Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: 3D and 2D showtimes

This is topic 3D and 2D showtimes 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=002694

Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 07-02-2013, 02:22 PM:

If you have only one screen dedicated to showing a movie that you want to screen in both 3D and 2D, how do you schedule your 3D showtimes vs. your 2D showtimes?

For Example:
Monsters University
11:30 2:00 4:30 7:00 9:30

Which of these showtimes would you show 3D and which would you show in 2D?

Would you schedule it differently for an adult action picture?

Which of these showtimes would you schedule for 3D and 2D for Man of Steel?: 12:30 3:45 7:00 10:15

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-02-2013, 05:56 PM:

I think you should have at least one matinee each day in 2-D, and maybe a few evenings a week, have 2-D shows in the evenings.

It would kind of depend on the demand in your area. The key though is to give everybody a proper choice....by that I mean, you shouldn't JUST schedule 2-D matinees. People should be able to see 2-D or 3-D at various times of day.

Here, we generally do not run matinees, so what I've been doing lately is Fri-Sat-Sun-Mon all shows 3-D, and Tue-Wed-Thur all shows 2-D. For a kiddie movie like Monsters I would maybe convert the Monday to a 2-D night as well.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-02-2013, 10:14 PM:

I wanted to add this thought but ran out of editing time.

I just looked up our shows for the first half of this year. We played seven 3-D movies. On most of those 3-D movies we played six 3-D shows, and two or three 2-D showings per week. (We run two shows on Fri/Sat but only one the rest of the week, generally, and if a movie isn't showing on the break we're closed on Thursday.)

Our 3-D surcharge is $2.50.

Even though we had FAR more 2-D showings than 3-D ones, 3-D still contributed more than half of the dollars in the till. Even if we didn't have the surcharge, 3-D would still be nearly tied with 2-D in the overall gross race.

So....your own mileage may vary of course, and naturally we have a lot of people here who don't like 3-D, but it's actually been quite good for us financially. And definitely, offering a good mix of 2-D and 3-D shows has paid off. Our Tues-Wed-Thurs crowds have never been better even on the non-3-D movies.

I haven't looked at the last couple of years to see how this ratio is trending.....I'll have to do that if I ever get some spare time!

Posted by Elise Brandt (Member # 5552) on 07-04-2013, 05:57 AM:

We solved that by showing 2D and 3D close to the same times but on different screens.
Probably the best bet is to look at your previous 3D movies with the same target audience and see how many admissions per show on average each got, to divide how many 2D vs 3D showings you should schedule. Personally I would alternate, start with a 2D, second one 3D, third 2D and so forth... although I have to admit here the 2D version usually gets about 1,5-2 times the viewers per show than the 3D version. Funny thing is that another cinema very close to ours has quite the opposite numbers, go figure.
Jabbering aside my point is, since each cinema and each audience is different, it's best to look at your own experience at that same site.

Despicable me 2 opens here tomorrow an I have three different versions running (six available altogether), with different language versions and 3D/2D. Fun, hu? Decisions, decisions...

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 07-04-2013, 03:35 PM:

Usually on a show where we're getting 5 shows a day it will go like this: 3D, 2D, 3D, 3D, 2D. Having the late show as a 2D helps boost attendance. With something that would normally have 4 shows, we do 3D, 2D, 3D, 3D.

At some point the balance is going to have to shift in favor of 2D as that seems to be what the public wants on most movies. With 3D movies, the 2D showing at 3:00/4:00 tends to be the busiest show of the day.

Posted by Mike Frese (Member # 4361) on 07-04-2013, 10:14 PM:

Similar to Justin.

5 shows: 2d, 3d, 2d, 3d, 2d
4 shows: 2d, 3d, 3d, 2d or 3d, 2d, 3d, 2d

If had six screens or more with just one big movie out (defintely not now but think Iron Man 3, I would run one room 2d and one room 3d. Actually since IM3 was in a dead time of the year I would run it on two screens even with just 4 screens.

Mike B: It would seem your 3d outperforms 2d because you are busier on Fri-Sun than Mon - Thur (or just Wed cause you are clsoed Thursdays?)

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-05-2013, 11:38 AM:

That would affect it too, absolutely. I was just surprised that 3D is actually ahead of 2D for us...I'd thought the sheer number of 2D showings (considering the majority of the movies are in 2D, plus we had 2D showings of all the 3D movies as well) would make 2D outdistance 3D grosswise. Especially when we hear all the talk about how the audience "prefers" 2D.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 07-06-2013, 01:05 PM:

quote: Elise Brandt
We solved that by showing 2D and 3D close to the same times but on different screens.

I'm not so sure if that's the best way. The people who really don't want 3D will, generally, seek out the 2D showings regardless and then most of the other people are either seeking out the 3D or will see whatever is available now.

So if there's a 3D showing now and a 2D showing in an hour, pretty much everyone showing up now will go for the 3D one. But if the 2D show was put 15 mins from now, a few of those people will go to the 2D show that wouldn't have in the other instance.

Just food for thought.

Posted by Elise Brandt (Member # 5552) on 07-08-2013, 03:04 PM:

Chris, that is a good point, assuming there are actual walk-ins in the theater. We almost never have them, our audience as a rule comes in when the version they want to see is playing. Of course there is the small group of people who come in for the movie only, and simply looked at the showtimes not caring (or not caring to check) which version screens when.

I think this is again a question of difference in theaters, and audiences, and in their behaviour.

On a side note, to my great amazement:
Despicable me 2 that opened here this past weekend, did better in the original, English language version in 3D than in the finnish-dubbed version in 3D, although the original only had 2 screenings and the dubbed version 6! Did not see that one coming. (note: in Finland it is usual that the kids' movies are dubbed, none other, and the finnish versions usually do waaaay better than originals.)

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 07-08-2013, 10:10 PM:

Have those of you in the business found that people just don't like 3D, or are they going to 2D showings mainly so they don't have to pay the extra cost? If I made a movie in 3D I would not want ANY 2D showings, but I also would not want there to be an extra charge for it. If anything kills 3D, that extra charge is going to be it.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-09-2013, 12:43 AM:

Well you can divide the anti-3D people into these groups:

1. Those who don't want to pay extra even though they're getting something extra
2. Those who think 3D makes the picture too dim
3. Those who find the glasses uncomfortable
4. Those who either "can't see 3-D" or it gives them a headache or it makes them dizzy or they just don't like it in general
5. Parents whose kids won't wear the glasses, making the extra cost not worth it

I would say, around here at least, of the relatively few people who have made negative 3-D comments to me, most are older people in group 4. Even some of the older folks really like 3-D though...my mom is 82 and she loves it.

I'd guess that even the most staunch 3-D filmmaker wouldn't object to 2-D showings of his movies. Their film is going to show up on 2-D TV (and other devices) eventually anyway, and if there are lots of people wanting to see a show in 2-D and it's possible to show it that way, why leave that money on the table?

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 07-09-2013, 02:01 AM:

The question I'm wondering is if anyone has found a successful method of listing 2D/3D so that customers are picking up the difference. 2D and 3D are a separate listing in all places where we publish our times, and customers are getting the right times. But we have a significant number of people showing up for 3D times unaware that it's a 3D showing - seldom do we have someone showing up for a 2D time thinking it's 3D.

For the most part, I echo what Mike says, but I would break it down differently.

1. Those who don't want to pay extra. This seems to be the largest group.
2. Those who simply do not like 3D.
3. Those who don't like to wear the glasses, or have some vision problem which makes 3D problematic.
4. Parents with younger children who don't like wearing 3D glasses, or won't keep them on.

In my opinion, the real issue with 3D is it's becoming too common, and most movies are not enhanced by the 3D effect. I tend to watch most of the 3D movies in 3D, primarily so I can monitor the equipment and watch for anything were the 3D really enhances the experience. For the most part I find I am apathetic about 3D. It doesn't really bother me, but it doesn't really do anything for me.

In my opinion, 3D should be reserved for that handful of movies every year where the 3D truly enhances the viewing experience. The last movie to meet that standard for me was Life of Pi. By having so many major movies released in 3D, and limiting the 2D showings, I believe we are just alienating our customers. And I think this proves out when I see the gross for 2D vs 3D. I haven't broken it down by genre, but in most cases it seems 2D is grossing more with fewer shows (or at least selling more tickets). And when we run a full schedule of each format, 2D wins out.

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 07-09-2013, 05:47 PM:

quote: Justin Hamaker
In my opinion, 3D should be reserved for that handful of movies every year where the 3D truly enhances the viewing experience.

Ahhh, but then you're taking a matter of opinion and expecting financial restraint from the studios.

Probably not on this planet.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-09-2013, 06:57 PM:

I agree that there are many 3D movies that should not be 3D. "Oblivion" being one recent example.

I also hate that every animated movie is now in 3D. I was hoping that after the initial furor died off, the studios would be selective about what would be 3D. But since every movie plays in 4 or 5 screens in the big multiplexes, there's no need for them to forego 3D -- they can stick it on every movie, even the ones that don't need it, get plenty of screens for both formats, and cash in on the surcharges.

The only time we play a 3D movie with a full 2D schedule is if it is general flop and we have nothing good to fill the calendar with. "Yogi Bear" from a couple of years ago was an example. We played it in 2D only and yes, we got a few complaints including one guy who said "Why should I come to a 2D movie? I can get 2D at home!" (totally forgetting about the other 95% of the cinema experience, I guess).

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 07-09-2013, 09:27 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
I agree that there are many 3D movies that should not be 3D. "Oblivion" being one recent example.

Oblivion was not 3D.

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 07-09-2013, 09:32 PM:

Monsters University
2D at 11:30 2:00 and 7:00
3D at 4:30 and 9:30

Man of Steel
2D at 12:30 and 7:00
3D at 3:45 and 10:15

I would always do my prime for any 2D/3D movie that's splitting in 2D, because my 2D shows do 3-4x the business of my 3D shows. But I know theatres that do 60/40 in favor of 3D. So it really all depends on what your guests want.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 07-09-2013, 09:51 PM:

quote: Elise Brandt
Chris, that is a good point, assuming there are actual walk-ins in the theater. We almost never have them, our audience as a rule comes in when the version they want to see is playing.

Yeah, a theater I worked at in the past was large enough that they regularly had people just dropping by for "the next showing of X" rather than looking up the actual showtimes.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-09-2013, 11:01 PM:

quote: Chris Slycord
Oblivion was not 3D.

Hmm, you're right. Wonder what movie I was thinking of.

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 07-13-2013, 05:20 AM:

quote: Justin Hamaker
In my opinion, the real issue with 3D is it's becoming too common, and most movies are not enhanced by the 3D effect.

That's a complaint I've heard, and a good reason why they should just stop with the surcharge. Not every movie made with a multi-channel sound mix takes full advantage of it, and that's fine since it's the filmmakers' decision on how to use it and it doesn't affect the price. If you do a movie in 3D but use it in a very restrained manner, those who pay extra for the 3D are going to feel ripped off and not want to see another 3D movie. If they aren't paying extra for it, then they're more likely to just say "Well, the 3D in that movie sucked, but maybe the next one we see will be better." They shouldn't have to think "Is this movie worth seeing in 3D?" any more than they should have to think about whether it's worth seeing at all. As far as doing 2D showing for those who "don't like" 3D, would theaters also do showings with mono sound for people who don't like overpowering sound, or showings in black and white?

Posted by Philip Jones (Member # 6677) on 07-13-2013, 08:15 AM:

Interesting article about the 2D\3D split

http://insidemovies.ew.com/2013/07/10/despicable-me-2-3d-low/

quote:
Blockbuster sequel Despicable Me 2 earned $143 million over the extended Fourth of July weekend — and although its debut marked a high point at the summer box office, it also marked a low point for 3-D ticket sales.

According to Universal, only 27 percent of Despicable Me 2‘s opening-weekend gross came from 3-D tickets, the lowest 3-D share in modern box office history. Notably, the record low comes just two weeks after Monsters University notched a 31 percent 3-D share on its opening weekend, which at the time was the worst 3-D performance ever. Poor 3-D ticket sales aren’t just plaguing recent animated films, either. Brad Pitt’s live-action zombie thriller World War Z only earned 34 percent of its debut total from 3-D tickets, and The Great Gatsby fared even worse. Despite the fact that Baz Luhrmann’s use of 3-D was a primary selling point for Gatsby, 3-D ticket sales only accounted for 33 percent of its opening weekend.

These percentages mark a decisive downturn in 3-D’s popularity with American moviegoers, who have generally embraced the enhanced format over the last five years.

In 2009 and 2010, during the heyday of 3-D, films like Avatar (71 percent share), Alice in Wonderland (70 percent), and Tron Legacy (82 percent) added tens of millions of dollars to their opening-weekend grosses with 3-D ticket sales. Hollywood quickly doubled down on the format — sending the number of 3-D wide releases skyrocketing from 15 in 2009 to 36 in 2012. By 2012, though, it already appeared that 3-D was losing some of its luster, as the industry observed lower shares for films like Transformers: Dark of the Moon (60 percent), Thor (60 percent), and The Avengers (52 percent). These days, even highly anticipated box office titans like Iron Man 3 (45 percent), Star Trek Into Darkness (45 percent), and World War Z have trouble cracking the 50 percent threshold.

Family films have been hit particularly hard lately. Of course, it should be noted that they’ve never been quite as popular as live-action films in 3-D — presumably because it costs so much to purchase 3-D tickets for an entire family — but animated titles like Shrek Forever After (60 percent), Toy Story 3 (60 percent), and The Lorax (52 percent) did prove that moms and dads were willing to shell out big bucks on the format. Not so much over the past year, though. Recent films like Brave (34 percent), The Croods (38 percent) and, obviously, Despicable Me 2 haven’t connected with 3-D ticket-buyers despite the fact that they succeeded at the box office.

Many think the 3-D gimmick has lost — or is losing — its novelty due to over-saturation and shoddy execution, and Avatar director James Cameron agrees. “I do not think Hollywood is using the 3-D properly,” Cameron remarked at the TagDF conference in Mexico City last week. “Man of Steel, Iron Man 3 and all those movies should not necessarily be in 3-D,” he continued. “If you spend $150 million on visual effects, the film is already going to be spectacular, perfect.”

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-13-2013, 09:19 AM:

Of course if James Cameron had made Man of Steel or Iron Man 3, he would have equally compelling reasons why the movies SHOULD be in 3-D. I do agree though, both of those movies would have been fine without 3-D, but they would have grossed millions of dollars less. And you know how Hollywood is about money.

quote: Jesse Skeen
As far as doing 2D showing for those who "don't like" 3D, would theaters also do showings with mono sound for people who don't like overpowering sound, or showings in black and white?

There is a difference. I've never in all my career had somebody turn around and walk out because a movie was in color, or because we have modern (loud) cinema sound. But I HAVE had people walk away because a movie is in 3-D. Just trying to serve as many patrons as possible here.

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 07-13-2013, 03:01 PM:

quote:
According to Universal, only 27 percent of Despicable Me 2‘s opening-weekend gross came from 3-D tickets, the lowest 3-D share in modern box office history.

Don't want a "low 3D share"? Then don't allow 2D showings, and don't charge extra for 3D! That's another thing that annoys me about separate 2D showings, stuff like this will put them in competition with each other- same as when there were separate "full screen" DVD releases and there'd be comparisons of which one sold more.

I HAVE seen people leave a movie because the volume was too loud and I refused to turn it down because I didn't want to ruin it for everyone else who was enjoying it. If a movie is meant to be in 3D, that's how it should be shown. Post-conversions are rather silly and a waste of time however- I've seen a few that looked pretty good, but overall they should just shoot in proper 3D or not do it at all.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-13-2013, 04:29 PM:

All the media nonsense about the "3-D share" shouldn't even be news anyway.

They are spinning it wrong, is all. Instead of mourning that interest in 3-D is waning, they should say that "27% of people chose the upgraded 3-D experience."

Maybe the lower 3-D share is due to gas prices, or taxes going up, or fears about the cost of Obamacare, or unemployment, or a dozen other reasons, along with whatever percentage of people just don't like 3-D. The fact remains that a third of people (give or take) on any given movie will choose voluntarily to pay the extra money to see it in 3-D. That should be cause for celebration, not a bunch of whining by industry "experts" who have never seen the backside of a ticket window.

If it gets down to, say 7% or so, THEN there is a problem and they might as well just stop making 3-D movies.

Posted by Philip Jones (Member # 6677) on 07-13-2013, 05:00 PM:

Considering the tickets cost more, it's actually a quarter of people at best choosing 3D for most of this summer's releases

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 07-13-2013, 08:20 PM:

quote:
Cameron remarked at the TagDF conference in Mexico City last week. “Man of Steel, Iron Man 3 and all those movies should not necessarily be in 3-D,” he continued. “If you spend $150 million on visual effects, the film is already going to be spectacular, perfect.”

Sadly, there are people who will believe this.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-15-2013, 01:37 PM:

quote: Philip Jones
Considering the tickets cost more, it's actually a quarter of people at best choosing 3D for most of this summer's releases

There's nothing wrong with that number. Compare it to any other product category you want to, from cars to restaurants to clothing....what percentage of people are going to choose the most expensive option? Probably less than that.

The big flaw in the 3-D thing was studios (and theater owners) thinking that 100% of people would want to watch movies in 3-D.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 07-30-2013, 07:25 AM:

Over the past weekend, I saw one of the most dramatic examples of the public rejecting 3D. We ran The Wolverine on a 4 show schedule with 2 2D and 2 3D. The 3D shows were the 1:00 and 6:50 (generally the "prime" show times). Without correcting for the difference in prices, the 2D shows accounted for about 65% of the gross - but 2D was about 75% for Friday & Saturday. Sunday's numbers were probably more balanced because of slower 9:00 shows.

In the past when we've had a basically equal number of 2D/3D, the grosses have tended to be about equal for the formats. 2D will usually come out ahead, but not by much. Furthermore, the preference for 2D is usually more noticeable with family movies than with fan boy type movies.

Posted by Jason Whyte (Member # 1433) on 08-18-2013, 11:05 PM:

More and more these days, I am finding there is an even split between 2D and 3D shows and the 2D seems to be having the bigger crowds no matter what the movie. It too depends if the studio wants to allow 2D shows (from what I remember, the JURASSIC PARK re-release was entirely 3D...no 2D shows were permitted, nor do I think a 2D file was even on the drives).

A bigger problem now is many theaters that are playing 2D and 3D splits on the same screen here (all Real D installs) ARE NOT MOVING THE 3D LENS OUT OF THE WAY FOR THE 2D SHOW. This happens at nearly every show I go to here, and I have to get someone at the theater to fix it.