quote: Claude

---

It was one hell of a sick movie....

---

quote: Claude S. Ayakawa

---

I was just puzzled why the cost for the glasses was exactly the same as a Real D show when they will be reused many more times.

---

quote: Lyle Romer

---

The charge isn't for the glasses, it's to view a movie in 3D. The charge covers the glasses, the projector cost, the 3D system cost and the studio cut of the charge covers the increased production cost to make the movie in 3D.

---

Ah, for a second I thought it was because Hollywood wanted to give the exhibitor extra profit in these times of need , but now it's clear it's only to give it to the producers, the distributor and the hardware manufacturers.


 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-18-2009, 01:07 PM:
 

quote: Claude S. Ayakawa

---

but I can keep the glasses after I watch a Real D 3-D movie.

---

quote:

---

And they will ONLY WORK on another REAL-D showing... nothing else!

---

quote: Julio Roberto

---

it's clear it's only to give it to the producers, the distributor and the hardware manufacturers

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

The exhibitor gets the same cut as they get of the film rent, isn't that correct? So the exhib gets some of it.

---

Correct. If the percentage on the movie was lets say 55% and your surcharge is $2.00 then you get to keep $0.90 per ticket.
With Real-D there is also a per ticket amount that goes to them which will come off of your $0.90.

If you bought Dolby you would presumably use some of that $0.90 to pay for the equipment, glasses, dishwasher and costs associated with maintaining the glasses.

Real-D created a big problem for Dolby (and other "you can't take the glasses" 3D) because the public was "conditioned" that they are paying for the glasses and can keep them if they want to. Part of the reason we switched a location from Dolby 3D to Real-D is the numerous beligerant customers who (dispite running the snipe telling them the glasses had to be returned) insisted that they paid for the glasses and should get to keep them.

If Dolby could ever get the glasses down to disposable cost they would win the 3D war with no effort.
 

---

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 01-20-2009, 04:19 PM:
 
So many people are keeping their glasses so they can use them when the DVD and Blu-Ray comes out.

SUCKERS!
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-20-2009, 08:43 PM:
 
Only thing that I can see really go bad for theatres with Real D is that if someone tosses something wet and gooey on that silver screen, it's gonna be a new screen replacement.

For you never wet clean a silver screen since that clean spot will really show up on both 2D and 3D showings ...

...been there and done that with silver screens in theatres that I've worked in in the past ..

Looks like for Dolby to regain the edge in this 3D war by having the theatres counter with NOT raising their prices for 3D presentation - absorb some of that cost in a flat ticket price raise, or somewhere in the concessions since the attendance figures really shows an increase in 3D presentations.

Having signage that shows any sort of negative content ("glasses must be returned"..or similar) of your theatre's operation will definitely scare the public off quicker than you can say, "BOO!"

There are some marketing tricks that can be used to "uncondition" the public on that idea that they can keep the glasses - make it more like an "amusement ride" where these glasses are mandantory for this special occasion and must be returned when the "ride" is over.

-Monte
 

---

Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 01-21-2009, 09:11 AM:
 
I just put in a Dolby 3D system and MBV 3D was my first feature. First off, having 3D really increased attendance. I probably doubled my gross because of the 3D.

I have had zero problems getting the glasses returned and no complaints about having to return them. We are the first theatre around here with 3D so no precedent was set.

The Dolby system made a lot of sense for me. I work at the theatre personally, so I don't have to depend on employees to get the glasses back for the most part. Our lobby is rather small so it would be hard for people to sneak out. Just tell people when they buy their tickets and again before the movie starts that they need to return the glasses.

Secondly, I wasn't using an auditorium with a large screen. I have side movable masking with a scope picture of 27ft. Not sure what the flat is, but it is smaller then that. Because of the smaller screen, I could get plenty of light. I have a ZX running the 30-SD bulb, installed higher quality port glass, and put in a new Harkness 1.8 screen. The picture to my eyes, even with the glasses on, is plenty bright.

Having Real D looking over my shoulder and charging me licensing fees for the rest of my life made zero sense. Dolby was much cheaper to own and operate in the long run for me.
 

---

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 01-23-2009, 11:33 AM:
 
Saw this last night at the AMC Leow's Cherry Hill 24. We (Mark Marshall and I) sat in the seats recommended by the majority here - center screen both in height and width. It was in Real 3D.

Claude was right. It was very gory for an "R" rating and the explicit content was amplified by the 3D effects. I would love to see an "unrated" version.

Joe Elliot was also right...it has the longest nude scene I can remember in a horror film. The actress, however, is very easy to watch. I didn't spot any mistake in that scene...in fact what I was watching looked perfect! Another reason I would be interested in an unrated cut.

The 3D effects were excellent. Even the most extreme cases where objects appeared to transcend the screen and over the heads of the audience had no separation of the image. Nothing to cause any eye strain. Lots of scenes in the mine had the odd anomaly of light flaring in the lens in only one eye at a time but it was not too distracting. There was plenty of light to illuminate the darker scenes. I don't know what they are using but it was the best digital presentation I had ever seen - including the IMAX Digital at the same theater.

The audio was excellent as well and even played at a respectable volume. I was told that the theater was a mess when AMC took it over so kudos to the crew (including old pal Dave Hart) who brought it all together.

Content-wise it was typical of most genre films these days. Maybe a little better with more mature performers and characterizations. They cheated you in the middle and it became obvious in the end but since it's not getting a nomination for "best screenplay" I can forgive it. Mark and I both recognized the familiar look of so many Pennsylvania mining towns and stayed through the credits to learn that it was indeed filmed in PA.

I would love to see some classics from 3D's "Golden Age" transformed for the new digital systems. Warner should get "House of Wax" ready to fill in an inevitable gap in the 3D schedule.
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 01-23-2009, 01:53 PM:
 
I have thought of that many times, Joe after Disney included a animated 3-D short from the fifties with the 3-D showing of MEET THE ROBINSON'S Although they are not modern films, I think HOUSE OF WAX, IT CAME FROM OUT OF SPACE, THE CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON and it's sequel THE CREATURE WALKS AMONG US as well as THE MAZE would do very well not to mention the other classics from the era, DIAL M FOR MURDER & KISS ME KATE. Although it was extremely campy, ROBOT MONSTER might also be a good one. Some of these early films such as HOUSE OF WAX, IT CAME FROM OUT OF SPACE and a few others also had stereo soundtracks and that would be a plus for modern audience if the tracks still exist.

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 01-23-2009, 03:20 PM:
 
Claude - I had the pleasure to attend the first 3D Film Expo in Hollywood back in 2003. All those films you mentioned were shown there. Except for House of Wax they had the multi-channel audio for all titles originally made with it. We watched "It Came From Outer Space" sitting three feet from Ray Bradbury!

I have no doubt a midnight double feature of "Robot Monster" and "Cat Women from the Moon" in 3D would be a new cult favorite. These films could be configured for the new format and distributed for a mere fraction of a percent of the cost of making a new movie. There is a whole generation of moviegoers that have grown up since "House of Wax" was last promoted in theaters. 1982, I believe, was the last time.
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 01-23-2009, 05:59 PM:
 
I think the stereo track for House of Wax is lost. Someone else can correct me if I'm wrong.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 01-26-2009, 02:13 PM:
 
And after its second weekend, Bloody Valentine has proven that 3D business is not all that was meant to be.

It opened at number 3 in a weekend w/o a lot of competition. Actually, the public rated it the movie they liked the most of all the ones that opened that weekend, including #1 Mall Cop. It did about the same business as number 4 Notorious (also rated R like Valentine) in spite of opening in more and better theaters and having the 3-D premium ticket $$$ attached.

During it's entire first week it grossed $30.5m in 2,534 theaters ($11k per screen). Notorious did $27.6m in 1.638 ($16k per screen). Gran Torino, number 2 that week, almost tied doing over $10k per screen too in 2,972 screens (it was Torino's 6th week). Mall cop did $14k per screen.

So per-screen it basically either tied or did worse than the top 4 in spite of being the most liked movie, having other R rated films in the list, not having any direct strong horror competition and Gran Torino being there for 6 weeks.

This 3D film probably also have many forced contracts in many theaters for many weeks on their top auditoriums as per Real-D etc, further pushing the "false" attendance numbers.

Now Valentine slipped to number 6th for the weekend, and did even less than school for dogs or slumdog millionarie, which after 11 weeks and only 1,411 screens, did about twice as much per screen than Valentine. The average per screen in its second week for Valentine at 2,534 screens: $3,966.

And we all know that a lot of people went just for the 3D and found out they liked the movie a bit more than expected. When (if ever) "all movies" are in 3D (or many-a-month) and all competing theaters in an area get a 3D screen too, then the 3D novelty will wear out very quick and I think we'll see attendance being pretty much what they have always been.

Perhaps a tad more and even quite a bit more for certain genres, but not the "2, 3 times the gross of 2D" that is being touted. That may (or may not) be the truth today. But just wait until 3D is common place and soon we'll see the real figures.

And 3D costs more to exhibit in electricity, lamps, royalties, glasses, screen, maintenance and hardware, so it's only natural that they gross more if real profits are to remain the same.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 01-26-2009, 06:08 PM:
 
A horror film down 52% in it's second weekend...what's so strange about that?

3D or no 3D...a horror film is going to front-loaded.
 

---

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 01-29-2009, 01:35 PM:
 

quote: Mark J. Marshall

---

I think the stereo track for House of Wax is lost.

---

quote: Joe Tommassello

---

The "surround" version is on the DVD. Sounds like a four-channel mix for mag prints ported over. Warner could easily incorporate it whether for 35mm or digital projection if they choose.

---

In the original Warnerphonic Sound release, the left eye included an optical mono mix (so that these prints could be used for standard theatres and non-stereo 3-D houses), the right eye had an optical surroubnd track, while a third full-coat magnetic 35mm reel contained three (L-C-R) stage channels for theatres so equipped (so in stereophonic sound theatres, L-C-R was magnetic, surround channel was optical!). The three original stage channels were lost. The optical surround track was saved. Don't know where the mic came from for the DVD, although I believe the optical surround track was utilized for the surround.
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 01-29-2009, 06:03 PM:
 
Interesting. Anyone know what's on the new left and right eye prints?
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 01-31-2009, 11:35 AM:
 
OMG, what a stink bomb! I saw 1hr. of this show last night in Yonkers (I was working on a server problem, and needed to make sure it was playing okay - not that I would've normally watched this movie). I couldn't help but roar with laughter when the kid's eye popped out. I'm sorry, I thought he was playing a trick on the girl with a Halloween gag eye or something... since his head and body did not MOVE like someone had just delivered BLUNT FORCE TRAUMA! It was funny. The eye just shot out. Kid being goofy says, "Hey, look at this!" (Sproiiiingg!) And then back in. (Swwwwwwip!) Total absence of kinetics. Pause for laugh. Ha-ha!! I want that trick.

Oh, he was getting killed? Sorry. (blush)

Needless to say, a great party gag was turned to hokieness by intent, loses the movie's credibility, and it was right at the beginning. Not good. (I'm not being difficult; any premise can be made believeable, but the movie has to cooperate.)

So, it went from there.

I did enjoy the naked chick, though. She was pretty hot. I couldn't determine if it was a "long scene" though, as I have no reference with these kinds of movies, but it could've been on much longer and been fine with me.

Did the mistake have to do with the angle of the home video camera? The guy was shooting the front of the bed, but the police copy showed the front door and window.

I doubt I'll ever see this movie all the way through, it is my least-favorite genre. The use of loud audio cues to "scare" the audience is a cheap, tawdry device on the level of a deus ex machina ending, and no match for a suspenseful STORY (read: Hitchcock). I'll watch experimental films and music videos before I intentionally watch one of these turds.

[edit] Ooops.. I made a mistake myself, in spelling!

[ 02-02-2009, 10:08 PM: Message edited by: Tim Reed ]
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 01-31-2009, 01:57 PM:
 
Not that I disagree with your review (at all ... I also digged the naked chik), but out of the 10 top current films at the BO last two weeks (Valentine was #6 up til Thursday), only 3 (Oscar material Torino, Slumdog and Benjamin at #9) score higher points in critics from the public.

That gives you an idea of how little competition this movie actually has.

Only one opening in Valentine's 2nd week, Underworld, did any direct competition. And it sort of bombed, opening only #2 and hanging in there w/o much acclaim by public or critic (i.e. Rottentomatoes scores Valentine a 5,9 and Underworld only a 3,2).

Underworld was cliché as hell, but it was a much higher production value than Valentine which was just as cliché + deus ex machina. Plus 3D gimmicki as hell and copycat of other movies.

That was up til this weekend, of course. New openings have pushed Valentine to #9.
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 01-31-2009, 03:47 PM:
 
What is very sad about this movie is the way how the young people around me were enjoying it. I only saw the movie because it was a live action 3-D film playing in a Dolby 3-D digital theatre and I was only interested in seeing how good Dolby's 3-D was compared to Real D. I was tempted to leave after forty minutes but decided to stick around. Yes, the only redeeming factor about the movie was the five minute nude scene and I agree, the young lady was hot! It is also interesting to see the way the film is listed in various newspaper movie guides. The two major newspaper in Honolulu has it listed as MY BLODDY VALENTINE in non 3-D theatres but some local smaller newspapers advertises it as MY BLODDY VALENTINE 3-D in every theatre , 3-D or not.

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Joe Elliott (Member # 4006) on 02-01-2009, 08:05 AM:
 
The mistake is in her "hair cut", it changes in the scene, and after you see her dead body, once the police are there.
 

---

Posted by Tony L. Hernandez (Member # 3524) on 02-18-2009, 02:33 AM:
 
Saw it tonight at The Carmike 5 in Greeley,CO. It's got your typical slasher flick storyline HOWEVER due to the cast, 3D Image and add an excellent sound system to that (which is what they had at the Carmike), it was quite a terrifying picture. This was also my first digital 3D movie. I've been around movies my whole life however when that pick axe came swinging right at my face in the first 5 minutes of the film, I almost jumped. The plot and characters are interesting in their own right and there is a bit of a weird, creepy twist at the end that you may not expect. I'd say go see it and enjoy the special effects and interesting landscape it is filmed in as well an enjoying a new twist on a very old storyline.
As far as my experience, aside from the ticket clerk and the manager/"projectionist" lady, I was the only one in the whole building so it made it extra creepy!

A
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 02-18-2009, 04:32 AM:
 

quote: Claude S. Ayakawa

---

I was only interested in seeing how good Dolby's 3-D was compared to Real D. I was tempted to leave after forty minutes but decided to stick around.

---

Isn't that around the time the naked chick turns up?
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 02-24-2009, 03:09 PM:
 

quote: Me

---

A horror film down 52% in it's second weekend...what's so strange about that?

3D or no 3D...a horror film is going to front-loaded.

---