3D movies spread far beyond the House of Wax
In March I noted that digital cinema rollouts were fast approaching a critical mass. In recent weeks, digital 3D deployments have gained a similar momentum, albeit on a smaller scale. In particular, Beverly Hills-based Real D had two big announcements in quick succession. On May 20 it announced that Regal Entertainment, the world's largest theater chain, would add Real D 3D systems to 1,500 screens, or more than 22% of its U.S. venues. Then on Tuesday, another major U.S. chain, Cinemark, announced plans to add Real D systems to up to 1,500 screens. That's almost a third of Cinemark's total. These commitments should push Real D, which can be seen on a little more than 1,000 screens today, to about 5,000 screens by the end of next year, said Elizabeth Brooks, the company's chief marketing officer. Its closest competitor, Dolby, has deployed its 3D systems to about 30 U.S. theaters and numerous others worldwide.
Because these 3D deployments rely on digital projectors, it's natural that 3D would pick up steam as digital cinema deployments accelerated. According to Brooks, installing the equipment needed to show Real D 3D movies -- the special lens for the projector, the reflective screen and the supply of 3D glasses -- costs about $25,000, or 25%-40% of the cost of converting an exhibition space to digital. With 3D films easily generating two to three times the box office of their 2D counterparts (a margin attributable in part to the $1 to $3 premium charged for tickets to 3D showings) cinemas can recover their costs in a week. Still, cinema owners have a hard time justifying the investment unless they can count on more 3D movies being released.
That part of the picture is brightening, too.
Next weekend, Walden Media and Warner Bros.' New Line Cinema release the latest Real D title, "Journey to the Center of the Earth." It's the third of six expected this year, following three last year and two in 2006 (one of which has been Disney's annual re-release of "The Nightmare Before Christmas in 3D"). Next year the projected slate grows to nearly a dozen (read the lineup here). Most of these are animated flicks, which are considerably less expensive to convert than a live-action film is to shoot in 3D. (Brooks estimated that 3D production costs are $10 million to $15 million higher than 2D films.) And kids may prove to be a more receptive audience for the in-your-face effects that digital can produce. But as 3ality Digital's recent concert film "U2 3D" demonstrated, 3D can be truly transformative to live-action movies. The U2 film was strikingly immersive and detailed, with the 3D images amplifying the emotional power of the band's performance rather than dazzling the viewer with their novelty. That kind of work shows of 3D's potential to influence the art of cinema, not just the economics.
Subscribe to this Blog - What is RSS?
Many of us in the 3D world expect this to stick this time around, due to, among other things, many 3D experts actually cooperating with each other (not very much the case in 1983), far superior technology at both the production and exhibition levels - and a reasonably fast emergence of 3D capable HDTV - TV's (many now available with more on the way) this year and beyond. It's also kind of a life long dream, as the promise of the 50's - and even 1983 - quickly faded due to technical problems as well as, for the most part, lackluster films. So far, most 3D films have been recieved well by the crtics and the public, with theatre attendance averaging about 2.5 - 3 times the average of their 35mm non - 3D counterparts. So, let the fun begin.
Posted by: Jim Krisvoy | July 03, 2008 at 07:17 PM
To Jim,
So who do you work for?
Having attended many a 3D Summit and Digital Hollywood event I've found that nobody is really agreeing on anything (actually they ARE agreeing that this time around it had better work because of the incredible amount of $ they've collectively contributed).
Instead everyone is pushing their own agenda and tentatively dipping a toe in the water less they catch a cold from taking any real action.
Talk, talk and more talk. Forums, 3D@home Consortium, SMPTE; yadda, yadda yadda... This format and that format, my product this and my product that ...
To the expert panel at the last 3D Summit; you really wonder why the consumer aren't adopting this at the rate you projected, why they won't spend $5000 on 3D ready TVs, why they get annoyed that after they've paid a premium for those ugly glasses at the cinema, they are expected to give them back for free (under the guise of being green -"Recycle your Glasses Here")... really? You continue to scratch your heads? Really?? Aren't you the guys who are supposed to be "smart"???
I think the industry (and therefore its success) would be best served by someone who had the "you know what" to finally stand up and and lead the way, for the sake of the industry, and not their own agenda.
Having said that my hat will remain forever removed with regards to Jim Cameron's efforts to "share" his technological advances.
For the boy's at RealD... being aggressive may only get you so far, until the cinema owners realize that there is a cheaper and better alternative, as my personal research has discovered; bigger display, brighter image and at only a fraction of the cost
By the way, for those who may be wondering, I am just a content developer, with no agenda other than wanting the powers that be" to finally "get their collective act TOGETHER".
We NEED a "3D Literati"; not "glitterati" nor "iliterati".
Posted by: james | September 30, 2009 at 10:31 PM