|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Analyst: 'Pirates' Was Hurt By 3D As Consumers Tire Of High Ticket Prices
|
|
|
|
|
Aaron Garman
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1470
From: Toledo, OH USA
Registered: Mar 2003
|
posted 05-24-2011 10:17 AM
I wouldn't say I went out of my way. I didn't really want to see the 35mm on a silver screen anyhow because that too does not look all that great. I will say this movie, shot with real 3D cameras, worked on that level. I enjoyed it, and in many scenes the 3D did give some interesting depth to the image that I found cool. I still maintain that in most installations though, 3D still sucks, robs you of a sharper image, and as far as conversions go, it is totally unnecessary.
Another part of it on a totally ridiculous sentimental level is that the movie was playing in my favorite house, sloped floor, baffle wall, and all so the audio experience is much more enjoyable. And Joe, I can't even figure myself out at times.
AJG
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 05-28-2011 07:48 PM
You are right; businesses decide what costs they are going to transfer back to the customers all the time. Traditionally, though, exhibition has been very selective in what they will or will not visibly ask the customer to pay for.
Key issue in point, after installing $80K to $100K worth of digital equipment and shouting from the rooftops how much better it is than film ever was, exhibition never added a surcharge for digital equipement and surely with the economic burden digital imposed on the theatre owner, if ANY technology's cost needed to be recouped, it was the digital conversion. But that never happend. Same for the 7.1 sound upgrades or even for digital sound before that; where were the added costs for those premium theatre experience upgrades?
So how come all of a sudden, 3D gets a $3 uptick smacked on the ticket price when the 3D equipment is not nearly as expensive as the digital installation before it? And does anyone REEEEALLLY think after that $24K 3D upgrade is paid for by how many thousands of admissions with a $3 "3D" tag extra, will any exhibitor then drop the price back down to standard prices?
And THAT's why this lad is cynical enough to think they simply added the 3D surcharge because they knew they could. In fact, it was probably the 3D glasses which they figured they could insinuate as the reason for the surcharge, not for the 3D experience or the equipment costs. I am willing to bet that even today, most of the moviegoing public still think the glasses are why they are paying a surcharge (except try bringing in your own RealD glasses and say you don't want to pay the surcharge and see what happens).
And look, I am a capitalist....mostly. I think businesses should charge whatever the market price will bare. If they can dupe the public into paying more for a ticket price, by claiming this that or the other thing and the public buys it -- more power to them. But my personal opinion is that the 3D surcharge is souring the public on 3D.
I wonder how many people would be similarly soured on 7.1 sound or even digital projection if they carried a surcharge but which the public could opt out of by going to a theatre that didn't have the digital (scratchless, dirtless, colorfadeless, last screening the same as the first screening) projectors installed. How many people do you think would say like I hear being said about 3D, "Oh, I am going to see it in a non-digital theatre because digital doesn't add anything to the movie, plus the price is lower." Or, "I am going to see that movie in a theatre that is running it only in 5.1 sound and without a surcharge because who needs 7.1 sound?; it doesn't add anything to the enjoyment of the movie."
If the public were allowed to avoid additional surcharges for equipment upgrades, we might be surprised to find out how many technical improvements they could live without.
So yes, I think this 3D surcharge is, based on the history of exhibition technology upgrades, certainly breaking the mold and a very bad idea all around if, that is, no one cares if 3D survives.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic