Indeed. Tickets to the recent Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus 3-D concert film cost $15 apiece, but it ended up making a lot of money for a 3-D film- a record-setting $29 million over Super Bowl weekend, and $64 million over all…but then again, that film features a well-known performer popular with young children and was created as a substitute for those who were not able to afford the even higher-prices scalped tickets for the actual concert.
Hollywood executives have been racking their brains to try to come up with some way to increase the price of a ticket. Taking something that people have already become used to paying extra for and making it the standard seems like a plan.
You’re missing the point. Hollywood has traditionally made it’s money from theatrical presentation. The home video market was hard fought. Several studios refused to release titles on VHS early on. We practically had to force the money into their hands. And even though, in most cases, they make more money from home video than theatrical, it’s still viewed as an additional revenue stream. They don’t care about 3D in the home - it’s doubtful if these films will be released in 3D for home. And, even though I have an excellent home theater and a large collection of DVDs, the theater is where I want to see first-run movies.
I have a cover story in the February issue of “HD Video Pro” with James Cameron on the cover and concentrating on his next film, “Avatar”. The headline is “Cameron’s Crusade in 3D”. The article is written by Cameron and is filled with inanities like:
Always going to be available in 2D? Bullshit.
Exclusively. As in excluding.
What, like Hitchcock and “Dial M For Murder”? Serious fare has been done in 3D.
See above. James “King of the World” Cameron said that his next film, “Avatar” will be released exclusively in 3D. It is and it will.
Video has not been a “second tier” moneymaker for a long time. Look at all of the direct-to-DVD stuff that has been coming out recently. The studios know the big money is in the home video market now but they don’t want to kill the theater market because “I’ll wait for the DVD” is a powerful motivator that they need to stay successful.
And Avatar is one movie by one director who has been described as “The King of the World.” The man’s crazy and I highly doubt he represents moviemakers as a whole. Plus, your own quote says that he “hopes” it only comes out in 3D. I have my doubts.
Monsters vs Aliens, huh?
I was expecting Sulley and Mike to take on an xenomorph.
3D costs more because of the glasses.
Perhaps the reason gaffa can’t see 3D is because…he forgot to ask for a pair. 
“Direct to DVD” is Hollywood code for “failure” or “cash in”. It’s a way to flog a dead horse. “Toy Story 2” was originally going to be a “Direct to DVD” release, until they noticed that it was turning out too well to be dumped.
Their goal is to “save” the theatrical market. They get money from every single pair of eyes that sees it in the theater, and more per pair. But a DVD or Blue-Ray represents one sale to one person who can watch it as many times as they wish and show it to all their family and friends. This galls the average Hollywood executive. Why else would they spend so much time thinking up moronic ideas like the original DiVX disc (the Hollywood pay-per-view one, not the MPEG4 format) or push “Pay Per View” on cable and satellite so hard?
Anything that doesn’t fit their original business model is only grudgingly accepted. I’ve got some perspective on this, going back to the “Magnetic Video” days of VHS ($1500 for a recorder, $25 for a blank tape). Perhaps you don’t remember, but widescreen movies were a reaction to TV. The original format of film was 1.33:1, and Hollywood started making films wider and wider, eventually going up to 2.40:1, in an attempt to make something that could not be reproduced at home.
The article makes clear that Cameron intends to film and release exclusively in 3D. And crazy? The only measure of sanity that Hollywood respects is measured in dollars. And he’s collected more than a billion dollars at the box office, and possibly several billion more in home sales.
I wouldn’t doubt that Hollywood won’t license 3D content for home use until they can come up with some way of encrypting the film, display and LCD glasses so they get paid for every viewer and every viewing.
Personal opinion? Because **Watchmen ** has been around for longer, and has been held up to non-comic-geeks as teh epitome of the art form for two decades.
But since the abomination that was The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen I am not anticipating any films based on good comic books. Original stories (like The Incredibles) seem to do better. But I can have hope…
I wonder if there’s a scene where they measure her height and it comes out to exactly 49 feet 11 inches and:
“couldn’t we just say fif-”
“NO, we couldn’t!”
What’s the name of this characteristic, what causes it, and where did you find out 12% of males have it?
-Kris
That’s assuming The Incredibles had anything original about it. Pfft, crummy Fantastic Four homage with a healthy splash of James Bond and a sprinkling of Watchmen backstory. I really really don’t like that movie, but I don’t want to derail this thread any more.
I’ve not researched it, but the number was from from an optometrist who tested my stereo vision when I complained about not seeing 3D images during an eye exam. She confirmed that I had minimal stereo vision. She had to dig around to find the test card, so the test is not a part of a routine eye exam - until I complained about it, no optometrist ever checked. It is probably under-reported. The test was a set of stereograms of increasing divergence. The ones available on web sites and in books will probably be a reasonable lay test. How many people are able to look at those and see the “floating” image? That is very likely the same percentage that will have no problem viewing 3D movies (although the stereograms in magazines are probably at one extreme to make it more difficult).
I hope whatever 3D process they’re using for “excusively in 3D” movies is a lot better than whatever they did for the 3D scenes in the Imax version of Superman Returns, because I only got the 3D effect about a third of the time that the little PUT GLASSES ON told me to have them on, and the rest of that time it was a blurry mess. The 2D portions looked great, though!
That’s one of Ginormica’s special powers–invulnerability to lawsuits. 
Fair enough.
The value of “original” I was using was in contrast to “adaptation,” and included high levels of “homage.”
The Fantastic Four had a chance to do it right themselves, and they muffed it. Seems a little harsh to reproach The Incredibles for doing a better job.
At least we have one good Fantastic Four movie, even if that’s not what it’s called.
Why not 1" taller? Did they not want to be seen in competition with Attack of the 50 Foot Woman? It didn’t bother them to exceed the Thirty Foor Bride by almost 20 feet. (Although they’re still over ten feet shorter than the Sixty Foot Centerfold.)
I’ve never seen a thread about a movie that was less about the movie.
I’m pretty sure that they don’t…
But seriously, you’re kind of undercutting your own point, here. Yeah, you can’t see 3D movies. Blind people can’t see any movies. But blind people can still enjoy movies even when they’re missing out on the visuals entirely, and you can still enjoy 3D movies even though you’re missing out on one aspect of the visuals. Just go see the thing in a non-3D theater, or wait for the 2D DVD to come out. That’s what I’m going to do with this film, because I think 3D is an annoying gimmick. But some people get a kick out of it, and it’s sour grapes to be pissy at them just because you’ve got some wierd neurological quirk that prevents the 3D effect from working for you.
Technically, the theatre circuits (Regal, AMC, Cinemark) set their prices and the studios have nothing to do with it.
Films presented in both 3D and 2D usually have the 3D screens kicking the 2D’s average. Like Polar Express for example. Probably for a combination of reasons, like some people just wanted to see the different tech. Also, the 3D screen tends to be an IMAX screen. Many huge multiplexes have an IMAX screen but use it for regular movies at times. These houses tend to have more seats than the typical house. (screen within a complex is sometimes refered to as a house) So your IMAX house seats 500 and you other houses have maybe 300. People already pay more for the IMAX screen so when a movie is in that house, they pay more. So people are used to paying a premium for the ‘different expierence’.