Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: 3D Per Capitas

This is topic 3D Per Capitas 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=002336

Posted by Jonathan M. Crist (Member # 413) on 03-09-2010, 11:15 AM:

Well its was bound to happen.

Paramount has issued an edict for "Train Your Dragon" that there will be a mimimum per capita charge intended to effect those 3D houses which aren't charging enough additional "event pricing" or whatever euphasmism the additional upcharge is called.

Antitrust law forbids a distributor from telling a theatre owner what to charge but does not prevent a distributor from imposing whatever minimum charges to the theatre owners that it desires.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-09-2010, 11:35 AM:

Per capitas are nothing new.

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 03-09-2010, 11:49 AM:

Yeah. Warner has been doing per capita a lot around here too. On all films (i.e. 2D)

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 03-09-2010, 12:17 PM:

Has there ever been a 3D surcharge at any point in the history of the medium, or is this new to the recent revival?

Are any theatres showing 3D without a surcharge?

Posted by Daniel Schulz (Member # 1881) on 03-09-2010, 01:39 PM:

FWIW so far I've never paid a 3D surcharge in the Los Angeles area.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 03-09-2010, 01:46 PM:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't it all start as a "D-Cinema surcharge" (Pre-3D)?

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 03-09-2010, 05:45 PM:

quote: Scott Norwood
Has there ever been a 3D surcharge at any point in the history of the medium, or is this new to the recent revival?

Are any theatres showing 3D without a surcharge?

As far as I know, during the 80's it wasn't usual (at all) to charge a "3D surcharge" for the 3D films and the paper glasses, valued at <$0.50 of the time, were given free to the audience at a loss, usually picked up by the distributor of the film.

I think the same happened during the 3D of the 50's, but I don't know first hand.

A widespread 3D surcharge during the 00's is, AFAIK, a "new trend".

I don't even think it was common for Imax theaters during the 90's to charge different amounts for a film in 3D from the price of a 2D one. At least several theaters I went to charged the same for all the shows (except matinees, specials or whatnot, but not consistently charging more for 3D shows over 2D ones).

I think the studios don't care about the 3D at all, point in case their converting films randomly to fake-3D instead of shooting in real 3D, and they know the public will soon grow tired of it, but 3D gives them an excuse to ask ("force") theaters to charge a premiun they can get a cut of.

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 03-10-2010, 02:43 AM:

Mark, Carmike has never charged extra for digital presentations, just digital 3D presentations.

Surcharges are here to stay folks, at least until there is a huge (or series of huge) 3D flops*.

*Yes, I know there have been several 3D movies that have done so-so; what I'm talking about is a movie that should be huge but ends up tanking.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 03-10-2010, 07:26 AM:

I'm talking WAAAAY back - when Attack of the Clones was out. Didn't it cost more to go to the DLP shows? I thought it did.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-10-2010, 10:54 AM:

At the Carmikes in this area, prices went up about 50 cents when they went digital, but the prices might have gone up anyway.

Posted by Todd McCracken (Member # 4718) on 03-10-2010, 11:02 AM:

This might have to do with the fact that most 3D houses in the US are RealD systems and they have a cost per play out model to their contract.