM

Actually, I only see this hurting those theaters equipped with RealD or IMAX 3D. Theaters that use Dolby 3D and Xpand loan the glasses to movie goers already.


Here's a thought - theaters offer a discount on the "surcharge" if you bring your own glasses. Kind of like the grocery store when you bring your own bags.


Originally Posted by Michael Elliott 

I guess I'm the only one who keeps my glasses, buys a differenent ticket and................

At my local AMC the "mall" charges about $5 for parking and then the theater gives you back $3.75 when you buy the ticket. How about the theaters charge $3 for the glasses and then give you a partial refund when you return them? I'm sorry but I don't see how they can make me buy something and then give it back to them. There's a theater in Louisville that actually ropes off their 3-D movies and people can't leave until they turn the glasses in. I think it's pretty dirty all around.


Michael, it sounds like that particular theater may be using Dolby 3D or XpanD. Those are expensive glasses, and are meant to be re-used and collected whenever a patron leaves the auditorium.



#18 of 29 RobertR

RobertR

    Lead Actor

  • 9,455 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 19 1998

Posted September 30 2011 - 08:03 AM

I've pretty much given up on 3D anyway. Additional cost for glasses would just be the final nail in the 3D coffin.

My interest in 3D evaporated completely, so this idea just confirms my lack of interest. I'd be bemused by those who will obediently shell out the extra bucks for 3D.

#19 of 29 Michael Elliott

Michael Elliott

    Lead Actor

  • 7,117 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 11 2003
  • Real Name:Michael Elliott
  • LocationKY

Posted September 30 2011 - 08:34 AM

Todd, it's just the regular 3D movies. Nothing special. The theater just says they can't afford to have people taking the glasses home.

#20 of 29 Todd Erwin

Todd Erwin

    Screenwriter

  • 2,189 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 16 2008
  • Real Name:Todd Erwin
  • LocationOrange County, CA

Posted September 30 2011 - 09:05 AM

Sounds like Dolby 3D, to me.

Originally Posted by Michael Elliott 

Todd, it's just the regular 3D movies. Nothing special. The theater just says they can't afford to have people taking the glasses home.