The media just will not stop with the attacks! - Page 2

Jedi- This is not new. Published "facts" have been twisted forever.

"There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics." Mark Twain

Back in the 80's when I would believe anything on the news as "fact based" I happened to be delivering one of my freelance news stories I did on artificial reefs to a local TV station, I saw a sign hanging up in the news director's office. It read- "NEVER LET THE FACTS GET IN THE WAY OF A GOOD STORY. YOUR JOB DEPENDS ON RATINGS. A GOOD STORY GETS GOOD RATINGS." That sign changed the way I viewed the news from that moment on. There are those who know the facts and understand their agenda when they manipulate the facts to promote it, and then those who believe that because it is in print, or that the print is from a big news source there was no agenda and it is pure truth.

I think Lee is a 3D enthusiast who has no faith in his own ability to gather basic facts from observation and form his own opinion. His conclusion is based on his observation of selected "GOOD STORIES" in the media.

Take the statistic he posted above as an example- The first thing that caught my eye was the top of the chart " 3D Revenue Martketshares ( Opening Weekend)"

Then I looked at the chart. Assuming the statistician didn't actually fudge the data, I may conclude that the most popular movie in 3D of all time was "Piranha" a 2D to 3D conversion. My first conflict here is how come the people never mention that 2D conversion is more popular than true 3D? That is a conclusion based on that chart and the revenue of first weekend shares if I use an isolated criteria for my data. Similarly, I may do a story based on one isolated first weekend revenue share that Piranha is a more popular story than Avatar. But, how come there is vary little said about Piranha and much about Avatar? Hmmm... maybe revenue share is not a good basis for answering these questions. Or, maybe a single opening weekend of data is too limited to draw a good conclusion. More importantly, it is a very poor statistical study to determine if an industry genre is growing or dying

I think revenue share on an opening weekend is a great tool to determine what works when your study is to determine advertising budget impact on ticket sales, genre to select for first weekend ticket sales in the theater, and maybe whether the initial draw is best achieved by a sensational realistic disaster story as opposed to a far fetched sci fi.
Then I would want to know- how much revenue did these movies generate entirely over their life span as a average per month and the revenue generated in later years through the residuals and after market products if my interest is what will generate a long ROI.
It would be a tough call for me to determine if 3D is progressing nicely in a growth study comparing one era to another or by comparing an isolated qtr report now vs a year ago or if the genre's time has gone by comparing a single weekend ticket sales of new movies.
To determine if 3D is dying, I would prefer to see the gross revenue being spent on all things 3D vs. all things not 3D. If the 3D aggregate has a positive slope in the plot, then the 3D genre is a growth trend, and if the slope is negative then the genre is dying.
Edited by Don Landis - 7/19/12 at 12:33am

Don:

You have truly entered the realm of "Analysis Paralysis." It's a shame too because all you would have had to do was some research on your own to answer the endless questions you post, trying to give the impression that said questions have any real meaning in the Grand Scheme of Things. In other words - present some facts instead of trying to cast doubt on those already presented. That's nothing more than a cheap shyster trick used in a court of law, not on a hobby based forum.

If you had done just a tiny bit of research, you wouldn't have made the blunder of picking PIRANHA as the top 3D earner. It was released in theaters almost exclusively in 3D. Something you didn't even consider in your analysis - which just proves you known less then you profess to. Asking questions doesn't accomplish as much as providing answers. So . . . YOU got any concrete data that proves 3D is growing? Let's see it!
Edited by Lee Stewart - 7/19/12 at 7:44am

How was Blu-Ray doing after 3 years (or HD media in general)? If the studios keep pumping out 3D BDs then 3D will gain traction slowly but surely. If we had a really good 2D to 3D conversion box then I wouldn't really care how 3D does because I'd just convert 2D to 3D. The 2D zealots would have nothing to complain about except for the fact that those who like 3D would still be enjoying it and that alone would probably upset them.

They are releasing 3D BDs at a snails pace. Have you noticed that neither Netflix nor Redbox rent them?

You're the first one*, that I know of to ever call me a shyster, or accuse me of pulling shyster lawyer tricks. I'm not even sure what that is? To the clueless out there, my Piranha example was pulled from your list of data and only because it was at the top of the list. If it was only released in 3D how the heck is that chart accurate if it is listed at 95%. Obviously this is way to complicated for you to understand. But something happened to the 5%. Then there are others examples of movies too such as Jackass that did better than Avatar. For my post to have meaning to you do I need to write an entire book listing every data point?

Lee, there is lots of real world evidence that 3D is a growing impact on our hobby of home theater. Frankly, I don't understand how you can claim to be a 3D enthusiast and not see that. You are the first person who claims to be an enthusiast and can't see that we have far more 3D products today than we did a year ago, than we did 2 years ago but if you are selecting this week vs a particular busy week in the recent past then you are guilty of carefully selecting your data to support your myth.

I'm not going to do your homework for you. I don't need to convince anyone that the world is not in 3D progress mode, even with the souring economy. But I'll give you a hint- Go check out LG, Samsung, and Panasonic and get the % of TV's they plan to do in 2013 vs what they did in 2012 vs what they did in 2011. I believe, unless there was some new info from Samsung that LG will have the largest % of 3D ready TV's in 2013.

* Actually there is another but his claim was a bit different claiming that ESPN will go off the air, pulling the 3D channel by July this year. He was running around claiming that up until it didn't happen. Most of his friends who know better are still laughing at his foolishness. Pretty hard to close it down when they just got a big boost in 3D production budget for next year. Of course nobody ever asks, we all just forget the negative Nancys, and gloom and doom FUD purveyors. Will you remain a Negative Nancy in 10 years when every TV is 3D capable and most movies released in #D are available in Home 3D format too?

You like to post 3D gloom and doom stories- Here's one:

Just two stories posted on news services on the internet. As I said earlier, while these stories are plentiful, the Negative Nancys and FUD purveyors seem to get all the attention. I generally don't seek out either type of story, especially those with pretty charts to paint either a positive or negative agenda. Instead, I prefer the SEC reports as I invest in the stocks of these companies. I need honest data from the accountants, not some FUD blogger and certainly not some 3D negative alarmist who claims to be a 3D enthusiast on some mysterious agenda.

I'm very happy with the progress these past 3 years in the 3D product line development, the movies growth numbers released, and outlook for the future. I'm comfortably invested in companies that are involved in 3D future! Lee show me where George Lucas is ending future plans to do 3D, John Cameron, Disney and others and I'll show you Don selling his stock. But I will still enjoy my 3D.

OK this is my last post in this thread. As they say you can have the last word and continue to try to convince the world will end on Dec 21st too for all I care. I just think you are completely misinformed on this and I have no idea why. When the discussion begins to turn to names like shyster, I used negative Nancy, it's time to call it a day and turn to do something constructive like help someone with Vegas 3D editing or shooting. This thread has nothing constructive about it and IMO is beneath the integrity of AVS Forum! I'm sorry to have posted here.

I don't take a great deal of notice of falling 3D ticket sales versus 2D sales for the same movie.
Inevitably the sales will fall as people with a mild curiosity in 3D, the less well off and people who just don't get on with 3D cease to buy tickets.

I couldn't care less about a few extra bucks to see a movie in 3D, I love 3D and its a price worth paying. Others just don't think its worth it. The drop in tickets sales may reflect that to a certain degree.

I think the numbers will settle down and 3D ticket sales will level off, are already doing so in fact. But I don't think interest in 3D will fall to zero and when you consider the healthy profit 3D ticket sales continue to earn studios, even with just 30% of movie goers opting for the 3D version, it isn't about to disappear.

You might not but Hollywood sure does. That influences potential 3D productions in the future.

Sure - there is resistance to paying the 3D ticket premium. The economy is a long way from being recovered yet Hollywood has done nothing to acknowledge this. And they continue to do more and more 2D to 3D conversions which consumers feel is not worth the premium.

30% of movie goers buying 3D tickets would result in a 3D revenue % of 37%. BRAVE had a % of 32% which means less than 30% of the total ticket sales were 3D

Stop bringing up Brave. Or any other family/children's film, for that matter. 3D sales of them have dropped off because kids won't keep those god-awful glasses on for an hour and a half, not because of waning interest from the parents. Do you take your kids age 5-7 to 3D films? Do they keep the glasses on all the time? Or do you just skip the hassle and go to the 2D version instead, like everyone else? I saw Prometheus in 3D. I saw Brave in 2D.

There's also not a tremendous investment of money or time in a 3D CGI film, as the process is significantly easier and cheaper than either converting or shooting a live-action 3D film. The only real cost is render time, which is financially negligible compared to the overall production costs. Lower 3D ticket sales in that environment don't take the financial hit of an expensive 3D shoot or high-end conversion that flops.

So for the sake of argument, let's keep it to live-action films, either native or converted, where the audience is given a straight-up choice of format, without outside influences like trying to figure out ways of super-gluing 3D glasses onto the face of a five year old. What was the percentage on Prometheus again?

If you're going to quote statistics, especially here of all places, quote ALL of them, not just the handful that support your theory, especially when the reasons for those numbers are not what you think they are.

Well I guess this chart prertty much shoots down your argument.



I don't know where you are getting your information from but suffice it to say, you are totally wrong. BRAVE had a production budget of $185 MILLION

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=bearandthebow.htm

OBTW - that's $55 million MORE than PROMETHEUS's $130 million budget.

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=prometheus.htm

PROMETHEUS = 52% It beat MADAGASCAR 3's 45% -They opened the same weekend

Sorry - no cherry picking - they ALL count. So would you like to make some additional arguments? Better check your data BEFORE you make ignorant statements.
Edited by Lee Stewart - 7/20/12 at 7:23pm

And how much of that was spent to make it 3D? I wasn't referring to overall cost, I was referring to the cost of stereoscopic rendering, and the "lost" money by the lack of 3D ticket sales, which is directly proportional to the amount of money spent to make the film 3D in the first place. Which in this case is pretty much nothing. Rendering stereoscopically in a CG environment is as simple as flipping a switch (and, if you wanted to get technical, sitting down with your cinematographer for a day or two to iron out separation and convergence for each shot). Any extra income from 3D ticket sales was pretty much automatic profit at that point because there was no "extra cost" to recoup. The point of which is that a slight dip in 3D ticket sales, for reasons I've already given, doesn't really mean much in the overall scheme of how much money the movie makes. In other words, no one cares. Except those trying to "prove" that 3D is dying.

And there's no need to CAPITALIZE THE FILM'S TITLE. It's just Brave.

I'm starting to wonder what side you're on here. You seem to be stuck on Brave as an example of why 3D is dying, and yet you post information pointing out quite clearly that it's not. Are you pro-3D or anti-3D? I often wonder why anti-3D people even bother coming to this particular section of AVS.

I see you like to add all kinds of caveats in an attempt to prop up your arguments. That just shows how weak they really are. Why should the cost to produce 3D mean anything in relationship to the % of revenue collected from 3D/2D tickets? That cost no matter whether it is rendering, converting or native shooting is tiny compared to the overall production budget + marketing costs.

And it isn't a "slight dip" as you claim. This has been going on in theaters for quite some time. The fact that BRAVE hit an all time low is definitely noteworthy, especially as it has been very successful at the NA BO:

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=bearandthebow.htm

That would not be correct:

http://answers.reference.com/information/terminology/how_do_you_punctuate_a_movie_title

Oh . . . I wasn't aware there were "sides" when it came to 3D

In answer to your question - I have a 3DTV and 3D BD player. I go see 3D movies in the theaters. But that doesn't change what is happening at the BO does it? I can be objective versus anti or pro 3D as you put it. I am not here to promote 3D. That is for each person to decide. I am simply showing the facts which you seem to have issue with.

There are two "forces" at play with 3D movies; people's desire to see a 3D movie and people's willingness to pay the premium theaters are charging for 3D movies. And IMO, they are at odds with each other. And that IMO is what is causing the downturn in the % from 3D tickets. It just isn't as important as it was a few years ago. Look at last year:


Edited by Lee Stewart - 7/20/12 at 10:06pm

Wow.. did you actually read that article you posted? Allow me a brief moment of instruction: The phrase "to capitalize" in this instance refers only to the first letter of a word, such as with a proper name, or the first word of a sentence. This word is capitalized, while this one is not. Only the "B" in Brave is capitalized, not the entire word. Welcome to the internet, typing in all caps is generally accepted as yelling.

As for the rest.. clearly you either don't understand what I'm referring to, or more likely, you simply don't want to. You post graphs that prove my point just as well as yours, and yet you refuse to see even that much. I'm done. You can keep rattling your saber if you like, I'll be over here rolling my eyes.

I would agree with all of the above.

There is a sufficient number of cinema goers who are drawn to 3D, and don't mind paying a small price premium for it, to support the continued production and showing of 3D movies into the foreseeable future. (I personally love it. I have never been to the cinema as frequently as since the introduction of "The New 3D".)

Sales are not falling off the side of a cliff:

Considering Olympic's decision to air some sports and events in 3D means that it has not burst yet. We know for a fact that TV manufacturers are coming up with different ways to boost the declining 3D excitement like Google teaming up with Sony and LG for the Google TVs, LG developed a 3D (FPR) that makes the glasses light and affordable, Vizio, LG, Samsung, Sony, and Panasonic are embellishing their smart TV system with the latest entertainment apps.

And Nintendo's making glasses-free 3D somewhat mainstream and are touting the increased 3D quality as a primary selling point of the 3DS XL. And here I thought Nintendo had given up on 3D- that's what the media was saying..

The word attack is too big for this statement. It should like the media (especially CNN) will not stop dramatizing things that are not even problematic. I still find the competition of 3D TVs healthy. People nowadays are more informed of the type of 3D whether it's passive or active. Like whenever other TV experts talk about passive LG always first comes into my mind while Sony and Samsung for active. Stuff like that.

TV makers know that many people consider 3D as a novelty so another feature in the name of smart TV or viera connect of Panasonic came into existence.

Yahoo weighs in and brands 3D TV as one of the biggest flops of 2012:

Link to Video

I don't agree, but I also see how a 3% penetration would cause them to see it this way. What I want to see are numbers on 3D Blu Ray sales (copies sold) to see if it is making an impact for the studios. If it is not, it may not last long term. Then again, with the $$ invested, they may have to stay with it.

I will say that this makes me think before adding another 3D set to my household, but I'll keep my 3D projector for sure.

Talking about flops, does anyone use Yahoo anymore?

Good point!

However most of yahoo content is in partnership with ABC news, but you might make the same statement about them...