My. It isn't 1953, is it? When Cinemascope rode in and stole the "hot new format" crown from the View Master contingent. No wonder the congloms like stereo viewing.
There is a huge advantage to 3D screens, which can outperform a regular screen 3:1. For example, the 3D screen count for "Monsters vs. Aliens" repped only 20% of the total, yet accounted for 43% of the total gross. Similarly, Fox's "Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs" earned $240 million of its massive $682 million global B.O. from 3D screens, which repped only a fraction of the screen count.
Kind of makes me think that Christmas Carol and Avatar are going to do a little bit of all right at the upcoming derbies.
Also makes me think that DreamWorks Animation is going to have some major winners on its hands next year, when there are going to be a lot more 3-D screens than there are now.
Posts
3 comments:
I like 3D, but not necessarily because of the 3D aspect, but because its digitally projected. Makes a huge difference in my opinion (and worth the money), especially since the majority of 3D films are computer generated anyway, so its in its native format.
I bet a lot of the high-performing 3D screen dollars are just dollars that would have gone to the 2D screens otherwise.
When every screen is a 3D screen they're going to find that the grosses aren't 3X higher.
And some day, 3D will turn a profit. It's taken far longer than they originally said it will. Will be helped by Avatar, no doubt, but it'll still be 5 or more years before it turns a real profit.
Post a Comment