So 3D films make lots of money...but will it last?

By Sarah Sluis

2010 is the year of the 3D deluge. Last year started out small, with an evenly-spaced array of movies like Coraline, Monsters vs. Aliens, and Up. Then there was Avatar, the movie that brought 3D to the masses. Those who hadn't viewed any of the 3D movies in niche genres like animation, horror, or concerts turned out for their first 3D experience en masse. ShoWest this year wasn't even about selling the idea of digital and 3D conversion to exhibitors. The consensus has already been reached, and now everyone's just trying to figure out how to switch over as fast as they can.

This weekend, up to four 3D movies will be in the top ten--and that's with a huge lack of 3D screens, which can't be installed fast enough to keep up with demand. But Clash of the Titans' entrance into the marketplace will be a dilution of the 3D experience that could threaten the model of 3D. Like Alice in Wonderland, another movie I was thoroughly disappointed in, Clash of the Titans went 3D in post-production, which gives the 3D a schlocky look without any of the artistry that comes from incorporating 3D sequences from the beginning. When you start devaluing the 3D experience, people won't be willing to pay for it. I don't mind paying a little extra for 3D, but if people start catching on to the fact that some movies are being released in 3D purely for the $3+ ticket price hike, there will be resistance. Already, I've heard many people in New York comment on the exorbitant prices to see movies in 3D IMAX, where tickets in Manhattan go for $19.50. Usually, complaints come in the form of "I could do X for that..." In New York, people can see live shows for less.

3D ticket prices are also going up. According to Variety, not only have exhibitors recently hiked 3D prices, they have done so unevenly, with AMC supposedly raising prices for Alice in Wonderland "just $3" compared to other 3D movies. I would support varied 3D pricing based on whether or not the movie is authored in 3D, but it's an unusual precedent to set. However, this may be just a limited test. Pricing was consistent across films when I checked AMC prices on Fandango: A non-3D movie like The Last Song went for $12.50, 3D screens showing How to Train Your Dragon and Alice in Wonderland were retailing for $17.50, and the "3D IMAX Experience" of How to Train Your Dragon went for $19.50.

The Wall Street Journal has also commented on the 3D craze, with one astute film historian, Peter Decherney, predicting that 3D films will decrease once film studios figure out how to monetize Internet revenue, just as 3D films in the 1950s disappeared once studios embraced television instead of viewing it as competition. That's the best historically-grounded argument I've heard about the future of 3D to date. While I think the 3D medium is sound and here to stay, it will only be produced as long as audiences are willing to pay for it--and I'm not willing to bet on the whims of American public just yet.

There's still over twenty 3D movies left in the 2010 slate, so there will be plenty of examples to see how 3D hashes out over the remainder of the year.

Clash of the Tentpoles: 'Avatar,' �Alice,' �Titans' and �Dragon' compete for 3D screens

By Sarah Sluis

Three Oscar-nominated movies this year released in 3D: Best Picture nominees Avatar and Up, and Best Animated Feature nominee Coraline (Up also received a nomination in that category). 3D has arrived not only at the multiplex but the most prestigious awards ceremony in film.

Too bad there aren't enough screens to show these movies in 3D.

Just when distributors and exhibitors finally ironed out an agreement that would allow them to share the cost of digital upgrades, the recession hit. Though the film industry remains in good shape, in part because of the conversions to the higher-priced screens that did happen, production of 3D films exceeds theatrical capacity. Wide releases need thousands of screens, and right now there's only room for one film at a time.

Last year, Coraline had to compete with My Bloody Valentine 3D for early 2009 spots in 3D screens. This year, behemoth Avatar will have to cede to Tim Burton's 3D fantasy Alice in Wonderland. With Avatar still selling out 3D theatres, especially in IMAX, there's talk of extending Avatar's run. According to a New York Times article on the subject, there have been talks to allow Avatar to continue playing for midnight screenings (which presumably would be less popular for the PG-rated Alice) as a compromise.

The crowding doesn't end there. Just this week, Warner Bros. announced it has converted Clash of the Titans, a Greek mythology-inspired action movie, to 3D. That means the movie will step on the toes of How to Train Your Dragon, a (charming!) DreamWorks animation tale. Though the studio changed Clash of the Titans' release date from March 26th to April 2nd, Titatns will now grab some screens from Dragon just a week after the movie releases.

But, wait, there's more! Because of the low cost of converting a 2D film to 3D ($5 million or so), tons of big-budget films have jumped on the bandwagon. The last two Harry Potter movies will definitely be in 3D, as will Cats and Dogs 2. Despite Transformers 3's looming deadline, there are talks of converting the movie to 3D in post-production. What started out with animation studios like Pixar and DreamWorks Animation, who committed to produce all their upcoming films in 3D, has turned into a format almost every genre is rushing to embrace. Get ready to make 3D glasses standard eyewear at the movies.

Studios rattle the DVD windows

By Sarah Sluis

How long should a movie be out of the picture between its theatrical run and its DVD debut?

When I was growing up, that time period between theatrical release and home video release could be agonizing. Some movies were "must-sees" in theatres, and others I could wait to rent at the video store, but a lot of them fell in between. I frequently missed seeing a movie in a theatre, because there were simply too many other good films out or I didn't have enough time (I also had a thing against seeing a movie once it had been out for months--you might as well just wait to see it at home).

Now, this same theatrical window that vexed me as a child is causing exhibitors and studios to draw their swords once again. While exhibitors want to maintain a long window to preserve the

sacredness of theatrical release, studios want to make money on the

pent-up demand caused by a film going dark--being unavailable in

theatres or on DVD--for a few months. A month ago, Sony's decision to make the film Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs available earlier for those that bought a special Sony television led exhibitors to pull the film from their theatres. Even as studios are trying to release films on DVD earlier, they're also fighting RedBox, which rents new releases for $1. They're in the odd position of trying to break new ground in one area and preserve the status quo in another.

Most of the studios' home-grown proposals for shorter windows involve charging a premium for the privilege of seeing a movie in this "in-between" time--up to $50 for in-home viewing. I don't buy that this will work. I personally would never see a film for such a high price tag, not even if I were one of the targeted demographics, living in a "geographically isolated" area with an expansive brethren and laid out with a bad back. The stereotype in my head of the perfect family for this proposal, The Duggar Family of TLC's "18 Kids and Counting", would never spring for a $50 rental, even though it would cost them $200 to go to a movie theatre. This is the same family that has a recipe for discount laundry detergent on their website. I think theatres are overestimating the value of their product, especially in a market saturated with media choices (why not just surf Hulu for free?). Plus, going to a theatre has a unique value of its own: there are fewer distractions, a bigger image, and the enjoyment of seeing a picture with an audience, to name a few reasons. While seeing a film at home shortly after its theatrical release may present a value for large groups, the only thing justifying the price point is being able to see a movie in sync with its water cooler hype. You still miss out on the fun of going out to the movies.

The fight on both ends is far from over. Just today, the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp., which receives donations from film studios, released a study that was proposed by an "unnamed" guild, saying that cheap DVD rentals will cost the region thousands of jobs. While the special interests close to the study make its findings suspect, it shows how seriously film studios are taking this threat, and the lengths that they will go to fight it.