Families vs. 3-D: Too Pricey

by Sophia Savage
July 14, 2010 6:17 AM
1 Comment

Forbes blogger Dorothy Pomerantz thinks the 3-D craze for families is over.

Why?

Her own family's hassle and the extra cost to see Despicable Me in 3-D wasn't worth it. Her family of four would have paid $55 instead of the already steep $41 they shelled out for regular 2-D; her children would have been scared by the effects and uncomfortable wearing the glasses; and her husband would have left with a headache.

On the other hand, Pomerantz was glad to see Avatar in 3-D. But she felt she missed half of Alice in Wonderland because the 3-D effects were too distracting. So she refused to "let 3-D ruin [her] enjoyment" of Toy Story 3. According to a BTIG survey, 77% of consumers believe the 3-D premium is too much, and 10% of those consumers added comments echoing the same point: paying a 3-D premium for a film of Avatar's caliber is a far cry from paying the same premium for lower-quality movies that would be just as enjoyable (or disappointing) in 2-D. There is a growing dissatisfaction with the film industry for not making those quality distinctions.

More: Franchises, Genres, Summer Movies, Exhibition, Avatar, Animation, 3D

1 Comment

| Reply
Christian Toto | July 15, 2010 3:16 AMReply

Am shocked there hasn't been more negative fallout from the faux 3-D movement. Hollywood is all too eager to kill 3-D with these lackluster conversion films. "Avatar" remains the only movie, to me, which could justify the extra expense (and dimension). Every other 3-D movie has left me cold. And readers to my film blog feel pretty much the same way.

Families vs. 3-D: Too Pricey

1 Comment

Email Updates

Monthly Archives

Most "Liked"

Around The Network

the network

indiewire

categories

Families vs. 3-D: Too Pricey

1 Comment

Follow Me

Email Updates

Monthly Archives

Most "Liked"

Around The Network

the network

indiewire

categories