BBC Confirms ‘Doctor Who’ Season 8 
‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ $22M Friday For Lower … 
Finally, Cannes Dealing! Radius-TWC Nabs Director’s … 
Hammond On Cannes: Wet Fest’s Official Competition … 
‘Vampire Academy’ Adds ‘Modern … 
RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘Shark Tank’ Finale Up, … 
Cannes: Worldview Options Andrew Dominik’s Marilyn … 
UPFRONTS 2013: The Overachievers 
‘Mike & Molly’ Creator Mark Roberts To … 
Carey Mulligan, Matthias Schoenaerts Set For … 
Hammond On Cannes: Weinstein Brings Out Stars For 2013 … 
Cannes: Fake Gunshots Interrupt Canal Plus Live Broadcast … 
‘The Great Gatsby’ Starts With $5.4M … 
Cannes: Music Box Snags Competition’s ‘Michael … 
UPDATE: Amazon Studios Begins Pilot Pickups; … 
Bruce Rosenblum Bids Classy Goodbye 
RATINGS RAT RACE UPDATE: ‘American Idol’ Hits … 
UPDATE: ‘Iron Man 3′ Box Office Crosses $1B … 
Upfront Market: Will Auto Makers Subsidize TV … 
Cannes: Thief Makes Off With $1M+ In Chopard Jewelry Meant … 
‘Scandal’ Finale On Small Screen And Onstage At … 
Wall Street’s backlash against 3D movies is growing serious. Just weeks after movie executives and investors wondered how well 3D films would do this summer, they’ve begun to ask much tougher questions including: When will movie theater chains begin to cancel orders for 3D projection equipment? And could continued weakening in ticket sales force AMC Entertainment to shelve its plan to go public and raise as much as $450 million?
Defenders of the technology are urging everyone to wait and see whether there’s an uptick in 3D ticket sales for Paramount’s Transformers: Dark Of The Moon, which opens July 1, and Warner Bros’ Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part II, which opens July 15. The films should “help provide for a more positive outlook” for 3D in general and particularly for 3D technology company RealD, says Merriman Capital analyst Eric Wold.
But investors didn’t appear to agree on Friday. RealD’s stock price fell 13.2% to $20.90 the day after executives responded to the Street’s concerns with talking points that simply urged people not to read too much into disappointing 3D sales for just a few films. RealD shares now have lost 41.3% of their value since May 19. “While management dismisses a change in consumer enthusiasm toward 3D, the public is speaking and 3D is simply being overused with ticket premiums far too high,” says BTIG analyst Rich Greenfield — who has a “sell” rating on RealD.
Exhibitors also are losing patience. Regal Entertainment’s stock price is down 16.7% since mid-May. Cinemark is down 12.6% since this beginning of this month. “When 3D was first introduced the public got really excited,” says Imax CEO Rich Gelfond. ”But over time it’s going to be on a movie-by-movie basis. In some cases it will work. And in others it won’t.”
Loading ...
Looking forward to Harry Potter.. in 2D. No desire at all to see it in 3D.
Agreed. I am an avid movie viewer and NOTHING about 3D is enticing to me. Avatar was interesting, but beyond that any movie “remade” by REAL 3D has left me feeling ripped off. The premium charged is way over the top, and the effect is minimal and uninteresting. Good movies don’t need gimmicks to attract an audience.
it’s a wrap for 3D. Thank God.!
I hear the studios like it for overseas because it prevents piracy….moviegoers will pay to see it in the theatre and don’t want a bootleg copy….
here…not so much
Nope.. No one here “overseas” seems to like 3D over features like a good story, good actors or anything like that. I’m sorry but that piracy argument doesn’t stick, anywhere in the world I guess..
To this date, I have not seen any movie in 3D or IMAX. You know what, I don’t think I’m missing anything more than a gimmick. Technology should be moving forward instead of repackaging an aging gimmick.
Bottom line is that a movie still has to be worth seeing, if a film is bad 3D or not won’t make a difference. I don’t know why it seems people assume that just because it’s on 3D it will or has to be a hit
Another thing, let’s stop the conversions. Studios are giving the format a bad name just by doing this. Just film it in 3D. I don’t have a problem with converting some older films but something new either film it in 3D or skip the format altogether
Lastly let’s lower the premium for 3D. 3 or 4 bucks may be a bit much. 1 or 2 bucks would probably boost attendance which leads to more business elsewheres like the concession stand
Doubtful. Here’s the problem: Overpaid fatcats in Hollywood and on Wall Street just don’t understand that even people making $150,000 a year can’t afford $120 to take their family to the movies every couple of weeks. The real world (i.e., not people who pull down $400,000 to “analyze” things) is sick and tired of paying an arm and a leg for mediocre films in bad theater settings, much less with the added problem of wearing big glasses and having to rub your eyes every five minutes because the screen is so dim. The red-and-blue cardboard glasses of yesteryear may be gone, but 3-D is still just a gimmick, and not a particularly good one at that. The novelty has worn off. Give us good movies, not bad movies that give us an EXTRA headache and cost too much to go see. Jeffrey Katzenberg and Bob Iger get private screenings in cushy screening rooms and don’t have to put up with people who text, talk and munch their way through the movie experience. They don’t understand what it means to be asked to part with their money in this way. That $3 price difference per movie makes a BIG difference when you’re talking about a family of four. So, here’s what I think we’ll get: The analysts will breathe a sigh of relief with “Potter” and “Transformers,” then we’ll see it all happen again … and within two years, 3-D will, thankfully, be as dead as it was by 1956 and 1984. And in 2035 or so, some new brainiac will come up with the brilliant idea of doing it all over again. Face it: Audiences by and large just don’t like 3-D anymore.
Wrong. The movie studios don’t set 3D premiums, and don’t control the exhibition of the movies. In fact, they’ve been successfully sued away from doing so by exhibitors due to (true) charges that the studios were favoring their own theatres.
Hollywood executives aren’t any more out of touch with the mainstream than executives from any other industry. Exhibitors aren’t really, either… The problem is the “mainstream” is out of touch with itself. Having previously spent several years in the movie industry, I can tell you for everyone in a movie theatre who hates texting and talking during movies, there is someone else who wants to text and talk. Most people who “hate” it only hate it when they are interested in the movie and other people are doing it, but don’t seem to mind when they themselves talk through a movie they aren’t too interested in. And, of course, EVERYONE that you confront for texting is conducting CRITICAL EMERGENCY BUSINESS on their phone. NO ONE was just texting a friend, they were always a parent whose child was at home alone and scared, or, of course, there were the 80% of all movie patrons who happen to be doctors and have to be able to communicate with the office.
You would be shocked at how stupid the remaining movie patrons are. There are a few intelligent die-hards, whom I feel horribly for, and the rest of the intelligent crowd only sees the inside of a movie theatre on rare occations. If you want a good experience, hit up a movie theatre in the matinee when only old folks are around. Otherwise, be prepared to share the auditorium with a bunch of obnoxious teenagers and loudmouth adults.
People
God, let’s hope this trend continues! I think 3D is a genuine threat to the theatrical exhibition business, and I’ll be thrilled to see this technological force feeding come to an end.
I am a supporter of 3D — but not for everything. Avatar and Toy Story 3 were DEFINITELY worth seeing in 3D and I didn’t mind the additional ticket price. In fact, my preference would be to experience those movies in 3D again and again. However, none of my other 3D experiences justified the expense and hassle. I think the market can only sustain 2 to 3 3D pix a year. Everything else should be 2D. At least for the time being….
I think there should be as many a year possible as long as they of the same 3d quality of Toy Story 3, Avatar etc.. The problem is the poor 3d which has blatantly cheated moviegoers out of their money, but I’ll pay the premium any day if it’s shot and most importantly executed with 3d in mind.
Maybe if they didn’t charge north of $20 to see a film in 3-D, the movie studios and theaters wouldn’t be in this predicament. There are so many options out there for entertainment and the movie industry should keep prices in check.
Honestly it just gives me a headache…
Isn’t Part II as dark-looking as Part I?
In case anybody here hasn’t read Walter Murch’s letter to Roger Ebert about why 3D will never stick around, here’s a link:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html
There is a gross mis-understanding of the technology out there in Hollywood and the rest of the world. Studios are using it for the wrong reasons. 90% of the time it’s done poorly, but in some cases it is done very well. The technology isn’t going to change anyone’s minds until The Hobbit comes out in 48fps, which is going to blow people’s minds. A lot of people get headaches and nausea from the poor use of 3D, as well as strobing and such that 24fps 3D can cause in the theater. The Hobbit is going to be a GIGANTIC leap forward for technology, that I think a lot of people in the industry don’t quite grasp how big. So Hugo Cabret, Transformers, Tintin, Prometheus, etc. will all have to settle for audience dissatisfaction with old 3D tech until The Hobbit arrives in Dec. 2012. I see that one being another Avatar event-like film that everyone wants to see.
I don’t care if 3-D gives me a handjob, I’m done with the stupid glasses.
First of all, one movie (The Hobbit), will not make or break 3D one way or the other. Second of all, The Hobbit movie itself could very well be a disappointment (have you read the book? I was made to read it twice in school, and it’s a children’s story and really nothing to write home about). Finally, I am as skeptical of the switch to 48 fps as I am of 3D. Anything shot above 24 fps starts to look like home video (aka the soap opera effect) and may cause the film to lose its epic feel, all in the name of 3D.
Blu Ray…not worth the money.
3D…not worth the money.
Make it far better, get rid of the glasses (all of them), and drop the price…but, that solution doesn’t work for the studios, manufacturers and exhibitors…so, let the 3D chips fall where they may.
Sorry, blurry is absolutely worth it. Sorry your home theater sucks. But bluray is the way to see a film.
The problem isn’t just that the premium is too much, but it doesn’t add anything to the experience. In the last year the only movies worth watching in 3D were ‘Jackass’ and ‘Drive Angry.’ Take the 3D away from those films and there is hardly anything left in terms of entertainment. Look at films like ‘Pirates’ and ‘Thor’ and the 3D takes away enjoyment. I actually was able to catch the latter in 2D for a second viewing and I thought it was much better.
So not only are people more cautious about what to spend the extra buck on but everyone assumes everything is in 3D. And it kills business. The theatre I frequent had people asking for 3D glasses for ‘Fast Five’ and others saying they would skip it because it’s only in 3D.
And then for the more educated people who know what’s what see that 2D shows sell out faster due to the lesser amount of shows than 3D and end up watching something else or just passing on watching a movie all together.
3D isn’t special anymore, it’s actually hurting sales. People don’t bother a majority of the time and I even had a friend who runs a theatre talk about watching ‘Super 8′ but passing on IMAX due to 3D. Yes, even people who promote these features are out of the loop due to the unnecessary grip 3D has on a majority on the marketplace.
Transformers won’t save 3D, it will only hold off it’s demise for a weekend or two.
Studios just don’t wanna say they fucked up. They need to treat 3D as an exclusive novelty.
I personally hate 3D. Many of my friends, many who have ironically worked on some of these 3d movies, also hate 3d. Its a gimmick to charge more money. People are starting to see this (thank god).
The smart money is leaving the 3D ship, and rightly so. Films sell or don’t sell on the basis of their performance as films, not based on gimmicky technologies associated with their exhibition channels. In this case, the gimmick is, for many audiences, intrusive, uncomfortable, forced and not satisfactory. It darkens the image, the glasses are often dirty or scratched… It is simply a technology that may be evolved on the manufacturer’s end, but on the consumer’s end is a pain in the ass. And the hype won’t justify the extra dollars to already inflated tickets. Investors should think in the mid-term prospects of a fad that has been regurgitated and survives because a great picture, Avatar, and Cameron, who’s a genius and can make anything work, decided to fall in love with it. But Cameron can’t make an Avatar a month to justify the fad. Everybody should act wisely now and walk away from a warranted money loser. I can’t see how a serious analyst today can advise his clients to put money on something that prompts too many questions and offer extremely weak answers (wait and see, after transformers 3 all will be great!). I’m sure transformers 3 will look great, but I plan to see it in 2D and I guess most people, after the silly fever of the clumsy glasses fades, will do the same. Get your money out in time, or you’ll spend the winter eating 3d glasses for breakfast, lunch and dinner.
If Transformers and Harry Potter perform below expectations, it could well signal the death knell for 3D in general. There will still be some big hitters like The Hobbit and the Avatar sequels, but it will become a totally niche market for movies. A mere 18 months after Avatar, who’d have thunk it?
After Clash of the Titans, the situation became very clear…
Who’d have thunk that the studios would kill 3-D through lazy execution and greediness? Uh…anyone who follows the entertainment industry?
Harry Potter and Transformers will probably do well in 3D. But these are the sort of ‘event’ movies that might warrant 3-D effects. But forget the post-conversion stuff and film the whole thing in 3D, that’s the only time it really works (Drive Angry). Overall, 3D does feel like a gimmick. I don’t see it (no pun intended) becoming the ‘norm’ for movies/TV until you can watch w/o the glasses (which for me is wearing a pair of glasses over my glasses). Besides, why should I pay extra for 3-D when so many films are 1-D in quality?
Wow. Shortest bubble in Hollywood recent history. Amazing
how many supposed adults in responsible positions who supposedly saw
3D product believed this ancient technology could sustain anything in the way the studios used it. Poor Hollywood. Maybe good scripts will save them.
I don’t know why it’s hard for the analysts and businessmen to understand that gas prices have skyrocketed to never-before-seen levels in the past couple of months, which completely coincides with the decline in 3D ticket sales for the last couple of movies. Gas prices are the MAIN economic issue and topic of conversation for the average American. This is a HUGE, HUGE issue for the American people which cannot be understated or underestimated.
The directly related problem is that theaters got greedy and decided to raise prices on 3D films a year ago. You can’t tell me that was justified by the cost of exhibiting them, since there was no price difference until AFTER Avatar and Alice in Wonderland were done and gone. I thought most of the costs to exhibit 3D films came in the initial installation and set-up. So shouldn’t we have been charged the premium on Avatar and then had the price drop later, just as all technology prices decline with time? The price hike was brought on solely by the theaters being drunk on greed from the huge Avatar ticket sales, not by rational thought.
What happened to the business model that said theaters make their money by bringing in more customers and selling them concessions? If your business model is based on raising prices in THIS painfully depressed economy, you need to rethink it. Last I checked, there’s a sale at every store every week. Why don’t theaters EVER have a sale? Or ANYTHING creative to increase profits other than just raising prices? You’d think they were another branch of the post office.
If 3D films cost the SAME as 2D like they used to, you would see far more people choosing to see 3D films. On average it adds to the enjoyment of the film. Like with everything else about film, critics will need to learn to distinguish between good and bad 3D and audiences will need to read the reviews. Bad use of 3D SHOULD be punished while good use should be praised and rewarded. And more great 3D films like Avatar will most certainly attract more consumers.
I am an average customer (perhaps above-average as I do see most films I’m interested in, in the theater).
I’m planning on seeing Transformers in 3D because the director shot it that way and that’s its intended viewing experience. Whether you like the quality of his storytelling or not, Michael Bay does images well. If anyone can make 3D add to the experience of a film, he can (and if he can’t, then god help us).
I’ll be seeking out Harry Potter in 2D. The series on a whole has been wonderful with great storytelling and I do not want a distracting gimmick making a dark film (visually) even darker.
I suspect you’ll see this general buying pattern played out in the box office numbers when the films come out.
I’ll bet screens showing Harry Potter in 2D will be more full than screens showing it in 3D.
Transformers, on the other hand, is the type of utter shit that 3D was meant for.
Saw Thor in 3D, it contributed nothing to the movie. In fact it made the film stock seem dim and washed out. More of a distraction then anything. Good riddance I say.
When customers ask at our box offices if a movie is in 3D and we tell them no, 99.9% of the patrons respond “OH THANK GOD!”.
nuff said.
Doesn’t Transformers open on June 29th? That’s what all the bus stop posters I’m seeing all over town say.
Hopefully the money-grubbers doing piss-poor conversions and giving 3D cameras to directors who don’t do their homework on using the technology won’t kill 3D for the artists who do use this tool to make for a better filmgoing experience.
Exhibitors should continue their upgrades. They’ve got a couple of Avatar sequels to look forward to, along with Fantastic Voyage and other ambitious projects that will fully exploit 3D.
Also bear in mind the clunky 3D glasses are a transitional technology. Apple’s already filed patents for 3D screens that don’t require glasses. James Cameron said last year that glasses-free 3D is only ten years away.
Take a longer-term perspective. Give it time. 3D will be very profitable in the longer term.
Problem is, theaters don’t have the money to keep doing successive rounds of conversion until 3D one day “gets there” which may be decades away. Glasses-free 3D is a pipe dream at this point when dealing with a theater full of people. And the problems with the way our brains work cannot be overcome.