|
|
This topic comprises 9 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Is 3-D Still Going Strong?
|
Jesse Skeen
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1517
From: Sacramento, CA
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 02-17-2015 12:50 AM
quote: Justin Hamaker
Jessie, you are completely right on this issue. But it's not the theatres. Theatres were the ones who had to spend all the money to convert to digital projection, while studios are the ones who realize all the savings by not having to produce and handle all those thousands of prints for each movie.
So why doesn't SOMEBODY stand up to that? Yes, I know theaters don't get to keep most of the ticket money, but not many customers are going to sympathize with that- it just makes the studios look like the greedy ones, not the theaters, and in the end the customers are still shoveling out money. (And I know there are good theater owners out there and ones who are just plain greedy- I've worked for both, including one good owner who ended up selling his theaters to a particularly greedy company! I personally would only open a theater for the sheer love of it, NOT to make money. I've already gotten out of the theater business because I've realized I can't live on what it pays.) Look at some of the message boards for people who watch a lot of movies but don't know a lot about the theater business- a LOT of people there complain about the high cost of moviegoing and say they like watching movies at home a lot more. One recent thread I've seen people swear that they like 3D better at home than they do at the theaters! Something is clearly broken here, and I'm not the only one who thinks so- I've heard one person considered an "expert" by many say that the theater business is likely to "implode" in the next decade. With prices constantly going up, I have to agree- there's a point when people are going to just say "Enough!" and stop going- that's already happened with a lot of people but apparently not enough to cause any reaction on the industry's end. It's called the point of diminishing returns.
It's time for someone to think outside the box, and not just keep saying "oh well" whenever a show plays to zero customers- something I saw far more times than I can count when prices were lower than they are now.
quote: Mike Blakesley
It's a simple fact of business that if something costs you more, you have to charge more for it. Whether you LIKE it can't enter into the picture. You have to find out whether people will be willing to pay the extra before you incur the extra cost -- if they won't pay it, then you probably shouldn't invest in that technology.
I'm wondering just how much research went into that before deciding to charge extra for 3D? As I said, I could've told you at the beginning that likely wasn't going to work. On the other hand if they HADN'T been charging extra for 3D you would have seen me go to EVERY 3D movie, but since they have charged extra I've only gone to a fraction of them.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jesse Skeen
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1517
From: Sacramento, CA
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 02-17-2015 07:27 PM
Been wondering how charging extra for the "premium" theaters has been working out- the Regal I used to work at re-did its biggest auditorium as an "RPX" and it's an absolute joke- it originally had a proper side-masked screen but the new screen is fixed-ratio and shows scope movies letterboxed with no masking. I saw one movie there (in 2D, because it was made that way) and the whole thing just felt more like a big video setup than a theater.
Their motivation was CLEARLY to find another excuse to charge more money than improve the experience, no surprise at all for Regal ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) Just a 2D movie will set you back more than usual, and then you get the extra charges for 3D on top of that! I don't know how much it's affected business, but I saw several Yelp reviews from people who were annoyed by the increased price. Someone said they went to see a "romantic comedy" and was charged extra since it was in that theater, even though it didn't really benefit from any enhancement in the presentation.
Which makes for another reason not to charge extra for 3D- sure, people might go ahead and pay more for something like Transformers, but what if somebody made a small independent movie in 3D? A smaller movie could benefit from 3D, but not be worth paying extra for to most people. (Likely the reason the last "Step Up" movie was considered a disappointment business-wise- I certainly wouldn't have paid close to $15 to see that, but importing the 3D Blu-Ray, as it wasn't even released in the US, was well worth it at around $20.)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012
|
posted 02-18-2015 12:22 AM
quote: Jesse Skeen
Been wondering how charging extra for the "premium" theaters has been working out- the Regal I used to work at re-did its biggest auditorium as an "RPX" and it's an absolute joke- it originally had a proper side-masked screen but the new screen is fixed-ratio and shows scope movies letterboxed with no masking. I saw one movie there (in 2D, because it was made that way) and the whole thing just felt more like a big video setup than a theater.
Putting aside whether or not members on this board think it is worth it or not, PLF and IMAX screens are very lucrative and the general population has seemed to embrace the formats. Both do very well when there is high demand for tickets and if there is a lot of anticipation or a built in audience for the movie.
Essentially both are like the extra charge for gravy on fries or butter on hot popcorn. Both are lucrative when a movie does well, and both under perform when a movie does not do as well.
To put it into perspective, Fifty Shades Of Grey broke down to roughly:
Total $85,171,450/3646 THEATRES and not screens for an average of $27,038
PLF $7,400,400/450 SCREENS not theatres for an average of $16,444 per screen
IMAX $2,100,000/75 SCREENS not theatres for an average of $28,000 per screen
These numbers are estimates for theatre and screen counts.
The highest price tickets are the VIP followed by IMAX followed by regular pricing.
quote: Mike Blakesley
Hindsight is 20/20. I don't know about anybody else, but before we put the 3-D in we did a survey (on "SurveyMonkey") and asked that very thing. "While we do not plan to increase our basic ticket prices, there will be a surcharge (likely $3.00) for each 3-D ticket, making our total ticket price for 3-D movies $10.25 ($8.25 for children). Are you willing to pay this type of price for 3-D movies?"
I imagine its better to have it and not use it all the time vs needing it for an Avatar or Gravity type feature and not having it.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 9 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
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.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic