3-D Ticket Prices Give Pixar’s Up a Huge Box Office Advantage
Well it seems that Up is very quickly becoming one of Pixar’s most successful movies ever, silencing any naysayers who thought that an older protagonist might limit moviegoer interest. In less than a month, it has already become the third-highest grossing movie for 2009, and analysts are predicting that it will have enough oomph to surpass The Incredibles to become the second-highest-grossing Pixar flick ever (behind Finding Nemo). But hold on a minute… there’s a catch. None of Pixar’s previous movies were released in 3-D!
Apparently that the higher ticket prices for 3-D screenings are a major reason why Up has been making so much money thus far. According to Variety, Up’s 3-D release made up 40% of the total screen count, but 60% of its total bank. The second biggest movie of the year, Monsters vs Aliens, was also released primarily in 3-D. Coincidence? Uh… no. Suddenly it’s becoming very clear why Disney in particular is pushing 3-D so hard: it has nothing to do with the movie-going experience, and everything to do with their bottom line.
I’ve mentioned before that I’m open to the possibilities that 3-D has to offer, but I think this problem could very well kill the medium within the next year or two if studios aren’t careful. As long as they continue to slap together 3-D releases just for a quick cash grab without adding anything worthwhile to the experience (ahem… Up), people will very quickly realize that they’re paying extra money for no additional benefit. What do you think, are 3-D films are really worth the extra cost? Given the choice, do you prefer to see a movie in 3-D or 2-D?
Comments (13)
i felt so ripped off when i watched the Nightmare Before Christmas 3D…
i want my $12 back
Posted by Mike on June 17th, 20093-D always has and always will be a cheap ploy to extort money from the average movie goer.
Not only do the annoying glasses take away from the experience, they drain the screen of its natural color in the case of live action film.
The only exceptions to this are filmmakers who will always put the story first. James Cameron’s AVATAR for example will probably use 3-D the correct way because it had been intended early on in it’s development. Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson have also decided to jump on this bandwagon as well with the Tintin series.
Looking at the source material for Tintin I have no idea why though and don’t think that it will add anything to the tension or overall atmosphere of the movie.
Another problem with 3-D is the experience beyond the theater. I have Spy Kids 3-D for DVD and not only does that movie suck, it sucks just for the fact that the 3-D looks like crap on a television and you’d have to watch it at night with the curtains closed to have any sort of real effect.
3-D didn’t work back in the 70s and 80s and I don’t know why they are trying to spearhead the cause now.
It makes me angry how fucking greedy these studio heads are being how much money the movie industry has made over the last 3 years and in an age where it’s reasonably plausible to believe the years top grossing movie can make over 800 or 900 million dollars worldwide.
Love the blog and podcast so much keep up the good work.
Posted by David Wilson on June 17th, 2009Sean, I’ve read this article and your UP review and while I disagree with you about the film I want to know if you are aware that the director intentionally put NO GIMICKY 3D EFFECT in the movie…he considers 3D nothing more then a gimick, one that cheapens the idea of movies…So it is not an “artistic hiccup” that UP has no real 3D moments…its intentional and more forced upon by the studio.
Posted by Bob The Slob on June 17th, 2009I would only pay if the 3D is outstanding….. I think it would be interesting to do a movie in 3D that starts of looking very flat but then jumps into a very 3D world that pops!!!!! It would make the movie even more 3D. Kind of like the Wizard of Oz starts in B&W and then goes to color. But it is way more important that there is a real story in the movie. I think when one relies on the 3D to grab the audience it will always fall flat. I hope Toy Story does not lean to heavily on needing 3D for the story.
Posted by BigHungry on June 17th, 2009David: Thanks for the comment. I agree about Avatar, I am very curious to see what Cameron can do with it.
Bob: I certainly don’t hold the lack of cool 3-D effects against the director of Up. I think it’s a big problem that Disney is forcing it where it doesn’t need to be. I saw somewhere that Andrew Stanton is also worried that Disney will force him to shoot John Carter of Mars in 3-D as well, even though he doesn’t want to.
BigHungry: I’m also wondering what Toy Story 3 will bring to the table (if anything).
Posted by Sean on June 17th, 2009After seeing Beowulf & Coraline I’m already starting to write 3-D off as gimmick that isn’t as great as Hollywood wants it to be. Something like Avatar might make awesome use of 3-D (but who knows…isn’t it weird that there still hasn’t been so much as teaser? delay!?).
I’d love it if Avatar puts all previous 3-D films to shame; but a hazardous side effect may be tons of untalented directors implementing the technology in annoying ways only trying to cash in on the phenomenon. Imagine never being able to enjoy an action film in your home theater ever again (because home 3-D sucks and you’ll be watching the movie spotting all the parts that should be 3-D if you watch the 2-D version and then you want to strangle james Cameron & Vince Pace!!!!!!!)
Posted by Ryan M. on June 18th, 2009I saw Up in 3D and it was the first 3D movie I’ve seen. Based on that experience, I don’t think I’ll be seeing another film in 3D. It wasn’t horrible, nor did I think it took anything away from the experience, but I don’t think it added anything either. It did seem like an afterthought, which it was. Not worth the extra ticket cost.
But I suppose I should see Avatar in 3D before I write it off completely. Perhaps Cameron can do some interesting things with 3D composition that will blow us all away. If not, I’m more than content with good ol’ 2D.
Posted by Nate on June 18th, 2009I don’t care how long 3D stick around as long as we start referring to 2D as “Normo-vision.”
Posted by Alex on June 18th, 2009I saw Up in 3D and will not pay extra for 3D again unless there is radical improvement of it. I still dont understand why its like $3 extra, most people ahead of me leaving the theatre returned the glasses..
Posted by Niklas on June 18th, 2009I will say this, Toy Story does really make me wonder big time about how the movie will be in the end and here is why…… It is the 3rd movie RIght? So it has to 3-D right? Just like Jaws 3 was in 3-D and Friday the 3th 3 was in 3-D and those were not very good. I know pixar can make good movies and even when they came out with the first Toy Story Movie that was billed as a gimmick as the first Computer Animated Movie, but it had a real story with heart and that is why it worked. It could of been live action for all I cared and I would of liked it, but would you pay extra to see it in computer animation versus live action?
Posted by Big Hungry on June 18th, 2009I’m undecided…I hesitate to even watch a 3D film because putting those glasses on over my regular glasses seems unappealing, plus will it even work for me with a high astigmatism?
Posted by Andrew on June 19th, 2009U know what i think having the show The Teen Titans might be good in 3D with real kids to! My kids love this show and i think it should become a movie in 3D I know alot of kids as a teacher i know they would all love it and go crazy for a 3D movie like that! Just think of it The Teen Titans in 3D? Um YEA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by CJ on June 24th, 2009If 3D is used correctly it should enhance the viewing experience of the story, whether things jump out at you or not. I believe that that was achieved with up and fell short with Bolt and Monsters vs. Aliens.
Right now hollywood is shooting more than 30% of thier movies in 3D even if they are not released in that format. They are doing this to avoid Goerge Lucas’ recent project…converting episodes 4-6 of Star Wars so he can re-release the whole series in 3D.
Eventually this medium will be available in an in-home format that uses a better diffusion than the red/cyan glasses (e.g. Real-D). It will make for a much better viewing experience and is one of the reasons why Hollywood is building their 3D library. This will likely be the next big market jump in home entertainment.
The biggest problem with this format is that it needs to be treated as a new film medium. Traditional conventions of film making don’t all apply. When the movies are being shot the Director and especially the Director of Cinematography have to be aware of what they want on the screen, in front of the screen and behind the screen, and whether those images will be within the framing in such a way that they don’t break the threshold and kill the illusion. I have watched more than a dozen 3D movies in the past year and not all film makers do this well.
I enjoyed watching My Bloody Valentine in 3D. The movie is awful, but the director played with the 3D to see what could be done. Some of the results were impressive and didn’t all have to do with things coming out at you. He used Alfred Hitcock’s zoom technique from Vertigo at one point. The result was amazing.
Posted by Big Popper on June 25th, 2009Leave a Reply