3D movie sales on the decline

[Gecko3]

http://www.deadline.com/2011/06/will...e/#more-138945

Many of you already predicted this, but I'm surprised how quickly this is happening.

What do you think is causing people to turn away from this? High price? The fact that most 3D movies don't really add much to the experience? Technical issues which causes people to have eyestrain?

For me, the biggest issue is the price. A 3D night showing ticket around here costs $11.50, and I only get 2-3 hours of entertainment at best (if any at all). Or I could just get Netflix, Hulu, tv, cable, books, video games, and while some of those cost more than your average movie ticket, I definitely get more enjoyment for my dollar from those other things (although games are slowly going that direction too when they cost $60 and only lasts 5-8 hours, but that's a non-film topic). And in this economy, people are no doubt looking to stretch their money as much as possible.

So, do you think that 3D movies are going to go away again? Or is the industry just hitting a hiccup, and as more filmmakers get used to the technology and utilize it to tell a good story (rather than just have stuff pop out at you), it'll last long enough to weather this storm? What are your reasons for going or not going to see a movie in 3D?

[emily blake]

All of the above, perhaps. 3D doesn't always add anything, and often it detracts from the film.

Avatar was too long and it gave me a headache. I had to take those glasses off at least three times because my eyes hurt. It was the last 3D movie I will see if I can help it.

[1mper1um]

Price means nothing to me as I get all my films free. I am not a fan - or surprised at the failure of it to take off - for a host of reasons.

First I find it hurts my eyes. The screen seems blurry at times and couple that with fast action is a recipe for disaster. When you're watching the credits and you can see a ghost image slightly to the left it isn't good.

On top of that I find 3D has zero to do with the quality of the story. As my dad said when a shop assistant asked if he'd be interested in buying a 3D TV: "why - does it make the programs they show any better?"

Also, like it or not, the best thing about 3D is when things come out of the screen at you. The big fuss about the 3D reboot was that it was all about depth perception and not the 80's style of throwing things at the screen but from the 3D films I've seen, these are the only bits I thought were in any way cool.

Even with the depth perception, so what? It's a bit more obvious that the guy standing in front of the other guy is closer to you - oh wow.

Most of all though, the picture quality suffers because I am watching through tinted glasses! My cinema doesn't make any adjustments for the fact you are watching through darkened lenses and so everything is dull. I end up taking my glasses off until a major 3D action sequence crops up.

IMO, the way to get bums on seats is to stop pricing people out. If I pay £8 for a film that's crap I am going to be pissed. Even a great movie is hard to justify £8. Chuck in the overpriced concessions that the chains are forced to jack up because they get such poor returns from actually showing the film and that's £15 just for me let alone a family of four! I think £4 is the max I think is fair so quite simply - though it will never happen - is to cut back to $50m for the tentpoles. That means A listers no longer getting $25m + % of gross. Does anyone really think that getting $5m for 6 weeks work isn't good money? Strip back the wages of the stars and the directors and that is half the problem solved. The FX houses also take the piss with their costs too.

Cut back to $5m for a top star. $50m for a tentpole. That means lower ticket prices for us, lower concession charges by the cinema, and less risk of a film/studio gong under due to piracy as it now needs to do less money to turn a profit.

[sarajb]

It doesn't hurt my eyes and I've no problem with picture quality, though I would say 50% of the movies I've seen in 3D didn't need to be 3D. There's also talk of retrofitting films like Iron Man II, which seems pointless.

The best were Avatar and UP, imo.

[SkyPolynomial]

It's the loss of picture quality for me in combination with finding the 3D distracting

Can't stand any darkening on my images! Just bothers and annoys the whole time.

[Archduke]

I never get headaches from 3D but I hate the shitty glasses, especially if they come dirty and the whole dimness is terrible. Can't they just turn up the brightness on the projection or up the exposure on the prints? I assume they must do something like this but never the less every 3D screening I've seen has been dark as sh1t.

I very much like the concept of 3D and would like to one day see a viable method of showing it one day but I don't think what they're doing currently is working.


Also ticket prices in Los Angeles are f*cking ridiculous. It's 15 dollars to see a movie here in 3D. Who do they really think is stupid enough to go to a sh1tty movie for that price? And they wonder why people would rather stay and watch movies at home....

[Mac H.]

Originally Posted by 1mper1um

IMO, the way to get bums on seats is to stop pricing people out. If I pay £8 for a film that's crap I am going to be pissed. Even a great movie is hard to justify £8. Chuck in the overpriced concessions that the chains are forced to jack up because they get such poor returns from actually showing the film and that's £15

Err... nobody is forcing the poor cinemas to charge exorbitant amounts for their food.

They do it because it makes them a hell of a lot of money. Instead of them keeping 50% of the money (like they do with ticket sales) they get to keep > 90%. (Yes, the post mix cola is really cheap to buy)

I went to a talk on cinema returns by the Commercial & New Business Director for the cinema chain 'Hoyts' a while ago, and they were very up front about it. He did mention that there 'might be `a perception` that the food is overpriced' which got a huge laugh from the audience!

Anyway - in a multiplex I'm sure plenty of audience members are just buying tickets for a non-3D film at around the same time and then just accidentally going to the wrong cinema. After all, by now all the regular cinemas goers have dozens of the 3D glasses.

Mac

[1mper1um]

Originally Posted by Mac H.

Err... nobody is forcing the poor cinemas to charge exorbitant amounts for their food.

They do it because it makes them a hell of a lot of money. Instead of them keeping 50% of the money (like they do with ticket sales) they get to keep > 90%. (Yes, the post mix cola is really cheap to buy)

Cinemas have to charge for the concessions because the returns on ticketing are so low. It's the only reason. The 50% argument is not true but just an accepted round about figure that makes discussions such as these easy (the same goes for how much a film needs to make to break even with the accepted figure being 200%). Truth is the percentage of revenue varies on the film, the studio/distributor, the length of time it's been showing and, most of all, how much the studio/distributor expect it to make before it's even released.

There will always be over charging when there is a captive market but with studios and distributors playing hard ball, chains are on the back foot more and more with putting the costs onto the consumer the only alternative. Hence the rise in VIP seats and what not.

But my point was a wider one. 3D is the studio response to less bums on seats. The solution is to make a night out at the cinema a cheap proposition rather than illegal download or the very legal option of buying a DVD for £20 and save £60 on a family night out at the cinema. The by product of which is that more people pay for the films and studios need to do recoup less money if they slash their budgets.

[Mac H.]

Originally Posted by 1mper1um

Cinemas have to charge for the concessions because the returns on ticketing are so low. It's the only reason. The 50% argument is not true but just an accepted round about figure that makes discussions such as these easy (the same goes for how much a film needs to make to break even with the accepted figure being 200%).

Are you seriously arguing that cinema owners would drop the price of choc-tops (and reduce revenue) if they got more revenue from other sources? That doesn't seem to make much sense. Have you ever spoken to the people involved in these decisions?

Even the Commercial & New Business Director from the largest cinema chain here wasn't making that argument - to quote Matt Rivera's notes from the talk (because I don't have mine handy):

Liebmann's powerpoint presentation was better suited for a shareholders' meeting. You won't be very surprised to learn that Hoyts is all about profit maximization. He spoke of maximizing eyeballs, but I think he meant "wallets", since the bulk of the chain's revenue growth stems from increased [consumer] spending - at the candy bar, on premium screenings (comfy chairs & glass of wine) and of course, 3D - rather than increased visits.
No mention of diversification of product to expand audiences towards consumers of specialty cinema: the growth areas seem to be live broadcast of sporting events, pop concerts and product launches.

...

I know we all have our opinions - but after seeing Liebmann's presentation on the plans of the largest cinema chain here (and talking with him afterwards) I can't see any way that they would seriously consider lowering prices at the candy bar. There isn't a set target where they lower their prices if they find they are making too much profit - it is simply about maximising income. As simple as that.

Mac
(Yes - I do appreciate that the '50%' figure is fairly rubbery - especially with the recent 'virtual digital print fee' being added on. However for the indie sector it isn't too far off.

eg:
For a low-budget British film from 1997 (Yes - I know it isn't that recent, but it is an example that is publicly available):


Box office receipts: £4 000 000
Cinema exhibitor's share + VAT: (-) 2 840 000
Distributor's gross receipts: 1 160 000
Recovery of P&A: (-) 1 400 000
Distributor's commission: (-) 232 000

Ref: http://www.wipo.int/ip-development/e...ry/pdf/869.pdf

The 50% value seems close enough!

(I'm not going to defend the bizarre idea that a break even point is 200% of cost - it doesn't make sense on any level. Thankfully I'd never heard of it before, so it might just be a local myth)

Granted - we do have a slightly different cinema market here than they do in the USA - for a start our DVD market hasn't totally collapsed yet - and the DVD prices are still higher than yours. (Although we have higher prices for almost everything. Except roo steaks)

[Donreel]

I'm not a fan, for reasons others have mentioned: picture is too dark, the glasses are distracting, eyestrain. I'm no optical expert, but in a post a while back, I theorized about how 3D movies cause headaches because they force you to keep refocusing as things in the image appear to be at different distances.

It seems there's support for that idea, from world-class film editor and sound designer Walter Murch, no less. Early in the year he wrote a letter to Roger Ebert, saying, in part:

The biggest problem with 3D, though, is the "convergence/focus" issue. A couple of the other issues -- darkness and "smallness" -- are at least theoretically solvable. But the deeper problem is that the audience must focus their eyes at the plane of the screen -- say it is 80 feet away. This is constant no matter what.

But their eyes must converge at perhaps 10 feet away, then 60 feet, then 120 feet, and so on, depending on what the illusion is. So 3D films require us to focus at one distance and converge at another. And 600 million years of evolution has never presented this problem before.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html
Roger Ebert's Journal
"Why 3D doesn't work and never will. Case closed."
By Roger Ebert on January 23, 2011 7:57 PM