Investors are jumping on the anti-3D bandwagon as the weekend’s lackluster sales of 3D tickets for DreamWorks Animation’s Kung Fu Panda 2 seemed to confirm that audiences are fed up with the higher prices exhibitors are charging for the immersive visual experience. Shares of 3D technology company RealD were down 12% in mid-day trading to $27 — amounting to a 23% decline over the last two weeks. Even with the drop, RealD shares are up nearly 40% from this time last year. Investors appear to be more disenchanted with DreamWorks Animation, which is making all of its films in 3D. Its shares were off 3.3% at midday to about $24 — which is down nearly 20% vs this time last year. 3D tickets accounted for about 45% of Panda‘s domestic box office revenues. By contrast, last year DreamWorks Animation’s Shrek Forever After generated 60% of its opening-weekend revenues from 3D, even though it was on 343 fewer 3D screens, Lazard Capital Markets analyst Barton Crockett notes. Wall Street’s most vocal critic of 3D — BTIG’s Richard Greenfield — reiterated his “sell” recommendation for DreamWorks Animation and lowered his 2011 earnings estimate for the company to $1.54 a share, from $1.81. The company’s movies “have not lived up to expectations and the global DVD market is in a free fall as consumers continue to shift from buying to renting,” he wrote in a report.


i agree…when you charge $15+ a ticket for 3D people do get tired of forking out the extra $$$$ , like myself, i love 3D but not at those prices..
I also agree – and what’s worse, so many theater chains last year installed those Sony 3D projectors whose 3D lenses are so hard to change out for 2D, that theaters aren’t bothering to do so, meaning that 2D films increasingly are being shown, at full price, dark & muddy in theaters because the 3D projector lenses suck out 80% of the light.
Yet another reason to ignore 3D gimmickry, stay home, and wait for titles to become available for download.
Kung Fu Panda 2 had good 3d? Are you kidding? Yeah I love the movie,but the 3d sucked! I paid for 3d and I did not see ANY 3D the whole damn movie….the glasses were for shade only! Why? Who knows? I guess they read my mind that I like to be in a very dark theater because I enjoy the movie more.
For someone to say the 3D was good though when there was no 3d that I could see…..you don’t see very many movies or know much about 3d! This is not the first 3d sham I have seen though,The Last Airbender,Clash Of The Titans come to mind – so I am not picking on Kung Fu Panda 2 here…..and of the movie itself….great! I am buying it for sure on bluray when released but in 2D not 3D! I only wish the movie had been actually done in 3d and not called 3d and then you get handed a pair of 3d glassed to watch a 2d movie in! I was really ,really ,really looking forward to seeing Po in 3D..and for it to be such a letdown……I did not expect that! So to anyone going to see this movie….DO NOT pay the extra money to watch this 2d movie with glasses! GO SEE KUNG FU PANDA 2,its great….but see it in 2d…..do not get scammed on this one as I did and paid $14.00 when I could have paid $10.00 and saw the same movie/though yes the glasses did make the room seem darker I guess.
Saw a father and his two kids ( about 4 and 6) just about s%#t his pants when he got the $46.50 charge of Kung Fu Panda. 3-D prices are just out of control. And then you add in 3 small popcorns at $5.50, 3 drinks at $4.00, parking and you might as well call it an even $100.
At those prices everyone will be going to NetFlix. One kid’s movie at a theater or a FULL YEAR of movies at home. Not a tough call.
My kids refuse to watch 3D movies and I refuse to pay for them. So it all works out.
Expectations are everything – Pirates/Thor really didn’t seem like movies that were going to wow audiences with their 3D.
I bet that Transformers 3D theaters will perform very strongly.
So, 3D has things working against its future success. Movies that aren’t really “requiring” 3D and the $5 surcharge.
I really think if the charge was an extra $2 — people would opt for the 3D in a movie like Pirates or Thor. At $5, it just comes off as a money grab.
I’ve been involved with 3D conversions recently and interested in seeing all 3D films as research — yet i opted for the cheaper 2D Pirates. If they’ve lost me, they’ve lost everyone.
I think you’re right. 3D has and will continue to work for big event movies like ‘Transformers’ and ‘Harry Potter’ but studios aren’t using enough discretion in determining which movies to release in 3D.
The biggest offenders are all of the family movies that have been released in 3D as that audience attends a lot of movies and spends a lot on the concession stand, but doesn’t value 3D as much as a Harry Potter fanboy might. Driving families away from theatres because of outrageous costs is bad news for the industry.
I agree, took in Pirates this weekend in 3D and was underwhelmed. I can only think of 1, maybe 2 scenes where it made an impact.
My biggest issue with 3D is, I haven’t seen a film that truly benefited from 3D presentation. Saw THOR at a free DGA screening in 3D, and was like — this was a conversion, and the best action was computer-enhanced, which never looks convincing in 3D.
Even AVATAR wasn’t exceptional in 3D, i.e. I wasn’t convinced nor did I feel immersed in Pandora.
3D sucks.
I’d pay an extra $1 for a movie NOT to be in 3D.
Richard Greenfield is probably shorting Disney stocks right now. Hes not watching movies, he just wants to pick a trend and make money on talking down the stock prices.
3D is here to stay, and no amount of whining is going to change that. The only sad thing is that accountants such as Greenfield that are in positions of power at the studios, push 3D down our throats for the wrong reasons. 3D should be done to enhance the movie experience in movies where it is suited or needed.. not as a tool to squeeze a few extra dollars out of the public.
3D has been “here to stay” about 3 or 4 times in the past.
It is a gimmick. It always sucks. No matter how good the tech gets, until its a true hologram, it will rely on tricking the eye.
You are projecting an image onto a 2D surface. That’s a fact. Making it “look” 3D requires tricking the eyes, and that’s never going to be completely comfortable, and will ultimately fail in the long run.
I realize this is really late.
I just wanted to point out that movies in themselves, however many “dimensions” they have, rely on tricking the eye. They aren’t REALLY showing motion. They’re showing many, many individual images at a really fast pace, faster than your brain can pick up. Your brain tells you you’re watching smooth motion. In reality, you’re watching a very, very fast still-picture slideshow. Ta-da.
I will agree with you on one thing, though. The term “3D” is a misnomer in this case. “Stereoscopic” is more of an accurate term. The trick to “3D” is that two images of the same thing are overlaid in such a way that if your eyes focus on them a certain way, the image appears to have depth. Think of those little things you get in magazines where you have to cross your eyes just right to see a picture. The 3D glasses, be they passive glasses or active shutter glasses, assist your eyes in achieving that focus, in part by separating which of the two images each eye sees, all without making you cross your eyes.
I don’t know why the term 3D stuck. Maybe it’s just catchy.
Dear DISNEY,
ARE YOU PAYING ATTENTION?
Having your classic, Lion King, come out on September 16th in a “SPECIAL 2 WEEK” only ploy to lure parents into taking their kids to seeing it in 3D and THEN to offer it in 3D, 2D and Blu-Ray package is obviously dirty. Rape American families ALL YOU POSSIBLY CAN during a crappy economy. Oh yes, THEN after the $20+ ticket price on your limited engagement then release the Trilogy package that includes 3D- HOW THE HELL DO PARENTS PLAY THAT UNLESS YOU HAVE A 3D compatible television?! Oh yeah, I forgot, that’s another $1500-$2500 for THAT technology.You know what would have turned me on? If you’d packaged Lion King as a special release on DVD ONLY- not in theaters in 3D.
As a parent of 2 Mr Ross & Mr Carney… I’m headed straight for NON-DISNEY productions from now on that take into consideration actual economics and not your studio’s GLUTTONY. “Family Friendly?”– BS.
re-lax
you don’t HAVE to partake in any of it. consumers have a choice
Do you have kids Lane? I’ll bet not. Is not exactly to Disney’s pressure that adults are succumbing, but to our kids.
Be a parent. Tell them no 3D.
Well, that’s one way to look at it. Or it could just be that many people don’t have 3D systems at home like you said and that Disney is giving the opportunity to see the film in 3D at a real 3D theater. It’s not like they are forcing them to go see it! And it’s only a limited release. The 3D trailer (in 2D) even seems like it might make sense based on the composition.
I do agree though the packaging of a 3D version in is just a money grab; it’s an excuse to charge more for “value” that most consumers don’t want (just like digital copy)
You know this is Hollywood, right?
Your use of capital letters has compelled me to agree with your point of view.
Sounds like they’re overreacting How to Train Your Dragon style. Give it some time. It’ll make money, and 3D will help.
Thank god!
3D movies should be an event, like IMAX/OMNIMAX, not a price gouge for families trying to take their kids to the latest summer blockbuster. There’s a reason a lot of substantial directors avoid 3D, because it doesn’t enhance the particular movie they’re making. It’s being used as a disingenuous add-on. And box office is up because of it. It’s false profits.
Frankly, I really only see 2D versions of any 3D movies and most all movies I see during cheap matinee showtimes. I don’t let the overblown cineplex industry fool me into thinking 13 bucks (in L.A.) is a fair price for a mediocre movie. I wish more Americans would exercise their vote of dollars and not allow large corporations to charge what they CAN, but to only charge what they fairly SHOULD.
BTW, no one I know actually liked Hangover 2 and it made nearly 140 million. That should wake people up. Vote with your dollars wisely, or you’ll keep getting screwed.
At what point will studios and theater owners realize that even though I work just as hard as I did 5 years ago at my job, with gas prices, food prices and general inflation, I actually make less money now than I used to. Meanwhile, regular movies cost barely still fit in my budget, and the 3D upcharge is enough to keep me out of the theater all together. I didn’t ask for 3D and in fact, I was perfectly happy with a Kung Fu Panda in 2D 3 years ago.
I know the cry for 3D seems to be “But you loved Avatar in 3D), but now I have seen it on BD and HBO in 2D, and you know what, it is pretty much the same movie, only this time, I didn’t get headaches and have to rub my eyes every 20 minutes.
3D, please feel free to take your place next to HD-DVD discs and Glee any time now. You are over.
I hate 3D and there is no incentive that will make taking my family to see a film in 3D worth the extra money.
I wouldn’t even do it if 3D movies were cheaper. I’d pay extra for 2D.
Don’t give the studios/theater owners any ideas.
Exactly. I’ll pay an extra buck for 2D.
I remember when 3D movies were a special rare occurence. Granted they’ve uped the 3D technology over the years by diminishing the need for the classic blue/red paper glasses, so that’s a plus, but it’s really bothersome and terrible how many movies decide to come out in 3D. 99% of movies nowadays that use the technology don’t even need it! And not only that, when watching a movie in 3D, you NEVER get your money’s worth. EVER. It’s always the beginning of the film that will take advantage of the 3D effects, then they’ll focus soley on the story thereafter and towards the end remember that the movie was advertised to be in 3dD!! If it wasn’t for the constant neglect and the crazy high pices of a 3D movie, maybe people wouldn’t always opt to saving cash and watching the non-3D version instead.
How to Train Your Dragon had great word of mouth and people were saying that the 3D was fun. I haven’t heard similar comments from KP2.
Well this is the most daring comment. Maybe the soft numbers for KP2 was not the upcharge for 3D, but because the film wasn’t so good. Totally without the charm and humror and freshness of KP1. So maybe 3D at least for this picture was not the issue.
What?
3-D is a fad?
Again?
Deja-View.
Wow, this must be driving James Cameron nuts because his whole thing was 3D will work and people will accept it, if the product is good. Not sure about the quality of Panda but people hot off Avitar who wanted to fill that 3D gap had to watch crappy reto-fit movies like Clash and Airbender or dreck like Bloody Valentine. Even the decent 3D movies like Train Your Dragon reinforced adding 3D was not doing much to enhance the overall experience if your movie was good enough to live in 2D.
We saw Kung Fu Panda 2 in 2-D yesterday. It was great, cost us less, and we missed out on nothing.
Hysteria over 3-D pricing seems a bit of an over reaction. In the above example dad paid about 45 bucks. Non 3d would be 30. Is $15 bucks really that much money?
It’s sort of like the gas thing. $3 vs. $4 gas. $15 dollar difference to fill up. What’s with forking over $15 that gets people so crazy? It’s not like $15 bucks is going to make or break anyone.
“Is $15 bucks really that much money?”
Uhm, last time I looks, $15 extra on what could be a $30 cost IS a lot of money. It is like buying an extra ticket for no reason.
If you go to a restaurant, and they charge you for an entree you didn’t order, you’d notice, right? I don’t think your response would be “oh well, it is not that much money, so I’ll just pay for it”.
Kidding, right? Or spectacularly insensitive and clueless?
You don’t blink an eye with a 50 % premium (using the numbers in your example) for a movie? Paying 33 % more for gas is no big deal?
You’re kidding, right?
Except you act as if these are isolated, one time incidents. Most HH’s are two-vehicle HH’s. Most fill their tanks at least twice per month. 2 vehicles x 2 fillups each x $15 increase, and it’s an additional $60/month. NOT an additional $15. And why isolate movie-going and gas (or groceries or any other cost-of-living expenses) as a mutually exclusive incident? When gas is $60 a month more AND groceries cost more, AND movies cost more, it adds up.
And FWIW, before the default response of “get a better job/move out of your parents basement”, know that I’m making 70K a year (with no children to have to spend money on) and have no children so while I CAN afford these increases, I’m not so close-minded to know others cannot.
$15 for something awesome or necessary, fine. But $15 extra for something that doesn’t add to the experience and instead makes it more annoying and/or difficult to sit through – forget it. I’m not the only one who is tired of movies made dark by 3D and darker still by viewing through dark 3D glasses. I won’t pay for 3D because it’s just not awesome enough – not only because I’m watching my pennies! I chose to see KFPanda 2 in 2D for that very reason, and it was just fine without the 3D. If 3D has lost me and my kids, they’ve lost millions more.
Wow, are you out of touch!!!
“Is $15 really that much money?” You betcha. Especially when it starts adding up — at the pump, in your bank statement, on every shelf of the grocery store…..at the movies.
Business practice in America has become, SUCK EVERY PENNY FROM THE CUSTOMER BASE.
Did you see what happened when Congress told banks they can no longer charge their customers $33/per overdraft? The banks come out and say they’re introducing a new “Service Management Fee” on all their customers.
That’s basically saying, “EY we were robbing you blind, and now we got figure out a new way to do that.”
Greed, man. Fucking greed.
Dude! that extra $1/gallon of gas translates to almost $1,000 a year!!!!! Assuming a 15 gal tank, once a week fill up.
That IS a big deal.
Sure, most don’t go to movies every week, but for families the extra is a big burden – the cost of the drinks and popcorn, maybe. And maybe the reason the parent says, hey – let’s go bowling instead.
The 3D market has been crushed by studio greed. Just once, studios might give the film audience a little bit of credit, for if nothing else…watching their dollars.. Sure, these audiences already pay big ticket prices for less than spectacular tent pole films…but, the crap 3D conversion and exhibition systems have now greatly damaged a potentially huge market.
And, in all truth, following Avatar with even good 3D is still a big act to follow.
Over time 3D will work out, but the audience will need some extraordinary 3D product to regain their faith and pocket books.
What a surprise, the studios are gonna burn out audiences by complete saturation. This has never happened before.
Not even James Cameron is powerful enough to stop the studios from giving in to their greed. The masses are starting to realize they’re being had, and that not every movie needs to be released in 3D.
If this trend of audiences rejecting 3D continues (and I’m sure it will) then I really feel sorry for flicks like “The Avengers”, the “Spider-Man” reboot, and the 2 “Hobbit” flicks. Not that their grosses will suffer, but because they made such a big deal about shooting 3D.
I hate 3-D, and my 7-year-old will not wear the bulky, uncomfortable glasses, so I can’t take her to 3-D movies anyway.
We saw Panda in 2-D and had a great time. I don’t need a gimmick to enjoy a good movie.
Did the studios charge more for sound? For color? For widescreen?
Exactly. When have the aduience ever had to pay an upcharge for an added element. If 3D “enhances” the experience that’s waht fimmakers are supposed to do. Whether it is from music, or vfx, or production design, or whatever goes in to the magic of great filmmaking, that is what filmmakers are supposed to do. If Jim Cameron thinks his movie is better in 3D ,great Go for it. I applaud it. It is your vision. Just don’t send me the bill.
3D is a fad, and fads go out of fashion. Great stories last forever.
Agreed 100%.
3D is a gimmick that keeps coming around, and failing every time.
Cinema is an emotional experience. If a 2D film captures the audience, its experienced as three dimensional anyway. And if a 3D film has captured its audience – the way cinema should – you don’t even notice the 3D technology anyway.
Why focus on technology based enhancements for increasing weary cinema audiences, when a simple focus on better, more interesting scripts, is all that’s necessary?
I guess as long as the Studios (or rather, their parent corporations) are making the decisions, based on profit based economics only, we’re going to continue to see the downfall of the cinema we all love. The odd great film still gets through that system, but largely, it’s looking grim and getting worse. No?
It’s not about the prices for me. It’s that 3D makes the movie worse. It’s lousy technology. It’s unnecessary. It subtracts rather than adding. It’s like charging more for a book with blurry type.
I’d pay the extra money for movies that were filmed in 3D like Avatar, but not for movies that were digitally converted to 3D in post, like Kung Fu Panda and 99% of all 3D movies that have come out so far. I am glad to see this backlash as well, because as a father of 3, these ticket prices are getting way out of hand. Ticket prices have tripled in the last decade, but if anything, the quality of movies has gone down thanks to sequelitis and the current trend of “re-imagining” shows from the 60′s and 70′s, that weren’t that good to begin with. Yeah, I’m looking squarely at you Land of the Lost. You sucked when I was a kid, and you sucked even more as an adult.
Um – at least 50% of Avatar was converted…
Panda is not converted.
Here’s a novel idea – why not use 3D movies to attract people to the movie theater, but do NOT charge an upcharge fee? The 3D movies just compound the problem that going to the movies is too expensive. I love 3D movies – but do not love paying the expensive price. I would go to the movies all the time, watching 3D, if there were no added fee. If I save the glasses from previous movies, why should I have to pay a fee anyway? Oh yeah… Hollywood at its usual cash grab. At this rate, they can have it.