Meant to be Seen

Just wanted to point out the anti-3D foolishness circulating the web!

A pseudo-study by The Wrap is showing a graph of the revenue takes of recent 3D movies to try and demonstrate a trend of dropping ticket sales.  What they failed to mention is that the number of 3D screens in each film is very different, and there is serious competition now for movie makers to get their hands on 3D exhibition space for 3D films.

I can't speak to "How to Train Your Dragon".  Our data shows that it was played in 2,150 capable 3D theaters out of 4,060 locations.  We know they had to share 3D screens with Alice in Wonderland, so our data is foggy at best.  We will try to tighten this up.



In the above graph, Toy Story 3 is shown to only collect 60% of its revenue from 3D movie screenings.  Toy Story 3 was shown on 7,058 screens: 3,200 3D, 3,858 2D.  3,200 screens may sound like an impressive number, but they only account for 2,463 sites out of 4,028 (there is more than one screen per site).  A lot of places still don't have 3D screens.
Read full article...

It's like comparing apples and oranges. Avatar was shown primarily on 3D screens, most of the others weren't. And of course Avatar sold a huge amount of tickets. I think James Cameron's cut is over $0.5 billion US [wish I was related to him!].

You take a look at The Last Airbender. Well, it may be the last. SAles weren't great. Despicable Me [from what I read] isn't doing too hot either.

I think most theatre owners would decide whether or not to show it in 3D and for how long. I mean who'd want to see Sex and the City 2 in 3D?

I mean who'd want to see Sex and the City 2 in 3D?

Depends on how much sex is happening in the city.

Sorry...couldn't resist.

Regards,
Neil