Originally Posted by FilmReverie
Your entire pov is flawed,
A "pov" is an opinion, it cannot be flawed. You may disagree with it, but it cannot be flawed. For example, I think your "POV" is ridiculous, but I don't see it as being flawed."
but your ignoring that you said in no uncertain terms that it was costing them every session. You are wrong, Gravity is a great example for that.
Actually, I seem to have said "every weekend." Not sure where you read something else, but perhaps I missed it re-reading all the above posts. If Gravity, which had a relatively solid open, was strong enough to be the exception, it's still the exception that proves the rule. So 51 of 52 weekends, 3-D cost theaters money this year. Well, woohoo.
You also ignore the fact that 3d screens are so limited so many people who want to see a film in 3d but don't want to or can't go in the first week or two are often forced to see the film in 2d at that stage. But I guess that just couldn't happen as it isn't like there are limited 3d screens or anything.
It's 100% the opposite in the U.S. People explicitly choose
the 2-D most of the time, but some are forced
into the 3-D because the 2-D is sold out or the 3-D is at their preferred showtime. You know this to be true because basically Pacific Rim at 50% of box office (and therefore fewer than 50% of tickets sold in 3-D) was the highest
3-D attach rate this year before Gravity. I had done an earlier post showing how many screens were showing the movies in 3-D and it's often half, even though only about 25-40% of the tickets are being sold in 3-D. This fully exposes the lie of your claim that people are being shut out of the 3-D showing.
Incidentally, with Gravity, it's mostly available in 3-D in the U.S. (as many 3-D-offered films are offered abroad). You don't really have the chance to see it in 2-D as much. That helps guarantee the high 3-D take rate (and the high box office so long as people went to see it). I'm not sure Gravity proves a damn thing about the popularity of 3-D. In fact, I think it proves almost the opposite. It's essentially a better Avatar. "If you make a solid movie that happens to exploit 3-D really well, people will come." Maybe that overstates how solid Avatar was or sells Gravity short as a film, irrespective of its 3-Dness. But, like, I saw Hugo in 3-D after all the hype here. The 3-D was amazing. The film was... not. We'll go to Gravity tomorrow -- in 3-D, of course. I hope to still remember it 3 months from now.
The 3-D in everything else this year -- Iron Man, Star Trek, Pacific Rim, Superman -- was so forgettable, it was offensive to pay for. But worse, it did the medium no favors. No one was talking about any of it. It makes movie going more expensive and movie going is a flat-lining business. It's selling slightly fewer tickets most years at higher prices. That's a very unhealthy way to stay around for the next 20 years. It's relying on growing outside the U.S., but the movies are still mostly made here. Not a good formula.