Ok...Holidays are now over, so, how about 3D now? - Page 34 - AVS Forum
View Poll Results: 3D TV - Is it a Fad?
Fad - Still Current Movie Theater Hype! 0 0%
Here to Stay - Bring on the content! 0 0%
Can only really happen if we have standards! 0 0%
Voters: 0. You may not vote on this poll

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #991 of 1824 Old 02-26-2011, 12:40 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenland View Post

Perhaps; the number of people who enjoy going to see a 3D movie at their local cinema, might not have much relevance to the question; will 3D TV home viewing catch on, or is it merely a passing fad?

After all, lots of people enjoy going to the theater to take in an occasional performance by The Blue Man Group, Gallagher smashing watermelons, etc, but that does not mean that most of those same people would want to have them doing the same thing in their living rooms.

Going to the movies, and watching TV in the home are two entirely different animals, and the fact that TV has not ended movie going, makes that point very clear.

Movie theater technology drifts down to the home market. First came color. Then came multitrack sound. Then came widescreen (HDTV's 1.78 aspect ratio). Now it's full color, high resolution 3D.

At one time, all the TV you watched was B & W with mono sound on a 1.33 Aspect Ratio TV
Lee Stewart is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #992 of 1824 Old 02-26-2011, 12:44 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by twisted_oak View Post

Nope, not at all.

However, I would add that it is just as easy, if not easier, to argue a position without details to back it up. The lack of details solidifies a persons point almost as well as detail; since the lack of details undermines congruent argument that has plenty of detail.

It's just as easy to draw the wrong conclusions by misinterpreting the data presented.

If the data exists (3D attendence dropped in 2010) then where is it? And please, no conspiracy theory BS that it is being intentional hidden from view.

Here are links to the data:

MPAA 2009 report:

http://www.mpaa.org/Resources/653b11...17de30df1e.pdf

MPAA 2010 report:

http://www.mpaa.org/Resources/653b11...17de30df1e.pdf

2010 with an estimation of the surchage ($600M)

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3038

Now you have the same data that I do. So show EXACTLY where it says 3D attendence dropped in 2010.
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #993 of 1824 Old 02-26-2011, 12:56 PM
Senior Member
 
twisted_oak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 312
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

It's just as easy to draw the wrong conclusions by misinturpetting the data presented.

If the data exists (3D attendence dropped in 2010) then where is it? And please, no conspiracy theory BS that it is being intentional hidden from view.

I am not arguing that 3D attendance dropped. I am saying it is not being separated. There is a reason behind that. Saying in the article 3D was the savior (essentially), you would think they would show it's figures if they were all that great.

If they were awesome figures, why wouldn't the MPAA print them right now? Would they not run the risk of endangering their 2D market (I know that is a reach.)? This leads me to believe their mentality is still that it is a niche product at least.

Why would you say that 3D was the saving grace yet not post the positive figures? There is a reason behind that...

I NEVER SAID ATTENDANCE DROPPED! I posted my findings so that people could digest. Rabid dog behavior.
twisted_oak is offline  
post #994 of 1824 Old 02-26-2011, 01:05 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by twisted_oak View Post

I am not arguing that 3D attendance dropped. I am saying it is not being separated. There is a reason behind that. Saying in the article 3D was the savior (essentially), you would think they would show it's figures if they were all that great.

They did; $2.1B = 2X as much as 2009 with only 5 more 3D movies (25 versus 20)

Quote:


If they were awesome figures, why wouldn't the MPAA print them right now? Would they not run the risk of endangering their 2D market (I know that is a reach.)? This leads me to believe their mentality is still that it is a niche product at least.

They have. Look at the 2010 MPAA stats link I posted. There is an entire section on how well 3D did in the theaters. Are you not looking at the links?

Quote:


Why would you say that 3D was the saving grace yet not post the positive figures? There is a reason behind that...

The data is there in those links. It isn't just my opinion. It's facts.

Quote:


I NEVER SAID ATTENDANCE DROPPED! I posted my findings so that people could digest.

What findings? That 3D saved the box office from being a negative stat (total BO revenue for NA) for 2010 instead of a flat one? THAT is what ALL the articles and data is saying. You aren't presenting ANYTHING that is new.
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #995 of 1824 Old 02-26-2011, 01:07 PM
rad
AVS Special Member
 
rad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 3,180
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 13
I have a 73" Mits DLP with the 3DC adapter and a 50" Samsung 3D plasma. So far nobody that's been over had said they don't like the 3D experience, even those that had to wear the glasses over their own glasses. We just about had to drag my sons mother in law away to eat Christmas dinner. My wife who originally didn't think she'd care for it enjoys watching 3D programming (either via BD 3D disc or DIRECTV). My brother in law was here last week and also has a 3D ready 73" Mits at his home, after seeing what 3D looks like, he ordered a 3DC kit and is waiting for it to show up.

All I can do is post my experiences so far and they're all positive.
rad is offline  
post #996 of 1824 Old 02-26-2011, 01:18 PM
Senior Member
 
twisted_oak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 312
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

What findings?

I meant links I found. I am looking for headcount by year. I am not looking for headcount to say it has increased or decreased. I'm looking for headcount to see how ticket prices for 3D average out, to see how much it really impacted the market. If the prices are higher for 3D, it does not give adequate representation of how many people are interested. It is just showing that money is being made from it. Money being made from is not the only determinant of the formats success. It is how many people are spreading the word that has a major impact for the home market. How many people are coming away from those movies satisfied or inspired? Without a headcount it is not sufficient enough data to conclude the broader effects in the home market.

That is all I am saying. I am looking at the links you are providing very quickly as I am busy with other tasks atm. They all show essentially the same thing, as do mine.

To say there is a not a reason behind why the MPAA would not include headcount is just the same as saying there IS a reason, both are stretches. However, it is the way of businesses to pitch the larger number over the smaller one to tout success. Or one that is market favorable.

For example:

McDonalds says "over 1 Billion served" on their signage..... that says we are very popular. People who go there are obviously not going to be attracted if they said "we made 400 million in profit", when coming in to buy a dollar worth of food for 5 bucks.

This is not a conspiracy theory. It is based in marketing philosophies and practices. If you don't see that I do not know what to tell you.
twisted_oak is offline  
post #997 of 1824 Old 02-26-2011, 01:55 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by twisted_oak View Post

I meant links I found. I am looking for headcount by year. I am not looking for headcount to say it has increased or decreased. I'm looking for headcount to see how ticket prices for 3D average out, to see how much it really impacted the market. If the prices are higher for 3D, it does not give adequate representation of how many people are interested. It is just showing that money is being made from it. Money being made from is not the only determinant of the formats success. It is how many people are spreading the word that has a major impact for the home market. How many people are coming away from those movies satisfied or inspired? Without a headcount it is not sufficient enough data to conclude the broader effects in the home market.

There are numerous sites that rate movies, both 3D and 2D. If you want "public opinion" just look at a bunch of them. Or, stand outside of a theater and watch and listen to what people are saying before they see a film and after they see one. Then you will have first hand information.

Quote:


That is all I am saying. I am looking at the links you are providing very quickly as I am busy with other tasks atm. They all show essentially the same thing, as do mine.

To say there is a not a reason behind why the MPAA would not include headcount is just the same as saying there IS a reason, both are stretches. However, it is the way of businesses to pitch the larger number over the smaller one to tout success. Or one that is market favorable.

You are looking for something that is not being tracked by the industry. They track overall attendence (tickets sold), overall revenue, average ticket price per year, 3D revenue and other stats along with demographics of film goers. And compare them to previous years using the same data categories.

Quote:


This is not a conspiracy theory. It is based in marketing philosophies and practices. If you do see that I do not know what to tell you.

If you want to base your entire opinion on the one stat that is not tracked, go right ahead. And good luck with it. But saying it's not there so there may/must be something wrong with it, is nothing short of far fetched.
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #998 of 1824 Old 02-26-2011, 01:58 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joseph Dubin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,970
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

I will address the bolded part:

You are not understanding what is being said. Here are the facts of the matter (for NA):

1. Movie attendence was down for 2010 versus 2009.

2. Movie revenue for 2010 was flat over 2009.

3. 3D revenue was up 100% from 2009.

4. Yes there is a surcharge for a 3D ticket but it is less then 50% of a regular ticket. (average surcharge of $3.25 versus average ticket price of $7.50)

What they are saying is that the surcharge from 3D tickets increased the total BO revenue, enough for it to look flat as compared to 2009. Without the surcharge, the BO for 2010 would have been down when compared to 2009.

NOTHING says 3D attendence is down. No one has been able to provide a link that says that have they?

According to that MPAA link for 2010 stats I provided, the number of 3D movies released increased in 2010 (25) versus the 20 they released in 2009.

Enough links have been posted regarding industry assessment that attendance figures for 3D dipped this past year. Those which you refer to also clearly say less tickets were sold for 3D movies this past year. IMAX was up but not enough to offset the drop from others. I simply ask not to dissect certain information and ignore others within the attachments you provide. I also am asking for actual proof, not the hearsay being offered, whether it be in figures or general statements released by the industry, showing I have been misinterpreting all that I have submitted - not speculation or mathematical calculations.

Others and I have posted numerous articles and interviews in which a drop of attendance for 3D is extensively acknowledged and that the extra revenue generated specifically from those higher ticket prices despite the decrease in 3D attendance as well offset the otherwise drop in overall box-office profit. While one specific article which included the statement from that Sony executive is no longer available , I'll try finding it from another news source. But since I have been alluding to that executive talking about the business aspects of dwindling attendance regarding 3D films (saying numbers were nice if one didn't care about money but that in the case of 3D, less wasn't necessarily bad) please do the same with statements from others. And though it is thought I misread his statement, I also ask that since there is no disagreement the amount of revenue generated from 2D films has decreased due to the drop in ticket sales and would therefore want to know what else was that Sony Executive talking about ?

Those and other statements I did not make up. If I misunderstood them in regards to 3D as suggested, again please just introduce evidence in the form of professional articles or specific box office attendance figures for 3D to show me where I made the mistake. There will be no shame on my part admitting I misunderstood something. Just please don't continue to provide speculation to counteract what has been submitted as actual fact on the part of the industry. In that case, I will just be wasting my time, along with Oak's and others, going back and forth with you on this point and not being open minded to see beyond one's own thoughts.
Joseph Dubin is offline  
post #999 of 1824 Old 02-26-2011, 02:03 PM
Senior Member
 
twisted_oak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 312
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Here is an older article but has some pretty interesting data...

http://www.whitehutchinson.com/leisu...fication.shtml
twisted_oak is offline  
post #1000 of 1824 Old 02-26-2011, 02:27 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Dubin View Post

Enough links have been posted regarding industry assessment that attendance figures for 3D dipped this past year.

Where is your proof that backs up that statement? We can't find it. How come did you? Show me one!

Quote:


I simply ask for actual proof, not the hearsay being offered, whether it be in figures or general statements released by the industry, showing I have been misinterpreting all that has been submitted - not speculation or mathematical calculations.

But THAT is exactly what you just did above. You have NO proof that 3D attendence dropped in 2010 yet you say it did.

So provide a link that SPECIFICALLY says; " 3D movie attendence dropped in 2010 versus/as compared to 2009."

Quote:


Others and I have posted numerous articles and interviews in which a drop of attendance for 3D is extensively acknowledged and that the extra revenue generated specifically from those higher ticket prices despite the decrease in 3D attendance as well offset the otherwise drop in overall box-office profit.

No you haven't. NO ONE has. There has been a drop in TOTAL TICKETS SOLD (attendence) for 2010, but there is NOTHING that says that either there were less 3D tickets sold or that 3D attendence dropped in 2010.

Quote:


While one specific article which included the statement from that Sony executive is no longer available , I'll try finding it from another news source. But since I have been alluding to that executive talking about the business aspects of dwindling attendance regarding 3D films (saying numbers were nice if one didn't care about money but that in the case of 3D, less wasn't necessarily bad) please do the same with statements from others. And though it is thought I misread his statement, I also ask that since there is no disagreement the amount of revenue generated from 2D films has decreased due to the drop in ticket sales and would therefore want to know what else was that Sony Executive talking about ?

Produce the whole article including the link. You have already proved you have misinterpreted data and what is being said.

Quote:


Those and other statements I did not make up. If I misunderstood them in regards to 3D as suggested, again please just introduce evidence in the form of professional articles or specific box office attendance figures for 3D to show me where I made the mistake. Just don't provide speculation to counteract what has been submitted as actual fact on the park of the industry. Otherwise, I am just wasting my time going back and forth with you guys on this point.



THERE ARE NONE! There are NO 3D movie attendence stats available. You have to do some math to get to the answer.
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #1001 of 1824 Old 02-26-2011, 02:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mweflen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: South Side Chicago
Posts: 1,304
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 18
I haven't been following the conversation. Just wanted to add my 2 cents.

There is no way 3D will take off in the home until and unless it involves unpowered polarized glasses such as those in theaters.

I really would like to know what variety and grade of crack cocaine manufacturers were smoking when they thought a technology involving $150 per pair glasses would ever achieve widespread adoption - especially after a giant economic downturn.

Calm the muddy water, it becomes clear.
mweflen is offline  
post #1002 of 1824 Old 02-26-2011, 02:32 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by twisted_oak View Post

Here is an older article but has some pretty interesting data...

http://www.whitehutchinson.com/leisu...fication.shtml

LOL - of which this is the only part that even mentions 3D:

Quote:


The new grounded consumer born of the Great Recession is much more demanding about what value means to them. They are looking for ways to enrich their and their families' lives in ways that make them smarter, better off and healthier. They require greater value for their money and time than in the past. The recent success of the movie Avatar in its 3D version and many subsequent 3D movies, all at a premium ticket price, speaks to the importance of increasing the value of the experience compared to the past and electronic competition, in this case, 2D movies at the cinema and large screen high definition televisions in the home showing Blu-ray movies. Virtual experiences have raised the bar for all experiences.

Lee Stewart is offline  
post #1003 of 1824 Old 02-26-2011, 02:38 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by mweflen View Post

I haven't been following the conversation. Just wanted to add my 2 cents.

There is no way 3D will take off in the home until and unless it involves unpowered polarized glasses such as those in theaters.

I really would like to know what variety and grade of crack cocaine manufacturers were smoking when they thought a technology involving $150 per pair glasses would ever achieve widespread adoption - especially after a giant economic downturn.

Could be a tougher sell to consumers after years of advertising "Full HD!" when those passive glasses 3DTVs can't deliver Full HD per eye. Full HD = 1920x1080

BTW - CEMs don't expect widespread adoption of 4 digit costing tech in the first year.
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #1004 of 1824 Old 02-26-2011, 02:51 PM
Senior Member
 
twisted_oak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 312
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

LOL - of which this is the only part that even mentions 3D:

Lee, just because I make all these postings does not mean I am thoroughly against 3D. I don't think you can get past that.

3D does create value. However, value is malleable in that it means different things to different people. It could mean that it takes a good movie and makes it better. It could mean it makes a bad movie better, or at least more enjoyable.

People that find the value presented to be a distraction, a cover-up (see makeup on women who don't have natural beauty), or having a negative impact on the focus of storytellers will find it presents a less than positive value when weighed against ticket costs and other factors.

For me, I have not seen enough merit to 3D in the theaters (yes I have seen a few) to warrant adoption. For me, movies are getting sh!ttier as we go along the more special effects we add. It provides an out for moviemakers and actors to not try as hard for my money. If they find some way to utilize 3D as a storytelling device, I will be sold (hook, line, and sinker).
twisted_oak is offline  
post #1005 of 1824 Old 02-26-2011, 02:57 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 10,839
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

IMAX has developed a new high resolution 3D digital camera. Some footage shot with it will be used for April's release of BORN TO BE WILD.

Cool! I am curious to see if the PQ suffers in this new digital design. Thanks for the update.
Don Landis is offline  
post #1006 of 1824 Old 02-26-2011, 03:09 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by twisted_oak View Post

Lee, just because I make all these postings does not mean I am thoroughly against 3D. I don't think you can get past that.

Please answer the following question with either a yes or a no:

Do you want 3DTV in the home to succeed?

Quote:


3D does create value. However, value is malleable in that it means different things to different people. It could mean that it takes a good movie and makes it better. It could mean it makes a bad movie better, or at least more enjoyable.

People that find the value presented to be a distraction, a cover-up (see makeup on women who don't have natural beauty), or having a negative impact on the focus of storytellers will find it presents a less than positive value when weighed against ticket costs and other factors.

My experience says that people either like 3D or they don't. If they like it, they will seek it out. If they don't, they will avoid it. It's basic. It's not subjective as you suggest.

Quote:


For me, I have not seen enough merit to 3D in the theaters (yes I have seen a few) to warrant adoption. For me, movies are getting sh!ttier as we go along the more special effects we add. It provides an out for moviemakers and actors to not try as hard for my money. If they find some way to utilize 3D as a storytelling device, I will be sold (hook, line, and sinker).

It is used as a story telling device. It should bring you closer into the story. You should feel more involved. If you don't, then I can see why you wouldn't be interested in 3D.

It is used as a gimmick when they try to poke you in the eye with something or try to make you duck. LOL - there are people that like that stuff. More power to them.
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #1007 of 1824 Old 02-26-2011, 03:20 PM
Senior Member
 
twisted_oak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 312
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Please answer the following question with either a yes or a no:

Do you want 3DTV in the home to succeed?

Yes. I am down with technological change. It is progress.

However, I do not appreciate when manufacturers half-a$$ stuff at the expense of the consumer. I am a quite leery about the effectiveness of 3D as a story telling device. My spider sense is tingling. Its feel like 3D is going to come and go at the expense of the consumer just to bolster the industry as it transitions to the next larger step (whatever that might be).

From what I have seen of 3D it has been utilized as a gimmick, or shiny packaging. So it leaves a sour taste in my mouth.
twisted_oak is offline  
post #1008 of 1824 Old 02-26-2011, 03:29 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by twisted_oak View Post

Yes. I am down with technological change. It is progress.

OK

Quote:


However, I do not appreciate when manufacturers half-a$$ stuff at the expense of the consumer.

Like what? Active shutter glasses? It's the only way currently available to view 3D at full HD per eye. Just like 3D BD is the only way to store and deliver full HD per eye.

Quote:


I am a quite leery about the effectiveness of 3D as a story telling device. My spider sense is tingling. Its feel like 3D is going to come and go at the expense of the consumer just to bolster the industry as it transitions to the next larger step (whatever that might be).

Then I would guess you are indifferent to 3D. It isn't doing what it is supposed to for you. I on the other hand, I love 3D. Always have. And I enjoy the latest use of 3D in story telling because it isn't just crap being thrown at the cameras as it has in the past.

Quote:


From what I have seen of 3D it has been utilized as a gimmick, or shiny packaging. So it leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

OK. Whatever floats your boat. That's what makes horse races. As long as we have freedom of choice, I have no issues.
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #1009 of 1824 Old 02-26-2011, 04:26 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 10,839
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by twisted_oak View Post

I am not arguing that 3D attendance dropped. I am saying it is not being separated. There is a reason behind that. Saying in the article 3D was the savior (essentially), you would think they would show it's figures if they were all that great.

Actually, it is being separated by the industry that it matters to. Sometime in mid November I went on a hunt for it and like you said couldn't find it. But I know better than to draw conclusions one way or another just because I could not find the info. Then, when I was looking at a stock holders report I did see it separated and based on the financials drew my conclusion that the 3D was a growing success at the theater. Other non-numerical data also supported that decision such as the growth of movies being financed by the industry for 3D as well as the reports in the public info that stated a significant increase in investment in 3D theaters and 3D IMAX. I read two reports; AMC and Regal. Both had very positive figures for 3D sales but Regal put their money where their report was and offered the dividend and special dividend that made my decision to own Regal stock.

Now, so as not to disappoint Joe, here is one of my high quality ( ) references that will, in a most business like way explain how the 3D movie theater industry is excited and looks to the future. IT puts hard facts to the industry growth. Especially interesting is how it is explained that ticket sales have shown that with total being flat, the choice between 2D and 3D ( they often reference as premium sales) viewers are opting to switch to 3D and pay the premium price for that experience. The numerical growth was 14% switch in 2009 to 24% in 2010.
You can find the details in the volumes of the 10K report but as few here will find reading accounting sheets interesting, here is a link to the 4th qtr conference call. This is an hour long audio file and it addresses so many issues being bandied about here that It would pay for you to listen to the entire conference call.

http://web.servicebureau.net/conf/me...ate_ticker=RGC

This link is not permanent and has an expiration time.




Lee- when I go to an IMAX 3D the ticket cost differential is $4. If I do a regular 3D theater vs regular theater it has a "glasses 3D surcharge ( they call it) of $2.
Don Landis is offline  
post #1010 of 1824 Old 02-26-2011, 04:42 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 10,839
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 113
Quote:


From what I have seen of 3D it has been utilized as a gimmick, or shiny packaging. So it leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

That's because it IS a gimmick! It is an illusion, designed to entertain. Don't try to make anything more of it. There have been some small industrial uses of the technology that are designed to enhance presentation and education but currently that is not what we are using. If you are of the type that has to have serious purpose to everything that you need to stop with the home theater and do watch broadway plays in live theater for example.

Gimmicks are good! Entertainment is OK! I enjoy a good illusion!
Don Landis is offline  
post #1011 of 1824 Old 02-26-2011, 04:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joseph Dubin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,970
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Where is your proof that backs up that statement? We can't find it. How come did you? Show me one!



But THAT is exactly what you just did above. You have NO proof that 3D attendence dropped in 2010 yet you say it did.

So provide a link that SPECIFICALLY says; " 3D movie attendence dropped in 2010 versus/as compared to 2009."



No you haven't. NO ONE has. There has been a drop in TOTAL TICKETS SOLD (attendence) for 2010, but there is NOTHING that says that either there were less 3D tickets sold or that 3D attendence dropped in 2010.



Produce the whole article including the link. You have already proved you have misinterpreted data and what is being said.





THERE ARE NONE! There are NO 3D movie attendence stats available. You have to do some math to get to the answer.

Alright Lee, stop this nonsense. You seem like an intelligent individual but you are now talking silly and acting ridiculous by ignoring statements made by top level executives and reports from trade websites regarding the industry's insecure footing in this area. There is a reason for that apprehension of which they state in detail.

I only have myself to blame for still trying to have an intelligent conversation about business when after all that has been presented by industry representatives I'm still getting replies to "prove it", which is only reflects the behavior pattern of children. Those of you who understand what I am saying know that you are not the ones I am referring to and to you I would like to add it was fun exchanging thoughts about our adult "toys". It is time to say farewell for unfortunately, what is so often the case on open internet forums, there are those who have reduced this conversation to a juvenile level and to a point that it is causing me to make derogatory comments which I wouldn't otherwise be doing.
Joseph Dubin is offline  
post #1012 of 1824 Old 02-26-2011, 05:15 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Johnla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 11,510
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by twisted_oak View Post

From what I have seen of 3D it has been utilized as a gimmick, or shiny packaging. So it leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

Ever since the first 3D film was ever made, it's always been used pretty much as a gimmick.

Compared to what Roger Ebert just recently said at the end of his review for the movie "Drive Angry 3D", just calling it a gimmick would be a positive thing.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...IEWS/110229990

"Oh, and the 3D? For an extra charge you get to wear glasses that make it look like it was shot where the sun don't shine."




Contrary to what a lot of 3D fanatics/lovers here think, that 3D can do no wrong. The more crappy movies that they come out with in 3D, while also charging people extra to see it in 3D, is only going to serve to kill off this latest resurrection of 3D in theaters. And if it dies off in theaters, you can probably forget about any great amount of new content for your 3D TV's coming out as well. Although, it probably will survive in gaming.
Johnla is offline  
post #1013 of 1824 Old 02-26-2011, 05:34 PM
Moderator
 
CPanther95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 23,795
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnla View Post

Contrary to what a lot of 3D fanatics/lovers here think, that 3D can do no wrong. The more crappy movies that they come out with in 3D, while also charging people extra to see it in 3D, is only going to serve to kill off this latest resurrection of 3D in theaters. And if it dies off in theaters, you can probably forget about any great amount of new content for your 3D TV's coming out as well. Although, it probably will survive in gaming.

Only if the 3D movies are disproportionately bad ones. If Hollywood just has a high volume of bombs in general, theater attendance will continue to decline and the extra 3D revenue may be the only hope they have to stop the bleeding. If that happens, they'll push for more 3D content.
CPanther95 is offline  
post #1014 of 1824 Old 02-26-2011, 05:40 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Dubin View Post

Alright Lee, stop this nonsense. You seem like an intelligent individual but you are now talking silly and acting ridiculous by ignoring statements made by top level executives and reports from trade websites regarding the industry's insecure footing in this area. There is a reason for that apprehension of which they state in detail.

Have ANY of those execs said SPECIFICALLY that 3D attendence was down in 2010? You have yet to provide a link of any kind that says so. And when asked to provide one - you totally ignore the request, and then continue on with your fairy tale. Hey Joe - show me the LINK!

Quote:


I only have myself to blame for still trying to have an intelligent conversation about business when after all that has been presented by industry representatives I'm still getting replies to "prove it", which is only reflects the behavior pattern of children. Those of you who understand what I am saying know that you are not the ones I am referring to and to you I would like to add it was fun exchanging thoughts about our adult "toys". It is time to say farewell for unfortunately, what is so often the case on open internet forums, there are those who have reduced this conversation to a juvenile level and to a point that it is causing me to make derogatory comments which I wouldn't otherwise be doing.

Everyone provides proof of statement . . . except Joe. Joe says the proof is there but the link is gone. How convinent! Maybe it's located next to the Unicorn Farm link.
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #1015 of 1824 Old 02-26-2011, 05:50 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPanther95 View Post

Only if the 3D movies are disproportionately bad ones. If Hollywood just has a high volume of bombs in general, theater attendance will continue to decline and the extra 3D revenue may be the only hope they have to stop the bleeding. If that happens, they'll push for more 3D content.

2011 is off to a horrible start:

January Box Office Drops 25%

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...revenues-95303

How many 3D movies were released in Jan. 2011? One - THE GREEN HORNET
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #1016 of 1824 Old 02-26-2011, 06:53 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnla View Post

Ever since the first 3D film was ever made, it's always been used pretty much as a gimmick.

Compared to what Roger Ebert just recently said at the end of his review for the movie "Drive Angry 3D", just calling it a gimmick would be a positive thing.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...IEWS/110229990

"Oh, and the 3D? For an extra charge you get to wear glasses that make it look like it was shot where the sun don't shine."

It is well known that Roger Ebert totally dislikes 3D. So his negative comments are no surprise at all. And a crap movie is a crap movie whether it's in 2D or 3D. It isn't the 3D that makes it so. It's the writers and producers of said crap movie.

Quote:


Contrary to what a lot of 3D fanatics/lovers here think, that 3D can do no wrong. The more crappy movies that they come out with in 3D, while also charging people extra to see it in 3D, is only going to serve to kill off this latest resurrection of 3D in theaters. And if it dies off in theaters, you can probably forget about any great amount of new content for your 3D TV's coming out as well. Although, it probably will survive in gaming.

We got baseball in 3D. We got basketball in 3D. We got golf in 3D. We got IMAX 3D docs. We got video games in 3D. And we got a little 3D content provided by Hollywood.
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #1017 of 1824 Old 02-26-2011, 07:28 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Johnla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 11,510
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

It is well known that Roger Ebert totally dislikes 3D. So his negative comments are no surprise at all.

As opposed to you, a fanatic that can not seem to find any faults with it..

And BTW:
I'm sure most people consider Roger Ebert's opinion and creditability in a higher regard, certainly way more than they ever will yours!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

We got baseball in 3D. We got basketball in 3D. We got golf in 3D.

And unless the broadcasters of those sports can get enough extra revenue from advertiser so they can justify the expense of doing a 3D broadcast, you very well may lose some of those.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

We got IMAX 3D docs.

IMAX documentaries is, and always has been a niche market.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

We got video games in 3D. And we got a little 3D content provided by Hollywood.

Yawn... And again, 3D games have been out for quite awhile, same with Hollywood movies.

None of things you mentioned are a guarantee of continued success! If past history of 3D is any indication, it will be popular until the content providers can no longer get any extra money from doing 3D over 2D. And once they can't make the extra $$$ doing it, they will stop spending the extra money required to make the 3D content.
Johnla is offline  
post #1018 of 1824 Old 02-26-2011, 07:58 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnla View Post

As opposed to you, a fanatic that can not seem to find any faults with it..

Not true at all. I have discussed and brought forth a number of issues having to do with 3D. Ebert is the fanatic. He hates 3D. And he is very vocal about it.

Quote:


And BTW:
I'm sure most people consider Roger Ebert's opinion and creditability in a higher regard, certainly way more than they ever will yours!

Of course - I understand, the measure of a man's intelligence is if he agrees with you.

Quote:


And unless the broadcasters of those sports can get enough extra revenue from advertiser so they can justify the expense of doing a 3D broadcast, you very well may lose some of those.

Hasn't happened yet has it?

Quote:


IMAX documentaries is, and always has been a niche market.

Been around since 1986. Still going strong. And now you can see them on "broadcast" TV or buy them on 3D Bluray. Not just at an IMAX 3D theater.

Quote:


Yawn... And again, 3D games have been out for quite awhile, same with Hollywood movies.

LOL - Still here.

Quote:


None of things you mentioned are a guarantee of continued success! If past history of 3D is any indication, it will be popular until the content providers can no longer get any extra money from doing 3D over 2D. And once they can't make the extra $$$ doing it, they will stop spending the extra money required to make the 3D content.

Time will tell. But it is obvious that 3DTV is not solely depending on Hollywood movies for content.
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #1019 of 1824 Old 02-26-2011, 10:22 PM
 
vinnie97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Nunya
Posts: 11,657
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
Liked: 1010
Wow, Lee, keep up the fight. Your bullheadedness actually makes me all the more eager to see 3D fail, haha.
vinnie97 is offline  
post #1020 of 1824 Old 02-27-2011, 01:09 AM
Member
 
DamoSyzygy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 87
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Around 12-15% of the general population have trouble even seeing 3D, and I would suggest that these are people who will never see the advantage of paying extra for it.

3D is all well and good, but not if its used as an alternative to making a decent film, which seems to be the case recently!
DamoSyzygy is offline  
Reply Community News & Polls

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off