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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Ground Level   » Analyst: 'Pirates' Was Hurt By 3D As Consumers Tire Of High Ticket Prices (Page 2)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: Analyst: 'Pirates' Was Hurt By 3D As Consumers Tire Of High Ticket Prices Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 05-29-2011 12:09 AM                        Digital sound brings much more to the movie experience than 3D does.  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 05-29-2011 02:03 PM                        Then they should be adding the surcharge to digital sound and not 3D if the reasoning behind the surcharge is because it's a "premium experience." Come on -- we all know the reason they tack on an extra 3 bucks is because they can. The public didn't balk so it will continue and possibly to the detriment of 3D.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 05-29-2011 03:30 PM                     They tack the money on because it DOES cost more to do 3D. It cost more for the equipment to shoot it, post-prod, project it and keep up with it. -Steve  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 05-29-2011 03:32 PM                        But doing 5.1 digital sound was free?  |  IP: Logged Frank Cox Film God Posts: 2234 From: Melville Saskatchewan Canada Registered: Apr 2011 posted 05-29-2011 04:16 PM                        Digital sound is less immediately obvious to the customers. A lot of people can't even tell the difference between mono and stereo but everyone knows something's going on when they're handed a pair of 3D glasses. Regardless of actual value (or lack thereof), folks think they got something more and are therefore willing to pay extra for it.  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 05-29-2011 05:43 PM                        quote: Steve Guttag They tack the money on because it DOES cost more to do 3D. It cost more for the equipment to shoot it, post-prod, project it and keep up with it. Sorry, I'm not buying it, Steve. Since when is the production cost of a film translated directly to the price of the ticket. So according to that logic, a picture that cost $200 million to make should have a ticket price twice that of a picture that cost $100 million. It is not the way exhibition ticket prices are structured. And as I said, they certainly hyped digital projection to the max yet for all the cost of conversion, that price was never added as a direct tag on tickets as a "premium" even though it certainly was touted as a premium way to see a film. So it cost more to show a film in digital but where is the premium price tag? If you are claiming that the added price for a 3D ticket is because of the extra cost for the additional equipment, then if that follows, there should have been an additional "premium" ticket for those theatres that installed $100k digital projectors. Which brings up an interesting question. Does the added surcharge get split with the studio? Is it mandatory? Or let's say the theatre decides it's a bad PR issue and drops the surcharge. Can it do that on its own or are they and the distributor in cahoots on the surcharge?  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 05-29-2011 07:25 PM                     Frank, Yes, anything in the ticket price the studio gets its normal cut. You can not buy it all you want, but you are WRONG none the less. An exhibitor has a notably larger, on-going expense associated with 3D, above and beyond just showing the movie in 2D. If it is a Real-D theatre (the majority), they have a partner that is getting 50-75 cents a ticket (estimate since the contracts are shrouded in secrecy but most that have laid eyes on one have confirmed that price range) (which comes off of the exhibitor's end). So if the exhibitor only keeps 40-50% on aggregate, how much does he have to up charge to just keep his "partner's" fees covered and not LOSE money on just the 3D ticket sale. If they only pay 50-cents and they get to keep 40% of the box, they have to charge at least $1.25 just to cover an entity like Real-D. The other 3D systems also have expenses associated with them. Master Image has a huge start up cost (over $30K), Dolby also has a start up cost associated with the equipment. And then there are the consumables...glasses that 2D does not incur. It costs the exhibitor REAL money to pay for these (some systems, like Real-D it is included in the partner fee, but for Dolby, the exhibitor pays...including for theft of the glasses). Then there are the lamps, the exhibitor has to pay for a larger lamp and the electricity to run it. Larger lamps cost geometrically more money to run (last less can cost more). You might also have screen expenses associated with 3D too though I discount those a bit since they are a relatively low consumable (last 10+ years). Until you run the numbers on just what it costs to show 3D versus 2D, how can you make a claim that there shouldn't be an up charge associated with it? -Steve  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 06-17-2011 04:22 AM                     600 to 1K hours per mandantory change and at over $1200 bucks a bulb along with some big box cinemas running their pre-show content through them projectors....really makes one wonder...  |  IP: Logged Sam D. Chavez Film God Posts: 2153 From: Martinez, CA USA Registered: Aug 2003 posted 06-17-2011 10:26 AM                       Steve is being way too logical about the issue of cost of 3D and the need to pass it on to avoid losing money. Cinema owners do 3D to stay ahead of the technology curve or the competition. Not all cinemas do the 3D upcharge. The Grand Lake in Oakland does not charge extra. The owner paid cash for the projectors and did not do the VPF. I believe the real reason for the upcharge is it helps pay off the hardware and the VPF. 3D is the excuse or pretext. There is also pressure from the studio to do the upcharge. There is also a flawed presumption here that increased attendance (from installing 3D) will help pay everything off. But, people are passing on 3D venues as there is no compelling reason to see a run of the mill "film" in low light 3D. "3D; The Audience is Bored". The whole upcharge issue is kind of silly. We don't see an upcharge for new seats, screen, popcorn machine, air conditioning. Why? Because the audience would collectively say F*ck Off.  |  IP: Logged Frank Cox Film God Posts: 2234 From: Melville Saskatchewan Canada Registered: Apr 2011 posted 06-17-2011 11:30 AM                        I didn't use the word upcharge, but I did increase all of my admission prices by $1 when I installed my digital cinema equipment and everyone knew that was the reason. I did post a sign on the door saying "New Admission Prices for Digital Cinema", though. Nobody complained. I still get the occasional customer saying "How can you survive on these prices".  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 06-19-2011 11:54 PM                        Every now and then I think about doing away with the surcharge and then I remember that we never really get any complaints about the prices. We hear more grumbles about the glasses being uncomfortable than anything. The only thing we can't do a damn thing about. I can't say that 3D has increased our attendance but it hasn't decreased it either. One good development: Certain film companies are now allowing single screens to play their films in 3D and 2D. So progress is being made there.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 06-20-2011 06:50 AM                     Yeah, my wife's theatre is playing Green Lantern in both 3D and 2D on the same screen. Regardless of which version gets which showtime, the 2D version is always out-selling the 3D version.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 06-20-2011 06:57 PM                        We are doing our first week of really having "mixed" showtimes this upcoming week, so we'll see how it does. Exactly half of the showings will be in 2-D. (Late shows, matinee and two weeknights)  |  IP: Logged Jesse Skeen Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1517 From: Sacramento, CA Registered: Aug 2000 posted 06-21-2011 05:30 PM                     Can they add showings with mono sound too? I hate that annoying sound that comes from all around the place. But seriously- if you're doing 2D and 3D on the same screen and 2D outsells it, are you charging less for the 2D showings, and are they at better times?  |  IP: Logged John Wilson Film God Posts: 5438 From: Sydney, Australia. Registered: Dec 1999 posted 06-21-2011 07:30 PM                     quote: DAVID LIEBERMAN, Executive Editor - Deadline New York Analyst: 'Pirates' Was Hurt By 3D As Consumers Tire Of High Ticket Prices Yeah, Pirates has been hurt by 3D. It's about to go over $1 billion worldwide. I bet that smarts BIG time.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

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.