We're Being Screwed by 3D Ticket Prices!
Tue, May 18, 2010 
Are consumers being ripped off by Movie Theatres? The short answer, yes.
Ever since the release of James Cameron’s Avatar in 3D went on to make 2.7 billion, Hollywood has been nuts about 3D, Studio’s are announcing at a rapid pace almost every new big budget project will either be shot in or converted to 3D. Is this because it better serves the presentation of each individual film, no, it’s because the cost for 3D tickets is as much as %60 percent more in comparison to General Admission in most markets.
There is a growing trend of adding a surcharge to ticket prices for anyone who wants to see a 3D movie of $3-$5. The owners of some theatres have raised prices 20-30 percent, citing "initial costs". Reportedly, it's costing between $7,000 and $8,000 to have a silver screen installed (they're needed for quality reasons). While more honest operators admit theirs only cost $4000.
Theatre owners and VP's have reported these costs, knowing they are untrue. I've looked into this, I've seen the paperwork, they're blowing it out of proportion wildly. You may also see reports of 3D Bulbs having a life of 1,000 hours and costing anywhere between $1,500 and $2,000 when they actually have a life of 2,000 hours and cost theatre owners/projectionists maybe $400 on a bad day.
Is the growing trend of 3D nothing more than a gimmick, absolutely, we’re to believe that the increased ticket prices, inflated to the amount they are, is justified by the cost of providing 3D to the consumer. With any business decision where you upgrade or add new features, you’re going to incur costs, but where do we as customers draw the line in just how much more we should be charged for something.
I’ve heard people compare the re-emerging of 3D to bringing sound to pictures like Warner Bros did in 1926, when every other studio said it was a trend, and it wouldn’t last. The inclusion of sound in film has obviously bettered the entire industry as a whole. Aside from films like Avatar, what has 3D done to increase the quality of individual films, its put more money into the pockets of studios and theatre owners.
When Warner Bros made the decision to release a post converted Clash of The Titans in 3D, it turned into a terrible presentation, and if anything took away from the overall experience, but if the execs at Warner could have done it differently would they, of course not the inclusion of 3D may have helped it's somewhat poor box office run that made that extra little bit.
Sadly we’ll be seeing the growing trend of 3D in Hollywood for as long as us the consumers are willing to pay for it. If you’re upset about the ticket prices now, I wouldn’t hold your breath for a change anytime soon. As much as I’m against 3D being in every movie, like it’s been as of late, I don’t expect to see it fade away soon, much like sound never did in the early 1920’s, regardless of the ridiculous prices we're being charged.
Reader Comments (7)
I saw Alice in Wonderland in 3D and it was a waste of money
I liked Avatar, but there isn't really any other 3D releases that have been worth it. its 16 bones for 3D here
I don't mind 3D in some movies, but using it for everything is dumb. The prices are way too inflated. Nice article.
This makes no sense at all. If your so against 3D don't see it then. DId you really need to write a BS article about 3D ticket prices? really?
Cool story! 3D is crap, I only saw one movie in 3D and I was sooo dissapointed. I'll never see another movie like that, waste of money
Prices for everything at the movies screws us - it didn't just start with 3D. Candy shouldn't cost nearly $5, but it does at the movies.
As far as 3D, I don't mind it as long as it's done well. Nobody's forcing me to pay for it if I don't want to see it.
I just saw Shrek 4 in 3D and I was blown away by the quality, but it's very distracting. The flying was great, much like it was with How To Train Your Dragon.