The thing that I didn't see them take into consideration on their charts and discussion is if the take from the 3D screens is covering the cost difference between releasing just a 2D version and releasing both a 2D and 3D version. Now I have no solid numbers to reference, but I'm guessing that the cost of making a 3D version of a $20mil budget movie you are already going to make does not double the final cost to release. And that cost to make a 3D version probably doesn't increase very much as a overall budget increases. The cost of making a 3D version of an $80mil movie isn't going to cost much more than making a 3D version of a $10mil movie. The bottom line that the studios and accounts will be looking for is if the take at the 3D screens is making up for the added cost of releasing a 3D version. And that bottom line extends to BluRay sells. So, as long as 3D covers it's cost or better then it will be seen as worth doing and the studios will keep asking for it. So since that percentage of difference is smaller for bigger budget movies you will probably continue to see 3D releases of bigger budget movies, but not so much for smaller budgets.
Jay
On Sep 17, 2011, at 9:00 AM, Terence Curren wrote:
> http://filmdrunk.uproxx.com/2011/09/3d-is-fcked-basically
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Search the offical complete Avid-L archives at: http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/
>
> If you want to donate to Red Cross quake relief, you can do so through your cell phone. Text redcross to 90999 to make a $10 donation. It will be on your next cell bill.Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
If you want to donate to Red Cross quake relief, you can do so through your cell phone. Text redcross to 90999 to make a $10 donation. It will be on your next cell bill.
No comments:
Post a Comment