The Other Other 3D Surcharge — You may be paying for glasses soon, too
09-30-11, 10:57 AM
#1
DVD Talk Godfather
Thread Starter
The Other Other 3D Surcharge — You may be paying for glasses soon, too
Sony to Stop Paying for 3D Glasses in May 2012
UPDATED: Exhibitors aren't likely to react well to Sony letter saying the studio will stop footing the bill for RealD glasses, which can cost studios $5 million to $10 million per blockbuster release.
Sony Pictures Entertainment has notified theater owners in a letter that it will no longer pay for 3D glasses as of May 1, 2012, marking a major policy shift that many other studios are likely considering.
"This is an issue that has to be resolved between us and our exhibition partners. We are trying to give them a very lengthy lead time in regards to the change in policy," Sony worldwide president of distribution Rory Bruer said.
But the notificiation probably won't go over well with theater owners, since many feel like they’ve already coughed up enough money in converting their screens to 3D, and that they shouldn’t have to incur the cost of supplying glasses too, according to one source in the exhibition community.
The price tag for 3D glasses is no laughing matter — studios can spend $5 million to $10 million worldwide for a tentpole, but most of the cost is incurred in the North American marketplace (studios pay after the fact, based on how many glasses were actually used). Sony has two high-profile 3D tentpoles headed to theaters next summer — Men in Black III and The Amazing Spider-Man.
Glasses for smaller films can cost $1.5 million to $2 million. Translated, 3D glasses account for about 50 cents of a theater ticket.
Sony, along with other studios, is in favor of moving toward an ownership model, requiring moviegoers to buy their 3D glasses at the theater (the studios argue that it could be a new revenue stream for exhibitors).
Such a system is already in place in a number of foreign territories, including the U.K., [Hong Kong], Australia, Italy and Spain. However, American consumers are now used to getting the glasses for free when they pay a 3D surcharge (usually 3 or 4 dollars), and the habit could be hard to break.
The majority of 3D glasses are provided through RealD, which controls the majority of the 3D market domestically through its 3D projection systems. Other 3D systems such as the one offered by Dolby employ a model where the theater owns the glasses, which are returned, cleaned and reused following a screening.
In the U.S., RealD theaters often have recyling containers for the glasses outside the auitorium, but moviegoers may also keep them, meaning new glasses are still needed on a mass basis.
Several years ago, when digital 3D was first emerging, it was unclear who would pay for the glasses. In an effort to encourage movie theaters to convert their screens to the emerging format, Disney told theaters it would cover the cost.
Soon, other studios started following suit, but top executives say it was never their intention to make it an indefinite policy. And at least one studio, Fox, tried to stop paying for the 3D glasses, but was met with stiff resistance from exhibitors.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...glasses-240837
SEE ALSO:
http://www.deadline.com/2011/09/shak...-studios-wont/
http://boingboing.net/2011/09/29/son...d-glasses.html
<hr>
I actually have no problem with an ownership model, if it dropped the 3D surcharge a bit. The only issue is I think I bought new glasses at least three different times. It's not something I carried around.
Others say this is good news because it means 3D will die a quicker death. I hope it means that each theater provides a 3D/2D option.
UPDATED: Exhibitors aren't likely to react well to Sony letter saying the studio will stop footing the bill for RealD glasses, which can cost studios $5 million to $10 million per blockbuster release.
Sony Pictures Entertainment has notified theater owners in a letter that it will no longer pay for 3D glasses as of May 1, 2012, marking a major policy shift that many other studios are likely considering.
"This is an issue that has to be resolved between us and our exhibition partners. We are trying to give them a very lengthy lead time in regards to the change in policy," Sony worldwide president of distribution Rory Bruer said.
But the notificiation probably won't go over well with theater owners, since many feel like they’ve already coughed up enough money in converting their screens to 3D, and that they shouldn’t have to incur the cost of supplying glasses too, according to one source in the exhibition community.
The price tag for 3D glasses is no laughing matter — studios can spend $5 million to $10 million worldwide for a tentpole, but most of the cost is incurred in the North American marketplace (studios pay after the fact, based on how many glasses were actually used). Sony has two high-profile 3D tentpoles headed to theaters next summer — Men in Black III and The Amazing Spider-Man.
Glasses for smaller films can cost $1.5 million to $2 million. Translated, 3D glasses account for about 50 cents of a theater ticket.
Sony, along with other studios, is in favor of moving toward an ownership model, requiring moviegoers to buy their 3D glasses at the theater (the studios argue that it could be a new revenue stream for exhibitors).
Such a system is already in place in a number of foreign territories, including the U.K., [Hong Kong], Australia, Italy and Spain. However, American consumers are now used to getting the glasses for free when they pay a 3D surcharge (usually 3 or 4 dollars), and the habit could be hard to break.
The majority of 3D glasses are provided through RealD, which controls the majority of the 3D market domestically through its 3D projection systems. Other 3D systems such as the one offered by Dolby employ a model where the theater owns the glasses, which are returned, cleaned and reused following a screening.
In the U.S., RealD theaters often have recyling containers for the glasses outside the auitorium, but moviegoers may also keep them, meaning new glasses are still needed on a mass basis.
Several years ago, when digital 3D was first emerging, it was unclear who would pay for the glasses. In an effort to encourage movie theaters to convert their screens to the emerging format, Disney told theaters it would cover the cost.
Soon, other studios started following suit, but top executives say it was never their intention to make it an indefinite policy. And at least one studio, Fox, tried to stop paying for the 3D glasses, but was met with stiff resistance from exhibitors.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...glasses-240837
SEE ALSO:
http://www.deadline.com/2011/09/shak...-studios-wont/
http://boingboing.net/2011/09/29/son...d-glasses.html
<hr>
I actually have no problem with an ownership model, if it dropped the 3D surcharge a bit. The only issue is I think I bought new glasses at least three different times. It's not something I carried around.
Others say this is good news because it means 3D will die a quicker death. I hope it means that each theater provides a 3D/2D option.
09-30-11, 11:11 AM
#2
Re: The Other Other 3D Surcharge — You may be paying for glasses soon, too
It's not going to drop the 3D surcharge. I guess you better start keeping those 3D glasses for future use.
09-30-11, 11:27 AM
#3
DVD Talk Hero
Re: The Other Other 3D Surcharge — You may be paying for glasses soon, too
I thought I was already paying $1 extra per 3D ticket for the glasses.
09-30-11, 11:30 AM
#4
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Behind the Orange Curtain
Posts: 20,085
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
7 Posts
Re: The Other Other 3D Surcharge — You may be paying for glasses soon, too
I'll wait to see how this plays out once the dust settles, but I see so few 3D films a year that it's unlikely to impact my moviegoing habits much, if at all.
09-30-11, 11:36 AM
#5
DVD Talk Legend
Re: The Other Other 3D Surcharge — You may be paying for glasses soon, too
I mentioned this in the Spider-man thread. When Fox pulled this shit over a year ago, Regal flipped out and told them Ice Age 3 would play in none of their theaters. Fox redacted their comments and business went back to normal. If Sony doesn't want to piss off NATO or the bigger chains, they'll probably end up footing the cost of the glasses. The chains know that the consumer hates the rising cost of ticket prices plus the 3D surcharge as attendance is at an all time low, Sony is just causing more damage by their initiative to save "costs."
Who would've ever thought bad business mistakes would cost Sony Pictures to go under? Here I was thinking it would've been another tsunami!
[One ticket to hell, please.]
Who would've ever thought bad business mistakes would cost Sony Pictures to go under? Here I was thinking it would've been another tsunami!
[One ticket to hell, please.]
09-30-11, 02:17 PM
#6
Re: The Other Other 3D Surcharge — You may be paying for glasses soon, too
For what it's worth a theater around here wanted to charge, from what I recall a $0.50 surcharge for 3D films, nothing more and some studios got really upset and in the end, the theater had to raise the charge to a minimum $2.
The extra 3D charge is 99% greed, nothing more.
The extra 3D charge is 99% greed, nothing more.
09-30-11, 02:47 PM
#7
DVD Talk Legend
Re: The Other Other 3D Surcharge — You may be paying for glasses soon, too
I'd also like to point out an article 24/7 Wall St. wrote earlier this year about ten brands that might not make it through 2012.
Sony originally reported that The Amazing Spider-man would cost in the ballpark of $80 million. However, rumors have circulated that the film will cost the studio $220 million and upward once all of your production costs, prints and advertising are taken into consideration. Men In Black III is in a similar boat as the production budget is already pass $215 million. These are reboots and sequels that most didn't ask for. Most didn't like the third Spider-man entry and probably would've preferred another Raimi/Maguire repairing rather than a re-do. Same applies to Men in Black II as it made a good chunk less than the first entry and most didn't even like the film. Yes, Smith has star power and can open anything, but it's a sequel that's ten years too late to an entry that nobody cared much for in the first place. If these films don't cover their costs, Sony's fucked. They're trying to reduce costs at this point and thus why they want the theater owners to pony up the cost of 3D glasses.
Why not just remove the 3D surcharge if one can bring in their own 3D glasses? Whoops, you forget yours? Have fun paying $3-4. There you go, win win for everybody. I'm sure there's tons of better solutions out there as well.
Agreed.
Originally Posted by 24/7 Wall St.
Sony has a studio production arm which has nothing to do with its core businesses of consumer electronics and gaming. Sony bought what was Columbia Tri-Star Picture in 1989 for $3.4 billion. This entertainment operation has done poorly recently. Sony’s fiscal year ends in March, and for the period revenue for the group dropped 15% to $7.2 billion and operating income fell by 10% to $466 million. Sony is in trouble. It lost $3.1 billion in its latest fiscal on revenue of $86.5 billion. Sony’s gaming system group is under siege by Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT) and Nintendo. Its consumer electronics group faces an overwhelming challenge from Apple. The company’s future prospects have been further damaged by the Japan earthquake and the hack of its large PlayStation Network. CEO Howard Stringer is under pressure to do something to increase the value of Sony’s shares. The only valuable asset with which he can easily part is Columbia which would attract interest from a number of large media operations. Sony Entertainment will disappear with the sale of its assets.
Why not just remove the 3D surcharge if one can bring in their own 3D glasses? Whoops, you forget yours? Have fun paying $3-4. There you go, win win for everybody. I'm sure there's tons of better solutions out there as well.
Agreed.
09-30-11, 03:42 PM
#9
Moderator
Re: The Other Other 3D Surcharge — You may be paying for glasses soon, too
NATO Slams Sony for 3D-Glasses Charges
By Brent Lang at TheWrap
Wed Sep 28, 2011 12:16pm EDT
(Updated: 4:13 p.m. PST)
The National Association of Theater Owners slammed Sony Wednesday for its attempt to pass off the costs of providing 3D glasses on moviegoers and exhibitors.
The trade organization labeled the move "insensitive" given the economic woes gripping the country.
"Sony’s actions raise serious concerns for our members who believe that provision of 3D glasses to patrons is well established as part of the 3D experience," NATO said in a statement.
NATO said Sony was reneging on a prior agreement to pay for the glasses.
But Sony spokesperson Steve Elzer said NATO gets it wrong.
"NATO’s statement that it has been 'understood' that distributors would always bear the cost of 3D glasses is incorrect, because there never has been any such agreement," Elzer said in a statement. "In fact, we have been speaking with people in the industry for a long time about the need to move to a new model, so this certainly comes as a surprise to no one in the business."
Elzer said that the studio invited theater owners to engage in a "collegial dialogue" with about the issue at ShowEast next month.
Also read: Sony to Theaters: Buy Your Own 3D Glasses
Shares of RealD, the 3D movie company, dropped nearly 15 percent to trade at $10.42 on Wednesday after Sony announced its plan.
Sony has told exhibitors that starting in May with the release of its pair of 3D tentpoles, "Men in Black III" and "The Amazing Spider-Man," it will no longer pay for the rose-tinted spectacles.
It wants exhibitors to work out the cost with moviegoers.
In it's statement, NATO said press reports indicate that Sony wants audience members to buy their own glasses, but in reality, the studio wants to move the expense of providing glasses off their own balance sheets and doesn't particularly care if the cost is borne by theater owners or ticket buyers.
At a cost of about 50 cents per ticket, 3D eyeware can eat up $5 million or more for a movie that grosses over $100 million.
Moviegoers pay a premium of around $3 for 3D films, and that extra gravy is then split between theater owners and studios.
In 2009, Fox tried a similar gambit with the release of its third "Ice Age" film, but bowed to pressure from theater owners and abandoned its efforts to push off costs.
NATO said that theater owners had agreed to take on the expense of overhauling their theaters for 3D movies with the understanding that distributors would handle the cost of providing glasses.
"Any changes to that understanding must be undertaken through the mutual agreement of both sides of the business," NATO said.
NATO closed its missive with a warning. The group told Sony that the disappointing numbers for its premium video on demand trial with DirecTV -- in which the studio and others offered movies to renters eight weeks after their debuts and over the fierce objections of NATO -- was evidence that exhibition needed to be on board with any fundamental business changes.
"Sony would be well advised to revisit its decision," NATO said.
By Brent Lang at TheWrap
Wed Sep 28, 2011 12:16pm EDT
(Updated: 4:13 p.m. PST)
The National Association of Theater Owners slammed Sony Wednesday for its attempt to pass off the costs of providing 3D glasses on moviegoers and exhibitors.
The trade organization labeled the move "insensitive" given the economic woes gripping the country.
"Sony’s actions raise serious concerns for our members who believe that provision of 3D glasses to patrons is well established as part of the 3D experience," NATO said in a statement.
NATO said Sony was reneging on a prior agreement to pay for the glasses.
But Sony spokesperson Steve Elzer said NATO gets it wrong.
"NATO’s statement that it has been 'understood' that distributors would always bear the cost of 3D glasses is incorrect, because there never has been any such agreement," Elzer said in a statement. "In fact, we have been speaking with people in the industry for a long time about the need to move to a new model, so this certainly comes as a surprise to no one in the business."
Elzer said that the studio invited theater owners to engage in a "collegial dialogue" with about the issue at ShowEast next month.
Also read: Sony to Theaters: Buy Your Own 3D Glasses
Shares of RealD, the 3D movie company, dropped nearly 15 percent to trade at $10.42 on Wednesday after Sony announced its plan.
Sony has told exhibitors that starting in May with the release of its pair of 3D tentpoles, "Men in Black III" and "The Amazing Spider-Man," it will no longer pay for the rose-tinted spectacles.
It wants exhibitors to work out the cost with moviegoers.
In it's statement, NATO said press reports indicate that Sony wants audience members to buy their own glasses, but in reality, the studio wants to move the expense of providing glasses off their own balance sheets and doesn't particularly care if the cost is borne by theater owners or ticket buyers.
At a cost of about 50 cents per ticket, 3D eyeware can eat up $5 million or more for a movie that grosses over $100 million.
Moviegoers pay a premium of around $3 for 3D films, and that extra gravy is then split between theater owners and studios.
In 2009, Fox tried a similar gambit with the release of its third "Ice Age" film, but bowed to pressure from theater owners and abandoned its efforts to push off costs.
NATO said that theater owners had agreed to take on the expense of overhauling their theaters for 3D movies with the understanding that distributors would handle the cost of providing glasses.
"Any changes to that understanding must be undertaken through the mutual agreement of both sides of the business," NATO said.
NATO closed its missive with a warning. The group told Sony that the disappointing numbers for its premium video on demand trial with DirecTV -- in which the studio and others offered movies to renters eight weeks after their debuts and over the fierce objections of NATO -- was evidence that exhibition needed to be on board with any fundamental business changes.
"Sony would be well advised to revisit its decision," NATO said.
09-30-11, 05:50 PM
#10
DVD Talk Reviewer & TOAT Winner
Re: The Other Other 3D Surcharge — You may be paying for glasses soon, too
The extra 3D charge is 99% greed, nothing more.
09-30-11, 05:51 PM
#11
DVD Talk Godfather
Re: The Other Other 3D Surcharge — You may be paying for glasses soon, too
Greed knows no bounds. $3 is ridiculous enough and now they want theater goers to pay more?
Sounds like they are putting a couple nails in the 3D coffin. I don't want 3D to die because it keeps the 2D theaters less crowded.
Sounds like they are putting a couple nails in the 3D coffin. I don't want 3D to die because it keeps the 2D theaters less crowded.
10-03-11, 02:15 AM
#12
DVD Talk Legend
Re: The Other Other 3D Surcharge — You may be paying for glasses soon, too
Most films released this summer saw 60 - 75% attendance in 2D compared to that of 3D. The only film that saw a majority of its attendance in 3D was Transformers.
10-03-11, 10:50 AM
#13
DVD Talk Legend
Re: The Other Other 3D Surcharge — You may be paying for glasses soon, too
[QUOTE=Giles;10945851]NATO Slams Sony for 3D-Glasses Charges
By Brent Lang at TheWrap
Wed Sep 28, 2011 12:16pm EDT
(Updated: 4:13 p.m. PST)
Hey if NATO can get rid of Ghadaffi, this should be no problem.
By Brent Lang at TheWrap
Wed Sep 28, 2011 12:16pm EDT
(Updated: 4:13 p.m. PST)
Hey if NATO can get rid of Ghadaffi, this should be no problem.
