| [poll id = “61”] |
For our next short audio commentary we turn our attention to 3-D and the dollars brought in by the latest incarnation of the theatrical gimmick. Over the weekend a reader sent a question in and it had me scratching my head. It read:
When the viewing public pays more to watch a 3-D movie, doesn’t that surcharge go to the theatre? How come it is reported as box office for the film?
And as such, doesn’t a 3-D film have an unfair advantage in totals? Shouldn’t totals reported come with a notation?
Obviously, it’s reported as box-office for the film because it was collected at the box-office, but there is some logic to the rest of the argument. Aren’t 3-D films just movies on steroids when it comes to tallying the box-office? Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire probably won’t see their names in the baseball hall-of-fame as they are linked squarely with the muscle making medicine. However, the argument to get them in has people saying just add an asterisk next to their name denoting the suspicion of their involvement with steroids. Should the same be done with 3-D movies?
I mention a “Los Angeles Times” article in the audio, which you can read here. Also, during our conversation we did not have the difference between a 3D ticket and a regular priced ticket on hand, but in looking at two similarly timed showings of Halloween II and The Final Destination 3D here in Seattle, the difference was $3.50.
Be sure to vote in the poll above and listen to Laremy and I discuss the situation directly below. The audio runs for just under 9 minutes.
Have a movie related question you think would be a good topic for an upcoming audio commentary? Let us know in the comments below!
