New York Times: '3-D is in danger of becoming Hollywood's latest flub'
I could have told you this...
The "New York Times" has up a new piece headlined "Hollywood Finds Headaches in Its Big Bet on 3-D" and it comes equipped with a snazzy new pic (right) of James Cameron on the set of his big budget 3-D flick Avatar due out next December. The article talks about how studio big wigs such as DreamWorks exec Jeffrey Katzenberg and Pixar's John Lasseter "think the multiplex masses will soon demand that all movies be shown in newly available digital 3-D." According to the article there are over 30 3-D pictures on the way, but it points out things may not be looking so good for the big move to an age-old idea as analysts are starting to warn that all of that product could find itself sitting on a loading dock with no place to go.
Studios have moved forward with the idea of mass market 3-D releases without making sure theaters would be able to handle such an idea. The problem, of course, is that only about 1,300 of North America’s 40,000 or so movie screens support digital 3-D including 250 IMAX theaters. The piece by Brooks Barnes points out that an upgrade costs about $100,000 per screen and how overseas theaters, which make up about 70% of a film's overall gross, only have a few hundred theaters equipped for 3-D.
So, how does a film such as Avatar or DreamWorks Animation's Monsters vs. Aliens, an all 3-D effort which opens in March, find enough theaters to screen their films?
Let's look solely at Monsters vs. Aliens in comparison to DreamWorks' 2008 release Kung Fu Panda. Kung Fu Panda was released in 4,136 theaters at its widest, if MvA wanted to go all 3-D it will only have, at a maximum, about 1,300 theaters at its disposal. DreamWorks is planning on releasing MvA in a 2-D version as well, but is that really moving the format forward? Peter at SlashFilm points out to me a conversation he had with Jeffrey Katzenberg at DreamWorks and how MvA is hoping for approximately 2,500 theaters by release. You can get more on that here.
The "Times" article says a 3-D picture adds about $15 million to the production cost, but that can be made up with "premium ticket pricing". Yeah, they intend to pass the cost on to the customer so you can see things point out of the screen at you. Great, just what you wanted right? Higher movie ticket prices. Maybe after that they can throw popcorn at you for an additional $5 for a full 3-D effort.
Of course the idea behind this new wave of 3-D films is that new technology allows the film to be made in 3-D from the ground up providing a more immersive experience and not just the gimmicky trickery of things flying out of the screen at the audience. I believe this is the whole idea behind Cameron's Avatar, a $200 million effort from 20th Century Fox that has a huge wave of expectation behind it.
The article over at the "New York Times" has plenty more to offer in terms of numbers as well as details on how a $1 billion effort to convert upwards of 15,000 screens fell through as the economy went under. Check the full thing out right here.
RSS Feed
| 7 comments so far 
news feeds