Are the 3D effects in kids’ movies worth $3 more a person?
"Up" was an adorable movie, but were the 3D effects worth $3 more a person? (Disney Pixar)
We went with our whole family, including my parents, to see the new Pixar movie “Up” over the weekend. While the film was touching, funny, beautiful and scary, I am wondering how it would have been if we hadn’t paid the $3 extra a person to see it in 3D? Would we have lost any of the storytelling elements not shelling out the extra dough?
I am aggravated by this summer’s big trend of making EVERY kids’ movie a 3D extravaganza demanding more of your money.
I hate paying an extra $12 on top of the approximately $32 we’re already paying to get in. (At this point Lilina still gets in for free.) They don’t give you the option to bring your 3D glasses from home and not pay the $3 again!
Plus the baby doesn’t want to leave on the 3D glasses so she’s either watching a blurry screen or is left home out of the fun.
Bob is really cute but did 3D make him that much cuter? (DreamWorks)
Yes, you can choose to see the movies in just 2D, but then I’m wondering the whole time how important are the 3D effects to the story? Should you even go if you’re not going to pop for the 3D?
The movie makers claim the 3D effects are very important to the story telling.
A recent article in Entertainment Weekly reports:
”We want you to feel more like you are in the movie, rather than watching 3-D.” Jon Landau, James Cameron’s longtime producing partner, has the same hopes for Avatar. ”With Titanic, I would tell people we were using technology to make people feel a part of history,” he says. ”With Avatar, we want to use technology to transport people to another world.”
However, I am suspicious — and Entertainment Weekly confirms my suspicions – that the 3D genre isn’t as much about amazing story telling, as it is about studios desperately trying to bring people back into the theaters instead of watching movies on DVD at home.
From the same article in EW:
”In order to bring people back to the movie theaters, we’ve got to do something exceptional – we have to raise the bar,” Jeffrey Katzenberg, DreamWorks’ CEO, says of the strategy behind the 3-D surge. ”I really believe this could turn the tide Hollywood’s way.”
And Hollywood has truly embraced this genre as a savior. Here are the 3D movies from this summer:
Monsters vs. Aliens, March 27
Battle for Terra, May 1
Up, May 29
Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs, July 1
G-Force, July 24
Final Destination: Death Trip 3-D, Aug. 28
Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs, Sept. 18
Toy Story in 3-D, Oct. 2
Disney’s A Christmas Carol, Nov. 6
Avatar, Dec. 18
Plus according to EW:
“The biggest news is that both Toy Story and Toy Story 2 will be released as a 3-D double feature on Oct. 2, and that the special presentation will play for two weeks only. Previously, Disney had planned to release the movies separately. Disney also revealed that Tim Burton’s 3-D reimagining of Alice in Wonderland will be shown in IMAX 3-D in addition to regular 3-D, and that the 1991 classic Beauty and the Beast will be rereleased — yes, in 3-D — on Feb. 12, 2010.”
So how do you feel about this 3D trend in kids’ movies? Is it really about telling the best story possible or is it about creating an experience that people can’t repeat in their homes to make them come to the theater? And if that’s the case is that necessarily a bad thing? Here are some questions to consider:
1. Am I the only parent aggravated by this costly 3D trend?
2. Are you OK with paying $3 extra for the 3D effects?
3. Did the 3D effects make “Monsters vs. Aliens” better?
4. Did the 3D effects make “Up” better?
5. Do you decide with each movie whether you’re going to see it in 3D versus 2D or if it’s offered in 3D you will always choose that?
6. Should you just be able to use your old 3D glasses and not have to pay the surcharge? (I think the surcharge is actually being used to add more 3D projectors to theaters. Atlanta is lucky (?) to have so many around the city.)
7. Do you leave the glasses at the theater or bring them home?
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2010 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
68 comments Add your comment
Rick Boyer
June 8th, 2009
9:15 pm
I finally decided to write a comment on your blog. I just wanted to say good job. I really enjoy reading your posts.
nurse&mother
June 8th, 2009
10:51 pm
1. No, you’re not the only parent aggravated by the trend.
2. Not really happy about the extra money
3.Didn’t see
4. I will let you know tomorrow after we go see it.
5. Not sure as we are not big movie going buffs.
6. I think one should be able to reuse the glasses
7. Hell no, I won’t leave them at the theatre. It’s just the principle. If I am paying for them, by golly they are coming home with me.
HB
June 8th, 2009
10:57 pm
Why be aggravated? Go 3D or don’t. Pay if it’s worth it to you and the kids. No biggie. Personally, I would pay extra to see Up in 3D — sounds pretty cool. 3D is absolutely about creating something people can’t get at home, but some stories written specifically for the genre, like Up, will be better viewed in 3D. And that’s not new. Was Star Wars and its cutting edge special effects better in the theater or at home on a 15″ screen on Beta? Could you really experience that story written to showcase the new 70s technology as well watching on a TV? There’s a reason action movies have done so much better than other films in theaters since VCRs came along. The experience was better in theaters with a big screen and surround sound. Now that people have HD widescreen and home theater systems, even action films can be great at home.
As a grown up who likes grown up non-3D movies, I do appreciate that theaters are charging $3 more only for 3D rather than charging $1 more on ALL movies to cover the upgrade costs. Upgrading to 3D is expensive for theaters, and the studios have actually been frustrated with their slowness to adapt. Theater owners aren’t all convinced that they will make back the upgrade funds they have to pay up front and eventually turn a profit. They worry it’s a fad (a reasonable concern seeing as 3D’s come and gone before). So as for bringing your own glasses, of course you should still have to pay the $3 — the extra charge is for the enhanced movie experience and the equipment required to screen it, not the glasses. But do be green and reuse them next time or drop them in the theater’s recycle box. I’m pretty sure those get handed out again, though, so I recommend wiping down all “new” pairs with a babywipe before wearing them.
Movie Genre
June 9th, 2009
3:22 am
The CGI work is the only thing that saves this film from being a huge flop. Movie Genre
movies » Blog Archive » Are the 3D effects in kids' movies worth $3 more a person? | A …
June 9th, 2009
4:43 am
[...] more: Are the 3D effects in kids' mov­… Share and [...]
Oh, no...
June 9th, 2009
6:46 am
…catlady has turned into another motherjanegoose! Help us all…..or are they the same person?!?!?!?!?!?
Andrea
June 9th, 2009
7:11 am
No, I am not happy about the surcharge. But, I will say, having seen other movies in 2D and 3D previously, my kids enjoyed the 3D movie better. They like putting on the glasses and it is just an experience for them. I do have older kids (8 & 13), so that may attribute to their appreciation of the 3D experience.
Like everything else in this current economy, we plan for it. We saw Monsters vs. Aliens as an end of school year treat. Their school year actually ended on May 29th, so we planned it around that. That was the May outing. We are going to see Up this weekend and we will see it in 3D. To offset some of the costs, I did sign up for the movie theater club and I accumulated my free tickets very quickly. I found the club worth it because with the movie club, I always save at the movies. The theater club I belong to will allow a child to get a 3D movie ticket with your free ticket (but not an adult). I wasn’t sure if I could name it here so that’s why I didn’t name the club (but it sounds like Spiegal).
I wish they would allow you to bring your own glasses but most of the theaters don’t allow it. And, I never leave the glasses – I bought them, they are mine!
AdsBidWorld » Are the 3D effects in kids' movies worth $3 more a person? | A …
June 9th, 2009
7:51 am
[...] more here: Are the 3D effects in kids' movies worth $3 more a person? | A … This entry is filed under Movies. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 [...]
April
June 9th, 2009
7:57 am
I think the entire purpose of going to the theater is to have an experience that you can not recreate at home. With the advances in home theater technology, making the movie theater experience unique has gotten to be pretty tough. We saw UP in 3-D and really enjoyed it. We do not go to a lot of movies so the added cost is not prohibitive for us. If we went to a movie every weekend it might be more of an issue.
For a true 3-D experience, take your family to see plays and shows in a live theater. The cost is usually no more, and you get an experience that in no way can be replicated at home.
Movie Goer
June 9th, 2009
8:09 am
Please do NOT bring your child to a movie til they’re 4 or 5. A baby is one of life’s greatest joys, but in a movie theater they’re screaming little chatterboxes.
Also, Pixar’s movies are leaving “kids movie” territory at about 88 mph, so be prepared for some heavy material if you decide to take your kid to “UP.”
Photius
June 9th, 2009
8:13 am
Yes, do not bring your baby to a movie. No baby in a movie please.
Becky
June 9th, 2009
8:17 am
Rick, welcome to our family..We are glad to have you…
We don’t got to the movies, because the kids aren’t interested in going..We’ve taken them to a couple and they would rather watch them at home..So I’ll just be a bystander today..
DB
June 9th, 2009
8:26 am
3D is to future movies as color was to film off the 40’s and 50’s. Do you “need” color to tell a story? No — obviously, because there are wonderful black-and-white films whose story-telling magic still enchants (”Schindler’s List”, “The Last Picture Show”, “Young Frankenstein”, etc.). But the simple fact of the matter is that most people prefer color. And in about 10 years, 3-D will be taken for granted, and kids will be bored with 2-D pictures. :-)
If you don’t like the cost, then there’s a simple solution: Don’t go. As far as the glasses go — if I paid for them, they are MINE, unless there’s some sort of rental agreement!
Theresa Walsh Giarrusso
June 9th, 2009
8:28 am
Baby, who is 2 yet I call her baby, does fine in the movie. She doesn’t bother anyone, she just won’t leave on the glasses.
Paula
June 9th, 2009
8:34 am
My husband and I took our three year old granddaughter to see Up in 3D this past weekend. She would not wear the glasses at all. She also did not like the fact my husband had his on, so he took them off. The theatre we went to charged $2.00 extra per person for the 3D experience but since we only used one pair (mine), I feel like I just gave them $4.00 for nothing. And they were like tyrants about the glasses. If you left to go to the bathroom or the snack bar, you had to turn in your glasses and got them back when you returned. At the end of the movie, my husband was carrying our granddaughter and I had all the glasses – the movie attendant almost attacked him because he didn’t have his glasses. This experience was definitely not worth the extra money and the movie was just as good without the glasses per my husband. We are not happy with this explosion of 3D movies and probably will not go to another one any time soon.
catlady
June 9th, 2009
8:40 am
I am sure it is a compliment to be considered MJG, but we don’t agree all the time and we are NOT the same person. I am guessing you think so because we are both somewhat old fashioned, common-sense bloggers. I actually govern my tongue a good bit on this blog as many times it mirrors the things I see among my students’ parents in “real life.”
PHR
June 9th, 2009
8:43 am
I try to choose the theaters that are playing the 2-D versions. I hate wearing those glasses. My son thinks it is fun though.
I just bought a DVD that had both 2-D and 3-D versions on it and included two pairs of those paper 3-D glasses.
Joi
June 9th, 2009
8:46 am
No, I don’t think it’s fair to charge extra for a 3D movie. My son and I went to see “UP” last week (in 2D, after I was quoted the charges of the 3D version). Of course, he was a little bit disappointed, but that didn’t last long. And I felt, I enjoyed that version better. Those 3D glasses just bug me because they are not very comfortable! Since we usually purchase the movie on DVD (which, most often, includes both versions), I will not pay extra for the 3D version. And, yes, I noticed that ALL the kid films previewed before “UP” are going to be in 3D. I, too, am extremely annoyed by this! Glad to see I am not the only one!
HB
June 9th, 2009
8:48 am
DB, I completely agree with you about deciding if the cost is worth it to you, but isn’t color important to some stories where the color is actually written in and not just a matter of preference? Schindler’s List is a great example — the red coat. And what would the Wizard of Oz be without the dramatic transformation from b/w to color? I think watching either of those in b/w would significantly diminish the experience. I suspect 3D will continue to be popular for movies written for it, but I think interest in 3Ding older 2D films like Beauty and the Beast will die as quickly as colorizing old b/w films did in the 80s.
No, catlady, it was not a compliment...
June 9th, 2009
8:48 am
…I think you are a verbose, overbearing and obnoxious mother who just likes to “see” herself write! Some of what you say IS “common-sense”, so why do you have to write it over and over and over and over…..and MJG has not been around for a few days, and your writings are more and more frequent, multiple times a day, so, has anybody seen you two blog at the same time?????!!!!!!
heather
June 9th, 2009
8:52 am
I just can’t get past the fact that you bring your baby (2 yr old) to the theater. leave the little tyke at home…for pete’s sake! 3D..yes…I mean really, is $12 really going to break you? That’s like taking a kid to the circus but not buying cotton candy!
JJ
June 9th, 2009
8:58 am
We don’t really go to movies anymore, I wait for the DVD. It’s just too expensive, and I have a very hard time sitting still for two hours…….I much prefer my surround sound, on my HUGE tv, from the comfort of my couch.
My daughter goes to movies once in a while. Again, just too expensive.
motherjanegoose
June 9th, 2009
8:59 am
We also paid $2 for the glasses. I left wondering about this movie for children under eight? My daughter ( 17) agreed. This may be a stupid question but it you “never leave the glasses – I bought them, they are mine!’ what do you do with them? We left ours.
No catlady and I are not the same person. I apologize to you catlady for being lumped in the same bag as me ( if you are offended). Perhaps someone would draw this conclusion because we are both mothers who have worn the t-shirt and drank from the coffee cup for more than twenty years. We have both also seen a lot of how not to parent, having worked in schools. Many in the get schooled blog continue to mention that parents can be the biggest problem today. Many others hate teachers for acting like they know it all.
As a parent, love and discipline need to be balanced….IMHO…anyone else?
One of the biggest joys is to see your children grow up to be responsible young adults. There are many on this blog who can share how this happens and it is not by being a smiling parent who wants to be the best friend of your child everyday.
Last week, I returned a call to someone whom my daughter will be working with this week in VBS. My daughter tried to leave her a message and said it did not work, so I followed up. When I reached the lady, I apologized and told her that I did not want her to think that my children were flakey…my daughter did try to call. She told me this, ” I would never think that about your children…I know them and they are responsible.” YES, I was proud for one day….LOL.
Here is a quote my daughter shared with me this morning….she read the article ( last night) about the Jonas brothers , and their mother, in my Good Housekeeping magazine:
” we wanted everyone to feel joy in the presence of our children ( Denise their mother says)
To me there’s nothing more frustrating than being around a child who’s annoying. We taught our kids proper manners…consistency, boundaries and constantly reinforcing good conduct until it was behavior. Because they’re going to be adults a lot longer than they are children.”
Is this lady my twin…heavens no…she is a mother with 3 wonderful sons who has my admiration and thanks! Good luck to her family!
lakerat
June 9th, 2009
9:24 am
I know your feeling re: “YES, I was proud for one day…LOL” – I have had people tell me the same type things about my kids, and then sometimes, after they have continued with some of their “not so proud” moments, I wonder who the heck those people were talking about!!!!
motherjanegoose
June 9th, 2009
9:46 am
lakerat OMG you know my feeling ( you are in dangerous waters now) ….LOL. I was thinking of you ( among others) when I typed “mothers who have worn the t-shirt and drank from the coffee cup for more than twenty years…”
If I were moving to Alaska and wanted to plant flowers that would be beautiful, I would check in with someone who has lovely flowers and also years of experience both planting and growing.
The same is true for new parents…find someone who has grown children that you admire and ask that parent how they did it. Those who have old fashioned ideas may just have parented respectable young adults and be able to prove that these ideas can work. Some will NOT get this.
Did you like the quote from Denise Jonas?
lakerat
June 9th, 2009
10:08 am
That is a nice quote by Ms. Jonas – I remember about 12 years ago my then 12 yr. old son wore his hair in a braided style (a one day statement) to a family reunion. We thought it funny because he was NOT a troublemaker, yet I wondered how the rest of the relatives would react – we also knew my mother would NOT be amused, but we let it go. Well, my now 96 year old aunt pulled me aside during the gathering and commented on his hair. She said she was “wondering who the rebellious child was”, and then said that when she found out it whose it was she said she quit worrying since he was my son and she knew he would turn out all right! That made me feel good, and he has turned out well. Now, if we can only get the next child out of college, too, we can then relax – but not until then!
I told my kids when they went to college that they needed to make themselves proud now, since they had made us proud (mostly) for the past 18 years, because it was all up to them now. And I continue to tell them that whenever they leave after they have come home for a visit – and I believe they are listening – most of the time!
sd
June 9th, 2009
10:39 am
The general rule here is that if your kids are old enough to sit there with the glasses on, get them. If they aren’t, see it in 2D.
I will let my son decide when we go if he wants to wear the glasses or not. He is 6. He should be fine with it by now.
The thing about Pixar movies is that they have things the kids enjoy in them, like gratuitous violence (Wall-e falls down, ect) and things adults like, such as a message about us.
JJ
June 9th, 2009
10:42 am
Keep the 3D glasses, you may need them for the DVD when it is released. And it never hurts to have an extra pair.
HB
June 9th, 2009
10:47 am
JJ, are they the same glasses or do you still need the red/blue things for viewing at home (like the ones for this year’s superbowl commercials)? I thought the clear 3D glasses only worked for the double projection systems at the theater.
DB
June 9th, 2009
11:02 am
Is it just me, or is anyone else squeemish about using 3-D glasses that someeone else has had on their nose and over their ears? Ick!
I suspect that, given the technology, there will be a point where 3-D glasses won’t be necessary and they will find a way to obtain the 3-D effect without those stupid glasses. :-)
HB: I’m not putting down color AT ALL — and yes, sometimes it does help tell the story (who wasn’t enchanted with Munchkinland the first time “The Wizard of Oz” was seen on a color TV?!) But a lot of people thought that color was a “gimmick” in the 30’s and 40’s, because they were used to B&W. I see a similar trend, here :-)
catlady
June 9th, 2009
12:39 pm
MJG–actually it is 2 daughters and a son. And, like you, I have been teaching a long time (37 years) and worked with over 1000 students and their parents. I have seen stuff that works and stuff that is counter-productive. (I have done both as a parent). So, I say what I do based on the hundreds of kids/families I have worked with, over a wide spectrum of parenting styles. Yes, mine are “Aunty Em” stories, but they are based on a bigger experiential sample than just me, my family and my friends that many of the respondents to this blog write from.
And no, NO, CATLADY: apparently common sense isn’t very common any more. Look back over some of the topics and responses on this blog over the last year for a sample. Feel free to skip over my responses, or not.
Best wishes.
motherjanegoose
June 9th, 2009
1:32 pm
Amen catlady…sometimes common sense is about as common as sweet tea in New York City.
I have made my share of mistakes with my children but aspire to the first line I typed about Denise Jonas ( with her children) and it is not always easy to parent this way…kind of like riding a bucking bronco with a blindfold on.
DB…our glasses were sealed in a plastic sleeve and I assumed they were sanitized…maybe not?
How do we know?
Tony Robertson
June 9th, 2009
2:06 pm
Let’s look at the logic of this. 3D movies are almost all confined to larger cities, only 28% of the screens of a 3d movie show it in 3d, the rest show it in 2d. Also many multiplexes have been showing these movies in 2d and 3d. So a 2d showing of these 3d movies is easily available to 98% of the population. Then you poeople who write news articles choose to go to the 3d show and complain. Then just don’t go.
Also the reason 3d movies are doing so well is because 2 to 4 more people are choosing to go to the 3d showing instead of the 2d showing. That means for every person that goes to the 2d showing, 2 to 4 people will go to the 3d showing. My Bloody Valentine was 6 to 1, and that is with the 3d showing on far less screens.
So you know who you need to blame for this. Not the movie studios, not the movie theaters. You need to blame the individuals that are going to the 3d movies, they are driving this 3d wave. Have since Polar Express came out in 2004 in 3d. I have been following the news about the number of people going to 3d movies soon after Polar Express came out. They have been very high since that movie came out. So in turn the studios said “Hey, seems like a lot of people want to see 3d, maybe we should do more.”
Isn’t that just logical on their part.
DB
June 9th, 2009
3:08 pm
MJG: Makes sense. So, if they are sanitized in little plastic sleeves — why do the theatres want them back? Hmm . . . inquiring minds . . .
HB
June 9th, 2009
3:17 pm
Got it, DB. So you’re speculating that 10 years from now 3D could just be the norm whether it’s important to the story or not, so for example, Dumb and Dumber 8, of so little quality that 2D, 3D, color, b/w could make very little difference, would be 3D just because that’s the norm. And 2D may be used almost exclusively for indie/art house films that are making a conscious choice to go back (like b/w is used now). Interesting — it could happen. A few years ago, a lot of people really thought Imax was going to become the new norm (still could, I guess), but it doesn’t seem to excite people enough — I think most viewers just think of it as “big”. Imax domes are more interesting, but I think a lot of people find the angle a bit uncomfortable and the new effect not that great. Maybe 3D will be the innovation that color was, at least in theaters. Only time will tell…
Stan
June 9th, 2009
3:47 pm
I wasn’t aware that this was a trend in movies till I read this blog today.
I seldom go to the movies anyway, they are getting wayyyy to flippin expensive. My wife and I will go see and action flick at the theater about twice a year if there is a good one that we want to see. otherwise we stay home and watch them.
No way I’m gonna pay extra to see it 3D in the theater.
Becky
June 9th, 2009
4:05 pm
Stan, I thought we were the only ones that didn’t go see movies on a weekly basis..Heck, we don’t hardly ever watch them on DVD..We are content to watch whatever comes on TV..Actually I read, while my husband watches TV..
Hey, does anyone know what happened to Jeff and T? The last I knew he was talking about some medical issues that she was having and I don’t think that I’ve seen anything from him since then..Jeff, if you are still around, I hope that y’all are doing good…
motherjanegoose
June 9th, 2009
5:28 pm
DB….is it cheaper for the movies to re-sanitize them and seal them back up rather then give each patron a new pair ( that we pay for) ? I have no idea about this but someone else may. I kind of remember YEARS ago that we tossed ours into a big vat of solution…cannot remember when or where.
If we could keep out glasses and use them at a future show, how is this different from purchasing head phones on say Delta for $2 and then being able to use them again on all future flights ( as the flight attendants mention). Surely I am missing something?
FCM
June 9th, 2009
5:35 pm
If they were not worth it than I suppose the movie patrons wouldn’t go to the 3D showing (especially if there is a non-3D to go to). If they didn’t go then the revenue wouldn’t justify making a 3D movie and studios would not fund 3D projects. This is Econ 101 and Business 101.
nurse&mother
June 9th, 2009
6:04 pm
Ok,hacked off at the laptop for deleting my whole post just as I was wrapping it up.
I will be more concise this time. I will probably post in fragments so to not have to repeat this again.
We went today to see the movie. We took my 3yo and he did just fine. There is nothing wrong with a 2yo at a CHILDREN’S MOVIE as long as they are well behaved! It is a CHILDREN’S MOVIE you know.
nurse&mother
June 9th, 2009
6:07 pm
part two
The lady at the ticket counter was so nice and didn’t even charge for my 3yo. I didn’t deceive her about his age either. That was VERY nice of her. Overall, I thought this movie was worth the money. Now the popcorn and drink was a different story! $8 for a large popcorn and $5 or $6 for the drink. That’s a rip off!
I usually do not go to the movies and do Netflix instead. The popcorn, drinks and candy are a steal. lol.
nurse&mother
June 9th, 2009
6:11 pm
part three
Ok about the glasses. I actually did recycle them today only because I didn’t want them to end up as clutter around the house. MJG this is why I don’t “purchase” the ear pieces on Delta.
Ok I will finish my thoughts, once my hubby gets done with the laptoop or the daughter gets off the real one.
HB
June 9th, 2009
6:18 pm
MJG, to me the difference is in what they’re selling. The theater is charging $2-3 extra for the 3D experience which requires use of the glasses, not for the glasses themselves. To me in this case, the glasses are like your seats — just for use in the theater, not to take home. Theaters certainly could come up with a program where you get a discount for bringing back and reusing glasses next time rather than asking people to leave them at the theater as they exit — sort of a deposit system. I bet, though, is that discount would be no more than 50 cents as most of the price increase from 2D is for the equipment to show 3D films, not the glasses themselves.
As for sanitizing, I just called my friend who works for a big theater chain — they ship the collected glasses back to wherever they came from to be recycled somehow (don’t know if that’s all theaters are just that corporation). My guess is that means they’re sanitized and, if still in good condition, rewrapped and frames reused if lens are scratched. Sort of like what happens to disposable cameras after you take them in to have your film processed — the plastic parts and lenses are recycled, often under a generic brand, so it’s a good idea to stick with a company like Kodak or Fuji.
nurse&mother
June 9th, 2009
6:20 pm
I’m back. I think it’s kinda crappy that the theatres don’t let you return the glasses for a discount off the next 3D movie. I personally think it is a way to nickle and dime you for more money. jmho. This is one of the reasons why my husband and I do not go to too many movies. The special effects are not all that important to me for most movies. I will admit that I thought the 3D greatly enriched the movie.
So, for this movie, the $3 was worth it, imo. This was such a heartwarming movie. I got a little teary in a couple of places.
motherjanegoose
June 9th, 2009
8:11 pm
My husband and I just chatted about this and I think we tossed our glasses into a vat of solution at Dollywood, the ride where Dolly is on that crop duster. We both agree that the glasses greatly enhanced that particular show. We did not feel the same about UP. We did enjoy the movie and went as a family (a rarity) , since my 22 year old son said it had great reviews and I was amazed that he actually showed an interest in it.
I am not a good judge of movies in general. If I had to give up going to the theatre for the rest of my life….NO BIG DEAL for me. Now if I had to give up going to the bookstore, that would cause me a major break down…I am in the middle of a book at all times. ….LOL.
Kat
June 9th, 2009
8:14 pm
I think if you need glasses, then you pay the surcharge. If you bring them from home, then you don’t. Why not just charge for the glasses? It would make people remember their glasses more often (and therefore, recycle their glasses), if they knew they had to pay another $3 the next time they came to the movies. And, if people don’t “care,” they can dump them in the box before they leave the theatre.
Belle
June 9th, 2009
8:19 pm
Enter your comments here
deidre_NC
June 9th, 2009
8:19 pm
i live in a place where there is one theater in about a 40 mile radius-yep i swear lol..and the theater has TWO movies!!! its a TWIN cinema..remember those? we have to drive pretty far to go to most movies. the kids do it..they love it. my YOUNGEST daughter (WHO GRADUATED SATURDAY THANK GOD HIGH SCHOOL IS OVER)(and yes the caps were intentional!!!)love to go to the movies. i persoanlly hate it..people have no manners anymore in movies-they talk-laugh-cell phones ring and you constantly hear the infernal clicking of texting going on. kids going in and out…so i have netflix and thats fine with me. i have never seen a 3D movie-i forgot to put on my glasses during super bowl half time lol
i think that parents who arent willing to listen to parents who have raised their kids are missing out on a lot of good info. i raised 5 not to mention all of the friends of my kids who call me their second mom. some of them have great moms and some have horrible ones…i try to be there for all kids who may need me. how can we not. ive made mistakes and ive done some things just exactly right. i enjoy all the comments here from young moms-new moms-not moms and from experienced moms…some stuff i learn from and some i just discard..its ok…we dont all have to agree on everything…but disagreeing doesnt mean we have to be hateful and judgemental.
and welcome to rick-its good to hear some good comments about this blog..its the main reason i read ajc.com….and i love your blog too..i looked via the link…
yall have a great day!!
nurse&mother
June 9th, 2009
8:44 pm
Deidre- I think you must be talking about Blue Ridge. lol. This is where our lake house is and there is a twin cinema there. I think it is the only theatre around.
nurse&mother
June 9th, 2009
8:45 pm
oops, I was wrong. I forgot about the drive in movie theatre. You no longer have a box that you place on your window/door. Now you just tune your car radio to 105.5 (I think).
Margaret Eves
June 9th, 2009
10:06 pm
I rarely go see first run movies. I took my kids specifically for the 3D and was aggravated by the extra charge. I won’t go see 3D again. I think after the first few minutes of the movie the 3D didn’t make a difference. The PIXAR animation does the trick on its own.
FCM
June 10th, 2009
6:24 am
”We want you to feel more like you are in the movie, rather than watching 3-D.” Jon Landau, James Cameron’s longtime producing partner, has the same hopes for Avatar. ”With Titanic, I would tell people we were using technology to make people feel a part of history,” he says. ”With Avatar, we want to use technology to transport people to another world.”
Read that slowly and as a stand alone. It is PR SPIN. It has nothing to do with the movie it is just new technology and hype.
My eldest saw Bolt in 3D then I think we saw it as a cheap seats production (2D) now has it on DVD. Doesn’t seem to care.
I usually go to the $1 (Cheap seat) theater to see movies. We love it. We don’t do the concessions, and go see a movie for less than $5. That is less than seeing at home On Demand.
We saw Night at Museum: Smithsonian (IMAX) Memorial weekend. Not sure that IMAX enhanced the experience so probably won’t do that again. We’ll (or at least I’ll) see HP 6 in a theater close to opening weekend. Same for New Moon. Going to the Megaplex is a big deal for us and is done as a treat for very select movies.
worry over nothing
June 10th, 2009
8:49 am
I agree with some parents that the 3d experience isn’t something worth worrying over. In the grand scheme of things, you can either go 3d or not. I personally believe that 3D is for children who can appreciate it so yes a three year old may not really want to keep a pair of aggravating glasses on. Sometimes evenI don’t want to:)
Turd Ferguson
June 10th, 2009
10:37 am
Look at all the clueless co-dependent female hens squawking about much of nothing…geesh.
motherjanegoose
June 10th, 2009
11:40 am
Turd…some of us here are not clueless ( I cannot speak for the group) but while we were here, some clueless co-dependent men are right now eating lunch at Hooters ( does anyone go to eat there alone….I do not know) and oogling breasts…which is worse?
Informal dialogue could be considered to be more effective in brain development ( for those who you assume are clueless) than oogling….perhaps someone else can validate this….LOL.
I do have one more question….is there a reason why Rick Boyer has no comments on his link?
I looked at several topics and NADA. Ideas?
motherjanegoose
June 10th, 2009
11:41 am
ooops…should be “whom you assume…” sorry
Turd Ferguson
June 10th, 2009
12:15 pm
LOL…Nothing wrong with a lunch at hooters and enjoying the scenary. Perhaps if you were satisfying you man he would have not need to visit. Regardless your co-dependence and low self-esteem is showing…LOL.
nurse&mother
June 10th, 2009
1:38 pm
Nobody likes a Turd. hehe. BTW, is this the Turd Ferguson that is a used car dealer and owns a junk man’s store off the cleveland hwy? If so, I know where you work. The name is Terd Ferguson. Coincidence??
Tony R
June 10th, 2009
2:05 pm
The 2 or 3 dollars extra that they charge for a 3d movie does not go for the glasses. There have been a few news articles stating that theaters are upset because they don’t want to have to pay for the glasses. The extra charge goes to the film studio to help pay for the man hours it takes to add the 3d effect to the film. Therefore the glasses are the property of the theater and they must take the pay for the the glasses out of the origanal 9 or 10 dollars they charge for every movie.
Turd Ferguson
June 10th, 2009
3:20 pm
*POOT*
nurse&mother
June 10th, 2009
10:11 pm
Tony- then why does the recepticle say to please recycle. If they are property of the theatre then they should have employees mandating that you leave them. I’m not saying that you are wrong, just saying that the recepticle implies that YOU can choose to recycle.
Tony
June 11th, 2009
2:27 pm
Don’t know, I’m just saying what I have read in news articles. That the extra charge goes to the time put into making a film 3d and that some theaters don’t what to have to pay for the glassses, that they want the movie studios to pay for them. At one of our mutiplex theaters here in Springfield Missouri they will absolutely not let you take the glasses. Before (when I saw Coraline and Bolt) if you wanted to go to the bathroom and you are holding your glasses the usher wanted you to give them to him until you come back and they would stand in hall outside the theater room with the bin to return glasses. Now when the movie is over (they did this for Monsters vs Aliens and Up) the usher will now bring the bin into the actual room where we watch the movie, stand at the exit, and make sure everyone puts the glasses into the bin and that no one goes out those doors to the back alley behind the screen. I’m assuming it is because they where coming up short on the glasses.
When I went to the 3d showing of Beowulf in Kansas City at that theater they would not let you take the glasses either. They would not let you take the glasses to the restroom and they would stand in the theater room at that mutiplex as well, not in the hallway.
That is just my exsperience with the glasses. Perhaps where you have gone they are just being more subtle about returning the glasses, where I have been they are pretty urgent that you return the glasses.
Tony R
June 11th, 2009
3:58 pm
I should add to the above post about the extra cost of 3d movies. I’ve have read several news article over the last 5 years as this 3d wave was growing. The one thing I have seen over and over again is how the extra cost is for the exspense of putting a movie in 3d. Also the point I need to make is that I have seen quotes that on average it adds about $15 million to the budget of the film. You have to pay for more people to do the added work, the equipment and so on. This has been my perspective of the extra cost all along, but when someone who has not read any of these articles and just goes to a 3d movie their instant assumption is that the money goes to the glasses.
So lets just say they put out two formats of movies and one movie has more special effects and sound effects and better picture quality and more of a music score in it and they pay all those people to write the extra music and add the extra sound effects and visual effects and so on. Then they charge more for the movie with the extra stuff. Well actually that is what you are doing right now. Compared to movies put out in the 1970’s you are paying for a lot more for the effects because more goes into movies right now. Most, not all, but most of the movies from the 1970’s or better the 1960’s seem kind of bland compared to movies now. Remember the succes of Star Wars when is first came out. This time it just worked out that they had to separate the two formats because you have to have a 3d digital projector for 3d and therefore there is a very distinct difference here. For more sound effects you didn’t need to have two formats of movies out because most theaters I know have always had speakers installed.
So my understanding as to why 3d has failed in the past is not because there was not interest, but because they would charge the same price even though it was much more of a hassle to add the 3d. It would draw twice the amout of poeple but it just didn’t draw enough from the studios perspective to keep doing it. So in the 1950’s and 1980’s they just gave up on it just because of the simple fact they charged the same price. Not enough reason to keep it going.
Mom-of-Two
June 16th, 2009
9:55 pm
“UP” in 3D at the IMAX theatre was an awesome movie-going experience & well worth the bucks for our entertainment-starved family of four! We work hard, so we need to play hard. Yes! Those eye-popping special-effects help take it up to that next level. We appreciated the hygienically-wrapped 3D glasses (which we took home afterwards), as in past experiences in some theatres, the glasses provided were collected at the end & re-used for the next group of viewers. We certainly wouldn’t mind paying extra to make sure the glasses were “fresh”. The content of “UP” was fine for 4 yrs old & older, I think. And it entertained on every level without stooping to vulgar bodily humor to get a chuckle out of the older crowd. My husband not only stayed awake through the entire movie, but the characters were so endearing… After the movie, still wild-eyed & intoxicated with the world of make-believe, I heard him bantering back & forth with the kids, “Oooh, yeah, my favorite part was when the bird…”
Kira Lyons
June 22nd, 2009
10:04 am
Ok for all the parents out there that say you chose to take your children to the 3d I just want you to know thats all there is in my town. Personally I wouldnt mind paying the extra for the glassed if they gave me CHILD size glasses. I thought the movie up was no good! I will NEVER again spent money on a 3D movie. It was a waste of money. I also have to pay $7 to get a one year old in and $7 for a 4 year old. With the economy that way that it is I wont be helping out the movie industry any more. It costed me 40 dollars to take myself 24 and 1year old and a 4 year old. The 4 year old liked the movie but just because it was a special treat for him. And for all the parents who have whining little babies dont take them! But my child is wonderful. She is behaves very well and she didnt make a peep in the theater! So as for the questions
1: Yes I am aggravated with the cost of the 3D trend
2: the first and only time I was ok with it only because I thought that I would get glasses that would actually fit the children.
3I never seen monsters vs allens
4: I didnt like up and I cant say that it would be better with or with out 3D. The movie is flat.
5: I would rather see a 2D with younger children rather than a 3 D
6:I totally think that you should be able to bring your glasses back and not pay the extra.
7:I took all the glasses home with me. Why would I leave those expensive glasses at the theater?
another movie goer
July 5th, 2009
8:13 pm
I do not like the extra costs for the 3D experience.. The price of movies are already too high.. not to mention that when I have to sit through many many and many more commercials…. The cost of the advertising should be enough…
Me
July 27th, 2009
6:06 pm
Which Atlanta area movies are 3D-ready? We were disappointed going to see “Up” that Perimeter Pointe didn’t even offer the 3D version we’d expected.
Dean
September 28th, 2009
8:55 am
Took the kids to see Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs in 3D this weekend and thoroughly enjoyed it. We haven’t had so much fun at a movie in ages. However it wasn’t just because of the 3D, the movie was great to begin with. The 3D was a hoot, but didn’t feel like a gimmick. It was integrated into the film very well.
I think the 3d is fun, I felt it was worth the extra cost, but bottom line, if a movie sucks, 3D won’t save it.
p.s. I think the Toy Story movies will be great in 3D as they already have a great story.