It seems weird that a film technique that has been around since the early 1900s is just now coming into its own. I am also not sure if 3-D is something audiences are pining for or if it is just what filmmakers and movie studios are doing to up the ante. For example, I have never heard anyone say, “That movie was great, but it would have been amazing in 3-D!” Honestly I think films in 3-D are gimmicky and unnecessary. It annoys me to wear those horn rimmed glasses and my eyes get really tired about midway through any 3-D film I have ever seen.
However, it appears I am going to have to get used to it as deals to convert as many as 10,000 more theater screens for the digital technology needed to accommodate 3-D films were announced today by Access Integrated Technologies Inc. How much will it cost? $700 million. How long will it take? About three years. Who is paying for it? Well, that’s the tricky part.
You see, in the announcement it says Access Integrated Technologies Inc. had reached agreements with four studios — Disney, News Corp.’s 20th Century Fox, Viacom Inc.’s Paramount, and Universal Pictures, which is owned by General Electric Co.’s NBC Universal — to finance and equip the screens in the U.S. and Canada during the next three years. So essentially the studios are paying for it, but are they really doing this out of the kindness of their hearts? Doubtful.
On top of the $700 million to convert the theaters, the digital technology used to show 3-D movies with the addition of software and hardware will cost about $25,000 per year for each screen. Who’s going to pay for that? I think you know exactly where I am going with this.
The article boasts the $31.3 million the 3-D Hannah Montana movie made in its opening weekend recently. What the article doesn’t say is that tickets for each showing cost $15 and it was originally sold on the idea that it would be a limited run. Nine-year-old girls grabbed their mommies and rushed to the theaters in droves to watch Miley Cyrus sing and dance in three dimensions, but would the same be possible for traditional films?
The article from CNN does note price increases saying, “Box office figures have shown the submersive effect of 3-D can attract two to three times more moviegoers who are willing to pay as much as $3 more per ticket.” Take Hannah Montana out of that equation and I don’t think you will come to the same conclusion. I also think that takes into consideration IMAX 3-D where ticket prices have always been higher.
Sooner or later filmmakers are just going to have to make good movies because I believe 3-D is a gimmick that does not sell itself.
Beowulf made $82 million at the box, I would have wanted to check that out whether it was in 3-D or not. U2 3D made $6 million and you couldn’t have paid me to see that one.
I will say I think it is a bit too early to judge the medium because the digital projection of films made for 3-D and not just converted to 3-D, which has been the case for several films over the past few years, is a whole different ball game. However, if films such as Journey to the Center of the Earth aren’t very good the 3-D aspect isn’t going to sell the film. On top of that, films such as James Cameron’s Avatar could be shown in black-and-white mono and people would still line-up to see what the man was up to.
The real test is still to come as several animated features as well as thrill features such as Final Destination 4 make their way into theaters in 3-D. Then we will really see if it is a gimmick or if it is actually going to change the way we watch movies. I do believe one thing, if the prices continue to rise it will certainly change the way we watch movies, because we just won’t.
