Comments on: Are the 3D effects in kids’ movies worth $3 more a person?

By: Dean

Dean — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 12:55:59 +0000

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.

By: Me

Me — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 22:06:39 +0000

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.

By: another movie goer

another movie goer — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 00:13:12 +0000

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…

By: Kira Lyons

Kira Lyons — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:04:27 +0000

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?

By: Mom-of-Two

Mom-of-Two — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 01:55:54 +0000

“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…”

By: Tony R

Tony R — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 19:58:50 +0000

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.

By: Tony

Tony — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 18:27:13 +0000

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.

By: nurse&mother

nurse&mother — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 02:11:30 +0000

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.

By: Turd Ferguson

Turd Ferguson — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 19:20:15 +0000

*POOT*

By: Tony R

Tony R — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 18:05:10 +0000

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.