Posts Tagged “3D”
A year ago, Daniel Engber in Slate asked "Is 3D Dead in the Water". This week he returns to the subject and concludes 3D is dead.
To reach this conclusion, he uses the same tool to analyze the success or failure of 3D - the average gross per screen in 3D compared to the average gross per screen in 2D. He shows, quite convincingly, that the average gross per screen for 3D versions of movies is declining relative to the 2D gross. But is this comparison the right one to use? In my September column for Boxoffice magazine arguing against another popular flawed metric - percentage of box office in 3D - I suggest that a far simpler and more illuminating measure is whether movies are making more money in 3D than they were before:
Opening weekend 3D percentage of the gross (movies chosen by Greenfield to illustrate his point and listed in chronological order)
How to Train Your Dragon - 68%
Shrek Forever After - 61%
Thor - 60%
Pirates of the Caribbean 4 - 46%
Kung Fu Panda 2 - 45%
Green Lantern - 45%
Cars 2 - 40%
Transformers 3 - 59%
Harry Potter 7.2 - 43%
Noting the Harry Potter percentage in an investors note, Greenfield flatly states, "3D has collapsed in the United States." Has it?
Opening weekend 3D gross
How to Train Your Dragon - $29.7 mil
Shrek Forever After - $43.3 mil
Thor - $39.6 mil
Pirates of the Caribbean 4 - $42.6 mil
Kung Fu Panda 2 - $30.6 mil
Green Lantern - $23.7 mil
Cars 2 - $27.1 mil
Transformers 3 - $57.6 mil
Harry Potter 7.2 - $72.67 mil
Clearly, the percentage of a movie's gross coming from 3D does not tell us anything useful about whether or not there is "weakening demand" for 3D movies. The seven point slide from How to Train Your Dragon to Shrek Forever After might seem alarming; the 16 point dip from Transformers 3 to Harry Potter 7.2 even more so—audiences are losing interest in 3D! Yet Shrek's 3D box office was 45 percent higher than Dragon's; Potter's was 26 percent higher than Transformers' and 144 percent higher than Dragon's. Also note that Potter and Transformers opened on roughly the same number of 3D screens (4,250 and 4,146, respectively). Twenty-six percent more people going to a 3D movie on only 2.5 percent more screens seems to me to be a pretty strong indicator of increasing demand.
The per screen averages for 3D are also un-illuminating. We do not know, for instance, what size auditoriums were playing in 3D or 2D for any particular movie - in other words, a $15,000 weekend gross in a 350-seat auditorium is a different thing than the same gross in a 100-seater or a 700-seater.
We are also in a completely different environment than we were in a year ago. In August of 2010, there were 6,286 3D screens in North America at 2,558 locations; a year later, there were 12,738 3D screens at 3,015 locations. The number of locations offering 3D increased by 17.1% and the number of screens increased a staggering 102.6%. So what's going on?
A year and more ago, if you were interested in seeing a movie in 3D, you had to see it in a limited number of places, with a limited number of screens devoted to 3D. Consequently, those screens were far more likely to sell out. Today, there are far more screens available to watch a 3D movie - and there might even be more than one 3D movie available for you to watch. What you are seeing, in other words, is the logic of the multiplex.
There are a lot more screens available to show a 3D movie - most of them in locations that already had at least one 3D screen a year ago. What does this accomplish? The same thing that offering multiple auditoriums in a complex with multiple showtimes does with 2D movies - choice to consumers and the possibility of maximizing revenues by making that choice available.
The modern multiplex offers a range of sizes of auditorium, which allows theater owners greater flexibility and the opportunity to maximize each available seat. Consider a single screen with 1,000 seats. That auditorium can offer, say, 4 showings a night (for the sake of argument, 5:00, 7:30, 10:00 and 12:30) for a possible 4,000 ticket sales. In a multiplex, say, with 14 screens, the same movie might be scheduled in four auditoriums with seating 375, 275, 200 and 150, respectively (again, 1,000 seats). With staggered start times, those screens can show the movie sixteen times while offering the same 4,000 possible tickets. This increases the likelihood of selling the maximum number of tickets, because you are offering customers a broader range of choices that matches more precisely their scheduling needs. But you have a lower per screen average.
And that's what's happening in 3D.
Tags: 3D, 3D is dead, Box Office, Daniel Engber, multiplex, Richard Greenfield, Slate
1 Comment »
Scott Mendelson provides a much-needed corrective to the "3D is dying" brouhaha:
The sky is not falling in the realm of 3D films. There has been much hand-wringing over the last couple weeks as moviegoers have embraced their right to choose to see the latest summer tent-poles in 2D over the higher-priced 3D venues. For the record, over the last two weekends, audiences purchased tickets to Kung Fu Panda 2 and Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides in their respective 2D formats at a rate of 55/45. So, despite those films playing in majority 3D theaters (around 65%), 3D ticket sales made up only 45% of the box office for their respective opening weekends. This is not a new issue and it is not cause for panic or rebuttal. Rather, it is a healthy sign that audiences are making an informed choice and that studios are offering a wide swath of moviegoers a genuine option when it comes to their 3D franchise pictures.
It's really very good. Read the whole thing.
Tags: 3D, consumer choice, Huffington Post, Scott Medelson
2 Comments »
Yours truly in Boxoffice on "the death of 3D":
It was just under five years ago that Disney released Chicken Little on an unprecedented 84 digital 3D screens, and look where we are now.
The sky is falling.
You could be forgiven for believing that if you've been reading recent articles in the trades or following the blog posts of Wall Street entertainment industry analyst Richard Greenfield. It seems that in the half-year following the spectacular 3D performance of Avatar ($749 million, an estimated 80 percent of it in 3D), we, as an industry, have blown it.
Read on.
Tags: 3D, Boxoffice Magazine, Digital Cinema, Richard Greenfield
1 Comment »
According to the Los Angeles Times. Which means " 3D fatigue" is over and Step Up was better than Avatar. Or something. Tags: 3D, Avatar, Box Office, Step Up 3D
No Comments »
As you may have noticed, there's a bit of a controversy right now over who will shoulder the costs of disposable 3D glasses.
Marketplace has the story.
Some people think the future of the movie industry is in 3-D films. But a battle is brewing between Fox and theater chain Regal Entertainment Group over who will pick up the tab for 3-D glasses. Jill Barshay reports.
Our good friend George Solomon continues to tell it as he sees it.
Listen in.
Tags: 3D, Fox, George Solomon, glasses, Marketplace, Regal
No Comments »
I would be deeply remiss if I didn't bring your attention to this post on the digital cinema self-financing panel at ShoWest.
Sperling Reich must have the fastest typing fingers in the West to nail down as much detail as he does here from a fast-paced lunch-time discussion.
When Macdowell turned to Solomon to get an exhibitor's opinion the discussion turned somewhat acrimonious, in a friendly sort of way. "I happen not to be a proponent of 2K [projector resolution] and I have not been a big proponent of integrators," said Solomon. "I believe we should be able to band together and form our own consortium and go negotiate for our own VPFs. I don't believe in giving a cut to an integrator."
CBG's Campbell, like Christiansen, isn't as down on integrators as Solomon and is of the opinion such third parties might be necessary, especially in the short-term. "Self financing is not going to happen for a long time," said Campbell. "I think self-financing is going to be done through the integrators and if we have to pay a small fee of the VPF then so be it."
Solomon, whose smooth New Orleans drawl had Macdowell comparing him to a slick southern lawyer, is not the retiring type and is almost always quotable. Given the chance to air a few thoughts, he let his grievances fly. His comments received the biggest audience reaction by far. "If 2K is the way we're going, then 35mm is better," he argued. "Apparently digital helps distribution, but it doesn't do a thing for exhibition. If distributors want to go with 2K then give us the money and we'll get on with it, otherwise we're going to have to go at our own pace. If distribution wants 2K, give us the money!"
Solomon went on to get a huge laugh when he recounted asking one of his regional managers, "What's the difference between a 35mm film print and a digital cinema hard drive? He said, 'about 40 pounds'."
Levin attempted to diffuse Solomon by pointing out that two of the studios were present and on stage, ready to talk about giving Southern VPFs, but Solomon got the last word in during this exchange as well by snapping back "I know, but I have to figure out how I'm going to pay for [3D] glasses with one of them."
In one instant Solomon made public the rumor that Fox had been telling North American exhibitors that after "Ice Age 3" the studio would no longer be paying for disposable 3D glasses. Presently none of the studios pay for disposable glasses in Europe, though they have been footing the bill in the U.S., Canada and at times Mexico.
Read the whole thing. It will be well worth your time.
Tags: 3D, Bill Campbell, Cinema Buying Group, Digital Cinema, George Solomon, Julian Levin, Kendrick Macdowell, Mark Christiansen, self-financing, ShoWest, VPF
No Comments »
ShoWest 09 marked a change in programming. Monday has in recent years been "International Day," but with the increasing interconnectedness of the industry, it no longer made sense to separate out the international programming. Hence, Monday became the official opening day instead of the traditional Tuesday.
Fox's Jim Gianopulos kicked off the Opening Day luncheon with an overview of the health of the exhibition industry:
Gianopulos' Keynote Address was a speech laced with charts and graphs showing how the theatrical moviegoing experience continues to grow despite the recent economic upheaval and recession. He noted that despite the dramatic increase in home technology like HD televisions and Blu-ray, those who own five or more pieces of home theater technology are still more likely to go to the movie theater every weekend than less. He mentioned that movie attendance continues to be the #3 choice for most people going out for their entertainment and that it made up a larger audience of those going to sporting events, Broadway theater and other activities, which tend to be more costly. International growth was also a large factor, noting that North America made up roughly half of the over $18 billion grossed at the box office worldwide in 2008, and that there was a lot of room for growth.
A picture of James and the Giant Graph is here. A chart showing how people who use 5 or more home entertainment technologies go to more movies is here and another one showing what the inside of my brain looks like is here.
Wednesday saw a bit of fireworks with a luncheon panel discussing digital cinema financing:
Moderated by G. Kendrick Macdowell, VP, general counsel and director of government affairs at NATO, the panel featured two studio execs who have pledged support in the form of virtual print fees to individual exhibitors. Mark Christiansen, executive VP of operations at Paramount Pictures, deemed his studio’s plan “incredibly easy…something you can do now.” But Fox exec VP of digital exhibition Julian Levin, who is also reaching out to individual cinema owners, bluntly criticized the streamlined Paramount offer document as having “a lot of holes,” contrasting the Fox approach as that of “a grown-up business.”
Even more contentious was exhibitor George Solomon, CEO of Southern Theatres. Dismissing the role of third-party integrators like Cinedigm and Digital Cinema Implementation Partners, he declared, “I believe that mid-size circuits should be able to negotiate virtual print fees directly or have their own consortiums… I don’t believe in giving a cut to an integrator.”
The plain-speaking Solomon, whom Macdowell at one point compared to a crafty Southern lawyer, proved not much of a champion of the digital revolution. “35mm is still better,” he contended. “What’s the difference between a hard drive and 35mm film? Forty pounds!” Arguing that the benefits of digital accrue mainly to the studios, he challenged, “If distribution wants 2K, give us the money!”
And as ever, the Closing Night awards were star-packed and festive. Lots of pictures here.
Tags: 3D, Digital Cinema, George Solomon, Jim Gianopulos, Julian Levin, Kendrick Macdowell, Mark Christiansen, NATO, ShoWest, stars
No Comments »
Digital Cinema Implementation Partners (DCIP), a consortium of exhibitors Regal Entertainment Group, AMC Theatres and Cinemark, announced they have struck a deal with five Hollywood studios to support their digital cinema rollout. According to AP:
Five Hollywood studios have agreed to help pay for a $1 billion-plus rollout of digital technology on about 20,000 movie screens in North America, a precursor to showing movies in 3-D.
Digital Cinema Implementation Partners, a consortium of major theater chains, announced the deal Wednesday. The rollout in the U.S. and Canada, covering about half of all screens, is planned to start early next year.
DCIP topper Travis Reid noted that the rollout remains contingent on securing financing for the deal - a difficult task in the midst of the ongoing credit crisis.
"We'll be needing to execute in the debt markets and we hope to do that during the fourth quarter," Reid said. "We don't believe that the markets will be closed forever."
NATO applauded the agreement, but noted there are numerous theaters and screens not covered by the agreement.
With a deal in place for the largest U.S. theater chains, it is time to conclude a similar digital cinema agreement for the hundreds of independent cinemas and thousands of screens not covered by this agreement. It is imperative for the health of the industry and for the millions of moviegoers in small towns and cities that the benefits of digital cinema be spread as widely as possible.
NATO, through the Cinema Buying Group (CBG) and its selected digital cinema integrator Access Integrated Technologies, Inc. (AIX), continues to work with the studios to ensure that CBG members, who are smaller and independent exhibitors, often in small towns, are not left behind.
CBG's website is here.
Tags: 3D, AMC, Cinema Buying Group, Cinemark, DCIP, Digital Cinema, NATO, Regal
4 Comments »
Regal Entertainment Group Chairman and CEO Mike Campbell and NATO President and CEO John Fithian chat about theatrical exhibition with The Hollywood Reporter's Carl DiOrio.
Before getting outside the box office, they get right into it:
THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER: Will summer 2008 set another new boxoffice record?
CAMPBELL: We have a strong slate of films this summer, but what you’re missing is what I’d call the three money-in-the bank films you saw last year in May. There’s a lot of diversity in product this summer, but will it be a record summer? I can’t say that.
FITHIAN: This year we have a few more unknowns. Some of those will surprise on the upside and some on the downside.
THR: And the year?
CAMPBELL: What I would say about the fourth quarter is that last year that was our weakest quarter, so on a comparable basis I think there’s more powerful product in that quarter of this year.
FITHIAN: I don’t disagree at all. I think it’s also important to remember we are coming off two up years in a row.
On ratings:
THR: Exhibitors tend to like less restrictive ratings, yet there continues to be a regular flow of R-rated movies. Are you OK with that?
CAMPBELL: From a selfish, economic point of view as an exhibitor, we do better with PG and PG-13 films, and on any given year you generally see 17 or 18 of the top 20 films as PG or PG-13. There is still a place for R-rated films, but we do better at the boxoffice and at the concessions with PG and PG-13 films.
FITHIAN: I am mystified why everybody in Hollywood wants to be Quentin Tarantino instead of trying to sell movie tickets.
THR: Any other specific advice for Hollywood on the kind of pictures they should make?
FITHIAN: More family titles of any genre. When you take an action film and decided to make it PG-13 instead of R, it does better. And in most cases, if you have a comedy and decide to make it PG-13 it does better, although there certainly is a role for the harder-edge comedies as well. But as the father of a 5-year-old, there are times I am looking to go to the movies with my child and can’t.
Year-round movie-going:
THR: You like to encourage “ 12-month releasing.” Isn’t there a limit to how many tentpoles can open while school is in session?
FITHIAN: Yes, but we’re still doing it wrong. Virtually every school in the country is still in session the first weekend in May, and the biggest movies in 2007 were released over the first weekend in May. Yet we leave April almost entirely off the table, and the circumstances of school are very similar in April and May.
There are only so many blockbusters you can tolerate in the year, but in summer when they are so close together we are losing money. With those huge titles last May, we lost— in my estimation —$50 million$100 million because we had them all in one month. If one of those had been in April, I think we would have made a lot more money.
CAMPBELL: We could increase the boxoffice several percentage points by having a release schedule that was spread a little more evenly.
Read the rest here.
Tags: 3D, John Fithian, Marketing, Mike Campbell, Movies, NATO, Ratings
No Comments »
|
Entries (RSS)