3D Dominates The Cinema: Reels In 33% Of All Box Office Revenue Since December

rated by 0 users
This post has 16 Replies | 2 Followers

Top 10 Contributor
Posts 25,872
Points 1,172,435
Joined: Sep 2007
ForumsAdministrator
News Posted: Fri, Apr 9 2010 4:15 AM
Here's a tidbit that the 3D pundits might find interesting: 3D movieshave generated 33% of total box office revenue since the release ofAvatar last December in the U.S. 33%. That's one-third of all movierevenue in America. Talk about stepping in and making an impact! Justtwo years ago, finding a 3D theater was a chore; now they'reeverywhere, and even though they're certainly priced higher than theaverage 2D film, it seems that customers are still buying in.

According to a new report from the International 3D Society Study(watch out for bias, obviously), 33% of domestic box office revenuessince Avatar's release have been from 3D films, with four of them("Clash of the Titans," "How to Train Your Dragon," "Alice inWonderland" and "Avatar") generating $1.2b in domestic ticket sales outof a total $3.587b. Of course, those movies were huge hits, and tons ofmarketing dollars were spent on them to ensure that they got yourattention.



Another nifty stat was this one: for Alice in Wonderland" and "How toTrain Your Dragon," 3D ticket salesaccounted for 65% of total domestic grosses, as well as 80% of "Avatar"grosses to date. So not only are people choosing 3D more frequently,but it looks as if they're choosing 3D more often than not on filmsthat are played up as "must-see" in 3D. The 3D films that we have seenin cinemas have all been fairly spectacular, but wearing the glassesdoes get a little tiresome. Paying extra for the effect is also anannoyance. But it's looking more and more like 3D is here to stay as aformat, and if the box office success translates into the home market,watch out: you'll be having the upgrade itch before you even knew itwas possible to want one in your den.
  • | Post Points: 110
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,809
Points 18,105
Joined: May 2009
Location: Waikiki

There's a REAL problem with D's Numbers.

Of course there is Bias. They want to make you feel like you are missing out on something so you rush out to the theatre.

Well what about the upcoming increase in ticket prices, close to a four dollar increase! What about the fact that those numbers include all those silly fee you pay when you see 3D. The 3D surcharge, Glasses rental fee, Glasses deposit (love that one) services fees.?

Whatever the fees are they add up to close to 22 dollars here, and now they are going to raise it by 4 more.

That is how they get you to believe the hype. They count Gross domestic revenue. Not how many people actually ticket sales!

When they say Avatars' 740Mill beat Titanic's 600Mill. It sounds like a must see! Just think of what the price of a ticket back then was. If they payed 6.50 to see Titanic, and 22 to see Avatar, then which one had more people watching?

These numbers set at these prices are not really spectacular. They just prove that they can update some gimmicks that have been around for a while and overcharge a whole new generation whenever their parents need some alone time. All by selling them on the Hype :P

Now I will say I love 3D, I just feel that it is something that should be included in the standard prices. Especially if they are going to raise them! These are just cheap stunts Hollywood has been using for the past twenty years. Instead of coming up with new concepts.

But when it comes to cheap tricks like rehashing Dances with Wolves (in Blue) and bringing back fifties tech supplemented by computers. Then I have to say that Avatar still cant compete with the true greats like Star Wars! :P

http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

Intel Core i7-875K Quad
Asetek 510LC 120MM
4GB Kingston Hyper-X DDR-3
ASUS P7P55D-E Pro
CyberPower 800 PSU
Kingston 64GB SSD 
2 Hitachi 1-TB HDD'S
FirePro V8800
8X Blu-Ray DVD±R/±RW
HPw2207 22" LCD
Cintiq 21UX
CoolerMaster 690II Advance
Win 7 Pro 64 bit
Special thanks to HotHardware.com!
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 3,236
Points 37,910
Joined: Mar 2010
AKwyn replied on Fri, Apr 9 2010 7:33 AM

Wherever there's an claim, animatortom will be there to tell you what he thinks about it in his own way.

So what, the 3D makes the movies enjoyable. I've seen Avatar and it was by-far the best 3D experience yet. I'm not concerned about the 3D movies topping other movies but there is in no way a conspiracy, perhaps you should take it easy on the Area 51 theories.

Yes the extra surcharge pisses me off because you just throw away the glasses at the end but it's not a concern for me.

 

"The future starts with you; now start posting more!"

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 5,053
Points 60,700
Joined: May 2008
Location: U.S.
Moderator
3vi1 replied on Fri, Apr 9 2010 8:22 AM

I don't know of anyone rushing to see a movie *just* because it's 3D. Either you were going to see it anyway or you weren't.

The box office proceeds are irrelevant. As Tom pointed out, the numbers are slanted because the study was done by a consortium of companies that have special interests in selling 3D equipment to movie outlets and producers.

What part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

++++++++++++[>++++>+++++++++>+++>+<<<<-]>+++.>++++++++++.-------------.+++.>---.>--.

  • Filed under:
  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 1
Points 20
Joined: Apr 2010
tonhogg replied on Fri, Apr 9 2010 12:37 PM

TaylorKarras, I have seen the same comments over and over again from 3d haters as to why 3d is not doing well. That no one likes it and that basically it is one big lie some how to just sum it up in a few words. The reality of it is that a huge percentage of the 3d screens are in medium to large cities who have megaplexes. If you go on fandango.com and look around in different cities this becomes apparent. Over and over again when people go to see a movie and look at the show times board these 3d movie are showing in one room in 2d and in another room in 3d. They have a choice right there. The choice most people are making are to go with the 3d. For the past year for every 2d ticket sold 2 to 4 3d tickets are bought, depending on the movie. My Bloody Valentine was as high as 6 to 1, and that is with these 3d movies being shown on far more 2d screens. So 3d so far has won fair and square, and people are smart enough to know what they want to see without outside influences. Most people knew what a 3d movie looked like anyway before because we all saw one at Disney World anyway and thought a movie in 3d would be nice. Disney has had them since the mid 1980's with Captain EO, plus many Imax theaters over the last couple of decades. They just can't get that maybe 2d does not offer most people anything interesting any more. It has been so over done, like for 90 years now.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 498
Points 6,040
Joined: Feb 2010
Location: South Carolina

 

animatortom:
When they say Avatars' 740Mill beat Titanic's 600Mill. It sounds like a must see! Just think of what the price of a ticket back then was. If they payed 6.50 to see Titanic, and 22 to see Avatar, then which one had more people watching?

Hold on, where are you getting your numbers for? $22 dollars? I payed $10 to see Avatar in 3D. I went with some friends the second day, we still had our 3D glasses with us, we bought the 2D version for $7, and went back and saw the 3D version. I don't know what theaters you are referring to, but I have never seen tickets being sold for that much, ever. Maybe it's highly based on location and theater type. 

Everyone knows that ticket prices have increased from 1997 and inflation has caused price differentiation. 

animatortom:
That is how they get you to believe the hype. They count Gross domestic revenue. Not how many people actually ticket sales!

Maybe the average Joe. 

animatortom:
These numbers set at these prices are not really spectacular. They just prove that they can update some gimmicks that have been around for a while and overcharge a whole new generation whenever their parents need some alone time. All by selling them on the Hype :P

And games don't do the same? When you make a movie that costs roughly $460 million, the studio that is sponsering you will be working around the clock to get people to see the movie. 

Avatar was an experiment. James Cameron was very reluctant that this movie would fair well at all, but he was driven to put this new camera technology to use and change the way movies were made and enjoyed...he succeeded. 

Visual stimulation like movies and television is one of the hardest fields to get into for the entertainment industry, with music probably being the hardest. You have so many people to satisfy and so many critics playing the Watchdog role. 

animatortom:
Now I will say I love 3D, I just feel that it is something that should be included in the standard prices. Especially if they are going to raise them! These are just cheap stunts Hollywood has been using for the past twenty years. Instead of coming up with new concepts.

The old way of doing 3D was overpriced and overrated, I'll admit that. But with the newly found 3D camera technology, the playing field just changed. When the new age of stereoscopic 3D Digital Cameras really took off, theaters around the US had to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars to get these cameras into their showing rooms. This set them back quite a lot. 

3D can't be included as standard prices yet because it's so new, and and isn't readily affordable. Look at the patterns for HDTV's, they used to cost a fortune, much like the new LED's that are out now. But as time progresses I believe that LED's too will drop to an affordable price (and then something new will come out). 

animatortom:
But when it comes to cheap tricks like rehashing Dances with Wolves (in Blue) and bringing back fifties tech supplemented by computers. Then I have to say that Avatar still cant compete with the true greats like Star Wars! :P

Star Wars was something that forever influenced your generation, and much of my early childhood. As corny and poorly done as it could have been concieved, it still captivated the hearts and minds of millions. 

Avatar does the same for this generation. 

And while Avatar does reflect movies like Dances with Wolves....Dances with Wolves reflects a certain Disney movie by the name of Pocahontas, and so does Avatar!

Stories of similar aspects have been told and retold for generations. Just saying.  

 

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 5,053
Points 60,700
Joined: May 2008
Location: U.S.
Moderator
3vi1 replied on Fri, Apr 9 2010 2:11 PM

To play devil's advocate: Wasn't My Bloody Valentine a bunch of nonsense build around 3D scare gimmicks? It's little wonder that few people would want to see that in 2D.

What part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

++++++++++++[>++++>+++++++++>+++>+<<<<-]>+++.>++++++++++.-------------.+++.>---.>--.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,780
Points 40,565
Joined: Jan 2010
Location: New York

Im going to watch how to train a dragon in 3D tomorrow :D lol.

Maybe the increase in profit is just the over charge for a 3D movie... :)

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 141
Points 1,710
Joined: Mar 2010
Location: Iowa State University

To me, 3D is just a way for Hollywood to gain more profit.   I saw Avatar in 3D and it wasn't that amazing.  I saw both Alice in Wonderland and How to Train Your Dragon in 2D and I thought it was fine.  So really I'll probably be paying to watch 2D from now on.  I don't see myself buying a 3D HDTV and 3D glasses in the future (unless they decide to force it where it's not an option) 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 862
Points 11,010
Joined: Apr 2008
RyuGTX replied on Fri, Apr 9 2010 4:47 PM

TaylorKarras:

Wherever there's an claim, animatortom will be there to tell you what he thinks about it in his own way.

So what, the 3D makes the movies enjoyable. I've seen Avatar and it was by-far the best 3D experience yet. I'm not concerned about the 3D movies topping other movies but there is in no way a conspiracy, perhaps you should take it easy on the Area 51 theories.

Yes the extra surcharge pisses me off because you just throw away the glasses at the end but it's not a concern for me.

 

Can you keep the 3D glasses and use them for the next 3D movie?

 

If you think you can’t do something, you’ll never be able to do it. No matter how easy it is.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,780
Points 40,565
Joined: Jan 2010
Location: New York

It is not really just the glasses you are paying more for(A tiny bit of it is). it cost more to make a 3D movie then just a normal movie

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,809
Points 18,105
Joined: May 2009
Location: Waikiki

This is not an Area51 conspiracy theory. It is just the way Hollywood does things.

I actually had a studio VP say to his other executives, "it would be so much easier if we could just get rid of all the artists, then we could get rid of all the headaches". If that is the case then who would come up with the new ideas and make the movies.

This is not about hating 3D, In fact in every post of mine I say over and over again love IT! Yet, like y'all pointed out Disney had Captain EO in the 80's. They have had this circular polarized stereoscopic systems for quite some time now. I bought my two IMAX 3D home systems way back in the late 90's:P

To all other comments, there are only two words for that,...George Lucas.

Its good that you wanna use Star Wars as an example. Because that sums it up very well. Lucas left Hollywood to retain his creativity and ended up creating something greater than the people who said no to him. With Avatar, they like to tout the tech, yet most of that stuff was already in existence in one form or another, Cameron just put it all together in one neat package and slapped his name on it. Lucas and his team had to invent new ways of doing things, like Motion Control, 5.1 THX, and yes even Pixar :)

With Start wars we didn't see ticket prices go up because of all the tech that was being developed throughout the 9 years in the trilogy, only the increase of inflation. Which is understandable today as it is then. Now the studios are using the sales numbers of the 3D movies as an excuse to charge more because the tech costs more? Really? When I saw Space Station 3D or the other IMAX movies in the 90's, the cost was on par with other IMAX movies. Those movies had to have huge development costs for the IMAX 3D systems that they had to develop from scratch for the large 70mm format. Now the studios just hijacked that tech and says hey lets charge double because we can.

10 Dollars, Well I guess it must be good to be a movie patron in South Carolina :) Yet the prices here in Hawaii kinda reflect the prices in bigger cities like LA and NY. They are close to 21.50 for the cost of a 3D movie, and they are *** at the door who don't let you in or out without giving up the glasses. Even if you want to go to the bathroom you must drop them off and get another pair when you come back. So no, you cant keep them and just pay for the 2D version :( I'd even bring my own, yet they have someone there waiting!

So much like Lucas, they shouldn't rake you through the coals just because they can. Yes Less people went to see Avatar than Star Wars, while still having greater sales. That should be the prime example. If they kept the prices at a normal level would they have beaten the attendance? Maybe..But we will never know.

Like I have said before...All Sci-Fi is great! So instead of getting defensive about "My generations Star Wars!" Remember, Your ticket purchase is a vote! A vote for what they are going to make next. If you see it once in 3D then many times in 2D, then maybe next time they will give you the 3D for free, like it should be!

Just imagine if Lucas charged you and extra five bucks because of the 5.1THX :P

Intel Core i7-875K Quad
Asetek 510LC 120MM
4GB Kingston Hyper-X DDR-3
ASUS P7P55D-E Pro
CyberPower 800 PSU
Kingston 64GB SSD 
2 Hitachi 1-TB HDD'S
FirePro V8800
8X Blu-Ray DVD±R/±RW
HPw2207 22" LCD
Cintiq 21UX
CoolerMaster 690II Advance
Win 7 Pro 64 bit
Special thanks to HotHardware.com!
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 3,236
Points 37,910
Joined: Mar 2010
AKwyn replied on Fri, Apr 9 2010 6:53 PM

animatortom:

This is not an Area51 conspiracy theory. It is just the way Hollywood does things.

I'm not saying it's an Area 51 conspiracy. I'm just saying that it's like an Area 51 conspiracy.

animatortom:

I actually had a studio VP say to his other executives, "it would be so much easier if we could just get rid of all the artists, then we could get rid of all the headaches". If that is the case then who would come up with the new ideas and make the movies.

There are already billions of screenwriters, producers and directors out there in the system already that aren't technically artists. Those kind of people make movies like "Old Dog" and "Planet 51"

animatortom:

This is not about hating 3D, In fact in every post of mine I say over and over again love IT! Yet, like y'all pointed out Disney had Captain EO in the 80's. They have had this circular polarized stereoscopic systems for quite some time now. I bought my two IMAX 3D home systems way back in the late 90's:P

To all other comments, there are only two words for that,...George Lucas.

Its good that you wanna use Star Wars as an example. Because that sums it up very well. Lucas left Hollywood to retain his creativity and ended up creating something greater than the people who said no to him. With Avatar, they like to tout the tech, yet most of that stuff was already in existence in one form or another, Cameron just put it all together in one neat package and slapped his name on it. Lucas and his team had to invent new ways of doing things, like Motion Control, 5.1 THX, and yes even Pixar :)

While I agree with some points, I don't know if what you're saying is 100% accurate. Lucas managed to retain merchandising rights for Star Wars due to the studio not thinking it would be a success. The reason why he has all this control is because he has his own film production company, he owns the merchendise rights. (Ever wonder why you see Star Tours and Indiana Jones Adventure at a Disney park?) and he's a respected developer. Also Pixar is not an innovation, it's a company but they did do some very innovative things.

animatortom:

With Start wars we didn't see ticket prices go up because of all the tech that was being developed throughout the 9 yeas in the trilogy, only the increase of inflation. Which is understandable today as it is then. Now the studios are using the sales numbers of the 3D movies as an excuse to charge more because the tech costs more? Really? When I saw Space Station 3D or the other IMAX movies in the 90's, the cost was on par with other IMAX movies. Those movies had to have huge development costs for the IMAX 3D systems that they had to develop from scratch for the large 70mm format. Now the studios just hijacked that tech and says hey lets charge double because we can.

I don't think it's an excuse, I think personally that it's just a interesting news item. An excuse would be the fact that they made a bad movie so they now have to use alot of publicity and marketing to make people watch what is generally a horrible movie, now that is an excuse. Now haven't you considered the fact that IMAX is still an independent corporation NOT owned by the movie studios. Since IMAX is charging a pretty hefty fee for the usage of their technology, I don't know but I do think the surcharge goes to IMAX since their the ones the movie studios licensed the technology from in the first place.

animatortom:

10 Dollars, Well I guess it must be good to be a movie patron in South Carolina :) Yet the prices here in Hawaii kinda reflect the prices in bigger cities like LA and NY. They are close to 21.50 for the cost of a 3D movie, and they are *** at the door who don't let you in or out without giving up the glasses. Even if you want to go to the bathroom you must drop them off and get another pair when you come back. So no, you cant keep them and just pay for the 2D version :( I'd even bring my own, yet they have someone there waiting!

You must got a horrible theater where you live, I have two pairs of 3D glasses that I never thrown away. Yet I always forget to take them.

animatortom:

So much like Lucas, they shouldn't rake you through the coals just because they can. Yes Less people went to see Avatar than Star Wars, while still having greater sales. That should be the prime example. If they kept the prices at a normal level would they have beaten the attendance? Maybe..But we will never know.

Like I have said before...All Sci-Fi is great! So instead of getting defensive about "My generations Star Wars!" Remember, Your ticket purchase is a vote! A vote for what they are going to make next. If you see it one in 3D then many times in 2D, then maybe next time they will give you the 3D for free, like it should be!

Just imagine if Lucas charged you and extra five bucks because of the 5.1THX :P

People see movies because they entertainment and art. If they hear something a movie and they think it's good, they're going to watch it and give their opinion on it. That's why we have movie review sites. Hollywood is not just a movie dumping machine, there are critics you know.

I don't know about that logic, the 3D surcharge is only 8 dollars. Now if the movie ticket is 20 dollars and you watch it twice then you're giving 40 dollars to the movie studios, and that's much more then 28 dollars. But hey, you do get a "free" 3D movie right?

And basically, movie theaters are responsible for the installation of THX certified 5.1 sound systems, so I don't think the movie studios will be in control of that any time soon.

And no, I'm not brainwashed or anything.

 

"The future starts with you; now start posting more!"

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 498
Points 6,040
Joined: Feb 2010
Location: South Carolina

3vi1:

To play devil's advocate: Wasn't My Bloody Valentine a bunch of nonsense build around 3D scare gimmicks? It's little wonder that few people would want to see that in 2D.

Ah yes. This was before a 3D movie experience actually mean't 3D. Avatar was the first Film to be released that used 3D for the entire runtime. 

I don't remember what Studio funded that movie, but I'll agree with you that the movie was advertised as being extra scary in 3D. 

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 136
Points 1,890
Joined: Mar 2010
sp12 replied on Sat, Apr 10 2010 10:57 AM

Another point is that these numbers are revenue, not sales total.

As 3D tickets are more expensive they'll make up a larger share of revenue at the same ticket total as 2D.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,809
Points 18,105
Joined: May 2009
Location: Waikiki

Marius "And while Avatar does reflect movies like Dances with Wolves....Dances with Wolves reflects a certain Disney movie by the name of Pocahontas, and so does Avatar!"

Lets see: Robotech-1985 (giant blue aliens/robots)

Aliens-1986

Dances With Wolves -1990

Disney's Pocahontas-1995

I am sure since you were only three when Pocahontas came out, you probably thought DWW came out later only when you were allowed to see all the three hours of naughtiness's :o Yet Cameron does combine all these elements very well. Tell me the ships in Avatar don't look like giant scale versions of the drop ship in Aliens. In fact most elements were taken from previous Cameron films, just made way cooler and in 3D. Which is a good thing that we all want to see.

Aliens is still my all time favorite movie, if only for the fact that it had such detail, a perfect story and was done on a budget of 18Mill. Star wars raised the bar and throughout the eighties they had to make them unique and mind blowing. Hence the inception of things like Alien, Star Trek, Predator, Terminator, Robocop, Highlander,Total Recall, Abyss, Etc...

Taylor, you must have alot of family or friends in the industry, Is that why you are filled with so much angst :) I guess since you were born the same year when some movie treasures like Silence of the Lambs, Beauty and the Beast or L.A. Story came out. Then you must remember the fever of Seeing that silly little kids movie called Star Wars for the first time on the big screen way back in 77'. Although 91' did have Terminator II :)

So nobody must have told you how Lucas was then, Public Enemy Number One in Hollywood. And how ever since then they have all been scratching their heads to make sure those marketing rights are never given away again. I don't think we even used a terms like sellout until around the nineties because the creatives still held to their principles. That is why we have the greats like Tippet, Murren, Baker, McQuarrie, Burt, Dyksra, Edlund, Trumba, Ralston, or Winston. All who have made the effects so fun and memorable, and help shape the techniques used in Avatar.

The theme park stuff was just a fun sideshow for Lucas. Yes, he held onto his marketing rights, he took that and turned it back into developing great movies. He started Pixar which was the first to make 3D animation and implement it into movies, which he then sold to the Turtleneck in 86'. Way back then there were no such things as PCs at lest none that didn't have green screens and less power than today's cheapest Ipod. So technically he pioneered the way towards your modern day CGI.

He also took that Merch money and developed:...

THX Ltd. - theater sound system (Before that we only had Mono),

Kerner Optical - Practical effects division,

Lucas Digital,

Skywalker Sound - postproduction sound editing,

Industrial Light & Magic - special effects,

Lucas Licensing - licensing and merchandising,

Lucas Learning - educational materials,

Lucas Books - book publishing,

LucasArts - video and computer games,

Lucasfilm Animation

Lucasfilm Animation Singapore,

Lucas Online - websites

Through all of this he has advanced movies to what you see today. He was an outcast because he was breaking box office records and Mainstream Hollywood wasn't getting any of it. Over the years he has used the innovations like ILM and made all the movies from Jurassic Park, Trek/Wars, to things like T2. This is all common knowledge for anyone who lived through it and payed attention to the differences on screen. SO, to say I am not a 100% accurate. Just do a little research on the Wiki, and find out. I cant tell you 100% about his life, but I can tell you what has been documented over and over :P

Or if you want to see what Sci-Fi was like before, just go watch something like Forbidden Planet, Logan's Run, or The Day The Earth Stood Still(The original). All greats, that had to rely on Story and not flash!

My whole point in those views, was that 3D is something that should NOT be charged for. Just like all the advances in sound, optics, computer graphics, cameras, and visual effects that Lucas developed to tell a good story, to enhance it..Not drive it.

Intel Core i7-875K Quad
Asetek 510LC 120MM
4GB Kingston Hyper-X DDR-3
ASUS P7P55D-E Pro
CyberPower 800 PSU
Kingston 64GB SSD 
2 Hitachi 1-TB HDD'S
FirePro V8800
8X Blu-Ray DVD±R/±RW
HPw2207 22" LCD
Cintiq 21UX
CoolerMaster 690II Advance
Win 7 Pro 64 bit
Special thanks to HotHardware.com!
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 3,236
Points 37,910
Joined: Mar 2010
AKwyn replied on Mon, Apr 12 2010 10:06 AM

animatortom:
Taylor, you must have alot of family or friends in the industry, Is that why you are filled with so much angst :) I guess since you were born the same year when some movie treasures like Silence of the Lambs, Beauty and the Beast or L.A. Story came out. Then you must remember the fever of Seeing that silly little kids movie called Star Wars for the first time on the big screen way back in 77'. Although 91' did have Terminator II :)

Well my father was an executive at Mystic Records and he is friends with Doug Moody so yeah, I might have some connections in the industry. Unfortunatly I was too young to see movies you mentioned, but I did watch Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menance on IMAX when I was about 7 so yeah, I do remember the fever of seeing that kid movie, though it was not in 1977.

animatortom:
My whole point in those views, was that 3D is something that should NOT be charged for. Just like all the advances in sound, optics, computer graphics, cameras, and visual effects that Lucas developed to tell a good story, to enhance it..Not drive it.

I agree with those views but the only flaw that needs to be covered is the glasses. While I don't know if the surcharge is going to the movie studios, Real3D (the company that inserted 3D into those theaters in the first place) or just to cover the glasses. But one thing that we can accept is the fact that people who already have the glasses should not have to pay the $8 surcharge.

 

"The future starts with you; now start posting more!"

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (17 items) | RSS