Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Fox rebuffs costs of 3-D glasses
THR: "Like most other majors, the studio already has signed on to co-finance the rollout of digital projection systems in theaters around the world. But Fox has quietly begun alerting exhibitors not to expect any payments for costs associated with the use of special glasses when its 3-D pics play in digital auditoriums."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
This seems a little ridiculous to me. I understand that technology is going to the 3-D era, but you can't not give patrons a way to see them. This doesn't seem to help your case. the article says that only 38% of patrons who saw the 3-d movie in 2-d would have perferred it in 3-d. this is less than half. So if push came to shove, people would watch in 2-d and not worry about getting glasses from an outside source, nor would they want to pay for them for the one movie. It seems silly to make technological advances that no one will see.
Also, maybe if the companies do refuse to pay, movie theatres can start offering discounts for bringing your own glasses or buying theirs (so that the cost ends up being fairly equal or like $.50 more.)
My experience with 3D glasses is that movie theaters often charge extra for tickets if 3D glasses are needed. If there is a choice, I'd prefer to see the movie in 2D and play less than to experience a gimmick that no one seems quite sure what to do with yet.
Fox's stance is going to be interesting, because they might just be hurting themselves. Movie theaters make practically no money on ticket sales; why would they go out of their way to convert to new technology that doesn't provide a draw to a large number of the populous?
Every movie that I have seen that uses this kind of technology would have been just as powerful in 2-D. I believe that while the market for this is what it is now, if the cost were to increase in order to see this kind of show, the base of patrons will go down as well.
Post a Comment