Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Could 3-D hurt grosses sometimes?

This is topic Could 3-D hurt grosses sometimes? in forum Ground Level 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=5;t=002144

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-01-2008, 10:20 AM:

I had the following conversation last night while selling tickets to "Bolt:"

Customer: 2 children.
Me: You're not going in?
Customer: No, I don't like 3-D.
Me: Oh, we don't have 3-D; that's only in digital cinema theatres.
Customer: (surprised) Really? OK, I'll go too then.

This got me to thinking -- I wonder if other people (adults mostly) might have foregone seeing "Bolt" because it was in 3-D?

Posted by Mark Strube (Member # 4190) on 12-01-2008, 10:28 AM:

We carried both 3D and 2D versions of the movie... and I experienced many people coming to the theatre, discovering it's 3D, and leaving - only to come back for one of the 2D showtimes. I did get a few people who specifically said they don't care for 3D, but with the other people it could've been the $3 bump in ticket price.

However, the fact that our 3D house is one of the most consistently sold out, I'd say the few that snub their noses to 3D have little to no affect on grosses.

[ 12-01-2008, 11:36 AM: Message edited by: Mark Strube ]

Posted by Tyler Potts (Member # 4952) on 12-01-2008, 11:58 AM:

We're getting three 3D digital projectors sometime between April & July (thank you economy). Ticketwise, I would assume families won't initially be keen to drop $10+ per ticket for a 3D show when its playing somewhere else in 2D for $3 cheaper.

Posted by Julie Lucero (Member # 4959) on 12-01-2008, 12:17 PM:

Does anyone know in how many theaters BOLT is playing, and how many of those are the 3-D presentations?

I think 3-D is a gimmick and maybe shouldn't be used for entire feature films. I think 3-D can be great for things like an amusement park attraction. I thought Disneyland's CAPTAIN EO was great, for instance.

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 12-01-2008, 12:27 PM:

Does digital 3D have the nauseating effect that film 3D has on a few people? I can only watch film 3D for 15-20 minutes before I have to look away for a while, others are not affected. I've never experienced digital 3D and I'm wary for that reason. Whenever we've done 3D there are a few in every audience who can't tolerate it.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 12-01-2008, 12:33 PM:

I have been a 3-D junkie since the early fifties. During that time, I have experienced both excellent and terrible presentations. I loved the two projection process in the fifties but did not care much for single projection that was introduced many years later. I love IMAX 3-D and the other kind I saw at Universal City and Disneyland. The current Real D is very good but in my opinion is not as good as the original two projection and IMAX. I have seen almost every Real D 3-D films and felt the presentations was excellent with the exception of JOURNEY TO THE CENTRE OF THE WORLD which I thought was too dark. I can see this being a 'turn off' for a person seeing his first 3-D film thinking the polaroid glasses was making the presentation too dark. The extra $2.50 for the glasses and having to wear them over regular prescription glasses can also be the reason why some people do not like 3-D films.

-Claude

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 12-01-2008, 01:13 PM:

For those who are turned off by 3D, I would imagine that it's partially due to the older processes. I know that if I did not understand that Real D was different, I would be thinking about the eye strain from Spy Kids 3D and other similar movies and would definately opt out.

I think there may initially be a need for theatres to offer some customers a money back guarantee just to be sure they understand the new process is different.

Obviously we can't do much about the price objections.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 12-01-2008, 03:04 PM:

I absolutely love seeing movies in 3D. But I'm turned off by the single projector method because I can't get past my eyes being out of sync. If we watch Bolt (and we plan to) it will be in 2D.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-01-2008, 06:49 PM:

I love photographing things in 3D, but I don't care much for 3D movies. Everything looks so tiny in 3D, even when watching an IMAX 3D movie. You take off the glasses and you think "Wow, this screen is huge, WTF?". Put the glasses back on and it's "Wow, everything is so small again, the screen doesn't seem huge".

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-01-2008, 09:43 PM:

Mark,

I'm curious...with a 144Hz refresh frequency...are your eyes really that atuned to them being out of sync? I'm not doubting that as I seem to interpret digital images a bit more dramatically (hyper-flat) than others.

Note, Sony's single projector solution has both images in sync since they are effectively using their 4K imager as a 2K over/under imager.

Steve

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 12-01-2008, 11:08 PM:

Yeah, Steve, for some reason I can see that easily. As a guy who spent a bit of money to fly from the east coast to the west coast to see 35 movies in 3D in ten days, it's really frustrating that I can't enjoy the newer 3D fare.

During the first 3D Film Expo in LA they had a problem with the "Gorilla At Large" prints. One of the prints had one single frame missing, which was really annoying. Of course everyone could easily see that after it went through. Cuts between scenes looked like very very fast wipes since they cut in one eye before cutting in the other eye.

Later they showed that same print in NY and Fox still hadn't fixed it yet so Bob F. fixed it. But when they went to start the show the motors slipped slightly on the 35mm projectors and the show started very very slightly out of sync. Cuts didn't look like wipes this time, so it was nowhere near a full frame out of sync. But still I noticed it immediately - in fact I noticed it during the black film before the picture faded in on the Three Stooges short that was attached to the head.

After a short time, the show was stopped, rethreaded and restarted. Again it slipped, but it was an even smaller amount than the last time, and again I saw it on the black leader. I spoke to Bob after the show and he confirmed that it did indeed slip again the second time, but they let it go because it wasn't so bad that many people would notice it.

Every other show that weekend (including the second half of "Gorilla At Large") started absolutely perfectly. It was later determined that that movie (or at least that particular print) is cursed.

That Sony 4K projector sounds interesting. Are there any installed in the Philly / Baltimore / DC area?

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-02-2008, 11:03 AM:

Like I've been saying.... everyone perceives 3-D differently!

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 12-02-2008, 11:57 AM:

During the '62 world's fair in Seattle, I got a tour of the Cinerama Theatre booth. Aside from the sheer number of (union) projectionists that it took to run the place, I remember that the "master control operator" had a position, with controls that could advance/retard some projectors frame by frame.

On a multi-projector system, I wonder why you wouldn't want this kind of capability.

Is it easy for a selsyn-locked system to "slip"?

Posted by Robert Crabtree (Member # 4795) on 12-03-2008, 09:04 PM:

While I like 3-D in and of itself, it's a pain in the ass to watch. I've already got hearing aids and glasses on, so putting on the 3-D glasses makes it a bit crowded around the ears. Which makes use of the headsets really uncomfortable. If only there was a clip-on version of the glasses for folks already wearing prescription lenses.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 12-04-2008, 12:11 AM:

I wear glasses. I used the clip on 3D polarizers. They worked great.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-04-2008, 02:13 AM:

I read somewhere that they (Disney) are saying basically, "thank heavens the movie was in 3-D because that's where most of the money was made."

Look Disney dudes, how many places was that the ONLY choice? And I still bet some people stayed home because of the 3-D.

They can't even envision that it probably would have done just as well, or maybe would have done better, if it wasn't a 3-D film.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 12-04-2008, 02:29 AM:

Unfortunately it's something that's difficult to measure. We don't have 3D and never even mentioned 3D. But I was less than impressed with the gross for Bolt.

However, we only had a small handful of customers asking if it was in 3D or asking for their 3D glasses. And I wonder if the general public knew we didn't have 3D, if they didn't know it was in 3D in some places, or if they might just think 3D is now a term being used for CGI animation. And of course we have no way to quantify how many people completely stayed away because of 3D.

While the performance of Beverly Hills Chihuahua and Madagascar 2 seem to indicate families are more than willing to come to family movies, I also wonder if Bolt is an indication they are only willing to go to so many in a period of time. From the standpoint of the actual movie, I don't see a reason for Bolt to have only made $68 million in 12 days. I feel like there is some other reason why it hasn't made well over $100 million. Whether that reason is family budgets, 3D, or the fact it will be on DVD in 4-5 months.

Posted by Tyler Potts (Member # 4952) on 12-04-2008, 12:40 PM:

Went and saw it in 3D this week (first time seeing a 3D movie). I was not really impressed, I saw Transformers at this theatre in digital 2D and it was crisp and amazing. But with Bolt 3D, the image seemed much darker than our theatre's 2D presentation. It took me a while to get used to 3D and get rid of my headache. I kept trying to focus on foreground or background images that were meant to add depth of field but it was straining.

It was a new experience if I just went dead in the head and not really focus on anything I was able to experience it. Although I felt like one of the humans from Wall-E.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-04-2008, 12:53 PM:

That's what kind of sucks about 3D, you can't focus on what you want like you can in real life.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 12-07-2008, 04:22 PM:

3-D probably means more to Hollywood-suits than it does to the "ticket-buying-public." Louis

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-07-2008, 07:08 PM:

Called "needed protection to the suits." - gotta find a way to keep people coming out to the big screen since home cinemas are on the massive upswing (back to the fear of the TV invasion of the early '50s) and this time, this competition is for real (along with it didn't help the circuits having booth clowns ruining presentations and circuits losing revenue due to tix refunds, unsatisfied customer satisfactions and lost reputations. It could sound more like a "Band-AID" fix in going the easy route with digital conversions instead of the more complex and accurate booth training-which in a way would be tons cheaper that heading to the digital world) where the studios are faced with the choice of budget cuts of post-productions.

But, as long as this "fad" is making money and has been more easier to produce and present to the public using the digital means, I do believe that 3D will be with us as an 'option' for the public to choose what to see and to enjoy.

Right now, home 3D presentation is still limited to the anaglyph (green/blue - red) glasses. Thus, it could be safe to say that Digital 3D (in any resolution that comes out) has a very good buffer in the market over the home theatre market.

But agree with Mark G.: not everyone sees 3D the same, nor some don't care about the "wow" factor with the process.

-Monte

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-07-2008, 07:41 PM:

quote: Jack Ondracek
On a multi-projector system, I wonder why you wouldn't want this kind of capability.

No need for that in a single projector installation as they can't get out of sync... ditto for a 2 projector digital 3-D system.

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 12-08-2008, 12:47 AM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
No need for that in a single projector installation as they can't get out of sync... ditto for a 2 projector digital 3-D system

Right... this was definitely back in the 3-projector-plus-sound Cinerama days.

Posted by Jack Theakston (Member # 4484) on 12-08-2008, 01:38 AM:

Regarding frame advance controls with a dual-strip system: such a device was invented by Polaroid in 1953. It came too little too late, but you see them around very rarely. I have one installed in my booth. It will correct shutters that are out of phase up to one frame out of sync. Any more and you're better off stopping the show, as your guess as to how many frames your are out is as good as anyone else.

I will reiterate what I said in another thread: 3-D is STILL hurting peoples eyes. Do not believe the jargon Disney or RealD is throwing at you. Do research for yourself regarding past 3-D presentations and why history is repeating itself again.

It's true that the system for projecting 3-D film has increased, but the problem is not with the projection anymore, it's with the photography! You can show these films any way you want, it's not going to change the fact that in this day and age, everyone thinks they know everything and no one in Hollywood is hiring consultants for these films (unlike in the 1950s, where almost none of the 50 3-D features they produced was photographed poorly).

For any of you who are running 3-D, I urge you to do some reading up on the basic principles behind 3-D photography, a science that was perfected over a hundred years ago. If you are unfamiliar with the terms "stereo window," "parallax," or "point of convergence," look them up.

Why are people turning away from 3-D? It's not because of the glasses, but mark my words, that's what everyone who doesn't understand 3-D is going to say.

Again, I also emphasize that bigger is not better in 3-D. The bigger your screen is in ratio to how far your first row is, you're going to be cutting off several rows worth of possible 3-D viewing.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-08-2008, 06:37 AM:

Jack, don't discount the glasses as a reason. I know I personally don't like that aspect of it and I'm sure there are others.

All of the negatives add up.

Steve

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 12-08-2008, 06:51 AM:

Theatres are already getting calls: "Do I have to wear the damn glasses to watch_______film?" This is hurting even "normal" films.

My post above was not entirely clear: I think it matters MORE that a film is 3D to the suits than to the people. No education was ever "sent" to the public at large. Remember there are new people in the marketplace every 7 years. Louis

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 12-08-2008, 07:26 AM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
No need for that in a single projector installation as they can't get out of sync

You're half right. Single projector systems are out of sync by design.

It's funny to me... having the eyes not in perfect sync was regarded as bad showmanship in the 50s. And bad showmanship is widely regarded as one of the "problems" with dual strip 35mm in the 50s that lead to people having headaches. That's why the Polaroid device Jack is referring to was invented, so that particular problem could be fixed while the show was running.

Now the DLP single projector setup has the eyes out of phase on purpose, and all of a sudden everyone is fine with it. I don't get it. I guess it's yet another example of the "it's good enough" mentality this industry has been taking for a while now.

Posted by Jack Theakston (Member # 4484) on 12-08-2008, 09:46 AM:

quote: Steve Guttag
Jack, don't discount the glasses as a reason. I know I personally don't like that aspect of it and I'm sure there are others.

Steve, I agree that WEARING the glasses can be a nuisance-- on the other hand, most people wear sunglasses for extended amounts of time... what's the difference?

My point is that there's no scientific magic behind the glasses that give people eye-strain. That's what they said in the '50s to promote CinemaScope, it was what was pushed when the '80s films were dying, and I'm sure it is the non-sense that will be spewed by technically ignorant people in the next couple of years.

There was an interesting study done in the '50s, by the way, about what people thought of the glasses (back when they were cardboard and much more uncomfortable). Of about 10,500 people polled coming out of 3-D movies, 58.2% of the total reported discomfort and 41.8% no discomfort from the fit of the glasses. However, 82.2% said they'd return for another 3-D film, while 17.2% said they would not (and .6% undecided).

While these figures were taken over fifty years ago, I'm sure they'd hold up about the same today.

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 12-08-2008, 11:20 AM:

Can any business afford to piss off 17.2% of the customers?

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-08-2008, 01:38 PM:

quote: Bill Enos
Can any business afford to piss off 17.2% of the customers?

Course not. They'd better revamp their customer satisfaction procedures real quick in whatever that business offers to the public...

AND what's interesting here is that it isn't the businesses fault of this percentage of dissatisfied patrons - the business didn't drag those customers in..they volunteered to walk in on their own. They probably returned when a regular movie was playing.

Also, using figures that were used 50 yrs ago isn't really fair to use in this day and age since the process used back then (two machine interlock that had to be modified mechanically to be in sync, using carbon arc where each lamp didn't put out the same "color" of light all the time, et.al. ) is totally different as it is now.

Like going to a carnival: don't blame the carnival if the new ride they've got made you sick....

It's simply a fad that isn't for everyone. But the younger people (whom this format is really targeted to since the attendance numbers showing who attends movies nowdays) really like it.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-08-2008, 04:26 PM:

quote: Jack Theakston
I agree that WEARING the glasses can be a nuisance-- on the other hand, most people wear sunglasses for extended amounts of time... what's the difference?

Comfortable glasses that make you feel better (by not squinting) vs. uncomfortable glasses that give you a headache, maybe?

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-08-2008, 05:26 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
uncomfortable glasses that give you a headache, maybe?

I remember in the early 80's when 3D had a small revival with a few features and different formats. One of them that Columbia used was a horizontal split frame double image using a split lens element that would merge the two images in a "poor mans" scope picture and the glasses were the polarized variety. Movie was "Spacehunters in the Forbidden Zone"

Big thing that the projectionist had to be careful of is his framing. For if he was 180* off when theading the reels, the imagery was horrible to look at-like if it was pulling your eyeballs out of the sockets-unless you turned your glasses upside down.

Yes, we that are commonly called "four eyes", do have that bit of uncomfortability of wearing ill-fitting glasses over our prescription glasses why it looks like the Dolby system's glasses are made large enough to go over our prescription glasses.

Posted by Julie Lucero (Member # 4959) on 12-08-2008, 10:21 PM:

quote: asked several days ago
Does anyone know in how many theaters BOLT is playing, and how many of those are the 3-D presentations?

Anyone know? Anyone? Bueller...? Bueller...? Bueller...? Frye...?

EDIT: Never mind! After some searching, I found the answer on another forum.

quote: Fans of Showmanship
Disney reported that "Bolt" opened in about 3,600 theaters, 982 of which were in 3-D. The various boxoffice figure resources reported "Bolt" in its first weekend did 39% of its business in the 3-D houses. In other words, about 25% of the bookings accounted for about 40% of the gross, suggesting audiences gravitated toward the 3-D showings. (Most of the theaters showing it in 3-D also were showing it in 2-D on other screens in their complex.)

A list of the theaters showing BOLT in 3-D is posted here.

[ 12-10-2008, 07:41 PM: Message edited by: Julie Lucero ]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-08-2008, 10:46 PM:

quote:
about 25% of the bookings accounted for about 40% of the gross, suggesting audiences gravitated toward the 3-D showings.

I don't think that really means anything. Of course, if you have a bunch of kids dragging the parents, the kids are going to head for the 3-D.

The bigger question is, how would the movie have done released in 2-D only? I think it would have done just the same, or maybe a little less due to the 3-D surcharge not being charged. But I think they would have seen the same, or a few more, butts in the seats.

Unfortunately there's no way to know. Out of the hundreds of people who saw the movie here, no one complained that it was not in 3-D...not even any kids.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-08-2008, 11:10 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
no one complained that it was not in 3-D...not even any kids.

You're lucky on that one and best leave it at that.

People over here that know all about digital with the 3D format will attend a cinema that doesn't have 3D, but just regular 35mm projection, inquire that if the show IS in 3D, and find out that it isn't, will leave and head to that house that is playing 3D.

3D is kinda of a cult over here along with people hunting for values.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-08-2008, 11:22 PM:

I don't think it was necessary to quote all of the locations. It just makes for a lengthy scroll.

Remember that they squeeze the public for more $$$ for those 3D showings, so a higher gross only means they charged more for 3D. If the prices were equal, I'd say 25% of the screens accounted for about 25% of the gross. Man, why didn't they charge more for digital sound ticket prices? Oh, I guess 3D is "special".

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 12-09-2008, 02:20 AM:

quote:
about 25% of the bookings accounted for about 40% of the gross

You have to remember that with the average film, 20-25% of all the bookings account for about 60-70% of the gross.

I can't remember where I saw this*, but for the opening weekend of 300, The Metreon in San Francisco did about $300,000. The average national average was $22,000. My theatre was very busy that weekend, but we didn't even come close to the $22,000 average.

Another example: November 3 2006, Borat opened in 837 theatres with an average of $31,607. The following weekend it more than tripled the theatre count to 2566 and only made $1.8 million more than the previous weekend - and the average fell to $11,017.

Even if you assume those original 837 theatres were down 50%, they still accounted for about $13 million out of $28 million.

While I don't have anything to back this up, I would assume that the majority of theatres playing 3D movies are among the same theatres that would get prints at the 800 theatre threshold - and therefore account for the majority of the gross anyways.

*I thought the number for the opening weekend of 300 at the Metreon came from NATO of California's Previews, but I couldn't find it in the digital editions.

Posted by Julie Lucero (Member # 4959) on 12-09-2008, 11:43 AM:

quote: Justin Hamaker
for the opening weekend of 300, The Metreon in San Francisco did about $300,000. The average national average was $22,000.

Well, naturally, the Metreon would have an above-average gross for "300" since they had it in IMAX with an inflated ticket price.

Posted by Julie Lucero (Member # 4959) on 12-10-2008, 07:50 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
I don't think it was necessary to quote all of the locations. It just makes for a lengthy scroll.

Sorry about that! I've gone back and edited the post, eliminating the list and instead simply linking to it.

I had thought others might have thought as I did how fascinating it is to see such a list for the entire country laid out in front of them, especially since there were a lot more 3-D showings than I expected.

quote: Joe Redifer
Remember that they squeeze the public for more $$$ for those 3D showings, so a higher gross only means they charged more for 3D.

That's probably true to an extent. To what extent we'll never know, but I agree with the writer that I quoted that the higher gross does suggest that at least some moviegoers deliberately chose to attend the 3-D version.

quote: Mike Blakesley
Out of the hundreds of people who saw the movie here, no one complained that it was not in 3-D...not even any kids.

Could that be because you're in the middle of nowhere, and maybe the majority of your local moviegoers had no idea BOLT was available in other markets in 3-D?

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-10-2008, 08:30 PM:

quote: Julie Lucero
Could that be because you're in the middle of nowhere, and maybe the majority of your local moviegoers had no idea BOLT was available in other markets in 3-D?

Not even the case since it was adv in all the medias of the 3D availability. It's simply not the need yet in Mike's market area.

For "BOLT", along with Billings, the nearest city next to Mike having Carmike over there prob having the optional 3D showings since Carmike is all digital.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 12-10-2008, 09:13 PM:

FWIW, while chatting with the manager at one of my theatres last week, he said Bolt in 3D was outselling the 2D 35mm version at his location 2:1.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-11-2008, 10:36 AM:

quote: Julie Lucero
Could that be because you're in the middle of nowhere, and maybe the majority of your local moviegoers had no idea BOLT was available in other markets in 3-D?

No. We are only an 80-minute drive from the biggest city in the state where there are several Carmike 3-D screens. When Journey to the Center of the Earth was out, we had a lot of questions as to whether we'd be playing it in 3-D. On Bolt, hardly any. I don't know if that was because people have come to know that we don't have 3-D, or if they just didn't care about the 3-D. Probably a little of both.

Posted by Tyler Potts (Member # 4952) on 12-11-2008, 10:43 AM:

Journey was marketed as a straight up 3D movie. I remember the trailer thinking, "oh great, this'll be fun to explain to people." Bolt, and the trailers on Bolt, are smart in that they promote the movie, then at the end mention, "...also in 3D."