This is topic Is 3-D Still Going Strong? 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=002713
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 09-17-2013, 12:00 PM:
 
I'm curious if any of you in the mainstream market can tell me what's going on with 3-D these days...

Are you seeing more 3-D titles? Less?

Or would you say that it has hit a plateau and actually become somewhat commonplace?

I work in an art-house/repertory venue, so I was never inundated with 3-D product.

I recall a while back that Disney had (supposedly?) ordered all features to be shot in 3-D. Now I see the trailers for "Saving Mr. Banks" and none of those are in 3-D. Was this "all 3-D" policy ever for real? Has the House of Mouse relaxed its stance?

And, no, I'm not only curious about Disney -- that was just the example I used because it got me wondering about all of this. I'd like to hear your observations, and I'm hoping somebody might even have statistics.
 
Posted by Daniel Schulz (Member # 1881) on 09-17-2013, 12:05 PM:
 
The Hollywood Reporter reports that the percentage of the summer box-office going to 3D is declining. In 2011 45% of the gross for a title released in 3D came from 3D screens; in 2012 40% and in 2013 32%.
 
Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 09-17-2013, 12:41 PM:
 
What I've noticed, here anyways, is that there IS a small 3D crowd that will see 3D in the first weekend, but the 3D versions have no legs at all. When we have both 2D and 3D, 3D always leaves first and we'll have 2D only for the last few weeks and no one bats an eye.

The price is a huge factor. No one wants to pay the premium let alone 3 weeks after release.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-17-2013, 02:29 PM:
 
Disney never announced all features in 3D. It was all ANIMATED features in 3D. And they have stuck to that so far for theatrical releases.
 
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 09-18-2013, 01:11 AM:
 
Thanks for answering my questions.

What percentage of current movies are offered in 3D? This can be estimated.

Oh, sure. I know I can easily look up what's "playing this week" but I mean in a general sense -- Are studios releasing as many 3D movies as they used to?
 
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 09-18-2013, 05:12 AM:
 
The number of films in 3D seems to go in spurts. We had a point in mid-July where we could have had as many as 5 3D movies at one time in my 5 screen complex. But by the time Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs comes out September 27, we will have gone nearly a month between major 3D releases. I'm not counting Battle of the Year on September 20 since it is limited to about 1800 theatres.

In October there is only one 3D release - Gravity. Then there are 3 in November and 3 or 4 in December.

By my count there have already been 23 major 3D releases in 2013 (with another 8-9 remaining). By comparison there were 27 in 2012, 34 in 2011, 22 in 2010, and 11 in 2009.

For year to date 2013, there have been 23 3D movies to play in 1500+ theatres, and 84 total movies to play that wide. That means the 3D movies accounted for about 27% of the major releases to date. For 2012 it was about 20% for the year, in 2011 it was about 25%, 17% in 2010, and only 8.5% in 2009.

The full comparison of 2013 can't be made until after we see what happens with the various Awards contenders, but you can figure it will be 31-32 3D out of a total of around 130 titles to play in 1500+ theatres. For what it's worth, my uncertainty of the total number of 3D films is because I'm not clear on whether Walter Mitty is supposed to be 3D.
 
Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 01-31-2015, 03:20 PM:
 

It has been 500 days since the last post.


 
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 01-31-2015, 03:20 PM:
 
It's almost comical how 3D movies are coming in spurts. The weekend of 2/6/15 will see three new 3D movies open (Jupiter Ascending, Seventh Son, and Sponge Bob Square Pants). This will mark seven weeks since the last 3D release - The Hobbit.

The next 3D release after February 6 will be Home on March 27. After that we will see 3D films with more regularity as we start to go to the summer season.

I'm just wondering how long it will be before 3D movies basically go away - or are limited to just a handful of appropriate movies each year.
 
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 01-31-2015, 04:48 PM:
 
I think 3D is pretty much dead for the North American market. Outside of North American 3D is popular. The only segment that still does well in 3D is IMAX but they don't actually charge extra for 3D releases, they just capitalized on the high end moviegoer that would pay extra for their "Experience" whether it is 3D or not. I still wish they would offer some 2D screenings when a 3D movie is released.

I wonder if there was no surcharge what would happen for regular theaters? Would more people flock to 3D or would they ignore it. I cannot watch single projection 3D and will refuse to watch it.
 
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 01-31-2015, 06:04 PM:
 
I don't see anybody around here getting all excited about 3D anymore. History repeating itself obviously. The novelty factor has long been worn off.

As long as you cannot do good 3D without stupid sunglasses or all the other downsides that come with it, it will eventually just go away just like it did in the past.

For now, 3D is still being pushed for a few features to squeeze out those few extra bucks. What's a rather recent development around here is the increased availability of 2D shows, whereas in the past there was often just the 3D show being programmed. In some cases, those 2D shows outsell the 3D shows. So, the writing is on the wall for stereoscopic Three Dee.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-31-2015, 06:23 PM:
 
I think 3D would be doing better if it weren't for the high surcharges. A lot of customers feel like they're taking it in the ass when it comes to paying extra for a 3D show. It already costs enough to watch a 2D movie in a first run theater without adding another $3 or more per ticket to the cost.

Blu-ray 3D is going hardly anywhere in the consumer segment either, primarily because of the high prices. Blu-ray 3D movies cost $5-$10 more than their 2D-only counterparts upon release. As the prices of the 2D movies are slashed down to the $15, $10 or lower price levels the 3D versions of the same movies stay priced really high.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
The only segment that still does well in 3D is IMAX but they don't actually charge extra for 3D releases, they just capitalized on the high end moviegoer that would pay extra for their "Experience" whether it is 3D or not.
Are you trying to claim IMAX branded theaters don't add an extra surcharge for 3D? It sounds like it. And you would be wrong. Theaters charge extra for 3D regardless if the house has an IMAX label on it or not. With IMAX you're paying one surcharge for that brand and then another if 3D is involved.

For example, the Moore Warren IMAX branded Theater in Moore, Oklahoma charges $13 for its evening Adult ticket price for 2D shows and $16 for 3D shows. Some IMAX branded theaters are charging even more than that for plain 2D. The AMC Northpark 15 IMAX branded house in Dallas is charging $17.22 for evening adult ticket prices on American Sniper, a $5 surcharge over all the other shows (they run $12.22 per ticket).
 
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 01-31-2015, 06:32 PM:
 
Since most non-animated 3D releases are rather big budget productions, because they can actually afford the 3D, it's also rather obvious those kind of productions end up as Digital IMAX release. Also, I've never seen a digital IMAX 3D release being played in 2D on a Digital IMAX screen, but this might be a local phenomenon only.
 
Posted by Stephan Shelley (Member # 8587) on 01-31-2015, 07:00 PM:
 
At the Grand Lake in Oakland we do not have the upcharge for 3D for the bargain shows. Just the evening ones. Matinees till 5:45 and all day on Tuesdays. We are a first run house. All bargain shows are $5.00 In the evening it is an extra $1.50 except Tuesdays.
 
Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 01-31-2015, 08:31 PM:
 
quote: Marcel Birgelen
In some cases, those 2D shows outsell the 3D shows.
I'd wager MOST fall in this category. Certainly around here, anyway.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-31-2015, 10:57 PM:
 
About a year ago we switched to a policy of Friday, Sunday and Tuesday in 3-D, and the other nights in 2-D. That seemed better than doing the whole weekend in 3-D and only weeknights in 2-D.

We don't seem to get better crowds on the 2-D nights. But occasionally we'll get a person or two on a Saturday that is bummed because it's not in 3-D, but that's pretty rare.

A couple of times various studios have squawked about it, but anymore they don't seem to care. Today it's mostly a "you can do what you want" with regard to 3-D.

If it's a movie aimed at the very young kiddies like "Paddington," we'll usually just play it in 2-D only, but if it's a big-time blockbuster like "The Hobbit," we'll do the schedule as above. The last movie we played 100% in 3-D was "Gravity." I think the second week we had some 2-D shows but just a couple nights.
 
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 02-01-2015, 10:00 AM:
 
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Also, I've never seen a digital IMAX 3D release being played in 2D on a Digital IMAX screen, but this might be a local phenomenon only.
The only time I have even seen a domestic IMAX release run a 2D presentation was for the movie Man of Steel. The ticket price is the same whether its 2D or 3D.

There have been some domestic 2D IMAX releases while international locations would get the 3D release. Noah was the last film that did this that I can remember.

quote: Mike Blakesley
About a year ago we switched to a policy of Friday, Sunday and Tuesday in 3-D, and the other nights in 2-D. That seemed better than doing the whole weekend in 3-D and only weeknights in 2-D.

We don't seem to get better crowds on the 2-D nights. But occasionally we'll get a person or two on a Saturday that is bummed because it's not in 3-D, but that's pretty rare.
What about 3D for the last show of the day while all earlier presentations in 2D? I have seen a number of locations start doing this.
 
Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 02-01-2015, 03:11 PM:
 
Most of you are right about the declining amount of showtimes for 3D movies but the format itself is not dead. I have noticed that there have not been any new 3D film openings during the past month but to make up for lost time, JUPITER ASCENDING, SEVENTH SON and a new SPONGEBOB movie will be all opening in 3D next Friday. The Regal Theatres in my area has scheduled continuous 3D showing during the opening week for all three movies and will most likely be cut back after that but it at least gives 3D fans such as myself the opportunity to see them in that format during that first week.

Although there are not as much 3D features being released now compaured to the past, the format is far from dead with big pictures such as the new JURASSIC PARK and STAR WARS sequels as well as many others scheduled in 2015 and beyond.

Bobby, although Disney and Lionsgate have stopped releasing their 3D movies on blu ray in the format the other studios are still releasing them and Robert Furmanek of 3D Archive has promised more exciting films in 3D from the "Golden Age" coming in the many years ahead. I already have their DRAGONFLY SQUADRON, THE BUBBLE and the Fox film, INFERNO they restored for a video distributor in the UK and they all look fantastic in 3D. Bobby you are right, 3D blu Ray cost more but not too much more and many times they are priced the same when the 2D and 3D are on the same disc. For example, the long awaited KISS ME KATE in both 2D and 3D coming in a few weeks will only cost about $18.00 at Amazon. There are also many other sale when 3D discs can be purchased for less than KMK.

I love both theatre and home 3D but if I have to choose between the two, I think watching 3D films at home is better.

-Claude
 
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 02-02-2015, 03:10 AM:
 
It will probably not go away entirely for the foreseeable future, as there have been quite some investments into it. Also, modern animated features get their 3D "for free" or at least at a reduced rate, since it's mostly just another rendering iteration at a slightly different camera angle and children, the general target audience, still seem to mostly like it.

Jupiter Ascending is a somewhat oddball production, it was primarily shot in 2013 and was postponed the last minute in June last year. In my opinion, there has been a steady decline of big budget 3D releases in the meantime.

I'm not entirely against the concept of stereoscopic 3D, but I do think the number of features where it actually adds something worthwhile to the experience is rather limited. The last time I really thoroughly enjoyed 3D was with Gravity, which is quite a while ago already. Somehow, it made total sense to me to see this in 3D.

Personally, I find it rather odd you're enjoying 3D more at home than at the theater. This discussion isn't new, but my problem with viewing 3D at home is the lack of size. I constantly have the feeling I'm looking at miniatures, especially with everything that has some negative parallax added to it. Also, the smaller image doesn't help with the rather large amount of edge conflicts in the average 3D production. No floating window will also help here, at least not for your standard issue flat panel TV.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-02-2015, 04:44 PM:
 
quote: Claude S. Ayakawa
Bobby, although Disney and Lionsgate have stopped releasing their 3D movies on blu ray in the format the other studios are still releasing them and Robert Furmanek of 3D Archive has promised more exciting films in 3D from the "Golden Age" coming in the many years ahead.
I hadn't heard Disney discontinuing Blu-ray 3D releases. They've issued BD 3D versions of the last two Marvel movies. I would expect the next Avengers installment and next Pixar movie Inside Out to have BD 3D versions.

quote: Claude S. Ayakawa
I love both theatre and home 3D but if I have to choose between the two, I think watching 3D films at home is better.
Yeah, in some respects I do prefer watching 3D movies on my 65" TV set via Blu-ray 3D. The imagery is sharper than what I see projected in movie theaters. Perhaps that could change as laser-based projection brings about 4K 3D movies in theaters, with projection hopefully more sharply focused.

Downsides of 3D in the home: very few video stores rent out Blu-ray 3D discs. Viewers are pretty much stuck having to buy the movies they watch in 3D. Netflix has a growing catalog of 3D titles, but you need a very fast Internet connection to stream those 3D movies at a decent quality level. I can play some games on my Playstation 3 in 3D, but they vary in quality. So it's important to read reviews.

quote: Marcel Birgelen
Personally, I find it rather odd you're enjoying 3D more at home than at the theater. This discussion isn't new, but my problem with viewing 3D at home is the lack of size.
Watching a movie in 3D takes away the sense of scale of the screen, so giant sized screens really aren't all that important for 3D. You just have to sit in the right place within the theater or at home.

Like movie theaters, there's lots of variables in a home setup that make or break good quality 3D. My Samsung 65" TV does a very good job with it. To me Avatar looks just as good on my TV set in 3D as it did when I saw it in the theater via a RealD presentation. No ghosting or any other problems. Gravity looks fine in 3D on my TV set. I watched it in 2D and Dolby Atmos in the theater. The only thing I don't like about my setup is the active shutter glasses drink up batteries faster than I would like.

Some of the "miniatures" problems you mentioned can be present in both theatrical and home viewings. I think it comes down to how the movie's 3D was created. Some movies overdo it on the depth effect unintentionally making things seem a lot smaller than they are.
 
Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 02-02-2015, 05:39 PM:
 
Bobby, only the Marvel Super Hero movies are released in 3D in the U.S on blu ray by Disney because Marvel Studio is insisting that they do as part of the distribution contract that Marvel have with Disney. Disney has however stopped releasing their own movies in 3D on blu ray starting with FROZEN and MALEFICENT in the United States and Canada but continue to do so in the U.K and the rest of the world. The U.K is Region B but has released region free BD's of both FROZEN and MALEFICENT in 3D and I was able to obtain FROZEN from Amazon U.K and it is fantastic. I saw the movie in a theater in Real D and it was great but watching it at home was better.

Another nice thing about home 3D is the chance to see movies and other material such as "Golden Age" 3D movies including DRAGONFLY SQUADRON, THE BUBBLE, HOUSE OF WAX, INFERNO AND DIAL M FOR MURDER. AIDA and CARMEN from the operatic stage. Documentaries including CAVE OF FORGOTTEN DREAMS, PINA and IMAX features such as UNDER TGE SEA, HUBBLE TELESCOPE and others.

Bobby, I also have a Samsung and mine is a late model 40 inch TV and it too is a Active 3D set. Unlike you, my batteries seem to last a long time. I have a pair if Samsung glasses I paid about $20.00 and if you have a more expensive pair, it might be requiring more battery power and that might be the reason you have to change batteries more often.

-Claude
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-02-2015, 07:38 PM:
 
The 3D glasses that came with my TV aren't very expensive. They use CR1620 batteries. Those batteries are smaller than some of the types used in some other active shutter 3D glasses. I saw one claim rating 70 hours of 3D glasses use with CR1620 batteries, but I didn't get that much out of the batteries that came bundled in the 3D glasses package.
 
Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 02-02-2015, 08:50 PM:
 
My active 3D glasses uses the larger #2025 batteries and that might be the rason I am getting longer play time. My HD 3D set is about ten months old since I got it and I still did not have to change batteries. The preserve the life of the battery, I alway make sure to turn off the power of the glasses. Are you also doing that too?

-Claude
 
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 02-03-2015, 09:52 AM:
 
My friend buys batteries for his Sony glasses in bulk and insists on keeping his stock in the refridgerator, much to his wife's loud objections. I am not so sure keeping batteries in cold storage is really much of a help one way or another (it certainly isn't worth listening to the whining), but I don't want to advise him not to given how it seems to give him some psychological comfort thinking he's extending the battery life, and if he is, by how much.

I went with passive system -- LG - and couldn't be more happy with it. It uses Real-D compatable polarization glasses; I find the claim that the passive system causes visible scan lines not to be an issue. The 3D is every bit as good as his active set, only considerably brighter. Plus there is the advantage that I've got a dozen pairs of glasses laying around from visits to ReadD movie theatres. Unfortunately, LIEMAX linear 3D glasses are not compatible with 3D TVs and I try to see most of the 3D movies that I am interested in in LIEMAX theatres.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-03-2015, 10:57 AM:
 
quote: Claude S. Ayakawa
My HD 3D set is about ten months old since I got it and I still did not have to change batteries. The preserve the life of the battery, I alway make sure to turn off the power of the glasses. Are you also doing that too?
I not only power down the glasses when not in use, I remove the batteries. While web searching about these glasses I saw one complaint at Amazon about the glasses drawing power from the battery even when turned off. I'm not so sure about that, but it's still a good idea to remove batteries from electronics whenever possible. Those things can leak and foul up some devices. I sure don't leave a quartet of AA batteries in my $500 speedlight camera flash.
 
Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 02-03-2015, 07:05 PM:
 
Leo Enticknap recently commented about a Santa Monuca Ca. screening of ADIU AU LANGAGE (Goodbye To Language) by Jean Luc Godard in 3D and made me wish how I could be there to see it. It seem I will have that opportunity when Kino releases the movie on blu ray in 3D on April 14th. I have heard the 3D is excellent with very creative use of the process.

This is the third feature film by a European film maker that has made creative use of 3D. Win Wenders used it to ducument Pina Bausch, the ballet choreographer in PINA and Werner Herzog used it to show remarkable footage of the Chauvet Cave in France in CAVE OF FORGOTTEN DREAMS and now we have this movie by Godard. I have PINA and CAVE IF FORGOTTEN DREAMS and the 3D in both movies is breathtaking and I am now looking forward to ADIU AU LANGAGE

-Claude
 
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 02-03-2015, 07:28 PM:
 
quote: Bobby Henderson
Some of the "miniatures" problems you mentioned can be present in both theatrical and home viewings. I think it comes down to how the movie's 3D was created. Some movies overdo it on the depth effect unintentionally making things seem a lot smaller than they are.
I recently did some efforts to have my old CRT projector do "3D". This only practically works with shutter glasses. Gravity looked better this way, than on a ~51" TV I tried it. It's still no comparison to a real theater though.

Like I mentioned before, the problems primarily happen with negative parallax, you know, the objects that "stick out" of your screen. Gravity has quite a few of those. It just looked AWESOME on this 72 ft. screen I saw it on. Space stations felt like space stations, astronauts didn't feel like action figures which I could pluck just out of the sky. On this "tiny" TV, it did look exactly like that. Disable the "3D" and stuff looks like a normal movie on TV...

In my opinion, the strongest aspect of 3D is the negative parallax thing. I don't really give a damn about 3D movies that have all the action happening "behind the screen", as the enhancement here is just so minimal, it totally defies the purpose of "3D".
 
Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 02-11-2015, 08:39 AM:
 
I agree that 3D is at best a novelty on a small flat screen. On the other hand, 3D certainly looks good on a consumer LCD/DLP front projector with a 10 foot wide screen. Of course, 1080p 3D does not have the resolution of a theatrical DCP, but it is still impressive.

A friend of mine once told me that most current 3D movies should be referred to as 2½D as there is no in front of the screen effects.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-11-2015, 09:56 AM:
 
[quote]Of course, 1080p 3D does not have the resolution of a theatrical DCP, but it is still impressive.[quote]

On the contrary, consumer Blu-ray 1080p 3D and theatrical 2K DCP 3D are pretty close in resolution. BTW, there are no 4K 3D movies yet -at least not any Hollywood movie releases.

Don't some of the 3D processes actually crop in some for 3D? I remember seeing a couple set up charts for RealD showing the 3D picture was actually somewhat reduced in size.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-11-2015, 10:28 AM:
 
Disney Is apparently doing a slightly reduced size picture for their 3-D movies. When we played "Big Hero 6," there was probably about a 4" gap between the edge of the picture and the masking.
 
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-11-2015, 10:40 AM:
 
Bobby, there are a few forms of not filling the image you may have seen. There is floating window (discussed elsewhere), the slight underscan to avoid cropping anything and then there are EFIB based series 1 projectors that didn't have the bandwidth to handle 3D at full 2K resolution. As such, the width was limited to 1920. Since the FFIB based series 1s and all series 2s, technically all 3D DCPs can fill the same frame as their 2D counterparts (in 2K). As for 4K, we are still stuck with circa 2010 technology (the ICP) for everyone except Barco...so 4K 3D again exceeds the bandwidth of the system. Barco chose to make their own ICP in the Alchemy module so they can go up to 4K 3D (at 30fps, I believe, I don't know if they will be able to do 4K/60 or not and I'm sure it isn't implemented yet if they are).

But really...what is the point...3D is definitely on the decline in cinemas and HFR laid a big turd with Hobbit. Avatar 2 will need to be super-awesome to try and revive it back. Catching lightning in a bottle is tough enough once and often the right combination of things have to happen for it to have that sort thing transpire. If Avatar were to come out today, I doubt it would do the business it did.

I still wish 3D would crawl back under the rock from which it came.
 
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 02-11-2015, 04:39 PM:
 
quote: Steve Guttag
I still wish 3D would crawl back under the rock from which it came.
I second that wish. I have yet to see any movie in 3D where the 3D added to the experience or made the movie more enjoyable.

The only place 3D works is in short duration theme park environments where you are "in" the scene. In a movie, you are always watching the scene so having things floating in front of the screen makes no sense and doing depth into the screen just makes things look too small.

I've played some games on a Nintendo 3DS (usually when travelling by plane). 99.9% of the time I turn the 3D off. It is cool to look at for a few seconds (especially without glasses) but it doesn't make it more fun.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-11-2015, 09:49 PM:
 
I still don't quite get what people are expecting 3-D to "add to" the experience. Most people don't have surround sound on their TV sets, but they can still enjoy a movie without surround. Surround doesn't really "add to" the experience, it just makes the movie sound more true-to-life (theoretically). That's what 3-D is supposed to do -- make things look more like the real world. Obviously there are some movies that benefit from this more than others, like "Avatar" and "Gravity," both of which take place in otherworldly places. To me, movies that take place in the real world benefit least from 3-D.

There's also the whole feature of things jumping out at you, which gets old pretty fast and thankfully isn't a huge part of modern 3-D.
 
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 02-12-2015, 12:36 AM:
 
quote: Mike Blakesley
Most people don't have surround sound on their TV sets, but they can still enjoy a movie without surround.
Mike, this is exactly the point. Watching a movie at home without surround sound is a perfectly acceptable presentation for most people. However, watching it with surround sound enhances the movie experience by making you feel more like you are in the movie with the sound happening around you, rather than in front of you.

In theory, 3D is supposed to do the same thing. And with a handful of movies (Gravity, Avatar, Up, Life of Pi), the 3D adds to the experience by making you feel more like you are in the scene with the characters. Or in the case of horror movies, the 3D can add to the jump factor by having objects come at you. It's not that 3D or surround sound changes the story; it's that it enhances the experience of the story - at least that's the theory.

As for whether 3D is still going strong, I'll just say that we had a pretty good turn out for our 3D showings of SpongeBob this past weekend. Only 1 of 4 shows was in 3D over the weekend, but attendance for those shows was more or less on par with the 2D showings (meaning the 1:00 2D would have 100, and the 4:00 3D would also have about 100). This doesn't show that 3D is going strong in general, just that it can still do well with the right movie.
 
Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 02-13-2015, 09:17 PM:
 
I've heard RealD is looking for a buyer right now. I've loved 3D for a long time and have been glad to see it come back, but they've done SO many stupid things with it. The "upcharges" at theaters simply have to stop, and so do the separate 2D showings. That makes as much sense as running some showings with mono sound instead of full multichannel. I agree that the 3D in most movies seems to be restrained, almost as if they're afraid of making it look gimmicky.

I have nearly every 3D Blu-Ray release so far, and most of them I've gotten very cheap (under $20). Many are overpriced most of the time but if you keep watching for sales you can get them for a good price eventually. Disney has always had the highest-priced 3D discs (and theirs are the most titles that I DON'T have in my collection), now they're withholding 3D instead of lowering the prices. (There shouldn't be separate 2D-only Blu-Rays of 3D movies either- strangely the smaller companies have been putting their titles out ONLY with 3D included, and most of the time those aren't priced any higher than normal either! How can small companies do that but Disney can't???)
 
Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 02-13-2015, 10:08 PM:
 
Jesse, I agree with everything you had written in your post and I am glad I am not the only 3D fanatic here. Although there are not as many 3D theatrical releases anymore as in the past, the ones that have been announced and coming soon such as the new JURASSIC PARK and STAR WARS movies sound exciting and I can hardly wait to see them

-Claude
 
Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 02-14-2015, 01:55 AM:
 
Better to have a few good 3D movies than a lot of bad ones, the important thing is that it's an option for filmmakers again. Regardless, the 3D equipment has likely paid for itself by now and charging extra for 3D showings is just going to turn people off of it in the long run. There's already a website called "To 3D or Not 3D?" that gives opinions on whether each movie is "worth seeing in 3D" or not. That shouldn't be happening- the only consideration people should make is if a movie is worth seeing at all, or at least at the theater vs. at home. I've seen a few movies (most notably "Hotel Transylvania") where the use of 3D was very restrained and think a lot of people might've felt ripped off paying extra for. It's still the filmmakers' right to use 3D as they see fit, but when you're charging extra for it people are going to be a lot more critical of it. (Imagine if theaters had always charged extra for digital sound, and then people paid extra to see a Woody Allen movie that was released in digital but had sound intentionally only in the center channel?)

BTW I worked for Signature Theatres before it was taken over by Regal, and I worked with the guy who did most of the installations at the Hawaii theater though I never got to go there. It was speculated at the time that theater was built that the owner put it there just as an excuse to go to Hawaii [Razz]
 
Posted by Frank B. McLaughlin (Member # 6683) on 02-14-2015, 06:18 AM:
 
A really good 3D presentation (screen size, illumination, sound) is hard to beat. Unfortunately, despite efforts, the only location I have found is my home theater.
 
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-14-2015, 07:26 AM:
 
Jesse,

Setting aside your preference for 3D, which is fine...the up-charge is a necessary part if the exhibitor is to not lose money by showing 3D. That is the simple financial fact of it.

If you have Real-D, you are paying 50-cents to Real-D for their technology on each and every ticket. And that is from your percentage of the box office so it is more like a dollar of extra boxoffice just to cover Real-D. Then there are the realities of having the purchase the brighter lamp and paying the higher electric bill. These things NEVER pay for themselves.

If you have Dolby 3D, you have a considerable uptick in your lamp requirement (if not laser)...it is only 10% (on a good day) efficient so you need 10-times the light on Dolby 3D to hit the same light levels as you have on 2D...the realities are that you typically cut the light requirement for 3D into 1/2 -1/3 and up you light level to hit that. So you went from possibly a 2KW lamp up to a 6KW lamp trying to hit those levels...care to do a cost analysis on what it takes to run a 6KW versus a 2KW? And there are the glasses. While the studio (in the US) provide Real-D type glasses...they don't for Dolby (or event the equivalent in value of the Real-D)...so the exhibitor has to not only buy but maintain those glasses by sanitizing them and replacing the damaged/stolen glasses...again...a cost that never stops.

XpanD has similar cost issues to Dolby but with glasses that are typically about 4-5 times more expensive, with batteries to also maintain and the damage/theft problem. On the upside, XpanD is typically about twice as bright so the lamp size increase isn't quite a bad but still significantly more than 2D.

Now lets add in the FACT that attendance to 3D is on the significant decline. You want all 3D shows of a 3D title. If you had a theatre and had to decide on fewer butts in the seats or all 3D shows...which would YOU choose. The market is responding to demand and 3D is not in demand. I know of a theatre that experimented with 100% 3D on a title...the attendance went down because the majority of people didn't want to see the title in 3D. Its a bad business decision to deliberately turn away otherwise happy customers in the name of convincing them to want to see a title in 3D.

Your sound analysis doesn't apply here either. The addition of 3D, increases the cost of every show and dissuades some people from attending. Multi-channel audio, while more expensive to install, does not keep costing the theatre money and seemingly has very few people that would stay away because of it. Sure, Woody Allen isn't a big fan of it but nobody has made stereo a requirement on the authoring end.

It is great that you and others like 3D and I think you should be thankful that it is still out there for now. There are generations that didn't have that option but would have liked it. However, I think it a bit righteous to feel that it must be forced upon everyone when the vast majority either don't care about it or actively dislike it.

I'll go even further...if you are in a competitive market, and your neighbor has 3D, it is to your advantage to not install 3D at all. You WILL suck their business away...I've seen it. I've definitely had more people tell me that not putting 3D was a decision they were thankful for than tell me that thankfully they put 3D in (so far, none to date). Furthermore, nobody that opted out of 3D has asked me to retrofit it in. Conversely, I have had people decommission their 3D systems to prevent studios from requiring a 3D showing.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-14-2015, 10:40 AM:
 
I guess it could be different in bigger towns, but at least for us (a single screen), the progression has been:

At first: If you have 3-D capability, all shows must be in 3-D
>
All "prime time" (early evening) shows must be in 3-D
>
At least a few "prime time" shows must be in 3-D
>
We would like at least a few shows in 3-D
>
Please have at least one show in 3-D, preferably in prime time
>
Do what you feel is best for your market

It's just too bad that they didn't start off with the last option, that way 3-D wouldn't have burned out the way it did (or at least, not as fast).

All that said, I do think it's a good tool to have in the toolbox. It's something none of our competing theaters in this area have and it definitely gave us the appearance of being on the cutting edge when we put it in. The extra work and expense is a pain, but there are definitely 3-D fans out there.
 
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 02-14-2015, 04:29 PM:
 
quote: Steve Guttag
I've seen it. I've definitely had more people tell me that not putting 3D was a decision they were thankful for than tell me that thankfully they put 3D in
If you have 3D before Avatar, or shortly after, then it was a plus. At that point the public was still responding favorably, and would actively seek locations with 3D. But that started to turn within a year because the studios started making everything 3D, apparently for the sake of the up-charges.
 
Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 02-14-2015, 05:30 PM:
 
quote: Steve Guttag
If you have Real-D, you are paying 50-cents to Real-D for their technology on each and every ticket. And that is from your percentage of the box office so it is more like a dollar of extra boxoffice just to cover Real-D.
See, that is just extreme greed and stupidity, and RealD deserves to go out of business if that's how they operate. Were you paying 50 cents per ticket to Kodak or Deluxe for their "technology" on film prints, or to DTS, Dolby or Sony for their sound? Covering the cost of 3D glasses shouldn't even be a factor at this point- I can see charging people for those, but what about those who have saved their glasses from previous showings and bring those instead? I usually bring one pair of 3D glasses and just keep the ones they give me sealed- but again, I don't go to many 3D movies at the theater because of the price.

quote: Steve Guttag
Then there are the realities of having the purchase the brighter lamp and paying the higher electric bill. These things NEVER pay for themselves.
But it costs EXACTLY THE SAME amount of money to run a show to an audience of one person as it does to a full house. When you've got empty seats because they aren't willing to pay the increased ticket prices, what sense does that make?

(And I'll add that the past few 3D movies I've seen in theaters were preceded by COMMERCIALS in 3D! That made me REALLY angry- if there really is a significant cost to showing 3D, why not charge the ADVERTISERS more for the 3D ads and pass that along to the customers??? I might have had a more favorable reaction to the commercials if that had been the case!)

quote: Steve Guttag
I know of a theatre that experimented with 100% 3D on a title...the attendance went down because the majority of people didn't want to see the title in 3D.
Did they really not want to see it in 3D, or did they not want to pay the increased ticket prices? I can't see going to a compromised showing just to save money, though people still went to crappy discount theaters with mono sound for that reason.

I know there's some people who "don't like 3D", but most of them don't even know what good 3D looks like, and there's some who are just closed-minded and won't even give it a chance. Charge them extra for it and they sure as hell won't watch it! Runnning a 3D movie in 2D is the same as showing a color movie in black and white (I've watched some of the 2D versions that are on my 3D Blu-Rays, and feel that's an accurate description. Yes, you can still see the picture, but something's clearly missing! Ditto for playing a 7.1 sound mix in mono!) Would you show a color movie in black and white for those who don't like color? How about a family-friendly edited version of anything rated PG or above, so they can enjoy the movie without all the offensive stuff? I've always been strongly against changing a movie to suit others- most of the time there is only ONE correct way to show a movie, period. If the filmmakers really felt that 3D "didn't add anything" to their movie, they wouldn't have made it that way to begin with. (Post-conversions of course are a grey area and I really wish they didn't do those. "Noah" was shot and released in 2D in the US, but in other countries was shown in converted 3D against the director's wishes. I watched that movie in 2D, though if I bought it on Blu-Ray I'd want to have both 2D and 3D with it. If Darren Aranofsky was REALLY against his movie being in converted 3D, he would have taken his name off of it and replaced it with an "Alan Smithee".)

quote: Steve Guttag
However, I think it a bit righteous to feel that it must be forced upon everyone when the vast majority either don't care about it or actively dislike it.
As I said, in most cases there is only ONE correct way to show a movie- if that's "righteous" then so be it. There's people out there who would like censored versions of movies available, but outside of TV and airlines they can't see those. "The vast majority" sadly doesn't really care one way or another- most of the time they'll just go to whatever showing starts when they want to see it, no matter how it's presented or how much it costs.

There's some big movies like Jurassic Park and Star Wars coming out this year that will hopefully make great use of 3D and get more people actively interested in it again. It would be a HUGE tragedy however if 3D ceases to exist again though just because the industry insists on charging more for it when the public refuses to pay.

(True story: Spacehunter, a forgettable crappy sci-fi movie shot in 3D came out at the same time as Return of the Jedi. I went to see Spacehunter FIRST because it was in 3D! I thought it was really unjust how that piece of crap was in 3D but Jedi wasn't; it's been refreshing now to see REAL movies in 3D and glad the next Star Wars will have it.)
 
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-15-2015, 04:52 AM:
 
Jesse,

You live in a fantasy world not based in reality.

RealD's source of revenue is that 50-cent charge per ticket. And that is how they got to be the BIGGEST installed based of systems. It certainly isn't the best system out there. The exhibitor paid little and typically ZERO for the 3D equipment aside from the screen (must be Silver or one of the new, extra expensive, polarizing white screens) and upsized light. The other thing RealD did that was equally as big, in the USA (because it isn't true world-wide) is to get the glasses paid by the studios. In effect, the made the initial cash outlay to the exhibitor very small and get their money on the back-end via the 50-cent charge per ticket.

All of the other systems get their money up front for the technology. MasterImage is in a nice zone whereby an exhibitor can get "free" glasses.

Now when it comes to the whole glasses thing...I there with you. I think people should have the option of buying their own 3D glasses and use that to defray the up-charge for 3D...though that is going to only save you about $1. The downside for you, the moviegoer is having to buy one pair of each technology. RealD and Masterimage use the same circular polarization glasses. Dolby 3D glasses are unique to them in cinemas as are XpanD glasses. My wife has even suggested to Dolby (she has the Dolby 3D system) to make purchase glasses and have them be colored so they would be easy to identify as not owned by the theatre. Ask any exhibitor, they'd prefer not having to deal with glasses at all.

Your claim about showing to an audience of 1 versus 100 is true...but the realities are, if you run that title in 2D, you'll get the 100...if you run it in 3D, you'll get closer to the 1. Those ARE the numbers (not quite as dramatic but 3D is typically 1/4 - 1/3 the number of 2D). In a business that depends on concession sales for sustainability, getting more bellies near the concession stand the better the profit for the business.

Justin hit the nail on the head...With Avatar, when the 3D fad started back up again...it was the novelty and anyone that had a 3D screen with Avatar or the Hanna Montana show got a HUGE take of the boxoffice. However, it has been all downhill from there with just a handful of exceptions. And you keep hearing the same titles tossed about over and over...Gravity or Hugo as often being the exception to the rule.

Your position that 3D was way the movie was meant to be seen is not a view shared by most. The method of filming/showing 3D does NOT represent reality on many scales. It can/does cause headaches to many it IS a technology that tends to scream out "look at me and what I'm doing." You could claim similar things about aggressive sound mixes (which I don't like either...I like sound mixes so good that you don't notice just how good they are). With rare exception, color is not used as a "notice me" technology...though one can certainly find examples of it (Wizard of Oz, or even South Pacific immediately come to mind). That said, I enjoy a good B&W movie as one can really get shadow details in a well composed B&W shot that will get lost in color.

As I said previously. It is great that you enjoy 3D and you should be thankful that you still have that option on many titles. However, I can assure you, you are in the minority as a society. It isn't just the up-charge...it is the whole concept. 3D in the home hasn't gone anywhere either

3D is a business decision more than a creative one, in most cases. As such, it has to justify its extra expense at all stages from production through exhibition/distribution.

I can certainly appreciate you desire to bring depth to the image, but whether you want to admit it or not, the current technology does not do it very well and it brings with it more negatives than positives.
 
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 02-15-2015, 04:05 PM:
 
Just to expand on what Steve said, there are a number of reasons why people don't like 3D.

For some, it is as simple as the extra cost. Paying and extra $2.00-$3.00 per ticket just isn't appealing to many people. However, 3D costs more for the theatre, which is part of the reason theatres charge more. Depending on which system you use, there is an extra outlay of cash for equipment - silver screen, 3D unit, 3D glasses, replacement filter discs, brighter lamp, and so forth. None of this is free, and better allocated directly to 3D, rather than raising prices across the board.

There are a number of people who can not view 3D for one reason or another. A variety of vision problems can affect the ability to see 3D. For some people it might just cause ghosting in the 3D image. For others it might cause the image to appear out of focus. For others it can actually cause physical discomfort.

For people who wear glasses for vision, wearing 3D glasses on top of your regular glasses may not be comfortable. While clip-on glasses are available for the polarized systems, they are not usually available in the theatre, or have an additional cost.

Young children usually won't keep the glasses on. This comes back to the value question for parents. Is it worth paying the up-charge for children who are not actually going to experience 3D because they won't keep the glasses on.

You make a valid point about certain films being intended to be viewed in 3D, but this only applies to a small number of 3D movies. In these movies, there are often things that look odd when viewed in a 2D picture. However, in most cases the 3D was added as an afterthought - whether during filming or in post - as a way to increase box office revenue.

You also make a reasonable point about how movies are intended to be viewed. However, if we were only going to present movies in the way they were intended to be viewed, than most movies would never be available on DVD or shown on TV since they were intended to be shown on a movie theatre screen.

Regardless of how you may feel about 3D, the simple reality if the marketplace is largely rejecting the format for a number of reasons. This is why studios are responding by releasing fewer 3D movies. If the trend continues, I imagine we will be down to just a handful of 3D movies each year within another year or two. And hopefully those released in 3D will be the small handful where 3D actually adds to the experience.
 
Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 02-15-2015, 04:44 PM:
 
Steve makes a very valid point about what a motion picture exhibitor have to endure with 3D and Jesse's rebuttle also makes sense and I am inclined to agree with Jesse.

I never had problems with the different types of glasses I wear over my prescription glasses when I watch a 3D movie at a theatre or watching them on blu ray at home. They are all extremely comfortable.

-Claude
 
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 02-15-2015, 05:54 PM:
 
quote: Jesse Skeen
I know there's some people who "don't like 3D", but most of them don't even know what good 3D looks like, and there's some who are just closed-minded and won't even give it a chance.
Jesse, in your opinion, what does good 3D look like?
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-15-2015, 10:22 PM:
 
It's a good idea to talk to 3-D objectors and find out what their objections are.

The biggest majority of people I've talked to don't necessarily object to the price -- it is the GLASSES they don't like. Having to wear the glasses, and having to try to convince their kids to wear them. People who don't already wear glasses don't like the feel of "one size fits all" glasses, and people who DO wear glasses don't like wearing the 3-D glasses over their regular ones.

The main objectors to the price are families, since they are buying four or five tickets so the surcharge adds up fast.

I've also had objectors who tell me they "get headaches" but upon further conversation, I find out they haven't seen a 3-D movie since the red-and-green cardboard glasses days. We've "converted" more than a few 3-D objectors to regular customers by explaining that things are better than they were 20 years ago.

The reason 3-D hasn't caught on at home is simple -- the picture is too small. (There's also the cost of extra glasses to consider.) Unless you're Claude who is a huge 3-D fan, I don't see how you can enjoy a 3-D picture when it's just a 50" image on the other side of the living room. I like to sit in about row 4 or 5 at the theatre so the image just about fills the glasses. I think if more people sat that close they would enjoy 3-D more.
 
Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 02-15-2015, 10:47 PM:
 
While "good 3D" is largely subjective, I think everyone can agree that it should be exactly as bright as a normal 2D picture, and have NO crosstalk or ghosting which happens with some equipment (my Sharp 3D TV has a bit of that, and I'm hoping the next one I get will be much better than that- and noticed that I said that I hope it improves, not "this proves that 3D sucks and they should just give up on it". It was a bit of a miracle that I was able to get a 3D TV at all with my current financial situation, and I'm just glad to have it right now.) One person I heard wanting to see a 3D movie in 2D said "The picture is ALWAYS darker in 3D." That should not be the case (and his assumption COULD have been wrong for that particular movie and theater!)

3D movies I've really enjoyed for their 3D effects, off the top of my head, include the Step Up movies, Avatar, Piranha, House of Wax, Inferno (somewhat-obscure 50s movie available via import), Man of Steel, Life of Pi and most of the IMAX movies. Hotel Transylvania still stands out as the one that really didn't do much for me- I've heard Clash of the Titans (which was post-converted) is pretty awful and turned a lot of people off to 3D- I have the Blu-Ray but haven't watched it yet.

Steve- so you are saying that the theaters didn't pay anything for the RealD equipment, and instead RealD is getting extra money for each ticket? If that's the case, it's one of those things that makes sense in the short-term but not long-term. And if they only take 50 cents per ticket, why is the upcharge not 50 cents but $3.50 at most places? And again, why are customers forced to see COMMERCIALS in 3D after forking over that extra dough? If it really does cost extra to show 3D, charging the regular price with a nice message saying "These sponsors have made it possible for you to see this movie in breath-taking 3D!" would have given me a much more favorable reaction.

As for "living in a fantasy world not based in reality," I would have said that to anybody who seriously thought that customers would happily pay that much extra for every 3D movie. I immediately thought that was insane when the theaters here first started showing 3D movies, but seeing how unpredictable the public is with such things I wasn't sure if there would be any backlash or not- from what you're saying now, apparently there has been. I initially wanted to go to EVERY 3D movie that first came out just to show my support, but the price turned me off very quickly. One of the first 3D movies to show here was "My Bloody Valentine", a cheap horror remake. I checked the ticket prices for that and immediately said no way! I later bought that movie on Blu-Ray for $20 (which some might also say is too much, but having been collecting movies since the days of $40 laserdiscs I think most current Blu-Rays are a steal). I felt $20 was a fair price to pay to have my own copy of that movie to watch whenever I want, but it really IS a bad movie and I would have felt ripped off paying upwards of $10 to see it once.

I just checked the current ticket prices for the Spongebob movie- ONE ticket for tonight would be $13.65! That is absolutely insane (unless it's on a Cinerama-sized screen), and I expect that if I do go ahead and see it tonight there will be a LOT of empty seats- there usually are already for a late showing of a kids' movie! If I wait long enough, I'll be able to buy the 3D Blu-Ray for just a few bucks more than that. You can tell me "That's what it costs us" but as a customer I don't care! All I care about is what I'M spending, and that's simply too much! I'd even dare to say that anybody who thinks that families will go ahead and pay that price several times for everyone, AND overpay at the snack bar AND happily endure insulting ads before the show is living in a fantasy world! (And again, when they DON'T do that, you're still running the show to empty seats! And if you're alternating 3D and 2D showings on the same screen, during those 2D showings your precious 3D equipment is sitting there doing NOTHING!)

One thing I learned working at theaters for 10 years is that there ARE rabid fans of the new technology you put out there, but people who DON'T like it are going to stand out more. When we played Jurassic Park in DTS, the most memorable customer reactions were from people who complained that it was too loud! Thank goodness we weren't charging them extra for the new sound equipment or they might've really let us have it!

3D came along in the 1950s because theaters were losing customers to TV. They weren't charging people extra for 3D because they were just happy that they wanted to patronize their theaters at all! Now that 3D has come back and lasted longer than ever, it's been motivated more by squeezing even more money out of customers' pockets, and that's just a shame. You're saying now that it's finally blowing back up in the faces of those responsible- if that prevents movies being converted to 3D just for the sake of money then that might be a good thing, but if 3D ever goes away completely because the industry would rather do that than give up the increased prices, then that certainly won't be.

There's an on-going thread on Home Theater Forum called "How the Studios, Theatre Owners, and TV Manufacturers All But Killed 3D" where people with NO financial interest in the business have expressed their frustrations at the mishandling of 3D both at the theaters and the home market. I still don't get this forum's rules about posting links but a Google search for that thread title should bring it right up if you're interested in checking that out.

But one more thing- I wear regular glasses, and wearing 3D glasses over them have NEVER been an issue for me- even after an entire day in my living room watching 3D movies. I think those who complain about that are just looking for another reason not to like 3D.

In reply to what Mike just said, who posted at the same time as I did:

Some people DO have misconceptions about 3D. I gave the old red-and-blue format a chance, and it looks TERRIBLE. I've seen some good 3D effects with it but the way it messes up the color just KILLS it for me and I suspect many others. Very few theatrical movies have actually used that format, but for some people that's the first thing that comes to their minds.

quote: Mike Blakesley
Having to wear the glasses, and having to try to convince their kids to wear them.
I don't have kids, but when I was younger I thought the glasses were "neat" and you'd think today's kids would think so too. But I was also raised to be RESPECTFUL at a movie theater, meaning not talking or making any noise whatsoever, and many of today's parents don't seem to do that.

quote: Mike Blakesley
The reason 3-D hasn't caught on at home is simple -- the picture is too small.
I have a 60-inch screen at home- it's the biggest I've ever had and hope to get an even bigger one eventually. One of my friends who's even more cynical than I am thought that 3D at home wouldn't catch on because it forces people to actually sit and pay attention to what they're watching. He's right about that- I read one comment saying "The one thing I don't like about 3D (at home) is that it's harder for me to check my phone and stuff." You shouldn't be doing that anyways while you're watching a movie! Home 3D has gotten a lot of bad press, one reason why I've been going out of my way to buy all the 3D Blu-Rays I can as a way of showing my support for it. But I do think the electronics industry expected it to catch on much too soon. Lots of people had just gotten new HDTVs when 3D came out, and most weren't about to go ahead and buy a new TV right after that just to get 3D. They need to give it a few more YEARS to grow- after all, color TV took about a decade to really take off.
 
Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 02-16-2015, 02:35 AM:
 
Despite my screen is only 40 inch, I have no problem with it except when a movie is in scope making me wish it was a bit larger but it's not that bad. I sit about six feet from my tv and I am very satisfied with the size of the picture from that distance. With the exception of a few tv shows like the Academy Awards or election returns, I only watch movies on my tv and only at night after I am done with my daily chores and have finished with my dinner. I watch only in total darkness and the only thing that stand out is the gorgeous image on my set, People have complained about cross talk (ghosting) on their set when they watch a 3D blu ray but I never see that on my Samsung set even with a movie like DIAL M FOR MURDER that so many people complained about the problem when watching that film in 3D.

-Claude
 
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 02-16-2015, 03:01 AM:
 
quote: Mike Blakesley
The biggest majority of people I've talked to don't necessarily object to the price -- it is the GLASSES they don't like. Having to wear the glasses, and having to try to convince their kids to wear them. People who don't already wear glasses don't like the feel of "one size fits all" glasses, and people who DO wear glasses don't like wearing the 3-D glasses over their regular ones.
I guess glasses will be here to stay for a while. All those glassless stereoscopic solutions I've seen up until now really don't cut it. The modern reincarnation of 3D might not be as nauseating and headache inducing as the 3D of yesteryear, but all current glassless implementations are.

quote: Mike Blakesley
The reason 3-D hasn't caught on at home is simple -- the picture is too small. (There's also the cost of extra glasses to consider.) Unless you're Claude who is a huge 3-D fan, I don't see how you can enjoy a 3-D picture when it's just a 50" image on the other side of the living room. I like to sit in about row 4 or 5 at the theatre so the image just about fills the glasses. I think if more people sat that close they would enjoy 3-D more.
I've been making the same argument for years. Although, screens at home are getting bigger and bigger, which unfortunately will further increase the competition with the exhibition industry.

quote: Jesse Skeen
One of my friends who's even more cynical than I am thought that 3D at home wouldn't catch on because it forces people to actually sit and pay attention to what they're watching. He's right about that- I read one comment saying "The one thing I don't like about 3D (at home) is that it's harder for me to check my phone and stuff."
An interesting argument and one that hasn't seen much exposure. But I guess you do have a point there. People tend to do all kinds of stuff in front of their TV and the "3D" interferes with this lazy couch-potato-multitasking.

quote: Claude S. Ayakawa
I watch only in total darkness and the only thing that stand out is the gorgeous image on my set, People have complained about cross talk (ghosting) on their set when they watch a 3D blu ray but I never see that on my Samsung set even with a movie like DIAL M FOR MURDER that so many people complained about the problem.
Since you're using active, shutter glasses, crosstalk really should not be an issue. If it is, there is something wrong with the timing configuration, causing both images to slightly overlap.

Professional cinema gear uses a technique called "ghost busting", to decrease the contrast difference between left and right images in problematic regions. Last time I checked, this "ghost busting" was a much less defined field for retail 3D products, although ghost busting should really only be necessary for 3D solutions using passive 3D glasses.
 
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-16-2015, 07:10 AM:
 
quote: Jesse Skeen
Steve- so you are saying that the theaters didn't pay anything for the RealD equipment, and instead RealD is getting extra money for each ticket? If that's the case, it's one of those things that makes sense in the short-term but not long-term. And if they only take 50 cents per ticket, why is the upcharge not 50 cents but $3.50 at most places?
Jesse, you only read what you want to read with your preconceived notions and bias. The exhibitor pays the 50-cents. However, the exhibitor doesn't get 100% of the box...for ease of math, lets say they get 50% (true to within 10% in most cases)...so in order to break even with RealD, they need to charge an extra dollar to get the 50-cents. But lets look at the lamp costs on running 3D, again...if you move from merely a 2KW lamp to a 3KW lamp to run 3D...your operating costs just DOUBLED. This has to do with not just the lamp cost but lamp life. As wattage goes up, life drops geometrically above 2KW. Yet the exhibitor is not charging double...it absolutely less profitable to run 3D. If you have Dolby 3D (a zero crosstalk type that can use a low-gain screen that will yield a more even image), then your cost of showing the movie is going to be more like 4-times to light the same screen.

It would be downright dumb to charge the same price...you'd be more profitable to run it in 2D otherwise. At least as a normal business mode of operation.

As for the RealD business model...yes, it is the most expensive to exhibitors in the long-run because they have a permanent partner and yes, every exhibitor we service paid little to zero for the RealD equipment. MasterImage has the most up-front costs for equipment (though they have come up with plans to make that easier)...but they have the lowest ongoing costs in the states due to free glasses. If glasses are not free, then Dolby starts to win out since it is mostly a matter of keeping the glasses from walking away. Your idea of owning one's glasses would help in that too.

As for the cost of seeing a movie. You have to judge prices by the times. A movie ticket price has typically cost a minimum wage employee (the typical movie going age wage earner) about 1.5-2-hours throughout time. We still are there. Yeah, it seems high but compare the minimum wage, such as it is, to what it was when ticket prices were $5.00 or $3.50 in those same markets. It is about buying power. And remember, the exhibitor is typically paying their employees those increased in minimum wages. You ask ANY exhibitor how they are doing on the profit side of things...they are not exactly rolling in dough. Furthermore, 3D is an ADDED expense to the whole digital cinema conversion...it has to pay for itself.

When you compare the cost of putting in 3D in the 50s compared to today...the technology was pretty trivial...polarized filters and a "silver screen." The biggest technology there was syncing the two projectors (anywhere from selsyn motors to a mechanical gear belt strapped to the two projector motors. It double the cost of carbons, naturally. And look how fast it came and went.

Image quality for 3D always takes a hit...it costs a LOT more to light 3D to the same levels as 2D. It is inherently a lossy system. And using a gain screen to make up the difference is a farce. Yeah, you can get the center up by putting in a 2+ gain screen but at the expense of all other parts of the screen. And if that was true for 3D, then it still applies to 2D so again, you've still raised 3D costs by 2-4-10 times. RealD's XL system was designed around really a low-cost way for working within the 4.5fL "standard"...but it is a lie. It presumes you are good with 14fL on a silver screen. Yeah, you are at 14fL in the CENTER...but on the sides/corners are you are down to 1fL...it doesn't meet standards at all. So with 3D, you are down to 4.5fL in the center and less than 1 in the corners. 3D ruins even 2D shows by putting in substandard screens with the lie that they somehow magically get you more light...but in fact they get you LESS light.

No matter how you cut it Jesse, 3D cost more to run and it costs a lot more to run properly (good light levels, color, focus, crosstalk)...and to thing one shouldn't have to pay more for a more expensive performance is just not realistic. Furthermore, it makes poor business sense unless you think you'll really "steal" the market share by being the cheap 3D theatre in a competitive market on a movie title that people want to see in 3D over 2D. In the last 10 years, you will have less than 5 examples where that would hold true.

Try running a theatre and report back to us the financial realities of supporting all 3D all of the time due it being the proper way to show/see a movie.
 
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 02-16-2015, 08:29 AM:
 
I did a lot of Technicolor 3D (on film) installs.I used 125 ft/lm as a target on the scope picture, resulting in 16 ft/lm through the glasses. Every manager said that this is the only 3D that didn't give them headaches.

Regrettably all gone now in favor of digital 3D. Headaches are back. 100% true at 12 different locations.

You'll have to fix that and get rid of the glasses to convince me. That is just another reason why I retired.
 
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-16-2015, 10:30 AM:
 
Without a doubt, I've had fewer 3D complaints (technology wise) at the Dolby 3D theatres. But it is true, nobody wants to wear the glasses and nobody wants to keep track of them either.
 
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 02-16-2015, 10:54 AM:
 
I just saw JUPITER ASCENDING last night with a few friends. No one to a person complained about the glasses and most of these theatre techies that were in our crowd are particularly 3D aficionados. I didn't hear a single complaint about the glasses. Not to mention, no one has EVER explained to me why wearing 3D glasses is so objectionable given that people wear sunglasses for much long lengths of time and yet nary do you ever hear them complain, "Oh I don't like going to the beach because I have to wear those damn sunglasses."

I wear prescription glasses and both the RealD glasses and the IMAX glasses fit right over them; 60 seconds after I put them on, I forget they are even there. I just don't understand the perception that the glasses are annoying, but given that, I agree that there are people who do find them objectionable....I'm just saying, I have never heard a rational explanation as to the reason for the complaints. Irrational or not, that doesn't mean the perception has no impact on the public's acceptance (or not) of 3D. The one thing that may be a kind of subconscious reason people say they don't like the glasses not the physical thing itself, but simply because when they put them on, there is an immediate and perceptible drop in brightness and that may translate to a strong negative. A less bright image on the screen isn't a good thing and is perceived as the "fault" of the glasses. In reality, it's not the wearing of them but the effect of wearing them that they don't like. Difference with sunglasses of course is that when they put on sunglasses, they WANT it darker.

The theatre was nearly full to capacity last night. When our show was over, I checked out the two SPONGEBOB rooms -- one playing 3D, the other playing 2D. Both were filled about the same, maybe 80 percent capacity. And REGAL did play the 3D in the larger room, so that has to tell me they are not loosing business on the 3D presentation. For the JUPITER ASCENDING, they only ran that in 3D. That said, they will ALWAYS lose my business to IMAX if a title I want to see is in 3D. I missed JUPITER ASCENDING in IMAX so I had to see that is dull, underlit REAL.Dull 3D....with a hot spot. That SURELY is a reason why people, whether consciously or unconsciously, feel negative about 3D. Add the surcharge and it's certainly an uphill battle. Laser light source will change the 3D landscape substantially.

Home 3D has never taken off because of inept bungling on the part of BOTH the studios and the manufacturers. The set makers because they did practically very little marketing of the technology -- literally NONE. I saw more marketing for LaserDiscs by Pioneer years ago than I have ever seen for 3D television sets. I remember going to the TV section at Target -- they literally had only one 3DTV on display, but the "sales person" had to walk up and down the line of sets and I had to point out which one said 3DTV on it. He didn't have working glass nor was it hooked up to a 3D source, so he couldn't even demonstrate the 3D. Bestbuy did a have a room that had a number of working 3D sets, but no passive versions and only one working active glasses, and their guy knew next to zero about the technology.

Then it was the studios -- there were precious few titles released on 3D BluRay in the first launch years. I still have a hard time locating 3D titles of releases where the 2D version is readily available of the same title. And of course there seems to be a "surcharge" for 3D BluRays just like in the theatre, which is absurd.

Regardless of the other negative factors that might be theorized, I think there is universal agreement, no matter how the business model works for the theatre, the public perception is a strong negative when it comes to the surcharge. It may not be a valid objection, from an actual operational cost rational, but it's a negative just the same. That said, the surcharge added business model gets skewed when you consider, in order to capture those patrons who would opt to just forgo a movie, especially with the family because of the premium price, if the theatre tries to capture them by playing it in 2D as well, like REGAL did with the SPONGEBOB movie, that maybe more expensive than eating the additional cost that Steve enumerates in running 3D vs. 2D.

I still haven't set up my projection 3D, which will consist of dual projectors and it will be using the optical interference principal (Dolby's technology), so that means a white screen, no hotspot and passive glasses. It's the Omega system (actually it's better than Dolby's because Dolby uses a 3 band filter for each eye and the Omega system uses 5 band filters so the color is more balanced and more accurate for each eye -- no color correction in the projectors necessary). Anyway, until then, we watch 3D on a 50in LG passive and we just sit a bit closer. I don't agree that the 3D effect is ineffective farther back, it's till quite perceptible but it just don't have the same impact as sitting where the image fills a major part of your vision. But that is a matter of personal preference, just like where people sit in the theatre.

Given the number of 3D films that IMAX runs --nearly back to back, 3D certainly can't be considered "dead." The number of 3D films seems to be leveling off to it's natural place in the exhibition lexicon, just like when Fox insisted that EVERY release would be in Scope, now there Scope and flat, some years one more than the other, but no one even thinks about it any more and there certainly isn't a question of whether or not the Scope as a format is "dead." The format is chosen simply depending on the filmmaker's vision; 3D will be that kind of presentation format -- some filmmakers will feel their film warrants it, other will not.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-16-2015, 12:01 PM:
 
quote: Jesse Skeen
I don't have kids, but when I was younger I thought the glasses were "neat" and you'd think today's kids would think so too.
I can tell you that every single kid that comes to a 3-D movie immediately wants to grab the glasses and put them on, even if Mom tells them to wait till they get inside. Kids have a short attention span though; after the novelty wears off, they start taking the glasses off and throwing them around, just like they do with everything else.

There are quite a few people who will say they don't like 3-D and don't really give a reason, they just don't like it. It's like peas -- I don't like them, but I can't really tell you why. I just don't.

People who say that 3-D is "dead" are not looking at the numbers. It's been around far longer this time than any other time in history, and the technology keeps improving. It's still accountable for something like 40% of the boxoffice on many films, which is pretty good for a "dead" format.

It hasn't "taken over" like some pundits used to think it would, but it's just another feature that's available to film makers. The trick for them is only using it when it makes sense. Animated moviemakers should consider that, too -- not every cartoon should be in 3-D.
 
Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 02-16-2015, 04:02 PM:
 
quote: Steve Guttag
Try running a theatre and report back to us the financial realities of supporting all 3D all of the time due it being the proper way to show/see a movie.
I'll have to get back to you on that one- I'd certainly like to do that, but don't have the means right now. But I believe in "doing it right or not doing it at all." If I didn't have the right equipment to show something in 3D, I wouldn't show those movies at all instead of settling for them in 2D. I STILL think there has to be a better solution than charging customers $3 or so more over regular prices which are already out of control. (You can use all the justifications you like for high prices, but bottom line is that they're unaffordable to a lot of people, plus at the same time overall costs for movies on home media and the equipment to play them on have DECREASED in the past few years- so guess where I've been spending most of my money?)

I have to think that somebody, somewhere is saving a good amount of money lately also, from not having to print and ship film prints anymore and theaters not having to pay anybody to run them. And let's not kid ourselves- THAT'S the main reason the industry switched to digital, nothing to do with quality.
 
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 02-16-2015, 05:29 PM:
 
quote: Jesse Skeen
I have to think that somebody, somewhere is saving a good amount of money lately also, from not having to print and ship film prints anymore and theaters not having to pay anybody to run them. And let's not kid ourselves- THAT'S the main reason the industry switched to digital, nothing to do with quality.
Jessie, you are completely right on this issue. But it's not the theatres. Theatres were the ones who had to spend all the money to convert to digital projection, while studios are the ones who realize all the savings by not having to produce and handle all those thousands of prints for each movie.

To help level the playing field, studio pay a virtual print fee to some theatres - basically returning some of the money not spend on film prints to the theatre to offset the cost of buying digital equipment. But these VPFs only last a certain number of years, then theatres are on their own to pay for upgrades and replacements.

While there is some savings to the theatre by not having to handle film, this is relatively minor. In a typical 6-8 screen theatre, there might be 2-3 hours a week to handle build-up and break-down, and then maybe an hour and a half per day to thread projectors (assuming no full-time projectionist). That adds up to less than a half-time employee each week; not really a significant savings to the theatre - especially when projection staff had other duties and didn't require extra people.

As for your notion about not playing a 3D movie at all if you can not play it in 3D as you like, this is just stupid from a business point of view. Unless you have so much money that you can afford to run a theatre as a passion project without regard to the bottom line, you can't afford to do anything to turn away business. Whether it's not playing the movie at all, or showing it exclusively in 3D, you're not going to sell a lot of tickets if you are doing something other than what the public wants. If you're in a competitive market, then you would likely be driving customers to your competitor. If you're in a closed market, they you would just be making it easier for people to stay home.

You made a point earlier about the cost being the same to run a show for one person or for a full house. While this may be basically accurate, you also have to sell enough tickets to cover expenses. If you have $10,000 in monthly expenses, but only sell $7,500 in tickets and snacks, then you have a $2,500 gap you have to cover out of your pocket. While the typical theatre business cycle kind of requires you bank money during the summer and holidays to cover shortfalls in the fall and spring, you can't stay in business if you come up short every month.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-16-2015, 08:40 PM:
 
quote: Jesse Skeen
If I didn't have the right equipment to show something in 3D, I wouldn't show those movies at all instead of settling for them in 2D.
That's got to be one of the craziest statements ever posted on here. You would miss almost all the animated movies, plus you would miss a good share of the blockbusters (especially in summer). Unless you are running an art house, you would be sunk unless you had a major "sugar daddy."

quote: Jesse Skeen
I STILL think there has to be a better solution than charging customers $3 or so more over regular prices which are already out of control. (You can use all the justifications you like for high prices, but bottom line is that they're unaffordable to a lot of people
It's a simple fact of business that if something costs you more, you have to charge more for it. Whether you LIKE it can't enter into the picture. You have to find out whether people will be willing to pay the extra before you incur the extra cost -- if they won't pay it, then you probably shouldn't invest in that technology.

If anything has gone wrong in the 3-D thing, it's that the industry has done a poor job of letting people know WHY it costs what it does to go to the movies, and WHY 3-D costs more. People think all the theaters are doing a cash grab when it's really a pretty small-margin business when you consider the fixed costs and take the "slow" seasons into account.
 
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 02-16-2015, 10:38 PM:
 
quote: Mike Blakesley
If anything has gone wrong in the 3-D thing, it's that the industry has done a poor job of letting people know WHY it costs what it does to go to the movies, and WHY 3-D costs more.
I would would actually say the over-saturation of 3D movies has been a bigger issue than educating the public about the prices. I think people would be more willing to pay the premium if it was just a handful of special movies every year, rather than virtually every major release as it was for most of 2012 through summer 2014.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-16-2015, 11:57 PM:
 
I definitely agree that is also a major issue. Hopefully, good sense will prevail in the upcoming years and it will balance out.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-17-2015, 12:46 AM:
 
I think 3D movies would have been doing a whole lot better at this point if Hollywood studios hadn't become greedy over the whole thing. Each major studio shouldn't have been releasing more than a couple 3D movies per year.

Basically the studios screwed themselves with those cheap 2D to 3D conversions. They didn't listen to the criticism given to early conversion efforts like Superman Returns. Some studio head would decide late in the production schedule that a certain movie needed a 3D version just for that extra cash grab. A 2D to 3D conversion would be rushed through in post production.

A lot of people got turned off by those conversions. First it was all the tech-heads, but the word spread. Customers didn't know which movies had good 3D (like Avatar) or shitty 3D (like Clash of the Titans). Many just got suspicious of the whole thing.
 
Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 02-17-2015, 12:50 AM:
 
quote: Justin Hamaker
Jessie, you are completely right on this issue. But it's not the theatres. Theatres were the ones who had to spend all the money to convert to digital projection, while studios are the ones who realize all the savings by not having to produce and handle all those thousands of prints for each movie.
So why doesn't SOMEBODY stand up to that? Yes, I know theaters don't get to keep most of the ticket money, but not many customers are going to sympathize with that- it just makes the studios look like the greedy ones, not the theaters, and in the end the customers are still shoveling out money. (And I know there are good theater owners out there and ones who are just plain greedy- I've worked for both, including one good owner who ended up selling his theaters to a particularly greedy company! I personally would only open a theater for the sheer love of it, NOT to make money. I've already gotten out of the theater business because I've realized I can't live on what it pays.) Look at some of the message boards for people who watch a lot of movies but don't know a lot about the theater business- a LOT of people there complain about the high cost of moviegoing and say they like watching movies at home a lot more. One recent thread I've seen people swear that they like 3D better at home than they do at the theaters! Something is clearly broken here, and I'm not the only one who thinks so- I've heard one person considered an "expert" by many say that the theater business is likely to "implode" in the next decade. With prices constantly going up, I have to agree- there's a point when people are going to just say "Enough!" and stop going- that's already happened with a lot of people but apparently not enough to cause any reaction on the industry's end. It's called the point of diminishing returns.

It's time for someone to think outside the box, and not just keep saying "oh well" whenever a show plays to zero customers- something I saw far more times than I can count when prices were lower than they are now.

quote: Mike Blakesley
It's a simple fact of business that if something costs you more, you have to charge more for it. Whether you LIKE it can't enter into the picture. You have to find out whether people will be willing to pay the extra before you incur the extra cost -- if they won't pay it, then you probably shouldn't invest in that technology.
I'm wondering just how much research went into that before deciding to charge extra for 3D? As I said, I could've told you at the beginning that likely wasn't going to work. On the other hand if they HADN'T been charging extra for 3D you would have seen me go to EVERY 3D movie, but since they have charged extra I've only gone to a fraction of them.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-17-2015, 06:36 PM:
 
quote: Jesse Skeen
I'm wondering just how much research went into that before deciding to charge extra for 3D? As I said, I could've told you at the beginning that likely wasn't going to work.
Hindsight is 20/20. I don't know about anybody else, but before we put the 3-D in we did a survey (on "SurveyMonkey") and asked that very thing. "While we do not plan to increase our basic ticket prices, there will be a surcharge (likely $3.00) for each 3-D ticket, making our total ticket price for 3-D movies $10.25 ($8.25 for children). Are you willing to pay this type of price for 3-D movies?"

We got several hundred responses with about a 95% "yes" answer. At the time 3-D was the big new thing and people didn't care so much about the surcharge. It was only after 3-D became commonplace, and the media started running articles called "3-D: Is it really worth the extra money?" that the price objections began to surface. The debut of PLF theaters, which raise the price even more just for a bigger screen and poofier seats (no ongoing expense there!) didn't help.
 
Posted by Travis Cape (Member # 466) on 02-17-2015, 06:56 PM:
 
The theater I work at has RealD. At the very least, we'd have to charge $1 to cover our additional cost. Remember, that the operator pays 50 cents to Real D. The other half of the upcharge would go to the distributor as film rental.

Now before someone jumps on me about buying the Dolby 3D system, I have seen plenty of mangled RealD glasses to know that our patrons wouldn't respect Dolby glasses.

In the past couple years, we've offered a 2D showing of the title daily. There are some that don't want to see a movie in 3D for whatever reason.
 
Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 02-17-2015, 06:58 PM:
 
quote: Mike Blakesley
It's a good idea to talk to 3-D objectors and find out what their objections are.
And most importantly,
It's worth mentioning that I like to sit up close, so that the image fills my field of vision, and I am often moving my eyes or head around to follow the action on the screen.
(I do like 3d when used at theme parks for short attractions.)

Hope that helps,

Geoff
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-17-2015, 07:16 PM:
 
Thanks. For what it's worth, I've never heard any of those objections except the brightness issue.

Objections I have heard are:

- It gives me a headache
I ask if they've seen a 3-D movie in the last 10 years and they usually say no, so I encourage them to give modern 3-D a chance. Often they come out smiling and say it's much better than they remember. If they HAVE seen modern 3-D and still get headaches, I encourage them to sit closer to the back, and maybe take the glasses off or close their eyes for a minute once in a while to give their eyes a rest.

- I can't see in 3-D
I don't have a solution for that one and I can't quite understand it, unless a person is blind in one eye.

- The glasses are uncomfortable
I agree with this one. They feel fine for awhile but they develop pressure points after a time. I tell people to take them off for a minute every half hour or so if they're uncomfortable.

- My kids won't keep the glasses on
Solution: If the kids don't want to keep the glasses on, consider bringing them to the 2-D showings. Or, just let them watch without the glasses; they'll still understand the action as well as they would with the glasses.

- I just don't like 3-D
Well...personal preference, and again that's why we offer the 2-D showings.

I am sure we have local objections to the price but nobody has ever said anything to me. I assume (hope!) it's because they know we keep our prices as low as we can.
 
Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 02-17-2015, 07:27 PM:
 
Been wondering how charging extra for the "premium" theaters has been working out- the Regal I used to work at re-did its biggest auditorium as an "RPX" and it's an absolute joke- it originally had a proper side-masked screen but the new screen is fixed-ratio and shows scope movies letterboxed with no masking. I saw one movie there (in 2D, because it was made that way) and the whole thing just felt more like a big video setup than a theater.

Their motivation was CLEARLY to find another excuse to charge more money than improve the experience, no surprise at all for Regal [Razz] Just a 2D movie will set you back more than usual, and then you get the extra charges for 3D on top of that! I don't know how much it's affected business, but I saw several Yelp reviews from people who were annoyed by the increased price. Someone said they went to see a "romantic comedy" and was charged extra since it was in that theater, even though it didn't really benefit from any enhancement in the presentation.

Which makes for another reason not to charge extra for 3D- sure, people might go ahead and pay more for something like Transformers, but what if somebody made a small independent movie in 3D? A smaller movie could benefit from 3D, but not be worth paying extra for to most people. (Likely the reason the last "Step Up" movie was considered a disappointment business-wise- I certainly wouldn't have paid close to $15 to see that, but importing the 3D Blu-Ray, as it wasn't even released in the US, was well worth it at around $20.)
 
Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 02-17-2015, 09:59 PM:
 
quote: Mike Blakesley
I can't see in 3-D
I don't have a solution for that one and I can't quite understand it, unless a person is blind in one eye.
I'm not blind, but I was born with one of my eyes missing a part (can't remember what it's called) so my left eye is very weak and I see colour and movement. I have almost no peripheral vision on the left side either, so if you want to sneak up on me, that's the way to do it.

The practical effect of this is that I don't see things in 3D and while I understand what 3D is in a theoretical sense, it's not the way that I see the world and I've never seen anything in 3D. A photograph, an image on a movie screen or a television set looks natural to me; that the way that things look in the real world.

When I was a little kid the optometrist decided that I had a "lazy eye" and I had to wear an eye patch over my right eye for several hours each day to correct that. Eventually they figured out that it's not a lazy eye, and that was that.

So a 3D image on my movie screen really does nothing for me personally that a 2D image doesn't do just as well since it looks the same to me. The customers like it so that's good enough for me.

If I want to check that my 3D image is actually working, I just hold the glasses in front of my right eye and look through each lens in turn. I wouldn't know for sure otherwise.
 
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 02-17-2015, 10:18 PM:
 
quote: Geoff Jones
I don't like how 3d looks. It looks artificial to me. In real life, I don't notice any parallax of motion when I'm sitting still and watching something happen. I only notice parallax when I'm moving.
This is the main reason that I don't like 3D. It doesn't look like reality at all. It always looks like a special effect and that is distracting. The actors always look like cardboard cutouts superimposed at a certain depth. The worst part is that it makes everything look smaller. You need to sit very close to the screen for it to really look "larger than life."

I think the reason it doesn't look real is because stereoscopic vision is only a small part of why we see the real world in 3D. I saw a show once on The Science Channel or a similar channel that talked about 3D. They were explaining that the main reason we see in 3D is because our heads are constantly moving around very slightly. Because of this, the brain sees the scene from hundreds of slightly different angles every second.

Basically they were saying that your brain uses this information to determine which objects are in front of others.

They showed some kind of 3D experiment that was done by projecting a single image but tracking the head movements and letting the brain see 3D that way.

Let's put it this way, if you close one eye during a 3D movie the picture will become 2D. If you close one eye sitting wherever you are now, the room doesn't suddenly collapse into 2D and you don't lose all depth perception.
 
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 02-18-2015, 12:22 AM:
 
quote: Jesse Skeen
Been wondering how charging extra for the "premium" theaters has been working out- the Regal I used to work at re-did its biggest auditorium as an "RPX" and it's an absolute joke- it originally had a proper side-masked screen but the new screen is fixed-ratio and shows scope movies letterboxed with no masking. I saw one movie there (in 2D, because it was made that way) and the whole thing just felt more like a big video setup than a theater.
Putting aside whether or not members on this board think it is worth it or not, PLF and IMAX screens are very lucrative and the general population has seemed to embrace the formats. Both do very well when there is high demand for tickets and if there is a lot of anticipation or a built in audience for the movie.

Essentially both are like the extra charge for gravy on fries or butter on hot popcorn. Both are lucrative when a movie does well, and both under perform when a movie does not do as well.

To put it into perspective, Fifty Shades Of Grey broke down to roughly:

Total $85,171,450/3646 THEATRES and not screens for an average of $27,038
PLF $7,400,400/450 SCREENS not theatres for an average of $16,444 per screen
IMAX $2,100,000/75 SCREENS not theatres for an average of $28,000 per screen
These numbers are estimates for theatre and screen counts.

The highest price tickets are the VIP followed by IMAX followed by regular pricing.

quote: Mike Blakesley
Hindsight is 20/20. I don't know about anybody else, but before we put the 3-D in we did a survey (on "SurveyMonkey") and asked that very thing. "While we do not plan to increase our basic ticket prices, there will be a surcharge (likely $3.00) for each 3-D ticket, making our total ticket price for 3-D movies $10.25 ($8.25 for children). Are you willing to pay this type of price for 3-D movies?"
I imagine its better to have it and not use it all the time vs needing it for an Avatar or Gravity type feature and not having it.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-18-2015, 12:38 AM:
 
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
PLF and IMAX screens are very lucrative and the general population has seemed to embrace the formats.
There is still the argument that a given complex will put the biggest blockbusterish movie into its PLF house (with 3-D, if applicable) and give it the best showtimes, hence it's going to do the most business in that house, hence higher grosses. If I was going to see a movie I would certainly pick the PLF house with a big screen over a regularly-priced shoebox-sized auditorium -- not because I necessarily want the whole PLF thing, but because I don't want the shoebox thing.

I'm not denying that people seek out PLF or IMAX -- undoubtedly there are people who do -- I'm just saying you can't give the "format" 100% credit for the higher grosses.
 
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 02-18-2015, 12:47 AM:
 
Mike I do agree with you, and I'm sure some others are going to add in their comments. But the general public in theory should balk at PLF or IMAX based on the surcharge. The customer must see value in the extra cost to pay it IMO.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-18-2015, 01:07 PM:
 
Why does the movie industry still track a movie's performance based on dollar grosses? The dollar figures hardly mean anything at all.

50 Shades of Grey grossed $82 million in North America over the weekend. Whoop-dee-fucking-doo. A broad guess would break that down to maybe 10 million tickets sold if we're going to be generous and perhaps more like 7 to 8 million tickets going on the conservative side. Obviously that doesn't sound as cool as "$82 million!!!!!!"

If the industry and entertainment press bothered to do the more accurate thing: count the number of tickets sold, the earnings from IMAX branded screens and other premium big screen houses wouldn't seem quite so impressive.

There are extreme price differences between what one theater playing a movie charges for tickets versus another. I could see 50 Shades of Grey for only $4.00 at the Liberty Theater in Carnegie, OK (the oldest continually operated movie theater in Oklahoma). Or I could pay damned near $17.00 to watch in what they call "IMAX" at an AMC's Northpark 15 theater in Dallas. Obviously it's not going to take very many tickets to rack up impressive looking sales figures at that Dallas theater when it's almost 4 times the price of the small town theater I mentioned.

If audiences are really favoring premium big screen theaters over standard ones I'd like to see a breakdown of tickets sales numbers versus auditorium capacity of all the houses in a multiplex showing the same movie. There's a strong chance the standard priced houses are going to have sales vs. seating capacity percentages right in line with the PBS houses.

This past weekend I watched Kingsmen: The Secret Service at a theater in downtown Oklahoma City I've visited frequently. They had 50 Shades of Grey playing on multiple screens, including the Atmos-equipped Cine Capri house that should have been playing Kingsmen: The Secret Service (read my movie review for more on that). I didn't see anyone holding out to watch 50 Shades of Grey on the huge Cine Capri screen. There were long lines of people outside any auditorium showing the movie.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-18-2015, 02:18 PM:
 
The movie industry does track the actual number of ticket sales, oh yes they definitely do. The problem is with the press (and also with the public, which for some idiotic reason cares about these numbers).

I liked it better when a movie was just a smash, a hit, a programmer, or a flop.
 
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 02-18-2015, 09:26 PM:
 
quote: Mike Blakesley
The problem is with the press (and also with the public, which for some idiotic reason cares about these numbers).

I liked it better when a movie was just a smash, a hit, a programmer, or a flop.
What difference would it make? There is a segment of the population that are willing to pay a hefty premium for upgraded "experiences"...Starbucks sells different coffees, they never report how many "cups" they sell, just the overall sales.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-18-2015, 10:16 PM:
 
True, but the public doesn't realize there is a huge difference between $100 million today and $100 million ten years ago. (Well they KNOW there's a difference but they don't think about it. They just look at the impressive big numbers.)

Studios know that if they publicized the actual ticket sales numbers they would look a lot less impressive, especially when the media pundits started comparing them with numbers from 1939 or whatever, when movies cost 50 cents.

Also there is never an article in every newspaper every Monday morning telling how many millions of dollars worth of coffee Starbucks sold over the weekend.
 
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 02-18-2015, 10:52 PM:
 
All fair points Mike, but I do not see how it would increase business or make a difference to the people who go to movies. Regular moviegoers really do not care about the stuff we all talk about on this board, its kind of like how most people on this board have no idea how a car today is different from what it was in yesteryear, most drivers like what they like and drive it. Its the same thing for movies, people go to the movies and watch the movies, they don't put much thought into things.

Does anyone know that Starbucks no longer manually "Pulls" their espresso shots? Its now all automated on their machines, it changed 5-7 years ago. Does Joe Public care? Do they know? Does it matter to them? Same thing with the changes in movies theaters.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-18-2015, 11:04 PM:
 
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
All fair points Mike, but I do not see how it would increase business or make a difference to the people who go to movies.
The topic (most recently) has been reporting of grosses, so I'm not sure what you're talking about with this. People definitely care and are interested in the grosses -- there are whole websites devoted to it. Every now and then a customer will comment to me about how a movie "must be good...it did $80 million last weekend."

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
its kind of like how most people on this board have no idea how a car today is different from what it was in yesteryear, most drivers like what they like and drive it.
Hmm, you must not read the board very carefully. There are a lot of people on here who know INTIMATELY about cars of "yesteryear." My first car was a '73 Ford, but in our family we have cars going back to 1931. I'd be willing to bet there are WAY more car enthusiasts in the world then there are premium-large-format-movie fans.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-19-2015, 12:34 AM:
 
Terry steered this thread away from discussion about the good and bad of 3D and into the even more questionable area of premium so-called "large format" theater screens. Aside from the marginally bigger screens there's no way those higher priced screens are "large format"; that whole thing is a crock of [bs]

He tried impressing people with crude dollar gross figures from 50 Shades of Grey, particularly from his beloved IMAX brand theaters. Now that we've shot some giant holes through those figures he's trying to ask "why does the number of tickets sold matter?" It's just an attempt to protect that dear IMAX brand.

Let's see. $2.1 million from 75 IMAX-branded theaters. $28000 per screen. Okay, let's divide that $28000 by $13. That's approximately 2153 tickets per screen. Considering quite a few IMAX-branded theaters charge more than $13 for 2D shows and many of these theaters have at least 300 or 400 seats that 2153 tickets sold average doesn't sound so great. Neither does the 161,538 figure for overall tickets sold for IMAX theaters in opening weekend.
 
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 02-19-2015, 01:09 AM:
 
In the real world, talking about how much a movie grossed is nothing but marketing. It lets the studio create extra demand by saying things like "The number one comedy in America" or "The most popular family movie of the spring". It's just a way of telling moviegoers they need to join the crowd and see this movie that "everyone" is going to see.

Realistically these numbers are meaningless without context - especially when comparing grosses on movies separated by more than a couple years. But I have had countless discussions with customers who feel that box office gross is a marker of quality, or that quality translates into big business.
 
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 02-19-2015, 07:32 AM:
 
quote: Justin Hamaker
Realistically these numbers are meaningless without context - especially when comparing grosses on movies separated by more than a couple years.
What difference does it make? Even if you knew what the context was. Of course movie grosses are used as a marketing tool.

quote: Justin Hamaker
But I have had countless discussions with customers who feel that box office gross is a marker of quality, or that quality translates into big business.
And I would argue that how customers view "quality" or what is a marker of "quality" is different for every person. Most regular moviegoers usually claim that the critics take on a movie are generally wrong. Box office success often indicates mass acceptance and good word of mouth. Those fancy scores from imdb.com or Rotten Tomatoes is something I never hear regular folks talking about. I also often also hear people say, "I don't what those Oscars voters are talking about"

The fact that you are having a discussion with your customers about a movie is a good thing.
 
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 02-19-2015, 08:13 AM:
 
I'm not talking about people who have seen the most popular movie and think it was a good movie. I'm talking about people who hear a movie was #1 at the box office or made X dollars, so it must be a good movie. Especially in an age where the majority of a movie's business is crammed into the first few days, it is not practical to use ranking or gross as an indicator of a movie's quality. A movie like American Sniper is the exception because it has done strong business over a period of time and as a result of word of mouth, rather than pre-release hype and marketing.

I also think you're confusing quality with value. Most people know the average Adam Sandler movie is crap in terms of movie making - poor writing, mediocre acting, and so forth. In other words, poor quality. However, many people enjoy watching Adam Sandler movies because they make them laugh. They walk out of the theatre having been entertained. Thus they feel they got value for their money.

I will agree that quality is subjective to an extent. But the average moviegoer does not watch enough movies to really know the difference between a poorly made movie and a well made movie.

It's kind of like eating a steak. If all you ever have is chuck, then you judge one chuck steak vs another. But when you have a rib eye or fillet, then you realize the chuck wasn't really a very good steak after all. Moviegoers who watch a wide variety of movies tend to be more discerning about what constitutes a quality movie.
 
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 02-19-2015, 09:48 AM:
 
From personal experience, I know a sizable number of people who no longer go to the cinema because of 3D. They just assume that all movies are 3D and since they don't like 3D movies, they stay at home. They now assume that all films are expensive, too. This may not be right, but it is well deserved when you remember the nonsense that occurred just after Avatar.

There is no question that some of the reduction in ticket sales in general is because of 3d's aftermath. (Bad films didn't help, either.)
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-19-2015, 02:15 PM:
 
Bad movies and "we've seen this 1000 times before" movies are the biggest problem for Hollywood movie studios right now. Instead of taking any chances on new, untested ideas they keep feeding us the same old shit, just put into partially new packaging. It's getting bad enough that when I'm in the theater I'll hear the audience buzzing with groans and comments like "why are they remaking that" out loud when the trailer for yet another sequel or remake gets going. But you're going to go see it anyway! What the hell else are you going to do on Friday night!? Stay home and watch Shark Tank?

quote: Louis Bornwasser
They just assume that all movies are 3D and since they don't like 3D movies, they stay at home. They now assume that all films are expensive, too. This may not be right, but it is well deserved when you remember the nonsense that occurred just after Avatar.
I think the IMAX company deserves a lot of blame over this. They're the ones who showed it's possible to stick a pair of HDTV resolution digital projectors into an existing theater booth, enlarge the screen a little and then jack up the price by $3, $6 or even more than $10 per ticket, passing it off like it's real IMAX.

Big theater chains jumped on board with that. 3D was a part of the recipe, but wasn't always necessary since people could be price gouged just the same for a 2D movie (like 50 Shades of Grey in "IMAX"). Theater operators just automatically assumed no one minded if no one bothered to go out of their way to complain to management about it. The truth is people see $13, $17 or even over $20 per ticket to enter what only looks like a moderately bigger auditorium and they silently decide to just wait to see that movie on video.

quote: Justin Hamaker
Especially in an age where the majority of a movie's business is crammed into the first few days, it is not practical to use ranking or gross as an indicator of a movie's quality.
Artistic quality and popularity are indeed two entirely different things. 50 Shades of Grey isn't going to win any literary or cinematic awards from film critics and other knowledgeable film buffs. Despite the mixed reviews for the book and worse movie reviews 50 Shades of Grey ranked in a respectable opening weekend haul.

Grosses alone don't mean anything because they don't reflect actual attendance numbers, much less take into account the effect of ticket price inflation which has been pretty significant in recent years.

We live in a time now where a movie can gross $100 million and not just be a box office failure, but a complete financial disaster. I remember being impressed when movies like Jurassic Park, The Lion King and Forrest Gump crossed the $300 million gross mark. A new movie grossing $300 million doesn't impress me at all. Not one bit. Those early 1990's movies had no benefit of double digit ticket prices artificially pumping up their earnings.

The movie industry can keep on publicizing dollar gross figures if they like. But if they really want to track just how popular a movie is, particularly compared with releases from years or decades ago, they have to count how many tickets were sold.

I don't think a movie qualifies as a "hit" until 20 million people have seen it in the theater. That's not to much to ask, especially living in a nation of 318 million people. The loosely used "blockbuster" term ought to be reserved for movies that sell 50 million or more tickets.
 
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 02-19-2015, 02:17 PM:
 
quote: Justin Hamaker
I'm not talking about people who have seen the most popular movie and think it was a good movie. I'm talking about people who hear a movie was #1 at the box office or made X dollars, so it must be a good movie. Especially in an age where the majority of a movie's business is crammed into the first few days, it is not practical to use ranking or gross as an indicator of a movie's quality. A movie like American Sniper is the exception because it has done strong business over a period of time and as a result of word of mouth, rather than pre-release hype and marketing
Justin why do you care so much? So would it be any different if they reported it as "how many tickets were sold" instead of dollar figures?

It is hard enough to get people to go the movies, usually when a movie that is doing really well at the box office it seems to suggest that the movie is pretty good, not always but more often then not the critic, polls, Cinemascores and Rotten Tomatoes or IMDB would agree.

quote: Justin Hamaker
But the average moviegoer does not watch enough movies to really know the difference between a poorly made movie and a well made movie
Sure they do, you Justin just think you are smarter than them, which you are not.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-19-2015, 03:25 PM:
 
How smart a person is, or isn't has nothing to do with it. It's all objective. A "movie snob" might look at something like "This Is Spinal Tap" and think, wow, this is a poorly made movie. But a person who enjoys that type of movie would love it. They don't necessarily care about things like camera angles, composition, the sound mix or whatever. Some people are more picky or critical than others.

There are a lot of movies I like that aren't necessarily "well made" but they tell a story I like and/or have people I like to watch in them.

quote: Bobby Henderson
if they really want to track just how popular a movie is, particularly compared with releases from years or decades ago, they have to count how many tickets were sold.
We have to report all our opening/closing ticket numbers, so you can be sure they DO track how many tickets are sold. They just don't publicize (or even release) those figures. Even Rentrak doesn't show that information, although the studios might get a more detailed version of Rentrak than we do.
 
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 02-19-2015, 03:36 PM:
 
quote: Mike Blakesley
We have to report all our opening/closing ticket numbers, so you can be sure they DO track how many tickets are sold. They just don't publicize (or even release) those figures. Even Rentrak doesn't show that information, although the studios might get a more detailed version of Rentrak than we do.
What difference would it make if they were published?
 
Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 02-19-2015, 04:01 PM:
 
quote: Mike Blakesley
We have to report all our opening/closing ticket numbers
I email the total amount of ticket sales (dollars and cents) to Rentrak every night but have never sent them the number of tickets sold.

I send a pdf of a spreadsheet that does show actual ticket numbers for each night to the respective film company at the end of each week when I finish playing their movie but prior to that point nobody gets the number of tickets sold. I've never been asked for that information; everyone seems happy enough with the total sales in dollars and cents.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-19-2015, 06:17 PM:
 
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
What difference would it make if they were published?
Probably none. It would just make the numbers less sensational, as has been pointed out multiple times already.
 
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 02-19-2015, 06:42 PM:
 
quote: Mike Blakesley
It would just make the numbers less sensational, as has been pointed out multiple times already.
And what good would that do for theater owners like yourself and others? I don't get why everyone on this board bitches and complains about shit like this all the time, they post the movie grosses for marketing, we all know that. Operating a movie theater is about making money, and if that gets people in the door then so be it.
 
Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 02-19-2015, 07:37 PM:
 
What happened to the 3D discussion? [Confused]

-Claude
 
Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 02-19-2015, 09:07 PM:
 
It may not do ANY good Terry. The point is that it is far more ACCURATE and beyond that, isn't even subject to inflation!

Imagine if we used ticket sales the whole time. Then we would know EXACTLY how "Star Wars" in the 70's stacked up to "50 Shades" this weekend. We wouldn't have to grind the science at it or try to figure the average ticket price or what have you. 50 million tickets sold in 1975 would be 50 million tickets today. It just makes more sense.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-19-2015, 10:25 PM:
 
quote: Claude S. Ayakawa
What happened to the 3D discussion?
It got hijacked by the forum's current resident troll.

Yes, I said TROLL. No one, I mean NO ONE can be so honestly stupid or block-headed to keep going round and round the way Terry is doing. He is pretending not to get the point just to drag out the argument. Even people with a tenuous grasp of the English language can absorb a plainly obvious point. Clearly the dude is trolling.

Meanwhile "AndySu" has apparently disappeared from the pinned Dolby Atmos Fans Thread after crossing some lines with the moderators there.
 
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 02-20-2015, 12:00 AM:
 
quote: Buck Wilson
It may not do ANY good Terry. The point is that it is far more ACCURATE and beyond that, isn't even subject to inflation!

Imagine if we used ticket sales the whole time. Then we would know EXACTLY how "Star Wars" in the 70's stacked up to "50 Shades" this weekend. We wouldn't have to grind the science at it or try to figure the average ticket price or what have you. 50 million tickets sold in 1975 would be 50 million tickets today. It just makes more sense.
There would be a number of other factors to take into account as to why the numbers were lower or higher or whatever, (internet, live sporting events in more cities, more sporting events on TV, Netflix, DVD, etc etc) and this list goes on, then there are all the sequels etc etc.

I just don't see from a marketing standpoint how reporting butts in the seats would help benefit any of the owners, employees or vendors who work in the industry who are on this forum.

And nobody who I know of who is an average person who goes to movies has ever mentioned how a movie today stacks up against the box office from 30 or 40 years ago. I don't think they really care.

quote:
What happened to the 3D discussion? [Confused]

-Claude
Claude, do you yourself watch all the movies you want to see in 3D if available or do you skip some of them and select a 2D presentation?
 
Posted by Manny Montes (Member # 5639) on 02-20-2015, 12:51 AM:
 
quote: Buck Wilson
It may not do ANY good Terry. The point is that it is far more ACCURATE and beyond that, isn't even subject to inflation!

Imagine if we used ticket sales the whole time. Then we would know EXACTLY how "Star Wars" in the 70's stacked up to "50 Shades" this weekend. We wouldn't have to grind the science at it or try to figure the average ticket price or what have you. 50 million tickets sold in 1975 would be 50 million tickets today. It just makes more sense.
Unfortunately ticket sales have the same issue, in 1975 (per your example, the US population was almost 100 million people less than it is today. You could probably break it into a per-capita number, but even then there are a lot of differing factors year to year.

While grosses aren't the best number to judge a movie on, it makes sense for our industry which at the end of the day is all about making money (unless your a non-profit of course!)
 
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-20-2015, 06:36 AM:
 
Exactly. The "honest" numbers are tickets sold as a percentage of population. You need to know how many people could have bought a ticket versus how many people did. If you capture 80% of a smaller population versus 25% of a larger one, it may make the 25% capture seem artificially high when in fact you have left 75% of the potential sales on the table.

Claude...the thread has gone in yet another dimension! [Wink]
 
Posted by Allan Young (Member # 6332) on 02-20-2015, 08:12 AM:
 
quote: Buck Wilson
Imagine if we used ticket sales the whole time. Then we would know EXACTLY how "Star Wars" in the 70's stacked up to "50 Shades" this weekend. We wouldn't have to grind the science at it or try to figure the average ticket price or what have you. 50 million tickets sold in 1975 would be 50 million tickets today. It just makes more sense.
Indeed. It's what the French do.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-20-2015, 09:31 AM:
 
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I just don't see from a marketing standpoint how reporting butts in the seats would help benefit any of the owners, employees or vendors who work in the industry who are on this forum.
Yes you do see the point, Terry. You're just deliberately being ignorant and argumentative.

Theater operators will only benefit from knowing actual attendance figures. They can balance those numbers against the dollar figures colored by ticket price inflation. Attendance figures can be balanced against the specific movies showing at that time as well as other factors like economic conditions. All of that data can give theater operators a better educated idea of where business is trending.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
And nobody who I know of who is an average person who goes to movies has ever mentioned how a movie today stacks up against the box office from 30 or 40 years ago. I don't think they really care.
Do you honestly think anyone gives a shit when the talking heads on Good Morning America talk about some new movie setting a new box office record for a particular opening weekend? When it comes to the ADHD-afflicted press, they only seem to care about opening weekend. They rarely check back to report an overall dollar gross as the movie is winding down its theatrical run. Maybe this is by design. All of the major broadcast networks in the United States are part of global media companies who also own major American movie studios.

quote: Manny Montes
Unfortunately ticket sales have the same issue, in 1975 (per your example, the US population was almost 100 million people less than it is today. You could probably break it into a per-capita number, but even then there are a lot of differing factors year to year.
Yes, the United States has 318 million people now versus 226 million people back in 1980. The larger population now might skew attendance figures higher for more recent movies versus those released 30 years ago. However, the situation might balance out in a different direction since we have so many more entertainment options now than we did back in 1980. There's more ways to see a movie and you don't have to wait long at all to see a new movie at home.

quote: Steve Guttag
Exactly. The "honest" numbers are tickets sold as a percentage of population. You need to know how many people could have bought a ticket versus how many people did. If you capture 80% of a smaller population versus 25% of a larger one, it may make the 25% capture seem artificially high when in fact you have left 75% of the potential sales on the table.
If one is going to dig deeper into that area, percentages of population won't provide a very accurate figure when plotted over time. Changing income demographics and economic conditions are going to skew those numbers from year to year.

Nevertheless, if movie theater chains and movie studios were publishing actual attendance figures it would be pretty simple for anyone to look up census figures to get a percentage of population.

It's far more complicated trying to determine just how truly popular a movie is by crude dollar gross figures alone. Ticket price inflation as well as huge price differences between various movie theaters distort the actual truth.
 
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 02-20-2015, 10:04 AM:
 
quote: Allan Young
Indeed. It's what the French do.
Nice find!

Below is what looks like a fanboy site reporting the actual ticket stubs:

http://mrob.com/pub/film-video/topadj.html
 
Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 02-20-2015, 10:30 AM:
 
Or this wikipedia site for the USA and Canada.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-20-2015, 11:54 AM:
 
Really, comparing attendance figures to long-ago times is pointless because circumstances have changed too much. It's probably only sensible to compare in maybe a 3 year range, if that. Just think of the amount of change just in the last 5 - 10 years in the number of people with broadband internet, just to give one example.

Comparing these figures is fun for digit-heads like myself, but you can't allow yourself to get all bummed about the fact that "Gone With The Wind" sold ten times as many tickets as some of today's blockbusters. It is just a fact that there was not much else to do in the evenings in 1939 -- everybody went to the movies.
 
Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 02-20-2015, 12:58 PM:
 
There is also the related issue that in decades gone by, it was more common to see a movie in a theatre multiple times. Yes, it still happens from time to time, Titanic and Avatar come to mind, but for most films people wait for it to become available on DVD/Streaming if they want to see the film again.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-20-2015, 01:01 PM:
 
Yeah just imagine the amount of money the studios are leaving on the table with the 90 day video window. (Maybe the thread will go another direction now!)
 
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 02-20-2015, 01:27 PM:
 
quote: Mitchell Dvoskin
There is also the related issue that in decades gone by, it was more common to see a movie in a theatre multiple times.
Part of the reason for this was because movie theatres were the only real choice to watch a movie again. Because there are now so many options for watching movies outside the theatre, it's easy to forget that it's only been a little more than 30 years since we've had the option to watch movies whenever we wanted. Before home video, you had to watch it in the theatre. And movies could inflate their lifetime gross by having multiple re-releases.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-20-2015, 01:35 PM:
 
Not long after we bought the Roxy in 1979 we had an open time slot in the calendar, so we decided to bring back the movie "Slap Shot" because it was one of our favorites and a lot of our friends liked it too. It was 2 years old at the time. The print we got was in good shape considering the age of the movie, and we did almost the same kind of business we would have with a much newer movie. And paid $75 for film rent.
 
Posted by Andrew Thomas (Member # 7000) on 02-20-2015, 02:04 PM:
 
The studios will always use dollar figures because it's all about marketing. Having an easy way to guarantee records keep getting broken is fantastic for generating hype.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-20-2015, 03:29 PM:
 
Generating hype by way of dollar gross figures is only good for people with little knowledge of film history is just short term memories in general.

Today it wouldn't make much for "Space Pumpkins: Part VII" to outdo the opening weekend gross for Star Wars or Titanic. It's a common occurrence for the press to be spouting crap like, "biggest May weekend opening ever" for some sequel that actually ends up being pretty forgettable years later compared to the classics it supposedly beat.
 
Posted by Andrew Thomas (Member # 7000) on 02-20-2015, 05:30 PM:
 
So what your saying is that they are generating hype by using a system that works on 99% of the population [Wink]
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-20-2015, 05:54 PM:
 
In the advertising game it's what they call "puffery." Blowing something up to be something it's not, just for the sake of sales. It's been going on since the beginning of time. Hell when they installed the Scope screen in my theater they advertised it as presenting "three dimensional" type pictures which was totally a big lie.
 
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 02-20-2015, 11:58 PM:
 
quote: Mike Blakesley
In the advertising game it's what they call "puffery." Blowing something up to be something it's not, just for the sake of sales. It's been going on since the beginning of time.
So when American Sniper stunned everyone with its opening for January and then Fifty Shades of Grey equally stunned with its February opening, its not something that should discussed or reported in the news?

quote:
So what your saying is that they are generating hype by using a system that works on 99% of the population [Wink]
The 99% don't care what happened 20 or 30 years ago compared to today. Its really not relevant, we live in the "now" and if the weekly box office numbers are reported the current way and they get people into the theater, then so be it.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-21-2015, 12:49 AM:
 
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
So when American Sniper stunned everyone with its opening for January and then Fifty Shades of Grey equally stunned with its February opening, its not something that should discussed or reported in the news?
It's different because it's unusal to have big openings in the late winter, thus worthy of the news. Plus American Sniper is a cultural phenomenon this country, which added to its newsworthiness.
 
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 02-21-2015, 01:19 AM:
 
With American Sniper, it was a story because it did so much better than any previous January release - even adjusted for inflation. It wasn't the actual dollar figure that mattered, it was that it was so popular in a month which doesn't normally have big hits.

On the other hand, holding up Fifty Shades as the top February opening is misleading. Sure, the $85 million opening is impressive. But not nearly as impressive as the $83 million for Passion of the Christ 11 years earlier.

The Fifty Shades example is what Mike was talking about. Sure it's technically a record, but it's meaningless without the proper context. And becomes less impressive when put into context.

Along the same lines, compare the $85 million opening for Fifty Shades with the $55 million for SpongeBob. Did SpongeBob really have 35% less attendance than Fifty Shades? The answer is probably not. Fifty Shades was more of an evening movie, and likely sold significantly fewer matinee tickets than SpongeBob, while SpongeBob likely did much less business in the evening than Fifty Shades. And then 3D premiums for SpongeBob change the equation again. Comparing American Sniper and Fifty Shades is another interesting example because Sniper had a higher percentage of matinee and senior admission than Fifty Shades.

Again, when movies have a big opening weekend, it is news worthy. If for no other reason than because it's going to be a popular topic of discussion. But the dollar figure is not what's news worthy; it's the fact the movie was so popular. The dollar figure only matters because it does provide some sort of yardstick to say how popular it was - even if the yardstick is imprecise and relatively meaningless to the layperson.
 
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 02-21-2015, 10:33 AM:
 
quote: Justin Hamaker
Along the same lines, compare the $85 million opening for Fifty Shades with the $55 million for SpongeBob. Did SpongeBob really have 35% less attendance than Fifty Shades? The answer is probably not. Fifty Shades was more of an evening movie, and likely sold significantly fewer matinee tickets than SpongeBob, while SpongeBob likely did much less business in the evening than Fifty Shades. And then 3D premiums for SpongeBob change the equation again. Comparing American Sniper and Fifty Shades is another interesting example because Sniper had a higher percentage of matinee and senior admission than Fifty Shades.
Wow haven't you analyzed it to death. But you forgot to mention that Spongebob is a kids movie and not an adult movie, so there will be a lot more kids admissions compared to the adult tickets. The 3D premiums are all off-set by the Fifty Shades of Grey PLF and IMAX surcharges. They will balance themselves out.

But then again Joe Public is not sitting there saying to Jill Public "Honey lets not see Fifty Shades of Grey tonight because we were mislead"...."Spongebob is really the more popular film as more people actually went to see the movie than Fifty Shades, you know Spongebob had cheaper tickets, 3-D surcharges, matinee prices, honey wanna see Spongebob tonight?"
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-21-2015, 05:02 PM:
 
I can definitely say that I've had customers come out after some movies saying things like, "Wow I can't believe that thing did $82 million dollars, it sucked!"
 
Posted by Manny Montes (Member # 5639) on 02-24-2015, 01:58 AM:
 
To be honest with you, I hope we can look back every year and talk about how XYZ movie blew it out of the park. I'm glad Sniper and 50 Shades are being talked about and did well (besides not liking the actual product) because i'm hoping that it shows studios that you can release a good product in any month and people will go see it. The summer season alone has been too crammed recently, so it will be nice to have a full 12 month calendar hopefully [Smile]
 
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 02-24-2015, 05:26 AM:
 
quote: Manny Montes
The summer season alone has been too crammed recently, so it will be nice to have a full 12 month calendar hopefully.
Good luck with that! I've been saying that for decades now. The problem is that a February release doesn't line up at all with Holiday DVD/Blue-ray sales due to the ridiculously small windows.

Technically, I guess American Sniper was a Holiday release.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-24-2015, 11:46 AM:
 
Sniper didn't go "wide" until January 16 so for the purposes of release date arguments it's probably considered a January release.

It's hilarious how every single time a movie "breaks out" into a hit in the off months, the industry reacts with wonderment that "people will go to a good movie anytime!!" and then they continue to cram everything into the summer and Christmas.

I can sort of see it, though -- in one article I read, a studio guy says "If you put out a movie in February and it hits, you look like a genius, but if it flops, you might get blamed for the flop because you released it in the off season." So decision makers are just covering their backs.
 
Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 02-24-2015, 12:09 PM:
 
Of course, the other reason for Decemberish releases is Oscar bait. They believe, perhaps justifiably, that Academy Member have the memory span of a fruit fly.

I'm sure someone somewhere is already arguing Boyhood would have won if it was released in November instead of whenever it was (and made a ton of money).

Of course, all of the other movies nominated that were released late lost, also, but no one wants to count those.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-24-2015, 01:20 PM:
 
American Sniper was definitely a holiday, Oscar-bait release. The marketing push for it started up in the fall. It, like so many other Oscar-bait movies, was released in a few big city theaters before year's end to qualify for the Oscar ballot. I do not consider it a pure January release.

The two big seasons for movie releases, Summer for big budget spectacles and the Holidays for Oscar-bait, are contemporary phenomenon. Decades ago it wasn't nearly as important to release a new movie during a certain season regardless whether it was intended to be a crowd-pleasing spectacle or high brow picture to please critics and Oscar voters.

In 1970, M*A*S*H and Patton were both big hits and critically acclaimed. M*A*S*H premiered on Jan. 25 and later went wide in March. Patton had its premiere on Feb. 4 and then went wide in April. Both movies won Oscars in the awards ceremony held a year later in 1971, including a Best Picture Oscar for Patton.

In the long run Silence of the Lambs will probably still rank as one of the most well known and well acclaimed Valentine's Day movie releases of all time. It was released Feb. 14, 1991. A year later it swept the major categories at the Academy Awards show, winning Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor and Best Actress. Not many movies have done that. A decade from now Silence of the Lambs will still be remembered while 50 Shades of Grey may just be a forgotten blip on the movie history radar screen.
 
Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 02-24-2015, 01:32 PM:
 
> M*A*S*H premiered on Jan. 25 and later went wide in March. Patton had its premiere on Feb. 4 and then went wide in April.

In 2015, both those films would have gone to DVD/Bluray/Streaming around the time they would have gone wide back in 1970, and only vaguely remembered by Academy members by December. Fruit flies do indeed have better memories.
 
Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 02-24-2015, 01:56 PM:
 
The whole idea of going wide, especially in summer, is strictly a post-Jaws phenom, cemented by Star Wars.

Was looking at a 1920' Film Daily and they were writing about the widest release ever - 300 (hundred) prints. In those days, it could take a year for a film to make it to the smaller out posts. And, of course, summer was the dead season since so many houses closed for the summer.

It's the Studio's world, they only let us show movies in it.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-24-2015, 02:43 PM:
 
quote: Martin McCaffery
In those days, it could take a year for a film to make it to the smaller out posts.
A year? When I first started projecting it was sometimes up to 18 months or more to wait for a big movie. My favorite example in our place was Jaws - it came out in June of 1975, and we didn't play it until December of 1976. At that time, we were playing two changes a week. We kept Jaws for a full week and it did great, even though it was a year and a half old.

To be fair, our owner then was somewhat of a cheapskate and had instructed the booker to hold off until terms were 35% or 40%, so we might have gotten it sooner if I'd been in charge! [Big Grin] Soon as we bought the place (1979), we told the booker that we wanted to play as "hot" as possible, film rent be damned. I still operate on that philosophy.
 
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 02-24-2015, 05:08 PM:
 
quote: Mike Blakesley
"If you put out a movie in February and it hits, you look like a genius, but if it flops, you might get blamed for the flop because you released it in the off season."
That's just flawed thinking. A good movie is going to be a hit no matter when it's released. It may not be as big of a hit if it's released outside of a peaks season, but it will still be a hit.

I'm actually excited that when Universal moved Furious 7 out of July 2014, they put it in April. This will help boost a normally quiet month.

There is probably more upside with releasing a marginal movie outside the peak periods when the market isn't so crowded with bit hits. We went over this a couple years ago when Pacific Rim and a few other films failed to find an audience in the summer season.
 
Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 02-24-2015, 09:35 PM:
 
And keep in mind "hit" and "Academy Award Winning" are rarely the same thing.
 
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 02-24-2015, 10:47 PM:
 
quote: Justin Hamaker
That's just flawed thinking. A good movie is going to be a hit no matter when it's released. It may not be as big of a hit if it's released outside of a peaks season, but it will still be a hit.
That is not true at all, there a lot of "good" movies that would not be considered a hit.

Fifty Shades of Grey was hit movie because it had a huge book audience built in, the book series has sold over 100 millions combined. So that is going to translate into big money at the box office. Add in Valentine's Day and the lack of a female based "mommy porn" in a long time and you will have a huge opening.

American Sniper on the other hand is an absolute monster mega hit movie that came out at the right time just after Christmas. It had a very effective trailer and there had been a absence of serious adult type movies during the Holiday season compared to the year before where you had American Hustle, Wolf of Wall Street, etc etc. Nobody could of predicted the $320 million so far in box office from a Clint Eastwood movie (who has been pumping out crap since his last good movie Gran Torino).

quote:
We kept Jaws for a full week and it did great,
Have you even kept a movie past a full week?
 
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 02-25-2015, 02:19 AM:
 
Terry, "Good" is a subjective term. You may not care about Fifty Shades, but that doesn't mean it's not a "good" movie in the eyes of the target audience. And such a movie would have done well any time of the year. Same things applies to a Fast and Furious Movie, or an Avengers movie.

We have already established that "good" as measured by film critics or Academy voters is not necessarily the same thing as "good" as measured by the general movie going public. But, you already knew I meant this and felt the need to disagree anyways.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-25-2015, 12:40 PM:
 
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Have you even kept a movie past a full week?
Of course, we frequently play movies longer than a week. Anytime we open something on the break it's always at least two weeks, sometimes three. We played American Sniper for 2 weeks and could have gotten a third week out of it, even though it wasn't on the break. We played the Avengers movie for 3 weeks and it would have run another week, but there was too many other movies piling up that we needed to play.

The most recent 3-week movie we had was "Mockingjay Part 1."
 
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 07-05-2015, 07:36 PM:
 
Looking at a couple recent 3D releases.

Inside Out 2D vs 3D: about 4.5-1 in favor of 2D.

Jurassic World: about 5-3 in favor of 2D. 3D is actually slightly higher in week 4 (dollars not attendance).

San Andreas: about 3.8-1 in favor of 2D.

Terminator Genisys first 5 days: about 4-1 in favor of 2D.

Avengers: Age of Ultron: about 4-1 in favor of 2D.

Home: about 9:1 in favor of 2D. We dropped 3D quickly due to the disparity.

Divergent: Insurgent: about 6-1 in favor of 3D.

To a certain extent these numbers are not equal comparisons because we are not offering a full screen schedule of both 2D and 3D. However, consumers are showing a clear preferences for 2D over 3D. Jurassic World sort of becomes the exception that proves the rule - specifically that 3D is a viable option for movies where it enhances the overall experience, but probably not worthwhile for most movies.
 
Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 07-05-2015, 08:24 PM:
 
^ the standout from the above mentioned list is 'Inside Out' Pixar's best and most underrated 3D presentation.

'Terminator Genisys' also has a good 3D - sadly the movie sucks donkey balls.
 




Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2