Monday, March 30, 2009

FORUM: What Price Are You Willing To Pay For 3-D...


This last weekend saw the release of a big time animated film, Monsters vs. Aliens. Not only did the cast bring in the 58.6 million bucks that it's opening weekend had, it had a little bump from the animations best friend, 3-D. However, your 12$ ticket for a 3-D film may be bumped up a little bit.

Back in December, a summit was held for people in the world of 3-D film-making and animation. While I didn't bother to report on this news the day it was reported in Variety, I think that this film, along with a discussion brought up by First Showing, I think it's interesting to note.

One of the keynote speakers at the summit was Jeffery Katzenberg of Dreamworks Animation. During his speech, he brought up just how much 3-D will cost you and me.

DreamWorks Animation's Jeffrey Katzenberg, a consistent evangelist for 3-D, kicked off the event with a morning keynote and conversation with event organizer Bob Dowling. Katzenberg said no innovation in decades has had greater possibilities for enhancing movies.

The format "offers a premium experience and has the consumer paying a premium price," said Katzenberg, adding that he expects DreamWorks Animation to charge a $5 premium for 3-D on its releases, beginning with "Monsters vs. Aliens" in 2009.


So, what are you willing to pay for 3-D? I think that my opinion is based on two things. One, how the 3-D is used. If it's simply the gimmick style, where things are popping out at you and you get a feel that the filmmaker simply placed the film around the 3-D style, it's not something I want to see. If you have a more "window" style, where the frame gets a stark sense of depth and feel, allowing for a more immersing experience, then I will pay a little bit more for my ticket. It's like how people who have been talking about seeing Pixar's Up and that films use of the 3-D technology.

Second, the films have to be very good, or allow for a fun film going experience. Look at My Bloody Valentine. That is an awful film, horribly acted, terribly directed, but when you see that film in 3-D, while it may be a more gimmick filled film, if you are with a group of friends, you have one hell of a fun time. Then you have great films like Coraline, where not only is it a window style of film, but is a truly great piece of cinema, that I could support a bit of an increase in ticket prices.

So, that gets me to my question. How much are YOU willing to pay for 3-D? What are your thoughts on the format? Gimmick or a revolution? Annoying or something that will bring you back to the theatre?

Go see something good!

2 comments:

  1. i think 3d is a little annoying. like coraline, it was a great movie, no doubt about it, but the 3d got old really fast. my eyes couldn't focus on anything and it gives me a headache. i don't think we should have to pay anymore for it, it's a movie and those are already obnoxiously expensive as is. :/
    i hope everyone gets over it, i find it annoying.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't know. I personally think that, instead of simply a gimmick, some films are trying to strive for something a tad bit more. Take Up for example. Early screenings have come out huge in favor of the 3D, and instead of a gimmick or annoying feel, it's more of a window style of 3D, allowing for more things and action within the added depth of the frame. To me, it depends on the film and how it is used.

    ReplyDelete

Your number one spot for a daily dose of movie information. From reviews to top 10's to random news and notes, it's all here at I Are Movies.

Total Pageviews

There was an error in this gadget