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 saw How to Train Your Dragon in 3D and shelled out for 3 kids and it’s the last time I’ll ever pay for 3D. It did nothing to enhance the movie, in fact the glasses were a pain and the kids end up not wearing them half the time. I also had tried about 3 other movies in 3D and had the same opinion. I gave it a chance and it didn’t pass.
I do not want 3D in a movie even if it is free and I’m certainly not going to pay the extra bucks for it.
If I can’t get a 2D showing of these movies at a convenient time then I’ll wait for dvd.
Hollywood wake up!
Hell, they didn’t charge extra for 3-D in the ’50s and the ’80s. Drop the surcharge and I suspect the numbers will go back up.
The problem is Avatar is the only movie that was envisioned and created as a 3d spectacle. 3d is part of it’s essence. For everyone else it is just an add on. I doubt James Cameron ever saw Avatar as anything but 3d
Another thing is that people are starting to realize that when they think about a movie after a screening is done, what they recall are the strengths or weaknesses of the story, the characters, the themes and the points it aims to make. 3D is just a slight visual addition to all of that, but it doesn’t provide an emotional experience. It’s not tied in to those aspects of a movie, which is really why people love movies and what makes a movie resonate with someone far into the future. People are realizing, “Hey, I’ll get the same emotional experience, which is what I really care about, without the 3D, so why do I need to spend an extra three or four bucks?” People are also realizing that movies are already visually arresting entities, that there’s enough in a 2D blockbuster to put them in awe with the added enhancement of 3D.
This has never been about advancing the 3D medium, save for the first few months when “Avatar” offered something really promising. Maybe it is for James Cameron, who seems to be someone with a pure love of technology, but not for many others. It’s very simple. No more profits for 3D, no more love for the process. People work things until they stop working, plain and simple.
3D films aren’t “immersive.” When I should be looking at a character’s reaction to a floating thing, the 3D forces me to look at the floating thing, too. When there are rich, intricate backgrounds, it makes me look at the front end of a vehicle. When there is a spectacular battle, it makes me look at dirt being thrown toward the lens. This is not something I want to pay for.
I am raising my children to recognize that 3-D is nothing but a craven money grab. I have seen a few releases in 3-D but I usually avoid them like the plague. Not yet has it added a thing to the movie experience for me. I keep hoping for some studio to lose a fortune on a few 3-D releases then maybe this stupid trend will stop.
This is how capitalism works though: merchants create the perception of a need; consumers buy into it; merchants’ wallets get fatter; repeat…repeat..repeat and when the horse is dead dismount
3D is awesome when done right. The problem is that not everything should be 3D and half the time the 3D is just slapped right on and looks terrible (Thor, The Last Airbender, Clash of the Titans). Hollywood just needs to know how to use moderation as opposed to milking it to death right away.
There is going to be a year when almost every single movie released in 3D will fail drastically at the b.o. And I’m not talking about a 3 or 5% dip. I’m talking 50%. These ass clowns that run this town seriously think that audiences are a bunch of morons. The jokes about to be on them.
The only way 3-D will truly take-off is if ticket prices for 3-D come down to the same level as 2-D.
Sure, you could charge a one-time fee for durable 3-D glasses that would be the patron’s to keep and that they can bring back with them for future 3-D films.
The person who figures out how to convert 3D cameras and projectors into working lawnmowers will become very rich indeed.
Next to James Cameron, Jeffrey Katzenberg was and is the biggest cheerleader for 3-D and is obligated to see it through to either: A) its failure and disappearance or B) its complete acceptance and inevitable drop in price.
If Jeffrey worried as much about the quality of his films and less about seeming to be the omniscient industry Svengali, the DWA stock would still be in the forty dollar range.
The WORLD is loving 3d at the moment just because your country is in a hole doesn’t mean the rest of us should miss out.
People complain so much about the higher 3D prices…If you hate the extra price so much, be smart and save your glasses!!!Then, you can just purchase a 2D ticket and stroll on into that 3D theater and whip out your glasses. I’ve been using the same glasses since Beowulf and have probably seen every film that has been available in 3D without paying a single cent extra.
Diabolical…
This doesn’t bode well for the Great Gatsby in 3D.
I was certainly excited when 3D first started coming out in the mainstream with Avatar, but after watching a few movies since then in 3D I don’t see it lasting very much longer.
The picture is way too dark and looks small even on an IMAX screen with the glasses.
Walter Murch said similar things about how it won’t work, plus the fact that our brains will never truly accept the 3D images, that’s why so many people get head aches.
All these things take you out of movie watching experience as you are constantly reminded that you are wearing dark glasses and you have a head ache.
Frankly, I think the future is in ultra high resolution images over 4K. I am still more impressed by a true IMAX image than any 3D film I have ever seen.
I just saw Bridesmaids this weekend and the tickets were $12 each for a Sunday AFTERNOON! My wife and I are avid movie lovers, but we no longer go to the movies all that often due to the high ticket prices in general. 3-D is pretty much out of the question and I tend to find it more annoying than awe-inspiring anyway. $24 is far too expensive for an evening movie, much less a matinee.
I can choose not to purchase concessions, so their ridiculous prices don’t really concern me. Plus, the wife has a big purse so… you know.
Furthermore, at the high prices for both tickets and concessions, it seems to me that years of watching movies at home have left many folks completely unaware of how to properly behave at a movie making the money spent seem even more like a terrible decision.
I live in Atlanta and I often leave the movie annoyed at the audience.
I pay money for my movies at home. Between AppleTV, Netflix and HBO I rarely miss anything that I want to see. Not to mention the fact that we have a pretty swell set-up at home too.
Too bad because the 3D in Kung Fu Panda 2 was quite good, much better than most so-called 3D films released recently. I saw Thor in 3D because I wanted the Imax but couldn’t care less about the 3D and was still underwhelmed by the 3D even though I kind of liked the movie. Theaters, which have a much less forgiving bottom line than studios, will lead the way on this by either making less screenings available in 3D or holding steady over the next year. I think audiences are just thinking, “now hold on a minute. I just shelled out $$$ for Thor 3D and Pirates 3D, and Transformers and Harry Potter are both on the way also in 3D. Maybe I’ll see this one in 2D and save my $$$ for the dozens of summer movies on the way that I want to see.” Not necessarily a trend that audiences are sick of 3D.
And let’s not forget the 1/3 of the world who wears corrective vision glasses. Having to place these bulky things over our frames to just watch the movie is incredibly annoying and uncomfortable.
How come no one ever says exactly what the extra $5 is paying for? The glasses – that we turn in after the movie is over? Cleaning them? Paying for the projectors? (Did we pay for the regular ones for the last 80 years?) Converting the film? Paying for the 3D cameras?
Real question: What percentage of the surcharge (which continues to increase) goes towards the 3D experience, and what percentage goes to Hollywood pockets?
Thankfully I am not the only one who absolutely loathes 3D. I’m glad to see that many others have noticed that 3D does not provide a superior movie, rather it provides an INFERIOR movie.
A film’s beautiful picture and colors are TARNISHED with 3D. I remember hearing how awesome Avatar 3D was, so I wearily went and saw it. Avatar was awesome, because it was an awesome movie. It was even better though when I could enjoy its beauty in HD on Blu Ray.
A month or so ago, I saw a short documentary, “Born To Be Wild” at my favorite IMAX theater with a huge screen. The movie was great, but only offered in 3D. I recalled seeing the trailer in 2D ahead of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 and how INCREDIBLE it looked as it filled up the screen with gorgeous colors. Once those glasses were put on for the actual movie however, the screen appears about 3/4 of the size and the picture is weak, all only to have a few objects stick out at me. Definitely not a good movie experience.
To summarize again, I loathe 3D. Please die 3D, just die.
P.S. Is anyone else pissed off that after the movie you’re expected to return/recycle the glasses? I bought the damn things two hours ago for five bucks. I should be able to keep them and use them again (that is if I actually liked 3D movies). Just another way for the movie studios to charge me more and save more money.
the problem with 3D is that it has 2 points of focus. Always has and always will. the viewing length constantly changes and where as in 2D mode the viewing length stays the same. Hence the headache some people get.
for mine there is a Market for a premium HD 2D product. 4K resolution (4096 x 2160) with around 8 millions pixels onscreen compared to around 2 million now in 2K (2048 x 1080) @ 60 FPS (instead of 24fps) with 7.1 surround sound to top it off. totally immersible and almost 3D like due to the fine detail and no 3D filters to drop 73% (Real-D XL) – 90% (Dolby 3D) of the light.
I’m a long time 3D fan.
I’ve got over 30 field sequential movies for CRT, and a converter for non 3D material. I’ve got other movies using various 3D technologies. I’ve waited several years to see if it would “stick” this time.
But I believe the problem to be from two or three main problem areas.
My ‘old’ TV is a Panasonic only about 5 years old, that cost me 3 large, and is rated to last for y-e-a-r-s. I needed a new , and it was arguably the best at the time. Even with prices dropping this year, I gasped, choked, and clutched my heart, when finally choosing to upgrade to a 3D equipped set, with a pricey, not that old, set already sitting at home.
It is not the glasses, as reviewers constantly harp on. Get over it. Half the world wears glasses, most just to SEE the TV on the other side of the room. The rest, at least wear sunglasses outdoors. I don’t hear folks complaining about wearing sunglasses.
The quality of the 3D is spotty. It seems that rather than produce a great 3D experience, some companies are re-hashing 2D movies, in inferior 3D, just to cash in on the lack of enough 3D movies. They don’t begin to have that “POP” effect that gets you going.
The lack of quality 3D movies is tied directly to the, and I’m being kind here, INSANELY HIGH PRICES! $35.00 to $65.00 for a movie? I’d buy gobs of 3D flicks, if they were REASONABLY PRICED! You want 3D to take over? Drop the prices, and make standard DVD’s go extinct! Do these folks not know there’s a recession on, and we’re all rationing our cash? I’ll buy food first. The movie is a treat, after my meal. Try cutting out all of the extra trash, and sell me the movie already. I don’t need the making of, the DVD version, the online game, etc…, etc… I don’t usually even take the extra’s out of the box. Save us all some money. Is it “immersive”, or is it just overkill?
And, not to stifle innovation, but the TV manufacturers did 3D no favor, by making dozens of incompatable formats. The 3D glasses tend to be expensive enough, but when I can’t take mine to your house, because your set is not the same brand as mine…? I love my old Panasonic Viera, but was SHOCKED when they didn’t AT LEAST, include a couple of pair of glasses with my new set, so I bought third party ones that at least work with several brands of sets, and at less half their price.
Well, in the famous words of Porky Pig, B-duh, B=duh, B-duh, That’s all folks!