US should do something similar to what theaters in Hong Kong did: offer free 3D glasses to keep during a certain period, after that, you pay for a new set of glasses if you don't have it.

Or do this:

"Seems like there is an easy solution to all this. Next time moviegoers go see a 3D movie, just hold on to your free 3D glasses. This way when Sony tries to charge for a pair when you go see "The Amazing Spider-Man" or "Men in Black 3," you won't need to pay for glasses."

No free 3D glasses...

No. If you don't have glasses with you, buy it at the theater, or watch without glasses if you so prefer. Doesn't matter what one assumes.

Just saying, if one insist on not buying glasses.

Why the fuck would someone willingly see a 3D movie without glasses?

If 3D prices sky rocket less people will go to the 3D version, or maybe to the theater at all.

How much do the glasses cost to manufacture? 10¢?

I'm sure moviegoers would rather pay for their glasses than the current $3 - $5 3D premium charged by theatres.

Of course, that's assuming that moviegoers stupid enough to see dull and dark 3D movies in the first place are capable of applying reasoning to a situation. So I wouldn't be surprised to see them demanding designer name glasses that they pay a premium for.

Bradley would, to get a brighter picture.

I just heard a blurb on this subject and apparently the cost of the glasses is on top of the price of movie and it certainly wouldn't cost the moviegoer 10 cents. Probably more like 1.00 or more on top of the extra ticket cost.

I think they should just have each moviegoer turn in the glasses just like the Imax glasses and a particular 3D eyewear that is one size fit all. Personally, I didn't like either of those glasses, but if they can just have people turn in the cheapo ones rather than relying on the moviegoer to do it then the problem should be solved.

I didnt know theaters didnt charge for glasses in the US. Here they charge $1-$1.50 per pair. You can always bring them back with you next time but I doubt many do.

The premium for 3D should certainly be cut.

I went to see Thor on a Tueasday (half price tickets for all films). I didnt want to see it in 3D but the only session we could make it to was in 3D. Ended up that the 3D sessions are not half price hence I had to pay $22 per ticket as opposed to $8-$9 in 2D which was my preference regardless of the cost!!

There you have it folks - - having to pay a 275% premium to be forced to see unwanted 3D.

RIP 3D

The 3D conversion of TITANIC costs $18m!

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/j ... nic-254758

Titanic 3D preview reactions...



Can't wait to join in on the weeping!

Just be sure to attend a 2D screening of the re-release - - who needs those damned glasses getting in the way of a good cry!

Check out Martin Scorsese in full prostitution mode!



Have you ever seen anything so shameless?


(Fortunately, Hugo seems to be playing on a full slate of 2D screens!)

Let's see...Hugo (3D)...Muppets...Arthur Christmas (3D)...
...Who picked the release date??? Hugo (maybe) has the Scorsese followers, but then who?

JJ Abrams joined the prostitutes...

3D a prostitution

Heh - - that is a quality burn!

It's funny because it's true - - and this next Star Trek movie can only be the weaker for 3D.

Roger Ebert posted the following on his Facebook page today:


Here's the full link at Screen Trade Magazine:

There's an article at BoingBoing discussing this same issue pointed out by Ebert, and one of the comments raised an interesting theory about one possible use of 3D:

The amount of 3D tickets sold has been greatly lower than 2D tickets in 2009 / 2010 as well. Nothing new.

3D share for 3D movies is the same on average as last summer.

This year just happen to has a Batman sequel and Hunger Games breaking out. You're reading too much into it.

Hobbit will be number 1 of the year. Bank on it!

I don't like (at all) what's being implied in the links posted by Bradley. But I don't think that's going to happen.

I have only seen SW1 this year in 3D. Only because 2D option wasn't available (obviously) and because I wanted to see it in theaters again. I thought about seeing JC in 3D, but Nazgul enlightened me that it wasn't filmed in 3D (which I thought it was and was willing to see it for that fact) so I skipped it. I don't plan on seeing any 3D movies this year though. Scratch that. I'll see Piranha 3DD. But other than that can't think of any other movie coming out in 3D that would get my money (not that I even know what movies are even coming out in 3D, I was sure THG will get a 3D release as well, so what do I know).

I think TASM is being shot in 3D, so that might be a fun movie to watch unless the camerawork there is not for you....

How's that different from last year?


People are mainly bitching because of the surcharge, people are cheap, bargain hunting is huge. As long as they will charge an additional fee, it's not gonna replace 2D. But it can coexist just fine. Pretty much everything has different price points, why not movie tickets? A TV analogy, the majority doesn't find spending a few 1000 bucks for a 50+ inch TV worth it, they buy a 40 inch TV and are happy and that's fine. But some people want more.