UPDATE, 3:30 PM: Things were fine for RealD, until executives started talking. The company’s stock price initially jumped in after-hours trading following a surprisingly strong earnings report. That would be a welcome change for the company whose stock value has dropped more than 29% since mid-May. But investor sentiment quickly changed about mid-way through CEO Michael Lewis’ briefing where he scoffed at the notion that consumers are fed up with paying higher ticket prices for 3D. The stock price fell to 7.4% below Thursday’s $24.07 closing price. “I don’t think that two films a trend makes,” Lewis said referring specifically to the disappointing 3D sales for Disney’s Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides and DreamWorks Animation’s Kung Fu Panda 2. “I don’t see a trend. It’s a trend until the trend changes to something else.” He added that results for 3D films this year “will be all over the place, but the end result will be a good one.” RealD is especially optimistic about the performance of its screens outside the U.S. The international venues account for 49% of RealD’s locations, but 55% of its gross revenues. Lewis didn’t directly answer a question about whether weakening 3D sales in the U.S. might be an early warning of what will happen overseas.
Executives also talked up a new licensing agreement with Samsung that will use RealD’s technology for 3D TV. Although shipments of those sets will begin later this year, the company says that 2012 will be the “tipping point” for sales — especially during the year-end holiday season.
PREVIOUS, 1:40 PM: Analysts fear that audiences are tiring of 3D movies, but you won’t see evidence of that in RealD’s latest earnings. The 3D movie technology company beat profit estimates for the quarter that ended in March, RealD’s fiscal fourth quarter. It generated a net profit of $4.5 million, up from a $20.9 million loss in the same period last year, on revenues of $58.5 million, up 5.6%. That translates into 8 cents of earnings per share, defying the consensus among analysts that the company would have a 15 cent loss. CEO Michael Lewis says that the strong results came “despite challenging box office comparisons” vs early 2010. He adds that he’s optimistic about the rest of this year as the total number of screens capable of handling RealD’s 3D films has grown to 15,000, up from 11,300 at the end of December. ”Our significant increase in RealD-enabled screens, particularly in international markets, will enable a larger audience around the world to enjoy RealD’s distinctive and immersive 3D visual experience,” he says. But analysts still may pose tough questions about 3D’s prospects when he talks to them tonight. More to come.





3D started as a technological breakthrough but nowdays it is essentially a blatant trick to extract more money to already over-charged movie audiences. It is only a matter of time that everybody realizes that the only immersion they’re getting is into dirty, uncomfortable and clumsy glasses that ruin the moviegoing experience, plus tons of extremely crappy movies converted to 3D to raise box office receipts. Avatar was not the rule, it was an exception. The problem here is increasingly weak product and specially the arrival of entire generations of moronic kids who are unable to focus their interest in anything beyond their cell phones and that is only for 5 minutes. The cultural industry is fucked because the new audiences have been rendered braindead.
Must be nice to be an ivory tower intellectual elitist snob who hates ordinary people who work for a living.
You need to relax, fighter. Nobody is being elitist here or attacking ordinary people who work for a living. You don’t seem to be able to understand a simple text. The fact that 3D tickets are overprized, or that the studios hope to make more money this way and compensate for decreasing box office results has zilch to do with elitism. It is simply a fact. Ditto for the fact that a big share of the under 25 year old demographic, who makes the lion’s share of movie audiences, is not focusing on traditional exhibition channels. That threatens the current industry’s business model. That, and the fact that there’re idiots out there like yourself that are incapable of even understanding a simple idea and will think of themselves as fighters. Before you go on the high horse, fight ignorance and stupidity. Your own. Then talk.
Get out of my YARD!
Very eloquent. What the hell is that supposed to mean? Why are people yelling stupid nonsense at Richard. If you don’t agree with the guy, argue your point, if you have one. Otherwise get out of everybody’s yard and stay at the kiddie’s table until you learn to reason or talk.
the price on these 3-D movies is simply too high.
I recently saw a father and his two kids (about 5&7) shell out $46.50 for the 3-D Panda movie. He nearly shit his pants. He turned to me at the automated booth and asked, “can that be right?” But he had no choice. He paid it. Had that experience cost him $30 bucks, he’d be back with his kids the next week, too. The high prices are short sighted in a business sense. It inhibits repeat customers. Habits are not being formed and reinforced.
I’ll wait for the DVD (or VOD), and unfortunately, so will my daughter. She will not experience many movies in the theater. And that’s the future of movies.
And I’m a Film Fan.
Avatar…huge 3D revenue.
Rush to 3D conversion…more revenue.
Rush to 3D expansion…more revenue.
3D conversion and general 3D experience…audience begins to question WTF?
More 3D costs…audience starts to question added value 3D costs WTF?
So, presently, 3D is catching up with CURRENT audience withdrawal…none of the the numbers above reflect future revenue…they represent the rise of the 3D bubble…if it is a bubble?
And that is the question…is 3D a fad or a delivery system that needs lots of dedicated work with reduced prices?
The reason 3D worked for Avatar is because that film was essentially 50% ANIMATION. Which is the heart of the problem. The technology is only good for animations – cartoon and computer games. It doesn’t have a future with proper live action grown up cinema.
I saw Werner Herzog’s Cave of Forgotten Dreams which was in Real D and it was the first time I had seen the ‘Real’ format – I hated the Real D glasses with their narrow frames which were in my peripheral vision. I had liked the Avatar glasses which seemed huge by comparison and which I couldn’t see while wearing them. I would consciously avoid the Real D format in future. In the end regretted that I hadn’t settled for the 2D version which I think I would have enjoyed more.
I thought Herzog’s film used the active shutter system — not RealD?
The rules will change when you see the 3D version of Transformers 3. It works like gangbusters in live action.
uh ok michael bay
Im not holding my breath for Transformers at all. Even if it makes 1 billion $ nothing significant will change. Michael Bay’s films are NOT respectable works of art, they are toy commercials.
If any upcoming films have the potential to solidify 3Ds future in the industry they are: Peter Jackson’s Hobbitses, Scorsese’s Hugo Cabret, and possibly Baz Luhrmann’s The Great Gatsby.
Films being shot entirely in IMAX is the wave of the future. Wave of the future. Wave of the future.
Actually, I think Maxivision48 may be the future.
This is one of the 1st “Comment” sections that actually topped (in this case) the “Press Release” story line. With your succinct comments and retorts, you guys have made this into a “Real NOT D” discussion. Kudos 2 all…..and I wish I was an Elitist!
The film that started this ridiculous “is 3D over?” thing was “Kung Fu Panda 2″ – because it opened less strongly as it was expected to.
It’s now over $107 million domestic and $253,101,000 worldwide.
So much for the 3D haters.
I LOVE 3D -
THAT SAID…a film has to justify it – and it comes down to this – I’m more inclined to see a movie SHOT in 3D than one that was converted – when a film is converted, it’s just flat planes with depth – if a film is shot in 3D, the difference is staggering.
So with these earnings, we can now put to rest the ridiculous notion that 3D is going away – but they SHOULD lower the prices for 3D films – at least by $3 dollars or more.
The converted movies remind me of pop-up books.
There is separation between several different elements, but each one of them is flat.
The concerns of 3D’s effect on the box office are very recent (Pirates/Kung Fu Panda 2) and Real D’s financial performance would reflect events WAY preceding this. They’re making money installing systems and licensing the technology, right? Hopefully anybody who would take relief from the Real D financials would get more data points than this before breathing easy.
Just so you know….Transformers 3 is only 1/3 shot in 3D… And 1/3 if not more converted
What’s the other 1/3 shot in? I’m not following your math.
He’s right. Only about 1/3 of it was FILMED in 3D. about 1/3 or so was filmed in 2D and converted, and the rest is 2D filmed and will remain 2D on screen (no conversion)
There is a reason why 3D died in the 1950s. It will be the same reason that it dies now. The novelty is over. It is a gimmick. And a lot of people are not going to pay the added price to be disappointed by “hype”.
Indeed. In fact, 3D was born in the fifties as a gimmick to battle the threat of TV. It was never a viable format for effective storytelling, and once the hype subsided, people moved on. There’re been other gimmicks along the history of theatrical exhibition meant to lure people into the movies and away from TV and, now, an entire new set of digital options (Odorama, anyone?, sensurround sound, cinemascope, etc.) Maybe nowdays people and the media analysts are more gullible than ever, but even then audiences get tired of something that doesn’t add much to their experience, only extra dollars to the ticket. Anybody investing in 3D today is buying into a bubble that is already over the hill of its 15 minutes.
They seriously need to lower the upgrade charge — it is ridiculous that is 1 or 2 dollars more now it’s almost 50 percent of the ticket. If they want to save face, they could at least lower the prices during matinee hours. But truly you have to think if you want to see a movie in 3D or not, I do, but not give them an arm and a leg. It was too dramatic a price change and I don’t get who benefits — is it the studios or is it the theaters? If it’s the glasses, let us bring our own and save a buck or two.
WRONG. Everything will eventually be 3D. Live action will lead the way until the Roy Orbison glasses are removed from the process. If you don’t believe it, poke one of your eyes out so you can keep everything in two dimensions. They thought talkies wouldn’t work. They thought color would mess things up. They thought hi def would make things too real. Brace yourselves, there are ways to make the images you see in movies, Tv, ipads, phones…better.
lol @ you thinking people’s 3D/2D perception changes with 1 eye poked out.
Did they charge excessively more for tickets to talkies or color movies? Probably not. And 3D is not as necessary a feature to motion pictures as the aforementioned additions. The bubble is ready to burst.
Here’s the question – Did anyone ask for 3D? The answer is no. It was a gimmick in the fifties, it went away. There was a resurgence in the eighties (I directed five of them), it went away. Despite the current push, it will go away again. The reason is the same, and it’s simple – very few people like it enough to wear the glasses for 2 hours and there are no practical plans on the horizon to do away with them.
In the future the only place you will see 3D is on infomercials at 3am where Michael Lewis and a perky lady will be trying to sell you a new lawnmower. Why only $19.95? Because it is made entirely out of parts from scrapped 3D projectors.
Oh its coming like a heart attack. 3D will be gone very soon. The only way it stays is if the sur charge drops to one dollar over the regular ticket price. The economy is in the shitter. No one has that kind of cash anymore to drop $80 for a family of four to some crappy third rate conversion. In typical fashion Hollywood has shit their own bed with this. The public has caught on by being burned too many times.
“referring specifically to the disappointing 3D sales for Disney’s Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides”
The movie has made over $800 million worldwide. Someone please explain how that is ‘disappointing sales.’
I was a 3D optimist, thinking awesome this could be the coolest thing ever, imagening great directors using it for the good of the movie. Sure I am Naive. Saw Avatar amazingly beautiful, then Tron kinda Cool then The green hornet, Thor and legends of the guardians thougt who would ever pay for a 3D movie again if this is what you get? The answer they started to show em only in 3D if you want to see it you must see it in 3D. My answer I go to the movies atleast once a week but now I have not been in months. As Leo Getz said “They F you at the drive through” if you get my point. Still clinging to some hope for Scorseses upcoming.
Mr. Lewis, Aldo Nova said it best: “Life is just a fantasy, can you live this fantasy life?” You’ve all killed the goose with the rush to make everything NOT shot in 3D a 3D movie. Many of those movies just didn’t hold up and you angered your audience by making them pay more to see 3D mediocrity. Yes, everyone recognizes that Avatar was absolutely fantastic. But do we really need Pirates 4, Panda 2 and Cars 2 in “engineered” 3D? And expect to pay an additional $3-5 for a mediocre experience? No, thanks, I’ll see it in 2D and put the savings towards a small popcorn.
You are greatly mistaken, Pirates 4 was SHOT in 3D, one of a handful of live-action films shot in 3D this year. And digitally animated films like Kung Fu Panda 2 and Cars 2 are made in a computer, so the 3D is as artificial as the 2D. It’s not an issue of “shooting” those films in 3D or not. You just have to judge the quality of the 3D the same way you judge the quality of the 2D animation. It could be anywhere from 0 to 100 on the scale since it’s all made by hand.
So much of Avatar was also made in a computer, so again the issue of “shooting” in 3D or not is a relatively moot point. And Avatar proves that you can make exceptional 3D on a computer. I haven’t been too impressed with the CGI cartoon 3D, although Tangled looked nice.
I avoid films in 3D. Is that a trend, or just me saving my money and waiting to watch the film in (more enjoyable) 2D.
So how about this, I can afford to take a family of 4 to a 3D movie and pay the x-tra premium. But after 4 3D experiences in the theater my 12 and 9 year old’s don’t want to see a movie in 3D anymore, why the glasses are to heavy, the 3D conversions are not good and its really dark (kills animation color) yes they said that!!!
So unless technology changes specifically RealD, Dolby and Xpand the earnings of any of these companies past 2011 and 2012 will not keep growing.
And to the point of How was Pirates a failure it wasn’t but when it finishes the final analysis will be most of the revenue will not be from 3D projection but 2D.
And finally, instead of concentrating on 3D to sell movies why doesn’t Hollywood concentrate on getting the stories right and fresh, I venture to guess a good story would or could make as much money as the 3D revenues.