Monday, December 14, 2009

The Permanence of 3D, Part V

The skeptics can go back to sleep, because they lost the bet.

... The B.O. haul for 3D pics has swelled to $1.3 billion this year, and that's before 20th Century Fox opens James Cameron's 3D fantasy epic "Avatar" around the globe on Friday in the widest 3D release to date. This year's take marks a three-fold increase over 2008's roughly $307 million tally for 3D titles.

The spike supports the argument that the format is living up to its promise and boosting the overall bottom line thanks to the premium price charged for 3D titles ...

Nobody has to go out on a limb to predict Avatar will have a big opening. But Avatar cost a gazillion dollars, and so will have to make a gazillion and a half to get into profits.

Three dee animated features, on the other hand, can cost a whole lot less. Coraline came in at $70 million, and Dawn of the Dinosaurs was a mere $90 million. And it seems to pay off.

Disney/Pixar's "Up" ... has grossed a worldwide total of $683 million. ... "Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs" ... cumed a ... worldwide total of $883.7 million ...


By 2019, how many features won't be 3-D?. Not many.


Anonymous said...

"By 2019, how many features won't be 3-D?. Not many."

I wonder what the 3D in a romcom will be like and who will pay extra to see it in a theater for that?

Alishea said...

do you think if handdrawn goes away for a few years that it can make a comeback? Like a retro fad?

Steve Hulett said...

Hand drawn can do fine. Look at "Simpsons, the Movie."

It's a matter of having a good story and characters and not spending $200 million on it.

Anonymous said...

I think Alishea is confusing "3D" and "CG"

But yeah, Avatar should not be the baseline for cost of filmmaking. JC is known for being ridiculously wasteful yet still exuberant in every area of production

Site Meter