No Surprises Dept.: Hollywood killing 3-D golden goose faster than expected

Whenever Hollywood finds a new cash cow, it dives in and loots its riches faster than any pickpocket on the planet. That's what the movie industry has been doing with its much-ballyhooed 3-D technology, which has spawned one legitimate masterwork ("Avatar") but otherwise has been little more than a cushy new revenue source for exhibitors and studios. Both have been raking in loads of moola from the extra $4 to $5 theater owners charge at the box office for admission to 3-D movies.

I always suspected that even the most gullible moviegoers eventually would figure out that few films are worth the extra tariff -- especially the ones, like "Clash of the Titans," that were the product of quickie 3-D transfers. But according to this story from the always enterprising Daniel Frankel in the Wrap, audiences are abandoning 3-D at an even faster rate than previously suspected. The story is accompanied by a fascinating graph detailing the percentages of opening-weekend box-office revenue that came from 3-D screens. The graph's arrow is heading in only one direction: straight down.

"Avatar," which offered a mind-blowing glimpse at the creative potential of 3-D, earned 71% of its opening weekend bucks from 3-D screens. That number went down to 61% by the time "Shrek Forever After" opened, dropped a notch to 60% for "Toy Story 3," dipped to 56% for "The Last Airbender" and now has plummeted to 45% for "Despicable Me."

What's scary about these numbers is that they are all culled from hit movies that people were actually eager to see. You'd have to assume that the numbers get worse with each ensuing weekend, since the hard-core fans who turn out on opening weekends are the ones most likely to shell out the extra cash for 3-D showings. So if the numbers for want-to-see movies are dropping steadily, imagine what the numbers will look like next year when every studio in town is churning out 3-D programmers. I mean, a sizable chunk of moviegoers might still want to pay an extra $4 or $5 to see "Cars 2" in 3-D, but are they really going to pay more for "Mars Needs Moms" or "Fright Night," two of the other Disney films slated for 3-D release next year?

The paltry numbers for 3-D tickets sold for "Despicable Me" come as no surprise if you have kids, since I've heard dozens of parents with children usually age 10 and under say their little ones can't stand wearing 3-D glasses, complaining of either discomfort or headaches. So far, studio execs are putting on a brave face. As Warner Bros.' distribution chief Dan Fellman told the Wrap: "You can't look at just three or four movies in a row and say it's over."

I'm not saying 3-D is over either. But I don't think it's the Next Big Thing anymore. Audiences aren't cattle. They've come to realize that, with some exceptions, most Hollywood films simply aren't noticeably better in 3-D. When Jim Cameron brings another film back to market, they'll be happy to see his work in 3-D. But too many movies simply don't gain that much sizzle from the 3-D experience.

When the studios realize next year how much they've cannibalized their audience by rushing dozens of films into a 3-D release, they will be cutting back, not ramping up their next round of 3-D releases. The Big Event films still will have the ability to draw large 3-D crowds, but when it comes to the lesser releases, moviegoers are going to be smart shoppers. The brave new world that 3-D tub-thumper Jeffrey Katzenberg imagined, where the multiplexes would be overflowing with 3-D movies on every screen, is still a long, loooong way away from reality.  

Photo: A scene featuring Gru, voiced by Steve Carell, with two of his minions from "Despicable Me." Credit: Universal Pictures-Illumination Entertainment

Comments

[Charley]

I thought "Despicable Me" was a cool film. We enjoyed it in 3-D

[Deborah]

for me it's not the money. I just don't like the 3d experience. I feel sick, have headaches and am all around uncomfortable watching 3d movies. I'm happy to hear that maybe, just maybe, 2d movies will continue for many years to come!

[Gaucho420]

I'd disagree...I'm willing to pay more for 3D, as I can't get that experience at home. Non-3D movies? Why in the hell do I need to go to the theatre at all?

The expensive and crappy food?
The seats that had 1,000 asses flatulate on them on before?
Perhaps being in closes proximity to strangers that I will never see again?

I rarely go to the movies now, because I can watch movies at home, on my crystalr clear LED, with my kick ass surround sound, ON MY COUCH, and the ability to pause the movie and rewind it, via the DVR.

3D brings something to theatres that have been clearly lacking, which is a reason to go. Without 3D, I'll just wait at home to see it.

[AndreaU8]

I only 3D movie that I am waiting to see is that OWL movie coming out in Sept.

[Jeff Thurman]

My wife and I went to the Edwards 22 in Ontario last Saturday to see "The Kids are Alright". Thank God it wasn't in 3-D!

By the time we paid for our tickets and bought one small drink we had shelled out $25.00 - and this was for the "Bargain" matinee! We were going to add a small popcorn, but the attendant handed us a small lunch bag of popped corn and said "$6.00 please". We politely declined.

3-D will not kill off the movie going experience. Outrageous prices will.

[Angela Wilson Gyetvan]

Quade is correct: It's a pricing issue. I also pointed out to the Wrap, the first time they ran this story (which was last week, now they're running a slightly different version, with new graphs), that they were using a chart that was missing data from movies and that was lacking attribution. They did attribute their data this time around, which was a move in the right direction.

Full disclosure: I work in 3D.

[tigerstripes]

No, it's not just the money. They can't slap 3-D on any movie and make it work.

Clash of the Titans could've been 5-D and it still would've stunk on ice.

[Tee]

When people stop giving in, they bring the prices back down.
It's very simple.

Still idiots everywhere force us all to pay exorbitant prices for just about everything. Cell phones and cell phones service are a perfect example.

[k]

What about theme parks? I still don't know if the crappiness of King Kong 3D was because of the tech or because of the shoddy glasses I got. I'm guessing both. 3D is almost universally a waste of money.

[Colby]

I saw Avatar in 3D and was impressed, but it's equally impressive on 2D on Blu-ray on my home projector. The 3D in movie theatres is just not good enough. The glasses are distracting and dim the image, there's ghosting effects, and you can't focus your eyes on different parts of the image; you're forced to focus on what's in focus. It's not worth the money. Essentially it's the same technology that's been around since 1986, when I first saw it at the Expo in Vancouver. 3D geese flew across the screen, real enough to touch... for a 12 year old. We need next-generation 3D. 3rd generation 3D. Until then, Blu-Ray is just as good, and I'll be waiting for movies to come out on that format for watching at home instead of being ripped off at a movie theater.