3D = 3 Dollars more per ticket and not much else
On my way to the cinema the other day I considered the recent phenomenon of 3-D.
Current cinema prices are ridiculous, with tickets in central London costing up to £22.00, so the fact that they charge more for 3-D is a bit of a choker (especially when it’s a cartoon and the glasses slip off your kids’ tiny noses and they’d rather watch it in 2-D anyway but cinemas never seem to show the 2-D version anywhere, which is kind of forcing you to buy an expensive option you don’t want rather than giving you an even choice, and that is a kind of tacit admission that they have to force you into the more expensive option because otherwise no one would ever choose it because the 3-D is kind of shit and makes the whole thing much darker).
But it was only today that I thought how brilliantly the movie studios and cinemas have managed to carry off a pretty shameless scam: yes, it costs more to make a movie in 3-D, but it also costs more to shove a load of CG monsters into a movie, or pay Scarlett Johansson to be in it, or to film it in lots of sexy locations all over the world, yet they don’t charge more for any of those things.
So why, when they ‘enhance’ a movie in this particular fashion do you have to pay £2 (plus another bleeding pound for the bloody glasses that you always forget to bring with you even though you now have a 3-D glasses mountain at home)?
That is, of course, a rhetorical question, the answer to which is ‘money’. They’ve left us grumpily paying for something we don’t want because if we want to see the basic movie we don’t really have a choice. Clever.
And I have nothing against charging a bit more for an enhanced experience. All those fancy-schmancy cinemas which serve martinis and brownies and give you a massive leather armchair to sit in are fine by me; you pay your money and take your choice. But 3-D is an illusion in more ways than one, and the move bastards have really managed to pull a pretty impressive double-fast one.
And they wonder why people pirate their precious art…
So, it’s not just me. Two young grandchildren, me, and a couple of soft drinks for the girls, $50 (and The Lorax wasn’t great either).
It was shite.
I liked Horton Hears a Who, though.
If it stays, the new smaller soda sizes in NYC, and subsequent lower revenue robbed, is going to kill cinemas profit margins here. It will be interesting to see how much 3D costs after that or what other scumbag tricks they can come up with…
Another reason for the 3D is in your last line
So pirating is the reason for 3-D?
Fuck.
Another reason to hate those thieves…
Or if you’re Christopher Nolan you can tell the studio to f**k off I’m not doing it in 3D (albeit more politely)
His take.
http://screenrant.com/christopher-nolan-imax-3d-cgi-mlee-164945/
I’ve never watched a 3D film. Is there a top of decent 3D effects? I believe Tintin was supposed to be alright? I watched that film and thought it was ok… although on a non 3D tv. That said I’ve never been enamoured for watching a movie based on effects. Story is king for me…that and character.In fact the only time I’ve stuck 3D glasses on was at the Old Kings Head for the Liverpool United match most recently and too be honest I thought the experience was a bit meh…match included.
As Josh said, its harder to pirate a 3D movie, hence why the studios are keen to keep it. Especially when they screen hardly any 2D showings.
It’s okay for Nolan to Stick his finger up because he has the fame and success to back him up but for smaller productions, the studios force 3D onto the film in return for funding.
“Dredd” for example. Was forced to use 3D to guarantee its release and its opening weekend made back double of what it cost, mainly down to the fact two 3D tickets is almost the same price as 4 normal tickets.