If it's crap ... We'll tell you
Source: Los Angeles Times
What should be paid to see a 3D movie? Traditionally, theater-goers have paid about $3 more to see a movie in 3-D, on top of already high ticket prices. However, would you still go see a 3-D movie if you had to pay for the glasses too?
According to the Los Angeles Times, there exists a rift between movie studios and the theater owners, brought on by a disagreement between two major companies in the movie business: Sony Pictures, and Regal Entertainment Group. Sony announced Wednesday that by May 1, 2012, it will no longer pay 3-D technology companies such as RealD the average 45 cents per ticket for the 3-D glasses. The 45 cents isn't chump change though- 45 cents per ticket can add up to more than $10 million for popular movies. Regal Entertainment Group, which includes Regal Cinemas, United Artists Theaters and Edwards Theaters, threatened not to play certain movies in retaliation.
However, Sony has proposed a solution: pass the cost of the glasses onto us, the consumer. We either buy or rent the glasses for the movie (on top of the cost to see the movie in 3-D), which we can take home or drop off in a bin so they can be cleaned and used again. This is a common practice in places over the world. In Europe, the glasses are bought at the concession stand while in China, the glasses are rented out and then returned for a refundable deposit. However, in other countries, like in Latin America, the studios pay for the glasses.
So far, companies like RealD, who make the glasses, are staying out of the scuffle.
To some members of Spill, 3-D is a bane to the theater-going experience: it makes the ticket prices more expensive, the 3-D effect usually is not done well, it makes the screen darker, it encourages spectacle over storytelling... the list of complaints goes on. Thus I put it to the members of this site: Would you pay to go see a 3-D movie if you had to pay for the glasses as well as the $3 surcharge for 3-D movies? Could this be the end of the 3-D fad? Or is it a sign that going to the movies is going to be even more expensive next year?