Sony is trying to kill 3D movies

[Brad Webb]

http://www.slashfilm.com/sony-stop-...-2012-3d-ticket-surcharges-surge/#more-112849

FTA: "Sony announced yesterday that it will no longer subsidize 3D glasses for its releases. Currently studios foot the bill for glasses for each 3D release; that bill tends to run from $5m to $10m, depending upon the popularity of the film"

The National Association of Theater Owners responded,

Sony’s actions raise serious concerns for our members who believe that provision of 3D glasses to patrons is well-established as part of the 3D experience. Since the onset of the digital 3D revolution in 2005 it has been understood that exhibitors would bear the weight of technological and facility modification costs related to 3D, while distribution took on the cost of 3D glasses. Any changes to that understanding must be undertaken through the mutual agreement of both sides of the business.

Watch how fast people stop watching movies in 3D once they have to pay for glasses. This is just pure greed on Sony's part. All the theaters bucked up and bought all the new equipment for 3D with the agreement that studios would provide the glasses. Classy Sony, real classy.

I would imagine that theaters will be really hesitant to buy any Sony equipment from now on. You can kiss that 4K projector in theaters good-bye.

 

[Doug Beatty]

Hey Brad- interesting article.

It's almost if Sony is holding the door open for Red Ray to gobble up their market share for 3D. Unfortunately, I think that 3D is here to stay and people will continue to go see movies in 3D because that's what the studios are telling the consumer they want and there is money to be had.

 

[M Most]

Hey Brad- interesting article.

It's almost if Sony is holding the door open for Red Ray to gobble up their market share for 3D. Unfortunately, I think that 3D is here to stay and people will continue to go see movies in 3D because that's what the studios are telling the consumer they want and there is money to be had.

I don't see any correlation between this announcement and anything RedRay brings to the table, unless Red is planning on supplying glasses to theater owners at no additional cost.

I think you're confusing Sony's projector division - which makes and sells hardware to many different industries - with Sony Pictures' distribution division, which is a business entity that determines exactly what the distributor supplies and/or pays for when a picture is distributed to theaters. They're not the same thing and they don't necessarily have the same motivations.

 

[Christian Pfeil]

i guess this hip will go down a bit again...
at least I hope so.
too many poor movies produced in 3d or
made to fit 3d...

 

[Brent J. Craig]

We already pay for the glasses. Theatres typically charge 3 to 5 dollars more for 3D screenings.

It makes sense that Sony doesn't want to subsidize something theatres already charge movie-goers for.

 

[Matthias Hutter]

Misleading Headline -.-

Not subsidizing 3D anymore ≠ trying to kill 3D

 

[Brad Webb]

We already pay for the glasses. Theatres typically charge 3 to 5 dollars more for 3D screenings.

It makes sense that Sony doesn't want to subsidize something theatres already charge movie-goers for.

Wrong, the 3-5 dollars we pay is for the equipment upgrades, the extra costs associated with making and distributing 3D movies and "premium" service of watching a movie in 3D. There will be another price increase for the glasses. The theaters are damn sure not going to eat the cost of 3-D glasses. That cost will be passed on to the consumer, who will in turn stop watching 3D movies, especially if they find out there is another charge for the stupid 3D glasses.

On paper, it makes sense for Sony to try and save $5million a year on 3-D glasses, but if consumers buck at another 3D price increase they will lose more than $5million on lost revenue from 3D. Sony has 2 HUGE movies coming out in 2012 in 3D. Your talking about the possibility of losing tens of millions of dollars of 3D revenue on each movie.

 

[John Bannister]

What a load B.S....Aussie, Spain, the UK, here in NZ we already pay for glasses in the price of the ticket. The average cost for a pair of glasses according to the main 3D tech supplier to the industry is .50 cents. If theaters want to make a cut on that, let's say a buck a pair. I can live with an extra buck 50 to see the likes of Transformers, Avatar or the Hobbit. If theaters want to make 2-3 bucks per pair then that is a different discussion altogether.

Also from what I have read Fox was actually the first to try this but caved under pressure, Sony might be the first to enforce it, but they won't be he last. The statement that this will kill 3D? Get off the band wagon! Sensationalism at it best. If we small countries can suck up the extra buck I am sure others can also. There is greed in the industry, but I wouldn't be to quick to lay this at Sony's doorstep. it's a choice to see a movie in 2D or 3D will I be paying the extra to see the Hobbit? Bet your ass...

 

[John Bannister]

Wrong, the 3-5 dollars we pay is for the equipment upgrades, the extra costs associated with making and distributing 3D movies and "premium" service of watching a movie in 3D. There will be another price increase for the glasses.

Maybe where your from but that is not a blanket statement....We have been doing that from the start downunder. We pay the 3D subsidy in our ticket price then buy the glasses on top of that, there are great 3D movies out there, support the industry, pay the extra and suck it up buttercup.

 

[Brent J. Craig]

Wrong, the 3-5 dollars we pay is for the equipment upgrades, the extra costs associated with making and distributing 3D movies and "premium" service of watching a movie in 3D. There will be another price increase for the glasses.

While I am certain theatres will use this as an excuse to raise prices, how can you say exactly what the "3D tax" we currently pay is going towards?

The projection gear for 3D is typically the same stuff they use for projecting any digital releases. Theatres are upgrading their equipment so they can automatically show movies from hard drives and forget about skilled projectionists who know how to splice film. Being able to show 3D is just a nice side benefit from these upgrades.

And I'm pretty darn sure they don't adjust ticket prices based on how hard a movie was to make or distribute.

 

[Bob Torrance]

On paper, it makes sense for Sony to try and save $5million a year on 3-D glasses, but if consumers buck at another 3D price increase they will lose more than $5million on lost revenue from 3D. Sony has 2 HUGE movies coming out in 2012 in 3D. Your talking about the possibility of losing tens of millions of dollars of 3D revenue on each movie.

The article said 5 to 10 Million per release (not per year). A lot of money. Maybe the studios think the theaters are making too much money. Weird

 

[nigelsmith]

???
They have already been doing this in the UK for some time.
As well as the additional charge for 3D films, you also have to bring your own "Real 3D" glasses or pay £1 extra for a pair at the concessions stands.

 

[M Most]

The projection gear for 3D is typically the same stuff they use for projecting any digital releases..

That is not exactly true. While it is true that the projector and server are the same, 3D requires both a 3D system added to the projection equipment (cost is around $55K for RealD, the most popular system) and a silver screen if you're deploying RealD, preferably one that can be either retracted or covered with a standard screen for non-3D titles. The screen is not necessary for Dolby or XPand, but Dolby's system is more costly than RealD, as are the Dolby glasses. XPand is cheaper to deploy, but the glasses are far more costly and must be retained rather than thrown away.

The move to digital projection started a number of years ago, was stalled by the economic collapse, and is now about par with the predictions that were made for adoption almost 3 years ago. It was always motivated by a desire to have less costly, more efficient and secure distribution. 3D came later and is really just an extra added attraction - but at a cost.

 

[Noah Kadner]

It's a good way to kill off people's taste for 3D in the U.S. which is supposedly bigtime on the decline already. Seems like until the technology gets to glasses free it will be seen as a gimmick and now an even more expensive one at that.

-Noah

 

[Sven Seynaeve]

the premiums people have to pay were a steal from the very beginning. I think in this times theatres should be gratefull that people still prefer to go to them instead of watching them at home.

I think it's just a valuable thing when the big screen isn't catching to much attention anymore. People still have a reason to go watch it big with s3d.

I surely hope they'll invest it in some good pictures instead of the new ps console or other crap.

 

[Eric Rodemann]

3D is a 'gimmick', according to a new UK film poll


I won't miss it. I want some gimmicky fun 3d movies that throw stuff at my face. I want teh rest of the movies I watch to be in 2d.

 

[Andrew M.]

I don't see any correlation between this announcement and anything RedRay brings to the table, unless Red is planning on supplying glasses to theater owners at no additional cost.

There is correlation, it looks like RedRay and RedProjector 3D is based on laser technology and do not needs active glasses.
Once theatres will feel screwed the move to RedRay based projection could be massive.
Nothing worse than pissing off businessman....


Andrew

 

[Brent J. Craig]

There is correlation, it looks like RedRay and RedProjector 3D is based on laser technology and do not needs active glasses.

Unless you are at a theme park, there are no forms of public exhibition that require active glasses.

 

[Ravi Kiran]

the premiums people have to pay were a steal from the very beginning. I think in this times theatres should be gratefull that people still prefer to go to them instead of watching them at home.

I think it's just a valuable thing when the big screen isn't catching to much attention anymore. People still have a reason to go watch it big with s3d.

I doubt 3D is increasing the number of tickets sold. It is increasing the price of a number of tickets sold, though. I don't think anyone's going to 3D movies that wouldn't have been going to 2D movies anyways. 3D or 2D, going to the movies is a social experience, and most people don't have cinema-sized screens in their homes, even if they have HDTV and Blu-Ray.

 

[M Most]

There is correlation, it looks like RedRay and RedProjector 3D is based on laser technology and do not needs active glasses.
Once theatres will feel screwed the move to RedRay based projection could be massive.
Nothing worse than pissing off businessman....

I still don't get your point. Neither RealD nor Dolby use active glasses. Of the currently deployed systems, only Xpand uses active shutter glasses. In the US, RealD is dominant, Dolby is second, and there are very few Xpand installations. Also, you keep saying "RedRay" when you seem to mean a laser projector, which at this point is still early in development, and in any case a different product than RedRay, which is a compression scheme around which Red is developing a server. That has nothing at all to do with actual projection technology, and has nothing to do with what type of glasses are involved.