SUMMER SLUMP? Will Smith’s ‘MIB3′ Slows … 
Oscilloscope Takes U.S. Rights To ‘Reality’ 
‘Mud’: Did Cannes Save One Of The Best For … 
Cannes Podcast: Pete Hammond On ‘Lawless’, … 
Over-Achievers Of This Year’s Upfront 
Aussie Pay-TV Shakeup Impacts Hollywood 
USA: ‘Rebounding’ & ‘Modern … 
Interview: Philip Kaufman At Cannes With ‘Hemingway … 
R.I.P. Television Mogul Lee Rich 
Cannes Biz Shines Despite Wind & Rain 
Full 2011-2012 TV Season Series Rankings 
2011-12 Season Network Rankings: Fox Still On Top But Down, … 
HLN Set To Air Daytime Emmy Awards 
Grant Bowler Cast As Richard Burton Opposite Lindsay Lohan … 
UPDATE: Dish Network And Broadcasters Ask Courts To Decide … 
Cannes Surprise Screening: Change Of Plans On Juan Antonio … 
Kevin Hart In Talks To Join Kevin James In ‘Valet … 
Anthony Hopkins Up For ‘Red 2′ Villain; Can … 
Cannes Conflicted Over ‘The Paperboy’ As … 
RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘American Idol’ Posts … 
Ghost Of 2004 Hovers Over L.A. Screenings As Int’l … 
Analyst Richard Greenfield of Wall Street’s BTIG has long been skeptical of claims by Jeffrey Katzenberg and James Cameron that 3D would do wonders for the movie business. But now Greenfield says that 3D is actually hurting the industry: “U.S. consumers are increasingly rejecting 3D movies,” he said in a report today. Attendance for Disney’s Pirates of Caribbean: On Stranger Tides “would have been higher” this past weekend if half of its screens showed the movie in conventional 2D instead of just a third, he says. The evidence? He notes that about 38% of the $90 million in box-office revenue for the film’s opening weekend came from non-IMAX 3D screens. That’s much lower than the average last year, when 54% of the opening revenues for DreamWorks Animation’s Shrek Forever After, and 57% of the initial sales for the studio’s How To Train Your Dragon, came from non-IMAX 3D screens. Greenfield says that “pricing remains our single biggest concern, especially with so many 3D movies aimed at the family segment.” He figures theaters charged $14.85 a ticket to see Pirates on IMAX 3D, $10.85 for non-IMAX 3D, and $7.60 for 2D. He adds that family films also are hurt by “young children not wanted to wear 3D glasses.” His advice: Hollywood should make fewer 3D films in 2012. “Focus on making consumer-desirable films rather than worrying about the technology,” he says.
Analyst: ‘Pirates’ Was Hurt By 3D As Consumers Tire Of High Ticket Prices
-
Marketplace
-
-
News/Opinion Poll
Loading ...Box Office Poll
Loading ...
- 'Cosmopolis' Premiere: Robert Pattinson, Kristen Stewart On The Red Carpert
- Wes Anderson Movie Art: 'Rushmore,' 'Moonrise Kingdom,' 'Fantastic Mr. Fox' (PHOTOS)
- 'Star Wars' Anniversary: Posters From All The Episodes (PHOTOS)
- 'Star Wars' Unscripted: A Look Back At George Lucas And Hayden Christensen's Very Awkward Interview
- 'Twilight Breaking Dawn Part 2': Edward, Bella And Jacob Character Posters (PHOTOS)
- REVIEW: Is Chernobyl Diaries Offensive? No, It's Just Dumb
- Cannes Bans Controversial Comedy The Anti-Semite
- Lindsay Lohan's Liz Taylor Finds Her Dick Burton... in Bon Temps
- Wes Anderson on the Fantasy of Moonrise Kingdom — and the Myth of His 'MO'
- Zero Dark Thirty: Did Mark Boal Meet One of the Men Who Killed Osama Bin Laden?
I’m holding out until Woody Allen does a 3D movie.
I’m waiting for him to mix his sound in Stereo!
I’m waiting for him to funny again!
People with one eye or people who are blind in one eye cannot watch 3D movies.
“People with one eye or people who are blind in one eye cannot watch 3D movies.”
And people who are blind in both eyes can’t watch a 2d movie.
The biggest issue here is that the technology isn’t realy there, not the cost. If they wanted to they could charge only a two dollars more per 3d ticket and still make a profit. As the demand drops the price drops. The 3d tech simply isn’t there yet and directors don’t know what to do with it. It’s like a 2 hour magic trick. You are only going to pay so many times to see it.
Actually, the technology IS there.
The really big issue is that the directors don’t know how to do 3D properly. None of the recently released theatrical 3D movies have even come close to being truely well done 3D.
There’s something that most people don’t realize:
Most of the directors doing these recently released theatrical 3D movies have no prior experience with 3D at all.
And they are making a number of fundamental mistakes in how they do it. There are a number of filmmaking techniques that are used all the time in 2D that lead to poor results in 3D.
There’s something that the movie industry doesn’t seem to realize: For people to remain interested in 3D, they will have to do it well, not use it as a gimmick.
Can we really trust ANY analysis that includes “He figures…$7.60 for 2D”. I realize there are some matinee prices in there, but even matinees are $7.50 where I live. Full price tickets are $10.50.
You are an idiot. Children prices are averaged in there. And early bird matinees are $5 at Cinemark and AMC.
here in Jersey City anything before 5pm at a Franks theater is $7 – do a little research next time
I agree, the average of $7.60 seems low. Prices are likely to be higher in major population centers and that should balance out areas where prices are lower.
I live in Las Vegas and here the dominant chain by far is Regal and they have seriously layered pricing. Tuesdays all seats are $5, but beyond that – adult matinees are $8 (til 6 wkdy, til 4 wknd), seniors and kids are $7 all the time. Full price is $10.75 wkdy, $11 wknd. And so on.
With all that layering to try to pull people in to the theatre and charge the most during the premium theater-going hours, the average for the theatres around here has to be way, way over the $7.60, probably similar to other major population centers. It would take a lot of volume at lower prices to compensate nationwide.
That said, I’m very jealous of the people consistently paying less than $5 for a matinee.
Admission
UltraAVX General (14-64) $13.99
UltraAVX Child (3-13) $11.50
UltraAVX Senior (65+) $11.50
General (14-64) $10.99
Child (3-13) $8.50
Senior (65+) $8.50
3D General (14-64) $13.99
3D Child (3-13) $11.50
3D Senior (65+) $11.50
Taken straight from “cineplex.com” for the Galaxy in my city.
Not everyone lives in NY or LA
If your comment was directed towards mine, I live in a medium sized town in SW Florida, far from any center of culture or any reasonable explanation of high theater prices. I understand your point, but for an average price to be $7.60, that assumes there’s people paying less than $7.60? Where in the U.S does that happen? I may not know where, but I know WHEN: 2004.
Where I live, matinee tickets for new release movies are $2.50.
Evening tickets are $7.50.
I live in Oregon (Eugene, specifically) and matinees range from $4-$6.50, regular price from $6-$8.50.
When I lived in Seattle, whole different story. Matinees were around $7.50-$8.50, regular price was always over $10.00.
I see a lot of movies, but I never pay for regular price- $6.50 is as much as I am willing to spend on a movie.
I also live in Florida. Tickets on the Space Coast are $4 before noon, $5 early afternoon, and around $9 for evening showings.
Almost anywhere in Austin, Texas, regular matinee, children, student, military and senior ticket prices are less than 7 dollars.
I agree. I went to see Thor two weeks ago and chose to see the 2D version because it was cheaper and I thought there would be less people at the showing. However, the theater was filled to capacity and I asked the manager if the 3D was like this too and she said no; it was only 75% filled.
Yep. Same here. Why anyone would pay more money for lesser quality in “stereoscopic” is still a mystery to me–most stereoscopic projectors dim the image up to 35%. What a crock! I’m not paying more for less. Screw 3D.
Not to mention half the megaplexes didn’t even OFFER the 2D version. I wanted to go see show at the AMC 16 Burbank, but they only offered 3D. So i went local, and saw it The Vista in Los Feliz. Not to mention their “Midwest Prices”.
I’ve been growing tired of 3D for the last year myself and have said many times that too many people are banking on this trend by making everything due out over the next 3 years this way. It was a huge mistake a year ago to start working on it, and now I can only hope after a few more failures that they will cut this permanently. The prices are too damned high and the glasses give me migraines, so I always choose 2D.
THANK GOD. Finally, somebody important is saying what movie buffs have been saying all along. 3D is great for a few spectacle movies, but for the most part it’s a fad that consumers would quickly tire of. And never mind what it’s done to dim the image — by as much as 80% for 2D movies.
It’s not that 3D is NEVER a good idea, just that it’s SELDOM a good enough idea to pay such a premium for it. We had a handful of great (mostly animated) 3D films, one stand-out (Avatar), and a truckload of 3D shovelware that burned people out on the whole endeavor.
Time to put this idea back in the box for another 30 years.
Some 2D movies have been screened 80% dimmer only because the theater chains have been too lazy to switch the 3D lenses off the projectors. That has nothing to do with the 3D process and 2D movies are not inherently dimmer as a result of 3D.
3D is definitely a fad at the exorbitant prices they’re charging for it. I live in LA and when I went to see Tron 3D it was 15 dollars a ticket. The only reason I actually paid that is me, my brother, and my cousin were already having a night out and it was the only thing (slightly) worth seeing at the time and it’s a bit late to say “nope” and drive home when you’re standing at the box office.
But you can be sure I haven’t made any plans to see any more 3D flicks since. At least none of the crap they’ve been releasing so far.
Why do ticket prices in LA get to be so exorbitantly expensive? We’re not all made of money out there. I can’t think of any other product except gasoline that is priced city to city like that.
“‘Pirates’ Was Hurt By 3D…”
Yeah, anything other than, “The Movie Sucked Ass And Audiences Could Smell It Coming From A Mile Away!”
Oh, wait – it was the biggest opening ever in Russia!! RUSSIA!!
If it were reducible to that, then the box office at the 2D theaters would have been proportionally as sluggish as the take from the 3D theaters.
Right on….since when is 90 million a poor opening!!!
I saw Thor in 2-D as well because 1.) ticket price was cheaper and 2.) I wanted to see the movie without getting “hit” by the hammer. Plus I get a migrane after watching a 3-D movie. That being said, maybe Pirates didn’t do as well at the box office because it’s another sequel that should be laid to rest. Don’t think I will even add it to my Netflix queue.
I agree 1000% – my kids (5 and 7) hate wearing the glasses. They’re always fussing with them.
Now, we only see the 2d version – and so much cheaper!
I wish my kids were like yours (3,5,6) because the loooooove 3D, and god helping me if they find out a movie is showing in 3D. They used to fuss with the large glasses, but ever since the theaters rolled out the new kid sized glasses, that’s no longer an issue for them.
While it’s a non-issue to me, as I’m one of those who can’t see 3D anyway, it’s a killer on my wallet. I’m hoping the fad dies out soon.
Not to be a pill. but who’s the parent here. Tell ‘em you’re going to see the movie in 2d and that’s it.
We don’t see 3D movies anymore because it gives me and my youngest daughter headaches. The 2D theater was sold out when we went to see Pirates this weekend. I was talking to friends about this and they also said that 3D movies give some of their family members headaches and won’t go see them. The industry might want to do some exit polls on the 2D theaters to see why people are choosing that format when 3D is offered for the same film. It might not always be for financial reasons.
It also would have been higher if it was a good film. Also his ticket prices are WAY off. In Toronto, where the dollar has been at par or higher than the US dollar for several years, a regular 2D ticket is $12.75, 3D is $15.75 and IMAX and all those variations can go upward to $17.75-19.75. That’s why people aren’t seen films in theatres any more. Only second run theatres and Tuesdays produce lower ticket prices.
The ticket prices he quotes must be from middle America. In SoCal, the prices are even more ludicrous. Prices at the Burbank 16:
IMAX 3D: $18.50
3D admission: $17.50
2D admission: $12.50
That’s just insane to me. I live in Oregon and the prices are literally half of that (a third for a matinee).
I love movies, see probably 60-75% of whatever comes out, but I wouldn’t/couldn’t pay that much!
Not sure where in Oregon you live, but here in the Portland area our ticket prices are very close to what the poster from SoCal listed.
60 to 75 percent of what comes out? Most of that is crap. Save your money.
It’s the same at the theaters in idaho, Alaska, and every theater in Cali I’ve ever been in. 20 bucks a person is insane, which is why I am very picky about what movies I see in the theaters these days. When I was a teen in the mid to late 90′s, movies were 4.50 for adults. Think about that… in only a decade, movie prices have quadrupled. I don’t care how you try to justify that, it’s still insane.
The 3D enhancement added to a movie after it’s been filmed is bad, yes. But technology and cameras that shoot the entire film in 3D are changing the industry already.
In my experience, it’s poorly done (Converted) 3D and poor movies that are the cause of poor attendance. Make a good movie and people will go see it.
Pirates 4 got mauled by a lot of critics. Surely this has a lot to do with it too.
Typical though, that a guy who makes a movie in properly done 3D, which makes 2.78 billion dollars worldwide, and who warned cheap post conversion 3D was not the way to go, gets blamed for it any way.
Pirates 4 was shot in native 3D, as in with Stereo cameras, and was rather well done at that. While I agree people are getting tired of 3D movies more than anything the prices are the biggest part diving people from theaters. Movies across the board have lower attendance that’s just being offset by the raised prices.
Also, I’m pretty sure average prices are at $8.20 or something now. You can check on By The Numbers.
None of the recently released theatrical 3D movies, including Pirates 4, have been very well done with the 3D.
As I said in another comment, the directors are inexperienced with 3D and don’t know how to do it properly.
I am an expert with 3D, and have a 3D monitor. If you think that the 3D in Pirates 4 was good, I’ve seen a LOT better.
The only recently released 3D movie where the 3D was truely well done was Hubble 3D. And even in that case, only the parts of the film that were shot in 3D.
Alice in Wonderland was fake 3D. Made a billion dollars. BAD movie, but it made a billion dollars. And most of the films coming are converted–although more carefully planned for it.
Why not just reduce the ticket price for 3D and 3D-Imax, then?
To studios and exhibitors, lower prices = less revenue potential.
The business of film is no longer about making movies that people will love; it’s about multi-billion dollar corporations selling products to make money.
Capitalism, my friend. The studios ain’t Unicef.
I thought Pirates 4 was really good. Much better than the last two and the best since the first.
As for the 3D argument, I agree with it. Going to 2D is much cheaper than going to 3D and I went to a 2D showing.
3D should be reserved for “special” movies and not just thrust upon every summer movie. Avatar in 3D? sure. POTC? Why? Plus I HATE when no 2D option is available. Movie stunk, but had to wait on Green Hornet because local theater was only showing it in 3D.
Still can’t help thinking this “report” was put out by Disney. Ticket sales were soft because it’s not very good.
And to chime in. Matinee here at AMC is $5.00 and $9.00 at night. for 2D. 3D is $11.00.
Is the $11 price for 3-D at your AMC theatre the same day or night, or is there a matinee discount??
Amen! My little girl hates the glasses and hates the 3D effect. If it’s in 3D she won’t see it.
I completely agree. I was priced out of the market with Thor – a film I was interested in, but not crazy for. Therefore, paying twice the price of a 2D showing for a 3D showing was way too expensive for me. And in the city I live in, a European capital of several million inhabitants, there was one single cinema (!) showing the 2D version, and it is at the other end of town. Therefore, I have not seen Thor so far, and probably will not, at least not cinematically.
I don’t think anybody mentioned the quality of the 3D in Pirates, rather that people are growing tired of paying premiums. Especially when gas is $4 a gallon. Also, there is a substantial number of people who get headaches from the effect, my wife included. This really is a no brainer. My family and I own a few small theatres in Illinois and Iowa which show first run films. We have what we call the “Best Movie Deal”- $6 gets you admission($4), popcorn($1), and a soda($1). This model is entirely based on volume. Guess what? Our volume is huge. We do not have 3D capabilities in any auditiorium, yet regularly sell out shows including Pirates 4 this past weekend. Why? Families can afford to attend the movies every week. Even if there is potential the movie sucks it is still not a waste of money. And, we put a HUGE emphasis on showmanship and service. An old philosophy which most theatres today have abandoned.
Good idea. Keep it up.
Cary, it is (the few) people like you who keep this business alive, real and grounded. Respect!
the problem is Pirates was not SHOT in 3D neither was Thor. They were converted. Shoot a movie in legit 3D and people will go to it. Do a conversion and there is zero need to see it 3D
Pirates WAS shot in 3D on RED. Do some research first.
Can’t you provide your knowledge without being so damn snobby about it?
” Shoot a movie in legit 3D and people will go to it”
Baloney.
Sat next to a 10 year old boy at 3D screening of Thor…and, he stated up front…out of the blue…on his own… he was sick of 3D.
The fallout from studios killing the golden goose is just starting to be realized…and, unless Avatar 2 is coming out soon…the studios are fucked counting on their extra 3D revenue projections.
The polarization process removes much of the color which is too great a sacrifice for the ’3D’ gimmick. Interesting, well told, original stories will pack the theaters again.
Couldn’t agree more. Went to what I’d hoped would be an affordable movie several months ago – “Gnomeo and Juliet.” This was in the middle of small town Nebraska, and I balked when they charged $30 for myself and two kids. The stupid 3-D glasses were far too large for my four-year-old to wear. She had to hold them to her head, and by the end of the film, she refused to wear them because the lenses were completely coated in melted chocolate. A memorable evening, but not for the right reasons.
You think that’s bad? Bringing a family of four to a 3D movie here in Australia will set you back $80 and that’s before drinks or popcorn, which cost $7-$10 per person if you want them. You can easily walk out over $100 poorer and with a headache if 3D isn’t your thing.
The 2D versions, even of popular movies, are scheduled, grudgingly, in sparse and strange time slots, small out-of-the-way theatres and rarely show in more than one theatre.
Needless to say, it’s not difficult to get seats. Studios are shooting themselves in the feet and there’s simply no way this gouging won’t catch up with them in the long run.
File this under “Duh” with a sub heading of “movie not very good”
I don’t care how good the 3D is, some movies just don’t need it. Something like thor is just as good in 2D and people don’t watch a film to feel like they’re in it. There are special circumstances where it’s justified but the over-saturation of 3D movies will kill the technology and cause the novelty to wear off. Movie studios and theatres only see the added profit they can make from the technology, they don’t actually care how the technology benefits the movie going experience. If you’re foolish enough to believe 3D is anything but a cash cow for major corporations, I have some great nuclear reactors to sell you in Japan.