This is topic For Transformers 3 (only), Which version sold more tickets? 2D or 3D? 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=002511

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-29-2011, 12:17 PM:
 
Okay...Transformers 3 has been billed as a "watershed" movie to determine the outlook of 3D. While I doubt that any one film can make/break a technology, Transformers was designed for 3D from the ground up like Avatar was.

The director, Michael Bay claimed that 3D was the way he intended it to be seen and it was composed with 3D in mind. The target audience should be in a sweet spot for 3D viewers. It is smack dab in the middle of the busy season for theatres (and coming into a holiday weekend).

In short, it has a lot going for it, 3D wise.

The two managers I've asked about the Tuesday night showings that had both 2D and 3D version playing essentially at the same time had similar results....

2D outsold 3D as well as out-grossed.

What are your findings (particularly from those that run theatres)?

What would be good exit poll would be to ask those that saw the film in 3D if they would have seen it in 2D if that was the only format. This would go to show if 3D actually generates new sales versus just shifting the sales to a different format.

-Steve
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 06-29-2011, 12:29 PM:
 
A midnight showing on tues night in a complex had six screens total, but with only one 3D screen.
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Althaus (Member # 5042) on 06-29-2011, 12:31 PM:
 
5 3D shows, 2 2D shows.....

2D had a slight edge in attendance (53%), and 3D had a slight edge in gross (53%)
 

---

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 06-29-2011, 02:30 PM:
 
Just about 50-50 on gross, but the 2D did better attendance wise. That included the 9PM and midnight shows combined.

Turnout was not great. For all the hype of the 9:00PM show in 3D, we had three screens ready to go, but only needed one. At midnight, the 2D pickerd up significantly. Guess it could be argued that most of the 3D crowd came out early.

Of course, this film was hyped bigtime by the studio. But then, what did they expect? The last one was not good, so did the suits think 3D was going to save this one?

I'm sure it will do decent business domestically, but all in all, not off to a good start. Perhaps the public is sick of having 3D rammed down their throats. It's for damned sure exhibitors are.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-29-2011, 04:32 PM:
 
Going by Jonathan's example, it sounds like it would be more profitable to have 2 2D screens and make nearly the same amount as 5 3D screens. That's simple (very simple) economics.

2D wins (so far).
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-29-2011, 04:41 PM:
 
To make matters worse, it cost more to put on the 3D performance and took more money out of the customer's pocket before they got to the concession stand. So, from an exhibitor's standpoint, 3D seems to be not only not generating more revenue, it is taking it away.

Clearly we don't have a statistically significant sample but the trend is undeniable. This is a movie that should have done good 3D numbers.

The next "big" 3D movie is supposed to be Harry Potter but I don't think it would be. It is a conversion from 2D, it would be the only 3D version in the whole series and the those that are into HP are going to see it in any "D" that it is showing.

This is why I'm most curious about Transformers...it is a prime 3D movie and not even just some kids cartoon.

Keep the reports coming in!
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 06-29-2011, 05:25 PM:
 
..and heard that Fandango sales for HPVII:Pt2 is around 5 to 1 on 2D sales against 3D sales...or even more.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-29-2011, 08:52 PM:
 
I wonder: When people are choosing 2D over 3D, what is their main reason for that choice? Is it the brightness, the price or the glasses? Or is it just a combo of all three?

What kind of feedback is everyone getting? Here, we don't really hear any price objections but a few people mention the glasses being uncomfortable. So far nobody has said the picture is too dim. (I however prefer to watch the brighter 2D picture and I think I'd choose the 2D version of just about anything if I was buying a ticket. But then, I'm over 50.)

Something else: Why in the world doesn't somebody come out with CLIP-ON 3D glasses for those millions of people who wear glasses?
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-29-2011, 09:31 PM:
 
Mike, if you haven't checked out Dolby's latest glasses, they are AWESOME for people with glasses! Finally someone designed a pair of 3D glasses to keep the "second" pair of glasses off of the tip edge of the viewer's nose. They are very comfortable.

Of course, they are still 3D.

Steve - without exception every theater I have asked running similar showtimes and 2D vs 3D screens said the 2D sold more tickets and brought in more revenue (even when taking the 3D surcharge into account).
 

---

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 06-29-2011, 09:52 PM:
 
Perhaps it's just the novelty factor as 3D is still new in this area but I have had exactly zero complaints or "grouses" about the 3D movies here.

On the contrary, I have people asking about what the next 3D movie will be, and I have people who seem to come only to the 3D movies.
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Althaus (Member # 5042) on 06-29-2011, 09:56 PM:
 
Todays stats.....

equal amount of 2d and 3d shows

2d had 59 % of the attendance

3d had 51% of the gross, a very slight edge

Our final 3d show would of had more if it had been in a larger auditorium
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-29-2011, 10:17 PM:
 
Brad - thanks, that's good to know. I did check out those glasses at CinemaCon but didn't realize they work so well with regular glasses. I wish there was a trade-in value on the old glasses.
 

---

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 06-30-2011, 01:37 AM:
 
My personal theory on the HP 2D/3D thing is the 2D screens for the midnight show will sell out first but the 3D won't be far behind, making the 3D gross for the midnight premier 'unfairly' high (unfair because given unlimited 3D seats and unlimited 2D seats its my belief the majority of HP fans would choose 2D).

As for Transformers, 2D is solidly outperforming 3D here, might have to move a 2D print up to a bigger house tomorrow and a 3D print down.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-30-2011, 04:48 AM:
 

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

I wonder: When people are choosing 2D over 3D, what is their main reason for that choice? Is it the brightness, the price or the glasses?

---

This question assumes that if these three issues were remedied, 100% of patrons would prefer 3D over 2D. Maybe some feel that 3D is a gimmick, that it is distracting or just kind of lame. Maybe it makes some nauseous or gives them headaches. Maybe so many poorly produced 3D movies have turned them off. Could be countless reasons.
 

---

Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 06-30-2011, 09:26 AM:
 
Buyer beware on the new Dolby 3D glasses, they do not last nearly as long as the glass lens model (lenses get damaged more easily). They do seem to be more comfortable to most people though.
 

---

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 06-30-2011, 01:56 PM:
 
And speaking of glasses...

Warner Bros is offering theatres special "Harry Potter" glasses for the midnight show only, to give to patrons to keep. Don't know if that also applies to Dolby houses as well.

Just one more effort to drag audiences kicking and screaming into the 3D show.
 

---

Posted by Chase Taylor (Member # 778) on 07-01-2011, 11:06 AM:
 
If all things were equal meaning prices for 2D and 3D I still say that most people would prefer the 3D. People are just tried of paying $2 to $5 more per ticket. Money is the big reason why people are fussing about 3D, they might not admit it but if it did not cost more they would not be fussing.
 

---

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 07-01-2011, 11:40 AM:
 
I think thats true for people who are big 3d fans or don't care if it's 2d or 3d but most people are sick of it.
The extra cost is just the last straw.
 

---

Posted by Joseph L. Kleiman (Member # 3097) on 07-01-2011, 11:59 AM:
 
A year ago, Bay was complaining about 3D, talking about how the 3D cameras were cumbersome and 3D conversion was sub-par. One thing that appears to have changed his mind is that Digital Domain, which did the CG shots for Transformers 3, purchased In-Three, and merged the conversion operations with the vfx operations. All of the shots in the film with CG were shot 2D with DD converting them in post.

As for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, IMAX could not get the conversion completed in time for the release of the first film, yet it grossed $125M its opening weekend and still looked damn good in 2D.
 

---

Posted by Chase Taylor (Member # 778) on 07-01-2011, 02:18 PM:
 
Victor

But that is my point, the people who hate it are the minority. It's just most people hate paying for it.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-01-2011, 04:28 PM:
 
Chase,

While hate would be a strong word for most...dislike or don't want to fool with (at any price)...I think you'll find are in the majority. While it is a novelty, people will put with many extra factors...but once it becomes a requirement, you'd be amazed how people will prefer the less fussy system. The ones that "hate" it most likely also get headaches and other eye strain from it too. I think the cost is only but a part of 3D's issue. I truly think it takes away from the movie and is more of a distraction...though there are certainly plenty of examples of when it can indeed add to it. I just don't find that to be the case, by and large.
 

---

Posted by Gregory Marshall (Member # 6346) on 07-01-2011, 09:41 PM:
 
At one multiplex in the Nashville area, the next Harry Potter has sold out 4 screens at the Thursday, midnight showings, all 2D. The lone 3D screen still has tickets on offer. Is this also a sign?
 

---

Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 07-03-2011, 01:52 AM:
 
Our theatres are ranging from 55% to 65% 3D based on attendance.
 

---

Posted by Thomas Dieter (Member # 2507) on 07-03-2011, 06:32 AM:
 
I personally detest 3D movies. But many people that I've spoken to since I've been out of the cinema industry for about 2 years now, have said that the only reason that they go to a 3D movie is cause of their kids. If they had the choice over 3D and 2D, they choose the 2D because the 3D leaves them going home or watching the movie with a head ache.

I saw 1 movie in 3D and that was the HP and the Half Blood Prince. I saw it in IMAX at that, and was very disappointed at the fact that WB couldn't make the entire movie in 3D, it was only 1 Reel, and then on top of that my head was hurting for the head ache.

I recently moved back to WA, and the online ticket sales for HP a week ago, with 1 showing of each showed that 2D was preferred over 3D as the tickets for 3D were still available for 3 or 4 more days. They finally added 2 more 2D showings, and 1 more 3D.
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 07-03-2011, 01:08 PM:
 
I thought I had read that some of the film was actually shot in 3D, not the typical post-conversion - so I purposefully went to see this in 3D over at the Uptown - where for once the image looked great.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-03-2011, 02:29 PM:
 
Jon, if you were referring to Transformers...then the whole movie was shot 3D...it was NOT a conversion (hence part of my interest in this particular movie's 2D vs 3D).

I have heard that this weekend, 3D sales gained on 2D a bit.

-Steve
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-03-2011, 04:07 PM:
 
I have heard that any scene involving CG was shot in 2D and converted. Not sure how reliable that information is. Can't remember where I read it, either.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-03-2011, 04:16 PM:
 
Hmmm I think I heard that the CG itself was "shot" 2D and then converted...It would seem awkward to only shoot selective scenes with 3D cameras. And Transformers has to be heavily CGed.

-Steve
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Althaus (Member # 5042) on 07-03-2011, 05:55 PM:
 
Reports came in today about 70% of the sales being from 3D
 

---

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 07-03-2011, 07:50 PM:
 
Wonder what would happen if they charged less for showings with mono sound? Bet a few customers would choose those too.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-05-2011, 12:01 AM:
 
That'd be an interesting experiment. PUt a show in the smallest house, in 2-D, with mono sound, but the tickets are only $3.00 and see which house sells the most tickets.

If the $3 house went gangbusters, then we'd probably see a rash of 2-D movies in mono.
 

---

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 07-05-2011, 03:34 AM:
 
It depends on the movie. Customers have come to expect active surrounds in big action flicks, hell, some customers expect active surrounds even when there shouldn't be...how many of us have gotten 'the surrounds aren't working' complaint for dialogue driven movies.
 

---

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 07-05-2011, 09:31 AM:
 
Results were about what we had figured. It was a 60-40 split attendance wise, 2D beating 3D. 2D was also the winner on the overall grosses as well.

Don't think this bodes well for 3D in terms of what the distributors were expecting. Of course, that may not be true for other locations

As for Harry Potter advance sales, 2D is absolutely clobbering 3D at better than 5 to 1 at the present time.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 07-05-2011, 02:17 PM:
 

quote: Dustin Mitchell

---

how many of us have gotten 'the surrounds aren't working' complaint for dialogue driven movies.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

If the $3 house went gangbusters, then we'd probably see a rash of 2-D movies in mono.

---

And oddly enough, there are plenty of people out there could care less if the sound was in stereo (since the dialog comes out of center channel anyways..)or mono. They just want to come to the venue, get a cheap popcorn and drink, and just to watch a movie - nothing else.

Course, the studios would have a fit since they don't like 2 and 3 buck houses anyways - can't make the big bucks with these venues.
 

---

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 07-08-2011, 04:04 AM:
 
Point being that I've never seen a theater charge extra for sound, so they shouldn't be charging extra for 3D either. I love 3D but simply can't support it with the extra charges. It would suck if they ended up making fewer movies in 3D, but high prices suck too (however I won't see a 3D movie in 2D- if I don't want to pay the higher price, I simply won't see it at all at least until I can buy a 3D Blu-Ray.)

I've read complaints about some movies not 'using' 3D enough to be worth the extra charge as well- lots of movies don't use multichannel sound to its best capabilities either, but that's up to the people who mixed the sound track and it doesn't affect what I paid to see the film. Same should go for 3D. (Added- should I still call it a 'film' if it's shown digitally? )
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-08-2011, 12:34 PM:
 
Comparing sound to 3D is not a valid comparison. First, improved sound benefits all movies -- whereas 3D is an added feature on only some movies. Second, there are ongoing costs (maintenance, labor, glasses) involved with 3D that don't apply to sound.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-08-2011, 03:17 PM:
 
Bullshit. When digital sound came out it was an improvement for some movies, not all movies. The hardware did indeed cost more. You often had to buy more/better speakers and have some asshole maintain the shit as well.

How about 70mm? Did theaters charge more for that? I don't think we did at UA Greenwood where 25% of our 12 auditoriums were equipped for 70mm.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-08-2011, 04:30 PM:
 

quote: Joe Redifer

---

The hardware did indeed cost more.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

Even the most expensive of the digital sound systems (Sony) cost less than half of what a Dolby 3D setup costs. That's not counting the cost of the glasses or the cost of maintaining and handling them.

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

How about 70mm? Did theaters charge more for that? I don't think we did at UA Greenwood where 25% of our 12 auditoriums were equipped for 70mm.

---