Image Credit: Bloomberg/Getty Images
Starting next summer, you may have to pay for those disposable 3-D movie glasses if you want to watch The Amazing Spider-Man or Men in Black III in three dimensions.
Sony Pictures confirmed to EW that the studio would stop footing the bill for 3-D glasses starting in May 2012. Each pair of 3-D glasses costs studios around 50 cents to purchase, which can result in a pricey $10 million invoice for a blockbuster film. (The Hollywood Reporter first reported the news.)
With 2005′s Chicken Little, Disney became the first studio to cover the fee for 3-D glasses. That decision was made as an incentive for exhibitors to renovate their theaters for 3-D, and the other studios followed Disney’s lead. But in 2009, Fox said it wouldn’t supply theaters with glasses for its summer release Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs. Regal Cinemas, the nation’s biggest theater chain, retaliated by saying it would only screen the film in 2-D. Ultimately Fox backpedaled and opted to pay for the glasses, but the first shot had been fired.
Now Sony is attempting to jump-start the battle all over again. The studio is reportedly in favor of an ownership model that would force audiences to purchase the glasses — a system that is already common in Europe and Australia. In the United Kingdom, for instance, moviegoers buy a pair of disposable 3-D glasses at the box office or concession stand for about a pound (or about $1.50). “If you already have your own pair from the last time you went to the movies, then you don’t have to spend that extra pound,” says Rick Heineman of RealD, which supplies the 3-D technology and glasses for 90 percent of the domestic market. “Or, in many cases, people are buying their own pairs of premium eyewear, whether it’s from Oakley, Polaroid, or Prada.”
Alternatively, exhibitors could pick up the bill, but that’s not likely considering how they responded back in 2009. Exhibitors already pay RealD a royalty charge of about 50 cents for every 3-D ticket sold, and many theaters had to purchase new digital projectors in order to screen 3-D features. “I’m paying to put in the silver screens and I’m paying to train employees to run the product,” one angry exhibitor told EW during the 2009 controversy. “To come in at this point and say they aren’t going to pay for the glasses, yet they want all the upside of the revenue, is ridiculous.”
It’s too early to say whether other studios with join Sony. Reps at Disney and Warner Bros. told EW that they’re currently having internal discussions on the issue. It’ll be particularly interesting to see how the theater chains respond to Sony’s announcement — at the time of this writing, a request for comment from the National Association of Theatre Owners (NATO) hadn’t been returned. But, in summary, if the studios decide they no longer want to be in the “glasses business,” and exhibitors decline to cover the charges, that leaves only one other option for who pays for 3-D specs: you.
Read more:
‘The Lion King 3D’: Is it the dawn of the 3-D reissue?
Summer 2011 box office hits record $4.4 billion, but…
‘Transformers 3′ gives a much-needed boost to 3-D. But will it last?
What?
I’ve already been charged extra for the 3D experience!
I am a 28 years old nurses,young and beautiful.and now- I am seeking a good man who can give me real,love,so i- got a username Annababe2011 on
– himillionaires - C óM-.a nice club for y’ounger women and- old’er men, or older women and y’ounger men, to- int’eract with each other.Maybe you wanna- ch’eck it out or tell your friends.
Yeah, I assumed the $5+ 3-D surcharge already covered the cost of glasses…
Of course it’s not. The 5 dollars is to pay for the projector and promote 3D technology to be used in all movies. The glasses you have to pay for. Everything you pay for. In Japan we have a saying, YOU PAY.. You gimmie now. No Pay. No Movie. You no likey 3D? Too bad. Everything 3D. he he he
back to good old 2-D movies. It will be interesting to see the first major release that tanks because they decide to charge for glasses.
Next week Sony decide to start charging to use bathroom during your movie. 5 dollars. You need to make cell phone call in lobby? 5 dollar surcharge. You want to sit in center of theater? 5 dollar. You want to use credit card? 5 dollar. You need a cushion for bare plastic seat? 5 dollar. You want air conditioning? You all pay 5 dollar more. You want to leave movie alive? 5 dollar. Thank you for helping Japan, oops I meant Sony Picture to build a better railroad, oops I meant Movie Theater. You come again. he he he
THIS! If the higher ticket price doesn’t cover the glasses, what the hell does it cover?
Yup, this is ridiculous. Seeing as audiences this summer went out of their way to _avoid_ 3D movies.
.
All the 3D movies this year have only made about a quarter of their business from 3D showings, meaning that the 3D showings were playing to empty houses yet the 2D showing packed them in. In fact, many of these movies would have performed better if they weren’t in 3D at all.
.
If 3D wasn’t already at death’s door, then this will help get it there.
sucker !!
the sign says all you can see; not you can see all; now you go!
Too bad the author of this article doesn’t mention the 3D surcharge we are already paying, whats being done with this money and what happens to the existing 3D glasses that movie goers are asked to recycle after viewing a 3D movie. I do not know of one theater that excludes a 3D movie surcharge or that doesn’t ask for the glasses back.
The 3D surcharge is to help pay for the installation of the 3D screen and projector – as a former theater worker, you would not believe how expensive these screens are. Plus, like the article says, 50 cents goes to the Real-D (the glasses maker).
Finally, for those that are saying “3D only brings in a small percentage of the total” – MOST theaters only have one or two 3D screens. Because of that, it means that only one 3D movie can be screened at a time and when a new one comes out (a week or two later) they have to switch what movie is being shown. Plus, they are only able to show about 5 showings per day.
That means, at the average theater a 3D movie, if shown as many times as possible on a single screen over two weeks, will only be shown 70 times in 3D… as opposed to 4 weeks on 4 regular screens (upwards of 560 times on regular screens). 70 times in 3D vs. 560+ on reg. screen – of course it makes more in the non-3D screens. It doesn’t mean people don’t like 3D or don’t go to 3D, there really is just less opportunity to view movies in 3D.
That said, I know we used to collect the Real-D glasses after the shows – where the heck did all those glasses go? I assumed they were reused, but according to Sony in this article, they shell out 10 mil+ for each movie. It should not cost them this much if they re-use the glasses. If they don’t reuse them and just pitch them (since they only cost 50 cents each) why don’t they just encourage the customer to keep them for next time?
Sony understands. If you are stupid enough to see most of the movies that are available in 3D then certainly you are stupid enough to pay an additional 5 dollar fee for nothing. That way the fee will be 10 dollars, plus the already outrageous price of 20 to see the whatever terrible movie you have chosen to see, including a drink. Old stale popcorn, shrivelled up steamed hotdogs, and candy that cost more than your entire dinner entrée is, of course, not included.
Don’t feel like a sucker. Just watch your stupid movie and ruin your eyesight because tomorrow you need to find a second job just to afford to go to see the movies with your sweetheart.
hey i have an idea, how about 3D movies just go away all together?
Yes.
agreed….sooooo sick of every movie coming out in 3D…just no need for it.
How about this – if you don’t want to go to 3D movies, than DON’T go. Some people enjoy the occassional 3D movie. And theaters have already retrofitted at least one theater with 3D screens and projectors – if there weren’t 3D movies, it would just sit empty.
@Babs, some theaters don’t even show the regular version so we ARE getting ripped off.
I agree.Paying the extra cost for 3D is a total rip off. 3D typically does not look good.
But 3D Lion King was such a dramatic improvement regarding new and original storytelling. Oh wait.. yeah that’s right
Especially when there are people with disabilities and other problems that make them incapable of seeing a 3D film, how is that fair to them or not covered under the ADA?
I have yet to see a movie in 3D that was made truly better. Even Avatar. I have skipped movies because I didn’t want to pay the outrageous upcharge. This will just deter me more.
Wow! So a lame, gimmicky practice that already charges more is going to get even more expensive?
America loves crap.
America hates trolls.
America Hates LOL
Japan no care. You gimme Japan your money.
I have a better idea. Stop distributing 3-D movies. It’s a gimmick that adds absolutely nothing to the movie experience. It’s annoying. The glasses make the movie darker. Sometimes they cause headaches. I go to the movies to be entertained by the story telling, NOT 3-D effects.
Now I’m feeling really jipped. Movie theatres around my area have been charging viewers for glasses already. It’s good that I kept my last pair. What a rip off.
Same here. They’ve been charging about 3 bucks extra if for 3D for at least a couple years here. Plus, you get charged that everytime you go to one, even if you keep the glasses. I like 3D, but that was getting to expensive for the experience given.
I’m just going to go to a 3 D movie and keep the glasses instead of returning them before they start charging
Get. Over. It. Ever since 3D movies started back up again in Australia you have to pay $1 for the glasses. Those ours are black & look like Ray Ban Wayfarer glasses (the ones Tom Cruise wore in Risky Business).
Same here except in the UK we have to pay £1.50 plus an extra £2.50 on top of the £7.50 ticket. Total rip off for pointless 3d no one wants.
This is getting so ridiculous…I actually lose respect for a movie now when tI hear it’s being released in 3D. I honestly think Super 8 was my favorite move this past summer mainly because it was the only action/adventure movie that WASN’T in 3D.
…meant to say “favorite movie.”
I think this is a bad idea. Last weekend we went to see The Lion King and it would have cost my family of 4 (two kids under 6) $50.00 to see the 3D version in the middle of the afternoon. So, with this plan, it would have cost $54. We opted for the “regular” version of the movie. No wonder we only go to the movie a few times a year!
i have a ps3 and i bought a really good pair of 3d glasses that make the experience awesome at home. So i wont be paying for the glasses, can do without the theartre experience.
They could charge whatever they want for the 3D glasses… I’m not buying them – EVER! I purposely avoid 3D movies; movies today are not worth the reg adm price, much less an extra $5 for cheap effects.
Don’t they recycle? Every 3D movie I’ve gone to (only about 3) had a bin outside for the glasses so they could recycle them. Why would it cost $10mil for recycled glasses? Oh, and here’s another idea – stop putting EVERYTHING in 3D!! Does “Dolphin Tale” really need to be 3D????
I will just stop going to 3D movies unless it’s at a Disney park.