Sony to Stop Paying for 3D Glasses! Are you going to pay for 3D glasses at your next Sony 3D movie? (1 Viewer)

[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.

 

[Kevin EK]

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.

 

[Radioman970]

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.

 

[cineMANIAC]

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.

 

[Charles Smith]

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.

 

[TravisR]

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.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

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!


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.

 

[TravisR]

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.

 

[mattCR]

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!

 

[Brisby]

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.

 

[Steve_Tk]

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

 

[Jon Lidolt]

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

 

[Carl Johnson]

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.

 

[Malcolm R]

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

 

[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.

 

[Todd Erwin]

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.

 

[RobertR]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Todd Erwin]

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.

/t/315171/sony-to-stop-paying-for-3...asses-at-your-next-sony-3d-movie#post_3855911

 

[Michael Elliott]

I'll be there tonight so I'll double check. It's certainly no different from any other 3D film I've seen in other places but I will double-check.