Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Journey to the Center of the Earth shows that 3D is the Future of Exhibition

This is topic Journey to the Center of the Earth shows that 3D is the Future of Exhibition in forum Film-Yak 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=8;t=005533

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 07-13-2008, 04:17 PM:

I'm sure we will see some Real-D press release saying something to the effect of "3D runs averaged three times the gross of 2D runs".

Of course they won't mention that the opening weekend was only $20 Million. If 3D was going to be the savior of the industry and get people to the theaters then you would think that this would open bigger than an old fashioned 2D movie like the cinematic achievement "You Don't Mess With the Zohan". It didn't open that much higher than Love Guru (another old technology film).

But Real-D and their allies will keep throwing out stats about how much higher the per screen average was for 3D. What they won't point out is that if all the runs were 3D just about the same number of people would have gone to see it.

Of course if the same movie is showing in 3D and 2D at the same complex more people will choose to see it in 3D but they were going to see it anyway.

Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 07-13-2008, 05:21 PM:

Plus, I bet that most theaters charge a premium for 3D. We do, just to offset the cost of the disposable glasses, but I bet that extra $2 a ticket is still getting calculated into the grosses.

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 07-13-2008, 07:24 PM:

Warren Theatres was charging a $3 premium, but had a STAFF of 3 standing at the theatre entrance seemingly full-time handling glasses. They were there when I went into "Hellboy", they were still there when I left "Hellboy".

I don't see the cost-to-benefit ratio for the industry here, especially in a business that splits the box office with the motion picture company.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-13-2008, 07:45 PM:

And thus far...they have not offered a film 3-D simultaneously with Digital 3D to see if it is digital or 3D that is the draw. Film 3D is FAR cheaper than digital 3D....first off...no "parnters" like Real-D in your profits.

If the 3D folks really wanted to saturate the market...they'd offer it in film as well as digital.

Steve

Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 07-13-2008, 08:25 PM:

There is a cost benefit to most 3D systems - I've run the numbers to compare several different ones - even with labor to collect and clean reusable glasses there is a 3-5 year payback on the investment (including factoring in attrition for the glasses supply). The problem could come in if/when we stop charging a premium for 3D shows.

In our case we charge $2 extra, not for the glasses but to recoup our investment costs.

So far the only 3D product that has done really good business was Hannah Montana - and that did well per theatre mostly due to the limited number of 3D screens out there (and the initial limited timeframe). Journey 3D at one of our locations is doing almost 4 times the business as the 2D version and on Saturday almost matched Hellboy's attendance (for the weekend so far Journey 3D is at about 3/4 the attendance of Hellboy).

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-13-2008, 09:40 PM:

I'm curious...on these surcharges...do the studios pass on these $2 surcharges and allow you (and Real-D) keep that for yourselves or is that also part of the regular studio split? If it is not part of the studio split...do they know you are not including it in their share?

Steve

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-13-2008, 09:52 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
I'm curious...on these surcharges...do the studios pass on these $2 surcharges and allow you (and Real-D) keep that for yourselves or is that also part of the regular studio split? If it is not part of the studio split...do they know you are not including it in their share?

All the theaters here keep the surcharge. Its to cover the cost of purchasing and handling the glasses and operating larger lamps. The studios are also wanting to move away from supplying any glasses to exhibition. Distribution has never questioned any of our customers but I think if they started charging something like 5 bucks it would definately be questioned.

quote: Steve Guttag
If the 3D folks really wanted to saturate the market...they'd offer it in film as well as digital.

That's wishful thinking... I'd say only about 10% of the theaters out there could properly set up and operate film based 3-D. We'd be right back to the crappy 3-D stuff we all went through in the late 70's and 80's. Digital 3-D is also about to take a huge step forword in improvement with the introduction this September of 1.2" DMD devices that will triple flash at full frame. Except for high end film dual projector 3-D systems I have yet to see a side by side or over/under system that comes close to the 3-D quality that digital is actually capable of. Once the new full frame 1.2" DMD's become available we should also see an increase in image size and gradual brightness increases in digital 3-D systems. Colors for digital 3-D can indeed be mixed for any higher light level. Then there is always stacked digital projection for which a couple of servers already have studio blessing.

Mark

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-13-2008, 10:12 PM:

Here's a clip from boxofficeguru.com:

quote:
The New Line/Warner Bros. film launched in 2,811 theaters and averaged a solid $7,321 per site. However, the grosses from 3D and traditional 2D theaters were like night and day. A whopping 70% of the total venues did not have equipment to offer the film in 3D and those theaters averaged only about $2,000 each. But the 854 sites that did screen the PG-rated film in 3D averaged close to $20,000 per playdate and accounted for more than 80% of the weekend business. Most of those charged higher ticket prices too which helped to boost the grosses.

Of course they (and all the other "experts") will totally ignore the fact that this movie wouldn't even exist if not for the 3-D "feature."

Interesting that the studios allow the exhibs to keep 100% of the equipment surcharge, yet it's still counted as part of the gross reported to the media. Maybe we should add the popcorn sales to the gross too, then.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 07-13-2008, 10:21 PM:

What would be the preferred (realistic) method for distributing film-based 3D now? Is 2-strip viable on a large scale, or would it be more likely to be under/over or side-by-side?

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-13-2008, 10:26 PM:

Hmmmm....10% of 37000 screens in the US is 3700 screens...more than are Digital 3D!

The fact remains...if you were to offer film 3D, you have similar if not identical gross differences for these movies but spend MUCH less. An over/under lens is less than the 1st installment of Real-D...the screen cost is the same and the projectors are, of couse, already installed so that is cheaper than replacing it with digital.

Scott....If the rational for film based 3D is one of cost...then an over-under system would make the most sense. It costs no more to duplicate a release print in 3D than 2D and the exhibitor would only need a lens and screen...as opposed to a second projector and platter which would substantially increase the cost of implimentation for what will amount to a small percentage of business and what some (myself included) believe will be a fad that goes away. Then again, the second machine(s) could then be moved to other locations after the fad fades away, again.

Now if you are a venue like the AFI/Silver (extremely few in the world) you could do a 3-D dual strip changeover (they have four projectors and each pair can run in locked frame sync...both the EMK-1 automations and the Crestron programming allow for 3D changeovers).

Steve

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 07-14-2008, 07:42 AM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
All the theaters here keep the surcharge. Its to cover the cost of purchasing and handling the glasses and operating larger lamps. The studios are also wanting to move away from supplying any glasses to exhibition. Distribution has never questioned any of our customers but I think if they started charging something like 5 bucks it would definately be questioned.

Do any of your customers have Dolby 3D? Warner sent out an addendum for Journey targeting Dolby 3D theaters stating that the 3D surcharge is part of the admission price and must be reported. Real-D you get to keep your half I guess.

That Boxoffice Mojo article is exactly what I'm talking about. If all the runs were 3D, the thing would have grossed the exact same (well slightly more if they're including the surcharge). Very few people went to see this BECAUSE it's in 3D. They just chose 3D over 2D if they were going anyway and had the option.

So far, Hannah Montana is the only thing that did a huge 3D only gross. I can guarantee you that it would have done just as well if it was a 2D release (probably better because they would have had more runs). Hannah Montana did so well becuase of the insane popularity at the time. People were paying a flat $15+ per ticket no matter the age or time of day.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-14-2008, 08:13 AM:

quote: Steve Guttag
The fact remains...if you were to offer film 3D, you have similar if not identical gross differences for these movies but spend MUCH less.

Yes, and the fact remains that the overall quality would be much, much lower... and the fact remains from the first round in the 70's/80's that it would again give film based 3-D the bad reputation it deserves. Perhaps this time around the better system is being prefered by the studios over larger quantity-lower quality systems.

Do any of your customers have Dolby 3D? Warner sent out an addendum for Journey targeting Dolby 3D theaters stating that the 3D surcharge is part of the admission price and must be reported. Real-D you get to keep your half I guess.

We have many installations of both Dolby and Real-D here in SLC.

Mark

Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 07-14-2008, 08:51 AM:

It is my understanding (via my booker, who books 3D theatres) that the studios do get their percentage of the 3D surcharge, reguardless of format. And, depending on your deal with RealD, RealD may also get a chunk of the surcharge, but not the regular admission price.

Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 07-14-2008, 09:39 AM:

My understanding of the surcharge is that we pay $1 to Real D for every pair of glasses/admission ticket sold and $1 to WB for each pair of glasses above and beyond our ticket sales not returned. I don't know whether any of the tiny amount of additional revenue is included in the studio split.

The problem comes when it is necessary to give out a pair of glasses that haven't been paid for, ie children under 2, who are free, or in our case, we have a party room for children's parties, and the groups are largely unreasonable. We had one woman who apparently lost a half dozen glasses and then demanded free replacements (although we don't have a mechanism for paying for replacements yet, so I don't know what else could have been done). Also, what happens when employees get free tickets, or when projection staff screens the movie before opening? Lost money, that's what.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 07-14-2008, 10:34 AM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Perhaps this time around the better system is being prefered by the studios over larger quantity-lower quality systems.

Now if we could only get the eyes in sync. Of course you need two digital projectors for that too. Or maybe an over/under digital system would be good.

Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 07-14-2008, 10:37 AM:

We actually add a $2 surcharge to passes and pre-paid tickets - if a customer wants to use a pass or discount ticket they must pay the extra $2, allowances are given to certain pass types. The explanation is that a pass or prepaid ticket covers a normal admission, not the special 3D ticket.

I think WB is worried more about giving away too many glasses -- I would hope they wouldn't care if there were a small percentage that were given out or "they came in damaged".

Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 07-14-2008, 01:39 PM:

By the way David, do you have Real D or Dolby? I am interested in seeing it in Dolby to compare any difference, if I can find enough caffeine to stay awake through a second viewing of this monstrosity.

Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 07-14-2008, 03:45 PM:

Ours are RealD too - I was hoping that maybe you had Dolby so we could compare . . . . . . I saw some Dolby content at a ShoWest demo and the 3D effect seems about the same - the glasses cost and the labor required was a turn off for us buying Dolby (as well as not being DoReMi compatible yet).

By my calculations RealD is the quickest to profit of the availalble 3D systems, although beyond 5 years the others start to catch up (but this depends on how many yearly releases come out in 3D) . . . . . but then when you look at multiple screens RealD bounces back and scales to multiple screens cheaper than the others.

Posted by Tristan Lane (Member # 1169) on 07-14-2008, 11:03 PM:

Mark,

I was just going to ask why RealD hasn't adapted their technology to 35mm, and then realized that running at 1/3rd the frame rate would certainly amplify the effect that you notice in digital 3D.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 07-15-2008, 07:37 AM:

35mm projectors with three blade shutters project images at 1/3 frame rate.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-15-2008, 07:45 AM:

quote: Mark J. Marshall
Now if we could only get the eyes in sync. Of course you need two digital projectors for that too. Or maybe an over/under digital system would be good.

That is right around the corner. The Doremi and at least one other server have the studio's blessing to do two projector 3-D.

quote: Tristan Lane
I was just going to ask why RealD hasn't adapted their technology to 35mm, and then realized that running at 1/3rd the frame rate would certainly amplify the effect that you notice in digital 3D.

The real answer is because the studios and the technology companies are not going to invest in obsolete filum technology.

quote: Mark J. Marshall
35mm projectors with three blade shutters project images at 1/3 frame rate.

The dark time for triple flash is very critical and if memory serves me is only around 50us. Let all design a film projector er I mean film shredder with 50us pull down [Cool]

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 07-15-2008, 08:13 AM:

I told you this was coming....

3D is going to save the plantet and cure cancer

quote:
Journey to the Center of the Earth Wins on RealD 3D Screens: RealD 3D Brings in 55% of Estimated $21.02M Weekend

3D Screens over 3.7X Revenue of 2D Screens

RealD 3D, the world’s leading 3D experience, brought in 55% of the total box office for Warner Bros. Pictures/New Line Cinema’s Journey to the Center of the Earth, which earned an estimated $21.02M in its opening weekend.

“We are ecstatic with the performance of Journey to the Center of the Earth in 3D. The success of this film is propelling 3D to new heights and RealD has been a great partner and once again proven its power at the box office,” said Dan Fellman, President of Warner Bros. Distribution.

Michael Lewis, CEO RealD said, “This is a fantastic success for our colleagues at Warner Bros. and for our exhibitor partners with RealD 3D theaters. Journey to the Center of the Earth in RealD 3D took in an amazing and unprecedented 3.7 times the revenue of the 2D screens. It’s clear that audiences sought out the premium RealD 3D experience to enjoy this great summer movie. With over 5,500 RealD 3D screens committed to be installed in approximately the next two years, RealD has quickly established itself as a force in contemporary filmmaking and exhibition.”

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-15-2008, 09:40 AM:

quote:
It’s clear that audiences sought out the premium RealD 3D experience to enjoy this great summer movie.

Why are the powers that be so stupid? First, in many complexes the movie is probably playing ONLY in 3-D. Second, the target audience of this film would want to seek it out in Three Dee because that's the main attraction of this movie.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 07-15-2008, 11:45 AM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
The Doremi and at least one other server have the studio's blessing to do two projector 3-D.

WOOHOO! Let me know when THAT is up and running! [Big Grin]

I know some folks do that already though. How do they do it now?

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 07-15-2008, 02:32 PM:

John Fithian says "you cannot have 3-D without d-cinema"

As I have mentioned before, I tend to get annoyed when reading anything that this guy writes or says, but this comment takes the cake for ignorance. It also isn't really clear to me why he is so eager for the number of [dlp]

installations to increase, since it wouldn't really benefit exhibitors for every screen in the world to be 3D DLP equipped.