Charging Extra for 3D?

[Tom Lowe]

I saw "Up" in "Disney Digital 3D" last week. I'm not sure if it was a 4K or 2K projector, but the images of the 2D trailer for Disney's forthcoming Frog & Princess movie were the clearest and cleanest images I have ever seen on a multiplex screen! Wow.

But one thing that ticked me off was that the theater charged me an extra $4 bucks for 3D. :angry:

I thought the whole idea was to give audiences something more, so they would have a reason to depart their 1080p bigscreens and actually get out to the theater? It seems like the movie execs never miss a chance to be greedy. Does it cost them anything extra to show something in digital 3D? I mean, they are saving money on a chemical film print.

 

[GlennChan]

They have to pay for the 3D system + glasses. Glasses need washing, and some may be lost due to damage, theft, customers keeping them, etc.

But they are also a business trying to make money, and they have to pay their suppliers + employees. You run your own business right?

I mean, they are saving money on a chemical film print.

Yes but they also have to find financing for the upfront costs of the digital projector, server, etc. etc. That costs money.

 

[M Most]

It seems like the movie execs never miss a chance to be greedy. Does it cost them anything extra to show something in digital 3D? I mean, they are saving money on a chemical film print.

It's called business, and the money made is called profit, at least when the financial structure actually allows profit. What you call greed is called, by most businessmen, survival and/or growth. Personally, I'm kind of surprised that in the current economic climate you'd have something against a business making a little bit of profit.

As for additional costs:

Per screen (assuming the theater already has a digital cinema projector that's compatible, along with a compatible digital cinema server): 3D display adapter (in most cases, RealD): $55,000, Silver Screen (only good for 3D projection): $10,000, Glasses: $2 per pair plus the cost of washing after each use, plus the cost of loss when theatergoers don't put the glasses back in the collection bin.

Based on that, I think a $4 upcharge is quite fair.

 

[Tom Lowe]

I don't know, Glenn. I think they should just charge the normal amount, and be happy with the increased patronage?

 

[Jonathan Stevenson]

I also think it's unfair, however I recently read an article online stating that when major studios release 3D movies, they are unwilling to supply 3D glasses to the theaters as a part of the distribution, so theaters have to front that bill. Makes sense, just sucks.

 

[M Most]

I don't know, Glenn. I think they should just charge the normal amount, and be happy with the increased patronage?

There is never a guarantee of increased patronage. If a 3D movie is good, it will attract a good crowd. If it's not, it won't. While it's been shown that 3D releases seem to generate more revenue, that doesn't necessarily mean more profit for the exhibitors unless the patronage is higher, because of the costs involved in setting up a room for 3D. So saying theater operators should be "happy" with increased patronage is true, but only if it actually generates more profitable revenue.

This is like saying you should work overtime for standard pay because you should be "happy" with the additional hours. Does that sound fair to you? It sounds to me like your opinion is really about entitlement: They should show me something better but I shouldn't have to pay for it. In other words, they should give me free stuff. That's not how a business survives.

 

[M Most]

I also think it's unfair...

Why do you think it's unfair to charge you more for something that costs the exhibitor more? Do you also think it's unfair to charge more for a BMW 3 series than a Toyota Corolla?

 

[Dan Hudgins]

Cost of print

Cost of print

I mean, they are saving money on a chemical film print.

The cost of making a print is probably about $1200 although a lab may quote YOU a higher price.

Thats one reason film prints are still being made, it is not that much more than the extra costs for Digital projection, it depends on what kind of deal you can get with the lab, and how many prints you need. Also if you just use analog optical sound, or need a digital licence.

My DIY system is meant for people who want to make a few prints through direct transfer to print stock (still being developed but usable on the current level), but you could make a printing negaive also...

With a full house the cost of the print is made back on the first show, probably... With Hollywood bookkeeping it might never get paid for...

 

[Ace]

Your right Tom. The important issue here is the family aspect of it. The price might be okay if your single or on a date. But what if you want to take your whole family to the movies? Youll get less parents taking their children to the movies now than before due to the expenses of taking a few of your kids at a time.

I remember my first experience falling in love with cinema was my parents taking me as a child. The future of cinema depends solely on its relevancy as a cultural and habitual form of entertainment.. Not as a viewing platform. So really, cinema needs to go back to basics on this.

Lets look at India. They have the cheapest movie ticket prices in proportion to their income in the world. You pay like 20cents to go see a movie there. The result is a very very thriving film industry and EVERYONE goes to the theater regularly. Entire families. Its ingrained in their culture as is food or music.

Im not saying that movie tickets should be 20 cents or 6$. But in my humble opinion, the day that cinema becomes a luxury is the day it will die. Too many alternatives.

 

[Ace]

Do you also think it's unfair to charge more for a BMW 3 series than a Toyota Corolla?

This is where the argument gets tricky. The movie business doesn't quite operate this way.

I wonder, did you pay $50 to go see Terminator because it cost 200 million to make? Or did you pay say $2 to go see Blair Witch Project because it cost 40k to make..

All things equal, the exhibitor has to pay the same print costs and negotiate the same profit splits on Titanic as it does on an indy film. However, Exhibitors often spend their OWN money on P&A for a film release in news paper advertising etc. They dont charge more for that. There are many other costs that go into running certain films, on the exhibitors end that in my opinion far outweigh equipment costs. In the end its about getting increased patronage as Tom said.

Buttocks on seats.

 

[Tom Lowe]

ace is right. There are SO many other production and marketing costs, that some cheap 3D "glasses" made in China for 40 cents hardly seems like an excuse. T4 had a budget like 3 times higher than "The Hangover," but I still paid the same price at the box office, and I enjoyed "The Hangover" more. Should we charge an extra 5 bucks for "Transformers 2" because the production budget was 200 million?

I remember reading some interviews with Lucas and Cameron a while back where they were saying that 3D would give theater audiences "something more" for their ticket price. What happened to that?

 

[Cüneyt Kaya]

if i have to spend 60 dollar for a cinema 3 d date with a girl.

car+time+ticket+2x 4 usd extra+popcorn+ice cream.....then get a kiss, well i am quite sure i can spend the 60 dollar more wise to get what i want. that simple

 

[Ace]

Also, IMO, if the exhibitor needs to recoup more money, then they should have an appropriate profit split and elevator agreement with the distributor to do so. And this isnt hard or unfair.

 

[Ace]

ace is right. There are SO many other production and marketing costs, that some cheap 3D "glasses" made in China for 40 cents hardly seems like an excuse.

Exactly. What the fuck is 10,000$ for the glasses cost plus 50k for the projector upgrade amortized over 5 years?

Thats like saying they had to raise the ticket prices $4 because they had to hire an extra usher!

By the way, Movie theaters make their money on the candy bar.. Not on the ticket sales. Just keep buying them $20 cokes and $50 skittle bags.

 

[Tom Lowe]

BTW, ace, glad you see you here! I haven't seen you here a while. Where have you been?

 

[Eric S.]

Yeah, the 3D prices can be costly. But I think that was a big reason for studios to begin the switch over to 3D. Not only do you give the audience something new and innovative that will separate the film medium from television, but you also get the opportunity to charge more for an existing product. I liken it to watching the movie on an IMAX screen.

We'll see how the prices shake out in the coming years.

 

[Ace]

Hey Tom,

Ive been around, just been quite busy setting up a film empire ;-) (plus i was a bit ill last year) As you know.. This place is an addiction and very little work gets done!

Wish I could say that I missed you, but Ive been following your magnificent posts around here regularly. I love what you've been doing with the Canon.

 

[M Most]

Also, IMO, if the exhibitor needs to recoup more money, then they should have an appropriate profit split and elevator agreement with the distributor to do so. And this isnt hard or unfair.

No. It's impossible.

If you've ever actually been involved in the distribution/exhibition end of the business, it's clear that the distributors hold all of the cards. The split on revenues for tentpole releases is often over 90% to the distributor for the first 2 weeks of release (the most profitable part of the run, by far, in almost all cases). And it's not negotiable, as you seem to think it is, unless one's idea of negotiation is "we won't give you the film, we'll only give it to your competitor." The exhibitors can only exist because of concession sales, particularly when the revenue split is that one sided.

Personally, I think it's a bit sad - not to mention baffling - that the entitlement mentality exhibited by so many here has now spilled over into the very industry they seem to want to be a part of and, hopefully, profit from.

 

[Ace]

but you also get the opportunity to charge more for an existing product. I liken it to watching the movie on an IMAX screen.

Sorry I have a peeve about 35mm imax films.

I really dont think 35mm films should be projected anywhere as large as Imax. Why should I have to twist my head around like a fucking infant to properly watch a film.

Imax was designed for 70mm, where often by the nature of the medium and its lenses, your sense of vision and perspective is natural at that scale. 35mm? Not quite.. Although I understand that Imax screens are getting smaller...

 

[Cüneyt Kaya]

No. It's impossible.

If you've ever actually been involved in the distribution/exhibition end of the business, it's clear that the distributors hold all of the cards. The split on revenues for tentpole releases is often over 90% to the distributor for the first 2 weeks of release (the most profitable part of the run, by far, in almost all cases). And it's not negotiable, as you seem to think it is, unless one's idea of negotiation is "we won't give you the film, we'll only give it to your competitor." The exhibitors can only exist because of concession sales, particularly when the revenue split is that one sided.

Personally, I think it's a bit sad - not to mention baffling - that the entitlement mentality exhibited by so many here has now spilled over into the very industry they seem to want to be a part of and, hopefully, profit from.

i profit from the "the" industry every year.
still i find overcharging stupid.

but if 3d really gets common (which i doubt), prices will get lower anyway.
fun part of beeing in the cinema is not to wear sunglasses. its annoying imho, but i invested in 3d movies. its a nice fashion here. guess it will reach its climax in 5 years and then its over again. like in the 50s / 70s

but maybe i am wrong, dont know, time will tell
a "better"/new product doesnt necesseraly will be accepted in the longterm, excluding red..hehe, see the death of the cd by mp3