Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: According to article, 3D accounted for 56% of MvA $58.2 million opening

This is topic According to article, 3D accounted for 56% of MvA $58.2 million opening in forum Digital Cinema Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=000338

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 03-29-2009, 02:39 PM:

The AP article says Monsters vs. Aliens opened on 2080 3D screens out of 7300 total - about 28%. With the 3D revenues representing 56% of the total weekend take. If these numbers are correct, I have to believe we are moving closer to the day when we will see 3D only releases.

AP Article on Yahoo

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 03-29-2009, 03:33 PM:

Justin,

The key here is if you look at the gross of movies released in 3D and compare them to those that were released in 2D only...do the 3D titles (not the theatres) generally generate more money? If the answer is yes, then you will see 3D increase. I hold that 3D does not bring people to the movies but given a choice of 2D to 3D, most will go to see the novelty of 3D for now.

In other words, if Monsters was released 2D only...would the overall gross have been lower...if the answer is no, then it was unwise to invest in 3D at the studio level.

Steve

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 03-29-2009, 04:29 PM:

I have got to say I was surprised. We ran one 2D screen in addition to our 3D screens, it was even at the same time as one of the 3D showings. The 3D showing that was at the same time as the 2D consistantly did 3 times the attendance. It seems at least with this movie, 3D was definately a draw.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 03-29-2009, 04:39 PM:

It is unfortunate film makers are not making quality movies in 3-D now. The real D and Dolby 3-D are not bad systems and IMAX 3-D is awesome and can put to good use with standard films like KISS ME KATE, DIAL M FOR MURDER, MISS SADIE THOMPSON, HONDO, INFERNO and perhaps a few others in the fifties. Unfortinately, with the exception of INFERNO, these films were made and released at the time when most people got tired of 3-D and it played most of it's engagements in 2-D. I did see INFERNO in 3-D but up until now, I have never seen the others in 3-D because they played in Hawaii only in 2-D.

-Claude

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-29-2009, 08:10 PM:

The grosses are also inflated by the 3-D "premium" add-on.

If the movie had come out just in 2-D it probably would have done the same business. Kids love monsters AND aliens you know. Remember the great business ICE AGE did in this time frame a few years ago?

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-29-2009, 08:39 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
then it was unwise to invest in 3D at the studio level.

The point you all are missing is that in addition to all those 2-D screens there are now added 3-D screens that typically DO gross higher!!!

There isn't much investment to do 3-D actually. In last weeks Time Magazing the article clearly stated that Jeffery Katzenberg said the cost to make Monsters in 3-D only added 15% to the cost of a production. Thats very little cost compared to the additional revenue that those extra 3-D screens have generated for them so far... as more 3-D screens are added the revenues will just go up further. IMHO thats quite a good deal for all involved... and for the most part one still has the option of not seeing these films in 3-D. In our area 3-D screens typically gross 3 to 6 times that of the same title playing in 2-D at other locations. Now a crappy movie is a crappy movie and 3-D didn't save the Jonas Brothers... nor would it had made any more were it just in 2-D... in fact nothing would have saved that movie from the trash can. A lousy movie is a lousy movie.. er wait... "Journey To The Center Of The Earth" was actually saved by it's 3-D so say the studio that made it and the many that ran it!!

Mark

Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 03-29-2009, 09:10 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
I hold that 3D does not bring people to the movies but given a choice of 2D to 3D, most will go to see the novelty of 3D for now

I agree - a few years ago we could say that 3D brought more patrons to our location due to 3D, only because our closest competitors were not 3D capable at that time. Now pretty much every location in our area has at least 1 3D system and I think all we are doing is funnelling more patrons to the 3D showtimes over the 2D - so the only benefit we see is from the upcharge or when we have 3D only content - I do think there may be increased attendance due to patrons who normally would not come out to the theatre are coming to find out what all the 3D buzz is about.

By attendance our 2 3D prints outperformed the single 2D print by 3-4 times.

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
added 15% to the cost of a production

the typical upcharge is $2 so 15% cost leads to at least 20% higher gross for the 3D prints, higher overall attendance due to 3D will be hard to quantify.

My 3D jury is out until we get a true blockbuster released in 3D - that will either prove or disprove 3D as a mainstream format. If 3D is here to stay it will get put in simply to stay competitive with others in the same market.

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
er wait... "Journey To The Center Of The Earth" was actually saved by it's 3-D

So far Journey has been our highest attended 3D film besides Hannah Montana.

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 03-29-2009, 09:51 PM:

I've been reading on IMDb a couple of instances in which some people (kids, really) in order to save the surcharge, are buying their tickets for another movie, and going into the 3D show with the RealD glasses they've saved from a previous show.

I can't imagine that would skew the numbers much at all, but has anyone here seen that?

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 03-30-2009, 01:54 AM:

Its a problem we saw when we were playing both Coraline and My Bloody Valentine, kids would by for Coraline to get into the R-rated Bloody Valentine. Also, when we started the 3D glasses recycling program (boxes outside the theatre to deposit glasses in) almost immediately we caught teens taking the tops off the boxes and grabbing glasses. To counter this we simply empty the boxes between sets.

As far as people keeping their glasses and autitorium hopping, not much to do about that other than have ushers at the doors.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 03-30-2009, 02:39 PM:

I stand by my comments in another thread that 3D only benefits exhibitors if there is only one 3D-capable auditorium in a given market. If given the choice of a 3D show or a 2D show of the same title, most people will choose 3D.

If everyone installs 3D in every auditorium that is showing the film in a given market, the end result will be approximately the same number of tickets sold as if no one in that market were to install 3D. There may be a slight increase in ticket sales, but not nearly enough to justify the cost of equipping every screen in a market for 3D.

Except for the first one or two installations in each market, I can't see how 3D would be anything but a net loss for the exhibition industry.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 04-02-2009, 08:46 AM:

And then there's the novelty factor. Talk about the jury still being out! Will the public tire of this process and if so, how soon? The reality is, that the process doesn't lend itself to a majority of genre. Will the majority of the public still be enamored of 3D after seening a few dozen Pixar cartoons? Will they want to sit thru serious dramas and romantic comedies with glasses? History says no. For many films, 3D won't add a thing to the experience. 3D dropped off the charts like a ton brick in the 50s after only a few years of relatively great success.

It took only four years for 3D production to flash and then die. It went from a peak one year, then halved the next, to being totally abandoned. The public interest in it as a novelty waned so quickly that films (big ones, like Hitchcock's DIAL M FOR MURDER) which were producted in 3D were released only in 2D. Granted, back then there were other problems involved, not to mention the cost of filming in the process (evidently filming LIVE 3D is allot more costly than generating 3D in a computer for animation). There were also the real technical problems in the booths, but the growing public distaste for the process itself was a big contributing factor to its demise after what started out as going to be the savior of the movie industry. Industry people talked about 3D back then the same way they rave about it today. Hmmm.

The question remains if that will happen again. This idea of flooding the market with 3D product may work against itself in the long run if the broader demographics loose interest in it. Personally I LOVE 3D, but then don't go by me. I loved it as a kid in the 50s too.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-02-2009, 09:33 AM:

quote: Scott Norwood
If everyone installs 3D in every auditorium that is showing the film in a given market, the end result will be approximately the same number of tickets sold as if no one in that market were to install 3D.

I don't think we're seeing anything like that just yet, and I'm not sure if we ever will. Is there a multiplex anywhere that has digital 3D installed in every house? I'm not aware of such a thing. Even the biggest movie theaters have the 3D systems installed in just a fraction of the auditoriums.

On top of that, theaters that do have 2 or more 3D systems installed often have them spread across a variety of room sizes. Place one in a bigger house (but not the biggest). Put one in a medium sized room and then perhaps one in a small house. That method would allow a multiplex to show a certain 3D movie in 3D throughout its run instead of it only playing in 3D for a week or two before being pushed into a smaller auditorium.

I hear a lot of scoffing and such regarding 3D, but it's very clear 3D has appeal to the movie-going public. The 3D versus 2D ticket sales prove that. If a movie theater had a very limited ability to show a movie in 3D, like only show it for a week on one auditorium and then move it to a 2D-only house, the ticket sales would drop off more than usual. It's clear 3D is one factor getting the viewers to the theater. If it's only 2D they can ask themselves, "should I just wait for this show to come out on DVD?"

quote: Frank Angel
The reality is, that the process doesn't lend itself to a majority of genre. Will the majority of the public still be enamored of 3D after seening a few dozen Pixar cartoons? Will they want to sit thru serious dramas and romantic comedies with glasses?

Unfortunately, most people are just waiting for the DVD when it comes to serious dramas and romantic comedies. Even I end up seeing a lot of those kinds of shows for the first time when they air on HBO.

Lots of viewers want some sort of amusement park ride kind of experience when going to the movies. So they show up in droves for the big event action features, science fiction/fantasy epics and Pixar-like shows. Escapist movies do work in 3D.

Nevertheless, technical issues (low screen brightness, ghosting, etc.) still have to be battled to get this stuff to work like it should.

There's a whole lot of noise about developing 3D for Blu-ray. I'm skeptical about that whole issue. There's so much unproven technology being pitched and so many chicken vs. egg problems in hardware customers will have to buy that I think it will be probably a good 5 years or more before we see any widespread proliferation of 3D in home theater.

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 04-02-2009, 10:02 AM:

In my area, the 3D version was HEAVILY promoted by the
distributer, with nary a mention of the 2D version.

Large studio-funded advertisments in the local newspapers
mentioned ONLY theaters that were running the 3D version.

At the theater where I was running the 2D version, we
absolutely had the weakest opening for any cartoon
movie that I can remember. Other 'toons' such as Rattouille,
Kung-Fu Panda, Horton Hears A Who, Madagascar II, etc were
all blow-outs, but we actually had one show on opening
day where NOBODY showed up. (and this was at a large
theater in a major city)

A lot of people buying tickets ask if we are running
the movie in 3D, and I'd say that 3/4 of them still buy
a ticket when told we are not. The others usually ask
where they can go to see it in 3D.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-02-2009, 12:17 PM:

Bobby,

Your example is interesting but again it is skewing the ticket sales to 3D and not figuring out what affect, if any 3D has on total ticket sales. That is, if you only showed a movie for 1-week in 3D and then switched to 2D, are you shifting your total ticket sales to that one week rather than spreading it out? Would the total ticket sales be more over the two weeks if you had it in 3D both weeks or if it was split 1 and 1? I just don't see increase overall ticket sales that are attributed to 3D...it doesn't seem to bring those that were not going to see the movie to now decide to see the movie (at least at the theatrical level).

As to 3D in the home...the show I'm attending this week (well, working, actually) has 3D set up for the home now using active glasses and it is "off-the-shelf" technology. They having it going on plasma and single chip DLP...and possibly LCD...I'll have to check it out further.

Steve

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 04-02-2009, 12:22 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
don't think we're seeing anything like that just yet, and I'm not sure if we ever will. Is there a multiplex anywhere that has digital 3D installed in every house? I'm not aware of such a thing. Even the biggest movie theaters have the 3D systems installed in just a fraction of the auditoriums.

I heard of at least two. One guy had something like 6 RealD screens plus 2 Dolby screens. Since like 8 months ago. All in the same building. If I find the link to his interview, I'll post it here.

[Edit: haven't found it yet, but this other guy is pretty close]
http://www.digitalcinemareport.com/Dolby-3D-RealD-+glasses-cost-benefits-training

quote:
Rob Kurrus is owner of Premiere Theatres Oaks 10 in Melbourne, Florida.

DCR: I understand that you currently use both Dolby and RealD 3D systems.
RK: Yes; we have one RealD and six Dolby 3D systems.

Of course, that would be a huge exception of someone (the owner, I think he was an independent), from my point of view, not doing the math right.

If I had a house with say 8 screens, I would definetely only have one 3D screen for the time being. Then, eventually, upgrade to two. And I don't foresee ever needing more than one 3D for every 2-3 screens. With the current "technology", that is. 25 years in the future is anyone's guess.

I totally agree with Steve in 3D not being able to increase the sales (nor the profits) to the scale it's trying to be touted.

Think about it.

Fast forward 5 (or pick your number) years in the future. Just about every movie is in 3D and has been so for the past year. Just about every theater is 3D. We are all "sick and tired" of watching 3D movies. Not a novelty anymore.

So what do we have now? Same movies only $3 more expensive. Now, that $3 surcharge is not pure profit, as making and showing 3D movies do cost a bit more (i.e. cost of glasses, higher lamps and more electricity, specialty screens, etc). Also, paying the extra $3 will scare some people away from the business (if a family of 5 spends $15 in ticket-surcharges, perhaps they'll spend $15 less in concessions). We'll also be seeing a bit more of "pay for 2D, sneak into 3D with my own glasses" attitude.

So do profits TRULY increase in the medium-long term? I DO think so, but ever so slightly. Some people HATE 3D and won't go to see it. Some people love it, and go to more movies if they are 3D. Overall, I THINK you MAY see a 5-10% overall extra admission related "profit" at the exhibition end from 3D, but certain never-ever-ever-ever-never-ever-ever the 250%-500% they are trying to make it look like.

Statistics is in the eye of the beholder.

And, certainly, while the novelty factor is alive for the next 10 or 20 3D movies and the market is not ready for them yet, those with the only 3D screen in a certain area ARE going to benefit more from those first films. But also at a price (i.e. they'll have to settle for underspec solutions that later are goint to be demanded to be upgraded to i.e. 8fl light levels and 4:4:4 12bits full resolution, etc). But, still, probably worth it for them.

That is, until the competition catches up.

I'm recommending my only theatrical customer to wait until year's end at the earliest or until 4 or 5 studios offer no-bull VPF deals and then convert ONLY ONE of his 10 35mm screens to 3D digital (probably dual-projection, but we'll see by year's end).

If current solutions were FIPS certified and 4K by year's end at similar price levels (slightly more, to be anywhere realistic, although still dreaming), I would then advise him to convert all 10 screens to digital with two of them 3D and leave two 35mm projectors in there just in case.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 04-02-2009, 01:03 PM:

quote: Frank Angel
Will the public tire of this process and if so, how soon?

I'm sure that the studios are aware of this - why there is only a small handful of 3D releases coming for the rest of the year along with the next.

Do it rarely just to keep the public interest alive and to keep "testing the waters" if other manufacturers might be making their own versions of 3D equipment-to have their own "little war on who's better than who.."

-Monte