my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » Sony to Stop Paying for 3D Glasses in May 2012 (Page 4)

This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6

Author Topic: Sony to Stop Paying for 3D Glasses in May 2012 Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 05-30-2012 08:38 AM                     I don't know how much the Dolby logo would be worth on the posters, etc. I've never heard of a patron specifically requesting the "RealD" (or the Dolby 3D) showtime. They might express an interest in a digital (or a film) screening. But I doubt if many people walk away because it is (or isn't) digital. Generally speaking, I believe viewers will have a preference to see it in 3D (or 2D) and may plan accordingly based on showtimes. But are viewers refusing to see a 3D movie based on which brand of 3D is being used? I know people who always want to see things in IMAX and I can understand why. So I'm only talking about standard digital 3D formats. Are people asking which brand of 3D? And does it make a real difference (between sale or no-sale)? Is it a deal-breaker if it's not RealD or Dolby? BTW the same was true with stereo -- I only cared if the cinema was playing a movie in stereo. I wasn't so picky as to ask what processor they were using. When digital (sound) came out, I only cared if it was digital sound. I didn't walk away if it was SDDS and not DTS. (Exception: If a movie was released in 70mm I might seek out one of those screenings, within reason.)  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-30-2012 09:42 AM                        You are probably right, but it just irks me to see that Real D name plastered everywhere. It just makes it appear that Dolby really dropped the ball, promotion wise, plus it does nothing to advance Dolby's brand-name in the public's eyes.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 05-30-2012 05:07 PM                        They don't request different forms of 3D because they see Real D plastered everywhere and just assume everything is Real D. They don't know there are different types of 3D otherwise you might be getting those types of requests here and there.  |  IP: Logged Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 06-01-2012 03:42 PM                     Then they'll take whatever flavor of 3D your theatre offers. (As I noted earlier.) Bottom Line: It doesn't affect the cinema operator. (It might hurt Dolby though.) Is there a Real-D snipe? I've never seen one. We always show the Dolby Digital Cinema snipes at the start of our presentations (2D and 3D). And, of course, the Dolby logo is printed on the 3D glasses, so even if a theatre doesn't play the snipe, it's still pretty obvious if they're using Dolby 3D.  |  IP: Logged Ron Funderburg Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 814 From: Chickasha, Oklahoma, USA Registered: Nov 2007 posted 06-01-2012 03:51 PM                        Real D has several very nice swipes. Disney has a pretty good one as well when you run their RealD 3D features but it doesn't pump real just Disney.  |  IP: Logged Jesse Skeen Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1517 From: Sacramento, CA Registered: Aug 2000 posted 06-02-2012 11:34 PM                     They ought to start just selling 3D glasses separately to customers, so if they have them they don't pay anything beyond the regular ticket prices to see the movie. I've only gone to 2 RealD movies since it came out (would've been to a LOT more if there were no upcharge!) and kept the glasses both times. In fact if I had known far ahead enough that I was going to the 2nd one, I would've brought the older glasses and kept the other ones sealed. I've had a 3D TV at home for a few weeks now and am loving it, and it's been far more economical to buy movies that I can watch forever rather than paying $11+ to see one time at someone else's theater!  |  IP: Logged Ron Funderburg Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 814 From: Chickasha, Oklahoma, USA Registered: Nov 2007 posted 06-05-2012 09:41 AM                        Jesse you give them the glasses you don't sell them the glasses. Upcharges are there to pay Real D, Dolby or whoever the cut they charge for the 3D service. So selling the glasses to the customer would only ad an additional charge under the current set ups.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 06-05-2012 02:09 PM                        Save your breath, Ron. Everyone here knows why the surcharges are there. Some just think the theaters should eat those extra 3-D expenses. I don't understand their logic... I mean, if you put in a more expensive menu item you charge more for it, right? No matter how logically you explain 3-D surcharges, it's just one of those things some will never agree on, for whatever reason.  |  IP: Logged Jonathan Goeldner Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1360 From: Washington, District of Columbia Registered: Jun 2008 posted 06-05-2012 02:48 PM                     Cinemark is selling Polaroid 3D glasses in varying designs, bought myself one.  |  IP: Logged Ron Funderburg Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 814 From: Chickasha, Oklahoma, USA Registered: Nov 2007 posted 06-05-2012 03:08 PM                        Mike I know what your saying and I agree but really galls me for someone in the business to think a 25 cent pair of glasses is why the up-charge exist. It simply cost more to run 3D and that cost has to be recovered plus you owe the company responsible for you 3D ... Oh lord here I am again explaining. Sorry  |  IP: Logged Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 06-05-2012 03:53 PM                     In a business where a 10-cent cup of popcorn is sold for $5.00, can you blame people for thinking the 3D upcharge is a ripoff? I, for one, think it's a ripoff. 3D doesn't make a movie any better. That's right -- I said that out loud!  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 06-05-2012 04:19 PM                        Manny don't say that here EVERYONE DON'T L@@K AT MANNY'S POST 3D IS AWSUM 3D IS AWSUM 3D IS AWSUM!!!! quote: Mike Blakesley Some just think the theaters should eat those extra 3-D expenses. I don't understand their logic. I do, to a point. Theaters ate the expense for digital sound and other sound upgrades. Theaters are not upcharging for the change to digital projection (which costs a lot more than 3D). I can understand a bit of an upcharge if the customer keeps the glasses but simply to see the movie in 3D? No, that's just stupid. Not only are customers getting ripped off, theater owners are, too.  |  IP: Logged Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 06-05-2012 04:38 PM                     If the customers get to keep the glasses, then it shouldn't be called an "upcharge." In that case they're just purchasing the eyewear. "Upcharge" has a kind-of slimy connotation -- you need the glasses, so we're gonna make you pay. As for not charging for the upgrade to digital sound, it was easily proven that houses with digital sound sold more tickets. The idea was that more traffic translates to more concession sales.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 06-05-2012 07:11 PM                        quote: Joe Redifer Theaters ate the expense for digital sound and other sound upgrades. Theaters are not upcharging for the change to digital projection Wrong, and wrong. Ticket prices are going up a little all the time, part of which goes to equipment purchases. Plus, big chains (and many smaller companies) ARE NOT paying for the digital conversions, the film companies are via VPFs. 3D is a thing which cost a lot of extra money to provide but not all movies have that feature. We're doing a big sound upgrade this summer but we don't plan to raise the prices to cover it, because (a) we've been saving up for it, and (b) it's going to cover ALL movies, not just some. I think it was James Cameron who said that someday 3-D will be considered the "norm" and there will be a "2-D discount." That day may not be far off, considering almost all of the blockbusters of this summer are in 3-D. Anyway, people have a choice to see a movie either way they want. So why gripe about the surcharge? Don't like it? Don't pay it! See the movie in 2-D! quote: Manny Knowles you need the glasses, so we're gonna make you pay. That actually should say, "This costs us more to provide, so therefore we have to charge you more. Just like any other business in the entire world." quote: a 10-cent cup of popcorn is sold for $5.00, This is completely false. There is no such thing as a "10-cent cup of popcorn." First, even the cheapest corn bucket costs closer to 40¢. Then you've got the ingredients, labor, electricity, janitorial, not to mention that popcorn machine which costs $7000 or $10,000 or more depending on how big it is. Then, you've got the dirty word "profit," which every business MUST MAKE or it won't survive. People want to buy a large popcorn for a dollar or two? Great, let's drop the prices and we'll all sell a ton of popcorn! But we'd all be closed within a couple of months. A lot of people don't seem to understand why a business, any business, MUST sell stuff for more than it costs the business or it won't survive. I don't know why that's such a hard concept for so many people to grasp. How many dollars worth of plastic and metal is in a car? Maybe a few thousand dollars worth. But you don't hear people whining to the heavens because a new car costs $35,000. Why isn't the media spouting stories about the car makers only including a couple thousand dollars worth of iron in a new car but "ripping off" the public by "jacking up" the price?  |  IP: Logged Sam D. Chavez Film God Posts: 2153 From: Martinez, CA USA Registered: Aug 2003 posted 06-05-2012 08:53 PM                       Mike, you sound very biased. Everyone knows there is markup, but with popcorn, anyone can make it at home so there is a known baseline of what it "ought to cost". On the other hand, no one can manufacture a car in the garage, so not much of an analogy there. (I would go with the analogy of the price of two eggs vs. a diner breakfast served up). Also, candy costs are well known at CVS and the grocery store, so there is a direct comparison, between what it costs there and at the local cinema. It's not as if cinema candy is a premium brand at the cinema and a lower grade offered at the store. I believe ticket costs are very reasonable but you can't expect the cinema goer to understand the studio has you over a barrel and takes all the revenue for themselves leaving you to peddle candy to make any profit. Finally, there is the issue of the cinema policy of prohibiting you from bringing a package of store bought Junior Mints into the cinema. I think this is where Manny is coming from with regard to an upcharge for glasses.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.