Sony’s warning that it will stop subsidizing 3D glasses is “bluster over substance,” Lazard Capital Markets analyst Barton Crockett says today. He’s struck that the National Association of Theatre Owners is vigorously opposing the idea while he’s heard no word — publicly or privately — about whether Warner Bros or Paramount might back Sony. “With theaters united and studios split, we see little chance of a studio victory,” Crockett says. What’s more, there’s “little chance” that consumers will be “stuck with big extra charges.” He raises the possibility of a compromise in which theaters would benefit from lower-cost distribution for the glasses, while studios reduce their payments — now at about 50 cents a pair — and consumers kick in about 25 cents a pair. “But even that seems unlikely,” he says. The analyst has a “buy” recommendation on Cinemark and National CineMedia but is “neutral” on Regal Entertainment.


3-D technology needs to be improved to the extent that:
(1) Special glasses will no longer be needed to view 3-D movies, and,
(2) Ticket prices for 3-D movies are the same as 2-D movies.
You forgot:
(3) Every company becomes a non-profit.
and 4) standardize 3D technology across home and theater platforms so viewers can have the option of bringing their 3D glasses from home (if they have them).
Sony’s reasoning is EPIC FAIL. They could have easily folded the glasses price in with the inflated ticket price – like everyone assumed it already was – and this wouldn’t have become an issue.
This reminds me of Six Flags revised their parking policy years ago. Here, it was something like $10/car regardless of how many people were inside, then you bought your admission tickets individually at the gate.
Then, Six Flags realized they were losing money on this. So they made parking “free” (at least here), then hiked up the ticket prices $10 per person. The public thought they were getting a deal because parking as now “free”. In reality, a family of four may have saved $10 on parking, but ended up spending $40 more just on ticket prices.
Not cool.
I would gladly spend more for my own pair of 3D glasses that I can take to each 3D film I see if it means that 3D movies are the same ticket admission price as 2D movies.
This is a foolishness on the studios’ part. There definitely is an audience for 3D movies, but it’s nearly been destroyed by the gimmicky use of it as “turd polish” on lacklustre films for which the audience is asked to pay a premium price. If the studio doesn’t provide the non-standardized, so you can’t really buy your own & bring with, 3D glasses, the cinemas will charge the audience. A surcharge upon a surcharge, which will end 3D. That would truly be a shame. If used properly (See “Dial ‘M’ for ‘Murder’” in 3d – PLEASE!) it can make the film a far superior experience. So far only Cameron & a handful of others have bothered to present us with worthwhile films that are also 3D.
Can we just stop pretending that 3D is going to be the savior of Hollywood? It’s a gimmick, and that’s all it will ever been. No one is going to go to a movie they don’t want to see simply because it’s in 3D, especially at higher prices. Here’s an idea: if you want to get butts in the seats, make better movies.
I have plenty of these 3D glasses lying around. If we can bring our own glasses and it means lower ticket prices then I’m all for it. I’m on Sony’s side on this one. The theater owners look to be the bad guys on this one.
Studios have little chance of winning over audiences with lame post-production 3D conversion flicks.
I agree. Most 3D movies look like 2D movies in pop-up book form. There is separation around the edges of some of the elements on the screen, but everything is flat.
I stopped seeing movies in 3D and I usually regret seeing the 2D version. It was an inferior story to begin with and isn’t worth watching, in the first place.
This analyst evidently does not work in the movie business to say that theatre owners (thru NATO) are united and studios are split. If studios are split from each other then why are they all supplying the 3-D glasses at this point in time for free? Trust me, when it comes to dealing with the studios from a theatre owners point, each theatre circuit will make their own deals with Sony and any other studios, as they do now. Don’t even think that Regal cares about AMC or Cinemark cares about Regal.
Another nail hammered into the coffin of 3D.
Cost of 3D ticket has nothing to do with glasses. Cost per user on reusable glasses is under 6c. Every theater can absorb that kind of cost and it also allows the audience to bring their own glasses. It’s theater’s fault where they got stuck with RealD fees. Since no one is ghostbusting prints anymore, they can switch from RealD to other 3D systems and reduce the cost to minimum while playing same DCPs.
However, 3D ticket can never be as much as 2D, because there’s no point in making expensier 3D movies. It doesn’t have to be double, but there has to be some premium price.
But there is one interesting side of 3D movies, at the moment you can’t make cam versions and put them online. So if a movie was released in 3D only, there wouldn’t be any piracy till they decided to make a DVD or play PPV.
You said “3D ticket can never be as much as 2D, because there’s no point in making expensier 3D movies”.
Not true, or otherwise all movie ticket prices would be tied to the budget of the film.
Last time I checked, it cost the same to see Transformers 3 as it does to see Dolphin Tale.
(But while we’re at it, I’m getting really tired of seeing films in theatres with a running time of only 90 minutes, or even under that. I’m paying for a 2-hour movie, people! Give me my money’s worth, please!)
I remember reading an interview with Jeffrey Katzenberg a few years ago in which he said in the future everybody would have their own 3D glasses they would bring with them to the movies. Why can’t we just buy them and not pay a premium fee?
3D is still a gimmick being widely used to cover up for a lack of creativity.