quote:

---

...

THERE'S MONEY TO BE MADE IN SELLING NEW DIGITAL PROJECTORS.
These projectors are not selling themselves. There was initial opposition from exhibitors to the huge cost of new equipment and infighting about whether studios would help share these expenses. Some studios, concerned with tarnishing the 3-D myth, have told exhibitors that if they don't show a movie in 3-D, they can't have it in 2-D. Although there's room in most projection booths for both kinds of projectors, theaters are encouraged to remove analog projectors as soon as they can. Why so much haste to get rid of them? Are exhibitors being encouraged to burn their bridges by insecure digital manufacturers?
...

HAVE YOU NOTICED THAT 3-D SEEMS A LITTLE DIM?
Lenny Lipton is known as the father of the electronic stereoscopic-display industry. He knows how films made with his systems should look. Current digital projectors, he writes, are "intrinsically inefficient. Half the light goes to one eye and half to the other, which immediately results in a 50 percent reduction in illumination." Then the glasses themselves absorb light. The vast majority of theaters show 3-D at between three and six foot-lamberts (fLs). Film projection provides about 15fLs

...

4. IT CAN CREATE NAUSEA AND HEADACHES.
AS 3-D TV sets were being introduced at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas in January, Reuters interviewed two leading ophthalmologists. "There are a lot of people walking around with very minor eye problems—for example, a muscle imbalance—which under normal circumstances the brain deals with naturally," said Dr. Michael Rosenberg, a professor at Northwestern University. 3-D provides an unfamiliar visual experience, and "that translates into greater mental effort, making it easier to get a headache." Dr. Deborah Friedman, a professor of ophthalmology and neurology at the University of Rochester Medical Center, said that in normal vision, each eye sees things at a slightly different angle. "When that gets processed in the brain, that creates the perception of depth. The illusions that you see in three dimensions in the movies is not calibrated the same way that your eyes and your brain are." In a just-published article, Consumer Reports says about 15 percent of the moviegoing audience experiences headache and eyestrain during 3-D movies.

...

THEATERS SLAP ON A SURCHARGE OF $5 TO $7.50 FOR 3-D.
Yet when you see a 2-D film in a 3-D-ready theater, the 3-D projectors are also outfitted for 2-D films: it uses the same projector but doesn't charge extra. See the Catch-22? Are surcharges here to stay, or will they be dropped after the projectors are paid off? What do you think? I think 3-D is a form of extortion for parents whose children are tutored by advertising and product placement to "want" 3-D. In my review of Clash of the Titans, I added a footnote: "Explain to your kids that the movie was not filmed in 3-D and is only being shown in 3-D in order to charge you an extra $5 a ticket. I saw it in 2-D, and let me tell you, it looked terrific." And it did. The "3-D" was hastily added in postproduction to ride on the coattails of Avatar. The fake-3-D Titans even got bad reviews from 3-D cheerleaders. Jeffrey Katzenberg, whose DreamWorks has moved wholeheartedly into 3-D, called it "cheeseball," adding: "You just snookered the movie audience." He told Variety he was afraid quickie, fake-3-D conversions would kill the goose that was being counted on for golden eggs.

...

Consider Tim Burton, who was forced by marketing executives to create a faux-3-D film that was then sold as Alice in Wonderland: An IMAX 3D Experience (although remember that the new IMAX theaters are not true IMAX). Yes, it had huge grosses. But its 3-D effects were minimal and unnecessary; a scam to justify the surcharge.

...

WHENEVER HOLLYWOOD HAS FELT THREATENED, IT HAS TURNED TO TECHNOLOGY: SOUND, COLOR, WIDESCREEN, CINERAMA, 3-D, STEREOPHONIC SOUND, AND NOW 3-D AGAIN.
In marketing terms, this means offering an experience that can't be had at home. With the advent of Blu-ray discs, HD cable, and home digital projectors, the gap between the theater and home experiences has been narrowed. 3-D widened it again. Now home 3-D TV sets may narrow that gap as well.

What Hollywood needs is a "premium" experience that is obviously, dramatically better than anything at home, suitable for films aimed at all ages, and worth a surcharge. For years I've been praising a process invented by Dean Goodhill called MaxiVision48, which uses existing film technology but shoots at 48 frames per second and provides smooth projection that is absolutely jiggle-free. Modern film is projected at 24 frames per second (fps) because that is the lowest speed that would carry analog sound in the first days of the talkies. Analog sound has largely been replaced by digital sound. MaxiVision48 projects at 48fps, which doubles image quality. The result is dramatically better than existing 2-D. In terms of standard measurements used in the industry, it's 400 percent better. That is not a misprint. Those who haven't seen it have no idea how good it is. I've seen it, and also a system of some years ago, Douglas Trumbull's Showscan. These systems are so good that the screen functions like a window into three dimensions. If moviegoers could see it, they would simply forget about 3-D.

I'm not opposed to 3-D as an option. I'm opposed to it as a way of life for Hollywood, where it seems to be skewing major studio output away from the kinds of films we think of as Oscar-worthy. Scorsese and Herzog make films for grown-ups. Hollywood is racing headlong toward the kiddie market. Disney recently announced it will make no more traditional films at all, focusing entirely on animation, franchises, and superheroes. I have the sense that younger Hollywood is losing the instinctive feeling for story and quality that generations of executives possessed. It's all about the marketing. Hollywood needs a projection system that is suitable for all kinds of films—every film—and is hands-down better than anything audiences have ever seen. The marketing executives are right that audiences will come to see a premium viewing experience they can't get at home. But they're betting on the wrong experience.

---

quote:

---

Disney recently announced it will make no more traditional films at all, focusing entirely on animation, franchises, and superheroes.

---

I frequent a few Disney sites and I've never seen this announcement.
 

---

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 05-01-2010, 07:31 PM:
 
Roger Ebert hates 3-D?!?!?!?

Oh well, if he says I should hate it too, well then...
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-01-2010, 08:09 PM:
 
The fact remains it DOES cost more to make and present a 3D movie, period! There is more equipment involved and it tends to use brighter (more expensive) lamps too. And SOMEBODY has to pay for those stupid glasses.

The up charges I've seen are in the $2-$3 range around here.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-01-2010, 09:02 PM:
 
Is anyone, anywhere doing 3D without a surcharge?

And has anyone, anywhere had a surcharge for 3D in any of its previous incarnations?

The whole "3D surcharge" thing just rubs me the wrong way as a filmgoer. I realize that it costs more to produce and exhibit in 3D, but shouldn't the additional boxoffice revenue make up for this?

I've never heard of a "70mm surcharge" or "digital sound surcharge," so why should there be a surcharge for 3D?
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-01-2010, 10:16 PM:
 
There was a surcharge for 70mm back when...the "hard ticket" shows were normally more pricey.

However, previous incarnations of 3D used film...the lenses were normally rented and the glasses provided...the actual cost to make them was less than today though it still did have extra expenses.

70mm of the 80s/90s too only really had the print cost and the one time 70mm projector cost associated with it. For the exhibitor, 70mm normally bought a level of exclusivity, which helped to defray the cost of the 70mm equipment. Hence, you didn't normally see 70mm installed in the 80s in areas where there was no competition.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-01-2010, 10:42 PM:
 
The surcharge for digital 3D here in Lawton is usually $3. The Carmike theater in town has 3 RealD equipped screens and the Dickinson Theaters Central Mall 12 now has 1 RealD equipped screen (also the only d-cinema equipped screen in the complex). It was installed in time for the release of Avatar.

One exception on the pricing is certain concert shows -whether they're in 2D or 3D the concert movies can cost a LOT more than a standard movie ticket price. I find that pretty ridiculous. The price to see U23D wasn't any different than any other 3D movie, but some other concerts (Mylie Cyrus I think) cost $20 or $30. I'm willing to pay a significant amount of money to see one of my favorite bands LIVE. I'm not paying anything above a standard movie ticket price and standard 3D surcharge to see them in a previously recorded, digital projected show.

Regarding 70mm, I never had to pay anything extra above the standard ticket price to see a movie projected in 5-perf 70mm. However, I appreciate the format enough that I would be willing to pay a couple bucks extra if the movie was shot on 65mm film and/or projected in 70mm on a really big screen in a very nice theater.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-02-2010, 12:02 AM:
 

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

I'm willing to pay a significant amount of money to see one of my favorite bands LIVE. I'm not paying anything above a standard movie ticket price and standard 3D surcharge to see them in a previously recorded, digital projected show.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

With a live concert you're seeing the band in person.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

He's got a few things wrong...for one thing the surcharge is generally in the $3 to $4 range isn't it?

As for the surcharge and higher prices being "a way to gouge the market," I hate that notion that the media keeps pushing. People keep wanting better and bigger, so they need to pay for it and stop griping. Movies are still a bargain. If people still wanted mono sound and crappy scratched prints and wooden seats, we could give them that and make plenty of money at $3 a ticket. But if you want all the bells & whistles, gotta pony up.

---

Now, now Mike. Settle down. Just because the delivery system is film does not mean it's a crappy, scratched print. In the 20 plus years I was in the booth a scratched film was a rarity. And I've never been in an auditorium that had wooden seats (except my high school).

And I believe the surcharge (event price) is ridiculous and I refuse to pay it.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-02-2010, 05:06 PM:
 
Same here. The surcharge will probably eventually kill 3D. No surcharge for digital sound and it definitely costs more to make and present a movie in digital sound. 3D does not enhance the experience as much as digital sound does, now how, no way.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-02-2010, 05:09 PM:
 
Robert - I'm just talking about the way the business was when I got into it. I'm from the era where you could tell when the changeover was coming up not from the cues, but from the dust and scratches that started showing up on screen.

At that time, especially in small towns like mine, some (if not all) of the things I mentioned were the "norm." And they still are in some small towns where the operators refuse to sell their product for what it is worth and put the money they make back into the business.

I just don't quite understand why people seem to have no problem spending a couple of thousand dollars on a TV set, but when they go out to the movies, they want the luxuries of a palace at 1970s prices.

I wish there would be a public education campaign on what it really costs to be in the theatre business...the only thing the media ever takes note of is how some blockbuster "raked in" $75 million on opening weekend, or how theatre owners "pocket" 9/10 of the money from popcorn sales, or how theatres "jack up" the admission price just to make a bigger "haul" and so on and so on.
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Smith (Member # 5609) on 05-02-2010, 11:02 PM:
 
Well, Mike, when you are selling news to an audience comprised of a majority of idiots, it makes sense to write it with them in mind.

That's why conspiracy theorists and stories about "the man" are so pervasively popular.

One of the FEW examples of journalism I've seen that was fair to business was a report, I think in the Cleve. Plain Dealer about a gas station owner who was talking about how he was selling his gasoline at a loss for $3.999/Gal. when the companies started charging $4. He said that even if his sign COULD display a price higher than that, customers stopped coming to other stations when they went above that price almost completely.

It's a crazy world where businesses have to sell certain products at a loss to bring business in. And it ought to be illegal, because it often means that only companies that have a "trust" status, of selling so many items they can afford to take a loss on some of them, can stay in business.

How is a "dollar menu," for instance, where the big fast food chains are losing money on almost all of the items on it, fair to small locally owned burger businesses who simply cannot afford to sell much of anything at a loss and stay in business?

If news reporters cared what the hell they were talking about, with business, they would talk about what businesses are NETTING on products they sell, after all is said and done all the bills are paid, payroll settled, and wear and tear & depreciation taken into account.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-03-2010, 05:46 AM:
 
Rant on.

I have no problem with paying a fair price for stuff. But I do not like being nickeled and dimed to death.

It becomes sort of like buying tires: the tire is advertised at a cheap price, which does not include mounting, balancing, stems, etc. The same applies to the current state of the airline industry: in addition to the ticket price, there are security surcharges, checked bag surcharges, food surcharges, etc. It all feels somewhat deceptive (and I say that as one who never checks bags and doesn't generally eat airline food).

Just give me one fair price, and I will pay it without argument.
Having 3D capability should increase market share, just as 70mm or digital sound would. Thus, there should be no need to charge extra for it.

Rant off.
 

---

Posted by Per Hauberg (Member # 529) on 05-03-2010, 07:42 AM:
 
Roger Ebert for President !
May 3D be as short-lived as it was before.
----------------------------------------------
Claude: In Denmark, those Metropolitan- and other operatransmissions are priced from 175 DKK ( app.30$ ) and up, and most of the cinemas are running them on their small advertising projectors, as they have not upgraded yet to 2D.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Less than 30 screens (out of 350) in Denmark are fully digital equipped by now. Warner premiered "Clash" in 21 3D-cinemas and 4 (FOUR ! ) 35MM prints for the rest of the country to share.
I do not think, those four prints will be booked after the first-runs. The question is then: Will Warners bother ??

Future is dull !
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-03-2010, 09:36 AM:
 

quote: Scott Norwood

---

I have no problem with paying a fair price for stuff. But I do not like being nickeled and dimed to death.

---