Or at the very least, an Empire Theatres thing.
Theaters raise prices on 2D movies to lower cost of 3D movies
- Thread starter Dream
- Start date
Or at the very least, an Empire Theatres thing.
Not happening.
Proof then that we're getting dumber by the generation. Previous generations knew better than to buy into this crap...
Ian Keldon
Fleet Captain
I never go to first-run theaters on my own money unless it's a VERY special movie I just can't wait to see (which happens maybe once every couple of years).
For example: I went and saw both Thor and X-Men: First Class at the "dollar" ($4 actually) theater on the same day. Much better value for money, even after the outrageously inflated snack bar prices ($10 for a large popcorn and soda combo w/1 free refill each).
BTW: I thought that theaters didn't make their money off of the movies in any event...they made their money off concessions.
For example: I went and saw both Thor and X-Men: First Class at the "dollar" ($4 actually) theater on the same day. Much better value for money, even after the outrageously inflated snack bar prices ($10 for a large popcorn and soda combo w/1 free refill each).
BTW: I thought that theaters didn't make their money off of the movies in any event...they made their money off concessions.
Cineplex actually.
We also have cheap Tuesday here in Australia. Currently prices for a 2D movie at most of the major cinemas starts at $15. Hope that doesn't happen here, as I would see less movies.
could this actually reduce the number of 3D movies produced? If you think about it currently you have a lot of '3d' movies that are just 2D with some added (and not important) 3D bits added to certain scenes. They are doing it that way to make some extra $$$ because 3D tickets sell for a lot more than normal tickets.
If the price of 3D tickets is reduced and the price of 2D tickets increased to the point where both are the same price...Where is the incentive to convert a 2D movie into a 3D movie?
If the price of 3D tickets is reduced and the price of 2D tickets increased to the point where both are the same price...Where is the incentive to convert a 2D movie into a 3D movie?
Internet BBS forums proved that years ago, and continue to do so far more effectively than Hollywood.
I like 3D quite a lot.
I like 3D quite a lot.
I see you have your 3D glasses on.
Nice av by the way, too. Funny, I was thinking the same thing about Cheney before you started sporting it. Must be nice.
As usual, I stole the sentiment from Facebook. 
This won't, but a few more John Carters might as Hollywood realizes that 3-D does not guarantee box office success. Thing is it's been hard to fairly judge this. Yeah, Deathly Hallows 2 was 3-D and a huge success but it was the last Harry Potter movie: they could have made it with an Etch-a-Sketch and made a billion dollars. Avatar II will be giant even if it's a crappy movie because it has the fanbase. Assuming the next Bond film is 3-D it'll probably do well but not because of the 3-D (in fact the 3-D might actually hurt it with the franchise's older demographic). If the last Twilight film is 3-D, same thing.
And we can't count the animated films either because the kids for the most part do not care. Toy Story 3 (again though an installment of a proven franchise) probably would have done well in 2-D.
The ones to watch are those films that are for lack of a better term standalone and not connected to any established franchise or fanbase. John Carter can qualify as one of these and you'll see it tanked. Not that the 3-D had anything to do with it, but it certainly didn't make that film a hit. A few more of those or Mars Needs Moms and you might see a reduction of 3-D because the expense isn't worth it on a film that may or may not do well. Watch for announcements of films produced in 3-D having the 3-D removed because of lack of studio confidence (which would mean the films would be shown in standard screens leaving the 3-D screens free for better-performing movies). Another potential side-effect of more John Carter-sized flops might mean a resurgence of the whole "direct to video" thing (though I'd imagine it'd be more "direct-to-Netflix" these days).
Alex
I thought the 3D in John Carter was done in post-production? The conversion probably didn't cost anywhere near what a real 3D flick cost to produce.
The only thing the John Carter failure will teach Hollywood is how to not market a movie. It had little or nothing to do with being in 3D or not.
I'm already paying $11 for an evening show...in Nashville freaking TN. It's got to be more in big metro areas like LA and NY.It makes sense because the ticket prices of the 3D movies would go down because of the 2D ticket prices rising....I like some 3D movies, so I'm not opposed to paying $10 a ticket instead of $13
The Regal and Carmike chains matinee prices here are $8Man, I only pay $5.25 to see a movieIt's the first showing matinee price.
I hate 3-D....fuck you James Cameron for bringing this shit back fully and convincing studios it was worth their while.
That's fine. I'm still not going to see movies with 3D effects.
Internet BBS forums proved that years ago, and continue to do so far more effectively than Hollywood.
I like 3D quite a lot.
People who think we are getting dumber by the generation are contributing to the 'problem'.
