Hollywood Seeks To Kill Off 3D Golden Goose With Much Higher Prices
from the oh-look,-bad-business-models,-now-in-3d dept
Ah, Hollywood. While the movie business has been doing quite well at the box office lately, many in the industry still haven’t quite realized why. Obviously the rise of 3D flicks has given people a reason to actually leave the home and go to the theater — in part because the experience is much better, and seeing movies in the theater is a social experience. Of course, now that 3D televisions are starting to come to market, there may start to be some more challenges there, and the way to deal with that is to improve the experience and make it even more worthwhile.
So what’s Hollywood doing? They’re just making it more expensive. Yes, they’re jacking up the prices on 3D movies, in a typical short-term strategy. Rather than recognize how this might just drive more people to more seriously consider getting a 3D setup at home, Hollywood’s simplistic business modeling seems to be “let’s see how much we can squeeze out of people as quickly as possible.” There is no recognition of the value of building up a longer term relationship and providing reasonable value at a reasonable price. And then they’re going to complain about people not going to the movies, and blaming file sharing, rather than recognizing that they’re driving willing customers away with much higher prices.
Comments on “Hollywood Seeks To Kill Off 3D Golden Goose With Much Higher Prices”
You know what? This may sound curmudgeon-ish, but this is one corporate assisted suicide I can get behind. When 3D dies I’ll be cheering at it’s funeral–even when it’s done as right as it could be it gives me a headache.
Re: 3D
> This may sound curmudgeon-ish, but this is one corporate
> assisted suicide I can get behind. When 3D dies I’ll be cheering
> at it’s funeral–even when it’s done as right as it could be it gives
> me a headache.
So just don’t go see the movies in 3D then. They all have 2D versions playing in the same theater. Why would you cheer for the demise of an experience that a lot of people enjoy simply because it doesn’t work for you?
“If I can’t enjoy it, then I don’t want anybody to be able to!” Kind of a shitty attitude.
Re: Re: 3D
It’s not a shitty attitude, it’s the attitude of a curmudgeon, as per the OP. Get 3D off his lawn, and lrn2read.
Re: Re: Re: 3D
> It’s not a shitty attitude, it’s the attitude of a curmudgeon
They’re not mutually exclusive. Curmudgeons have shitty attitudes. It’s pretty much a requirement for curmudgeonhood.
Besides, a curmudgeon is someone who mainly just wants to be left alone. He doesn’t think no one else should have things merely because he doesn’t like them.
No, thublihnk’s nothing so exotic as a curmudgeon. He’s just a selfish little twat, who believes that if he doesn’t like or enjoy a thing, then no one should.
> lrn2read
Behold the irony.
Re: Re: 3D
NO. They don’t ALL have a 2D playing in the same theatre…when it forst cam out, this was often (but not always) the case. Now, it’s mostly not the case.
And really, it costs 40-50% more to make a 3D movie? I doubt it. Perhaps these movie makers amd theatre owners are the epitome of the big greedy businesses.
Re: Re:
I dont think its a suicide. I think its a good approach and they should try to generalize it. Not all movies are made equal why should we pay the same amount to see each one of them? eg. In every theater normal and 3D versions are priced
same. why? Also why should we pay the same amount to watch a cheaply made, transiently funny screwball comedy as opposed to a thoughtful and expensive (in terms of effort at least) movie?
I think filmmakers should have independence to set the ticket price to optimize their earning. It is free market economy after all!
Re: Re: Re:
“Not all movies are made equal why should we pay the same amount to see each one of them?”
Because generally, that’s what consumers want.
“In every theater normal and 3D versions are priced same. why?”
No, the aren’t the same price in most theaters. Most theaters charge several dollars more for the 3D showing.
“Also why should we pay the same amount to watch a cheaply made, transiently funny screwball comedy as opposed to a thoughtful and expensive (in terms of effort at least) movie?”
You’re asking the wrong question.
“I think filmmakers should have independence to set the ticket price to optimize their earning.”
They currently *DO* have that independence.
Re: Re: Re:
Don’t confuse effort with results.
Re: Re:
It will be interesting to see what this does to the DVD sales market.
I can’t see too many people upgrading to a 3d TV any time soon as most of them, like me, have only recently upgraded to flat screen.
Re: Re: Re:
Then you haven’t been following the news. As soon as the new 3D TVs were in the store, the stores ran out of them. They were selling like big cupcakes. 🙂
Re: Re: Re: Re:
They ran out because they only had a small amount. Read some buiness publications and you’ll see the financial truth…unless there are deep discounts (no profit margin), high priced #D TV’s are not flying off the shelf as you incorrectly state. Same as Blu-ray – the high cost limited sales dramatically. Now that they are 2-20% of the original price, they are selling. This goes for the DVD’s as well. Really, think parents care if there 6 year old sees some kiddie move in blue ray …for $10 more? The high quality HD / digital version on a HD TV is more than adeqaute more the vast majority of people.
Yeah I have to agrees with thub, until we get to the point where they are holograms, 3D TV is just a gimmick. Having to do anything extra to enjoy TV is not going to help the market.
Re: Re:
It’s not just the glasses. It’s that your eyes are focusing 30 ft away while the images are trying to make the object look 10 ft away. If you try to focus on the image as if it’s as close to you and the image “seems”, it goes blurry, so you have a little bit of dissonance. It’s something your brain can get used to, but maybe not in the 2hr duration of the movie. Maybe holograms would help – actually projecting the image into the air 10 feet in front of you – but that would work very well in theaters…
I actually just wrote a brief article about this myself. Another point I made is that this gives the detractors of 3D one more reason to shun it, as high pricing was already one of the general complaints.
Another dumb, greedy move on Hollywood’s part. The last time I sat in a movie theater the ticket price was $7.50, and that WILL forever be the last time.
Quote:
“Greenfield said the price hikes reflect a growing belief among theater owners that consumers are “hungry” for 3-D content and are willing to pay more for an enhanced movie-going experience.”
Hmmm…not me, I wonder if I’m alone.
Investing
Perhaps they are investing in companies making 3-D TVs.
3D is the industry's "highest quality product"?
That line really needed a spewage warning. Movie prices are already high enough that it’s about $30 for me, my wife, and my pact brother to go for one showing. When we went to see UP in 3D, they tacked on $3 per ticket for the glasses and asked us to return them after the show. That’s one hell of a price for an hour-and-a-half rental.
Add in the cost of medication for the migraine I got from the 3D, and it seems to me they’re stupid enough to charge more for even less, since there’s no mention of quality script, quality acting, a *gasp* story you can get involved with?
I think I’ll wait for Toy Story 3 to come out at RedBox.
Re: 3D is the industry's "highest quality product"?
I doubt many people returned the glasses
Re: Re: 3D is the industry's "highest quality product"?
In the theater I go to regularly, they’ve got signs posted everywhere warning that if you don’t return the glasses, it’s petty larceny, and THEY WILL GET YOU.
I don’t see 3d shows there…
I heard on the news tonight that in NYC, 3-D movie tickets were going up to $19 each. Good move. Count me as one of those people who won’t pay extra. The immigrant standing on the corner with his duffel bag of first-run DVD movies may get my business after all.
It’s not just 3-D that they are rasing prices on, they also raising prices on traditional 2-D stuff.
3-D is a joke it’s still years away from being any good
Re: Re:
No.
Dont see the need for 3D tv
I saw beowulf in 3D and it was horrible. The whole movie experience was terrible. Terrible movie, terrible look to the movie (either make it look like a cartoon or use real people dont CGI real people it looks bad), and the 3D experience gave me quite a headache afterwards.
I dont want to have to do anything extra to enjoy tv or a movie like has been stated, I want to sit down and just relax for a little while infront of a movie or television. Count me out for the 3D banwagon at the theater and in my home. Cant afford to watch a 2D movie let alone the extra money for the rental glasses to get a headache too.
Re: Dont see the need for 3D tv
Don’t know which Beowulf you were watching, but the 3D version in IMAX was amazing. Might need to check your eyes and cynicism at the door.
Does this mean that the inferior 2D movies will have their prices lowered?
How about the 2D versions of the 3D movies?
Re: Re:
Nope, the are rasing prices across the board!
Raising 2D also?
At $10.50 a pop here in Silicon Valley, I’ve very picky about what I’ll go see in the theater. Anything less than a good/great review I put on my Netflix list. That averages out to less than 1 movie/month. If the prices go any higher, I’ll only see a couple a year and go 95% Netflix.
Getting along fine without BluRay, will more than adequately survive without 3DTV.
Really – I already wear glasses to watch TV, hell, just to see at all, now I’ll need goggles too?
And FFS! I just bought an HDTV. These aren’t wee ticket items that everyone can run out and replace with something that hasn’t worked properly since the 50s.
Twenty bucks a ticket to see a movie? Seriously?!
*reads a paperback*
$19 WTF???
I’m not sure if I’m in the minority or not, but I do know that I’m not willing to pay $19 bucks to see a film at a movie theater. It’s just not worth the hassle anymore.
Now with the night vision cams they have in the theater to stop piracy, you can’t even get a private grope on your girl anymore. I’m missing the point of the movies.
Don’t they realize that once the price hits a certain point they are competing with other more fun entertainment venues. They can blame file sharing all they want, but when you price yourself against nightclubs, gamezones, and even amusement parks, it’s just corporate suicide.
Re: $19 WTF???
They don’t care they want their money now and they want it fast. They see how much the gaming industry is making and they don’t want to be left out.
59.99 for a new game and then you have to buy the almost mandatory dlc options which will cost 10.00 a pop.
Too much for too little
The plot will win over special effects every time. Greatest movies of all time – sorry Avitard is not one of them.
Avatar 3d, was worth it.
Alice in Wonderland 3d was crap and double the ticket price god!! what a wrought I wasted 10 bucks on shit 3d.
I am never going to see a 3d movie again unless its quality is Avatar or higher, most 3d movies have shit 3d.
Now that I think of it those blurry things in Avatar pocking out of the screen making my head hurt as i tried to instinctively focus on it were terrible.
3d is a gimmick hurts my eyes and sux in general.
Re: Re:
What? Were you receiving oral sex for the full length of it or something?
Okay, I’ll admit, for the first 15 mins or so I oooh’d and aaah’d at the 3D effects but after that the cliches (sorry, story) kicked in. After 30mins I had forgotten all about the fancy 3D shit and was groaning as I predicted everything that happened in all the scenes to follow.
In hindsight I am glad I saw it in 3D though, as it served as a warning to never see another 3D film again. I also can’t wait for 3D TV’s to hit the mass market, so I can finally replace my 56″ rear-pro with a 65″ plasma for under $1000.
Re: Re: Re:
Movies like Avatar (i.e. not much substance, billion-dollar effects) are cool in 3d, though 99.9% of other movies aren’t worth the extra money.
For the record, Avatar was filmed in real 3d, while Alice was filmed in 2d and the 3d was just added later (cheaper).
Re: Re: You Read My Mind
These are my thoughts exactly. 3D gimmicks were tried before when TV was taking over. It didn’t work then and I doubt it will now. The story and acting and directing and cinematography and all of the other talented PEOPLE skills are what matter – not the gimmick. Has there ever been a movie studio executive that was a movie fan and a film school graduate?
Yes, the 3D televisions will drop the price of a 2D significantly in the coming months. I too will be shopping to replace my last CRT when the price falls.
Oh, and I did get head during a movie once and IT WAS THE GREATEST FILM EVER!. I can’t recall what it was about though.
Re: Thumbs down
Roger Ebert’s review of Alice in Wonderland was, essentially, “great movie; see it in 2d”
His reasoning was that the movie was shot in 2d and then post-productioned into 3d. He said the technique they used removed about 20 percent of the light but added few interesting 3d effects. He said the colors pop much more and it is much closed to Tim Burton’s vision in 2d.
Seems the studios knew 3d was the current thing and figured they could milk it for more money, quality be damned.
Movie Prices
Another reason for me to stop going to the movies all together and just wait till the movie comes out on DVD, Netflix or PPV. The industry thinks by raising prices they will have a much higher profit margin. What will happen, I believe, is that less consumers will go to the movies and their profit margin will stay where it is currently or shrink a good bit. Let them shoot themselves in the foot, eventually movie prices will get so cheap, as they’ll have to compete with the likes of Netflix to get warm bodies into theaters.
Make the Rich Pay!
I say make the rich pay higher prices, subsidize 3D! If your family income is over $200,000 what’s $20 per shot? come on now…..
Re: Make the Rich Pay!
Rush?
Is that you?
I thought you were leaving the country
“3-D is a distracting, annoying, anti-realistic, juvenile abomination to use as an excuse for higher prices.”
— Roger Ebert
seen the prices LAUGHED MY ASS OFF
and so did everyone , TOO MUCH COST
BIG TIME THUMBS DOWN
especially for 1950’s technology
anyone selling this as new should be executed as a scammer
maybe now the people will be quiet and actually watch the film instead of yacking on their cell and hopefully the days of the crying baby will be in the past now too.
maybe now the people will be quiet and actually watch the film instead of yacking on their cell and hopefully the days of the crying baby will be in the past now too.
theater? no thanks
They can raise their prices all they want, I dont care. But they had better not ask for bailout money when it all goes down the toilet. They are not too big to fail.
I am interested in price reductions on LED backlit LCD tvs as the 3d stuff hits the shelves. Still waiting …
No Thanks!!
What’s next – premium charges for surround sound? It’s the same kind of thing, isn’t it?
We will just stay home
I have a pretty decent Home Theater setup and my whole family prefers to watch at home. Screw them we will find our own way.
3D
My guess is that 3D will be a novelty for some time, and people will pay extra for it. But eventually, 3D will become the norm, and people won’t stand for any more ticket hikes.
At that point, everyone will just say “screw it” and watch movies at home. Either that, or spend their money on cheaper tickets at a local theater for 2D.
I’m basing this on when Surround Sound came about: originally, people would actually pay a little extra for it. Of course, movies were still around $5 back then, and there were a bunch of theaters that showed matinees or “midnight movies” for $1.
No wonder Hollywood made so much money last year…
How much is it going to be to see a 4D movie? And if the movie sucks could you get the time you wasted seeing it back?
A Little Perspective
While I’m not particularly happy about these price hikes (by the way, there’s a difference between Hollywood and movie exhibitors), what people seem to be missing are these are hikes on 3D prices. You can still see the movie the same way you’ve been seeing it for years without paying $20 a ticket. If there’s a movie you really want to see in 3D, then you have a choice. Is that a bad thing?
Re: A Little Perspective
Again the article i read states the they are rasing prices for both 2D an 3D.
Re: A Little Perspective
All movie ticket prices are being raised significantly, not just 3D.
Re: Re: A Little Perspective
Isn’t this a bit like the music industry though?
So prices go up on movie theater tickets. Some people will choose to stay home, and wait until they can see the movie at a cheaper price.
That means the hardcore people are paying higher prices to see the movies first in theaters, and others are waiting until the movies are cheaper or free.
Isn’t this the same as the tiered offerings that musicians are being told to do? You end up with a small group of fans who pay a lot, while the majority pay little or nothing.
Is it a rip-off or giving special fans something in exchange for more money? You offer some things at such a high price that only a few will go for it. Then you offer something at a middle price that a bigger number will go for. Then you have the free stuff for everyone. If the high movie ticket price keeps some people out of theaters, isn’t that a selling point of a sort? You’ll have a better selection of seats because the number of people willing to pay higher prices will be smaller.
So you have 3-D in theaters for a lot of money. You have 2-D in theaters for less money. You can rent it from Netflex for less. You can get it for free if you wait until it shows up on TV. Yes?
I’m not saying whether this is a good plan or not, but it seems to be exactly what is supposed to work with music.
Re: Re: Re: A Little Perspective
Is it a rip-off or giving special fans something in exchange for more money?
Not at all. The movie industry has every right to run their businesses as they choose. I’ve chosen to vote with my wallet, and I vote no as a consumer. It’s all good.
Re: Re: Re:2 A Little Perspective
The movie industry has every right to run their businesses as they choose. I’ve chosen to vote with my wallet, and I vote no as a consumer. It’s all good.
Yes, I think that’s pretty much how it is going to be with all content. A few fans will pay a premium price and most won’t. Given that, industries are going to charge a lot for some offerings if they think they can get it to subsidize the free and low end offerings.
And then when enough consumers say, “I won’t pay the price,” the marketplace adjusts and overall prices may come down.
Pricing is a very interesting topic. Do you keep prices low and leave some money on the table? Do you set high prices for your best offering to see what the market will bear?
That seems to be what the movie industry is doing now. They discovered that there is a market for 3-D movies. They also have found there are currently not enough 3-D screens. Set the prices higher to see what happens and then adjust after you see the results.
I personally think the average family is tapped out in terms of entertainment spending and I have been saying that for awhile, but if you think the consumers can dig a bit deeper, then you might be motivated to offer some of your stuff at a higher price.
Re: Re: Re:3 A Little Perspective
The stupid part is that they are harming the one sector of the market that they still have control over that is still going strong.
DVD sales have been dropping, remember? Rentals have gone up, but that’s because of 3rd parties selling at very cheap prices.
Milking a product is only good for short-term profits, but completely ignores the long-term effects. Rather than making 3D and theatre experiences valuable and in demand, thus increasing the market, they’d rather cash in on the upper tiers of customers and then start whining when the lower tiers have lost all interest.
Re: Re: Re:4 A Little Perspective
Rather than making 3D and theatre experiences valuable and in demand, thus increasing the market, they’d rather cash in on the upper tiers of customers and then start whining when the lower tiers have lost all interest.
Isn’t it the reverse? 3-D movies are in demand after Avatar, so they raised the prices.
What I don’t get is why are musicians encouraged to sell tickets to their shows that range from $20 to $1000 a ticket? I think the thinking with the movie makers is, “If people will pay a lot of money to see a concert and to go to a theme park, they’ll perhaps see the value of paying a bit more to see a 3-D movie that has become an event.”
If musicians are being encouraged to give their recorded music away for free but then raise money from high-priced concert tickets because the concerts are an “event,” aren’t we just seeing the same thing here with movies?
Of course what the comments in this thread are pointing out is that people have their limits and they will stay home rather than paying money to be part of an event. And you can’t assume that your hardcore fans have an unlimited spending budget. If people will stay home rather than pay too much for a movie, they will also stay home rather than pay to much for other experiences.
The economics of entertainment is not infinite. People will find alternatives when the price gets too high.
Re: Re: Re:5 A Little Perspective
The problem is that they’re not just trying to make a better profit off of a hot new commodity, they’re taking a product that looks exciting and stamping it out before it gets off the ground.
Avatar is, to date, the ONLY movie that has successfully pulled off 3D technology. The good business move following Avatar would be to produce more quality 3D movies, make sure the crowd that enjoyed the effects sees that the technology is becoming the norm, thus ensuring that 3D remains an exclusive and valuable product that the industry has control over.
Instead, they jack the prices up, pump out crappy 3D movies (the kind that drove people away in the first place), and are effectively making 3D another cheap, forgettable gimmick.
Re: Re: Re:6 A Little Perspective
JC and Michael Bay have expressed the same reserve over pumping out 2D to 3D conversions.
http://www.deadline.com/2010/03/michael-bay-james-cameron-skeptical-of-3d-conversions-the-jury-is-out/
“You can’t just shit out a 3D movie” – Bay
Re: Re: Re:5 A Little Perspective
If musicians are being encouraged to give their recorded music away for free but then raise money from high-priced concert tickets because the concerts are an “event,” aren’t we just seeing the same thing here with movies?
It’s called “market demand” in economics, Suzanne. Recorded performances rarely command the same market value as do the live versions, even when concerts are made into “concert movies”.
Re: Re: Re:6 A Little Perspective
It’s called “market demand” in economics, Suzanne. Recorded performances rarely command the same market value as do the live versions, even when concerts are made into “concert movies”.
But we don’t really know the demand for 3-D movies in theaters yet. That’s my point. Hollywood sees that Avatar is a huge hit. So on the assumption that it can get higher prices, it raises them. Maybe it will work and maybe it won’t.
With live shows, pretty much every time you see a successful touring act, the ticket prices go up. You saw them for $10. Then you saw them for $20. Then you saw them for $40. Etc.
So escalating prices is the norm when there is demand. And declining prices is the norm when there is competition.
Re: Re: Re:2 A Little Perspective
I think this reply is accurate and to the point. So many people who view others who voice their opinion (such as 3D moview prices are too high or taxes are too high)as ‘wrong’ are, themselves wrong. Just because some has an opinion different than yours, it does not make that opinion wrong.
Voting with your wallet is the correct path. Perhaps all those who voted for hope and change and can use some of their change to go pay for a 3D movie….oh, never made mind …instead of hope we got lies and socialism and instead of change we got massive debt, high unemployment, and massive bailouts to their buddies.
Oh well.
A corporation developing relationships?
You certainly must be joking! One of the symptoms of a sociopath personality is the inability to develop lasting relationships. The corporations have this is spades. They have a whole laundry list of symptoms, but this article just points out a big one.
Remember the transition from Stereo to THX/Dolby Surround? New Movie Pricepoint!
Do you honestly think they’ll ratchet the prices down on 2D movies once customers become used to paying $20 per ticket?
Besides, the problem these days isn’t getting people to the theater– movies are still proving profitable. The problem is not being able to acquire new storylines or determine all the rightsholders.
The main problem is that there doesn’t exist a rich public domain to pull from.
Re: Remember the transition from Stereo to THX/Dolby Surround? New Movie Pricepoint!
The 2D prices don’t need to be ratcheted down. They aren’t a part of this price increase.
By the way, it’s not like ticket prices have kept up with the price of inflation from the early days of cinema. We’ve complained for years that going to the movies is not what it once was. But, now that movie exhibitors have done something to really improve the experience, we expect them to maintain the cheap prices that were facilitated by boring and lackluster theaters of the past few decades.
Re: Re: Remember the transition from Stereo to THX/Dolby Surround? New Movie Pricepoint!
Their survey of 10 random theaters (and confirmed by an informal one I did on Fandango by punching in some zip codes from around the country) showed an average 4.1% increase in ticket prices for 2D movies this weekend. Here in New York, that’s translating to about $.50/ticket
Link: http://consumerist.com/2010/03/movie-ticket-prices-going-up-this-weekend.html
I've heard this before...
I've heard this before...
“What’s this? Smell-o-vision replaces television? – Mr. E. Fudd
Higher concert prices?
We’ve been told the live music business is healthy because revenues keep going up. But in large part that’s because ticket prices for the big shows have been going up.
So this is the same? Yes? No?
Re: Higher concert prices?
No.
Going to a theatre is not the same as seeing an artist perform live.
Doesn’t give me or anyone I know the same feel good feeling from a movie that we get from going to a concert.
The movie theatre isn’t live. So no, not the same at all.
Re: Re: Higher concert prices?
No.
Going to a theatre is not the same as seeing an artist perform live.
Doesn’t give me or anyone I know the same feel good feeling from a movie that we get from going to a concert.
The movie theatre isn’t live. So no, not the same at all.
So, you won’t pay the equivalent amount for a big movie theater experience as a live music experience.
But others will. One person’s entertainment experience is not another’s. I’m just saying that if you justify pricing an event for a relative high price because it is “scarce,” that concept applies to movies, to parties, to trips, live shows, etc.
The economic thinking of the movie industry is similar to the economic thinking for all of the above.
Now it is possible that consumers will say, “We don’t have the money.” Or they might say, “We don’t want to spend our money on this.” We’ll have to wait and see. But the movie industry is following the general guidelines for “Charge more for scarcity and hope the hardcore fans go for it.”
And my usual response is, “That will work in the short term. Then, if the model is profitable, the scarcity won’t last because the supply will increase, fans will have more options, and overall prices will go down.”
To Show You How Old
that I am the last 3D movie that I saw was John Wayne in Hondo. In fact I think that was the first 3D movie. To be honest I thought it was pretty cool. Well I’m a lot older now and though I’m still a big money waster I have found more enjoyable ways for me to flush my money down the toilet than spending a ton of dough on a couple hour experience and giving that money to a bunch of over priced Hollywood Stars. On the other hand I might go and even spend five bucks on that box of popcorn if they would let me smoke cigarettes in the theater while I am watching the movie. Yeah, good luck with that!
THEY been saying 3d will be norm for 60 YEARS
and it still isnt and like many say im not wearign goofy glasses to watch a even more goofy cartoon
neither a tv show or a movie
200$ for the glasses are you kidding me
SCAMMMMMM
Prices
News Flash: Scientists have recently concluded Hollywood film makers have not one fucking clue as to what they are doing as far as business is concerned. More at 11….
3D Movies
While I immensely enjoyed many of the 3D movies that have come out lately, the price of the movie, considering having to pay extra for the glasses, is borderline. Should that price go up, I will probably opt out for the standard version, except in cases like Avatar, movies that promise to be exceptional. So I agree, Hollywood will only end up shooting itself in the foot if they raise prices.
3D yea right
Well I for one dont watch 3D movies the hype factor does not warrant the extra cost. I have things I need to pay for, things I want to pay for; this is neither. until there is a technology that does not requires glasses then I will reasses, wait a minute one more thing is there an outlet where we can buy 3D glasses we can actually own?
Re: 3D yea right
Strange? the glasses cost a dollar? and i got too keep mine.
Though like i said before 3D is crap.. and annoying.. 2d is way more relaxing
THEY been saying 3d will be norm for 60 YEARS
>> 200$ for the glasses are you kidding
>> me
>> SCAMMMMMM
Well, it depends on the technology. If you’re talking about polarized glasses, I found a Chinese wholesaler earlier in the week that sells a nice set with plastic frames for $2.50 in quantities of 1000 or more. The lower-end ones are about 40¢ in quantities of 1000 or more.
Now, if you are talking about a newer technology called “alternate-frame sequencing” glasses, I could see it costing $250 at retail, and perhaps around $50 with labor but $20 for actual materials cost. But because I refuse to go into a theater so I have no idea what they’re actually using for Avatar or the other recent films.
I give thumbs-down on 3D, too.
Just don’t like the way it looks. I’d rather see a 1930’s film in black & white.
A little perspective
>> Again the article i read states the they are rasing
>> prices for both 2D an 3D.
Precisely, but is the media better or is the content better? Ideally, we’d be able to “Attend” a cinema virtually, in our own home if the *THEATERS* would be able to negotiate such a thing with end-customers.
Let that sink in for a bit.
Additionally, and more importantly, we need to reform copyright so we can remake some of the old classics to fit the newer consumer-centric media types available today. With technology such as 3D, there is a very capable platform to re-tell stories that use the new technology and this could be done if the US had a proper copyright, IP, and royalties appropriation system like Europe has. But because few of these pieces are in place, (Such as a “Harry Fox Agency”, but for film and cinematic works) it’s difficult to see how it can be accomplished without reforming the current system.
Re: A little perspective
Precisely, but is the media better or is the content better? Ideally, we’d be able to “Attend” a cinema virtually, in our own home if the *THEATERS* would be able to negotiate such a thing with end-customers.
Is this a theater issue or a technology issue? The people who are paying to see 3-D movies in theaters are likely to do so either because they want to see it on a huge screen or they don’t want to buy the necessary equipment. So they are paying more per viewing, but spending less as an overall investment.
I already kow people who are saying they’re over 3D and that the current premium they’re paying for it isn’t worth the money.
a reply
“Is it a rip-off or giving special fans something in exchange for more money? “
special as in special olympics
for about 5000$ you get the thrill of looking special
and wooo its 3d
HAHA
next up computer monitors that cost your 3000$ with a set of 300$ glasses
hey i know we can make video games 3d and you can buy a 500$ joystick that infra red controls you….and
wait for it
have LOADS a sales as you need to be connected to a ISP to play and guess what
try having a capped , UUB’ed throttled BCE account
HOW aobut a few years of making technology cheaper and internet accounts cheaper rather then MORE MORE MORE MROE MROE
MROEORMEORMOEMROKRROMEORMMEOE
Re: a reply
HOW aobut a few years of making technology cheaper and internet accounts cheaper rather then MORE MORE MORE MROE MROE
MROEORMEORMOEMROKRROMEORMMEOE
I have no problem with that. I think fans are going to keep tight control over their spending. People probably have hit their limits in terms of what they can spend.
I wish I got a dollar
every time some high powered executive failed to grasp the downward sloping demand curve and what availability of close substitutes does to the demand curve for a specific product.
Keep in mind that the only substitute for seeing 3D movies is not a 3D setup at home.
http://consumerist.com/2010/03/movie-ticket-prices-going-up-this-weekend.html
Their survey of 10 random theaters (and confirmed by an informal one I did on Fandango by punching in some zip codes from around the country) showed an average 4.1% increase in ticket prices for 2D movies this weekend. Here in New York, that’s translating to about $.50/ticket
Went to see Avatar when it first came out… paid my normal theater fair to get in.
Went to see Avatar again with family, and saw that 3D movies in the theater had gone up in price by nearly $3….
That’s lame! I’m totally keeping those 3D glasses now whether they can be used for anything or not!
Now I’ll go look for a new 3D tv…. wait… $4000 you say? Also lame!
That’s it, I’m breaking out my old “Virtual Boy” game console and calling it a night.
Douchebags
What a bunch of douchebags! What I don’t understand is why people would do this during one of America’s lowest economic times? They should count their blessings that they’re making money and profiting right now, while many others are going under.
Same with the Department of Water and Power here in Los Angeles, what a bunch of pricks. They’re proposing a 35% increase over the next few years, even though they profited by billions! What is wrong with these people? Oh, that’s right, they’re a bunch of heartless leeches.
Yet, you have others like the 99 cent store who understand the value of low pricing to keep customers buying from you. Heck, nobody cried when they raised their prices to 99.99 cents… they knew that the small increase would result in millions over time, while still valuing the customer and loyalty to them.
Re: Douchebags
What I don’t understand is why people would do this during one of America’s lowest economic times? They should count their blessings that they’re making money and profiting right now, while many others are going under.
I’m well aware of it and keep pointing it out in my discussions about the economics of entertainment, but I’m guessing this price increase doesn’t impact people who have already stopped going to movies because of the recession.
Re: Re: Douchebags
I’m guessing this price increase doesn’t impact people who have already stopped going to movies because of the recession.
True, but I’m also guessing that it will add to their numbers.
Suzanne,
Not to “threadjack” but to continue this conversation in another way, I wonder why did you say on another blog that you think sites with anonymous comments have issues.
Seems you’re getting a lot of information pertinent to your role here, and we’re trying to help. Was this comment directed towards us or other blogs?
Re: Re:
I’ve been online heavily since 1993. I look for those places where there are thoughtful conversations. As a whole, boards/blogs where people have to identify themselves (not necessarily by their real names, but in some form so you can follow them) seem to have less of the “drive-by shooting” mentality that you can get from some anonymous posters. Having to own your words seems to encourage better online manners.
Chatroulette is an extreme example of what people sometimes do when they think no one knows who they are.
One option is to have moderators who filter comments, but I have seen some discussions stifled in those types of forums (although not nearly as much now as in the past).
Some of the people talking about new media these days are the same ones I was conversing with online back in 1993. If I hadn’t been able to identify them then, I wouldn’t have realized they are some of the thought-leaders in the field today.
You can develop a sense of community when you start to recognize people who post consistently.
The Velvet Rope is a community where people have established consistent identities, though they don’t necessarily use their real names. I was participating there for awhile, but then Twitter came along and the music biz discussions are better on Twitter so I rarely visit the Velvet Rope anymore. Twitter, of course, requires that some sort of identity be established, and I think that helps encourage better conversations.
Re: Re: Re:
Chatroulette is an extreme example of what people sometimes do when they think no one knows who they are.
Otherwise know as “the ugly truth”. Ugly indeed, sometimes.
Re: Re: Re:
“As a whole, boards/blogs where people have to identify themselves (not necessarily by their real names, but in some form so you can follow them) seem to have less of the “drive-by shooting” mentality that you can get from some anonymous posters. Having to own your words seems to encourage better online manners.”
Oh, you must mean like AngryDude, TheAntiMike and their ilk.
Re: Re: Re:
“As a whole, boards/blogs where people have to identify themselves (not necessarily by their real names, but in some form so you can follow them) seem to have less of the “drive-by shooting” mentality that you can get from some anonymous posters. Having to own your words seems to encourage better online manners.
…
One option is to have moderators who filter comments, but I have seen some discussions stifled in those types of forums (although not nearly as much now as in the past).
“
If you think you know how to better run a blog than Mike, then START YOUR OWN BLOG. Or go to a blog that enforces rules you like.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you think you know how to better run a blog than Mike, then START YOUR OWN BLOG. Or go to a blog that enforces rules you like
The only reason I was posting is that I was asked a direct question about the concept of anonymous comments by someone who is working for this blog. He wanted to know if I was referring to this blog when I made a comment on another blog. He made a choice to ask me an off-topic question, and rather than ignoring him, I responded.
My answer was that having been online for years, my personal experience is that communities are better facilitated when people are linked to their comments.
I didn’t attack this blog. I didn’t tell him what to do. One reason I sign my own name is that I am very comfortable being identified with what I write.
My general philosophy is to be as nice to people as possible. What you want to do is up to you.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Since some of you are having trouble following this subthread, here is the original post that I was responding to:
Suzanne,
Not to “threadjack” but to continue this conversation in another way, I wonder why did you say on another blog that you think sites with anonymous comments have issues.
Seems you’re getting a lot of information pertinent to your role here, and we’re trying to help. Was this comment directed towards us or other blogs?
I am not telling TechDirt how to operate. I was just asked a question, which I answered.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Fair enough.
get more money
GOOD! This will keep all of you dirty peasants out of the theatre!
>>GOOD! This will keep all of you dirty peasants out of the theatre!
Indeed.
Have you looked at yourself in the mirror lately? You probably need a shave and a shower.
@79
wtf you selling lady?
I don’t get one word about what the fuck your saying has to do with um 3d shit?
AND i htought i can ramble ON and on AND twitter and twitter and twitter on and on and on.
YA know there is somehtng to be said for short hand and THE PHRASE
“TO THE POINT”
P.S. i leave all spelling mistakes in for hte annally spell users to give them also things to whine about. SEE im a nice guy….
Re: @79
Funny. You may not have been following the thread, but I was asked my opinion on anonymous comments.
Here’s what I was responding to:
Not to “threadjack” but to continue this conversation in another way, I wonder why did you say on another blog that you think sites with anonymous comments have issues.
Seems you’re getting a lot of information pertinent to your role here, and we’re trying to help. Was this comment directed towards us or other blogs?
I Have to Disagree
3D will have a limited run as novelty item as it did in the late 1950s to early 1960s. The profit in the model is to get the cash out of the customers now and charge a premium as part of the appeal. Paying more convinces the customer they are getting more.
There is no long term plan just quick profit. There should be but there isn’t. At least it’s better than the early 1970s when films became so vulgar you felt you had to shower after the movie.
And remember, it’s just entertainment. If thine eye offends thee, pluck it out. Just turn off the TV and stop patronizing movies and support local live theater and read books. Maybe we all should pay less attention to what is essentially a placating drug rather than an art form and do more political and volunteer work.
Hollywood Greed
I have greatly cut back on moviegoing because of the rapacious ticket prices, the absurdly rapacious snack bar prices, and the fact that I’m forced to watch 15-20 minutes of commercials before the feature starts.
Fortunately, the theater in the small town where I live hasn’t adopted these practices, so I patronize them and forgo the big movie houses. Who needs it?
High prices
I don’t have a problem with them jacking up the prices. I’m not going to go see them anyway.
There are on the average only 2 to 3 movies a year worth watching. The rest of them, I would wish to have the time back I wasted on viewing them.
Bigger FX does not mean a better movie. If it doesn’t further the plot then it is wasted money. It does not matter if those FX are explosions, fire, or 3D.
It is evident again Hollydud’s mentality. This is no surprise that they would want to increase ticket prices. It is always about the rip off. Read a blurb on a movie, each and every one sounds like the next Oscar contender. Yet in truth, it’s on the rare few that are either Oscar contenders or worth the time to see. Most of them are rehashes of other themes. Dress it in cowboy duds, it’s a western, in fiction clothing, is fantasy, with a space background, it’s sci-fi, yet it is still the same theme with the same story line.
How many times can you redo a classic? I mean get real here. It was no different in outcome nor plot for War of the Worlds original theme nor for the one that had Tom Cruise in it. Was it any better? Not to me it wasn’t. Nor was it worth paying to go see.
Face it, the movie going experience isn’t what it was either. You think you got robbed paying the price of the ticket only to find that whatever the first holdup was, the second one at the concession stand is even worse. Then there are the commercials you paid to see on your dime.
Followed by sticky soft drinks on the floor, the kid whose mother doesn’t know the meaning of saying to behave, the cell phone that the user blissfully seems unaware of not being a proper place to have a conversation while others around them are trying to watch a movie. You also get to see the attendant walking up and down the isle because you might be taking a camcord but in reality is just another distraction where there should be none.
I’ve long ago had it with the Silver Screen experience. Others have pretty much ruined what was a good thing. I can do without paying for that “Experience”. Most of it you can get for free in a mall.
Re: High prices
Face it, the movie going experience isn’t what it was either.
I quit going to movies years ago because I was disappointed in them. At least on TV, if you don’t like it, you haven’t invested anything.
I’m a fan of old movies, and they turn up on AMC.
But the whole mentality of Hollywood lends itself to Avatar-like films. It isn’t about the story, but about the spectacle. So it doesn’t surprise me that 3-D movies are being sold like an event or a theme park ride. And they are being priced accordingly.
If you just want to see a movie, watch on TV or online.
the real problem is..
that there is a smaller and smaller pool of public domain to pull from, therefore you have alice in wonderland, sherlock holmes and other redos, because hollydud is even screwing hollydud by copyrighting EVERYTHING, over and over and over and over and over and over and over.
Re: the real problem is..
that there is a smaller and smaller pool of public domain to pull from, therefore you have alice in wonderland, sherlock holmes and other redos, because hollydud is even screwing hollydud by copyrighting EVERYTHING, over and over and over and over and over and over and over.
I’m not sure I see a problem here. If a studio holds the copyright to a movie, then it is free to make it again in 3-D. It’s not like a lot of little indies would be making 3-D movies if only there weren’t copyrights.
And if a studio already owns the copyright to a movie, it’s probably in that studio’s best interests to make its own movie again in 3-D than to work with something that had been released previously by someone else. This way they can maximize a brand they have already previously developed rather than promote a brand that someone else owns.
Re: Re: the real problem is..
“This way they can maximize a brand they have already previously developed rather than promote a brand that someone else owns.”
Or, if copyprivilege laws were reasonable, the public at large can own something after a reasonable period of time and do what it wants with it. The public doesn’t even owe the studio copy privileges to begin with.
3d movies are a scarcity right now. the economics according to masnick says charge for scarcity. why is this bad again???
Re: Re:
The more people who see your work and enjoy it go and tell more people about said work. If you price your work too high then less people who see your work and enjoy it will tell less people about said work.
Re: Re: Re:
The more people who see your work and enjoy it go and tell more people about said work. If you price your work too high then less people who see your work and enjoy it will tell less people about said work.
A lot of the comments here are from people who don’t like 3-D. So they aren’t going to go anyway.
How does your idea about keeping prices low (and I’m not arguing with you because I don’t think people have a lot of money to spend) fit with the high-priced packages that some musicians are offering? It’s the same idea, isn’t it? You charge more for something only your hardcore fans are going to want to buy.
In this case, the hardcore 3-D fans are being asked to pay more in order to see these movies, and everyone else is going to stay home.
3-D movies in theaters are being offered as scarce goods and being priced accordingly.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think the relevant question is whether it’s an artificial scarcity. If it relies on government protectionism (ie: copyprivilege laws) to enforce scarcity then the answer is yes.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I think the relevant question is whether it’s an artificial scarcity. If it relies on government protectionism (ie: copyprivilege laws) to enforce scarcity then the answer is yes.
In this case, it’s a real scarcity. There aren’t enough theaters with 3-D capability. That scarcity probably won’t last long because if there is money to be made, more theaters will be upgraded.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Movies are lucky in that they sometimes play twice a night for weeks or months at a time. It’s a scarce good, yes, but it’s not that scarce.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
tshirts and hoodies are not that scarce either unless someone limits them in some false way. right now 3d movie theaters are a very scarce good. they are applying the techdirt advice so why is masnick so upset about it?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
How is a 3D movie like a hoodie?
Bought Nimslo 3D camera stock
Way back when… I was naive. I had a collection of stereoscopic anatomy/surgery photos from my grand-pa. The promise of 3D in games and movies (and porn!) is immersion. Despite the naysayers, Avatar accomplished this. It was subtle, to the point of forgetting it was in 3D until you walked outside after the movie. Then everything was less than Avatar.
That said, of course everyone is going to get on whatever 3D curve may persist for some period of time. Why not make what money is to be made during this period. There is no guarantee that 3D will actually make it. It has tried so many times. It may persist in games. It may persist in some sports or nature shows. But public acceptance has been so fleeting in the past, even with good tech… and Avatar represents state of the art.
If you get a headache, you represent part of the market that will not buy. If you convert a movie to 3D just to make more money… that will not do. Word of mouth is viral. I will not see Alice in 3D, it obviously was not meant for 3D!
Produce content for 3D. Shoot 3D-HD sports and put me behind the quarterback… I will watch and buy the content. As for 3D blue ray? Well, I have yet to purchase a blue ray player despite the fact that it IS higher quality than my DVD player… and in many ways I AM an early adopter… that in itself should tell you that I want a significant (not marginal) increase in my viewing experience to make the jump. Does 3D do it? What will the market bear? Remains to be seen.
live action 3d movies are a gimmick. the only 3d movies worth seeing are animated.
the only way to see 3d through as a success is to have the porn industry back it. exactly how blu-ray demolished hd-dvd. so as soon as you see 3d smut, it’s here to stay. but wait, avatar made it to theaters. bam.
Adam Smith
Have these guys ever cracked an economics textbook? Ever seen a supply-and-demand curve? For that matter, have regulators ever seen a supply-and-demand curve for an oligopoly? It’s higher.
Can we do some trust-busting Pretty Please?
What about the next generation of remakes?
What’s going to happen when the next generation of digital studios wants to remake one of these “classics”? Alice in wonderland or Sherlock Holmes for example?
I’m guessing that there would be lawsuits and all manner of ‘infringing’ claims by the makers of the current movies and the next generation of re-makes… But they used a rabbit with a hat for their mad hatter, and that’s what we used in our movie, so they are infringing and must be stopped… Sherlock holmes’s assistants name was “Watson” in their film, which is a blatant rip-off of our movie… Not that anything would ‘stick’ but it would probably be enough to prevent any smaller studios from even attempting the project.
But then I’m a paranoid conspiracy theorist, and that’s just how I roll…
Re: What about the next generation of remakes?
I know many Techdirt readers are concerned about copyright and some have brought the topic into this discussion. I don’t think in this particular instance copyright is the economic factor. It’s a lack of screens. And so many Techdirt commenters here have complained about the 3-D concept in general that perhaps it’s going to be a non-issue anyway.
The copyright as it affects the movie industry is certainly valid discussion, but saying 3-D is suffering because of copyright kind of muddies the 3-D issue right now. Maybe for clarity’s sake, it’s better to treat them as separate issues until it is full established that there would be a great market for 3-D if only people were free to borrow concepts from copyrighted stories. It’s lack of technology rather than lack of content which is driving up prices.
In other words, if people are saying they don’t like 3-D in general, it’s hard to make a case that copyright is the problem here.
Shit, for $20 a ticket, the theater seats better hydraulically move with the 3D action.
One writer's opinion on why 3D TV won't take off.
5 Reasons 3D TV Won’t Take Off – TheWrap.com