2012: A Monster Year? (box office predictions) - Part 5

[Bruce Malone]

Shouldn't be in doubt. $1B is locked for Skyfall.

While i wasn't as big a fan of it as some people. The potential of two purely 2d released films making $1 billion dollars each this year, is good news for those not fans of the 3d post-conversion movement.

 

[Liam_H]

Doesn't really mean anything, if TDKR and Skyfall were in 3D they could have made even more money.

 

[Bruce Malone]

True but it helps with giving directors more clout in saying whether they want it in 3d or not.

The billion dollar threshold is still a big mark of achievement/bragging right for studios and between TDK and TDKR the only films to hit that mark have all been in 3D. The idea that a film can still cross a billion without 3D (which does have added costs itself) would work in the favor of directors dealing with studios.

 

[jmc]

^ Thing with the billion dollar mark is that with a 3D boost it's kinda like bragging about winning a foot race with a one legged person. It's more impressive to me that Skyfall hits a billion dollars then say Transformers. It's proof that good film making will produce good results regardless of 3D, except I wish studios would see that.

 

[terry78]

^While I disagree with that statement since it diminishes all the excellent flicks that were kind of forced to be in 3D or chose to do it for artistic purposes, that will never happen until 3D constantly fails. But not enough of that has happened.

 

[jmc]

It will in time, eventually it will fade because frankly outside of a few directors no-one is using it to enhance the experience, it's a money grab and people will eventually come around to seeing it as rubbish and a waste of time.

 

[chaseter]

I thought 3D was a gimmick too but it's not going anywhere...it is here to stay. The theaters and movie studios have invested too much into it and people are still seeing 3D movies.

 

[Liam_H]

Until people are actively refusing to see 3D movies even if the 2D option is gone it isn't going anywhere.

 

[Hush]

Yeah the tech is better now, it's not like when it first came out. This is the unfortunate side effect of getting better tech in movies.

 

[Bruce Malone]

The tech is better maybe but the surcharges aren't. I'd say in probably 80% of 3D films released you stop noticing the 3d after about 10 minutes.

I saw the Hobbit in 3d 48 fps and i honestly keep forgetting it was in 3d because its 3d elements were so forgettable. Despite that the 48 fps wasn't terrible and would probably work better on its own without the need for 3d.

The avengers was another one where it felt like the 3d just disappeared after the opening scene. 3D has taken a dip btw, when the fad first broke out 3d films were selling about 60-80% of their tickets in 3d. Now a lot of 3d films are doing a good deal under 50% 3d tickets sold despite fewer theatres showing just 2d showings.

 

[kedrell]

3-D's existence doesn't bother me at all as long as I have a 2-D alternative to go to(which I almost always have). So I really don't get all the griping about it. Maybe if you can't see something in 2-D alternately then I would understand the complaint but as far as I can see that's rare.

But saying it artificially inflates a gross or that it somehow has no merit or shouldn't be counted is just silly, IMO. At the end of the day the public was willing to shell out X-amount of $ to see a movie. I don't see how 3-D changes that. If people didn't like it they wouldn't pay the extra $ for it. I personally never care for 3-D but I'm not going to look down my nose at people who do enjoy it and are willing to pay extra for it.

 

[Marvin]

at least now people in these box office forums will start acknowledging the impact of 3D. Some people never learn.

Also, the more money hollywood makes the more films they make on a whole. It's like clock work, people dismiss or diminish the money making side of the industry, ignoring the sheer job force it fuels and sub industries/genres/art house that are in turn fueled.
I heard a pod cast recently speaking on their hatred for blockbusters that make money and how they would rather those stop and more art house films were given spotlight....
if only.

If 3D doesn't actually hurt a film, yet generates more revenue for an industry we love, why complain, especially when you don't have to see it in that "horrible" format in the first place...

3D was pretty much the driving force behind Marvel's continuous slightly impressive returns prior to avengers. If not for that they may have been pulling DC(Returns/Lantern) numbers with a few of their "hits".

 

[kedrell]

Returns numbers? Maybe. GL numbers? I highly doubt that, especially since GL itself was also in 3-D.

 

[Marvin]

The sequence that turned me onto 3D.

[YT]QrqWvQsxUFA[/YT]

 

[Marvin]

Returns numbers? Maybe. GL numbers? I highly doubt that, especially since GL itself was also in 3-D.

Returns did better than Cap.

domestic vs worldwide

Thor - 181 mill / 449 mill
Returns - 200 mill / 391 mill
Cap - 176 mill / 368 mill
Lantern - 116 mill / 219 mill

Considering what people are saying about the boost 3D gave spidey and avengers, I'd say those numbers would be looking pretty different.
Yes Lantern was in 3D, that should be noted, all these films were and if they were, perhaps they would all do down several million.

 

[kedrell]

Eh, they're all in the same ballpark WW gross-wise. $350-450M.

We really can't know just how big a effect 3-D accounts for with these films, we just know it has one. But I highly doubt The Avengers(for example) would lose the year's $ crown(both domestic and WW) even if you deducted all the extra $ it made from 3-D.

 

[Marvin]

My point was that Marvel jumped on that 3D(conversion) train immediately and it's worked out for them. If they hadn't some things would be different. Ultimately hurting our enjoyment of their continued production. Thus...the complaining is counter productive imo.

 

[Bruce Malone]

I don't see it that way at all frankly. Marvel's two highest grossing films aside from the avengers were the 1st 2 iron mans both shot in 2d.

Iron Man was the film that got the whole thing running and set the ground work for everything up to the avengers and that was before the 3d trend even really came about. Right now 3D's success is pretty much due to the its continued popularity overseas. As i've mentioned domestic audiences are starting to tire of it. So it's likely foreign audiences will at some point as well.

As for 2d vs 3d screenings and choice, i've noticed when a film opens big in 3d the amount of 2d showing is usually quite limited in comaprison with some theaters not showing the 2d version at all.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

But the thing that theaters aren't considering is the fact that 2D versions of movies are more popular. In some areas where 3D isn't available, people aren't saying "I guess I'll see it any way in 3D", but rather "I'm not seeing it at all".

I don't think any of the major movies with 3D releass on the last few years have had more people see the 3D version than 2D version.

I just looked online, and here are some recent movie percentages for 3D viewings.

Captain America: 40%
Harry potter: 43%
Avengers: a little less than 50%

Edit: after digging deeper, the reason 3D is being so heavily pushed by studios is not because of the US, but because international markets like Russia and China eat it up. They love 3D.

 

[Liam_H]

That seems quite high for the % of 3D viewings.

 

[Marvin]

I thought IronMan 2 was 3D converted? my mistake.

I do think that if both thor and cap made "GL" money, Avengers may not have been as easy to roll forward with. The diminishing returns or no, Ironman's success alone wouldn't green light avengers with the audience.

 

[Liam_H]

They could've just made the movie more focused on IM with the other characters being more of a support. TA was worth the try in some form.

 

[Marvin]

They could've just made the movie more focused on IM with the other characters being more of a support. TA was worth the try in some form.

I suppose you're right. I mean they are green lighting JLA after all, though that's not really a one man show(the way an iron and friends would be), plus batman alone has avengers caliber pull at this point.

Moreover Fox makes pretty weak returns from Xmen and they keep rolling them out.

Marvel's hulk movie was a non 3D release. Its numbers would have probably benefited from the inflation.

 

[terry78]

JLA I suspect will be through the eyes of Bats, unless they get another normie on the team.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

That seems quite high for the % of 3D viewings.

Not as high as the movies in 2009 and 2010, which were in the 60s, 70s.