Is The 3D Movie Fad Over Yet?

When the blue-skinned do-gooder hippies of Avatar were unleashed on movie screens last December, nearly three quarters of its opening weekend revenue came from people watching it in 3D. Since then, just about every major action or animated movie has been released in 3D, but often to diminishing results.

So far in 2010, the amount of opening weekend revenue coming from 3D screens has been trending downward. Alice In Wonderland saw percentages close to Avatar’s level, but by the time Toy Story 3 hit screens, only 60% of opening weekend sales came from 3D tickets. That number dropped even further for the July release of Despicable Me, where 45% of people who saw it on the first weekend chose to see it in 3D.

With more than 60 3D movies slated for release in the foreseeable future, studios and exhibitors are pish-poshing the idea that people are tiring of paying $4-5 extra per ticket… or wearing uncomfortable 3D glasses… or watching movies where the 3D was done as a shoddy post-production afterthought.

Says a dude from the National Association of Theater Owners, right after he tried to upsell you to the Super Value Snack Deal, “It does not show that fewer people are choosing 3D… The audience for 3D is growing, right along with the 3D screen count.

Similarly, the president of distribution for Warner Bros. wants everyone to know the sky isn’t falling. “You can’t look at just three or four movies in a row and say it’s over,” he explains, saying that the reason family films like Toy Story 3 and Despicable Me aren’t doing Avatar-like percentages is that “It’s just hard for kids under 6 years old to keep the glasses on.”

An unnamed executive at an exhibition chain sums up the problem pretty well: “Pricing and crappy content isn’t going to permanently railroad 3D… but it isn’t going to help it, either.”

What are your feelings on 3D? Who wants to go see Step Up 3D with me this weekend? Fine… I’ll just go on my own.

3D at the Box Office: Down, Down, Down [TheWrap via LA Times]

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. tonberry says:

    god i hope so.

    they should only be in 3d at this point if they were shot with those special cameras IMO.

    • DariusC says:

      Piranah 3D was shot in Havasu… some of my buddies got to play in the movie as victims… I will see it only out of respect for the city… I expect the movie to be a HUGE letdown, but hey.. it was shot in my home town! Woo!

    • PencilSharp says:

      ogodogodogodoGAWD… puh-leeeeze let this crap be over with!

      Because crap in 3-D is still crap…

    • kc2idf says:

      I agree on the camera part. No film shot in 2D should be offered in 3D. It’s kind of like adding a reverb to a mono sound recording and calling it stereo, or adding one to stereo and calling it surround. Okay, if it doesn’t cost extra, but if I pony up the extra $4 for 3D, then I want true 3D.

    • redskull says:

      The 3D fad started in the 1950s, and experienced a brief revival in the 1980s. If people really wanted 3D, then it probably wouldn’t surface for short periods of time every 30 years.

  2. swarrior216 says:

    Go away 3D just go away.

    • Griking says:

      I won’t go to a 3D movie.

      • Clyde Barrow says:

        I like 3D in movie theaters but I found out two weeks ago at a (gulp) Best Buy, that I cannot watch 3D on a TV. This girl was giving a demo so I took a turn and watched about 3 minutes of live action of lava, animals, and whatever it was showing before realizing that my head was beginning to get that ole “car motion sickness feeling” again. lol.

  3. Stan Horaczek says:

    The key point here is that they keep doing it for kids movies. Let’s see, I could take my kid to see Shrek for 10 dollars, or I could take her to see Shrek for 18 dollars.

    My guess that Jackass 3D will do just fine.

    • Sian says:

      It’s like Steve-O is ACTUALLY VOMITING ON YOU

    • ill informed says:

      Yeah but the rub is that Jackass 3D turning a profit is that it has *nothing* to do with it being in 3D.

      How many people have actually gone to see a movie just because it was in 3D?

      • gStein_*|bringing starpipe back|* says:

        where are you going that the price of a 3D kid’s ticket is anywhere near $18? my theater has kid’s 3D tickets at $9.75 (normal kid’s price is $6.50)

  4. catastrophegirl chooses not to fly says:

    please let it be over. i have vision problems that make viewing 3D movies a real headache for me but i keep getting to sit through them with my friends because everyone else wants to watch 3D.
    it’s just not that exciting unless it’s one of the interactive ones at a theme park with the air spray and bubbles and stuff to mix 3D with reality.

    • Hermia says:

      THIS.

      3D gives me horrible headaches. Not only that, but unless it’s something like Hubble 3D I’ll just see it in 2D. I’m not that fussed and I’d rather avoid the headache and ensuing nausea.

      • maubs says:

        Get 2 pairs of 3D glasses, switch the right lens from the 1st with the left lens on the 2nd. Voila! 2D glasses.

    • The Marionette says:

      Umm… you DO realize that at most theaters that get a 3D movie usually have a standard non-3D version as well, right? So unless you’re absolutely forced to watch the 3D then it’s not their fault.

      As far as box office sales, I have to say at our theater our 3D movie sales haven’t went down, in fact it’s been a pretty steady stream. Problem is that summer is finishing and a lot of people are doing more things than going to movies. During the summer though we’ve had quite a lot of sales from 3D (of course Avatar being the top seller).

      • catastrophegirl chooses not to fly says:

        as i said: “because everyone else wants to watch 3D. “
        somehow all the fun goes out of the social experience if i’m in the next theatre alone when everyone else is watching it in 3D

    • Starfury says:

      I have vision issues where I can’t use the 3D glasses and get the effect so I never watch them. My family (who all have normal vision) don’t care for 3D movies and never go to them.

      It’s just a way for the film companies to try to make more $$ with a gimmick instead of making better movies.

    • Tallanvor says:

      I refuse to go to 3D movies. I tried once, but I’m blind in one eye so I can’t see 3D, and the glasses made everything dark and gave me a headache.

      I’ll be damned if I’ll pay for an experience like that again.

    • Clyde Barrow says:

      I watched the new version of Alice In Wonderland in 3D and it was cool, but kind of a pain also. Instead of focusing on the movie script, I was trying to focus on the screen and ended up with a headache. As I’ve always said 3D is a gimmick only. I’d rather watch a movie as usual.

  5. backinpgh says:

    Haven’t seen one, and don’t care to.

    • grucifer says:

      Yea, I’m with you on this one.

      Although the idea of 3D at home while watching the Flyers, Eagles, Phils or Union does sound pretty cool… oh, as long as I don’t have to wear those stupid glasses.

  6. Abradax says:

    I like 3d movies.
    I don’t like paying 15 bucks instead of 10 to see them.

  7. Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

    People see movies in 3D worth watching in 3D. That’s a small number compared to the overall number of movies that come out.

    Based on our watered-down, cookie-cutter movies these days, film companies and theaters should realize this is going to be a rarity, not a standard.

    • dadelus says:

      What are you talking about!?!? Julie & Julia in 3D was AWESOME!!!! It was like you were really in the kitchen with Julia Child. :)

  8. montecon says:

    If you look at the other graph in the article, the downward trend is ALOT noisier than the graph you re-posted shows. 70, 68, 52, 61, 60, 56, 45, 55.

    Still a downward trend, but without Cats & Dogs, Alice and Clash, it’s messier than being shown. Omitting data to tell a “prettier” story is pretty reprehensible, even if the conclusion is still valid.

    • Traveshamockery says:

      I suspected the same thing before I even read the linked article. The graph is carefully designed to bias the results for the casual viewer, backing the assertion of the article.

      1) It omits critical datapoints that buck the (desired) trend
      2) The date points are evenly spaced, though the time beween each varies widely
      3) The stat itself is skewed – of course Avatar got 70% of the receipts its opening weekend. It’s the top grossing movie of all time, and nobody launched a competing blockbuster that weekend because they didn’t want to compete.

      Claiming a downward trend because Dispicable Me failed to draw like Avatar is a great example of lying with statistics.

      • Firethorn says:

        I’d suggest rereading the stats.

        I take to to mean that 70% saw it on a 3D screen to mean that 70% of the tickets sold for Avatar were for a 3D screen, the remaining 30% for 2D screens.

        I also don’t remember seeing Avatar being available on a non-3D screen on opening weekend in my area.

        Still, I watched Avatar in 3D, as well as ‘how to train your dragon’. After that, I decided to NOT watch 3D films because they give me headaches and I stop noticing the 3D after a short period. So I watched the 2D version of Despicable me, having skipped Shrek through the Last Airbender.

  9. Cyniconvention says:

    I’ve seen people pay for one 3D movie, save the glasses, and just pop into other ones when they come out..

    • grucifer says:

      Not a bad idea, $15 for a movie is a rip off. Hell, $10 is a rip off too! And not to mention concession stand jack-ups. This is why I don’t even bother going to the movies anymore.

    • SynapseTX says:

      My local theater is deliberately hiding what movie is in what theater / start time to cut down on “self-made double features” and theater hopping. Managed to hit both Despicable Me and Sorcerer’s Apprentice beautifully though.

    • SJPadbury says:

      Which is why most theaters don’t post what movie is showing or what times over the doors anymore, just a theater number that you get to match up with the ticket stub.

      • Dutchess says:

        Yeah but all I have to do is pull out my smartphone and go to fandango and find the movie times.

        Unless the movie is playing in multiple theatres, it isn’t too hard to figure out.

      • Cyniconvention says:

        Unhelpfully, ours (AMC) will have the 3D Glasses box right outside of the adjacent theater.

        Too easy for them xD

  10. the_Jenkins says:

    You will all see the genious of it all once Step Up 3D comes out!! You’ll see, unless you pour battery acid into your eyes to get out of seeing it like I would.

  11. MTFaye says:

    Its a decent idea that too many people jumped on. Now its over-priced, over-used, and badly implemented. No one is going to care about 3D a year from now.

    • eccsame says:

      . . . .said a guy in 1953 as he walked out of “It Came From Outer Space”

    • Clyde Barrow says:

      Earlier I mentioned about getting a demo on the 3D TV at Best Buy. I also mentioned the idea of this “gimmick” not catching on but she told me that within a few years, every Sony TV will be 3D and there won’t be any choice to buy a TV without that option.

  12. A.Mercer says:

    The problem is the movie makers want to focus on 3D and special effects and not on story, character development, and intriguing plot.

    Take Avatar for instance. Take away all of the special effects, what do you have? Not much of a film. Dances With Wolves did that story much better and it did not need 3D.

    • vastrightwing says:

      Exactly!

    • Awesome McAwesomeness says:

      Avatar was total crap and the 3D actually made it worse. Dances with Wolves, I’ve seen it a million times and never get sick of it.

    • lim says:

      Yes. I still haven’t seen Avatar and don’t plan on it.

      If the story is interesting and the characters are well developed then I become engaged in the movie and am going to suspend my disbelief (set and fx wise). If it is a bunch of “visually stunning” dreck I’m going to mock every ridiculous plot point and bit of dialogue. And you can be sure I won’t waste money seeing it in the theater or even renting it, I’ll wait till it hits cable.

      If “Airplane!” is on at the same time I probably won’t see it at all.

  13. Bativac says:

    Didn’t Jack Warner already make the mistake in thinking that 3D movies were going to become the new standard?

    I don’t care for the dim picture and everything still looks a little blurry to me, even with the glasses on.

  14. chucklesjh says:

    This reminds me of “Journey to the Center of the Earth” in 3D. Yeah, that movie was completely crap, good thing I got to see it for free, but it almost wasn’t worth my time.

  15. qbubbles says:

    Inception would have been just a tad more awesome in 3d. Besides that? I havent seen a 3d movie since Avatar, and I only saw that in 3d because it was made specifically FOR 3d. All this other crap is an after though, and really badly done.

    And yeah, Step Up. Because when I think “Shit Filled Waste of 2 Hours”, I think 3d!

  16. SWBLOOPERS says:

    I think it’s a price issue. After a few moments of “Cool!” the brain tends to ignore the 3D. I’d rather see the same movie for $8 instead of $15. The more reasonable price will win out.

    We could see a change in that dynamic when it becomes more economical to see a movie in 3D rather than 2D. For example, drive 2 miles for 3D at $15 or 20 miles to see it in 2D for $8?

    • RyGuy1152 says:

      Movie ticket prices now are unbelievable. I remember when you could go see a movie for $4. Some theaters still offer relatively low prices, but only to students and only on Tuesdays between noon and 5 if your last name starts with B and you have a wart on your left thumb.

      Movie theaters now are basically gouging us. Why would I want to pay 5 more dollars, on top of the 10 I already have to pay, just to see it in 3D? Who has that kind of money for a mere two hours of entertainment?

      Until the prices come back down, I’ll continue to use Netflix and avoid theaters like the plague.

  17. trey says:

    just shows that NO ONE in Hollywood can remember history. bring back the 80′s and you see what you get.

  18. shadow67 says:

    it is not the 3D fad tht made me go watch Avatar in 3D, it is the movie itself… It was worth watching it in 3D

    What is the point of seeing a movie in 3D if it does not offer a lot in terms of experience… “Despicable Me”… seriously… u want to see the fart gun in 3D???

  19. ajlei says:

    I saw Avatar in 3D, as well as Coraline, and I enjoyed both. However, I enjoyed them just as much when I got home and watched them on my 2D television. I think, for the right movie, 3D can be sort of fun in the theater. At home, though? Yeah, no thanks.

  20. hosehead says:

    Please be over.

    More plot, less tech.

    • Traveshamockery says:

      Agreed. Plot and tech = Good. Plot and no tech = Good. No plot with tech = rarely good.

      Memento was filmed on a budget of $9 million over a period of 25 days, and its marketing was almost exclusively viral. Still, it made $40 million in theaters (despite being released the week before 9/11) and sold plenty of DVDs. It was a profitable film with minimal risk.

      I realize studios like huge paydays, but I wonder why they take risks with average to poor scripts like Avatar’s instead of funding additional projects like Memento that won’t take the whole company down if they bomb.

  21. jvanbrecht says:

    Death to 3D movies… that is all..

    Seriously, for some reason I have no issues with the old style red/blue glasses 3D, but the new stuff, for the first 30 min I get a monstrous headache, after which it subsides. I have nothing against 3D if it is used in a valid way… but the current crop of 3D movies.. suck, horribly, and never should have been made in 3D.. seriously.. a f’ing dance flick “Step it up” or something.. in 3d.. WHY!!!!!!!!!!!

    Although Piranhas in 3D looks kinda amusing for no other reason than… its.. well.. Piranhas :)

    • Keith is checking the Best Buy receipt of a breastfeeding mother (for tips!) says:

      Your issue with the old/new 3D tech is actually pretty easy to explain: the old tech used color filtering (red lens masks red signal, blue lens masks blue) which your eye/brain apparenly has no trouble with but other people can’t handle; new tech uses polarization instead, which uses a different mechanism to filter the split signal that supposedly fewer people have trouble with- but you’re one of them.

  22. ThunderRoad says:

    Avatar was worth it in 3D because 3D enhanced the experience. It really feels like a gimmick in all of the other examples. Fuck ‘em – I’ll keep my $5 surcharge thank you.

  23. prezuiwf says:

    3D is such an odd phenomenon to me. It’s a fad that has already come and gone multiple times already, yet for some reason people think it will stick this time. When it comes down to it, 3D is an interesting gimmick in small doses, but people are already beginning the view it more as a studio substitute for other things like well-done standalone special effects or compelling story structure. How many people see a movie poster with a gaudy “In 3D!” notation and immediately groan? Many big-name directors have also spoken out against 3D and only use it at the urging of studios; once studios see their extra profits dwindle, they’ll stop pressuring filmmakers to use 3D and then it’ll quickly disappear. Frankly I feel very sorry for movie houses currently installing expensive 3D theaters, and for people hopping on the DOA fad of 3D television. But, then again, they should know better.

    • Big Mama Pain says:

      You said exactly what I was thinking. Somehow, theater owners have drank the kool-aid with this 3D garbage and are bending over backwards to convert their theaters. A lot of that had to do with box office hits in 3D breaking agreements over when they would come out after Avatar (Alice was the beginning of the snowball). I think it was a cool, novelty thing, and now people would rather save their extra $5 for popcorn or something.

  24. MuffinSangria says:

    “You can’t look at just three or four movies in a row and say it’s over”

    Why not? They looked at 1 movie and decided it was beginning.

  25. jsl4980 says:

    I wasted the extra few bucks to see Avatar in 3D. It was neat to hear all the tech that went into making it, but it wasn’t as amazing as it was hyped up to be. The rest of the movies that go 3D are just using a ploy to get you to see a crappy movie.

    If you can’t make it good, make it 3D!

  26. Mecharine says:

    Step Up 3D is a make-or-break event for Hollywood.

  27. Bakergirl says:

    I’m waiting for the 3D tv and video games! Why I’m sure that’ll be a big hit….

    Or maybe the fail of the future…

    • catastrophegirl chooses not to fly says:

      if i could get ffvii in 3D i’d do it just for the chocobo racing. but otherwise…i can’t think of how this would be a good experience

  28. IThinkThereforeIAm says:

    I have a feeling that these numbers are a little misleading (or at least do not paint the complete picture).
    It’s talking about percentages of total gross.

    #1. With more and more 3D movies coming out, the limited number of 3D screens will cause them to be bumped off those – as result their 3D viewer percentage is decreased. (They could probably collect more 3D revenue if they were left on those longer).

    #2. “Cats vs. Dogs” compared to Avatar, or even “How to train your dragon”? Maybe, poorer quality movies make people think twice to cough up $15 vs $10 (or $8.50 for your kids) – I know I wouldn’t.

    • DingoAndTheBaby says:

      But, it could be misleading in the other direction, in that some of these numbers may be artificially inflated if the movie was ONLY released in 3D.

  29. MrsLopsided says:

    The new Real 3D is great – but NOT worth the extra $5 per ticket.

    The new Harry Potter movie will be in 3D but it’s a post production hatchet job.

    • Dutchess says:

      Any of the post production is a complete hatchet job.

      Take Alice in Wonderland…post production 3D for a fucking meaningless horrible trite movie…and with Tim Burton’s filming style it was a COMPLETE MESS to watch. So much of the shot was blurred that it was nearly unwatchable.

      Filming in true 3D, two cameras side by side works, otherwise it’s garbage.

  30. holden190 says:

    A gimmick and nothing more.

    The only proper and incredible use of 3D in a film was Hitchcock’s “Dial M for Murder.”

  31. WayneB says:

    3D can’t be declared over until after Tron Legacy, and only then if Tron Legacy doesn’t do well.

  32. kataisa says:

    3D is just another way for Hollywood to create more bad “event” movies and overcharge people to see it.

    3D is not worth it. Many 2D movies aren’t worth paying $10 for, either. Movie manners have become so bad that many people just opt for Netflix now.

  33. Thyme for an edit button says:

    I don’t like them. They are more expensive and make me nauseous.

    • Michaela says:

      Same here!

      My friends seem to love them though, which means I now am forced to either go to the movies alone, or wait until something comes out on DVD.

  34. Mknzybsofh says:

    I HATE 3D!!!! I’ve seen exactly ONE 3D movie. Between the extremely uncomfortable glasses, extra cost, the near migraine, and the fact that I wear glasses. I will never go see another 3D movie again. You could not PAY me to go see another one.

  35. savvy9999 says:

    THANK GOD

    taking little kids to see movies in 3D blows. The glasses are too big, don’t stay on their heads; the “oh, just attach this headband to keep them on” idea sucks (and is gross– that elastic band doesn’t get sanitized after every movie).

    I took my 6 year old to his last 3D movie ever, this spring. The concept of 3D isn’t bad, but the implementation (not having kid-size glasses, esp for kid movies) sucks.

  36. Kahless says:

    I have seen bad and good uses of 3D I think that in Avatar the 3D turned teh movie into a ride which was good because the movie sucked but was entertaining.

    I think the future of 3d in not outward but inward. In Toy Story 3 they used 3d to create a giant depth of field instead of coming off the screen you went into the screen. I really enjoyed the effect and after watching the 2d variant I believe the 3d looked markedly superior

  37. padarjohn says:

    Maybe if they hadn’t decided to increase the prices beyond the premium they were already charging…
    I enjoyed 3D movies, but I don’t like being gouged.

  38. lifestar says:

    Maybe, instead of spending the money on post-production 3D-ifying their films, the movie studios should spend a little more time and money on making better quality stories! My gosh, Inception was non-3D but it gave me a brain-frak from its awesome concepts and execution.

    I abhor 3D! Until they come up with TVs that display 3D without glasses, this is gonna be a niche product and not for the general public. Plus, not every one can view 3D, such as not every one can look at flashing lights and NOT have a stroke. I get a headache whenever I’ve tried to view 3D pictures, so I’m not in favor of it.

  39. Corinthos says:

    I only hope. I hate when 3D is added after the movie is finished or when you pay to pretty much see a 5 minute seen in a movie in 3D.

  40. bvita says:

    As a 3-D installer I have a couple of perspectives:

    1. Not all movies benefit from 3D. Movies geared to young children or people over 30 don’t seem to benefit from the 3D. Young children are too fidgity for the glasses and folks over 30 don’t want to be bothered by them.

    2. A fair number of 3D systems are poorly installed and/or maintained. When they screened Avatar in Boston for the media the 3D was universally touted as horrible. When the studio found out they flew in a tech and the 3D was resolved. This is not an atypical situation as the number of sub par installations is not small.

    3. Bad movies “reprocessed” for 3D – “Clash of the Titans” was not originally shot in 3D. When the studios saw how much of Avatar’s business came from 3D, they quickly reshot some key scenes in 3D and used a digital box to create the rest. Mediocre 3D sours the audience on paying an extra $3-5 for the ticket.

    4. Lack of 3D screens – The biggest choke in the industry from going more deeply into 3D is the lack of screens. This is literally a lack of screens that can present 3D. Most cinemas have a matte white or pearlescent screen. Most 3D systems (Dolby 3D being the notable exception) require a silver screen. Screen manufactures are tripping over themselves as virtually the entire industry is frantically order new silver screens to accommodate the 3D. Where it used to take 30 days to get a screen, some companies are waiting 4-6 months for a screen.

    The driving factor for 3D in the cinema will likely be the acceptance of 3D TV in the home.

    • HogwartsProfessor says:

      Exactly. The added 3D like with Clash of the Titans looks awful. On the other hand, Avatar looked great. I’m glad I saw that in 3D because the story was so weak the special effects were really the star.

      Not every movie needs 3D anyway. Anything character driven is fine without it. My bf and I saw Burton’s Alice in 3D and we both agreed it didn’t need it. We also don’t like paying more for it.

  41. gedster314 says:

    Ditch 3d and bring on the 4k projectors and displays.

  42. Harry_Greek says:

    I am not impressed with the 3D movie experience. I am certain there are folks out there who gush over it. And, more power to them. For me – pass,… forever.

  43. TouchMyMonkey says:

    I saw Toy Story 3, and I could have done without the 3D, to tell the truth. Until they can duplicate the effect of watching live theater, they can have it, as far as I’m concerned. But it’s not live theater, so what’s the point? Even if they could duplicate that experience, they can still have it if I have to pay extra. It just isn’t worth it.

  44. diasdiem says:

    Unless they shoot it in 3D, don’t release it in 3D.

  45. JMILLER says:

    Once there is 3D porn I will be all in. I am ready for the money shot. Otherwise I don’t like wearing glasses.

  46. MercuryPDX says:

    If a movie absolutely calls for 3D, then by all means go for it. Using it gratuitously just brings the entire genre down.

    And let’s be real…. the only reason for the sudden uptake in 3d Movies is the need to have SOMETHING to help drive 3D TV sales.

  47. axiomatic says:

    Here’s to hoping the 3D HDTV fad goes away soon as well. What a six-pack of washed out color suck that feature is.

  48. jp7570-2 says:

    3D is not universally appicable to all genres of movies. When sound and color were introduced in the early days, it was a technology that could be used regardless of movie type. But 3D is different. It does not enhance non-action movies, nor should it be cobbled onto a film after the fact.

    Do we really need it for every movie? No. But the theater owners are interested in it for two reasons. One, obviously, is money. The upcharge for a 3D flick is very attractive to a theater owner that has been getting by on razor-thin margins. Two is the way to combat – for now – the home theater. 3D home flat screens, players, and content are increasing so this second reason may not be valid in the coming years.

    For me, I am not impressed by the current crop of 3D – both content and delivery systems. Its a trend that should burn itself out in the coming years.

  49. Zowzers says:

    two comments,
    1: I have yet to see a movie in 3d that was actually improved by the 3d. as in the movie was more entertaining in 3d.

    and 2: I wear glasses already, wearing a 2nd pair over them sucks. Its bad enough at the theater, but really… there is no way I’m going to wear 2 pairs of glasses just to watch TV at home (sorry 3d tv pushers)

  50. vastrightwing says:

    I saw Avator in 3D and while it was very cool, I’ve gone to 3D and got the T shirt. I’ll go back again when there’s something worth seeing. I’m one of those people who is OK with watching crappy DVD issues of movies, no need for ultra HiDef/iMax or 7.1 channel audio. A good story, good acting and decent quality video is just fine with me.

  51. MarvinMar says:

    I also wanted to point out the lack of 3D screen issue.
    In our medium sized town, we have 2 theaters. A Mom and Pop and a Cinemark.
    We don’t like going to the Mom and Pop because it is small and crappy.
    The Cinemark has had only 1 3D screen. Toy story was still playing on it when we went to see Despicable ME, so we had to see that in 2D.
    Last weekend as I was buying my tickets for my 4 year olds to see Cats and Dogs, I noticed that now had 3 3D screens. This will make a difference in the amount of movies we see in 3D because the option is there now.

  52. Awesome McAwesomeness says:

    I am totally unimpressed with 3D. I saw Avatar and a couple of other movies with it and I just felt like a good movie should be able to stand on it’s own without kitchy crap to boost sales. I also always end up with a nasty migrane and a barfy feeling about 1/2 way in.

  53. psm321 says:

    Curious what part of this post triggers the “related posts” to all be about moldy drug plants

  54. Pax says:

    The problem is theaters still charging more money to see the 3D version than the 2D version. When they bost cost the same (as at my local theater), then the 3D versions _seem_ (to my eye, without having polled or canvassed movie-goers to verify the impression) to get more viewers than the 2D versions.

  55. KMFDM781 says:

    You can paint shit took look like a steak, but it’s still shit.

  56. dustindmw says:

    How dumb are the people at consumerist? Your graph has little to do with people getting tired of 3-D and more to do with the movies progressively sucking more than the last. As a t-com graduate I can tell you that without a doubt 3-D is here to stay and soon(within a few years) most movies will be shot in 3-D.

  57. mbemom says:

    Rarely choose 3D..Saw Toy Story 3 in regular version and loved it. I haven’t seen Avatar at all, don’t shoot me just no interest. My husband hates it though, it gives him a headache, so it’s just not worth it for us. I did take the kids to see How to Train Your Dragon in 3D and thought the effects were horrible. The kids complained, too. They just didn’t think it felt 3D enough.

  58. eskimo1981 says:

    3d movies piss me off. My local theatre charges $5 extra per ticket for 3D, and if a movie is available in 3D, they only offer it in 3D. The next closest theatre is an hour away.

    I’ve been disappointed in the quality of the 3d movies I’ve seen. In Alice it was barely noticable, the first 2 toy story movies I could hardly tell.

    I went to see inception this week and was extremely happy to find out it wasn’t in 3d.

  59. Levk says:

    3d is just a gimmick it does not make a movie better just look better if it was shot using the 3d cams, otherwise it makes it worst. But really the 3d is an ok idea, but those glasses area pain. and selling 3d tvs for home use sounds like a good idea, not sure how many glasses come with em, but i guess after a month maybe 2 you will be down to half of one and wondering what happened to the rest of the glasses.

  60. kushkm says:

    3D allows you to see in the 3 dimension, it is also 3 times the price, for example on bargain tuesday at my multiplex a 2D movie is 5.75, while a 3D movie is 18 dollars with IMAX, or 2 dollars less with RealD. When you are going to see a family movie with a party of 4, numbers add up. If it costs more than purchasing 2 DVDs (40 dollars), it really makes no sense, it makes more sense to save up for 3D TV, and have netflix account. Suppose you watch 10 3D Movies this year, that is 1000 dollars, which is actually the premium for a 3D TV currently, and the 3D glasses on the TVs work better than the movie theather glasses. I also think theathers should not being charging a heafty premium for 3D, twice the price is okay, but three times the price is pushing it.

  61. SphinxRB says:

    I like 3-D at the Theater, for a better experience. But at home, I’m not paying extra for it. And if I have guests over, paying hundreds of dollars each for glasses to they can watch too. Too expensive, especially in todays financial picture.

  62. LADude says:

    Oh, you silly, simple minded 3D haters!!! You are going whine about uncomfortable glasses, ticket prices, etc.? THEN GO TO THE 2D VERSION, YOU IDIOTS! 3D is simply the future, deal with it!!

    And by the way, more movies competing in 3D, going into slowly expanding 3D screens, simply means a lower percentage of profit for each movie.

  63. teke367 says:

    I think people are getting hip to the fact that not every 3D Movie will look as cool as Avatar did, so they aren’t going to spend the extra money as often on chilren’s movies when their kids probably won’t even care.

    But more companies are pushing 3D. You have Sony, who makes movies, TVs and videogames, they are definitely going to keep pushing it. Hopefully things will even out and most movies in 3D were made right, or the price difference at least isn’t as substantial.