quote: Robert E. Allen

---

I just read the Boxoffice interview with the director and he said they had both 2D and 3D equipment on the set so apparently part of it was shot in 2D and converted.

---

quote: Randy Stankey

---

Sometimes, things have to break before people solve the problems.

---

Agreed, but the perceived "problem" here is that the movie is being shown in 2D and the only solution is to get 3D installed. The REAL problem is Paramount being idiots and putting this 3D bit on 2D prints. They will not learn. It's the theater owners who have to "fix" and deal with Paramount's complete lack of thought.

Granted, the movie is called Jackass 3D. That alone means that it should have been a 3D ONLY release. They are idiots for allowing it to play in 2D anywhere and anyhow. My farts are smarter than anyone at Paramount (prove me wrong here).
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 10-15-2010, 09:28 PM:
 
Paul, maybe I could have taken money out of petty cash and bought some high visibility, anti-skid tape to put on the stairs and that woman wouldn't have fallen but that would done nothing but prolong the problem. In the end, the real solution to the problem was to install proper nonslip stair treads with lighting.

My boss swept the problem under the rug for five years. It wasn't until somebody got hurt that HIS boss intervened and ordered the problem to be fixed.

So, I had to stand by while an ambulance crew took an innocent, old lady out of my theater on a stretcher. How do you think I felt?

Document your problems and report them to the proper people. In other words, cover your ass. After that, it's your boss's problem.
 

---

Posted by Jarret Chessell (Member # 5077) on 10-15-2010, 10:36 PM:
 
"While I was in the lobby complaining about the 3D movie being in 2D, I missed about five minutes of the movie... can you rewind it?"
 

---

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 10-16-2010, 02:29 AM:
 
Changing out a trailer is alot diffrent then becoming the "editor" of the movie. As dumb as it is to have it on there, its there and you should leave it. I agree that it should of never been sent out with the 3D intro on the 2D.
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 10-16-2010, 11:17 AM:
 
Randy: your last sentence is described by us here as "The Scott Tissue theory". . . . Cover your ass with paper. Louis
 

---

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 10-16-2010, 12:23 PM:
 
Anyone consider that this might be a practical joke on the patrons? My wife thinks that, considering the source, it might make sense... though you guys would be bearing the brunt of a gullible audience's reaction.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 10-16-2010, 08:46 PM:
 
whether intended or not -- this is a source of pressure on 2D cinemas to convert to 3D

i see two solutions:

1. convert to 3D; or

2. don't book 3D movies if you are a 2D cinema, or if you do, be prepared to field customer complaints and have your reputation tarnished

of course, as theatres convert to 3D, their appetite for 3D material increases and, eventually, the pressure goes back in the other direction, thus completing the demand cycle

(so 3D may take a while to die out, if it ever dies out at all.)
 

---

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 10-16-2010, 10:33 PM:
 
Your reputation will be tarnished if you don't schedule the movies.

People will be disappointed in you for not scheduling the movies they want to see and will go elsewhere. Plus, many people simply don't want to watch the movie in 3D. Lots of cinemas schedule an auditorium in 3D and another in 2D for this purpose.

And at least with getting a tarnished rep from having a 2D print of some movie you make money off the transaction (and it might not seem so, but the majority of people getting 2D tickets realize they aren't going to watch 3D). On the other hand, 100% of the people who wished to see the movie at your facility will be disappointed if you don't do it at all and you get no money out of this to boot.
 

---

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 10-16-2010, 11:42 PM:
 
In a way it is the customers fault here if it bothers them because they chose not to seek out a 3D theater and pay the surcharge!
So they are getting what they paid for.
 

---

Posted by Barry Floyd (Member # 385) on 10-17-2010, 12:12 AM:
 
We played it this weekend and didn't have one complaint. We clearly state on our website that we are showing it in a "35mm 2D Presentation".

Also, before the movies started last night and tonight, I got on the microphone and told my customers that "no matter what Beavis & Butthead tell you, the movie we are presenting tonight is a 35mm 2D presentation".
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-17-2010, 12:30 AM:
 
What exactly does the beginning say? Does it say "You are watching this movie in 3D"? Or "We shot this this movie in 3D"?
 

---

Posted by Barry Floyd (Member # 385) on 10-17-2010, 12:53 AM:
 
Basically Beavis & Butthead appear in a scene right at the beginning of the movie and remind everyone in the audience that this movie is "Jack Ass 3D" - as in 3 dimensions. Please put on the glasses you were given in the lobby to see all of the cool stuff in Jack Ass. Beavis and Butthead then put on their glasses and one of them says.. "it doesn't look any different". Then one of them replys "Look at my hand - it's in 3D". He then punches the other one in the face and other one says, "it even feels like 3D - it felt like you really punched me".
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-17-2010, 01:28 AM:
 
That's it? I know a lot of people are looking forward to the Beavis and Butthead short, so it might be a bad idea to remove that.
 

---

Posted by Kyle Butler (Member # 5601) on 10-17-2010, 03:50 AM:
 
Its a pretty good short.
If your a fan of beavis and butthead, you'll get a good laugh.
So i have a bit of resilience to remove it.

However, the complaints keep pouring in ever since it opened.
2 people come out- "I didn't get the glasses"
Someone else will come out - "YOU OVERCHARGED ME FOR 3D WHEN I ASKED FOR 2D, DIDNT YOU?"

And no matter how many times i told my door people to CHECK STUBS before giving out glasses, they apparently gave glasses to just about everybody in the 2D auditorium tonight. So i literally had 20+ people tell me "God that 3D wasn't very good"

-_-
 

---

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 10-17-2010, 09:54 AM:
 
I will be happy to ship you a whole crate of "2D Glasses"
(which are actually 3D glasses with the filters removed)
if you'll foot the freight bill.

Then you can give them to patrons who come out
and bug you for glasses when they see the intro.

But seriously- - I ran into a similar situation many years
ago, and was informed at that time by the union that under
no circumstances was I <EVER> to remove anything from a
feature print unless instructed to do so, in writing, by
the distributer. I was told that making ANY unauthorized
alterations to a print not only violated the 'fine print'
in all sorts of distribution contracts, it could also
subject me to 'puntive action' (ie: unemployment) by
the union. My "editiorial authority" only extnded to
making up trailer reels - and nothing else.

I agree with whoever it was who commented that the
distributer should have never put you in this position.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 10-17-2010, 12:43 PM:
 

quote: Chris Slycord

---

Your reputation will be tarnished if you don't schedule the movies.

People will be disappointed in you for not scheduling the movies they want to see and will go elsewhere. Plus, many people simply don't want to watch the movie in 3D. Lots of cinemas schedule an auditorium in 3D and another in 2D for this purpose.

And at least with getting a tarnished rep from having a 2D print of some movie you make money off the transaction (and it might not seem so, but the majority of people getting 2D tickets realize they aren't going to watch 3D). On the other hand, 100% of the people who wished to see the movie at your facility will be disappointed if you don't do it at all and you get no money out of this to boot.

---

Oh please! You're saying that your theatre plays every movie that gets released? You're saying that's the only way to not tarnish your reputation? You're saying that if my theatre isn't allocated a print of every movie opening this week that I'm screwed? Gimme a break!

What you're proposing is like saying "show the scope movie in 1.85 coz at least you'll please some of the people and get some money out of the deal." That's film done wrong and what you're proposing here is 3D done wrong.

I'm okay with theatres showing both 3D and 2D because they are giving the viewer a choice but showing it only in 2D just to make a buck is wrong.

If you wanna make 3D money then pony up some 3D cash and get a 3D system installed. Geez, Louise!
 

---

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 10-17-2010, 01:31 PM:
 
So Beavis and Butt-Head said the film was in 3D, and people believed them? I'd just point out the joke to people and let them get back in the film.
 

---

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 10-17-2010, 02:10 PM:
 
Paul and Kyle, you both have a common problem: staff that isn't doing their jobs. IF they cannot take the time to steer the customers to the right auditorium and make sure they have glasses ONLY if they need them (Kyle's situation) or to point out at time of ticket sales that the movie is in 2D regardless of what BV & BH say at the start of the film (Paul's situation), then that is lack of training/instruction/motivation on the staff and management's part.

In both cases, surely you have SOMEONE on staff who likes to "ham it up" and can make an announcement to the 2D crowd before the film starts (like Barry Floyd does, ) to help alleviate the complaints.

Finally, as Jim pointed out, you can get into SERIOUS trouble cutting things out of the film without explicit directions from the studio/distributor. As appalling or aggravating as some things may be as a projectionist/exhibitor you have NO RIGHT whatsoever to act as a film editor or censor.

Prime example: Pedro Amaldovar's "Matador" has an opening sequence that was highly disturbing to me, and as much as I wanted to cut it from the film I knew it would be wrong from a contractual and artistic standpoint. I just made sure that after a quick focus/sound check I left the booth when that was playing.

Even the chain's owner found it "disturbing" and "unacceptable" but since we booked it, we had to run it as-is.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-17-2010, 02:57 PM:
 
Tony, editing for artistic reasons or just because you don't like something is different than removing false advertising. It probably shouldn't be removed, but Paramount is a bunch of a-holes for saying a 2D movie is in 3D. It is called "lying" and it is not the fault of the theater. Making an announcement before EVERY show? Good luck with that.. This should have been a 3D only release, especially given the movie's title.

Are theaters who booked this in 2D still calling it "Jackass 3D"? If so, they are creating their own conundrum right there.
 

---

Posted by Mike Frese (Member # 4361) on 10-17-2010, 03:29 PM:
 
You should never alter the print as it comes to you because of the studio agreements unless instructed to by the studio. That includes all of you megaplex film builders (I really want to use a harsher word) who keep the attached trailer leaving nothing for whoever plays the film next.

Manny, There are many theaters out there for whom it makes no financial sense to get whatever 3d system that they could afford. So are these theaters supposed to pass up on all movies released in 3d?

The studios do not care about the theaters that are not playing their movies in 2d when it is released in 3d. The box office revenue from these non 3d able theaters is less than 10%. So stop holding your breath.
 

---

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 10-17-2010, 03:47 PM:
 
Theatres here running the 2D version are advertising it as JACKASS 3 in 2D

Studios don't take lightly to theatres cutting a film without permission. The Esquire Theatre in Cincinnati took a lot of heat in 2001 for cutting 5 seconds from a film.

Esquire Cuts Sex Scene

quote:

---

This is the scene Cincinnati audiences for director Wayne Wang's unrated adult drama The Center of the World failed to see at Clifton's Esquire Theatre: A stripper leans over her male customer. She inserts a lollipop into her vagina, quickly pulls it out and inserts it into the mouth of her mesmerized customer. The image is brief and fleeting.

Between May 25 and June 3, Cincinnati audiences instead saw the stripper move the lollipop below her waist, then immediately raise it up and put it into the mouth of her customer. The lollipop's insertion into her vagina was suddenly gone.

Sources on the Esquire's staff told CityBeat that on May 24, one day prior to the film's local opening, Esquire owner Gary Goldman ordered one of his managers to cut the sex scene from the print of the film. There were no complaints from theater customers. The film hadn't even opened. Goldman's clandestine editing was purely proactive. It was also something he felt confident would go unnoticed. Goldman did not return calls to discuss the incident.

The Center of the World tells the story of a nerdy dot-com millionaire (Peter Sarsgaard) who persuades a pretty stripper (Molly Parker) to spend three days with him in Las Vegas. In a previous interview with CityBeat, Wang called the film Last Tango in Paris for the Internet generation.

The Esquire's audiences weren't informed they were watching a censored film. The theater also broke its copyright agreement with the film's distributor, Artisan Entertainment, when it cut the scene. The edit was a slap in the face to Wang, the film's director, as well as Artisan Entertainment, who have struggled to promote the film's theatrical release.

But the larger issue is why Goldman even felt the need to do something as drastic as cutting a sex scene from an unrated film. For those optimists who believe Cincinnati is becoming a more tolerant place to live, the fact that our city's leading art-house cinema has cut a sex scene is a devastating blow. It also makes one wonder what else happens at the Esquire Theatre or elsewhere that we don't know about.

Signs on the Esquire's doors made it clear that nobody under the age of 17 would be admitted to see The Center of the World. Like most art-house theaters, the Esquire attracts a loyal, adult clientele interested in watching different types of movies. Since Goldman declined to be interviewed about this incident, I can only guess whether he was offended by the brief sex scene. But if he was, he had another choice, the most powerful form of censorship: He could have simply refused to book the film.

"If they (Esquire) did do it, it's up to Artisan to decide if they're going to take any legal action," says Cleveland Cinemas President Jonathan Forman, who's currently playing The Center of the World at one of his Cleveland theaters. "I can see how a theater in a Bible Belt community would feel it was inappropriate to show the film. But I can't understand why a theater would alter the film."

On a recent afternoon, I stood in the projection booth of the Esquire Theatre and unspooled the five feet of film that's been cut from The Center of the World. It stretched from the tip of my shoes to the top of my head. On each individual frame, I peered at the images the Esquire didn't want Cincinnati audiences to see. After watching the "complete" film twice, I can honestly say that the edit was much ado about nothing. The "lollipop scene" is a fleeting sequence. You barely see anything. While I don't recommend The Center of the World due to its lackluster storytelling, I didn't find anything about the film offensive.

"As a distributor, we take great pride in our relationships with our filmmakers," says Amorette Jones, executive vice president of worldwide marketing for Artisan Entertain-ment. "It takes courage to go out with an unrated picture. So it's disappointing that the print was altered. I've been in this business for 12 years, and I was totally caught off guard by the news that someone edited the content of a picture."

On June 4, Artisan Entertainment ordered the Esquire to return The Center of the World without splicing the sex scene back into the print. The title came off the marquee. The auditorium was unexpectedly dark. Theater staff told inquiring customers they didn't know what had happened to the film.

Later this week in Los Angeles, Artisan executives will watch the tampered print to determine exactly how much was cut. Then they plan to destroy the print. Jones says Artisan does not plan to take Goldman or the Esquire Theatre to court. For the time being, they want to find out why the theater would cut a sex scene from The Center of the World without informing them.

I have one suggestion: It's proof Cincinnati is as intolerant as ever.

---

 

---

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 10-17-2010, 05:52 PM:
 
Joe, you're right about Paramount being a-holes and not caring, which is a common trait with all the studios these days. Still, it is not the theatre's responsibility to play editor even when the studio up.

As for the announcements, why do you say "good luck with that?" Are your theatres so understaffed that you can't spare one body for a few minutes 5 times a day? As Barry pointed out, a quick announcement goes a long way to stifling complaints. I can recall a few situations where a pre-screening announcement made all the difference between no complaints and a near-riot. (And the flip side is true..remember many years ago on the initial run of "Empire Strikes Back" where a theatre that had a missing reel did a pre-show announcement and the audience trashed the place?)

I DO agree that Paramount screwed up big-time naming the movie "Jackass 3D" even while releasing it in 2D.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 10-17-2010, 06:10 PM:
 
The bottom line with this discussion is:

Who's not brainey enough to post simple signage up at the B.O. window, or around and similar, that the movie playing in "House No.'X' is NOT in 3D but in 2D?"

Or, even put a note out in the poster case that the movie playing in House No."X" is in 2D only?

Let's quit picking on the film, Paramount/DW and pay more attention to the venue's operation where the film is being play at.

-Monte
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 10-17-2010, 06:34 PM:
 

quote: Monte L Fullmer

---

Let's quit picking on the film, Paramount/DW and pay more attention to the venue's operation where the film is being play at.

---

quote: Tony Bandiera Jr

---

As for the announcements, why do you say "good luck with that?"

---

Spending $$$ on payroll will put a theater out of business, that's why! But mainly I said it because because I was typing from my iPod and it was short and easy to say.

People will complain because they know they can get passes for it. Personally, I'd give them refunds instead as that would come out of the studio's pocket.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 10-17-2010, 09:12 PM:
 

quote: Mike Frese

---

Manny, There are many theaters out there for whom it makes no financial sense to get whatever 3d system that they could afford. So are these theaters supposed to pass up on all movies released in 3d?

---

quote: Mark Lensenmayer

---

The Esquire Theatre in Cincinnati took a lot of heat in 2001 for cutting 5 seconds from a film.

---

Not that I condone doing that, but it would have been easy to say "The film became damaged at that section and I removed it on a scene change to make the cut less jarring" and no one would have been the wiser.
 

---

Posted by Kyle Butler (Member # 5601) on 10-18-2010, 03:37 AM:
 
@tony:
It definitely is an issue that can be solved if the staff did their jobs right.

However, I'm just the booth guy, so nothing i say really matters around here. Ive told our boss it wouldn't be a big deal for me to run down and make an announcement before the shows start. "We don't want to be dealing with unprofessional work practices blah blah" He said the same thing about posting a sign on the door. So at this point,i hope every single person that see's the film complains, that way, paramount and my boss can pull their heads out of their asses
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 10-18-2010, 05:27 AM:
 
Why don't you do this... go to the dollar store, and buy a bunch of the ugliest pink little girl sunglasses you can get. Write "JACKASS" on them with a black sharpie. Then hand one out to the first boob that comes out of every show requesting a pair, and make sure to say, "This is the only one I have left." If anyone else comes out, say "Sorry, that was the last pair" to prevent giving them all out at once. THAT would be hilarious, and I'd pay out of my own pocket to do that.

What would have been a smart move for Paramount would have been to create TWO Beavis and Butt Head cartoons. One for 3D and one for 2D. They could have had fun with that, and it would have been really easy to do. And as an added bonus, some part of the customer base would have been inspired to go see the movie twice. Despite that being a no-brainer, Paramount didn't do that. But the movie is called "Jackass" after all.
 

---

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 10-18-2010, 08:42 AM:
 

quote:

---

Oh please! You're saying that your theatre plays every movie that gets released? You're saying that's the only way to not tarnish your reputation? You're saying that if my theatre isn't allocated a print of every movie opening this week that I'm screwed? Gimme a break!

---

quote: Manny Knowles

---

What you're proposing is like saying "show the scope movie in 1.85 coz at least you'll please some of the people and get some money out of the deal." That's film done wrong and what you're proposing here is 3D done wrong.

---

quote: Chris Slycord

---

are you screwed if you get a reputation of not playing some of the more popular movie when you were staking your reputation as a first-run theater? Perhaps.

---

quote: Chris Slycord

---

Did I say "You're screwed if you don't get a print of every movie"? No. But are you screwed if you get a reputation of not playing some of the more popular movie when you were staking your reputation as a first-run theater? Perhaps

---

quote: Mike Spaeth

---

For what it's worth, Paramount was planning this as a 3D only release until late last week when they changed their mind and did 2D prints as well (presumably due to lackluster print count, I would assume). I don't think they would have gotten a $50 million opening without it. Just not quite enough 3D screens / complexes yet.

---

quote:

---

@tony:

---

This isn't Twitter. It's Film Tech.

And second, I also don't believe that by removing this that you're "editing" the feature. You're removing what is, in effect, a snipe advertising a system that you don't have, and telling everyone to get what you gave them ready - when in fact you didn't give them anything, and this is confusing your customers. They may as well have had Beavis and Butt Head tell everyone to get their Smell-O-Rama cards that they received in the lobby ready for the show. If I wasn't compelled to do the pink girly JACKASS sunglasses gag, I'd be removing the snipe and sending it back with the print.

But I'm pretty sure I'd do the pink girly sunglasses trick at least once.
 

---

Posted by Jimmy Conner (Member # 5896) on 10-23-2010, 05:08 AM:
 
Why doesn't Paramount offer 35mm over/under 3D prints (the 80s 3D technology) to theaters that don't have digital?
 

---

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 10-23-2010, 07:15 AM:
 
Like said above, this was supposed to be a 3D only release. But I think much like with IMAX and the LIEMax, Locations that have only film or maybe just one Digital voiced their concerns and Paramount changed there mind at the last minute and had Film Prints struck. Thus not allowing the proper time to make a 2D opening. The same thing was supposed to happen with Saw 3D but Lionsgate balked and are no releasign 2D prints as well.
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 10-23-2010, 09:04 AM:
 
Digital only releases face a legal liability issue. (not serving all customers equally.) That is why the Digital sound only; EX only releases showed up even in MONO houses. Louis
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 10-23-2010, 10:32 AM:
 
That doesn't even make sense. If I choose to release a movie in digital 3D only, that's MY choice, not the consumers' choice.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-23-2010, 02:53 PM:
 
Digital/stereo sound is backwards compatible with mono sound systems. No need to make a special mono print.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 10-23-2010, 05:24 PM:
 
So if someone wants to open a theatre that only shows 70mm prints, the distributors would be obligated to provide them? Sweet!

(Sadly, I wonder how many theatre owners would convert to VHS if this held true.)
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 10-23-2010, 07:20 PM:
 
I'm not buying Louis' "equal access" argument either.

I think the reason the studios offer it in multiple formats is greed -- they want to increase saturation and make as much money in the first weekend as possible -- after one weekend everybody who hasn't seen it already knows it's crap from the folks who did go see it right away.
 

---

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 10-23-2010, 08:29 PM:
 
Manny, I think Louis didn't explain what he meant right..he brought up the sound formats when I think his intention was to say that if the feature was released in D-Cinema ONLY that there could be a legal issue.

But I agree about the studio's greed.

Oh, and here's a present for you, since someone in another thread mentioned that your avatar pic with the sprinkler above you would look like a changeover cue if it was flopped:




 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 10-23-2010, 08:31 PM:
 
haha -- thanks for the pic, Tony.

I thought Louis was talking about releasing in 3D only.

As far as digital sound -- the industry learned its lesson after CDS failed (without analog backup) -- again, nothing to do with legality issues -- the various format developers simply knew everyone would feel better (read: it would be easier to sell) if there was a backup in place -- AND it had the added benefit of permitting single-inventory -- yet another reason 35mm+digital audio brought about the demise of 5/70.
 

---

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 10-23-2010, 08:44 PM:
 
You're welcome.

I don't think that a 3-D only release would be illegal per se, but it would certainly raise a lot of flak from the exhibs who don't have it..not like the studios would care it seems.

And yep, 35mm/digital sound was the death blow for 70mm.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 10-23-2010, 10:26 PM:
 
It wouldn't be illegal -- that would be like saying a "scope only" release is illegal -- if exhibs want to run the title, they need to support the format -- hence scope lenses everywhere.

The issue with 3D is that it has a history of being a flash-in-the-pan -- first in the 50s and, again, in the 80s -- so I could see that being an issue for some exhibs -- but the handwriting is on the wall -- they're gonna have to make the switch to digital sooner or later, they might as well do it now and benefit from the current 3D craze.

Question -- who gets to keep the 3D surcharge? the exhib or the distrib? or is it factored into the split?
 

---

Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 10-23-2010, 10:56 PM:
 
The surcharge is included in the overall ticket price i.e. an $8.00 ticket with a $3.00 surcharge is simply an $11.00 ticket and film rental is paid on the entire $11.00
 

---

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 10-24-2010, 01:47 AM:
 
I had a nice reply earlier today for what Louis said but the comptuer at work froze and I lost it, and I didn't have time to retype it. So here goes again.

Saying a 3D only release would be illegal is just crazy. That would be like saying "Oh you released your movie in R? Well you need to make everyone happy so were going to need you to cut a PG-13 print so we can be fair to everyone." I'm sorry but thats just crazy. IMAX has started doing this with LIEMax and standard film theatres. There is alot of product that isn't released in 15/70 but is in Digital. Now they tried this with IronMan 2 and were met with flack from the film theatres and 24 or so prints were struck. They again tried it with Megamind and have met resistence. So they are doing the same and striking about 20 or so prints.

The same issue happened with Jackass 3D and SAW 3D, they were both going to be 3D only releases but met flak. Thus now we have 2D prints of these. We are closing in on 3D only releases, probably in the next year or so once there are more screens. And there is nothing illegal about such an action. Just the way the industry is moving.
 

---

Posted by Mike Frese (Member # 4361) on 10-24-2010, 03:02 PM:
 
We have had 3d only releases already. Toy Story/Toy Story 2 re-leased in 3d last year was digital 3d only.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-24-2010, 06:48 PM:
 
I guess that could technically count, but I'd still say *nay* since the movie already existed in 2D and the 3D release was more of a "me too" engagement which nobody cared about.
 

---

Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 10-24-2010, 08:48 PM:
 
OK - Miley Cyrus / Jonas Brothers concert films were 3D only.
 

---

Posted by Mike Frese (Member # 4361) on 10-24-2010, 11:10 PM:
 
"guess that could technically count, but I'd still say *nay* since the movie already existed in 2D and the 3D release was more of a "me too" engagement which nobody cared about"

1752 locations and $30 million box office. Could not play it in 2d if you wanted to as Disney would not have allowed it.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-24-2010, 11:26 PM:
 
But it existed in 2D. I played it in 2D years ago and made far more money with it. Nay.
 

---

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 10-25-2010, 04:13 AM:
 
I agree with Joe, that was a re-release to capitalize on the 3D, and get people ready for Toy Story 3 in 3D. Also the concert 3D films are not what I would consider wide 3D releases. I'm talking about a major Hollywood release such as a Saw3D or Jackass 3D. I still think we're a year or so away from that.
 

---

Posted by Mike Frese (Member # 4361) on 10-25-2010, 05:41 PM:
 
Disney never would have allowed it to play for exhibition in 2d in any format. I would of loved to have played it.

The Miley Cyrus 3d concert did $63 million box office in the month of February. Which was pretty damn good for only 685 locations.

There are still a few hundred locations that are worth a film print. But I expect that practice will stop a year from now.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 10-25-2010, 05:47 PM:
 
My understanding is that Disney shoots EVERYTHING in 3D now.
 

---

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 10-27-2010, 11:29 AM:
 

quote: Mike Frese

---

There are still a few hundred locations that are worth a film print. But I expect that practice will stop a year from now.

---