my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Ground Level   » 3D and 2D showtimes (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: 3D and 2D showtimes Eric Hooper Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 532 From: Fort Worth, TX, USA Registered: May 2003 posted 07-02-2013 02:22 PM                     If you have only one screen dedicated to showing a movie that you want to screen in both 3D and 2D, how do you schedule your 3D showtimes vs. your 2D showtimes? For Example: Monsters University 11:30 2:00 4:30 7:00 9:30 Which of these showtimes would you show 3D and which would you show in 2D? Would you schedule it differently for an adult action picture? Which of these showtimes would you schedule for 3D and 2D for Man of Steel?: 12:30 3:45 7:00 10:15  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 07-02-2013 05:56 PM                        I think you should have at least one matinee each day in 2-D, and maybe a few evenings a week, have 2-D shows in the evenings. It would kind of depend on the demand in your area. The key though is to give everybody a proper choice....by that I mean, you shouldn't JUST schedule 2-D matinees. People should be able to see 2-D or 3-D at various times of day. Here, we generally do not run matinees, so what I've been doing lately is Fri-Sat-Sun-Mon all shows 3-D, and Tue-Wed-Thur all shows 2-D. For a kiddie movie like Monsters I would maybe convert the Monday to a 2-D night as well.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 07-02-2013 10:14 PM                        I wanted to add this thought but ran out of editing time. I just looked up our shows for the first half of this year. We played seven 3-D movies. On most of those 3-D movies we played six 3-D shows, and two or three 2-D showings per week. (We run two shows on Fri/Sat but only one the rest of the week, generally, and if a movie isn't showing on the break we're closed on Thursday.) Our 3-D surcharge is $2.50. Even though we had FAR more 2-D showings than 3-D ones, 3-D still contributed more than half of the dollars in the till. Even if we didn't have the surcharge, 3-D would still be nearly tied with 2-D in the overall gross race. So....your own mileage may vary of course, and naturally we have a lot of people here who don't like 3-D, but it's actually been quite good for us financially. And definitely, offering a good mix of 2-D and 3-D shows has paid off. Our Tues-Wed-Thurs crowds have never been better even on the non-3-D movies. I haven't looked at the last couple of years to see how this ratio is trending.....I'll have to do that if I ever get some spare time!  |  IP: Logged Elise Brandt Expert Film Handler Posts: 160 From: Kuusankoski, FIN/ Kouvola, Finland Registered: Dec 2009 posted 07-04-2013 05:57 AM                     We solved that by showing 2D and 3D close to the same times but on different screens. Probably the best bet is to look at your previous 3D movies with the same target audience and see how many admissions per show on average each got, to divide how many 2D vs 3D showings you should schedule. Personally I would alternate, start with a 2D, second one 3D, third 2D and so forth... although I have to admit here the 2D version usually gets about 1,5-2 times the viewers per show than the 3D version. Funny thing is that another cinema very close to ours has quite the opposite numbers, go figure. Jabbering aside my point is, since each cinema and each audience is different, it's best to look at your own experience at that same site. Despicable me 2 opens here tomorrow an I have three different versions running (six available altogether), with different language versions and 3D/2D. Fun, hu? Decisions, decisions...  |  IP: Logged Justin Hamaker Film God Posts: 2253 From: Lakeport, CA USA Registered: Jan 2004 posted 07-04-2013 03:35 PM                        Usually on a show where we're getting 5 shows a day it will go like this: 3D, 2D, 3D, 3D, 2D. Having the late show as a 2D helps boost attendance. With something that would normally have 4 shows, we do 3D, 2D, 3D, 3D. At some point the balance is going to have to shift in favor of 2D as that seems to be what the public wants on most movies. With 3D movies, the 2D showing at 3:00/4:00 tends to be the busiest show of the day.  |  IP: Logged Mike Frese Master Film Handler Posts: 465 From: Holts Summit, MO Registered: Jun 2007 posted 07-04-2013 10:14 PM                        Similar to Justin. 5 shows: 2d, 3d, 2d, 3d, 2d 4 shows: 2d, 3d, 3d, 2d or 3d, 2d, 3d, 2d If had six screens or more with just one big movie out (defintely not now but think Iron Man 3, I would run one room 2d and one room 3d. Actually since IM3 was in a dead time of the year I would run it on two screens even with just 4 screens. Mike B: It would seem your 3d outperforms 2d because you are busier on Fri-Sun than Mon - Thur (or just Wed cause you are clsoed Thursdays?)  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 07-05-2013 11:38 AM                        That would affect it too, absolutely. I was just surprised that 3D is actually ahead of 2D for us...I'd thought the sheer number of 2D showings (considering the majority of the movies are in 2D, plus we had 2D showings of all the 3D movies as well) would make 2D outdistance 3D grosswise. Especially when we hear all the talk about how the audience "prefers" 2D.  |  IP: Logged Chris Slycord Film God Posts: 2986 From: 퍼항시, 경상푹도, South Korea Registered: Mar 2007 posted 07-06-2013 01:05 PM                     quote: Elise Brandt We solved that by showing 2D and 3D close to the same times but on different screens. I'm not so sure if that's the best way. The people who really don't want 3D will, generally, seek out the 2D showings regardless and then most of the other people are either seeking out the 3D or will see whatever is available now. So if there's a 3D showing now and a 2D showing in an hour, pretty much everyone showing up now will go for the 3D one. But if the 2D show was put 15 mins from now, a few of those people will go to the 2D show that wouldn't have in the other instance. Just food for thought.  |  IP: Logged Elise Brandt Expert Film Handler Posts: 160 From: Kuusankoski, FIN/ Kouvola, Finland Registered: Dec 2009 posted 07-08-2013 03:04 PM                     Chris, that is a good point, assuming there are actual walk-ins in the theater. We almost never have them, our audience as a rule comes in when the version they want to see is playing. Of course there is the small group of people who come in for the movie only, and simply looked at the showtimes not caring (or not caring to check) which version screens when. I think this is again a question of difference in theaters, and audiences, and in their behaviour. On a side note, to my great amazement: Despicable me 2 that opened here this past weekend, did better in the original, English language version in 3D than in the finnish-dubbed version in 3D, although the original only had 2 screenings and the dubbed version 6! Did not see that one coming. (note: in Finland it is usual that the kids' movies are dubbed, none other, and the finnish versions usually do waaaay better than originals.)  |  IP: Logged Jesse Skeen Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1517 From: Sacramento, CA Registered: Aug 2000 posted 07-08-2013 10:10 PM                     Have those of you in the business found that people just don't like 3D, or are they going to 2D showings mainly so they don't have to pay the extra cost? If I made a movie in 3D I would not want ANY 2D showings, but I also would not want there to be an extra charge for it. If anything kills 3D, that extra charge is going to be it.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 07-09-2013 12:43 AM                        Well you can divide the anti-3D people into these groups: 1. Those who don't want to pay extra even though they're getting something extra 2. Those who think 3D makes the picture too dim 3. Those who find the glasses uncomfortable 4. Those who either "can't see 3-D" or it gives them a headache or it makes them dizzy or they just don't like it in general 5. Parents whose kids won't wear the glasses, making the extra cost not worth it I would say, around here at least, of the relatively few people who have made negative 3-D comments to me, most are older people in group 4. Even some of the older folks really like 3-D though...my mom is 82 and she loves it. I'd guess that even the most staunch 3-D filmmaker wouldn't object to 2-D showings of his movies. Their film is going to show up on 2-D TV (and other devices) eventually anyway, and if there are lots of people wanting to see a show in 2-D and it's possible to show it that way, why leave that money on the table?  |  IP: Logged Justin Hamaker Film God Posts: 2253 From: Lakeport, CA USA Registered: Jan 2004 posted 07-09-2013 02:01 AM                        The question I'm wondering is if anyone has found a successful method of listing 2D/3D so that customers are picking up the difference. 2D and 3D are a separate listing in all places where we publish our times, and customers are getting the right times. But we have a significant number of people showing up for 3D times unaware that it's a 3D showing - seldom do we have someone showing up for a 2D time thinking it's 3D. For the most part, I echo what Mike says, but I would break it down differently. 1. Those who don't want to pay extra. This seems to be the largest group. 2. Those who simply do not like 3D. 3. Those who don't like to wear the glasses, or have some vision problem which makes 3D problematic. 4. Parents with younger children who don't like wearing 3D glasses, or won't keep them on. In my opinion, the real issue with 3D is it's becoming too common, and most movies are not enhanced by the 3D effect. I tend to watch most of the 3D movies in 3D, primarily so I can monitor the equipment and watch for anything were the 3D really enhances the experience. For the most part I find I am apathetic about 3D. It doesn't really bother me, but it doesn't really do anything for me. In my opinion, 3D should be reserved for that handful of movies every year where the 3D truly enhances the viewing experience. The last movie to meet that standard for me was Life of Pi. By having so many major movies released in 3D, and limiting the 2D showings, I believe we are just alienating our customers. And I think this proves out when I see the gross for 2D vs 3D. I haven't broken it down by genre, but in most cases it seems 2D is grossing more with fewer shows (or at least selling more tickets). And when we run a full schedule of each format, 2D wins out.  |  IP: Logged Jack Ondracek Film God Posts: 2348 From: Port Orchard, WA, USA Registered: Oct 2002 posted 07-09-2013 05:47 PM                        quote: Justin Hamaker In my opinion, 3D should be reserved for that handful of movies every year where the 3D truly enhances the viewing experience. Ahhh, but then you're taking a matter of opinion and expecting financial restraint from the studios. Probably not on this planet.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 07-09-2013 06:57 PM                        I agree that there are many 3D movies that should not be 3D. "Oblivion" being one recent example. I also hate that every animated movie is now in 3D. I was hoping that after the initial furor died off, the studios would be selective about what would be 3D. But since every movie plays in 4 or 5 screens in the big multiplexes, there's no need for them to forego 3D -- they can stick it on every movie, even the ones that don't need it, get plenty of screens for both formats, and cash in on the surcharges. The only time we play a 3D movie with a full 2D schedule is if it is general flop and we have nothing good to fill the calendar with. "Yogi Bear" from a couple of years ago was an example. We played it in 2D only and yes, we got a few complaints including one guy who said "Why should I come to a 2D movie? I can get 2D at home!" (totally forgetting about the other 95% of the cinema experience, I guess).  |  IP: Logged Chris Slycord Film God Posts: 2986 From: 퍼항시, 경상푹도, South Korea Registered: Mar 2007 posted 07-09-2013 09:27 PM                     quote: Mike Blakesley I agree that there are many 3D movies that should not be 3D. "Oblivion" being one recent example. Oblivion was not 3D.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.