Since the high-water mark of Avatar, where 71 per cent of the revenue came from 3D screenings, numbers for big-budget 3D movies have plummeted to less than 50 per cent.
Obviously Avatar was a unique case in that it was basically sold as a 3D “experience”, so if you saw it in 2D you were missing out. But then three months later the animated How to Train Your Dragon pulled in 68 per cent of its revenue from 3D screens, hardly a significant drop-off.
Fast forward a mere four months and you have Despicable Me, another 3D animated kids movie, pulling in 45 per cent of its revenue from 3D screens. As you can see by The Wrap’s chart below, it’s a pretty clear trend.
What’s this mean? It means that now that people have had a chance to experience 3D in cinemas, they’re opting to spend $US10 on a 2D screening rather than $US15 on a 3D screening when given the option.
It’s not great news for Hollywood studios that have sunk boatloads of money into 3D cameras and tech, but it’s much, much worse news for consumer electronics companies such as Sony and Panasonic who are betting the farm on people wanting to upgrade two-year-old HDTVs to 3D HDTVs. But if Hollywood finds that making 3D movies isn’t as profitable as they thought, they’ll stop doing it. And without that content, no one will have any reason to buy a 3D TV.
Sucks for them, but it’s good news for consumers who are voting with their wallets. No more inflated ticket prices and no need to buy a new TV for a feature no one ever really wanted? Sounds good to me. [The Wrap via Ebert]
FlamingDrongo
Thursday, July 22, 2010 at 8:45 AMTried to take my kids to see a couple of 3D movies. They hated the glasses and ended up watching the movie without them. They just weren’t interested. Only go to see the regular screenings now.
StevoTheDevo
Thursday, July 22, 2010 at 9:11 AMI think it’s difficult to compare an undoubtedly Adult oriented movie like Avatar with kid oriented Movies like Shrek, Toy Story, Airbender and Despicable Me…
Add in FlamingDrongo’s insight that kids don’t like wearing glasses and the comparison becomes even more invalid.
Having said that, I saw Avatar 3D and the 3D was a bit of a “Meh” experience for me..
Loved the movie, just didn’t think the 3D added anything, in fact I often found it annoying that I couldn’t look where I wanted to.
I watched it again recently in 2D on my home projector and noticed quite a few “pointless, bloatware” scenes which were clearly included just to add extra 3D content.
jonnyjonny
Thursday, July 22, 2010 at 11:25 AMForget cinema. Its about TV. Shooting and editing digital TV in 3D is comparatively cheap. Its here to stay. Has anyone here considered sport? Has anyone watched a football, basketball or netball game in 3D? You will change your minds. Whether NRL, AFL or EPL, do they have enough money to float this? TV for them is God! The sony’s and panasonics will develop non-glasses 3D screens very soon. I bet my life on it! then you have 3D computers. 3D iphones. 3D ipads. And a whole lot more stuff for us to keep buying!!
JAck
Thursday, July 22, 2010 at 5:43 PM3D is a useless gimmick and i hope it dies, there is no way I would buy or put on $200+ glasses to watch TV or play games. The only plus side is it makes good non 3D tv’s cheaper!
Ripley McStoner
Thursday, July 22, 2010 at 9:04 AMIt will always be a fad until they can replicate 3D without having to wear dumbarse glasses
Inq
Thursday, July 22, 2010 at 9:15 AMI think you’ll find there’s a strong correlation between being marketed in 3d and 3d sales.
moloko
Thursday, July 22, 2010 at 9:38 AMGood hurry up and die already
Normandy
Thursday, July 22, 2010 at 9:45 AMHoo Ray, 3D was always a con job fad, and gave me headaches!!
In 2-3 years it will be remembered as a stupid fad, and those silly people who bought 3D Tv’s will be scrambling for content and wondering why they paid 20% more for a TV they never use for its intended use! Welcome to the betamax, 8 track tape of 2010!
Karamo Kourouma
Thursday, July 22, 2010 at 9:59 AMLast time I check those weren’t movies to write home about, compare good movie people.
url404
Thursday, July 22, 2010 at 10:08 AMI maintain that 3D TV’s are electronics companies answering a question nobody asked.
Labrat
Thursday, July 22, 2010 at 10:23 AMI went to a Toystory 3 screening in Melbourne 3 weeks ago, and the 2D session was sold out, and the concurrent 3D session still had plenty of seats available…
steve
Thursday, July 22, 2010 at 10:31 AMif you cant make it good make it 3d
James Carson
Thursday, July 22, 2010 at 10:37 AMhow to train ur dragon is about the only 3d movie that i have seen that actually benifitted from 3d, in avatar, it just seemed to be chucked in as an afterthough
RK
Thursday, July 22, 2010 at 10:58 AMEr, what?
Avatar was created as a 3D experience. As a 2D movie it was ordinary and pointless. Who went to see Avatar for the story?
The thing about Shrek and Toy Story etc is that it’s the story, characters and dialogue that make those films what they are. 3D for those is just a gimmick. People already got to like those characters in 2D.
Adding 3D to established franchises, or as a post-production gimmick, was always going to die quickly. The test will be adult movies like Avatar which are created as 3D experiences and which need the 3D.
Bobbobboy
Thursday, July 22, 2010 at 1:56 PMas a 3d movie it was pointless.
Dean Mandareen
Thursday, July 22, 2010 at 10:54 AMi agree, 3d is lame, gives headaches!
Graham Jupp
Thursday, July 22, 2010 at 10:58 AMYeah, I must say that Im not too keen to keep paying the 3d tax when I go to the movies, though given the choice I would always go for the 3d version if it were the same price.
I was reading recently that 3d needs to be shot on video instead of film, one of the reasons that some producers are against it.
I think SONY’s new patent for dual viewing on a single TV screen will give a lot of life to the argument for 3d screens though. If SONY’s plans come to fruition a 3d screen will also be capable of showing two different views to 2 parties at the same time (in fullscreen), provided companies are willing to pay SONY royalties I guess.
Joel
Thursday, July 22, 2010 at 11:08 AMThey went about 3D completely wrong. If you charge $5 extra for a ticket to see “3D” often done horribly anyway, no one is going to pay more for it.
I saw Toy Story 3 in 3D (Same as Labrat, sold out 2D, still seats 3D) and that was the best movie I’ve seen in 3D. It wiped Avatar out of the park IMO. But besides those couple of movies that suit 3D, it’s going nowhere, a dead technology.
And they still shouldn’t charge $5 more.
Karl - with a K
Thursday, July 22, 2010 at 1:33 PMGood news.
But really, I think where Hollywood went wrong was when they used 3D in POST-production in so many movies after Avatar. Either use 3D filming gear, or GTFO.
I feel like Alice in Wonderland was another one of those movies that just didn’t make sense to have bothered paying that little extra for fake 3D.
Simon Reidy
Thursday, July 22, 2010 at 1:36 PMI feel like such a geek loner lately. I like the iPhone 4 (with a case) and I like 3D (if done properly). What’s wrong with me?
GiantGuineaPig
Thursday, July 22, 2010 at 2:30 PMYour problem apparently is that marketing works too well on you :)
Hsin-Tsai Chang
Thursday, July 22, 2010 at 3:47 PM3D is over-rated. 5-10% of the population can’t even see 3D. people with turned eye, people with poor vision, people with one eye
Vegard Bjørneset
Thursday, July 22, 2010 at 4:07 PMby the time i saw my second 3D movie (Alice, first was Avatar) i didn`t notice the 3D anymore. it was still just a movie on a screen.
TimeRider
Thursday, July 22, 2010 at 4:14 PM3D TVs give an embedded aquarium-like 3D experience instead of an embossing IMAX. What’s the point of having a so-called 3D TV without multi-view capability?
tim
Thursday, July 22, 2010 at 4:41 PMthing is – unless the price of 3D movie tickets comes down, and they eventually find a way to do it without the glasses (which also adds another surcharge to the ticket – what a rort!), 3D movies are like a special event. I stopped going to the movies for a long time cause it just wasnt worth spending money on it all the time.
Eventually, slowly started attending again, but going to a 3D screening is like going to a nicer restaurant. Most of the time I am happy to just grab something from maccas.
Has anyone else noticed, as well, that some cinemas are starting to only screen the 3D versions in peak times, to take away the cheaper option? My usual cinema (innaloo, WA), pulled this one on me when I wanted to go see toy story. They had 2D screenings, but only during the middle of the day ($14/ticket). Peak times = 3D only ($20 ticket). And these prices on tightarse tuesday.
They lost me on that one. I actually drove a few more suburbs away to go to a cheaper cinema.
Chris Lowery
Thursday, July 22, 2010 at 4:57 PMChristopher Nolan has specifically said he doesn’t like filming in 3D because of the lenses required to shoot in the format. He said he wouldn’t mind releasing a 3D film, but it would be done in post. The film has to be worth seeing in 3D. Avatar – Yes, How to train your dragon – Yes. Despicable me – Why?. I would have loved to see Inception in 3D, no one can argue that wouldn’t have been amazing. Its funny how everyone complaining about 3D are generally people winging about “I get headaches”, “I can’t even see it!”. Guess what, you’re the new colourblind.
jason
Thursday, July 22, 2010 at 5:04 PMi remember seeing Beowulf and thought 3D was awesome. (plus i loved the movie)
it wasnt perfect but seeing as it was pretty much the 1st 3D movie available (in good ole Perth)i was happy to make compromises.
i then saw UP in 3D and thought they did a great job using 3D as an extra layer, not as the whole point.
Avatar gave me a headache, its hard to enjoy things when your in pain.
since then ive seen a couple movies in 3D but the only movies i enjoy are 3D animation films as its a believable jump where as avatar and such really do my head in as its not 3d how you normally see it.
i have now officially stopped seeing 3D movies.
why cant cinemas focus on good sound and projectors with a decent refresh rate.
i love a good imax film, something that is genuinely better than my home set up (which is quite good btw)
gaming is the only thing that interests me in 3D i have yet to see a movie that is made dramatically better by it
Troy MacDonald
Thursday, July 22, 2010 at 7:49 PMI hope it dies a quick death. Its a useless gimmick, definately not the future of entertainment, I dunno why everyone thinks it is
Expert
Friday, July 23, 2010 at 4:05 AM3D is here to stay, but off course not all 3d movies are as good as Avatar. Too succeed you must first make a good movie, and them a good 3d movie. This decides the numbers.
Steven W. Richards
Friday, July 23, 2010 at 9:57 AMStereoscopic images are here to stay!
We naturally see the world with dimension.
It is only natural that one day our Theaters and TV would evolve to more accurately portray reality.
Just as sound was once mono, so too have images moved beyond 2d. It has been long in coming because the technology to do it right is just emerging.
There is increasing desire in the industry to find solutions that correct for deficiencies and to provide realism in the process.
It is an industry that is in its infancy but is learning quickly.
Nicole
Wednesday, October 20, 2010 at 7:52 PMI never liked 3D from the start…sure, some films in the cinema such as Avatar and How to Train Your Dragon were a great 3D experience, but its not really worth the extra cash…Its fine for the cinemas, but 3D televisions and video games is taking it a little too far…