• Registered: 2010-06-13
  • Posts: 135
  • User Karma: 31

Topic: Questions about 3D, costs, and profit

With all the 3D movies coming out, I've been wondering about some of the costs and profits revolving around 3D. I actually started thinking about this after watching Dredd knowing they shot it in 3D, (which I think may have hurt the film just a bit) But knowing Dredd did not do well in the theaters made me being to to think up a few questions that would help me understand the thought process of why someone would perhaps incorporate 3D.

1. Dose it cost more to shoot 3D or post convert to 3D as of now?

2. Is there any reason other than cost you would want to do one of the other? (shoot or convert)

3. Out of the total profits a 3D film can make now, what ruff percentages of that would come from the 3D?

4. What's about the lowest a budget can go a still have enough money to be made in 3D well? (Dredd being about 40 million)

Last edited by Landporpus (2013-05-12 04:43:47)

Thumbs up Thumbs down

  • From: Kent, England
  • Registered: 2010-02-09
  • Posts: 1,327
  • User Karma: 146

Re: Questions about 3D, costs, and profit

I imagine a lot of the incentive in 3D comes from the higher cost of admission. Here in the UK, a regular 2D ticket will cost about £10 ($15), at least in the southeast, and a 3D ticket can cost up to £15 ($23). It's a small increase but when multipled several thousand times over it makes a difference. This is probably why Avatar is the highest grossing movie.

Will be interesting to get the exact figures (a breakdown for something like the Hobbit might show an interesting pattern). Found this article which mentions that: 3D showings made up 49 percent of ticket sales this weekend, which according to Box Office Mojo is about the standard for most major releases these days.
http://www.hfrmovies.com/2012/12/17/the … e-formats/

So it could be that only half of one's audience are seeing the 3D version.

Logic would dictate that converting to 3D would cost more, just by virtue of the fact that your post-production is longer and you've got more people working on it, who all have to be paid. But maybe shooting in 3D introduces its own problems during principal photography, or requires a longer pre-production time to properly prepare?
It seems that in the few major examples, conversion has occurred because the studio wants to cash in on the fad, it's an afterthought, and that shooting in the 3D is often a director choice from the beginning (though I may be wrong and directors get pressured).

Last edited by redxavier (2013-05-12 11:53:15)

Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were. But without it we go nowhere. - Carl Sagan

Thumbs up Thumbs down

  • From: Bristol. Again.
  • Registered: 2010-06-17
  • Posts: 1,202
  • User Karma: 343

Re: Questions about 3D, costs, and profit

It's hard to gauge how popular 3d really is because cinemas tend to schedule more 3d screenings especially earlier in a films run and those 2d showing tend to be earlier in the day.

Extended Edition - 146 - The Rise Of Skywalker
VFX Reel | Twitter | IMDB | Blog

Faldor's Website

Thumbs up Thumbs down

  • Registered: 2011-04-07
  • Posts: 55
  • User Karma: 1

Re: Questions about 3D, costs, and profit

The best you'll get for individual films is the 3D ratio on opening weekend and then nothing else. The studios for whatever reason, keep this pretty close.

For the overall box office, 3D makes up an ever smaller proportion of gross, from 21% in 2010 to 17% in 2012. It'll probably be less than that this year.

http://www.mpaa.org/Resources/3037b7a4- … abdf1b.pdf

But this is just DOM. It's probably a very different story overseas, but I really have no idea where to find that kind of info.

Last edited by lab276 (2013-05-12 15:06:59)

Thumbs up Thumbs down