This is topic Sony to Stop Paying for 3D Glasses in May 2012 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=002194
Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 09-27-2011, 05:29 PM:
Sony to Stop Paying for 3D Glasses in May 2012
Source: hollywoodreporter.com
quote:
Sony Pictures Entertainment has notified theater owners in a letter that it will no longer pay for 3D glasses, beginning in May 2012, marking a major policy shift that many other studios are likely considering.
There’s no word yet as to the reaction of exhibitors, but many theater owners feel like they’ve already coughed up enough money in converting their screens to 3D, and that they shouldn’t have to incur the cost of supplying glasses too.
"This is an issue that has to be resolved between us and our exhibition partners. We are trying to give them a very lengthy lead time in regards to the change in policy," Sony worldwide president of distribution Rory Bruer said.
The price tag for 3D glasses is no laughing matter — studios can spend $5 million to $10 million worldwide for a tentpole, but most of the cost is incurred in the North American marketplace (studios pay after the fact, based on how many glasses were actually used). Sony has two high-profile 3D tentpoles headed to theaters next summer — Men in Black III and The Amazing Spider-Man.
Glasses for smaller films can cost $1.5 million to $2 million.
Sony, along with other studios, is in favor of moving toward an ownership model, requiring moviegoers to buy their 3D glasses at the theater (the studios argue that it could be a new revenue stream for exhibitors).
Such a system is already in place in a number of foreign territories, including the U.K., Australia, Italy and Spain. However, American consumers are now used to getting the glasses for free when they pay a 3D surcharge (usually 3 or 4 dollars), and the habit could be hard to break.
The majority of 3D glasses are provided through RealD, which controls the majority of the 3D market domestically through its 3D projection systems.
Several years ago, when digital 3D was first emerging, it was unclear who would pay for the glasses. In an effort to encourage movie theaters to convert their screens to the emerging format, Disney told theaters it would cover the cost.
Soon, other studios started following suit, but top executives say it was never their intention to make it an indefinite policy. And at least one studio, Fox, tried to stop paying for the 3D glasses, but was met with stiff resistance from exhibitors.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-27-2011, 05:38 PM:
So much for the biggest "advantage" of RealD.
Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 09-27-2011, 06:01 PM:
I've never understood how you can police Dolby glasses. Perhaps I'm missing something.
With the Real D glasses, I don't care if the walk out door. With Dolby, how do you manage to keep them from disappearing? I'm thinking you would have to have someone man both the fire exit(s) and the front doors after every show to make sure the glasses get returned. And what about damage when one gets left in a puddle of Pepsi under a seat, or stepped on?
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 09-27-2011, 06:09 PM:
Gives theatres another reason to choose not to play movies in 3D. Especially when you see moviegoers choosing 2D at a greater pace.
We played The Lion King exclusively in 3D. We figured the 3D release was the who point of the re-release and decided to only play 3D. I haven't heard what the split was, but it has done relatively well for us.
Dolphin Tail was a completely different story. We ran the 1:00 and 7:00 shows in 3D and the 4:00 and 9:30 shows in 2D. The 4:00 show was the busiest of the day by a very wide margin. 2D was 62% of our weekend gross for the movie.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-27-2011, 06:42 PM:
quote: Frank Cox
I've never understood how you can police Dolby glasses.
The hardest part is education. Since all the theatres in Billings are RealD, it's been a chore to get people here to realize that they have to give the glasses back. It's relatively easy for us though because we funnel everyone through one set of double doors at the end of a movie, and position somebody at each side of the doorway to collect the glasses.
The funniest thing is Dolby's training video, where they tell you to "listen for the number of glasses that are dropped into the collection bin. Two people -- two glasses going in. (Clunk, clunk)" Well, what about the family of five where Mom has all of the glasses and chucks them in all at once? You just have to watch everyone and learn to spot those glasses. I've gotten very good at it, actually.
To educate everybody, we use a combination of a sign in the concession stand, the reminder on the screen, and our actual collection bins which have a "please return your glasses" sign on them. Our final line of defense is my wife, who will go after anybody who's walking out with glasses.
We don't put anyone at the emergency exit because nobody ever uses it...it empties into an alley and would be a lot farther walk for anyone to get to their car.
We don't really have a problem with people leaving them in the auditorium, but when that happens it's easy to find them. If someone admits to leaving them down there, we grab a flashlight and ask them to show us where they were sitting and we go get the glasses.
Since people know we're serious about getting them back, we've only had a handful of glasses (maybe about 10) get damaged or stolen in the past year.
Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 09-27-2011, 06:55 PM:
Sounds like a pile of hassle to me.
I have a bright blue cardboard bin that says "Recycle your Read D glasses here" in my lobby and I think I get maybe 40% of the glasses back that way. But again, I don't care. If anyone asks me if they can keep them I tell them that since they aren't good for anything else there's not much of a point in keeping them. About 50% of those folks put the glasses in the bin after being told that, the rest put them in their pocket.
If you've lost 10 glasses in a year, that's what -- pushing $3000? Sounds like a hefty hit to me. You're spending more on glasses than you're spending on Xenon lamps.
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 09-27-2011, 08:42 PM:
quote: Frank Cox
10 glasses in a year, that's what -- pushing $3000?
..maybe 200 Dolby glasses a year would hit that price...they're less than 20 bucks a pair..
I don't get it - what's with the blue recycle bins that RealD supplied at each venue for the patrons to toss the glasses in..in which the glasses fall into a shipping box that is sealed, then shipped via UPS to wherever so they can be cleaned and repackaged?
I thought that was to aid in the cost, but it now looks like something else.
Cool, if "Sony-Baloney" does that, we can drop the twin lens setup and go single lens for true, 4k experiences..
Sony should have stayed with consumer audio/video instead of trying to play with the big boys ....
-Monte
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 09-27-2011, 09:02 PM:
quote: Frank Cox
I've never understood how you can police Dolby glasses. Perhaps I'm missing something.
I worked at a theater that simply had a sensor to detect glasses leaving the auditorium. Granted, you need to put it a little bit away from the actual door so as to not distract everyone if they leave mid-movie. Takes a bit of the hassle away. And I don't see why someone couldn't make their own "please recycle the glasses; they cost us a lot" tag.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-27-2011, 10:52 PM:
Frank, Dolby makes you a pile more money.
Dolby now has two styles of glasses...the real glass type (CAT 834) and the plastic 3M type (CAT 832).
The Cat 834 as a LIST price of $17.00, the Cat 832 has LIST price of $12.00. Street prices are typically a little less (a buck or two).
If you do the math using the Cat 832 (most popular nowadays, by far). If you sell on average 100 tickets a day (per 3D screen)...certainly some days are going to be much higher and, unfortunately, many days will be lower too...but average 100 tickets/day...you'd have to loose over $1,500 pairs of glasses per year if you paid LIST, to make up for what Real-D is charging most folks.
Our Dolby 3D customers claim that their shrinkage due to theft/damage is such that the average pair gets about 250 uses rather than the rated 500.
As Mike stated above....most will corral the audience and have a person there as they leave as the first line of defense and that normally catches them all...the second line is to have the theft barriers that sound an alarm (like a shop lifter) since the glasses have anti-theft tags in them.
If your 100 ticket/day theatre with Real-D has to start paying for glasses, as Sony is indicating...with a typical $3 upcharge (with some already charging more and some are less...depending on your town)...your total 3D profit for 1 year on that screen will be $365.00 once Real-D and the glasses distributor take their cut.
With Dolby? About $43,000 profit...even with half of your glasses not going the distance. It isn't even close.
Your best bet for throw away glasses, if you are paying for them is Master Image...your annual profit would be $18,615. Master Image is the most profitable if you are not paying for the glasses...In less than a year, you'll have made more money that you would have had to pay to Real-D in their deals.
Do the math.
-Steve
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 09-28-2011, 11:30 AM:
Then, is Real D more or less of a tax write off situation where profits aren't made too well?
Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 09-28-2011, 08:36 PM:
I'm still waiting for the Dolby clip on classes.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-28-2011, 11:19 PM:
NATO slams Sony for this unthinkable 3D outrage!
Uh oh. NATO is involved. These fuckers simply do not mess around. They stand up for exhibitors like no tomorrow. They bow to nobody and they cannot be bought. Chances are that Sony will immediately reverse its decision and keep shelling out their $$$ for glasses. NATO has spoken. NATO has your back.
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 09-28-2011, 11:57 PM:
quote:
NATO Slams Sony for 3D-Glasses Charges (Updated)
By Brent Lang at TheWrap
Wed Sep 28, 2011 12:16pm EDT
(Updated: 4:13 p.m. PST)
The National Association of Theater Owners slammed Sony Wednesday for its attempt to pass off the costs of providing 3D glasses on moviegoers and exhibitors.
The trade organization labeled the move "insensitive" given the economic woes gripping the country.
"Sony’s actions raise serious concerns for our members who believe that provision of 3D glasses to patrons is well established as part of the 3D experience," NATO said in a statement.
NATO said Sony was reneging on a prior agreement to pay for the glasses.
But Sony spokesperson Steve Elzer said NATO gets it wrong.
"NATO’s statement that it has been 'understood' that distributors would always bear the cost of 3D glasses is incorrect, because there never has been any such agreement," Elzer said in a statement. "In fact, we have been speaking with people in the industry for a long time about the need to move to a new model, so this certainly comes as a surprise to no one in the business."
Elzer said that the studio invited theater owners to engage in a "collegial dialogue" with about the issue at ShowEast next month.
Also read: Sony to Theaters: Buy Your Own 3D Glasses
Shares of RealD, the 3D movie company, dropped nearly 15 percent to trade at $10.42 on Wednesday after Sony announced its plan.
Sony has told exhibitors that starting in May with the release of its pair of 3D tentpoles, "Men in Black III" and "The Amazing Spider-Man," it will no longer pay for the rose-tinted spectacles.
It wants exhibitors to work out the cost with moviegoers.
In it's statement, NATO said press reports indicate that Sony wants audience members to buy their own glasses, but in reality, the studio wants to move the expense of providing glasses off their own balance sheets and doesn't particularly care if the cost is borne by theater owners or ticket buyers.
At a cost of about 50 cents per ticket, 3D eyeware can eat up $5 million or more for a movie that grosses over $100 million.
Moviegoers pay a premium of around $3 for 3D films, and that extra gravy is then split between theater owners and studios.
In 2009, Fox tried a similar gambit with the release of its third "Ice Age" film, but bowed to pressure from theater owners and abandoned its efforts to push off costs.
NATO said that theater owners had agreed to take on the expense of overhauling their theaters for 3D movies with the understanding that distributors would handle the cost of providing glasses.
"Any changes to that understanding must be undertaken through the mutual agreement of both sides of the business," NATO said.
NATO closed its missive with a warning. The group told Sony that the disappointing numbers for its premium video on demand trial with DirecTV -- in which the studio and others offered movies to renters eight weeks after their debuts and over the fierce objections of NATO -- was evidence that exhibition needed to be on board with any fundamental business changes.
"Sony would be well advised to revisit its decision," NATO said.
So, what's the big honk why SONY can't play ball like the other studios? They need to go back to Home/Car Audio and Electronics and stay out of the cinema business if they can't do it right.
-Monte
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-29-2011, 12:52 AM:
Monte, we have been predicting this for awhile now. NOWHERE have the studios EVER said they would pay for the 3D glasses for the long haul. It was inevitable.
I absolutely guarantee you...before 2012 is over the cost of 3D glasses will be 100% on the theaters. End-of-story.
This is also why Film-Tech has been highly recommending Dolby and Master Image to our customers. Sure our system works with every type of 3D out there (as well as projector and server), but just read Steve's spot-on post above if you want to know the facts and why we recommend what we recommend.
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-29-2011, 06:39 AM:
So, why were distributors ever paying for 3D glasses. As far as I know, it didn't happen in the 1950s. So, why now? And what do the glasses cost? $.25 a pair in quantity or something like that? Is this even worth griping about?
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 09-29-2011, 09:51 AM:
This doesn't surprise me a bit. It is more likely happening with Sony first because Sony is doing so very badly in terms of profit and loss. It was predicted by market analysts earlier this year that Sony Pictures would be one of ten major companies that will be either shut down or sold off within two years. Sears was also among those 10 companies... It'll be interesting to see if they keep it or not.
Mark
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-29-2011, 12:43 PM:
I'm hoping Sears can last, otherwise my mother will have to get a job selling appliances somewhere else.
I wouldn't be surprised about any major movie studio getting into very deep financial trouble in the future.
The economy is still in the toilet, but the majors (along with exhibitors) are price gouging the public on the theatrical experience -with 3D and Fake IMAX being big parts of that process. So many people are having to cut back in the face of rising prices for food, utilities, various types of insurance (health, home, etc.). The extreme drought that hit Texas, Oklahoma and other southern states forced many cattle farmers to sell off much of their herds. Look for beef prices to spike badly soon.
The video rental industry has all but committed financial suicide in race to the bottom pricing and economics. But they're giving the general public an extremely cheap alternative to going to the movies. You don't even have to leave the house to get a rental. Just download it. The image/sound quality isn't great, but most people don't care. Combine this with the fact Hollywood now prefers to remake old ideas rather than take any chances on new (unproven) story ideas. Why spend more for a superior viewing experience when the movie itself is a "been there, done that" kind of thing?
Posted by Dominic Espinosa (Member # 2122) on 09-29-2011, 03:58 PM:
Enough of us are digital now due to them cramming 3D down our throats that they can finally tip the industry that direction.
They no longer need to pay for the glasses themselves to try and "work with" exhibitors in the "upgrade" process.
In the outset or the 35mm genocide they would have had much stronger resistance if there weren't as many concessions made to exhibs.
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 09-29-2011, 04:33 PM:
..for 3D is the only gimmick out there to keep the people coming in - digital itself didn't do it...
It just made it easier to operate on the cinema end of the spectrum.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-29-2011, 09:05 PM:
What was always unfair, and NATO nevers said peep about it...if Real-D and MasterImage get free 50-cent glasses for each show (or pick whatever the studios are paying in bulk)...that is what each exhibitor that had Dolby or XpanD should have received, off the top, per ticket sale before the split...fair is fair. 50-cents a patron is 50-cents a patron, regardless of whose 3D system is being used. If they played fair, Dolby's 3D would be even MORE profitable (and it already is the 2nd most but it would scream into the lead if all forms of 3D were treated equally by the studios).
All the studios would have to do to end this "who pays" business is to use the model above...declare a "house-nut" for the cost of the glasses and take the amount off the top of the up-charge. The it wouldn't cost the studios anything or the exhibitors...it would cost the patron...who is allegedly getting some form of superior experience.
One could also sell the glasses on the concession stand so if you have your own, you need not repurchase...again, putting the financial burden/savings on the patron.
-Steve
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 09-30-2011, 12:37 AM:
True about figuring that into the "house nut" - be tons easier along with being a figure that is more easier to work out.
quote: Steve Guttag
One could also sell the glasses on the concession stand so if you have your own, you need not repurchase...again, putting the financial burden/savings on the patron.
And I'm sure other cinema owners/employees as I have seen and dealt with in "Real D" venues, patrons coming back with the glasses they keep, figuring that they don't have to pay for the upcharge since they believe that the upcharge was for the actual purchase of the glasses.
But, they are told that the upcharge is for the usage of the system and the glasses are free where the patron still has to pay for the upcharge no matter if they get new glasses or not.
Can you feel the "heat' from the patron(s) through the boxoffice glass when this above reply is given to them....
Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 09-30-2011, 08:06 AM:
quote: Monte L Fullmer
Cool, if "Sony-Baloney" does that, we can drop the twin lens setup and go single lens for true, 4k experiences.
This has nothing to do with Sony projectors. We're talking about the studio.
quote: Monte L Fullmer
I don't get it - what's with the blue recycle bins that RealD supplied at each venue for the patrons to toss the glasses in..in which the glasses fall into a shipping box that is sealed, then shipped via UPS to wherever so they can be cleaned and repackaged?
Real D glasses are disposable. The point of these recycle bins is just that -- to recycle them, rather than sending them off to a landfill.
Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 09-30-2011, 09:55 AM:
so what's the problem in actually keeping (not recycling) the glasses and just bringing them back for the next 3D movie?
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-30-2011, 11:47 AM:
Nothing, except that a theatre with a 3D surcharge will still charge the same even if the customer brings his own glasses. (Maybe this policy should change, although that could lead to confusion with various sytems that use incompatible glasses.)
Note that this only works for the systems that use disposable glasses. The Dolby glasses are semi-expensive (something like $15-20/pair...Steve G. has posted about this before) and are kept by the theatre for cleaning and re-use. In theory, you could order your own pair of Dolby glasses (will cinema equipment dealers sell these in quantities of one?), but you would probably still be hounded by theatre employees to return them after the screening.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-30-2011, 12:53 PM:
I thought RealD was supposed to be working on some sort of non-disposable 3D glasses concept with a leading sunglasses company to sell to theater customers. If not, they'll have to start on the effort very soon.
Dolby could also do this. Make Dolby 3D compatible glasses that look stylish, come in a variety of sizes and look different enough from the standard theater glasses that staffers won't be asking for them at the end of the show.
At any rate, customers aren't going to be very pleased if they have to pay for their glasses and pay another fee for 3D up-charge/licensing fees. The bloom will be coming off that rose.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 09-30-2011, 01:43 PM:
Scott is right and no doubt if the glasses have to be bought Real-D will come up with a cheap way out of the issue. This may well indeed fall back on Master Image as well... I seriously doubt that Master Image is paying for the glasses out of their coffer. They have to be getting some kickback from the studios for that service. I'm not for or against any certain 3-D system even though some here "think" I am. They ALL have advantages and disadvantages. If lamp cost is your worry then the Real-D X-L will certainly rescue you there and cut your required lamp wattage literally in half. I do not consider the Standard Z screen an alternative I'd even bring up any longer.
Dolby is best overall IMHO if higher lamp costs and added labor to recycle glasses do not bother you. It is certainly the best for smaller single screen houses that may need to be able to utilize every single seat they have, it's 3-D looks the same from every point in the theater. It is the least light efficient and will drive your normal lamp costs even higher.
Master Image is a dust and grime sucker and the polarizing wheel only lasts so long in reality... a year at best. It eats up half the light but gives a slightly better 3-D effect than Real-D.
All of the above systems can be purchased, some can be leased.... it's your own call there.
In reality I think we will be seeing the number of 3-D releases falling off after next summer. It takes quite a while to drain the tank on green lighted 3-D productions that are already shooting in 3-D. Heck, it's alrady at a point now that the studios will allow 2-D showings at the same location and screen after you've run your 7PM show n 3-D.
Mark
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 09-30-2011, 04:34 PM:
quote: Jonathan Goeldner
so what's the problem in actually keeping (not recycling) the glasses and just bringing them back for the next 3D movie?
Called: "Sanitation Issues". RealD glasses are a single use only product.
Whereas the cinemas with Dolby 3D has a professional, restaurant quality Hobart dishwasher in the kitchen to wash and sanitize the returned glasses.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-30-2011, 05:06 PM:
If Dolby were to do sell-able glasses, then collapsible ear pieces would be the key to the difference between Theatre/Patron versions (in addition to color/style).
Most of my Real-D systems remain Z-screen...it looks much better than XLs. I also don't have light issues. Only the larger systems get the XL to avoid getting into projectors requiring above 4K lamps. The NEC target with the reasonably fine grid is a good target for setting up the XL...and if you know the colors, it also lets you see the "other" ratios too. It will also show off just how imperfect the XL system is...particularly on curved screens.
-Steve
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-02-2011, 12:38 AM:
quote: Frank Cox
If you've lost 10 glasses in a year, that's what -- pushing $3000?
More like about $120.
On a completely unrelated note -- we're at Disney World this week and we managed to see the new updated "Star Tours" four times. It looked and sounded terrific and it uses Dolby's 3-D system and glasses. If those lenses can stand up to the kind of traffic Disney guests dish out, they should do fine in the average movie house!
Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 10-02-2011, 10:08 AM:
Agreed, Mike. We were there a week ago and that was my first Dolby 3D experience and I thought it was FANTASTIC. I saw no ghosting or temporal problems at all. I assume they're using two projectors to achieve the latter, and that the Dolby process itself takes care of the former. But it did look great. We also rode it four times. I did get a pair of glasses that had a scratched lens once. I showed it to one of the cast members there and asked if I could get another one and she said "Sure!" and threw my pair in the trash.
Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 10-02-2011, 12:00 PM:
If you want to blame anyone for remakes and sequels and comic book movies, blame the audiences. If one looks at the top performing films of 2011, one has to go all the way down to #10 (Bridesmaids) to find a movie not based on a novel or a comic or a toy line or a ride at Disneyland.
As for 3D glasses, I predict this will eventually end up with a price-sharing deal. Exhibitors and distributors will split the cost of glasses, and the managers at the theatre level will have to spend time tracking their glasses inventories, so one of the parties don't get overcharged for the amount of glasses handed out.
Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 10-02-2011, 12:13 PM:
Theaters should just sell the glasses separately, but they should sell cheap ones and better quality expensive ones. They would make money on the sales, the smart consumers would hold on to them, hopefully there would be less waste and less inventory to keep track of. Everybody wins. Kind of like what Steve said.
Posted by Keegan O'Brien (Member # 6539) on 10-02-2011, 04:14 PM:
I have no problem with the price of 3D increasing for the consumer. At least in my social circle, it's rare that anyone will pay the surcharge for 3D anyway, so another price hike will just diminish the likely hood of people going to a 3D movie even more; which is, in my opinion, great. I keep seeing less and less 3D show times at my local cinema, which is exciting.
Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 11-02-2011, 08:43 AM:
There are already high quality third-party re-usable glases on the market - loads of them. Cinemas just need to start selling them - which will only start after they or the patrons have to pay for the cheap RealD glasses multiple times.
E.g. the polaroid RealD compatible glasses are excellent and offer a noticably better 3D experience.
We probably won't see third-party Dolby 3D compatible glasses, since there's a patent from Infitec on the technology, and they are also quite expensive to make, at least in higher qualities like the original Dolby ones, left alone large viewing angles.
There's no patent on circular polarization, so these are much cheaper to produce, both regarding license as well as technological reasons. Too bad RealD is the worst performing 3D system, at least the Z-Screen and XL.
Talking about Sony and 3D glasses - Sony is just about to release the Panavision 3D system with their split-lens as an alternative to RealD XLS. This will not need silver screens. It will have reusable glasses similiar to the Dolby/Infitec approach.
Maybe these two different 3D systems is part of the reason why Sony wants to stop subsidizing 3D glasses. Sure it's unfair to support only the cheap disposable glasses, but not the reusable ones.
- Carsten
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-02-2011, 11:01 AM:
quote: Keegan O'Brien
I keep seeing less and less 3D show times at my local cinema, which is exciting.
I'm in a 3D dilemma. We are now usually able to offer 2D and 3D shows, but of course the film company wants the "prime" showtimes to be in 3D. So we're offering things like late shows and matinees and Tues-Wed-Thur evenings in 2D....but almost without fail, those shows are nearly deserted. So this week with Puss in Boots, we went to just 2 nights of 2D (Wed-Thur) plus 2D late shows on Fri-Sat. We'll see what happens but around here people still seem to be loving the 3D for the most part.
I think it could be partly because we skip over a lot of 3D movies that aren't too good, like 3 Musketeers. Thus we don't have 3D overload.
I do know that kids are LOVING the new kid-size Dolby 3D glasses. They also come back much less disgusting than the other glasses did.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-25-2012, 10:28 PM:
Well it looks like Sony backed down (this time).
http://the3d.co/2012/05/25/sony-backs-down-over-3d-glasses-for-men-in-black-3d/
quote:
Sony Pictures agrees to pay for “Men in Black 3″ 3-D glasses
Sony Pictures Entertainment has backed down from its refusal to pay for the 3-D glasses on this weekend’s science fiction sequel “Men in Black 3.” But the studio still doesn’t see eye to eye with exhibitors on the issue.
Sony sent a letter to exhibitors last fall informing them that as of May 1, 2012, it would not longer pay 3-D technology companies such as RealD the average cost of about 45 cents per ticket for 3-D glasses used by moviegoers. Sony contends that theaters, not studios, should cover the cost of supplying the glasses, which can add up to $10 million for very popular films.
In Europe, theaters cover the cost of glasses and sell them to patrons. In the U.S., moviegoers can use the glasses free of charge.
Leading theater chains have balked at changing the model in North America, noting that they already pay a license fee for 3-D equipment in their theaters. Executives of Regal and Cinemark recently reiterated to investors that they had no intention of paying for the 3-D glasses.
That prompted Sony to back down, at least for “Men in Black 3,” said two industry executives familiar with the matter who asked not to be identified. That’s not surprising given that tracking is good on the movie. The last thing Sony wants is to give people a reason not see the movie, which will be widely distributed in 3-D and 2-D.
Steve Elzer, a spokesman for Sony Pictures Entertainment, declined to comment on the studio’s decision but said: “Without affecting consumer access to our upcoming 3D pictures, we continue discussing this matter with the exhibition community while working towards a longterm solution that addresses our concerns about embracing a more sustainable eyewear model. Our position has not changed: it is not our intent to indefinitely subsidize 3D eyewear.”
The battle over who would pay for 3-D glasses first flared up in 2009, when 20th Century Foxattempted to stop paying for glasses and then relented when no other studios supported the decision.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-26-2012, 04:32 PM:
So wait... if Sony's paying for the glasses, there should be no upcharge for the customer, right? RIGHT?
Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 05-26-2012, 07:15 PM:
Real D still wants their royalty, so no. Wrong. Sorry.
Posted by Mike Frese (Member # 4361) on 05-29-2012, 04:29 PM:
This situation really supports the notion that Dolby 3d is preferred (if you needed any more reasons). We (the small operators) have no power of Real3d. Which means people like Frank will always have to pay Real3d a royalty.
Dolby 3d will be the way we will go in the future. It offers the most flexibility regarding pricing. I would imagine a theater in a competitive environment would do very well by charging NO 3d upcharge. Dolby 3d gives you the best way to do such.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-29-2012, 06:41 PM:
If there is an upcharge at the theater level, studios shouldn't have to pay for shit. They have no obligation to pay. If you want them to, stop charging customers or don't buy crap like Real D.
Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 05-29-2012, 07:15 PM:
I'm actually pretty happy that I went with Real D instead of Dolby or anything else.
I don't have to chase after people to get the glasses back. If I needed all of the glasses back I would have to have someone guarding the fire exit door after every show, as well as the front door.
I don't have to wash glasses, don't have to worry about glasses getting broken. Didn't pay thousands of dollars up front to get the Real D system...
Frankly, if I didn't have Real D I probably wouldn't have 3D here at all. Way too much hassle for an extra buck or so per head.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-29-2012, 07:27 PM:
Ah...but if you did the math...you'd be making far more than a buck if you did Dolby 3D and had the said ushers and cleaning equipment. The cost for Dolby glasses is on the order of 4-5 cents per show...versus 50-cents. The amount of money you will give to Real-D over the 10-years would make your hassle seem trivial.
Another option, far better than Real-D is Master Image...at this point, also free-glasses...so no labor/hassle. In less than 2-years, MasterImage surpasses Real-D in profits.
Financially, all Real-D has to offer is low up-front costs. It is a big loser long-term on the cash.
Technically, it is pretty efficient with the XL but at a cost in resolution (that too many people seem to dismiss or not notice).
Posted by Mike Frese (Member # 4361) on 05-29-2012, 08:52 PM:
Ahh Steve long term costs mean nothing. I give credit to Real3d for their salesmanship. They really got a lot of exhibitors to believe in them. A real3d exhibitor is as entrenched in their views as any political issue including abortion.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-29-2012, 09:45 PM:
I went with Dolby for one big reason over all: No silver screen requirement. Our auditorium is sort of narrow so the silver might have been OK with 2-D shows, but I wasn't willing to take the chance. Leaving aside the financial issues, after seeing what a silver screen looks like from an "angle" at CinemaCon, I think I made the right choice.
The big thorn in my side regarding Dolby 3-D is their total lack of promotion of their system at the studio level. Their name should have been on every one-sheet, the way it was when Dolby Stereo came out.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-29-2012, 10:53 PM:
quote: Steve Guttag
Financially, all Real-D has to offer is low up-front costs. It is a big loser long-term on the cash.
The same could easily be said for Sony projectors.
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 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.)
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 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.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 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.
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 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.
Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 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.
Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 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!
Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 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.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 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.
Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 06-05-2012, 02:48 PM:
Cinemark is selling Polaroid 3D glasses in varying designs, bought myself one.
Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 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
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 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!
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 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.
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 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.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 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?
Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 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.
Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 06-05-2012, 09:38 PM:
My standard line when someone tries to bring in an outside drink/candy/whatever:
Would you go to a restaurant and bring your own sandwich?
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-05-2012, 09:49 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
Wrong, and wrong.
Never! Ticket prices steadily increasing has nothing to do with installed equipment inside any given theater. Instead, it's just plain inflation, most of which the studio keeps. It does not matter if a theater uses VPFs or not, my point is that there was no surcharge the customers had to pay on auditoriums with either digital sound or digital projection (both of which probably initially cost more than what they could get away with selling a 3D system for now, it's not that complicated). Granted, most theaters made very bad deals with whatever brand of 3D they have. Now they are forced to apply a surcharge. Real D is, what, 10 years? That's just ridiculous. After those 10 years are over, will Real D theaters still tack on a surcharge? Real D is clearly smarter than most theater owners are. I don't know the conditions behind Dolby's 3D or Master Image so I can't comment on how much their contracts probably suck. But these companies saw an opportunity to make some big cash and they took it. Theater owners fell for it and now they don't even own their own equipment. Pretty soon the studios will own you.
So bottom line, yes I expect either the theater or the studios to eat the cost for 3D. The theater for the equipment, the studio for the glasses. And a theater who didn't apply the surcharge and advertised it would gain patronage vs theaters that stuck with the surcharge.
Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 06-05-2012, 10:59 PM:
I think cinema owners saw sound upgrades as real long term added value for every film so had no big problem digging up the money.
3D was seen by most as a gimmick that would fade away like every time before and the 10 year contract didn't really matter as 3D would be long gone, so they gambled and went with the system with no big cash outlay.
3D has already lasted longer than I thought and there is more to come, so it shows what I know.
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 06-06-2012, 08:55 AM:
quote: Sam D. Chavez
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.
It's even worse -- imagine if I paid a premium for Junior Mints at a movie theatre and still had some leftover -- tried to take those same leftovers back the next time I went to that theatre -- and they made me buy a new box of Junior Mints, even though I already have what I need to get me through another movie.
That's what it feels like when people are FORCED to buy Real-D glasses over and over and over.
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 06-06-2012, 10:10 AM:
And, yes, with Dolby there's the washing expense, but you'll get a lot of mileage out of those glasses by being able to re-use them. So -- pardon the pun -- it's a wash, IMHO.
And, let's just come to the point -- glasses or no glasses -- you're not going to convince me ANY TIME SOON that it's worth ANY EXTRA MONEY to see a movie in 3D. That's what it really all boils down to for me -- it doesn't enhance the movie for me and I resent having to pay extra for it.
Yes, I've seen (and shown) one or two 3D movies that I felt were very well done, but I still didn't think it was worth paying extra to see them that way. On principal.
And I don't ever recall paying extra for 3D movies when they were shown on film, and there were additional costs associated with that format too. So, to the consumer, it comes across as a sign of the times -- double-dipping and price-gouging with no real improvement for the person who's getting ripped off in the process.
I realize that I am biased also. But at least I'm right. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-06-2012, 11:16 AM:
Joe - with Dolby there is no contract. You buy the system and you own it.
quote: Manny Knowles
with Dolby there's the washing expense, but you'll get a lot of mileage out of those glasses by being able to re-use them. So -- pardon the pun -- it's a wash, IMHO.
Dolby's system costs more up front but you make more money over the long haul by NOT having to pay the 50 cents or whatever it is that RealD charges per ticket. But, the Dolby system is A LOT more work than RealD's, due to the glasses hassle. And you do need to replace the glasses from time to time, especially the kiddie ones which were apparently never tested with real kids from planet Earth.
quote: Manny Knowles
And, let's just come to the point -- glasses or no glasses -- you're not going to convince me ANY TIME SOON that it's worth ANY EXTRA MONEY to see a movie in 3D. That's what it really all boils down to for me -- it doesn't enhance the movie for me and I resent having to pay extra for it.
So, vote with your wallet. Don't see the movie in 3-D. Almost every plex is offering 2-D shows of all their 3-D movies, and we are offering them too even though we're a single screen. So I don't really see what your gripe is.
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 06-06-2012, 11:40 AM:
My gripe is that I think it's wrong to charge for the glasses.
I do vote with my wallet. But that doesn't mean I'm happy to see this business model persist.
Yes, the Dolby glasses create extra work. And that's fine by me. You save money in the long-run by re-using the glasses, but there's a little catch -- you have to sort and wash them. There is a little "give and take" everywhere in life. I think the added work is a fair trade-off. And I sure hope nobody's complaining about having work to do in THIS economy.
Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 06-06-2012, 02:26 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
So, vote with your wallet. Don't see the movie in 3-D. Almost every plex is offering 2-D shows of all their 3-D movies, and we are offering them too even though we're a single screen.
Most theaters seem to be doing that now, and I don't like it. Would they play alternating shows with mono sound too? If a movie is done in 3D, even if done poorly, there was probably a reason for it being done that way and that's the way I want to see it. If they're charging too much, I'm not going to see it in 2D, I just won't see it at all and wait til I can buy it on Blu-Ray for a more reasonable price.
On the "DVD Talk" message board, one user has as their signature: "See it in 3D- Throw your money away!"
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 06-06-2012, 02:44 PM:
Didn't I read (on Film-Tech) that the studios get to decide which showtimes can be 2D? Didn't I read that the prime time shows are required to be 3D and the "crappy" showtimes are assigned to the 2D version?
Yes, it turns out I did...
...I read it here...
...and see Brad's post here.
Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 06-07-2012, 12:45 PM:
^ that seems to be the case at the Uptown, the 1 and 7pm showing of Prometheus at the Uptown are 3D, the 2D at the 4 and 10pm screenings.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-07-2012, 02:00 PM:
Manny - I can't speak for what happens with chains, but with smaller places the studios don't "dictate" show formats. They WOULD LIKE all the prime (read: 7:00) showtimes to be in 3-D but it's not required in the contract. We've booked some 3-D movies in 100% 2-D, in fact.
Here, at least, we have done a variety of things just experimenting around: Early shows in 3D, late in 2D; matinees in 2D; or certain days of the week in 2D and the other days in 3D. The last two things seem to work the best with most movies.
What we do also depends on the movie. With Star Wars I, for example, the whole reason for that reissue was 3D, so all our shows were 3D on that movie. With the upcoming Madagascar 3, we're doing more 2D shows than 3D because it's going to be huge with little kids who don't like to wear the glasses. (Personally, I wish they'd made that movie in 2-D for that exact reason.)
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-29-2012, 01:06 AM:
So I'm guessing Sony completely backed down on this. I guess they can make.believe they charged everyone since they do charge everywhere but the USA.
Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 07-29-2012, 12:02 PM:
They did back down big time.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 08-26-2012, 10:53 AM:
quote: Carsten Kurz
Talking about Sony and 3D glasses - Sony is just about to release the Panavision 3D system with their split-lens as an alternative to RealD XLS. This will not need silver screens. It will have reusable glasses similiar to the Dolby/Infitec approach.
Maybe these two different 3D systems is part of the reason why Sony wants to stop subsidizing 3D glasses. Sure it's unfair to support only the cheap disposable glasses, but not the reusable ones.
Panavision 3D died a few months ago: http://www.dpvotheatrical.com/Home_Page.html
Posted by Peter Williamson (Member # 7239) on 12-29-2012, 06:19 AM:
Any thoughts on holographic technology, especially for live music concerts?
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 12-29-2012, 05:09 PM:
Wow! Did you really just crash into a Film-Tech forum to talk about live concerts?
What is this world coming to!?
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2