So How Much of a 3D Price Hike Are You Willing to Take?

3D-Man

He wouldn't pay that much. And he's 3-D Man, for crying out loud.

So Variety reports that having seen first quarter box office go up, largely due to the extended 3D ticket prices attached to the long legs of Avatar and the decent legs of Alice in Wonderland, cinemas are going to jack up your 3D ticket prices even more. Why? Because one of the few things you can get at a cinema that you can’t get at home–at least not for a reasonable price–is the chance to see a digital 3D film. So desperate for cash, they’re going to see a 25%+ hike, and you guys in Los Angeles and New York can expect $5 tacked on to your tickets.

The question is how much is the cinema-going public willing to take? Avatar was bloody Avatar and you’re not going to see that sort of performance again anytime soon. Alice was a combo of Disney, Johnny Depp and Tim Burton. So in other words, they were films the cinema-going public was going to see anyway. I think either film would have been worth seeing on the big screen had they not come out in 3D.

But here’s the question: would you go to see a film just because it’s in 3D? On one hand, you have Shrek Forever After and Toy Story 3 coming. But let’s face it: they already have an audience. Is somebody really going to pay anything, much less an extra $5, to see Step Up 3D? Does anyone give a rat’s ass (or a jackass’ ass) about Jackass 3D? And yes, I know–I don’t even have to look up their production budgets to know that the 3D aspect is probably the most costly part.

On the other hand, look backwards: Green Zone 3D. Does that entice you to go see something that, good film or no (I haven’t seen it), just screams I Can’t Believe It’s Not Bourne?

I don’t see anything on the horizon that looks like an Expensive 3D Train Wreck–yet. Granted, Yogi Bear looks that way to me, but I never expected Alvin and the Chipmunks to turn into a live action franchise, so what the hell do I know? But I think all we need is a couple of bigass 3D box office bombs and then things will stabilize.

In the meantime, I’m curious: what is your opinion? Do you care? Does your wallet care? Is the extra $3-$5 worth it for the 3D experience? Or on some films do you simply not give a damn? Does the whole “3D” stamp make you salivate for films? Or are you already over the whole 3D business? Did anyone actually see Battle for Terra? I wonder…

Source. Image.

Quick! Tell the Others!

Like this:

Like Loading...
By | 2017-09-24T22:53:36+00:00 March 25th, 2010|Stimuli|6 Comments

Quick! Tell the Others!

6 Comments

  1. Jeanelle (raoin) Eros March 25, 2010 at 9:08 am

    i know most people arent like me, but i actually cant see the 3D effects in most 3D movies. maybe my sense of depth perception is broken, maybe my eyes are not so easily fooled, maybe i just havent sat in the “sweet spot” in the theater yet. *shrug*

    this is so much the case that i would never bother to see a movie in 3D specifically because it costs more per ticket for basically the same movie i could be seeing on a regular screen.

    with regards to other people, like my husband for instance, who can see the 3D effects and do enjoy those movies, raising the price on 3D movies seems absolutely stupid to me. we have a pretty tight budget as it is, and we are probably not the only americans working to save money. if its a choice between paying $11 for two regular matinee tickets at the MovieTavern on Northlake to see the latest Hollywood throw-away, or paying somewhere in the neighborhood of $37 for two tickets to the same film on the IMAX at mall of GA, it seems like kind of a non-choice. i might have $11 to spend on a film out of the house, but i sure as hell dont have $37.

    i guess you could say that my wallet and I already dont care.

  2. Dan March 26, 2010 at 3:20 am

    Nooooo, 3D Man! You’re looking through the green lens with your red eye and the red lens with your green eye, thus negating the 3D effect. Life is dull, flat and tinted for 3D Man.

  3. Dan Donald March 26, 2010 at 4:31 pm

    I totally agree with Jeanelle. 3-D no matter how fantastic will at some point hit a ceiling and hopefully plummet back to the 4th circle of hell with its masters.

    I don’t mind enjoying an occasional treat. Star Trek the second time in IMAX was worth it. But I do not repeat do not want to see movies like the Bounty Hunter, Cop Out or Dear John in 3d. It makes me so agitated and incoherent to think that the big fat frickin jerks in Hollywood want to squeeze more money out of us. They should feel lucky,their business is one of the few that has been slightly robust during this downturn in the economy. Sorry about the rant. Just hoping that Hollywood will come to its senses and 3-D will once again peter out.

  4. Dan March 26, 2010 at 10:30 pm

    We’re really poor and neglected here in the UK. I can’t think of a single IMAX in the whole country, though I know there must be one. Instead we get charged about 25 dollars for a normal ticket and god help you if you want to buy any food, the popcorn costs more than the over expensive tickets.

  5. Widge March 27, 2010 at 2:50 pm

    Dan: Holy crap. I’m amazed you still have cinemas over there in that case.

  6. Dan March 29, 2010 at 8:35 pm

    At our local Vue you can buy a slightly more expensive group ticket for a 2 or 4 seater sofa.. err couch? which is fun. Also, I forgot our economy and exchange rate is completely ruined, tickets are about 12 to 18 dollars equivalent currently.
    The main reason I don’t go to the cinema unless it’s something like Dark Knight is the general public. Idon’t think i’ve been once where someone hasn’t been really noisy, always getting up or blocking my view. In fact the last time I went to the cinema, which was actually Dark Knight, someone a row in front of me crapped their pants really badly and the person next to them started screaming and they both had to be taken out by their carer. Don’t go to the movies or a concert with me, I have really really bad luck!

Leave A Comment

%d bloggers like this: