Fox won’t foot 3-D glasses bill

posted by Michael Zoldessy on April 6, 2009 at 7:40 am

In a move that’s angering theater owners, Fox is expecting theaters to cover the cost of 3-D glasses for their 3-D films.

On Tuesday, Fox said that it wasn’t going to pay the $1-million-per-movie cost to supply theaters with 3-D glasses for the studio’s upcoming in-your-face films like this summer’s Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs. Instead, Fox wants the movie theaters to pay for them. Understandably, multiplex owners aren’t too happy about the extra cost, and many are considering revolting by only showing Ice Age 3 in 2-D, which could massively cut into the film’s box-office revenues.

Read the full story in Business Insider.

Comments (8)

CinemarkFan
CinemarkFan on April 6, 2009 at 10:50 am

Well, the first two were hits without 3-D, so they’ll be okay.

markp
markp on April 6, 2009 at 8:24 pm

You just watch. I keep telling people this whole 3D thing is going to be a flash-in-the-pan. Already the cost of glasses is an issue. It wont stop there, trust me. Give me that old reliable 35mm (or 70MM) anytime. (Man I’m getting tired of having to repeat that)

CinemarkFan
CinemarkFan on April 7, 2009 at 12:02 am

My complaint about the 3-D is that it makes the image dim when it’s supposed to be big and bright. But since the moviegoing public will accept that, then wait until 3-D becomes avalible en-masse for home viewing. After that, they’ll say, “why spend $12-15 dollars at the movie? It will come out in a few months on Blu-ray 3-D”.

KJB2012
KJB2012 on April 7, 2009 at 10:32 am

I say the studios should pay for the glasses, but in doing so demand 50% of the concessions take. Maybe this would remind these greedy theatre chains they wouldn’t be in biz without the studio product!
The government should let Fox build its own 3D cinemas. That way, Regal could keep showing its 2D movies to smaller and smaller groups until they are replaced by a Wal-Mart!

AlAlvarez
AlAlvarez on April 7, 2009 at 3:55 pm

There is no law to stop Fox from doing that, thanks to Ronald Reagan. Theatres just don’t produce the obscene profits distributors expect, so most got back out the business after rejoining it in the nineties. They did try to get into the concession business with movie merchandise, but they screwed that up with overproduction of merchandise for bad movies and late deliveries for good ones.

Back when Fox owned theatres in the fifties, THEY paid for the Cinemascope conversions, and the silver screens, and the cheesy 3-D glasses out of the take so theatres would go along with their gimmicks.

Where would they be without theatres willing to show all the dross they produce, like the recent “MISS MARCH”?

deandogg
deandogg on April 8, 2009 at 10:36 am

Dolby 3D sites already have to purchase the glasses with no help from the studios. Real-D is the only format that the studios pay for. Why should some theatres have to absorb the bill when the studios will pick up the costs of others? While the Dolby 3D glasses are reusable, they break and get stolen constantly. Not to mention the cost of the upkeep and payroll to monitor the glasses. At $30.00 per pair it would be nice to have them replaced by the studios. They won’t and the Dolby sites still manage.

kendemski
kendemski on April 8, 2009 at 8:21 pm

The whole issue should not be whether the studios or exhibitors should pay for 3-D glasses. Movie theatre patrons already buy the experience each time they see a 3-D feature presentation, so why are we debating on the business expense of lending them a pair of polarized lenses? Borrowed glasses get broken, abandoned, discarded or taken frequently. Consumers get only temporary value for them that ends when the movie has ended. Therefore, movie theatre patrons should pay for the lenses inclusive of ticket price. Intend them for single use. Expense them based on attendance so consumption is accurately measured. This should allow the studios to concentrate on marketing their product and exhibitors to alleviate the burden of maintaining an adequate amount of rotating 3-D glasses inventory with an uncertain shelf life. There might even be a profit opportunity in branding reuseable “premium” glasses for IMAX 3-D and Real D Cinema that can be sold in theatres if these technologies prove to be viable for a long time.

KingBiscuits
KingBiscuits on April 14, 2009 at 3:03 am

Good thing I’ve got some spare pairs.

Also, kudos to Al for bashing Miss March. Let’s also include:

Dragonball Evolution
Street Fighter: The Legend Of Chun-Li
The Day The Earth Stood Still
Bride Wars
The Rocker
Max Payne
The Happening
Meet The Spartans
Babylon A.D.
Jumper

You must login before making a comment.

New Comment