|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: 3D is starting to look flat at the box office
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 09-04-2009 06:46 AM
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2009/07/3d-starting-to-look-flat-at-the-box-office.html
quote:
As more movies play in digital 3-D, there’s evidence that audiences are becoming less interested in the ballyhooed format that many in Hollywood have predicted will stem the long-term erosion of theater attendance.
Box office data for “Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs,” which opened last Wednesday, shows that theaters with at least one screen playing the film in 3-D generated on average, 1.4x as much in ticket sales as those that only showed the picture the old fashioned 2-D way. (A breakdown by individual screens within multiplexes was not available.)
The ratio of grosses in theaters with 3-D screens to those that are 2-D only has declined significantly and fairly consistently since “My Bloody Valentine,” the first film this year to play on a mix of both, suggesting audience interest in the new format is waning.
Here’s how much higher ticket sales were for theaters with 3-D screens compared with theaters with only 2-D screens on the opening weekends for the five major releases so far this year (the numbers are based on studio estimates, as reported by The Times, Boxofficemojo.com and Variety):
“My Bloody Valentine 3-D”: 6.4x
“Coraline”: 3x
“Monsters vs Aliens”: 2.1x
“Up”: 2.2x
“Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs”: 1.4x
Those figures, of course, don't fully represent the financial advantage of 3-D screens compared with 2-D screens, because many theaters feature both; 1,620 of "Ice Age's" 4,099 U.S. and Canadian locations played the film in 3-D, but 1,205 of those also played it in 2-D. Average grosses within those 1,205 probably were dragged down somewhat by their 2-D screens.
Nonetheless, as an apples-to-apples comparison, the decline in 3-D's advantage is significant and curious. It's partially due, no doubt, to the rising number of theaters equipped with 3-D screens. January's "My Bloody Valentine" was in 1,033 of them. By the time "Monsters vs. Aliens" came out in March, there were 1,550. "Ice Age" was on 1,620.
The more theaters with 3-D screens there are in a given region, the more they may split audiences interested in the technology and thus lower their average gross.
It's also possible that as 3-D releases increase in frequency -- "Up" came out four and a half weeks before "Ice Age," "G-Force" follows just three weeks later -- audiences become a little less enchanted by what they get for their extra money. Other upcoming releases using the technology include August's "The Final Destination," September's "Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs," October's re-release of "Toy Story" and "Toy Story 2," November's "A Christmas Carol" and December's "Avatar."
There's certainly no sure evidence that films are consistently doing better as a result of 3-D. While many factors affected the movie's performance, including the Fourth of July falling on a Saturday, it's notable that "Dawn of the Dinosaurs" earned less domestically in its first five days than the 2-D "Ice Age: the Meltdown," grossed its first three days in March of 2006.
And that, of course, is not counting the conviniently forgotten 3D Box office dissasters such as the Jonas Bross or Battle for Terra ($1.6m, $930 per screen) or X games 3D: the movie ($1.3m, $598 per screen).
Sony has also pulled from theatrical release The Dark Country 3D, and sent it straight to home video.
Even the current The Final Destination has had several days in this past week as number 2 in the BO behind the (2D, mind you) Inglorious Basterds.
Also we have to notice how 3D releases usually get the best locations, on the best (and most modern) screens and, because of not every screen is 3D, they do tend to be left on the premium locations for longer, and heavy $$$ put into the promotion of their 3D aspect.
And, needless to say, they charge a premium which on Imax screens can be outregaous and that pumps up the BO numbers w/o it really meaning (much) higher profits for theatres once glasses/lamps/screens etc are paid for. Like I always say: the higher the BO ticket price, the less money patrons have to spend on concessions. And we all know where the exhibition money comes from.
Once the 3D novelty wears out (when all patrons have seen 3 or 4 such films), and "every movie is in 3D" and "every theater is in 3D" ... then we'll see the true color of the Koolaid to those Hollywood's claims that 3D will bring "two, three, four, five times the profits of 2D" ...
Meanwhile, 3D can, at least temporarily, attract more patrons on locations where all the rest of the competition are 2D only, so no doubts in may pay for some.
Hmmm. I also like the points raised by this comment on the above piece:
quote:
Thoughtful article. But, I'm not sure I agree with everything stated.
You do correctly point out that the ratios can be misleading as more Digital 3D screens appear--since they can pull attendance from each other.
But the success of 3D must be measured in "overall" boxoffice across all the 3D cinemas--not by these ratios. Not anymore.
For example, the reason that MY BLOODY VALENTINE sold over six times the tickets per theater in 3D than in 2D was because the movie was really so bad that it had nothing to offer in 2D. I mean, without 3D, what would've been the point of even seeing it? It was "All old and dared again!" in terms of content.
The film's core audience quickly perceived that and went for the sensation of experiencing the visceral thrills "in depth" because that was the only attraction that title had going for it.
It makes a great case for 3D. But it makes a horrible argument that the film, MY BLOODY VALENTINE, was even a good idea to begin with.
One good point the article does make is that this "premium experience fee" of $2 to $4 extra on top of the ticket price is going to wear thin real fast with a recession-bled public. There should only be a $1 to $2 extra charge for the glasses now--period! (They cost far less than that to make now thanks to Real-D's efforts, which lowered the price of circular polarizers.)
The theaters are supposed to recoup the cost of their digital equipment from the "Digital Print Fee" scam--not by sticking even more extra charges upon the movie-going public. Especially not right now!
Why is the "Digital Print Fee" a scam? Because it's really designed (by the majors) to keep the independent distributors off the digital screens by negating the savings of not having to make 35mm prints. And it will never go away. Think about it.
A film projector is relatively inexpensive, requires little maintenance, and doesn't really become obsolete. It's imaging is as good as the quality of 35mm positive print being run through it. But a digital machine (projector, computer, whatever) that you buy on Monday--like any new digitronic technology--will be obsolete on Wednesday. It will require constant upgrading and servicing.
Just wait 'till all this new technology starts breaking-down--especially at the all digital multiplexes.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Michael McGovern
Film Handler
Posts: 57
From: New Britain, CT, USA
Registered: May 2008
|
posted 09-04-2009 10:58 PM
I agree with everything that both you and the article have to say, but one thing I must refute is that in most theaters, the 3-D equipped auditorium is almost never the best or largest auditorium, for the simple reason that 3-D content has to play in that one specific auditorium, and with most 3-D films having runs lasting 4 or more weeks, you don't want to hold down your largest house with an old film that isn't doing business anymore. Most places I've seen have the 3-D screen in a mid-sized house, usually 200-250 seats.
In general 3-D screens still continue to outperform their 2-D versions, but it's been an increasingly narrow margin as the article says. A lot of it has to do with location, I've seen theaters in affluent areas that kill with their 3-D shows, people who can toss around money like it's going out of style simply don't care. On the other hand I've seen theaters in more urban or even impoverished areas that almost have to beg patrons to see the 3-D version, as 10 or 11 dollars for the matinee and 13 - 15 dollars for the evening is simply not affordable for a lot of people.
I can tell you that last weekend Halloween 2 killed Final Destination as far as ticket sales went, but once you include Final Destination's inflated ticket prices, it ended up grossing more.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 09-05-2009 06:26 AM
I welcome 3D as an additional entertainment option and, why not, a MODEST profit maker for both, hollywood and exhibitors.
My only objection is to the notion that 3D movies will, somehow, bring much, much, much, much (they talk 4, 5, 6, 7 times more) patrons/business/profits than 2D.
That's my objection, as that's a lie, marketing hype to get small exhibitors that don't get offered VPF to convert to digital at their own expense and to bring profit to intermediaries like RealD. Profit that, if anything, should remain with the exhibitors.
Having to pony-up $100k to be able to do 3D and thus make money for RealD and for some producers of inferior horror-products that otherwise, sans the 3D, would make considerably less ... is a lot to ask for.
People will watch good (or just plain entertaining) movies on their own, 3D or not 3D. There are a few movies that, if made "only" for the 3D or are very "spectacular" could be worth the extra $2 to be watched in 3D. But those $2 must pay for glasses, lamps, studio cuts, etc, plus if patrons have $2 less in their pocket after they leave the boxoffice they may skimp $2 at the concession stand or even just refuse to come in at all if they are a large family.
So anyway. In 2 words:
3D=yes, why not?
3D=huge profits for exhibitors? No! At least in the long run.
| 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
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic