Should Theatres Charge More for Digital 3-D Films?

[flynnibus]

I'm going to see Meet the Robinsons today with my kids. I was suprised to see that my local theatre was showing it in digital 3-D at certain times. Awesome! Then I went to buy the tickets and learned they are jacking up the prices for the 3-D showings.

Instead of 7.50 for mat. pricing.. its $10.50 for an adult
And virtually NO child discount.. $10.00 for a child

Compared to normal evening showings
which are $10/adult $7.50/child

Now its going to cost me over $30 just to get in the door. What do you all think about charging more for the 3d showings? Is this constructive? If the theatres are looking for ways to bring more people back INTO the theatres.. why bring new technology and still jack the prices even higher?

These prices are out of control I would love to go see the movies more.. but I can't swallow these prices that keep going up

[mikeland]

The price for a digital movie should not be more, especially since it costs the theater LESS to show it. They don't have to get the huge film canisters shipped to them, which is a great expense. From what I understand, with digital films, the only thing that is shipped is a hard drive, and even some movies are downloaded by the theater over the internet.

[figment1986]

It might be the cost of technology.. and maybe disney is charging more for the print?

they could charge a little more.. but $10 is a little high...

[flynnibus]

Originally Posted by figment1986

It might be the cost of technology.. and maybe disney is charging more for the print?

they could charge a little more.. but $10 is a little high...

My comment is.. is this a 'perk' or is it innovation to drive your audience to come to the theater?

If its the latter.. charging more is like shooting yourself in the foot!

[sir clinksalot]

It's the same thing as CD's. CD's as a whole cost WAY less to make than casettes. Yet when the CD came out they were priced OUTRAGEOUSLY. Still are, which is why the P2P networks are so popular.

The problem is, now people know how cheap CD's are to make and they should honestly be priced between $7-$10. Yet you still see people going and buying $20 CD's at places like Virgin, etc.

You can complain all you want, but until you vote with your wallet, nothing is going to change.

Do I think they should be jacking the price up? No. Are they going to? Absolutely, at least until people stop going to 3D movies because of the price.

Of course, seeing how long CD's have been overpriced doesn't give me much hope.

You didn't want to pay $10 to see the movie, but you still went didn't you? Same with us. We thought $44 was WAY too much for our family of 4. But we still went anyway and had a great time.

They will charge that, because they can.

[jesjas03]

ten bucks is a little much for the matinee. it should be priced maybe 1 or 2 bucks more but not that much just for glasses and a 3 d film.

[flynnibus]

Originally Posted by sir clinksalot

It's the same thing as CD's. CD's as a whole cost WAY less to make than casettes. Yet when the CD came out they were priced OUTRAGEOUSLY.

Yes, even the labels were promoting the cost savings.. and the prices never came down I understood when they were the cutting edge, lower volume, prices would be higher on the shelf.. but when they ramped up, the price never came down

But the scenarios are a bit different. When CDs were coming out in the 80s.. they really didn't have any competition (piracy was not nearly as wide-spread.. and there were not any competing formats). The move to CD was to give a 'better' product, that was cheaper to produce. Of course.. that cheaper part they never passed to the consumer

Compare that to movies today.. which are competing with digital downloads... people holding out for the DVD.. rampant piracy... 'home theatre', etc. They really need to find the 'next thing' that will lock people coming into the theatre. 3D could play a role.. but if they jack the prices up.. the numbers will not be there.. and producers/distributors will argue 'well the return isn't there' and the format will be pushed off to niche.

You didn't want to pay $10 to see the movie, but you still went didn't you? Same with us. We thought $44 was WAY too much for our family of 4. But we still went anyway and had a great time.

Yes, I went.. but I only go about 3 times a year.. rather then once a month. They are losing when it comes to my family of 5.

[AstroBlaster]

It depends on where you go. One of the AMC's here was only charging a buck more than the normal rate. The glasses have to factor in as partial reason for the rate increase. You get to keep them as *cough* keepsakes *sic*

Anyways there is a lot more competition here though since it is Jacksonville and just about every theater with one or two rare exceptions was showing MTR in 3D.

[Lost Boy]

I think part of this is because installing the new digital 3-D projectors and the special screens needed is very, very expensive, like $30,000 apiece and the movie studios are not paying for it all. The exhibitors (Theater Owners) have to pay for this themselves. There was a big article in yesterday's Calendar section of the LA times. Dreamworks has said that by 2009 that all of their animated features will be done in 3-D.

They also mentioned that Dreamworks and John Cameron are planning on releasing two huge 3-D blockbusters on the same day in July 2009 and this has theater owners very concerned. They don't want to have to pick which movie to book, they would like them both. But many of them can't afford to have more than one 3-D theater in their multiplexes.

One big chain says they want to have three 3-D theaters in each of their 350 theaters by 2009. 3-D is now becoming one the big driving forces in getting the public into the theaters and away from TV and DVD's. None of the current crop of 3-D movies is being released in 3-D on DVD. It can be done, but that would ruin the overall plane of getting people out of the house and into the theater.

[flynnibus]

Originally Posted by Lost Boy

I think part of this is because installing the new digital 3-D projectors and the special screens needed is very, very expensive, like $30,000 apiece and the movie studios are not paying for it all. The exhibitors (Theater Owners) have to pay for this themselves. There was a big article in yesterday's Calendar section of the LA times. Dreamworks has said that by 2009 that all of their animated features will be done in 3-D.

Sure there is a cost.. but the operators must decide where to recover that cost. Is it something you must do to stay competitive.. so you just eat it and recover it from overall operations.. or do you do it as a perk and charge a premium for it?

When the movie theatre needs to repave the parking lot.. they don't start charging for parking do they? No, it's something they must do and recover from operations. When they started adding Dolby Digital Audio, and other audio upgrades, did they charge more for those movies? No, because they did it to try to gain a competitive edge..

The same decisions apply here. Are you doing this as a perk, or as a way to edge up on the competition? If you turn the customer off through raised prices.. you really lose. You already spent the money.. and you aren't getting customers in to pay for it!

When they started adding digital projections.. they didn't charge more for those either... because they believed by having a digital theatre, they would pull people to THEIR theatre vs the guy on the other side of town.

[Lost Boy]

Well, I know that most of the big chains, like Pacific Theaters, raised all prices right after they installed Digital Projectors in most of there big multiplexes. And now 3-D comes along. I am not saying this is the only reason they are increasing the costs, it's just a more logical excuse for those who complain. Paving a Parking area is a given that the theaters are responsible. Adding thousands of dollars of new equipment and screens is also something that they have to pay for. And to keep up with the Joneses, so to speak. I admit that charing more is like shooting themselves in the foot. But they will just use this as an exuse to raise prices. It's what they do best, make excuses. There is really no reason why candy and soft drinks cost so much more at the theater. And they don't give any excuses for that!

I remember going to the theater in the 1950's to see the 3-D movies. I loved them, but hated the headaches after. I am glad to see they have solved that problem. And back in the early days of 3-D movies, people DID NOT put on Red and Green, or Red and Blue, or any other combination glasses. In the theater they put on polarized Grey glasses and they used two projectors, one for each eye, spaced just the right distance apart to show the images on an ordinary screen. The film had to be put in the correct projector, and the reels were marked, Left Eye and Right Eye. The start positions had to be set just right in the projectors, and the projectors had to synced together.

The red and green glasses (or whatever color they were) were used only for printed 3-D, like the old 3-D comic books that were being done back then. The images were printed double, one in red ink, the other in blue or green. Putting the glasses on would bring the two images, although admittedly somewhat blurry, together and fool the eye into a sort of 3-D effect. They weren't very good, and also gave headaches. I think the eye strain and headaches are what killed the early attempts at 3-D. Now the technology is here to make them work they way they should.

[flynnibus]

Originally Posted by Lost Boy

There is really no reason why candy and soft drinks cost so much more at the theater. And they don't give any excuses for that!

Yeah.. $14 yesterday for a medium soda, medium popcorn, and a bag of candy.

I think at this rate they are going to end up just like the Music industry.. going so stupid on themselves they will kill their market off.

[lazyboy97O]

I think part of the increased prices might actually be a deterent. The 3D version of Meet the Robinsons is making more money per screen than the standard version. When I saw the film I don't recall the 3D version being more expensive, but I may be wrong.

[ALIASd]

Here's the reality of the situation now and to come:

While the studios are paying for the conversion of cinemas to digital -- via the "virtual print fees" they pay to get their films into digitally equipped theaters -- exhibitors must pay for the 3-D installation. Currently, most systems are being installed by Beverly Hills-based Real D, but industryites expect the market to get more competitive soon.

Installation can cost an extra $20,000-$30,000 per screen, which covers the projector and a new screen, plus maintenance costs. (Studios typically pay for the 3-D glasses, which in some cases are specially designed to go with the film they're being used for). The 3-D apparatus can be easily turned off, however, to project a normal digital film.

Exhibs aren't the only ones paying more. Adding 3-D effects to a film can cost a studio an extra few million dollars, and even more if it's a live-action film. For a wide-release, big-budget pic, that's not much. But currently, with only a few hundred screens available, it's not an immediately profitable investment.

"In the short term you're probably overpaying (for 3-D), but in the long term you won't be," says Disney distribution topper Chuck Viane.

In recent years, the technology has been synonymous with Imax, which screened already filmed pics -- such as "Open Season" and "The Ant Bully" -- that were reformatted to be shown on Imax screens. Most of them were CGI toons.

That tradition continues with upcoming toons. Because pics like Disney's "Meet the Robinsons" are already rendered in 3-D, it's a relatively simple process to add effects that take advantage of the RealD technology.

The Eyes Have It - 2/4/07
http://www.variety.com/article/VR111...+digital+costs

[flynnibus]

I still draw comparisons to when the theatres upgraded their audio systems.. and not all theatres were THX or SDDS, etc. In none of those cases were the guests charged a premium for that experience.

The studios and operators both bore the cost as part of doing business to stay competition and continue to drive attendance.

I think the Chuck Viane comment is in the vane of 'you' being the studios over-paying for 3d.. not the customers.