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

[jmc]

The novelty will eventually wear thin even in those countries that are currently eating 3D up like China and Russia. My issue has always been about an equal share between 3D and 2D sessions, I had to go to 3 different cinemas before I could see Thor in 2D, and it was only one session at the obscure time of 5.30pm, and that really pissed me off. Since then however things have evened up, it's about 60-40 in favour of 3D, it'd still prefer a 50-50 split.

 

[Liam_H]

Over here it seems that there is plenty of showings for 2D unless its the opening weekend rush for big movies. But then everything is sold out.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

It's funny, I've never been to a single theater that didn't have a 2D showing for a movie that's 3D

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

It's funny, I've never been to a single theater that didn't have a 2D showing for a movie that's 3D

Me neither. Actually, recently (as in roughly since the beginning of 2012) the local cinemas have had more 2D showings than 3D. For example, when I saw The Hobbit yesterday there were 6 showings of it in 2D versus only 2 in 3D. There were no 3D matinee showings at all.

 

[jmc]

It's funny, I've never been to a single theater that didn't have a 2D showing for a movie that's 3D

I got genuinely pissed off at one of the managers at the cinema when I tried to see Thor, she had the gall to tell me Marvel weren't releasing it in 2D to which I may have dropped a certain expletive in response.

 

[Ultimatehero]

The novelty will eventually wear thin even in those countries that are currently eating 3D up like China and Russia. My issue has always been about an equal share between 3D and 2D sessions, I had to go to 3 different cinemas before I could see Thor in 2D, and it was only one session at the obscure time of 5.30pm, and that really pissed me off. Since then however things have evened up, it's about 60-40 in favour of 3D, it'd still prefer a 50-50 split.

If by calling it a 'novelty' you're saying it'll go away - it won't, it's here to stay. People like it. Some just don't. Often I find 3D showings selling out and 2D showings to be half-full in theaters where BOTH are available. It's not for everyone. To me it's just depth perception, it's not meant to throw things at you - or at least not all the time. Plus film makers are liking it and as a guy in Hollywood, I like it as well due to that depth perception it gives us to play around with. So rather than seeing it go away (which it won't, ever) what you will eventually see is glasses-less 3D (which already exists, it's just about costs at this point) in theaters. You hear people saying they don't like 3D, half just don't like it all - the other half just have a problem with the glasses and that's all, the glasses. Which one of those is gonna go away.

 

[jmc]

Glassless 3D is never going to work in cinema. The viewing angle in order for it to work would mean having to restrict the viewing angle to only a few degrees, otherwise the effect will be lost.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Glassless 3D is never going to work in cinema. The viewing angle in order for it to work would mean having to restrict the viewing angle to only a few degrees, otherwise the effect will be lost.

Well, the one thing I still know is 3D's here to stay. With technology, I'd still see they'll find a way to have it work in theaters. Just look at cell phones, ten years ago they were big blocks - now they are micro-sized. Ten years. Just saying, with technology there is always a way.

 

[jmc]

The thing is that for a regular theatre to have glassless 3D that's viewable from multiple angles you're need a projection systems that tracks the configuration of the seats and project the 3D effect relative to where those seats are. I don't know if the technology exists for that or if it's even theoretically possible to do so in the first place.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I got genuinely pissed off at one of the managers at the cinema when I tried to see Thor, she had the gall to tell me Marvel weren't releasing it in 2D to which I may have dropped a certain expletive in response.

I'm sorry but I find that pretty funny actually.

 

[Ultimatehero]

The thing is that for a regular theatre to have glassless 3D that's viewable from multiple angles you're need a projection systems that tracks the configuration of the seats and project the 3D effect relative to where those seats are. I don't know if the technology exists for that or if it's even theoretically possible to do so in the first place.

How is this so different from a 3D glassesless TV though? You would still be looking at the TV from various angles, sitting on the floor, on the couch, standing, from the right, from the left - they'd make sure that TV can be seen from any angle. And that does exist... that's why I'm kind of confused on why it wouldn't work in theaters - wouldn't it just be the same technology more or less just with a different sized screen? If not TV, we already have holograms in the works - like we see in movies. With these technologies, it just doesn't seem science-fiction of placing things inside of a theater. I'll sound old here lol, but I remember a time when I thought I'd only ever see 3D with a blue and red tint.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Any glasses-less 3D that I've ever seen has to be viewed head-on. You can't see anything from the side.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Here's one story about DOLBY's

http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/17/2955185/dolby-glasses-free-3d-prototype-philips-hands-on

We got a chance to watch some footage on the glasses-free 3D TV at NAB, and everything we saw from Captain America to The Art of Flight looked fantastic. Viewing angles were particularly impressive: even from far off to the side, the 3D effect was still present, and the picture was so crisp and clean that it almost took a minute to realize we were looking at 3D footage.

I don't know how this translates to theaters though and if it would be the same technology just with a couple of tweaks here and there. Not 100% yet, but, something that is on the rise and will be improved upon at least in the home market.

 

[jmc]

How is this so different from a 3D glassesless TV though? You would still be looking at the TV from various angles, sitting on the floor, on the couch, standing, from the right, from the left - they'd make sure that TV can be seen from any angle. And that does exist... that's why I'm kind of confused on why it wouldn't work in theaters - wouldn't it just be the same technology more or less just with a different sized screen? If not TV, we already have holograms in the works - like we see in movies. With these technologies, it just doesn't seem science-fiction of placing things inside of a theater. I'll sound old here lol, but I remember a time when I thought I'd only ever see 3D images with a blue and red tint.

It's about the viewing angle more that the size of the screen. Glassless 3D TV tend to have a limited viewing degree before the 3D effect is lost, even the best 3D TV tend to have limit range and when you do see the effect the eye line for everyone is the roughly same. Take into account that for theatres it's not just the left and right angle but where peoples eye line is relative to what level in the theartre they're sitting in, some people are higher up than others and as far as I'm aware the technology to compensate for that doesn't exist yet.

 

[Ultimatehero]

The technology to compensate for that doesn't exist yet.

And why I didn't say 'now' but in years to come. With 3D as the main-stay, just like color and sound and digital cameras, due to allowing filmmakers and studios to play around with the depth perception and a marked increase in profitability. And one of the audience complaints from those who don't like 3D being the glasses... the next thing to achieve will be that technology. I mean, we even have theaters with seats that can move now lol - who would have ever thought theaters would get that? In ten years, I don't see why this wouldn't be around. Just look at how much has happened in the past ten years technologically speaking. With people already working on how to make glassesless 3D a marked reality - that tells me that it is possible, it'll just take a couple of years to be able to take it wide. We're living in an age where holograms have been invented, and flying cars actually work - just not on the market due to the price, and etc. I don't see how it's "science fiction," so as said - in years to come, why not? I doubt these engineers would be working on it if it was impossible, so there must be something to it.

 

[jmc]

The difference is I don't think that type of technology is actually feasible, theatres would have to be altered significantly to accommodate the technology required, assuming it's even possible to do it in the first place. I was all for glass-less 3D until I started to read up on how difficult it actually is achieve and the limits it imposes. 3D TV was a failure, so I struggle to see 3D theatres anytime in my lifetime.

 

[Ultimatehero]

The difference is I don't think that type of technology is actually feasible, theatres would have to be altered significantly to accommodate the technology required, assuming it's even possible to do it in the first place. I was all for glass-less 3D until I started to read up on how difficult it actually is achieve and the limits it imposes. 3D TV was a failure, so I struggle to see 3D theatres anytime in my lifetime.

No one is saying build new and 3D only theaters. I'm sure there is a way to build it into the theaters without having to tear them down and rebuilding them. Just having one screening-room re-modified with new tech. As said, everything we have in today's world that's on and off the market was conceived to be 'science-fiction' at one point by one person or another who didn't think it could ever work, who didn't think men could ever fly. If the history of technology has ever taught us one thing it's that 'science fiction' is just 'science fact' that hasn't been invented or mass marketed (flying cars) yet. Hell, we can take memories out of mice then re-plant them and we're saying this is impossible? In years to come the government will be able to implant and extract memories, I'm pretty sure everything under the sun is now open to possibilities.

 

[jmc]

I'm not saying it's not possible, we have proof of concept for a certain type of glassless 3D experience, there's just a lot of variables that may prove to challenging to overcome for a genuine glassless 3D experience in cinema. If it happens it won't be for decades, and chances are both you and I will be 6 feet underground if/when it happens.

 

[Ultimatehero]

I'm pretty sure in my lifetime I'll undergo Total Recall (we can implant virtual memories into mice right now) and get to fly a flying car (unsure how many will be able to, but upper class should probably be able to afford them which is the key problem right now), so I'm pretty sure I'll see glasseless 3D in a theater too. I mean, I'm only 24 lol. When I was born I'm pretty sure the only thing that existed was the atari and a computer that had no internet nor the range of capabilities it has now, all we could play on the cell phone was snake (now the games are becoming better than the first playstation), and we had to use VHS rather than DVDs then Blu Rays, not to mention reading comics started happening online and the whole black market of music and movies went from the streets into our own small computer screens.

And if that happens in only a quarter of my life? I can't wait to see the world when I'm 50 lol. And then in my 80s which will... kinda scared about how advanced the world will be by then lol. Hopefully I'll still be fit enough to ride a hoverboard.

I'm really seeing this by the time I'm in my 80s... just without the advanced sky high-ways based off of what a quarter of my life has brought:

[YT]d68yRIE9OvQ[/YT]

I mean, we are living in a world with (although not mass marketed at the moment) over the last couple of years: robots, flying cars, holograms, virtual memories. Which makes me question if that exists now, how long will it take to go wide? And if that exists - right now - where do we go from here? I'm pretty sure I'm the generation that's really seeing Moore's Law come into effect (or at least I think that's it) since all the ground-work has been laid and now it's just making it sleeker and more home sized. Because seriously? A whole lot of **** has happened in 24 years lol.

 

[:eek:]

MOVIE ATTENDANCE RISES: FIRST TIME SINCE 2009

December 27, 2012 by admin · 1 Comment



End-of-the-year domestic box-office estimates released on Wednesday gave studios and theater owners cause for celebration. Not only was total revenue up 6 percent over 2011 — it has risen nearly every year as exhibitors nudge ticket prices upwards — but for the first time in three years the number of actual tickets sold (“admissions,” as the industry calls them) rose as well. According to Hollywood.com’s box-office tracker Paul Dergarabedian, total admissions for the year are expected to rise to 1.36 billion, up 5.6 percent from last year’s 1.29 billion (their lowest level since 1995). That figure is appreciably below the modern record of 1.6 billion set in 2002, but no one’s complaining — especially not with revenue projected to rise to $10.8 billion, slightly above the record $10.6 billion recorded in 2009 and significantly above last year’s $10.2 billion. What the latest figures demonstrate, Paramount distribution chief Don Harris told the Associated Press, is that “if we deliver the product as an industry that people want, they will want to get out there. Even though you can sit at home and watch something on your large screen in high-def, people want to get out.” Added Dan Fellman, Harris’s opposite number at Warner Bros; “Every home has a kitchen, but you can’t get into a good restaurant on Saturday night.” Moviegoers got out in especially high numbers for two superhero blockbusters in 2012, Dergarabedian noted — Disney/Marvel’s The Avengers, which amassed $623 million domestically, and Warner Bros.’ The Dark Knight Rises, which grossed $448 million. Together those two films alone accounted for 10 percent of the entire U.S. box office for the year. even more impressive is that the two films also spearheaded a huge increase in overseas ticket sales. The Avengers brought in $1.5 billion worldwide, while Dark Knight brought in $1.1 billion.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Well, I've found our "magic" year - but I am HATING our future for the most part! It's not BTTF2 AT ALL! It's Total Recall meets Surrogates!!!

http://www.futuretimeline.net/21stcentury/2033.htm

Holographic wall screens

Conference halls, movie theatres, stadiums and other such environments are now utilising holographic wall screens. These are basically larger and more sophisticated versions of the TV projectors which have been in use since 2020. At this stage, they remain too expensive for mainstream use in the home (except for luxury apartments owned by the rich). However, they are a relatively common sight in public venues and workplaces. Times Square in New York, Piccadilly Circus in London, and Shibuya in Tokyo now feature spectacular advertisement displays, with graphics appearing to literally "jump out" of the screen.

If anyone was interested in change from 3D. 2033.

 

[marvelman2006]

MOVIE ATTENDANCE RISES: FIRST TIME SINCE 2009

December 27, 2012 by admin · 1 Comment



End-of-the-year domestic box-office estimates released on Wednesday gave studios and theater owners cause for celebration. Not only was total revenue up 6 percent over 2011 — it has risen nearly every year as exhibitors nudge ticket prices upwards — but for the first time in three years the number of actual tickets sold (“admissions,” as the industry calls them) rose as well. According to Hollywood.com’s box-office tracker Paul Dergarabedian, total admissions for the year are expected to rise to 1.36 billion, up 5.6 percent from last year’s 1.29 billion (their lowest level since 1995). That figure is appreciably below the modern record of 1.6 billion set in 2002, but no one’s complaining — especially not with revenue projected to rise to $10.8 billion, slightly above the record $10.6 billion recorded in 2009 and significantly above last year’s $10.2 billion. What the latest figures demonstrate, Paramount distribution chief Don Harris told the Associated Press, is that “if we deliver the product as an industry that people want, they will want to get out there. Even though you can sit at home and watch something on your large screen in high-def, people want to get out.” Added Dan Fellman, Harris’s opposite number at Warner Bros; “Every home has a kitchen, but you can’t get into a good restaurant on Saturday night.” Moviegoers got out in especially high numbers for two superhero blockbusters in 2012, Dergarabedian noted — Disney/Marvel’s The Avengers, which amassed $623 million domestically, and Warner Bros.’ The Dark Knight Rises, which grossed $448 million. Together those two films alone accounted for 10 percent of the entire U.S. box office for the year. even more impressive is that the two films also spearheaded a huge increase in overseas ticket sales. The Avengers brought in $1.5 billion worldwide, while Dark Knight brought in $1.1 billion.

interesting though we had more summer duds then anything between avengers and TDKR. I assume the hunger games/ avengers/ TDKR/ skyfall and hobbit helped fluff those numbers.

 

[:eek:]

'Skyfall' Hits $1 Billion Worldwide

on December 30, 2012

LOS ANGELES, Calif., December 30, 2012 – Skyfall™, the 23rd James Bond adventure, has surpassed $1 billion at the worldwide box office, it was jointly announced today by Jeff Blake, chairman of Worldwide Marketing and Distribution for Sony Pictures and Gary Barber, MGM's Chairman & CEO.

The film, from Albert R. Broccoli’s EON Productions, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, and Sony Pictures Entertainment, is the most successful Bond film of all time. It is the highest-grossing film of all time in the UK, the first film to pass £100 million at the UK box office. It is also the most successful film at the worldwide box office in Sony Pictures history.

Skyfall took in $4.6 million this weekend in North America for a cume to date of $289.6 million. Overseas, the film grossed $10.3 million for an international total to date of $710.6 million and a worldwide cume exceeding $1 billion and growing.

"It is truly thrilling to reach this incredible milestone. With tremendous gratitude to Barbara and Michael, Sam, Daniel and our partner Sony, and to all of the dedicated distributors and fans across the globe, we are so proud of both Skyfall and our 50 year association with James Bond," said Gary Barber, MGM's Chairman and CEO.

Commenting on the announcement, Blake said, “To see a film connect with audiences is always gratifying but the success of this film is nothing short of extraordinary. After 50 years of entertaining audiences all over the world, Skyfall is the most successful James Bond film of all time. We couldn't be more excited for Michael Wilson, Barbara Broccoli, Sam Mendes, Daniel Craig, and especially the fans who put James Bond in this very rare and very exclusive billion dollar box office club."

 

[Evil Twin]

interesting though we had more summer duds then anything between avengers and TDKR. I assume the hunger games/ avengers/ TDKR/ skyfall and hobbit helped fluff those numbers.

There were a number of off season successes, The Grey, Safe House, Looper, Argo, Taken 2, etc. that surely helped as well.

 

[terry78]

Django made 64 mil so it pretty much made its budget back.