3D movies - here to stay or soon to vanish again?

Cafe Society
41

Sigh. Not that I think this will change your mind or anything…

Box Office Mojo:

Let me do the math for you, gaffa:

32.6 / 68.1 = .478
1534 / 6700 = .229

In other words, 48% of the revenue on 23% of the screens.

3D per screen: 21,251 2D per screen: 6,871

More than three times as much income per screen as 2D, despite the fact that there are three times more 2D screens showing it. This is why you saw more 2D showtimes, but as you can see, that’s totally irrelevant if they are mostly empty.

And just to forestall you saying that opening weekend isn’t typical:

In other words, in later weeks 3D does better, because in the opening weekend many 3D shows are sold out and some people see it in 2D only because they couldn’t get into a 3D show.

This is completely consistent with virtually all 3D films, as you could have found out yourself, with a little effort.

So do I get **my **apology now?

42

Not quite the statistics you are looking for, but according to

At the theaters in my town, 3D tickets are only $2.00 more than 2D tickets. To me, ratios of 2.5:1 and 6:1 would indicate a fairly significant market for 3D.

43

I feel ya. Hereditary, non-syndromic deafness runs in my family. I’m still bitter about the whole “synchronized sound” gimmick catching on. Don’t even get me started about that psychoacoustic positional sound business; that’s just cruel.

44

As long as they keep 2D versions of movies around (and there’s no reason to think they won’t), you guys will be fine.

There’s no reason for the many people whom enjoy the format to miss out on this technological marvel because of your daughter’s condition. No offense meant.

45

Even if all movies were 3D, a person with sight in only one eye could still watch them (although without the 3D effect, obviously) simply by putting on the 3D glasses. Of course, there’s no point in paying the extra fee as long as there are still 2D theaters showing 3D films, and this will be the case for many years to come.

But people like Nzinga, Seated’s daughter will never be unable to see movies, even though she can’t get the benefit of the 3D effect.

And along with FoisGras, I consider it rather silly and childish to suggest that just because some people can’t enjoy something, therefore no one should.

46

No, not until you stop weaving and dodging around the fact that the 3D presentation costs $3 more. You completely avoided mentioning that inconvenient fact in your calculations. With a $10 ticket price boosted to $13 with this nonsense, you have some inflated numbers. You’re showing very bad faith by not even mentioning it. And you violated board rules by using the QUOTE tag and changing the quoted text.

LarryMudd: The deaf don’t have to pay more for sound films they can’t hear. The color-blind don’t have to pay more for color they can’t see. And accommodations have been made - descriptive text service for the blind and Rear Window subtitling for the deaf - and no additional charge applies for them. But the stereoblind are being asked to pay more to have a worse experience. Given these facts, can we please have a moratorium on this particular logical fallacy?

47

Other than the blindingly obvious one - theaters charge more for 3D presentations than 2D ones. Increasing the price from $10 to $13 by giving out a cheap pair of sunglasses? They’ll be all over that.

48

Please don’t alter posts this way. Paraphrases or edits for brevity are allowed, but this kind of edit within quote tags isn’t. Thank you.

49

I’m getting to this late, Marley has said what I was going to say. But for any other readers who are not certain, please check the RULES: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=7697048#post7697048

Basically, using quote tags means you are quoting. The only modifications within quote tags are standard editing (leaving out words marked by …, adding explanatory comments in square brackets, etc.) such as would be used in a research paper.

If you want to misquote and distort, use quotation marks, not quote tags.

50

The other blindingly obvious fact is that purchasing and installing the equipment to display these 3D movies is more expensive for theatre owners, so, as in every other form of business, they pass along the extra cost to the customer.

I see nothing wrong with that, and I am willing to pay the premium for it because it’s fucking awesome to have truly amazing 3D movies. If you don’t like it, it gives you a headache, can’t see it, are pissed about paying extra…don’t.

51

It’s possible, but I wouldn’t count on it. If it was awfuil it wouldn’t have endured 50 years and engendered four more theaters.

Nothing says the best available is too expensive – it’s just that they’re not using it, or are unwilling to spend a little more. I suspect a decent 3D system could be made for what would be a reasonable cost, if amortized. The hard part is getting enough people and companies on board to make spending the money worthwhile and not a gamble.

The most likely result, in any case.

52

You know, I’m pretty certain that when sound was first introduced to movies, there was an increase in ticket prices. I don’t have a cite, wouldn’t know how to get one, but it stands to reason that installing speakers in all those movie theaters would cost a fair bit, and that cost was likely passed on to the consumer. It’s no longer a factor now, because there are no silent movie theaters any more, but I’d be very much surprised if the introduction of sound did not include an increase in ticket prices.

As for accommodations being made for the stereoblind… correct me if I’m wrong, but won’t simply closing one eye resolve the problem?

53

Nonsense – of course they do. Colour processing increased the cost of making movies, and the ticket price went up accordingly. Likewise for sound.

I know that you are talking more specifically about up-front additional costs for individual films - in 1941, patrons who saw Disney’s Fantasia in theatres equipped for nascent multichannel audio paid a premium on the ticket price, so that theatre operators could recoup the costs of installing the expensive equipment.

To give you a frame of reference, admission for run-of-the-mill monaural movies was ~$0.35 in 1940. The premium that we are paying for RealD rigs in theatres is darned near insignificant, in comparison. That’d be like paying $15 - $70, today.

54

Mod warning noted, even though my comment *was *in square brackets and obviously in jest, which I thought put it within the spirit of the rule. I won’t do it again.

However, I deny gaffa’s false charge of “using the QUOTE tag and changing the quoted text,” because I didn’t *quote *or *change *any of *his *text. (And he accuses me of bad faith!)
That said, I apologize, gaffa, for not realizing that you don’t understand how to apply grade-school math to real-world situations.

For most of the past century, Hollywood has consistently reported box office grosses, not admissions, as a measure of film performance. Admissions data are not readily available from any public source that I am aware of, and as I have mentioned, I’m a journalist working in the industry.

However, with the numbers that are available, it is quite simple to provide the "proof’ you are demanding. I assumed this would be perfectly obvious from my previous post.

Just so I can’t be accused of fudging the numbers, I’m going to make my case the worst possible, and assume that all tickets were sold at an average child rate of $7.50 for 2D and $10.50 for 3D. (Those with advanced math skills will understand that adding $3.00 to a $7.50 ticket is a larger percentage increase than adding the same $3.00 to a $10 ticket. In fact, the actual average prices are certainly higher, and would therefore make my case stronger.)

As I posted above, in its opening weekend, *Up * earned 21,251 per screen in 3D and 6,871 per screen in 2D.

21,251 / 10.50 = 2,024 admissions

6,871 / 7.5 = 916 admissions

Therefore, the number of admissions to every 3D screen was more than twice the number of admissions to 2D screens. As I showed above, the ratio for 3D *improved *as time went on.

So, gaffa, there you have it: This film was seen in 3D by at least twice as many people, and earned three times as much money, as it did in 2D. And as I said, it is typical of most 3D films. If you wish to dispute this, please provide a cite more authoritative than your local theater’s showtimes.

Now, far from expecting your apology, I’m just dying to see how you you weave and dodge to deny my facts, or find some other irrelevant issue with which to sidetrack the discussion.

I can hardly wait!

55

Cal, have you seen the Soyuz spacecraft that the Russians have been using for more than 40 years? It’s serviceable, but fugly. The Russians are quite used to awful. :smiley:

56

I was reading this thread, and thought I might just go and see Ice Age 3 in 3D to finally be fully informed about the potential of 3D movies (I wish I could see Up instead, but it doesn’t screen here until September).

But ticket prices are AU$20 for one adult, even on cheap Tuesday. So bugger that for a game of soldiers.

57

That is logic I cannot refute. These are people who ate beets, cabbage, and bread for generations because that was all the State offered. They still produce 1938 BMW motorcycles (okay, they’ve been updated to the mid-50s). They saw Fiats as a vast improvement over their domestic cars. My God in Heaven, they let Pepsi in ages before Coke. And have you seen their “Worker vs Parasite” animation? There is no reason to give much credit to [del]Soviet[/del] [del]Russian[/del] (looking at Putin and realizing I had it right the first time) Soviet taste and expectations.

58

I saw “Up” in 3D recently and was kind of pissed when I realized the tickets were more expensive (realized after I bought them).

Have seen a few films recently in 3D, but felt “Up” was kind of a let-down. Started off OK, but by the end of the film, I think the 3D effects had kind of dried up - at least I no longer felt the “wow” factor and was sort of relieved to take off the damned glasses.

59

There are a total of three 3-D cinemas in Queensland, none of them anywhere near where I am. But there is no way I’m paying $20 for a movie ticket that isn’t in one of those “Gold Lounge” set-ups with the reclining chair and free popcorn and drinks.

The only 3D films I’ve seen are things like Honey, I Shrunk The Audience at Disneyland, and frankly I don’t see what the fuss is about. The technology is interesting, but frankly I’d rather see the time and money invested in holographic projection rather than gimmicky novelty-films that require annoying glasses.

60

See, for me it’s different: I’m pretty much over the “wow,” and if that’s all the technology has to offer, I’m not interested. Unless you’re talking about a “wow” similar to that offered by 2D technology: I want use of the technology that takes my breath away because of its beauty, not because of its golly-gee factor.

I thought Coraline did that quite well.