Interesting article in today’s Wall Street Journal. Starting with Monsters vs. Aliens next weekend, there will be a wave of big-budget 3-D films hitting movie screens around the country over the next few years. Part of an effort to get folks to come to the movies. According to the paper, “Even with an upswing in the past few months, movie admissions have declined more than 9% over the past decade and were down by almost 5% last year, according to box-office tracker Media By the Numbers."
The new 3-D is more sophisticated than what folks my age witnessed back in the 1950s. Back then there were 2 projectors that had to be synchronized for the duration of the film; get ‘em a little out of whack and it wasn’t a matter of just the 3-D images falling flat, the audience would also get headaches. Many often did, even when the projectors ran right. The new 3-D system uses a single digital projector that rapidly alternates scenes as viewed by the left and right eyes. Still have to wear classes to see the 3-D image, but now the spec are more stylish than the old cardboard frames with red and green celophane "lenses." Looks more like sunshades. Sounds sorta like what they have at Disneyland and Disney World—wonder what percent of the shades they get back after each showing?
Also, is this going to work in today’s economy? First, the theater owners have to pony up $75,000 for each projector. Each time 3-D has been cranked up in the 1950s and in the 1970s-1980s, it has proven to be more of a fad and hasn’t caught on. Of the 43,000 movie screens in North America, only 2,000 are equipped for 3-D. Producers expect to make 45 3-D films over the next 2 ½-3 years. Will theater owners be willing to take a risk and make such large investments? And are 45 films enough to sustain audience interest?
Also, theaters typically raise 3-D tickets by $2-4 above normal admission. DreamWorks is looking at a $5 premium on its ticket sales. One investment bank estimates higher ticket sales from 3-D films could help boost box office by nearly 23% in 2011 over 2008 returns. Another possible drawback—3-D is aimed at putting butts in the seats of movie theaters. What’s going to happen to non-3-D DVD releases of those films? Subsequent DVD sales have been one of the more profitable arms of the industry in recent years. There’s talk of 3-D home systems, but that’s more expense and gets back to people staying at home rather than coming to the movies.
One thing that gives me pause is that most if not all of the 3-D films mentioned in the article are animated. I’d like to see more live-action. Moreover, in what to me was one of the more interesting factoids of the article, it quotes film critic Leonard Maltin as saying all the high hopes for 3-D now being voiced by studio heads “are an absolute replica of the pronouncements and interviews that came out in 1953.” Could it be 3-D will fade and fall again as it did 56 years ago?
What do you think? Ready to pay an extra $10 for you and your date to watch a 3-D cartoon?
The new 3-D is more sophisticated than what folks my age witnessed back in the 1950s. Back then there were 2 projectors that had to be synchronized for the duration of the film; get ‘em a little out of whack and it wasn’t a matter of just the 3-D images falling flat, the audience would also get headaches. Many often did, even when the projectors ran right. The new 3-D system uses a single digital projector that rapidly alternates scenes as viewed by the left and right eyes. Still have to wear classes to see the 3-D image, but now the spec are more stylish than the old cardboard frames with red and green celophane "lenses." Looks more like sunshades. Sounds sorta like what they have at Disneyland and Disney World—wonder what percent of the shades they get back after each showing?
Also, is this going to work in today’s economy? First, the theater owners have to pony up $75,000 for each projector. Each time 3-D has been cranked up in the 1950s and in the 1970s-1980s, it has proven to be more of a fad and hasn’t caught on. Of the 43,000 movie screens in North America, only 2,000 are equipped for 3-D. Producers expect to make 45 3-D films over the next 2 ½-3 years. Will theater owners be willing to take a risk and make such large investments? And are 45 films enough to sustain audience interest?
Also, theaters typically raise 3-D tickets by $2-4 above normal admission. DreamWorks is looking at a $5 premium on its ticket sales. One investment bank estimates higher ticket sales from 3-D films could help boost box office by nearly 23% in 2011 over 2008 returns. Another possible drawback—3-D is aimed at putting butts in the seats of movie theaters. What’s going to happen to non-3-D DVD releases of those films? Subsequent DVD sales have been one of the more profitable arms of the industry in recent years. There’s talk of 3-D home systems, but that’s more expense and gets back to people staying at home rather than coming to the movies.
One thing that gives me pause is that most if not all of the 3-D films mentioned in the article are animated. I’d like to see more live-action. Moreover, in what to me was one of the more interesting factoids of the article, it quotes film critic Leonard Maltin as saying all the high hopes for 3-D now being voiced by studio heads “are an absolute replica of the pronouncements and interviews that came out in 1953.” Could it be 3-D will fade and fall again as it did 56 years ago?
What do you think? Ready to pay an extra $10 for you and your date to watch a 3-D cartoon?