High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource

Go Back   High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource >
Rules HDTV Forum Gallery LINK TO US! RSS - High Def Forum AddThis Feed Button AddThis Social Bookmark Button Groups

High Definition News & Informative Articles Get the Latest High Definition News & Informative Articles Here! Please post newsworthy information here only! This forum is NOT for your first post. Thank you!

Analyst: America Tired Of 3D Movies

Reply
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-29-2011, 05:28 PM   #61  
Muscle Cars Forever!
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 47,098
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by soupnazi View Post
The only number you used to suggest that Avatar was so successful was 80% of sales was 3D ticket revenue. This is the best number to use for 3D marketing purposes but it's not the only number involved and is inaccurate.
Why is it inaccurate? There was no widespread premium tacked onto 3D tickets when Avatar made it's run in the theaters. That was done after it finished it's run.

Quote:
Avatar wouldn't have made as much money if it was 2D but it still would have made a lot and the 80% revenue of 3D ticket sales is irrelevant when comparing apples to apples. Remember, you are arguing my point that 3D is not as big a reason for a movies success as some numbers used suggest.
See above. You are mistaken. And it is highly relevant. Given the choice, people chose to see Avatar in 3D. There were more 2D screens than there were 3D screens that Avatar played on.

Same price - 2D or 3D and 80% of the BO revenue came from 3D.

The public voted . . . with their wallets. And the numbers show this.
Lee Stewart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2011, 03:02 AM   #62  
mmmmm High Def
 
soupnazi's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 1,152
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post
Why is it inaccurate? There was no widespread premium tacked onto 3D tickets when Avatar made it's run in the theaters. That was done after it finished it's run.



See above. You are mistaken. And it is highly relevant. Given the choice, people chose to see Avatar in 3D. There were more 2D screens than there were 3D screens that Avatar played on.

Same price - 2D or 3D and 80% of the BO revenue came from 3D.

The public voted . . . with their wallets. And the numbers show this.
Imax only shows in 3D and average price was $14.58
Ticket prices varied a great deal for Avatar. You can calculate exactly how much was made on box office sales but that doesn't matter to me. I don't receive any of that money. I'm just a movie fan pointing out that the numbers used to promote 3D are not accurate when used to say how much more popular it is.

http://www2.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=2667&p=.htm
Quote:
According to the National Association of Theater Owners, the latest available statistic for national average ticket price is $7.61 for the fourth quarter of 2009. IMAX reports an average ticket price of $14.58, but, at the time of this writing, there is no official word for regular 3D presentations. A survey of theaters across the country shows a $2 to $4 premium for 3D over 2D and indicates a $10 average ticket price. With these stats one can estimate 38.7 million tickets have been sold in regular 3D, 15.2 million sold in 2D and 6.8 million tickets sold in IMAX 3D.
Quote:
Unfortunately, the industry does not track admissions, only dollars. Absent proper admissions tracking, estimated admissions are determined by dividing the grosses by the average ticket prices, but this method is certainly iffy and should not be seen as definitive. It's best used for recent releases that have complete box office records, but, even then, one may know the national average ticket price but not the average for an individual movie. The audiences vary demographically and regionally for each movie, which means different average ticket prices. What's more, for a picture like Avatar, the method does not address leveling the playing field for the possible deterrent of higher ticket prices, how the 3D presentations impact 2D attendance or how 3D currently has far fewer theaters than past 2D blockbusters.

However, it's better to have an approximation than to have nothing. Only the money may matter to Hollywood, but attendance is important from an audience and cultural perspective. The disparity between Avatar and Titanic is so huge according to this method, that it is safe to say that Titanic sold a boatload more tickets.

Pointing out the estimated admissions in no way diminishes the box office achievement of Avatar. The purpose is to add perspective. There is no doubt that Avatar is a phenomenon in its own right with its own unique set of circumstances and that it stands as one of the greatest box office runs of all time.
soupnazi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2011, 09:26 AM   #63  
Muscle Cars Forever!
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 47,098
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by soupnazi View Post
Imax only shows in 3D and average price was $14.58
Ticket prices varied a great deal for Avatar. You can calculate exactly how much was made on box office sales but that doesn't matter to me. I don't receive any of that money. I'm just a movie fan pointing out that the numbers used to promote 3D are not accurate when used to say how much more popular it is.

http://www2.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=2667&p=.htm
From your own link:

Quote:
With these stats one can estimate 38.7 million tickets have been sold in regular 3D, 15.2 million sold in 2D and 6.8 million tickets sold in IMAX 3D.
Lee Stewart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2011, 10:12 AM   #64  
UNOTIS
 
unotis's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: FLORIDA
Age: 64
Posts: 4,139
Default

This is an argument that could go around and around for quite some time.

If you of the opinion that 3D is here to stay and the more people that become knowledgeable about the increased viewing pleasure available by watching it over a normal 2D version that it will become a larger percentage of films being produced and in the future we will remember just what a viewing revelation it was. Then the argument against 3D surviving won't change your mind and visa versa.

The whole glasses will doom it to me is a false premise, millions of people wear glasses everyday and millions more wear sunglasses whenever they go outside, so if they can abide that surely wearing glasses for a couple of hours to greatly improve your viewing pleasure while watching a film or sporting event on HDTV shouldn't be too much of a stretch for anyone.
unotis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2011, 12:10 PM   #65  
Muscle Cars Forever!
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 47,098
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by unotis View Post
This is an argument that could go around and around for quite some time.

If you of the opinion that 3D is here to stay and the more people that become knowledgeable about the increased viewing pleasure available by watching it over a normal 2D version that it will become a larger percentage of films being produced and in the future we will remember just what a viewing revelation it was. Then the argument against 3D surviving won't change your mind and visa versa.

The whole glasses will doom it to me is a false premise, millions of people wear glasses everyday and millions more wear sunglasses whenever they go outside, so if they can abide that surely wearing glasses for a couple of hours to greatly improve your viewing pleasure while watching a film or sporting event on HDTV shouldn't be too much of a stretch for anyone.
The biggest complaint about 3D is a valid one. It is the brightness of the images because the glasses cut down so much of the available light coming back from the screen, minimum 50%.

Most people do not calibrate their TVs and even many that do will turn up the white level because they deem the picture too dim. The SMPTE standard for brightness in movie theaters is 16 Ft. Lamb. yet many people's TVs are set as high as 50 Ft. Lamb.

Kodak has invented a laser light engine that can be used for DLP front projectors (professional) that not only improves the color accuracy but is substantially brighter than the current blub models from the likes of Christie and Barco. They have already received government approval (health and saftey) and should begin to appear in theaters in about 2 years.
Lee Stewart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2011, 12:22 PM   #66  
mmmmm High Def
 
soupnazi's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 1,152
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by unotis View Post
This is an argument that could go around and around for quite some time.

If you of the opinion that 3D is here to stay and the more people that become knowledgeable about the increased viewing pleasure available by watching it over a normal 2D version that it will become a larger percentage of films being produced and in the future we will remember just what a viewing revelation it was. Then the argument against 3D surviving won't change your mind and visa versa.

The whole glasses will doom it to me is a false premise, millions of people wear glasses everyday and millions more wear sunglasses whenever they go outside, so if they can abide that surely wearing glasses for a couple of hours to greatly improve your viewing pleasure while watching a film or sporting event on HDTV shouldn't be too much of a stretch for anyone.
My argument is only that the numbers used for marketing 3D are inaccurate. I'm not arguing that 3D is going to die. No one can accurately predict what will happen with so many variables changing with technology moving at a lightning speed. I'm just saying that partly the reason 3D is where it is today is because marketing used exaggerated numbers. If you're a fan of 3D, Great. If you're on the money making side of things, Great. My interest is trying to change perspective in hopes of saving my option of watching a movie in 2D. I know it's not always an issue but I haven't had the option quite a few times and I don't want it to escalate.
soupnazi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2011, 12:31 PM   #67  
Muscle Cars Forever!
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 47,098
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by soupnazi View Post
My interest is trying to change perspective in hopes of saving my option of watching a movie in 2D. I know it's not always an issue but I haven't had the option quite a few times and I don't want it to escalate.
Good luck swimming against the current - an exercise in futility.

The business of making movies is making money. The business of showing movies is making money. 3D tickets bring in more money than 2D tickets.
Lee Stewart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2011, 12:32 PM   #68  
mmmmm High Def
 
soupnazi's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 1,152
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post
The biggest complaint about 3D is a valid one. It is the brightness of the images because the glasses cut down so much of the available light coming back from the screen, minimum 50%.

Most people do not calibrate their TVs and even many that do will turn up the white level because they deem the picture too dim. The SMPTE standard for brightness in movie theaters is 16 Ft. Lamb. yet many people's TVs are set as high as 50 Ft. Lamb.

Kodak has invented a laser light engine that can be used for DLP front projectors (professional) that not only improves the color accuracy but is substantially brighter than the current blub models from the likes of Christie and Barco. They have already received government approval (health and saftey) and should begin to appear in theaters in about 2 years.
If that's the case than my movie experience may get better. The whole reason behind my "anti 3D campaign" is because I'm blind in one eye. I've been to a few 3D movies and if you can see it from my perspective the picture is terrible compared to 2D. A dark image with ghosting and framed by thick rimmed glasses. I have to pay a premium for this?
soupnazi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2011, 12:33 PM   #69  
mmmmm High Def
 
soupnazi's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 1,152
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post
Good luck swimming against the current - an exercise in futility.

The business of making movies is making money. The business of showing movies is making money. 3D tickets bring in more money than 2D tickets.
I made my point already that making money from movies is not my business.
soupnazi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2011, 12:59 PM   #70  
Muscle Cars Forever!
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 47,098
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by soupnazi View Post
I made my point already that making money from movies is not my business.
Yes we know - you are a victim of the proliferation of 3D theaters and 3D movies.
Lee Stewart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2011, 04:23 PM   #71  
HDF SUPER-MODERATOR
 
ImRizzo's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brooklyn..It's not a Place, it's an Attitude, & LI,NY
Posts: 23,575
Default

I spoke the the Magnolia rep in my local BestBuy today while checking out the new Sony. He said interest in 3D sets has dropped off considerably and because almost every decent Plasma and LED sets are 3D, sales have dropped off considerable, between the economy and the real lack of enthusiasm for 3D they have a glut of inventory, which should reflect in some major discounted sales. They make profit selling them, not storing them. I also noticed most sets have HiGloss Glass screens with the exception of LG and Sharp panels.???
ImRizzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2011, 04:36 PM   #72  
UNOTIS
 
unotis's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: FLORIDA
Age: 64
Posts: 4,139
Default

Yet the latest DisplaySearch report on May 31, 2011 says that 3D TV shipments grew 104% in Q1 over the previous quarter to a market penetration of 3.9% and they project a penetration of 12% for the entire year with the Q4 seeing 16.8% penetration.

I don't see how everyone is tired of 3D if sales and shipments are rising and yes it is through marketing and price reductions, but still it looks to be growing even with all the negative predictions cropping up.
unotis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2011, 06:10 PM   #73  
HDF SUPER-MODERATOR
 
ImRizzo's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brooklyn..It's not a Place, it's an Attitude, & LI,NY
Posts: 23,575
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by unotis View Post
Yet the latest DisplaySearch report on May 31, 2011 says that 3D TV shipments grew 104% in Q1 over the previous quarter to a market penetration of 3.9% and they project a penetration of 12% for the entire year with the Q4 seeing 16.8% penetration.

I don't see how everyone is tired of 3D if sales and shipments are rising and yes it is through marketing and price reductions, but still it looks to be growing even with all the negative predictions cropping up.
But you fail to factor in. that those of us who wish to purchase a display panel with the best PQ, are subjected to purchase a panel 3D capable, because thats the only way to get a top of the line display panel. I for one, am currently researching buying the new Sony HX-929 LED display as it is the best of the best in full array LED panels and it is only available in 3D. Much the same as the high end VT panels by Panasonic.
ImRizzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2011, 02:22 AM   #74  
High Definition is the definition of life.
 

Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 256
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post
Correct. I believe the upcost is around $50, most of it the emitter. For the new FPR 3DTVs it is the cost of the manufacturing process to add the FPR. (FPR = Film Pattern Retarder)

You can't compare the way we normally see to how we see 3D using glasses. Under normal viewing, each eye sees a 3D image. You can see 3D even if you only have one eye. With manufactured 3D, each eye sees a 2D image and the brain puts them together to form a 3D image.

As far as NFL games, I doubt it unless ESPN is broadcasting them. The Networks have shown no interest in 3D and there is yet to be a broadcast 3D standard, though SMPTE is still working on it.
Thanks for bringing that up again. I'm not anti- 3D, but I'm one of those people whose brain can't make the translation. NFL? I saw about 20 minutes of the OSU Bowl game in 3D @ a Best Buy, and it left me underwhelmed- not really 3d- like 3 layers of 2D- at least to me.

Oh, I plunked down the extra $$ to see Avatar in 3D at the local Cinema, and one of the others laments I saw in this thread strikes true for me also. The visual gizmos- seeing the "soul" float an inch in front of your nose- detracts, not adds to the experience- and wearing glasses over glasses is a pain in the a$$, as I've said before. I'll never venture down to a 3D movie again without my contacts in, and leaving the regular glasses at home isn't an option, as I'd be legally blind without them. I own the 2D Blu-Ray of Avatar, and at least to me, it's a way more satisfying experience.

And there's others that just made the same point I'm about to- if you're currently in the market for a state-of-the-art, top end panel for your home (fortunately I'm not) 3D panels are the only show in town.
hoorta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2011, 07:23 AM   #75  
Fireman, Save My TV
 
zip2play's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 1,470
Default

Perhaps America is not getting bored with 3-D movies but rather with the rotten movies being shot in 3-D.
AVATAR was brilliant moviemaking that was enhanced by 3-D. Most of those that followed were terrible and adding 3-D effects to THOR's hammer or SHREK's donkey cannot redeem dreadful movies.

The same thing happened in the early 1950's (yes I saw many of them as a kid.) The studios used 3-D for some of the WORST movies ever made as if they could get away with "amazing" the audience with arrows flying at them, hot wax being poured, or knife blades slashing away. An audience goes "OOOH" a couple times, then gets bored and doesn't buy a ticket for the next terrible film.

3-D is only as good as the movie it is enhancing and the enhancement is USUALLY desirable (but nobody needs Jennifer Anniston schmalz in 3-D.)
But a rotten movie is still rotten movie in ANY dimension, even with wormhole technology.

Give us good movies in 3-D and we will come.
zip2play is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Go Back   High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource >
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:49 AM.



Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004 - 2018, MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands