3-D Thrill is Gone

email this story
read comments (46)
post a comment

The Wrap's Daniel Frankel has reported data that shows moviegoers are becoming less and less interested in paying 3-D premium prices to see mezzo-mezzo 3-D fare. The cause of the situation is (a) "uneven" (underwhelming or flat-out shitty) quality from the films themselves, and (b) the ruinous effect of fake 3-D, which DreamWorks honcho Jeffrey Katzenberg ranted about four months ago.

"Nearly 80 percent of Avatar's audience saw it in 3D...but 3D's box-office trajectory has been pointing downward almost ever since," Frankel writes. The obvious lesson is that if the 3D films that have opened since Avatar were (a) as good as Avatar and (b) delivered the same quality 3D, there probably wouldn't be a drop in revenue worth reporting about.

Things might have been different also if the fake 3-D used by Clash of the Titans hadn't poisoned the audience's attitude about 3-D technology. James Cameron built 3-D into a wow attraction, and Titans delivered the first degradation that gradually convinced audiences that 3D wasn't necessarily worth the extra cost.

What is Frankel's report really about? The fact only 45 % of Despicable Me's revenue came from 3D showings and Warner Bros.'s 3-D presentations of Cats and Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore grossed only $6.9 million. I don't know anyone who gave a damn about seeing either of these films, 3-D or flat.

What we need right now (but of course won't get) is a Hitler/Downfall video with Bruno Ganz subbing for Katzenberg and raging at the greedies for diluting the 3-D brand in record time.

Wandering Eye<< previous | next >>Edgar G. Ulmer's Detour

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on August 4, 2010 at 9:09 AM

comment #1

Wrecktem says ...

Nonsense. The quality of the 3D is not an issue. The reasons are c) the sheer number of 3D product this year, so 3D films are unable to hold onto screens and d) the 3D upcharge, which greedy exhibitors pushed upwards this year, turning off consumers.

Posted by Wrecktem at August 4, 2010 9:58 AM

comment #2

Hip Hop Homey says ...

i think that TS3 seems to be the only other title that people outright loved the 3D on. I think the high prices will be the downfall. It's just too high for most families to all go see a film nowadays. the studios got greedy and as i said earlier about this, within 2 years or less, hardly anything will be shot in 3D. I'll stick to my kickass TV and BD set up.

Posted by Hip Hop Homey at August 4, 2010 9:58 AM

comment #3

Josh Massey says ...

I heard a theater full of people groan when the latest Harry Potter trailer ended with "in 3-D!" It can't go away fast enough.

Also, I tried out a 3D TV last week, and it might be the dumbest invention in the history of the world. Sony's New Coke.

Posted by Josh Massey at August 4, 2010 10:06 AM

comment #4

Rich S. says ...

In the case of every one of those films except Despicable Me, more than half of its opening week's revenue was in 3D. And Despicable Me checked in at 45%. You can manipulate the numbers with these charts all you want, but the fact remains that half of a film's opening week take, or (much) more is still coming from 3D.

We were bound to see a flattening of the interest as the novelty wore off, particularly since exhibitors are charging too much of a premium for the 3D. But I don't see where this chart indicates it's going away. Quite to the contrary. Talk to me again when we start seeing 10-15% routinely.

Posted by Rich S. at August 4, 2010 10:18 AM

comment #5

THE MovieBob says ...

Look at the TITLES. The only thing the chart shows is that 3D CAN'T make people see a movie they weren't going to see anyway. Spread that chart out in your head a year or two and there'll be another four big "peaks" for Potter, Thor, Avengers and whatever else.

Posted by THE MovieBob at August 4, 2010 10:19 AM

comment #6

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

Personally I think the predictions of "everything will be in 3D" are horseshit, but this graph is even more full of poo.

Trending box office returns is always a dicey affair, this one more so based on such a non-homogeneous grouping of movies in such a short window. There's also other X factors being left out, such as the eventual end to the premium. With the novelty cycle ending and the negatives (always dirty glasses, dim projection) building, the extra fees will be dropped.

AVATAR was an event, so you can't include it in this equation. Wrectum has it right about the logjam which is the biggest factor: not enough screens available. A lot of that ALICE money would have been AVATAR's.

When's the next tentpole 3D film coming out, HARRY POTTER? Yeah, I think that's going to do a little better than a $60M opening and blow this graph apart.

Posted by Deathtongue_Groupie at August 4, 2010 10:23 AM

comment #7

arnold stang says ...

It doesn't take long for today's ADD movies audiences to tire of the latest fad (usually a year to eighteen months).

They know when Hollywood is trying to pull a fast one, and they'll stay away when they feel they're being had. Christmas should be the breaking point for audiences and 3-D.

DESPICABLE ME and TOY STORY 3 are hits because they have good scripts.

HARRY POTTER works because they are Grade A entertainment.

Sony's going to vomit when THE GREEN HORNET tanks. Not even Buckaroo Banzai and the Eight Dimension can save that turkey.

Posted by arnold stang at August 4, 2010 10:24 AM

comment #8

drbob says ...

The movie industry will adjust just fine. They'll simply move back to showing 2d films. It's all those schmucks investing in 3D TV who are the real losers.

Posted by drbob at August 4, 2010 11:01 AM

comment #9

sugardingles says ...

Thank God....
I do not like this 3D fad. 3D makes me ill every time I try to give it a chance -- I feel dizzy, headachey, vomity, etc....

I think I'm the only person I've met so far who saw Avatar in non 3D.

Posted by sugardingles at August 4, 2010 11:01 AM

comment #10

gogocrank10 says ...

I took my daughter to see "TS3" a second time, this time in 2-D. I asked her which version she liked better and she stressed 2-D (or rather, "not 3-D"). These 3-D flicks are overwhelmingly aimed at kids. Kids don't like 3-D. Parents of kids don't like taking their kids to see movies in 3-D. Kids movies that annoy both kids and the people paying for the kids are double whammy offenders.

Posted by gogocrank10 at August 4, 2010 11:37 AM

comment #11

Eloi Wrath says ...

Yeah, that graph really doesn't prove much of anything.

It'd be interesting to see how many people would see it in 3D if they knew it was post-converted and not filmed that way. I think they should be obliged to label it "Real 3D" or "Converted 3D" or something. It's not right to charge the same amount for something like Clash of the Titans as Avatar.

It's like the fake IMAX Digital screens that are cheating people out of their money. There should be more regulation on these things really.

Posted by Eloi Wrath at August 4, 2010 11:49 AM

comment #12

Markj74 says ...

The problem is that Avatar was the main event so far as 3D was concerned. Where is the next picture coming from that is going to equal the thrill of seeing Avatar in 3D? Probably James Cameron's next picture, either Avatar 2 or Battle Angel, so 3 years away? In the meantime 3D will suffer as converted crap is thrown at the masses.

Posted by Markj74 at August 4, 2010 12:09 PM

comment #13

Gabriel says ...

I thought 3D hindered Toy Story 3 more than it helped it. Every time I took my glasses off to wipe tears out of my eyes (shut up!), I noticed that the screen was at least twice as bright without the glasses. I wish I would have seen it 2D.

It doesn't matter though, because Tron is going to relaunch 3D. In addition to being shot in true 3D as well as looking ridiculously cool on its own, most of it will have a neon-and-jet-black palette that will eliminate this problem.

Posted by Gabriel at August 4, 2010 12:17 PM

comment #14

DeeZee says ...

But how can that be? Gordon claimed 3D *wasn't* a giant cash-grab of a gimmick, and that it was the wave of the future!

"The obvious lesson is that if the 3D films that have opened since Avatar were (a) as good as Avatar and (b) delivered the same quality 3D, there probably wouldn't be a drop in revenue worth reporting about."

Um, Avatar wasn't good, and the revenue would have dropped, anyway, because no one can afford to pay 5-10 more bucks for every fucking movie they can just Netflix. The value(or lack thereof) "fake" 3D is negligible, given how there are plenty of successful films with bad FX in general.

"The fact only 45 % of Despicable Me's revenue came from 3D showings and Warner Bros.'s 3-D presentations of Cats and Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore grossed only $6.9 million. I don't know anyone who gave a damn about seeing either of these films, 3-D or flat."

Despicable Me is actually one of the few Uni hits this year. But Cats and Dogs 2 would've probably been better served with a sequel sooner and/or on home video.

Rich: The fact that 3D plateaued in less than a year is a good thing? Especially with attendance in general on the decline?

DTG: "With the novelty cycle ending and the negatives (always dirty glasses, dim projection) building, the extra fees will be dropped."

If chains and studios were that smart, they wouldn't be suing Redbox.

bob: "The movie industry will adjust just fine."

You sure about that? This was supposed to be their last hope.

Posted by DeeZee at August 4, 2010 1:01 PM

comment #15

Ghost072 says ...

Gabriel is right: Tron is the next Avatar, as far as selling people on 3D. Also, as long as quality product is there - Toy Story 3, Up, Despicable Me - a significant chunk of people will pay for 3D. But if the studios continue to try and hoodwink the public with tripe like Clash of the Titans and Last Airbender, they will kill the golden goose.

I also checked out one of the Sony 3D TVs last week and was amazed at the quality. I expected something on the level of converted 3D, but it was much better than that. For a first generation product, it was very impressive, IMO.

Posted by Ghost072 at August 4, 2010 1:38 PM

comment #16

DeeZee says ...

I like the look of the new Tron, but if the "plot" is anything like that of the original, it'll only break even at best.

Posted by DeeZee at August 4, 2010 1:41 PM

comment #17

Rich S. says ...

Come on, Dee. That's an especially moldy page from your agitator book. At least try something new.

Posted by Rich S. at August 4, 2010 1:49 PM

comment #18

Eloi Wrath says ...

Tron will make a shit-ton, most of it probably from stoners high on the 3D visuals and Daft Punk soundtrack. Can see it being the modern equivalent of potheads going to the Planetariums to see the light shows.

Posted by Eloi Wrath at August 4, 2010 2:08 PM

comment #19

Scott Mendelson says ...

Garbiel, you pointed out one of the benefits of 3-D. Be it Up, Toy Story 3, or Meet the Robinsons (no that's not a typo, shut your face, your heartless drones!), the 3-D glasses are incredibly useful for hiding your tears so that the people sitting next to you don't realize how weepy you've gotten. This is especially useful if you're with your kids. Do you want to explain to your very young children why you're crying when the last pages of Carl and Elle's scrapbook are revealed? With 3-D glasses, they'll be none the wiser.

Posted by Scott Mendelson at August 4, 2010 4:00 PM

comment #20

Gaydos says ...

"Numbers are like people; torture them enough and they'll tell you anything."

Movies that people don't want to see that badly do less well on 3D than movies that people really want to see.

And a lesson from the passing of Mitch Miller:

"Mitch Miller passionately hated rock and roll and publicly stated it was a passing fad. He forbade anyone with Columbia Records to record rock music."

Thereby steering his record label away from the most important and lucrative trend in the post-WWII commercial recording industry.

Posted by Gaydos at August 4, 2010 4:34 PM

comment #21

Freddie Mertz says ...

Like any other technology, there is a skill to directing in 3-d that Cameron clearly has and others clearly do not. My three kids (8,5,5) are already off the 3-d bandwagon.

Three cheers to Favreau for declining to film Cowboys v Aliens in 3-d. He claims it will be the only genre release not in 3-d next summer and credits Steven Spielberg for backing him in the decision.

Posted by Freddie Mertz at August 4, 2010 5:32 PM

comment #22

gogocrank10 says ...

Didn't Joss Whedon say much the same thing about "Avengers?"

Posted by gogocrank10 at August 4, 2010 6:44 PM

comment #23

moveable hype says ...

Shouldn't the chart be tracking the percentage and not the gross? Of course TS3 grossed more money than Cats vs Dogs on it's opening weekend but the 60 to 55 percent doesn't seem so dramatic.

Posted by moveable hype at August 4, 2010 7:28 PM

comment #24

brad says ...

3d and Avatar are both really-really overrated.3d was the only reason to watch Avatar, I was yawning through the long stretches of boring alien culture blah-blah, and pointing out to myself all the same character cliches that Cameron has recycled in all of his films. 3d does not make bad films good or good films better, and both Coppola and Ebert are correct. So if you jump on you are a consumer schmuck.

Posted by brad at August 4, 2010 8:21 PM

comment #25

Terry McCarty says ...

arnold stang wrote:
Sony's going to vomit when THE GREEN HORNET tanks. Not even Buckaroo Banzai and the Eight Dimension can save that turkey.

True. Having seen the 2-D trailer, it looks like Seth Rogen's HUDSON HAWK.
But at the same time, Sony will likely clean up on the 3-D entry in the RESIDENT EVIL franchise--perhaps since there's a lot of throw-stuff-at-the-screen shtick even in the 2-D trailer I saw.

Posted by Terry McCarty at August 5, 2010 12:12 AM

comment #26

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

@D.Z. - and if you were smarter, you'd know that yet another studio signed a 28 day window agreement with redbox in the last week.

But thanks for reminding everyone about your phobia regarding AVATAR and your prediction of $200m gross tops. Helps the new arrivals understand just how clueless you are.

Posted by Deathtongue_Groupie at August 5, 2010 1:10 AM

comment #27

Noah Cross says ...

Does this mean none of you will be joining me in line for "Step Up 3D" this weekend? (What about you, Lex?)

Posted by Noah Cross at August 5, 2010 1:38 AM

comment #28

Gordn27 says ...

"But how can that be? Gordon claimed 3D *wasn't* a giant cash-grab of a gimmick, and that it was the wave of the future!"

I can't decide whether it's funnier when DZ claims things that aren't true (like the above) or claims that things that prove him wrong prove him correct (like the above).

Posted by Gordn27 at August 5, 2010 1:58 AM

comment #29