Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: 3D is starting to look flat at the box office

This is topic 3D is starting to look flat at the box office 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=005912

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 09-04-2009, 06:46 AM:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2009/07/3d-starting-to-look-flat-at-the-box-office.html

quote:

As more movies play in digital 3-D, there’s evidence that audiences are becoming less interested in the ballyhooed format that many in Hollywood have predicted will stem the long-term erosion of theater attendance.

Box office data for “Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs,” which opened last Wednesday, shows that theaters with at least one screen playing the film in 3-D generated on average, 1.4x as much in ticket sales as those that only showed the picture the old fashioned 2-D way. (A breakdown by individual screens within multiplexes was not available.)

The ratio of grosses in theaters with 3-D screens to those that are 2-D only has declined significantly and fairly consistently since “My Bloody Valentine,” the first film this year to play on a mix of both, suggesting audience interest in the new format is waning.

Here’s how much higher ticket sales were for theaters with 3-D screens compared with theaters with only 2-D screens on the opening weekends for the five major releases so far this year (the numbers are based on studio estimates, as reported by The Times, Boxofficemojo.com and Variety):

“My Bloody Valentine 3-D”: 6.4x
“Coraline”: 3x
“Monsters vs Aliens”: 2.1x
“Up”: 2.2x
“Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs”: 1.4x

Those figures, of course, don't fully represent the financial advantage of 3-D screens compared with 2-D screens, because many theaters feature both; 1,620 of "Ice Age's" 4,099 U.S. and Canadian locations played the film in 3-D, but 1,205 of those also played it in 2-D. Average grosses within those 1,205 probably were dragged down somewhat by their 2-D screens.

Nonetheless, as an apples-to-apples comparison, the decline in 3-D's advantage is significant and curious. It's partially due, no doubt, to the rising number of theaters equipped with 3-D screens. January's "My Bloody Valentine" was in 1,033 of them. By the time "Monsters vs. Aliens" came out in March, there were 1,550. "Ice Age" was on 1,620.

The more theaters with 3-D screens there are in a given region, the more they may split audiences interested in the technology and thus lower their average gross.

It's also possible that as 3-D releases increase in frequency -- "Up" came out four and a half weeks before "Ice Age," "G-Force" follows just three weeks later -- audiences become a little less enchanted by what they get for their extra money. Other upcoming releases using the technology include August's "The Final Destination," September's "Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs," October's re-release of "Toy Story" and "Toy Story 2," November's "A Christmas Carol" and December's "Avatar."

There's certainly no sure evidence that films are consistently doing better as a result of 3-D. While many factors affected the movie's performance, including the Fourth of July falling on a Saturday, it's notable that "Dawn of the Dinosaurs" earned less domestically in its first five days than the 2-D "Ice Age: the Meltdown," grossed its first three days in March of 2006.

And that, of course, is not counting the conviniently forgotten 3D Box office dissasters such as the Jonas Bross or Battle for Terra ($1.6m, $930 per screen) or X games 3D: the movie ($1.3m, $598 per screen).

Sony has also pulled from theatrical release The Dark Country 3D, and sent it straight to home video.

Even the current The Final Destination has had several days in this past week as number 2 in the BO behind the (2D, mind you) Inglorious Basterds.

Also we have to notice how 3D releases usually get the best locations, on the best (and most modern) screens and, because of not every screen is 3D, they do tend to be left on the premium locations for longer, and heavy $$$ put into the promotion of their 3D aspect.

And, needless to say, they charge a premium which on Imax screens can be outregaous and that pumps up the BO numbers w/o it really meaning (much) higher profits for theatres once glasses/lamps/screens etc are paid for. Like I always say: the higher the BO ticket price, the less money patrons have to spend on concessions. And we all know where the exhibition money comes from.

Once the 3D novelty wears out (when all patrons have seen 3 or 4 such films), and "every movie is in 3D" and "every theater is in 3D" ... then we'll see the true color of the Koolaid to those Hollywood's claims that 3D will bring "two, three, four, five times the profits of 2D" ...

Meanwhile, 3D can, at least temporarily, attract more patrons on locations where all the rest of the competition are 2D only, so no doubts in may pay for some.

Hmmm. I also like the points raised by this comment on the above piece:

quote:
Thoughtful article. But, I'm not sure I agree with everything stated.

You do correctly point out that the ratios can be misleading as more Digital 3D screens appear--since they can pull attendance from each other.

But the success of 3D must be measured in "overall" boxoffice across all the 3D cinemas--not by these ratios. Not anymore.

For example, the reason that MY BLOODY VALENTINE sold over six times the tickets per theater in 3D than in 2D was because the movie was really so bad that it had nothing to offer in 2D. I mean, without 3D, what would've been the point of even seeing it? It was "All old and dared again!" in terms of content.

The film's core audience quickly perceived that and went for the sensation of experiencing the visceral thrills "in depth" because that was the only attraction that title had going for it.

It makes a great case for 3D. But it makes a horrible argument that the film, MY BLOODY VALENTINE, was even a good idea to begin with.

One good point the article does make is that this "premium experience fee" of $2 to $4 extra on top of the ticket price is going to wear thin real fast with a recession-bled public. There should only be a $1 to $2 extra charge for the glasses now--period! (They cost far less than that to make now thanks to Real-D's efforts, which lowered the price of circular polarizers.)

The theaters are supposed to recoup the cost of their digital equipment from the "Digital Print Fee" scam--not by sticking even more extra charges upon the movie-going public. Especially not right now!

Why is the "Digital Print Fee" a scam? Because it's really designed (by the majors) to keep the independent distributors off the digital screens by negating the savings of not having to make 35mm prints. And it will never go away. Think about it.

A film projector is relatively inexpensive, requires little maintenance, and doesn't really become obsolete. It's imaging is as good as the quality of 35mm positive print being run through it. But a digital machine (projector, computer, whatever) that you buy on Monday--like any new digitronic technology--will be obsolete on Wednesday. It will require constant upgrading and servicing.

Just wait 'till all this new technology starts breaking-down--especially at the all digital multiplexes.

Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 09-04-2009, 08:58 PM:

3D has come and gone several times over the history of film. At first it's something new, and people will go see it, just to see 3D. The newness goes away over time due to things like, a lot of the 3D films are nothing more than a bunch of the same goofy 3D gags strung together, and having to ware the 3D glasses.

Posted by Michael McGovern (Member # 4807) on 09-04-2009, 10:58 PM:

I agree with everything that both you and the article have to say, but one thing I must refute is that in most theaters, the 3-D equipped auditorium is almost never the best or largest auditorium, for the simple reason that 3-D content has to play in that one specific auditorium, and with most 3-D films having runs lasting 4 or more weeks, you don't want to hold down your largest house with an old film that isn't doing business anymore. Most places I've seen have the 3-D screen in a mid-sized house, usually 200-250 seats.

In general 3-D screens still continue to outperform their 2-D versions, but it's been an increasingly narrow margin as the article says. A lot of it has to do with location, I've seen theaters in affluent areas that kill with their 3-D shows, people who can toss around money like it's going out of style simply don't care. On the other hand I've seen theaters in more urban or even impoverished areas that almost have to beg patrons to see the 3-D version, as 10 or 11 dollars for the matinee and 13 - 15 dollars for the evening is simply not affordable for a lot of people.

I can tell you that last weekend Halloween 2 killed Final Destination as far as ticket sales went, but once you include Final Destination's inflated ticket prices, it ended up grossing more.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-04-2009, 11:31 PM:

And once again we have this stupidness:

quote:
many in Hollywood have predicted will stem the long-term erosion of theater attendance

WHAT LONG-TERM EROSION? Given the amount of entertainment options available to people these days, coupled with the recession, the fact that we are GROWING attendance over the past couple years should be trumpeted. And 3-D has not caused that; the quality of the movies has.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 09-04-2009, 11:36 PM:

Familiarity breeds contempt. 3D comes around every 15-20 years and the same thing happens every time. As Bruce said, it does killer business for a few years and then people grow tired of it. A big reason is audiences just don't like wearing the glasses.

Btw, Bruce... I saw your name in "Halloween 2". I noticed a lot of video playback on that show [Wink]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-04-2009, 11:38 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
And 3-D has not caused that; the quality of the movies has.

So the lower the quality of the movies, the more attendance grows? That is the only thing I can rationalize from that statement, as most movies sure have sucked the big one in the past few years.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-05-2009, 12:24 AM:

I will be the first to agree with you that the movies haven't been the greatest this year. Still, folks are coming out, so the studios must be doing something right as far as the moviegoing public is concerned.

I just don't see where the media keeps getting this "declining attendance" crap. I think they're getting their facts from data published in 2003 or something.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-05-2009, 01:43 AM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
Still, folks are coming out, so the studios must be doing something right as far as the moviegoing public is concerned.

Yeah, marketing. People enjoy getting hyped up over things that are forthcoming. With the right marketing you get people slobbering to see junk like Transformers 2.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-05-2009, 02:08 AM:

Well, summer hasn't been about GOOD movies for quite a while (with the rare exception of course).

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-05-2009, 02:26 AM:

Or maybe television has gotten so bad that people are dying to get out and see anything.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 09-05-2009, 04:03 AM:

There are just so many unknown variables with 3D that it's difficult to quantify whether it really is a big deal.

My Bloody Valentine and Final Destination 4 were really meant to be watched in 3D and were not worth seeing otherwise - hence the very small gross in 2D locations.

In the case of Ice Age 3, it's fairly clear that people were just not as interested as they were in the first two Ice Age movies. And this seems to apply to the 2D or 3D. While the total gross is almost equal with the second movie, I'm left to wonder how much less it would be without the 3D premium. I won't go into comparisons of the opening weekend because the second and third opened in different time frames.

What I think will be a good test for the long term viability of 3D is to see how some of the 3D only re-releases fair - starting with Toy Story and Toy Story 2 next month (and Beauty and the Beast in February). If those put up strong numbers, then there might be some hope for the longevity of 3D.

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 09-05-2009, 06:26 AM:

I welcome 3D as an additional entertainment option and, why not, a MODEST profit maker for both, hollywood and exhibitors.

My only objection is to the notion that 3D movies will, somehow, bring much, much, much, much (they talk 4, 5, 6, 7 times more) patrons/business/profits than 2D.

That's my objection, as that's a lie, marketing hype to get small exhibitors that don't get offered VPF to convert to digital at their own expense and to bring profit to intermediaries like RealD. Profit that, if anything, should remain with the exhibitors.

Having to pony-up $100k to be able to do 3D and thus make money for RealD and for some producers of inferior horror-products that otherwise, sans the 3D, would make considerably less ... is a lot to ask for.

People will watch good (or just plain entertaining) movies on their own, 3D or not 3D. There are a few movies that, if made "only" for the 3D or are very "spectacular" could be worth the extra $2 to be watched in 3D. But those $2 must pay for glasses, lamps, studio cuts, etc, plus if patrons have $2 less in their pocket after they leave the boxoffice they may skimp $2 at the concession stand or even just refuse to come in at all if they are a large family.

So anyway. In 2 words:

3D=yes, why not?
3D=huge profits for exhibitors? No! At least in the long run.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 09-05-2009, 08:51 AM:

Looking at 3D per screen average doesn't mean much as an exhibitor. What matters is what your gross would be if you don't have 3D and the competition does. On a lot of the 3D releases, you might as well play Gone With the Wind in reissue than Final Destination in 2D when there's a 3D date within easy driving distance.

Making the 3D investement is more about maintaining the customer base than it is having a revenue increase.

I think in the not-so-distant future, all the CGI animated stuff will get thrown out in 3D but other than the gimicky horror genre I don't think there's ever going to be a push for a bunch of live action 3D. Maybe Jurassic Park 17 or something for the novelty.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-05-2009, 09:33 AM:

quote: Justin Hamaker
In the case of Ice Age 3, it's fairly clear that people were just not as interested as they were in the first two Ice Age movies. And this seems to apply to the 2D or 3D. While the total gross is almost equal with the second movie, I'm left to wonder how much less it would be without the 3D premium.

Who knows - it might have been MORE without 3-D. Think of how many recession-strapped parents just decided to skip the movie altogether because they didn't want to pay the premium (or, in some places, maybe there wasn't a 2-D option).

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-05-2009, 10:49 AM:

Depending on the age and the particular child, they WON'T wear the glasses. So I could see "3D" as "Don't come here" sign. I know my 3.75-year old will not wear the glasses yet so we have to seek out the 2D options for him.

Steve

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 09-05-2009, 01:03 PM:

We're starting an interesting "fad" over here: At my discount house and another house that just went discount in our tiny circuit, is to add the NEC 1600 model along with "Real D" and begin the $4.00, 3D movieviewing experience - being that our regular admits are $2.00 a seat.

Tons cheaper than the $13.00 viewing price for a new 3D movie ... just that the patrons have to wait a few months until the new flicks become available for discount releases.

-Monte

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 09-05-2009, 01:57 PM:

Or Regal will hold those pictures forever and you may never get them once they catch onto what you are up to.

Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 09-05-2009, 02:12 PM:

Mark, if a first run for some reason holds a movie into the second run release, are you saying that it can't be booked in second run in that market? Since the studios only goal is to make money (even if they seem to do a poor job of it sometimes), that would seem counter intuitive, because it would prevent the incremental revenue from a second run release, while not raising any revenue from the first run, since they will be selling an average of 0 tickets per show more than two months into the run.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-05-2009, 02:19 PM:

Studios usually have a sub-run availability date in mind from the get-go. Mark's scenario would work if there were no prints available, but if there are prints, I think they would book'em wherever they can (provided there aren't any non-compete agreements in place with the chain involved).

quote: Galen Murphy-Fahlgren
Since the studios only goal is to make money

As is the goal of every other for-profit business. Why is that bad?

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 09-06-2009, 07:16 PM:

OMG 3D! OMG Cinerama! OMG CinemaScope! OMG TV! OMG Color!

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 09-07-2009, 04:59 AM:

I still have my faith on Smell-o-vision and Sex-surround to save the industry.

And cinerama for premiun houses, of course.

Otherwise, I think color and cinemascope are going to dissapear. And 3D will be replaced with 4 or 5 D.

But 4 channel magnetic sound will for sure rule forever.

Posted by Jake Spell (Member # 5294) on 09-07-2009, 10:29 AM:

Was Cinerama ever in 3-D?

Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 09-07-2009, 11:14 AM:

quote: Tim Reed
Btw, Bruce... I saw your name in "Halloween 2". I noticed a lot of video playback on that show

Thanks for letting me know, Tim. Well, now I guess I will have to go see it. Doing video playback, you are not on set every day, so you do not usually "rate" a credit. The director did not want to color correct most of the playback for 3200K, so I would guess that most of it looked a bit blue, and they shot on supper 16 for the "grainy look". It will be interesting to see what it looks like

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 09-07-2009, 11:31 AM:

quote: Jake Spell
Was Cinerama ever in 3-D?

Nope.

But a close-call is the Terminator 3D attraction at Universal Studios theme park in Orlando. They do a three-pane (3 screens) 70mm stereoscopic 3D projection during part of the show, very much like a 70mm 3D cinerama.

Also, Imax briefly did anaglyphic 3D (red-and-blue glasses) before they came up with their "true" 3D systems (they used LCS electronic glasses sequential system as well as passive linear polarized for that).

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 09-07-2009, 12:26 PM:

quote: Jake Spell
Was Cinerama ever in 3-D?

WOW... imagine what that would have been like in the early '60s...

Two projectors in each booth, plus the dubber, all selsyn-synched... and carbon arcs, too!

Keeping all that together in a relatively seamless presentation would be mind-numbing for the time... but the unions would have loved it back then.

1 operator per machine, plus the master control guy... 8 projectionists in one place... plus some of those venues also required stage hands, didn't they?

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 09-07-2009, 02:02 PM:

3D Cinerama -- wow, that sure would knock you for a loop -- the MUTHA of all gimmicks. I am trying to comprehend what the multiple hotspots would look like on the deeply curved silver screen made up of thousands of slits aimed forward. It sure would be an interesting spectacle.

Talking about interesting spectacles and Cinerama -- how long will it take before someone recreates Cinerama with digital projection? That would be quite an interesting project. Scan all three filmstrips of one of the original Cineram films, use 3 D-Cinema booths to project on a Cinerama spec screen. I bet the seams could be matched pixel to pixel and not look nearly as obvious as with film projection. I'm thinking it wouldn't take much to do it, I mean, except for the money. HOW THE WEST WAS ONE could be easily done that way.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-07-2009, 04:24 PM:

Disney's Philharmagic in Walt Disney World is 2/3rds of the way there. They have 3D on the center section and 2D on the Left and Right sections. They also combine "4D" elements in (odors, bubbles...what nots). It is a film based attraction and sponsored by Kodak.

Steve

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 09-07-2009, 04:46 PM:

quote: Frank Angel
how long will it take before someone recreates Cinerama with digital projection?

HTWWW was presented through one digital projector at Bradford on to their Cinerama screen. There are some reviews on here if you search for the Widescreen Weekend threads.

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 09-07-2009, 05:06 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
Mark's scenario would work if there were no prints available, but if there are prints, I think they would book'em wherever they can (provided there aren't any non-compete agreements in place with the chain involved).

Except we're talking about digital 3D, so there are no prints involved??? If a studio wants another copy to distribute, they grab a hard drive and make one.

Mark's scenario would be unrealistic because the release schedule of 3D movies is not that long. At 9+ 3D movies per year, Regal, or whomever, would be playing the next 3D release anyway, unless a complex was outfitted with multiple 3D auditoriums, then chose to hold the older flick, regardless of attendance, on one of them while opening the new one(s) on the other(s). That doesn't sound too likely to happen unless we find a 3D movie with Hangover type legs.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-07-2009, 05:46 PM:

Any first run movie isn't going to be worth first run status when it stops putting enough butts into the seats at first run prices. Time to get it out of the theater complex regardless of whether any bargain house makes money showing it. Gotta make room for the newer movies.

There is a significant part of the market that is perfectly willing to wait for the 2nd run/bargain houses to get a certain movie, even if the 2nd run/bargain house is a dump. If Regal wanted to hold onto a certain 3D movie to keep a bargain house from showing it in 3D then Regal would only be hurting themselves. They would have the 3D movie playing to a virtually empty auditorium. Not everyone is willing to pay $13 to see a movie in 3D.

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 09-14-2009, 03:48 PM:

quote:
theaters with at least one screen playing the film in 3-D generated on average, 1.4x as much in ticket sales as those that only showed the picture the old fashioned 2-D way. (A breakdown by individual screens within multiplexes was not available.)

so this article is missing the one critical datum needed to draw any sort of useful conclusion.

quote:
1,620 of "Ice Age's" 4,099 U.S. and Canadian locations played the film in 3-D, but 1,205 of those also played it in 2-D. Average grosses within those 1,205 probably were dragged down somewhat by their 2-D screens.

no worry, let's just float the patently absurd notion that having a 2-D screen would actually subtract from the movie's grosses at a particular theater.

nice work, l.a. times.

not that i would care to see any of these movies anyways, or any digital 3-D for that matter.

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 09-14-2009, 04:08 PM:

quote: Carl Martin
no worry, let's just float the patently absurd notion that having a 2-D screen would actually subtract from the movie's grosses at a particular theater.

Yeah. If you see the same argument, but in reverse, it makes a lot of sense too (not) [Wink]

:

"Make sure the 2D version is not displayed anywhere, including your own theatre, and watch those (RealD) 3D grosses GROW !!!!"

Duh. [Roll Eyes]

We soon won't have to worry about 3D vs 2D, though, since I guess ALL the movies are going to be made in 3D from now on, because it's proven they gross way-way more in 3D than in 2D, so it will all be 3D all the time at all locations soon. Producers and exhibitors are not going to let pass such a huge increase in business for the paltry cost of a Dolby wheel or a RealD "profit sharing agreement".

Cool.
[Cool]

Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 09-14-2009, 04:44 PM:

Well yeah, Julio. If a movie grosses $100mil in 2D, then it would've grossed $150mil in 3D, because 3 is 50% more Ds than 2. It's basic maths!