3-D starting to look flat at the box office

As more movies play in digital 3-D, there’s evidence that audiences are becoming less interested in the ballyhooed format that many in Hollywood have predicted will stem the long-term erosion of theater attendance.

Box office data for “Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs,” which opened last Wednesday, shows that theaters with at least one screen playing the film in 3-D generated on average, 1.4x  as much in ticket sales as those that only showed the picture the old fashioned 2-D way. (A breakdown by individual screens within multiplexes was not available.)

The higher gross represents a mix of ticket price surcharges, which are typically $2 to $3 for digital 3-D, and higher attendance.

The ratio of grosses in theaters with 3-D screens to those that are 2-D only has declined significantly and fairly consistently since “My Bloody Valentine,” the first film this year to play on a mix of both, suggesting audience interest in the new format is waning.

Here’s how much higher ticket sales were for theaters with 3-D screens compared with theaters with only 2-D screens on the opening weekends for the five major releases so far this year (the numbers are based on studio estimates, as reported by The Times, Boxofficemojo.com and Variety):

• “My Bloody Valentine 3-D”: 6.4x
• “Coraline”: 3x
• “Monsters vs Aliens”: 2.1x
• “Up”: 2.2x
• “Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs”: 1.4x

Those figures, of course, don't fully represent the financial advantage of 3-D screens compared with 2-D screens, because many theaters feature both;  1,620 of "Ice Age's" 4,099 U.S. and Canadian locations played the film in 3-D, but 1,205 of those also played it in 2-D. Average grosses within those 1,205 probably were dragged down somewhat by their 2-D screens.

Nonetheless, as an apples-to-apples comparison, the decline in 3-D's advantage is significant and curious. It's partially due, no doubt, to the rising number of theaters equipped with 3-D screens. January's "My Bloody Valentine" was in 1,033 of them. By the time "Monsters vs. Aliens" came out in March, there were 1,550. "Ice Age" was on 1,620.

The more theaters with 3-D screens there are in a given region, the more they may split audiences interested in the technology and thus lower their average gross.

It's also possible that as 3-D releases increase in frequency -- "Up" came out four and a half weeks before "Ice Age," "G-Force" follows just three weeks later -- audiences become a little less enchanted by what they get for their extra money. Other upcoming releases using the technology include August's "The Final Destination," September's "Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs," October's re-release of "Toy Story" and "Toy Story 2," November's "A Christmas Carol" and December's "Avatar."

There's certainly no sure evidence that films are consistently doing better as a result of 3-D. While many factors affected the movie's performance, including the Fourth of July falling on a Saturday, it's notable that "Dawn of the Dinosaurs" earned less domestically in its first five days than the 2-D "Ice Age: the Meltdown," grossed its first three days in March of 2006.

-- Ben Fritz

Photo: "Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs" star Ray Romano at a 3-D screening of the film with elementary school students in the Bronx.

 Credit: Dave Allocca / Associated Press 

Comments

[Robert]

The reason 3D tickets might not sell well is because they cost so much more--too much for families, especially in this economy--than 2D tickets.

[Mike Maloney]

I've been working in the industry long enough that is the second time in my career that I've heard how 3D will save the industry. Bah!

"There's nothing wrong with this town that a good story won't cure." (Wish I knew who said that.)

Of course you can't underestimate the drawing power of toys for adolescent boys.

[Charles]

When color television arrived, and after the initial excitement wore off, it couldn't save bad programming. When HDTV arrived, the same story. Likewise, with 3-D films. In this economy, charging a high premium for admission to a 3D film is illogical but then Hollywood has well-proven history of being quite illogical when it comes to extracting the maximum dollars possible from the paying public. Had 3D been presented as the technological advancement it is, at the same or close to same admission prices as 2D, then there would have acceptance and an expectation of it. As it stands the audience is listening...and watching...and is underwhelmed.

[KJ]

Three-dee, schmee dee..... what's starting to look flat is the refried story lines, hackneyed writing, and lackluster direction. Hollywood's not in the business of selling stories, they're in the business of selling genres. 3D is just another format that proves no matter how you pimp the picture, if there's no story, you get drek. (Rhymes with "Shrek")

[Mike]

When I saw Up recently in 3-D, all I could think halfway through the movie was how much more enjoyable it would have been in 2-D. I'll never watch 3-D again.

[B Clemenb]

When User-Generated content on youtube is better than the movies, it's obvious that quality is the problem.
Just look at the pathetic mess that is Transformers 2.
Oh wait, that still made hundreds of millions at the BO
So the point to be learned is that if you have a really great marketing campaign and hundreds of millions in SFX, your movie will survive no matter how bad it sucks.
Everyone else better watch out, though

[Jim Dorey]

Wow. What cutting edge journalism. Oh 3D is dying off... if you ignore the fact that my facts are skewered.

"Those figures, of course, don't fully represent the financial advantage of 3-D screens compared with 2-D screens, because many theaters feature both"

What a joke. Let me know when you have something for me to read.

[peglegspinners]

3-D probably won't stick around in the long term because, at least as it's been used so far, it doesn't really add any new storytelling choices. Still, the reason "Ice Age 3" made less money than some other 3-D movies might just be because it sucks. I have an article about it on my site.

[Dave Gregory]

Thoughtful article. But, I'm not sure I agree with everything stated.

You do correctly point out that the ratios can be misleading as more Digital 3D screens appear--since they can pull attendance from each other.

But the success of 3D must be measured in "overall" boxoffice across all the 3D cinemas--not by these ratios. Not anymore.

For example, the reason that MY BLOODY VALENTINE sold over six times the tickets per theater in 3D than in 2D was because the movie was really so bad that it had nothing to offer in 2D. I mean, without 3D, what would've been the point of even seeing it? It was "All old and dared again!" in terms of content.

The film's core audience quickly perceived that and went for the sensation of experiencing the visceral thrills "in depth" because that was the only attraction that title had going for it.

It makes a great case for 3D. But it makes a horrible argument that the film, MY BLOODY VALENTINE, was even a good idea to begin with.

One good point the article does make is that this "premium experience fee" of $2 to $4 extra on top of the ticket price is going to wear thin real fast with a recession-bled public. There should only be a $1 to $2 extra charge for the glasses now--period! (They cost far less than that to make now thanks to Real-D's efforts, which lowered the price of circular polarizers.)

[Also, let's encourage people to bring their glasses back to the theaters for the next 3D show and NOT have to pay anything extra at all.]

The theaters are supposed to recoup the cost of their digital equipment from the "Digital Print Fee" scam--not by sticking even more extra charges upon the movie-going public. Especially not right now!

Why is the "Digital Print Fee" a scam? Because it's really designed (by the majors) to keep the independent distributors off the digital screens by negating the savings of not having to make 35mm prints. And it will never go away. Think about it.

A film projector is relatively inexpensive, requires little maintenance, and doesn't really become obsolete. It's imaging is as good as the quality of 35mm positive print being run through it. But a digital machine (projector, computer, whatever) that you buy on Monday--like any new digitronic technology--will be obsolete on Wednesday. It will require constant upgrading and servicing.

Just wait 'till all this new technology starts breaking-down--especially at the all digital multiplexes.

[lfman2002@hotmail.com]

The play will always be the thing, however, with a film that people want to see (in 3D) the audience will be there. In fact, ICE AGE 3D was, to my understanding, never considered to be a film that would generate huge boxoffice magic in the US. Overseas, it appears to be different, as the film has worldwide grosses approaching close to $300Million - the film actually put Fox in the $Billion category.

I am, and have been, involved with 3D for several years off and on. In the 1980's it failed due to poor technology interface and astoundingly bad films, such as JAWS 3D and SPACEHUNTER. This time, the technology works and with upcoming improvements and implementation of higher end Digital projection technology, the 3D experience will only improve. Along with that should come improvement in the way 3D is implemented into feature films - UP! may have hurt ICE AGE 3 a bit, as the stereoscopic aspect of it was a bit too conservative - so filmakers have to really push the process for all its worth.

Not only that, but those who have the buying power for purchaase those 3D capable 1080p monitors that are starting to saturate the market (to become the standard no doubt) there will most likely be more 3D product, good and bad, to drive the acceptance of 3D, hopefully, into the stratosphere.

[jthm]

3D died in the 50's! And again and again over the last 5 decades. It's current resurgence is being fueled by wannabe filmmakers who use mom & dad's credit card to buy shitty digital cameras and think that by shooting their movie in 3D they are being cutting edge and novel. It's nothing more than marketing hype by manufacturers trying to outsell their competitors. Digital camera manufacturers no longer rely on real quality to sell a camera. Merely hype. And third party manufacturer's will dream up and sell an accessory to anything that can capture a picture. One company actually announced the availability of a handgrip for the iPhone as soon as Apple announced that the new iPhone could shoot video! As long as idiots with credit cards think they can buy a career as a filmmaker simply by having the latest new gadget, there will be someone trying to sell it to them. 3D is just one of the many horrible short lived items for sale. I hope it dies out (again) as quickly as possible.

[digby]

Has it occurred to anyone that 3D may actually hurt ticket sales? Some people find 3D nauseating. Especially those who get motion sickness. 3D actually kept me from buying a ticket to see "Coraline". My wife and I were very interested in seeing "Coraline" in the theater. But over the course of 3 weeks, we couldn't find a single screen that was playing the film in 2D. Neither of us had any interest in seeing the film in 3D. So we ended up not going to the movies at all. I'm sure my wife and I aren't the only ones who will choose not to see a film that isn't available in 2D. And that means lost ticket sales...

[Dave Gregory]

I don't know where Digby is living, but, for an art-house division release, the 2D screens for CORALINE were in abundance -- certainly here in LA.

Most people who experience "motion sickness" still see in the world in 3D, though -- so that argument against 3D doesn't wash. Do you walk around in life with one eye closed?

Now, if you want to complain about the roller-coaster ride in THIS IS CINERAMA, then I might understand. But you can't blame 3D for that -- 'cause Cinerama ain't 3D.

Heck, I even got motion sick in the BULLET car chase sequence, and that movie was flat 1.85:1.

When 3D is shot & projected correctly to avoid "viewer accommodation" issues (which isn't always the case -- even today) then there should be no eyestrain or nausea.

One movie with badly handled 3D (eg, FLY ME TO THE MOON) doesn't mean that all 3D movies will induce eyestrain. JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH was, for the most part, very well-done and easy to watch. Even MY BLOODY VALENTINE had very good 3D -- whether or not you think its story content was worth the price of admission.

But it all comes back to Mike Maloney's point. And that is that Content is King!

Give us a good story and tell it in an unobtrusive manner, and you'll have a hit -- if it's given a chance.

Now, if you want a really nauseating movie experience because of poor use of the technology, go watch PUBLIC ENEMIES. And it ain't in 3D, either!

[Timber]

Remember also that children under 6 or so have a hard time watching 3D films, so some 3D cartoon films particularly are going to suffer. Ice Age may well be one of them. Plus, the previous comment about the extra cost might play into it.

[Jonathan]

Ever 10 Years or so the studios wheel out 3D as the next big thing.

After a few films have done the rounds the Studios start to make good films again.

Unfortunately this time, there has been millions of $ invested by the Theaters & film makers to make it stick this time.

So we can say farewell to any sort of good content in film (from Hollywood) for a long time.