Fox Tells Distributors to Pay for Their Own 3-D Glasses
Let's hope that you like 3-D animation, because you're going to be seeing a lot more of it in the next couple of years -- that is, if your local theater can afford it. Most of the major studios are currently co-financing digital equipment upgrades for theaters around the country, but exhibitors are understandably nervous about how much of the bill they'll have to pick up for this fancy new gimmick once the upgrades are in place. And, of course, what picking up that bill will mean for ticket prices.
According to a THR report from the ShoWest convention in Las Vegas, Fox has quietly been telling exhibitors that they shouldn't expect any studio money to cover the cost of 3-D glasses (a rather important part of the whole watching-a-movie-3-D experience), sparking talks about just how much of the financial burden studios ought to shoulder when they create product that requires special equipment for exhibition.
"It would be disappointing if such a promising technology would devolve into that kind of discussion right now," AMC president Gerry Lopex told THR. "More unites exhibition and distribution than separates us, and we should focus on that."
But it's a discussion that needs to happen. During this weekend's open of Monsters vs. Aliens, a survey of 2-D ticket-buyers found that 38 percent would have preferred to see it in 3-D, but were unable to because of sold-out theaters, or because their local theaters just weren't equipped for 3-D projection. That's a pretty big piece of the market, and one that neither exhibitors nor studios want to lose.
The cost of glasses per 3-D movie is estimated at $1 million, which isn't a huge addition to a studio's budget, but it could mean a fair amount of money to an exhibitor -- and which might help them make the decision to not book 3-D films. Or, perhaps, to charge even more for tickets to 3-D movies, to cover their additional costs.
The time to figure all this out is now. Dreamworks Animation, who released Monsters vs. Aliens, plans to use 3-D for all of its upcoming pictures, and Fox has set a July 1 date for their 3-D Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs. So far, Fox is the only studio reported to have definitely said that they won't pay for glasses, but in the current economic climate, even the studios are pinching their pennies.
Peter Jackson Says Spielberg's 'Tintin' is Done Filming, but...
Interracial Harmony: 'Ninja Assassin' vs. 'Blind Side'
Spin-ematical: New on DVD for 11/24_thumbnail.jpg)
Exclusive 'Nine' Poster Premiere!
Exclusive: Title Track for 'The Road' Soundtrack
_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
3-31-2009 @ 3:39PM
hprest said...
"Or, perhaps, to charge even more for tickets to 3-D movies, to cover their additional costs."
All the theaters in my area that show films in 3D already charge more, usually $2 extra per ticket for the 3D version over the regular cost of the same film in 2D
Reply
3-31-2009 @ 3:31PM
J.W. Hanawalt said...
Does Fox even CARE that other people don't like them?!?
Reply
3-31-2009 @ 3:43PM
Joseph Finn said...
Hopefully, this'll mean fewer "3-D" films are booked and the format dies a well-deserved death. It's a crummy format that adds nothing and is just an excuse to charge more for tickets.
Reply
3-31-2009 @ 3:43PM
pAT said...
This raises a question I had after paying a premium to see Coraline in 3-D: Am I going to have to fork over an additional fee for glasses the next time I see a 3-D movie, even if I bring my own glasses? If Fox is foisting the cost of glasses onto theater owners, something tells me the answer is yes.
Reply
3-31-2009 @ 5:23PM
cannen said...
At my theater, when I went to see Coraline, I was charged an additional $2 for glasses. Then, when exiting, there was a "Recycle Your Glasses" box. If we go see a 3D movie, we are required to buy the glasses, then have the option of recycling them because we can't use them again anyway.
I call BS!
Reply
4-01-2009 @ 9:05AM
Kevin said...
"That's a pretty big piece of the market, and one that neither exhibitors nor studios want to lose."
I know this is a movie site, so I obviously wouldn't expect a level of business acumen, but your conclusion that they need to put in 3-D to hold onto this market is a faulty one. The 38% paid to see the movie already, they just saw it on 2-D even though they would've liked to have seen it on 3-D. I'm not saying your conclusion is wrong, merely that you provide no supporting evidence for it. If you had said that 38% of people who saw OTHER films would've preferred to see Monsters but couldn't find anyplace to see it in 3-D, or that a poll of people who stayed away from the movies altogether would've gone to see it in 3-D if available, then you could have claimed that they are in danger of losing a large market share. As it is you actually provide support for the studios not shelling out cash to upgrade theaters all over the country. Why pump out millions of dollars to upgrade them when people who want to see a 3-D movie and can't will still go out and pay 10 bucks to see your movie on a 2-D screen? It doesn't make business sense. If you are going to make the same amount of money regardless then you always take the cheaper alternative.
Reply