Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: 3-D Dying a quick death at the box office this summer

This is topic 3-D Dying a quick death at the box office this summer 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=002500

Posted by Michael McGovern (Member # 4807) on 05-29-2011, 11:25 PM:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/30/business/media/30panda.html?hp

I pretty much said from the beginning that the 3-D Renaissance was going to be short lived, despite claims from the guys in suits that it was going to save the business. So far this summer, Thor, Pirates, and now Panda have all had the 2-D versions outsell the 3-D by a significant margin.

It used to be for the 3-D releases, I would be booked with two 3-D prints and maybe one 2-D 35MM if was a really big movie. This is how Thor was booked initially, but after selling out the 2-D shows, which were forced to run in a smaller house due to the largest houses now all being digital, suddenly in it's second week one screen that was exclusively 3-D was now alternating between 2-D and 3-D, and the 2-D was still outselling the 3-D.

Now since Thor, we've been booked 50/50 for 2-D and 3-D shows, usually one dedicated 3-D screen, one dedicated 2-D screen, and one alternating digital house, and the 2-D has been outselling the 3-D.

The problem is that they over saturated the 3-D market with too many sub-par films and films that had no business being in 3-D (Clash of the Titans anyone?). When people see a crummy movie in 2-D they feel ripped off, but when they see a crummy movie in 3-D they feel even more ripped off because it cost them more, and it makes them even less likely to return again.

I know I'm going to get ripped to shreds for making this comparison on this message board, but at the rate the business is going for a lot of people, in 10 or 20 people will be talking about going to see a movie in the theater the same way they talk about going to play a video game in an arcade.

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 05-30-2011, 01:34 AM:

LOS ANGELES — Has the 3-D boom already gone bust? It’s starting to look that way — at least for American moviegoers — even as Hollywood prepares to release a glut of the gimmicky pictures.

Ripples of fear spread across Hollywood last week after “Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides,” which cost Walt Disney Studios an estimated $400 million to make and market, did poor 3-D business in North America. While event movies have typically done 60 percent of their business in 3-D, “Stranger Tides” sold just 47 percent in 3-D. “The American consumer is rejecting 3-D,” Richard Greenfield, an analyst at the financial services company BTIG, wrote of the “Stranger Tides” results.

One movie does not make a trend, but the Memorial Day weekend did not give studio chiefs much comfort in the 3-D department. “Kung Fu Panda 2,” a Paramount Pictures release of a DreamWorks Animation film, sold $53.8 million in tickets from Thursday to Sunday, a soft total, and 3-D was 45 percent of the business, according to Paramount.

Consumer rebellion over high 3-D ticket prices plays a role, and the novelty of putting on the funny glasses is wearing off, analysts say. But there is also a deeper problem: 3-D has provided an enormous boost to the strongest films, including “Avatar” and “Alice in Wonderland,” but has actually undercut middling movies that are trying to milk the format for extra dollars.

“Audiences are very smart,” said Greg Foster, the president of Imax Filmed Entertainment. “When they smell something aspiring to be more than it is, they catch on very quickly.”

Muddying the picture is a contrast between the performance of 3-D movies in North America and overseas. If results are troubling domestically, they are the exact opposite internationally, where the genre is a far newer phenomenon. Indeed, 3-D screenings powered “Stranger Tides” to about $256 million on its first weekend abroad; Disney trumpeted the figure as the biggest international debut of all time.

With results like that at a time when movies make 70 percent of their total box office income outside North America, do tastes at home even matter?

After a disappointing first half of the year, Hollywood is counting on a parade of 3-D films to dig itself out of a hole. From May to September, the typical summer season, studios will unleash 16 movies in the format, more than double the number last year. Among the most anticipated releases are “Transformers: Dark of the Moon,” due from Paramount on July 1, and Part 2 of Part 7 of the “Harry Potter” series, arriving two weeks later from Warner Brothers.

The need is urgent. The box-office performance in the first six months of 2011 was soft — revenue fell about 9 percent compared with last year, while attendance was down 10 percent — and that comes amid decay in home-entertainment sales. In all formats, including paid streaming and DVDs, home entertainment revenue fell almost 10 percent, according to the Digital Entertainment Group.

The first part of the year held a near collapse in video store rentals, which fell 36 percent to about $440 million, offsetting gains from cut-price rental kiosks and subscriptions. In addition, the sale of packaged discs fell about 20 percent, to about $2.2 billion, while video-on-demand, though growing, delivered total sales of less than a quarter of that amount.

At the box office, animated films, which have recently been Hollywood’s most reliable genre, have fallen into a deep trough, as the category’s top three performers combined — “Rio,” from Fox; “Rango,” from Paramount; and “Hop,” from Universal — have had fewer ticket buyers than did “Shrek the Third,” from DreamWorks Animation, after its release in mid-May four years ago.

“Kung Fu Panda 2” appears poised to become the biggest animated hit of the year so far; but it would have to stretch well past its own predecessor to beat “Shrek Forever After,” another May release, which took in $238.7 million last year.

For the weekend, “The Hangover: Part II” sold $118 million from Thursday to Sunday, easily enough for No. 1. “Kung Fu Panda 2” was second. Disney’s “Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides” was third with $39.3 million for a new total of $152.9 million. “Bridesmaids” (Universal Pictures) was fourth with $16.4 million for a new total of about $85 million. “Thor” (Marvel Studios) rounded out the top five with $9.4 million for a new total of $160 million.

Studio chiefs acknowledge that the industry needs to sort out its 3-D strategy. Despite the soft results for “Kung Fu Panda 2,” animated releases have continued to perform well in the format, overcoming early problems with glasses that didn’t fit little faces. But general-audience movies like “Stranger Tides” may be better off the old-fashioned way.

“With a blockbuster-filled holiday weekend skewing heavily toward 2-D, and 3-D ticket sales dramatically underperforming relative to screen allocation, major studios will hopefully begin to rethink their 3-D rollout plans for the rest of the year and 2012,” Mr. Greenfield said on Friday.

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 05-30-2011, 01:42 AM:

Well, this will be the third time since the '50s 3D has come and gone. When will the producers learn they need to stop with the gimmicks and crank out good stories?

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 05-30-2011, 01:49 AM:

Or maybe more original stories. Seems Hangover 2 is a plot by plot remake of the original with a different character being married (?), a monkey replacing a baby, and the setting being Bangkok instead of Vegas. Yet it's won the weekend, so the third one will likely arrive in 2 years.
Oh, the article I copied and pasted from the New York Times was written
By BROOKS BARNES and MICHAEL CIEPLY
Published: May 29, 2011

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-30-2011, 02:53 AM:

quote: Greg Foster of friggin' IMAX
“Audiences are very smart,” said Greg Foster, the president of Imax Filmed Entertainment. “When they smell something aspiring to be more than it is, they catch on very quickly.”

Am I the only one who caught the extreme irony in this?

Posted by Jim Henk (Member # 3628) on 05-30-2011, 04:24 AM:

To quote Bill Clinton, "It's the economy, stupid."

Historically, the movie industry has come out with all kinds of innovations. Cinerama, Cinemascope, 70mm, Dolby, and on and on. But did they charge a higher amount to experience these new sensations? No. And attendance soared.

Today, they come out with something new, AND charge outrageous prices for it. (while the regular house next door charges the same old prices)

This is called cancelling yourself out.

I've talked to a lot of people and everyone who says they don't want to see a movie in 3D says the same thing. Ticket price is too high. Same reason they say they won't pay to see it in IMAX. It's the ticket price.

Only.

But I hear you say, "But the quality of the film itself..."

No. Maybe for you, but for them, it's the ticket price.

Only.

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 05-30-2011, 04:32 AM:

quote: Robert E. Allen
Well, this will be the third time since the '50s 3D has come and gone. When will the producers learn they need to stop with the gimmicks and crank out good stories?

Because more people will want to pirate them and we can't have THAT happening, can we?

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-30-2011, 08:23 AM:

I think that Cinerama usually DID get you a higher ticket price and probably "hard-sell" tickets as opposed to general admission. Note too, Cinerama was such a system that I doubt many small-towns had such an installation so you were going to be paying "big-city" prices any way.

The other changes in performance generally were one-time expenses for the exhibitor (albeit expensive...like for CinemaScope). 3D is an on-going expense and hence has an up-charge. But I agree, folks find movies to be getting on the expensive side...having an option that make them yet MORE expensive is not what this economy will bear.

-Steve

Posted by Jonathan M. Crist (Member # 413) on 05-30-2011, 12:23 PM:

One thing everybody in this business seems to ignore is the elephant in the room.

Having been in this business some 40+ years one thing I have noticed is that when gas prices hit a certain point it directly inpacts movie ticket sales. The "impact point" as I call it has been a moving target but for the past half dozen or so years it has been my observation that point has been $3.00 a gallon. It was last November when gas crept over $3.00 a gallon and that is when it really began to hurt ticket sales ... and not just 3D.

People still want to see certain movies but feel they have to save because of gas .... and the easiest way is to give up 3D>

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 05-30-2011, 01:20 PM:

If Transformers and Harry Potter do significantly more business with 2D than 3D, then I will start to believe that maybe 3D has gone cold with consumers. But I remember this very same story was being written by the very same people in mid-summer last year, around the time of The Last Airbender and Despicable Me, before a number of movies like Piranha and Jackass and Megamind and Tangled and Tron found a majority of their audience in 3D, and the articles stopped for a while.

Those looking for doom and failure will find doom and failure wherever they look. A lot of people want 3D to fail, so they'll do whatever they can to facilitate that failure. But I guarantee you there will be no mea culpa articles from these writers if and when the remaining summer 3D lineup performs admirably.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-30-2011, 01:27 PM:

I think Transformers will do okay in 3D but not Harry Potter...I think HP will derive the majority from 2D. It is fake-3D anyway.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 05-30-2011, 01:33 PM:

But here's the real test - how will it do in arthouses [evil]

http://bayflicks.net/2011/05/30/cave-of-not-forgotten-digital-projection/

quote:
Cave of Not-Forgotten Digital Projection
Posted on May 30, 2011 by Lincoln Spector
Last night, Cave of Forgotten Dreams became the first film I’ve seen digitally projected in two different theaters. The experience taught me something important: The difference between people who love digital projection and people who hate it may be the difference between the theaters they patronize.
That the film was in 3D both times accentuated the differences. I saw digital projection and 3D done well and done badly.
Just to clarify things: Cave of Forgotten Dreams is still far and away the best 3D movie I have ever seen. It’s the only one I can wholeheartedly recommend and insist that people see it in 3D. This is, and should be, the film that is taking 3D to the art houses. Unfortunately, the art houses may not have the money to do 3D right.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-30-2011, 02:55 PM:

I think some in the press are jumping to conclusions and, very typically, over simplifying the situation. Around half a dozen factors are at work in making some of the movies in this year's summer movie season not do so well.

The economy is still largely in the toilet.

Sure, the stock market is up. However living costs for many Americans have been going the roof lately and most have not seen their wages keep pace with the price hikes. Food, fuel, utilities and other necessities have seen very serious inflation. Economists don't count that stuff as part of the "core inflation" figure which makes their claims of our economy having a low inflation level a very rose colored glasses kind of view. The credit market is still very tight and millions of Americans are "underwater" on their home mortgages. They have no equity to borrow against. A lot of Americans are looking at various expenses they can cut back or eliminate. Eventually they have to cut back on leisure and entertainment expenses. The recession for America may be finished, but it still persists for a lot of people on a personal level. They may still be unemployed or underemployed.

I think more and more people are indeed growing tired of the very high ticket prices for 3D, premium seating, fake IMAX, etc.

The bigger problem is too many of the movies being released are utter shit. I have little if any desire to see many of the movies being released this summer, whether they're in 3D or not. Some have a "I'll wait for the Blu-ray" or "wait for it on HBO" vibe while others seem like a complete waste of time. Roger Ebert wrote an article recently about the record number of sequels, remakes and other derivative off-shoots being released this year. I'm normally a big Pixar fan, but even I have a sort "meh" attitude about the upcoming Cars sequel.

The movie industry is arguably getting more competition from other activities and alternative sources of entertainment. I think the video game industry is eroding some of Hollywood's business. Lots of adults spend a great deal of time playing them while it was mostly a thing just for kids 20 years ago. The games aren't cheap either (around $60 for new titles). So that sticks people into an either-or situation on what to buy. They may not be able to afford both new movies at the theater and new games. Prices for cable/satellite TV have been going up quite a lot in the last few years. Smart phone service isn't cheap. Neither is a decent residential Internet connection. The cost of all that stuff is badly stretching too many wallets.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 05-30-2011, 03:06 PM:

I have also noticed with large megascreen complexes that the 2D feature will have the majority of the showtimes than the 3D of the one feature on multiple screens. Getting to realize that 3D is just that - an event price presentation not a standard presentation.

It was smart NOT to have "Hangover 2" in any 3D format .. look at the bucks that thing is making...and some venues only got 35mm versions where they could have digital.

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 05-30-2011, 03:22 PM:

CBC is running an online poll here

Do you enjoy watching movies in 3D?
1. Yes, I love my summer blockbusters with the goofy glasses!
2. I'm selective about what I'll go see in 3D.
3. I prefer 2D, but I'll go if my friends are going.
4. I go out of my way to see movies in 2D.

Current results:

Yes, I love my summer blockbusters with the goofy glasses! 7.62% (17 votes)

I'm selective about what I'll go see in 3D. 32.29% (72 votes)

I prefer 2D, but I'll go if my friends are going. 19.73% (44 votes)

I go out of my way to see movies in 2D. 40.36% (90 votes)

Total Votes: 223

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 05-30-2011, 04:21 PM:

..be more interesting to see how each market area does with this sort of poll then really do a fair comparison on the total percentage per each question.

Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 05-30-2011, 05:02 PM:

I find it interesting that everyone is ignoring history. 3D comes around every 30 years, sticks around for a short time, untill people find that 3D is just a gimic, and then it goes away. THIS IS HISTORY, and since people are too stupid to learn from history, history will always repete itself. Other things like sound, color, C-scope ADD to the film. 3D detracts.

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 05-30-2011, 06:50 PM:

quote: Frank Cox
CBC is running an online poll here

Do you enjoy watching movies in 3D?
1. Yes, I love my summer blockbusters with the goofy glasses!
2. I'm selective about what I'll go see in 3D.
3. I prefer 2D, but I'll go if my friends are going.
4. I go out of my way to see movies in 2D.

WOW those poll questions don't seem biased at all! [Roll Eyes]

That being said, I guess I'm in the "selective" camp, but that applies equally to 2D as well as 3D.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 05-30-2011, 09:18 PM:

All surveys are biased. Louis

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-30-2011, 09:42 PM:

That article rides on the opinion of that Richard Greenfield idiot. Would somebody go and unplug his blog or something?

I guess everybody is trying to blame the decline in 3D business on one thing: ("People are tired of the high 3D prices and/or the glasses") I think that is true to a point, but I think it's more like a combination of things.

First, people will pay the price gladly if the movie is any good. When's the last 3-D movie people were raving about?

(Answer: Avatar.)

There's part of the trouble right there: No movies worth raving about. Case in point: The new Pirates movie, at least according to the critics, ISN'T VERY GOOD. People don't want to spend hard-earned money on movies that AREN'T GOOD, you Hollywood nit-wits!

There's also the economy. Movies traditionally do well in down times, but this particular time has been SO down for SO long that it's got to impact even the lower-priced forms of entertainment. Even here in Montana, where vacationing is cheap, people are opting to stay closer to home.

About animation -- the reason it's doing less business is as follows. Listen up, studio executives:

You are killing that market by shrinking the DVD window. Parents aren't stupid: They know the movie's coming on DVD in 3 months, or PVOD in 2 months, and the kids don't give a shit when they see it (they can always watch "Finding Nemo" again for the 2000th time) so they'll save a bundle by letting their kids watch it at home. And if they DO go out to the movie, they know from past experience that the kids won't keep their 3-D glasses on anyway so why should they opt for 3D? Besides, "Rango" proved that 3D is not necessary for an animation hit.

I agree with the sentiments that 3-D ought to be a rare event. Maybe one movie per studio per year, if that. And there should be an industry law against "conversions." I have yet to hear rave reviews on the 3-D in one of those things.

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 05-30-2011, 10:15 PM:

quote: Louis Bornwasser
All surveys are biased. Louis

Sure, but it's usually in the sampling, not with such obviously slanted phrasing. Not that an internet poll like that is scientific or anything.

And for the record, the only truly "goofy" 3D glasses I've ever seen are these:

But at least you're ready for anything even if they make you look like an idiot. [Big Grin]

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 05-30-2011, 10:28 PM:

Oh I want a pair of those in my color meter case! They're so goofy they're cool. [Cool]

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 05-30-2011, 10:47 PM:

Oh yes Paul. I want to see a picture of you looking like this...

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 05-30-2011, 11:08 PM:

.....think I'll stay 2D for sure.

To quote a phrase: "wackiness ensures"

-Monte

Posted by Tony Gallimore (Member # 5358) on 05-30-2011, 11:17 PM:

Predictions made before the big 3D onslaught are now being fulfilled. Like the Canadian survey says... 90% of viewers avoid anything to do with 3D and those irritating glasses. I've personally chosen to not view any feature not offered in 35mm... and lots of my friends are doing the same. The ultramodern age of digital came before the technology was ready, assuming it ever will be. It's just as annoying to watch an out-of-convergence digital presentation as it would be to watch an out-of-frame 35mm presentation. The music industry has been dealing with the same kind of problems for years now. The studio produced music has been so purified that it's not believable. It's much too perfect and unnatural. The artists don't sound human, make no mistakes... not to mention that electronic hiss in the background. I was in the broadcast industry for about twenty years and most who voiced objections wanted to hear concert versions of the music so they could hear the mistakes, crowd noises and etc. Film, too, seems to be more believable with it's green lines in the emulsion and splices here and there... and let's not forget those neat cues every twenty minutes. Our patrons do take notice of these things. The Hollywood powers that be should ask what the public would prefer rather than take this ram-it-down-their throats attitude. I think the rebellion is on!!

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 05-31-2011, 12:14 AM:

quote: Tony Gallimore
Like the Canadian survey says... 90% of viewers avoid anything to do with 3D

The survey doesn't say that at all. It says that ~40% avoid 3D at all costs and ~20% who prefer 2D but will see whatever the hell their friends want to see.

Posted by Tony Gallimore (Member # 5358) on 05-31-2011, 12:39 AM:

You're right Chris... I stand corrected... the Canadian survey reflected 90 votes rather than percent; still... the survey did give me the impression folks prefer 2D when given a choice.

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 05-31-2011, 01:06 AM:

quote: Bruce Hansen
I find it interesting that everyone is ignoring history. 3D comes around every 30 years, sticks around for a short time, until people find that 3D is just a gimmick, and then it goes away

One slight problem with that "analysis"... the previous major 3D fad periods only lasted two to three years, 1952 to 1955 and 1981 to 1983. We are currently in the eighth year of the current 3D lifecycle, which far exceeds any true definition of fad, trend or gimmick.

However, I do agree with the general consensus too many effing movies are wrongly being shot or converted to 3D.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 05-31-2011, 06:23 AM:

. . . but, "It is the FUTURE of cinema! All movies will be 3D!!!" Louis

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 05-31-2011, 09:34 AM:

I'll weigh in with everything Mike Blakesley said.

Our experience this year has been to see each 3D presentation outdone by the 2D.

As far as the economy goes, we figured with a beautiful weekend coming we would take it on the chin with people in our area exiting to the Jersey Shore and our grosses would be down. Wrong. We had a very strong Friday-Monday and all the pictures performed well. The 2D Panda and the 2D Priates outgrossed the 3D presentations

I ran through the Hangover 2 prints and after watching it, I thought: "What the hell are we doing with four prints of this?" Wrong again. Good thing we had four as the picture did excellent business.

So, did our grosses do well because people didn't go to the Shore on account of gas prices? Wrong again, as it was reported in the local paper that the Garden State Parkway experienced MAJOR traffic jams and beaches filled up from Sandy Hook to Long Beach Island.

Despite the economy and the beautiful weather, we had our best Memorial Day business in years.

Go figure.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-31-2011, 10:47 AM:

We had lousy weather here -- 80% of the basements in town have water in them due to high groundwater. Most campgrounds in the area are closed due to flooding. All this might have helped our business this weekend -- nobody could (or wanted to) go anywhere, so they took an "escape" to the movies. We had a terrific weekend...Pirates is not quite doing Toy Story 3-sized business but it's our best 3-D grosser since that one.

All this seems to run counter to what I said in my last post on the previous page, but it does show that people still love to go out to the movies even if the movies aren't the greatest. Imagine how great things would be if the movies were really good!

I think Cars 2 is going to have a huge opening week, I just hope that the movie is good!

Posted by Mike Frese (Member # 4361) on 05-31-2011, 12:08 PM:

quote:
Imagine how great things would be if the movies were really good!

Mike, The critics did not care for the last 2 Pirates movies much either. For us in the Midwest, the critics really do not determine much about a movies performance. The customers who do care about what the critics say are older people who actually still read the newspaper. Those folks do not go to the movies but we do see them at our video stores with the newspaper articles clipped out.

I have usually found IMDB to be a good predictor. Currently the rating is similar to the 2nd and 3rd Pirates movies. My customers have generally enjoyed the movie. Surprisingly no one has been missing Keira Knightly or Orlando Bloom.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-31-2011, 12:53 PM:

Although few want to give them any credit for it, critic opinions can have an impact on a movie's earnings. The impact may not be immediately clear during opening weekend, but watch for that second weekend drop in attendance as word of mouth travels.

If critical opinion was not important at all we wouldn't see quotes from guys like Roger Ebert or Peter Travers in the ads.

Audiences aren't as far removed in terms of taste in movies versus that of critics as many would like to think, including those audience members. Putting it another way, sometimes the critics are right and audience members will have to agree a certain movie is indeed a stinking piece of shit. Some audience members might not want to agree out of embarrassment they paid good money to see a bad movie. When I hear someone go, "oh, that movie was alright," the subtext often means the movie was really garbage.

I'm usually very suspicious of a movie that is released without any pre-release screenings for critics. It's often a sign audience test screenings did not go so well.

The Hangover 2 may have done well opening weekend. However, I have not heard good word of mouth on this thing. Some of my local friends feel ripped off, saying it is virtually a carbon copy of the first movie and not very funny at all. I think the movie is going to disappear from theaters rather quickly. It will do another very fast surge in business when it hits the video rental and pay per view market. Before long it will be in the bargain bin.

Posted by Mike Frese (Member # 4361) on 05-31-2011, 10:10 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Although few want to give them any credit for it, critic opinions can have an impact on a movie's earnings. The impact may not be immediately clear during opening weekend, but watch for that second weekend drop in attendance as word of mouth travels.

If critical opinion was not important at all we wouldn't see quotes from guys like Roger Ebert or Peter Travers in the ads.

I agree that critics can effect earnings but it is a few limited circumstances. Mostly with independent/arthouse movies and when the overall consensus (maybe like 90%) agree on a movie. The more mainstream the movie, the less the influence. I have owned video stores for over 20 years and have logged many hours in them talking to many people. At least in the Midwest, the critics have very little impact except when mentioned above.

Currently my video customers are liking No Strings Attached quite a bit. Our top renters the past 3 mos: Little Fockers, The Tourist, & The Dilemma (all 21% or less rottentomatoes).

The studios will use whatever they can to promote a movie which is why you see a critic's quotes, or "from the director of...".

Hangover 2 will have a big drop because it grossed so well the the opening weekend. It's opening weekend was almost double that of the first one.

As fas as is it any good. Hangover 2 has a IMDB score of 7.1 while the first one has a 7.9. Rarely is the second of anything better than the first so that was to be expected. My customers are liking it and tonight's ticket sales were still very good. Seeing many people multiple times already.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-31-2011, 11:34 PM:

quote: Mike Frese
I agree that critics can effect earnings but it is a few limited circumstances. Mostly with independent/arthouse movies and when the overall consensus (maybe like 90%) agree on a movie.

The situation isn't that simple. If critics had no impact on mainstream movie releases film critics wouldn't have columns in major newspapers or magazines or even TV shows like Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert had. Most of their reviewing activity revolves around mainstream movies. Their readership levels would be minimal if they didn't cover the big releases. They do try to inform readers (or viewers) about certain independent releases that don't have huge advertising campaigns.

Additionally, web sites like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic wouldn't exist (or at least wouldn't be nearly as big or get as much advertising mostly from mainstream movies) if they only drew the interest from fans of independent movies. I refuse to call them "films" anymore since so many are shot with digital video cameras.

quote: Mike Frese
Currently my video customers are liking No Strings Attached quite a bit. Our top renters the past 3 mos: Little Fockers, The Tourist, & The Dilemma (all 21% or less rottentomatoes).

In national DVD sales figures, Little Fockers is the only one of those currently in the top 10 (it's ranked #3). The Dilemma is in 14th place and The Tourist isn't even in the top 50 for DVD rentals. The latest Harry Potter installment is #1 followed by the most recent Narnia sequel. Black Swan and The King's Speech are #5 and #8 respectively.

DVD sales figures are off 9% from last year and the rental figures are down by 36%. What's interesting is looking at Rotten Tomatoes' list of top DVD rental titles and their "tomato meter" readings in that list. Only 22 of the current top 50 rate "fresh" (60% or better postive reviews). More than half of those movies with positive consensus are lower budget "indie" releases. There's lots and lots of bad choices and very few good ones in terms of mainstream movie releases. Tangled and Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows Part I are the only mainstream releases in the current DVD rentals top 10 that have both scored very well with critics and audiences.

I'm sure the economy has something to do with the current downturn in the theater and video rental business. But the prevalence of critically panned movies currently in the DVD rental cycle certainly has to have some effect on the downturn as well.

quote: Mike Frese
As fas as is it any good. Hangover 2 has a IMDB score of 7.1 while the first one has a 7.9. Rarely is the second of anything better than the first so that was to be expected. My customers are liking it and tonight's ticket sales were still very good. Seeing many people multiple times already.

You might be lucky. No one I know who has seen the movie wants to see it again. The first Hangover scored because it was arguably a unique movie and its shock value was passing along via word of mouth. I personally didn't think the first one was all that bad a movie. But I really hated the rental experience of a bare bones Blu-ray with zero chapter stops, forced trailers, no extras, etc. I vowed never to rent a Warner Home Video Blu-ray ever again -at least not while they're doing this shit. Every Warner Bros. release eventually winds up on HBO anyway. HBO will probably be where I see The Hangover 2. That is if I still have HBO or even pay TV for that matter.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-01-2011, 11:14 AM:

FWIW we're getting way more requests for Bridesmaids than we are for Hangover 2.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 06-01-2011, 12:14 PM:

Forsyth prob has more of the adult populous than teen populous in that community.

Also, teen's prob loves to be adventous and prob head to Billings for their weekend experience...

Posted by Mike Frese (Member # 4361) on 06-01-2011, 01:49 PM:

Bobby,

Top DVD rental charts are flawed a bit right now. Why? Thousands of video stores no longer exist over the past year due to Blockbuster and Movie Gallery store closings. What is left is mostly Redbox and Netflix. Those two are delayed new releases from many studios (Warner, Fox, Universal, and some Sony) for 28 days. Which why the weekending 5/22 Gulliver's Travels was #5 while it was #58 the week before.

http://www.imdb.com/boxoffice/rentals?date=2011-05-22®ion=us

The weekending 5/1 Black Swan was number #1 when it was #44 the week before. It was #7 in my stores that week.

The weekending 5/8, Little Fockers with a 9% RT score was #2 (previous week #37) behind Green Hornet 45% RT. Green Hornet was #1 probably because it was 28 days newer across all dvd rental channels.

When the last Harry Potter was released it was #20 that week. Why? Not available at Netflix or Redbox. For me it was #1 despite only being available for a half of week (it had a Friday release, this dvd rental chart runs from Mon to Sun).

The top rental charts are more determined by when a movie was released than if it is any good. Just like box office grosses. Rarely does a movie hold the top spot 2 weeks in a row.

Movie critics have existed for decades and have been a part of newspapers for a long time. The same newspapers employ editorial columnists as well. I doubt either of those groups have that much sway over people but still exist just because they have pretty much always existed.

As far as Ebert At the Movies show; I guess it is on PBS?? Hmmmm.....seems to be not that relevant anymore if it can't replace one of the many infomercials that are on TV right now.

From my point of view, talking to thousands of people over 20 years; the critics have little influence over what they watch.

So Bobby, not one of your theater customers have liked The Hangover, Part 2?? Out of hundreds if not thousands of customers?

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-01-2011, 02:33 PM:

Mike - Bobby doesn't work at a theatre.

Critics are important for some movies. For a movie like Hangover 2, they don't make a bit of difference.

A movie like The King's Speech will definitely benefit from critical acclaim, but a movie like Pirates 4 is not hurt too much from the bad reviews. Average "mainstream" movies -- especially sequels -- are pretty much critic-proof.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 06-01-2011, 05:02 PM:

...along with that, they've already sold themselves. Thus, why do they need additional advertising and what have you?

Posted by Jo Mostert (Member # 6245) on 06-01-2011, 07:47 PM:

Today was one of the hottest days this year. Our number of clients for Pirates already felt down like a duck that is hit by an airplane. Hangover 2 had a good first week, but didn't 'woow' me. So I thought I knew what to expect for today.

[Frown]

I was wrong. Three times as much people compared to what I expected. [Big Grin]

I'm still trying to breath some air and sweating my ass off... [Smile]

3D didn't do it for Pirates. First week: 60% for the 2D-version. 40% for the 3D-version. 3rd week 70% 2D and 30% 3D. Kung Fu Panda we even won't release in 3D, and Cars2? No idea yet... HP 7.2 will be 3D ad 2D at the same time.

I don't really believe in 3D anymore...

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-01-2011, 11:27 PM:

What is wrong with everyone, with all this griping about the 40% thing?

Everyone should be celebrating that 40% figure. It means 40% of people are willing to pay for the "premium" experience. You probably wouldn't find that high a percentage in other businesses that offer a "premium" version of the same thing.

It's the same reason why luxury cars aren't the most popular cars...they are more expensive and nicer, but they do the same thing: They get you from place to place. You get more for your money, yes -- but not everyone NEEDS or WANTS the luxury.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-02-2011, 01:37 AM:

3D as a luxury? Your post made me LOL.

Posted by John Hegel (Member # 628) on 06-02-2011, 03:51 AM:

I'm with Joe on this one. 3d is not a step up for me. All of the 3D houses around here have not been a good experience. I would much rather have a bright 2D experience than a dim 3D one.

Posted by Jo Mostert (Member # 6245) on 06-02-2011, 07:05 AM:

In my opinion, 3D can only work on the big screens in a big theatre. Bigger movies, a bright expercience, blockbusters PLUS an extra dimension. We don't see that happening. Maybe three or four times a year we see a good big movie, that suits 3D. The rest - despite the 40% - is less. They could better spend their budget on better scenario's, better photography, details, cutting and pasting, instead of a 3D-sword reaching to the spectators. Pirates wasn't even that bad in 3D (despite it's getting too dark), but other titles... What about Priest, Pirana's, Titans, Resident Evil, Tron, ... 3D tends to be a gimmick, only done for the extra 2 euro a ticket. That's why I don't believe in it. We can't have a title like avatar every year. Maybe Step Up 3 was a hit, but I just don't see the added value in Pirates, and I don't expect it in Harry Potter or Titanic. That's my only point [Wink]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-02-2011, 12:23 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
3D as a luxury? Your post made me LOL.

Where did I say 3D is a luxury? I said it's a premium. An add-on. An extra.

Posted by David E. Nedrow (Member # 4981) on 06-02-2011, 02:18 PM:

quote: Michael M.
The problem is that they over saturated the 3-D market with too many sub-par films and films that had no business being in 3-D (Clash of the Titans anyone?).

Why did CLASH OF THE TITANS have no business being in 3-D? Why does any film have any business being in 3-D?

I do agree that making a crappy film in 3-D, or converting it to such, does not make it better -- or even good. Witness AVATAR.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-02-2011, 03:42 PM:

If a film is conceived and shot with 3D in mind, then of course it has "business" being in 3D. Conversions are crappy, apparently. Has anyone ever seen a good one?

My opinion is, if a film is going to have mostly dark scenes (like Potter, LOTR movies, Clash, Pirates, and so on) they should not be in 3D. But, having said that, I've had quite a few people rave about the 3D in Pirates over the last couple of weeks. So who knows?

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 06-03-2011, 04:22 AM:

The Nightmare Before Christmas was a great post-conversion, but that's not the fairest of comparisons for obvious reasons.

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 06-04-2011, 09:55 AM:

Disney CEO defends use of 3D in movies

quote:
RYAN NAKASHIMA
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, Calif.— The Associated Press
Published Thursday, Jun. 02, 2011 2:22PM EDT
Last updated Thursday, Jun. 02, 2011 2:24PM EDT

Disney CEO Bob Iger defended the company’s production of 3-D films Thursday after 3-D ticket sales for several recent movies lagged their predecessors.

It’s “way too early to write 3-D’s epitaph,” Iger said at the D: All Things Digital conference. “I think a lot of conclusions are being reached about a business that’s still relatively new.”

Industry experts point out that The Walt Disney Co.’s fourth “Pirates of the Caribbean” movie and the second installment of “Kung Fu Panda,” from DreamWorks Animation SKG Inc., generated around 40 per cent of their revenue from 3-D screenings, compared with about 60 per cent from earlier films such as “Shrek Forever After” and “How to Train Your Dragon.”

Some analysts trimmed estimates on DreamWorks and 3-D technology company RealD Inc. as a result. Shares of RealD are down about 14 per cent since the weekend, DreamWorks shares are down 7 per cent and Disney shares are off about 3 per cent.

Higher ticket prices and a sense among consumers that 3-D is a gimmick are hurting attendance domestically, an effect that may carry over overseas, where 3-D is still booming.

“We suspect 3-D demand will slow over the coming year overseas as the `novelty’ begins to wear off,’ BTIG analyst Richard Greenfield wrote in a research note Tuesday.

Iger said that 3-D technology must be used in the right way or studios risk annoying moviegoers who are asked to pay a few dollars more for tickets.

“(If) people go to a film on the first weekend and pay the premium that they pay for 3-D and come out either not liking film or thinking it wasn’t worth it in 3-D – you can’t hide that any more. Everybody knows it,” he said. “So I think it has to be used carefully. When it’s used it has to be used on the right film and in the right way technologically and creatively. You can’t just `If you build it they will come.’ You can’t do that.”

Hollywood has been hurt by a slow start this year with revenues from U.S. and Canadian theatres down 8 per cent at $4.02-billion through the Memorial Day long weekend, according to Hollywood.com.

Last weekend, Warner Bros. “The Hangover: Part II” in 2-D debuted at No. 1, hauling in $105.8-million over the long weekend, compared to “Kung Fu Panda 2” in 3-D opening with $62.2-million.

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 06-04-2011, 03:27 PM:

Yes! It's a Richard Greenfield Film. [sleep]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-04-2011, 04:00 PM:

Yeah, why is he the only one allowed to poo-poo 3D?

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-04-2011, 06:07 PM:

It just floors me that these industry "experts," the ones making millions of dollars a year, actually expected 3-D to keep GROWING and eventually take over the business. While all of us here, who collectively probably make less money in a decade than Bob Iger makes on a weekend, knew that it wouldn't.

Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 06-04-2011, 06:51 PM:

They wont let it go until the devolution of film as a medium. When you think about it, 3D is really the only thing they have to offer exhibitors who might still be on the fence about jumping into the digital world. This is a classic case of bait-and-switch. Once 90% of the market has digitized, the studios will drop 3D like a hot potato.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 06-05-2011, 12:14 AM:

Are the 2D versus 3D percentages being derived by counting actual people or just the box office dollar values?

If they are comparing box office results, are they including or ignoring the surcharge?

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 06-05-2011, 05:38 AM:

Mike: I've thought that (salary imbalance) for over 25 years. Louis

Posted by David E. Nedrow (Member # 4981) on 06-07-2011, 02:57 PM:

quote: Aaron M
Once 90% of the market has digitized, the studios will drop 3D like a hot potato.

Actually, that hadn't occurred to me, but it sounds plausible.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 06-07-2011, 03:06 PM:

quote: Aaron Mehocic
3D is really the only thing they have to offer exhibitors who might still be on the fence about jumping into the digital world.

Totally agree, but I don't think they'll have to wait until the conversion is 90% complete. At some point prior to that eventuality, the studios will start announcing clear plans to phase out film altogether. Once that time-line becomes clear (and near) then the die-hards will have a more urgent reason to convert.

Is cost of conversion an issue? Could digital conversion become cheaper in the coming years? I really don't know. Does anybody have any insight?

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-08-2011, 11:56 AM:

quote: Aaron Mehocic
Once 90% of the market has digitized, the studios will drop 3D like a hot potato.

The studios might drop it as a "marketing tool" but there will still be directors around who want to use it as an "artistic tool." Therefore it will be used as it should be, which should have been the case all along. Then somebody will have a big blockbuster in 3D (Avatar 2, anyone?) and then the cycle will start again.

Posted by Harold Hallikainen (Member # 5405) on 06-11-2011, 08:55 PM:

As long as we're flashing 48 images per second on the screen, would it be better to use it for 48fps 2D than for 3D? Which do you think audiences would prefer? Would it be worth extra money to them?

Harold

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-12-2011, 12:35 PM:

I don't think so. Audiences already don't understand the technology behind what gets on the screen, even at regular prices. How would you sell something like "48 FPS" to people? "It looks better" you would say. They would say, "It looked good before!" (Except where they have Sony 3-D systems of course.)

Posted by David E. Nedrow (Member # 4981) on 06-12-2011, 01:40 PM:

quote: Mike B.
If a film is conceived and shot with 3D in mind, then of course it has "business" being in 3D. Conversions are crappy, apparently. Has anyone ever seen a good one?

I should have been more clear in my original question. What business does a film have being in 3D if it's not poking things at you? [Wink]

As for conversions, I've seen several that were fine. The bit of the Harry Potter film a couple of years ago, and the converted part of SUPERMAN RETURNS looked good in 3D.

I still maintain that the only reason people dissed CLASH OF THE TITANS was because it came right on the heals of AVATAR. Cameron and his ilk spent plenty of time bashing conversions. I've talked to a LOT of people who have said conversions are awful, but when asked, they actually HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE(S) in question. But they heard about it in an interview with Cameron, or someone else.

Frankly, I think for the average consumer it doesn't matter how the 3D is done, so long as something is poked at them. Otherwise, it turns into a "what's the point" exercise. "Why did I just pay $15 for a 3D movie and there was no 3D?"

-David

Posted by Jake Spell (Member # 5294) on 06-12-2011, 02:18 PM:

I feel like 3D is better used when they arent just poking things at you but giving realistic depth of field to the movie. I did see CLASH OF THE TITANS and hated the movie almost as much as I hated the 3D. It looked as if the actors were on one screen and the background on one that was slightly behind them, that NEVER moved. That was the worst 3D I have ever seen...

Posted by David E. Nedrow (Member # 4981) on 06-12-2011, 02:40 PM:

quote: Jake S.
I feel like 3D is better used when they arent just poking things at you but giving realistic depth of field to the movie.

I have no argument with that. I would prefer that nothing ever break the screen plane. I want 3D to be a window into the world of the film, not a door into mine.

The problem is, audiences don't care about the aesthetic of just using the -Z realm. They want something in the +Z, and the +'er the Z, the better. And if filmmakers don't give that to them, they're not going to stay interested.

-David

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 06-12-2011, 05:52 PM:

I'm not arguing in favor of +Z shenanigans but I have noticed that the -Z does create that "thru a window" effect and, hence, I feel further separated from the movie. This is why I disagree with the notion that 3D makes movie-watching an "immersive" experience. Quite the opposite.

Posted by David E. Nedrow (Member # 4981) on 06-12-2011, 08:21 PM:

quote: Manny K
I feel further separated from the movie

I'm with you.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-13-2011, 01:06 PM:

quote: Manny Knowles
I have noticed that the -Z does create that "thru a window" effect

That's why I like to sit closer to the screen on a 3D movie. If the image fills your field of vision more, that window effect isn't as noticable.

My personal favorite 3D effects are the "vertigo" effects when you are looking over the edge of a cliff, or something like that. I guess that's why I liked "Rio" so well.

Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 06-17-2011, 04:57 PM:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/green-lantern-harry-potter-2d-202952

quote:
2D movie ticket sales on Fandango for Warner Bros. weekend release Green Lantern and the final installment of Harry Potter are outpacing 3D ticket sales in a possible latest sign of 3D fatigue, BTIG analyst Richard Greenfield said Friday.

"We continue to believe U.S. consumers are frustrated with the amount of 3D movies Hollywood is producing, especially when combined with excessive ticket prices."

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 06-17-2011, 07:06 PM:

I find the 3d effect sucks if the screen is silver but not curved just right and 2d sucks on a silver screen as well but the right curvature helps a lot!

I prefer flat white!
I can't believe the new builds i have seen with the wrong amount of curve! [Frown]