Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Jonas Brothers 3D Ticket Prices

This is topic Jonas Brothers 3D Ticket Prices 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=002179

Posted by Barry Floyd (Member # 385) on 02-25-2009, 11:52 AM:

My 8 year old son wanted me to take him to the local Regal theatre to see the new Jonas Brothers 3D concert thing, as I figured if I could sit thru Riverdance on stage that my wife made me see, I could handle the Jonas Brothers.

$15.00 each for tickets? [Eek!]

They were serious. [fu]

Are all 3D movies that expensive? If so... I don't have any worries about the survival of my drive-in any time soon.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-25-2009, 12:19 PM:

quote: Barry Floyd
Are all 3D movies that expensive?

No. Just these Disney concert shows for kids things usually. If I remember correctly, last year's Hanna Montana 3D show was commanding a $18 per ticket price. I think the prices for the 3D showing of the recent BCS Championship game were also pretty steep. $20 or more I think.

Prices for 3D vary from one theater to the next. Our local Carmike usually charges $2 above normal prices for 3D movies.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 02-25-2009, 12:46 PM:

I wonder how much our local Dole Cannery 18 & IMAX will be charging for the film, their first in IMAX and 3-D?

-Claude

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 02-25-2009, 11:38 PM:

For some reason the Disney teeny bopper 3D concert films are considered some kind of special concert event and they should not be confused with a simple 3D concert movie. Therefore tickets are $15 and up with no discounts for matinee, child, senior or anything.

For some reason, the desire of kids to see these is so great that people actually pay the price. Last year we only had 1 3D location when Hannah Montana came out and we sold out every show except the earliest friday show and the latest sunday show for the entire opening weekend. I was shocked people would pay that price.

I could understand the price if it was a true special event live concert 3D broadcast. I guess if people will pay then why not charge that much.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-25-2009, 11:56 PM:

I think a concert film such as this SHOULD cost more than a regular movie.

- You can sit in a nice cushy theater chair instead of a crappy arena seat

- You get a nice closeup view of the performer instead of a nosebleed view

- You have your choice of dozens of show times.

- You get to hear it on a sound system that will (hopefully) sound good but not make your eardrums bleed with distortion

And it still costs far less than the real concert would.

Posted by Barry Floyd (Member # 385) on 02-26-2009, 08:54 AM:

I guess Mike has a point.... I just really never considered it as going to a concert. The whole time, I've looked at it as just another movie in the megaplex - that just happens to be featuring the Jonas Brothers.

I probably will end up taking him anyway. He keeps pointing out to me that I took his brother to the Titans/Jets game last fall and left him at home. They never forget anything... [Mad]

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 02-26-2009, 11:51 AM:

Does the theatre get any extra benefit from these $15 tickets, or do you end up with the same amount as a normal release?

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 02-26-2009, 01:29 PM:

We now know Disney charges extra for their 'Concert' films in 3-D especially in IMAX but how much extra does it cost to see a 2-D movie in Digital IMAX compared to regular movies in 35mm. Here in Hawaii, I pay $6.75 as a senior citizen to see a standard movie and about $2.50 more for 3-D. Now that Honolulu will have a commercial 3-D IMAX theatre again, how much more will I be asked to pay to see a movie in 2-D Digital IMAX like WATCHMEN next week? If I wanted to see a future 3-D digital IMAX presentation, how much more will I be expected to pay compared to a 2-D film in that format?

-Claude

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-26-2009, 03:57 PM:

I wouldn't even pay 5 bucks to see this crock!

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 02-26-2009, 06:04 PM:

quote: Barry Floyd
I figured if I could sit thru Riverdance on stage that my wife made me see, I could handle the Jonas Brothers.

Riverdance was actually entertaining to watch. You would have to pay me a decent sum to sit through the Jonus Brother's concert.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-26-2009, 06:22 PM:

Jonas Bros. are actually a pretty good band for their genre. They play their own instruments and write their own songs. I would venture to say the more annoying thing about going to the concert film would be the teenyboppers in the crowd.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 02-27-2009, 03:14 AM:

Someone said the rumor going around is that the boys show up at various theatres after the movie and the audience of however many teen girls are told that the way to get one of them to apear is to scream as loud as they can so the guy can hear them and thus will make an appearance.

I can't hazard a guess as to what decible level a room full of those screaming teens will be able to generate at say 3kHz, but there's no guessing need to know that it will be more painful that sticking ice picks in both my ears at the same time. Thank you no....I don't think I will be paying $15 for a 76 min movie and the accompanying ear torture.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 02-27-2009, 08:38 PM:

Since no one was able to provide me with information how much it was going to cost to see this film, I was able to get the information from Fandango. Yes, the regular 3-D version will cost $15.00 but the IMAX will be $2.50 more. It is hard to believe people are willing to pay that much to see this film. Mark said he would not even pay $5.00 to see this movie. I feel more strongly about it when I say I would not see it even if it was free. As much as I would like to check out how Digital IMAX 3-D look, I will wait until March when MONSTERS VS ALIENS is released in the format. Although I am not crazy about animated 3-D films, I will not have to put up with teenage girls screaming all around me!

-Claude

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 02-27-2009, 09:36 PM:

So does Digital IMAX 3-D use the 2 stacked projectors that they use for 2-D? Or do they use 4 stacked projectors (2 for each eye?)

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 02-28-2009, 01:47 AM:

Just one set of stacked projectors for 3D.

2 projectors for 2D.
2 projectors also for 3D.

You do the math [Wink]

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-28-2009, 10:39 PM:

Word on the street was that the Friday gross was just over $3K/screen. Not too good for a $15/ticket opening.

I think 2009 is the year the 3D bubble bursts in terms of thinking one is going to actually make more money off of 3D and it turns back into what it is... a fad.

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 03-01-2009, 12:41 AM:

We have the lowest ticket price of any where I know of at $11.50 for an Adult evening ticket and its not doing great here either. Although we usually cater more to the college crowd then the tween crowd. Watchmen will be HUGE!!!!

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-01-2009, 01:24 AM:

It's all about the movie. Not everyone is into the Jonas Brothers, much less has any need to see the group perform in 3D. However, 3D can be pretty damned cool in certain movie-going circumstances. I thought U23D was fantastic.

I'm looking forward to 3D screenings of Monsters vs. Aliens and Up.

I don't know if 9 (from Shane Acker and Tim Burton) will be shown in 3D, but it certainly looks like a very interesting CGI-based movie.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-01-2009, 02:10 AM:

Someone I know who is running this in digital 3D says it gets at least 8 people per show. 8 people! Did I mention that this was in digital? And in 3D? Remember, 3D is the godsend of the exhibition industry! It will save us from the evil home theater as 3D offers SOOOOO much more to the moviegoer!

In my experience, 3D works better in a still photograph than it does in a moving image. 3D in movies is almost kind of wasteful.

Posted by Edwin Schwing (Member # 1270) on 03-01-2009, 05:54 AM:

I feel that GREED is a major factor in this particular "movie".

If the ticket prices were the same as other 3D movies, I believe the grosses would have been higher. At 19 cents a minute (if you divide the price of the ticket with the running time) it is a bit on the "uber expensive" side! Now, take you and your 4 kids to this "movie" and you are talking about a buck twenty a minute! WOW!

Madea may have gotten a free get out of jail card this weekend!

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-01-2009, 10:40 AM:

How long is this show? 35 minutes?

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 03-01-2009, 11:31 AM:

The bottom line is the movie, always. Is it good and people want to see. At that point, theatres/studios put up the hurtles (many of them are necessary if one is to have a profitable business)...things like $15/ticket can reduce an audience the same way $1 tickets can increase an audience.

Bobby, you liked the U23D movie...gross wise...was it a winner? How did it compare to Rattle and Hum in ticket sales? How about profitabiliy adjusted for inflation? I'm not in any way saying you shouldn't like the movie or 3D...just noting that from a business, 3D is not a "golden ticket" though they may be priced like they are.

What I am saying is that when exhibitors start looking at their Return on Investment...3D is likey to return to hard times. The more 3D theaters that are installed, the lower the profit for each of them. Total ticket sales do not go up because a film is released in 3D...they are just shifted to the 3D theatres.

Just like other costly formats...if 3D doesn't generate the studios more money, on average, than 2D titles to cover the cost of the process...it will again be history...for another 20 years.

One thing is for sure now...3D has never been more expensive.

Steve

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-01-2009, 01:52 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
the U23D movie...gross wise...was it a winner? How did it compare to Rattle and Hum in ticket sales?

Total grosses, according to Rentrak:

U2 Rattle and Hum: $8,710,975
U23D: $9,705,150

So considering inflation, the 3D movie did somewhat worse than the older film. Also, U2 is arguably more popular now than they were in the Rattle And Hum days, so if anything, they should've sold more tickets to 3D - but obviously didn't.

Disney is clearly riding the Miley Cyrus business model on this Jonas Bros. film. It makes sense that they would, since the Jonas' last CD hit #1 on the charts and has sold several million copies. But, the Jonas's are nowhere near Miley in terms of popularity. Given that, and the state of the economy, the time might not be right for this film.

I don't think people are seeing it because it's in 3D...they're seeing it because it's the Jonas Bros. If the film was in 2D it would have sold the same number of tickets.

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 03-01-2009, 03:01 PM:

To make my point, I have to make first a difference between "films made for 3D" and "films not made for 3D".

The first would be gimmicky films like say Journey to the Center that are heavily made and promoted in and for 3D. Other ones maybe Valentine and Pirahna, i.e.

Those are films that, undobutly, would draw more crowd in 3D than if the exact same film was 2D only to begin with. But not an awful lot. Perhaps 20% more if the film is decent.

I do believe that, for the time being, many movies "not specifically made for 3D" but shot and shown in 3D nonetheless (like i.e. Coraline) will draw more audience than a 2D counterpart. But not a lot either. Perhaps only 10% more audience than if the same film opened 2D only.

Now 3D films do cost 10% more (or over) to produce and exhibit, so not all this modest increase in attendance actually means an increase in profits.

In the future, when just about all theaters are 3D and just about all movies are 3D (if ever), the attendance numbers would probably be about the same, perhaps a bit higher than in the 2D era but also the cost will be a bit higher, so the advantage cancels out pretty much.

In the short run, some houses would benefit from the "curious espectator" (Claude, are you there? [Wink]

) who goes to the 3D movies out of the novelty of the 3D itself, favouring early adopter theaters over the ones that remain 2D-only for longer.

After 200 3D films are released (if ever), then this espectator is gonna go back to staying home watching American Idol.

It's my belief that 3D can bring a slight increase in business, but this only translates into a slight increase in profits if a lot of people keep their hands off the jar.

Certainly that "two-three times the profits of 2D" is but KoolAid, which doesn't mean that under specific circunstances it could happen (i.e. "best movie ever" is released with awesome must-see 3D and you are the only theater in NY capable of showing it 3D [Wink]

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 03-01-2009, 03:20 PM:

Theee ONLY way I'd pay that much for a ticket is if Joe Jonas did a one-man strip show naked...I even settle for it in 2D. HA! [Wink]

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 03-01-2009, 03:43 PM:

So, am I the only one who has never heard of this band until this concert "film" was released? I'm still pretty sure that I've not heard any of their songs.

Apparently, I am getting old (at 32!) and am not listening to the teenybopper radio stations enough. Do kids even listen to the radio now, or do they all just carry ipods?

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 03-01-2009, 03:49 PM:

Julio,

As much as I love 3-D, I made no effort to see COLROLINE and have no intention of seeing the new Jonas Brothers concert 3-D movie even if it is the first in the format to be presented in IMAX here in Hawaii at the Dole Cannery 18. Although I am luke warm to animated 3-D films, I am planning to see MONSTERS VS ALIENS in IMAX 3-D but plan to stay away from the rest of the animated films in the format except for the new ICE AGE and the next Pixar offering. The film I am really looking forward to seeing later this year is James Cameron's AVATAR and from what I had read about his passion for 3-D perfection, the movie should be awesome especially in IMAX with a dual projection system. Although they are much better than the 'Over/Under' 3-D films of the seventies , Real D and Dolby 3-D cannot even come close to IMAX 3-D and other dual projection system now in use and the Natural Vision system during the early fifties.

-Claude

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 03-01-2009, 05:00 PM:

Weekend estimates have it as taking $12.7 million. Yikes! Tyler Perry did 16.5 in week 2.

I saw the trailer for Jonas Bros...'nuff said.

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 03-01-2009, 05:11 PM:

quote: Scott Norwood
So, am I the only one who has never heard of this band until this concert "film" was released?

I still don't know who they are [Wink]

I was also surprised to see a 3D "film" (or rather, digital video) of them, since it didn't even ring a bell before this.

A lot of this Disney factory things are only big in places where Disney channel is big. Over here, we just got Disney channel in over the air digital like less than a year ago. Otherwise, it was only available on Satellite, I think.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 03-01-2009, 05:27 PM:

I have never heard of them too, Julio. I have also never heard of Hanna Montana before her 3-D concert film was released last year. I guess the kids who go to these movies most likely never heard of Placido Domingo, Zubin Mehta or Maria Callas so I guess we are even [Smile]

-Claude

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-01-2009, 08:36 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
Bobby, you liked the U23D movie...gross wise...was it a winner?

Not commercially. It was a flop money-making wise. Regardless of that, U23D was an excellent show. I thought it was just great.

Now, granted, I am a fan of U2. Nevertheless, the concert performance was very well done. And the 3D aspect of it was very well executed. The crew who produced the show pulled off lots of 3D camera shots I would have thought would be very problematic, such as gradual fades from one shot to another and the aspect of stage lights creating problems with the 3D imagery. The crew behind U23D (3eality productions, I think) did a great job. Kudos to them.

Some of my favorite 3D shots in U23D were of Bono running out on that heart-shaped walkway to grab hands of fans. Certain cameras were rigged up with telephoto lenses where you would see many layers of outstretched hands and arms coming up in the foreground with Bono in focus on a different 3D plane. U23D was a very slick production. Those who didn't bother to attend simply missed out on a great show. Too bad, so sad. The no shows out there can just eat it.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-01-2009, 11:25 PM:

Attn: People who don't know who Jonas Bros. are. For Pete's sake, guys. Go to amazon.com, search Jonas Bros, listen to some sound samples and know what you are criticizing. It will take you all of two minutes. You might be surprised that they're not bad. They are a decent pop/rock group. (But when listening, keep in mind the target audience.)

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-01-2009, 11:50 PM:

Are they a real band or were they manufactured/marketed by Disney or the like? They seemed to have come out of nowhere which usually means they were created by one of the media conglomerates. Talent and looks isn't good enough to get you noticed by teenie-boppers. You need to be backed by Nickelodean or whatnot.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-02-2009, 12:41 AM:

They are a real band, they play their own instruments and write their own songs. They got popular by opening for Miley Cyrus, but their material really is pretty good for a pop band.

Basically they are the "Hanson" of the 2000's. In other words, their 15 minutes is probably just about up. Their 3rd album was released last year.

Jeez I sound like a fan. I'm not....but we sell a lot of their CDs at the store.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 03-02-2009, 01:32 PM:

Mike...I took your advice and went to Amazon and gave them a listen...after about 14 different snippits...I can't find anything good about em.

There just wasn't anythink "catchy" that I heard and forget about just plain good music.

I hope they have enjoyed their 15 minutes of fame and have invested wisely (tough to do in these times but they are young enough that if they invested in real estate, they would make a very high profit by the time they retire).

Steve

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 03-03-2009, 11:07 AM:

It's funny when a 16 year old boy write songs about love. It's funny when 13 year old girls buy them.

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 03-04-2009, 07:58 PM:

Do we have the first official 3D bomb?

Worldwide to date: $13,338,971
Opening Weekend: $12,510,374
(#2 rank, 1,271 theaters, $9,843 average)
Widest Release: 1,271 theaters
In Release: 5 days / 0.7 weeks

Seems to be holding in the top possitions, but more competition is coming this weekend.

Mind you this is in spite of high ticket prices and 3D surcharges, so actual attendance should be pretty poor.

In defense, let's say this is not you typical "film-film".

But also keep in mind that those willing to watch it probably dragged with them half the family and forced them to watch it, who otherwise would've never considered, 3D or not 3D.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 03-04-2009, 08:44 PM:

Geez, imagine how badly it would have done if it had been in 2D.

[Razz]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-04-2009, 08:51 PM:

Dude. Seriously. Who the hell even watches movies in 2D anymore? What is wrong with you? How dare you even suggest that!

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 03-04-2009, 09:07 PM:

.. [dlp]

..

\--------/