'Star Wars' saga set for 3D release starting 2012

[JD10367]

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

Are they truly giving the public what they want, since sequels, reboots, remakes, films based on books, comic books, etc.... tend to make more money with built in audience awareness.....or do audiences really crave originality?

Also, with the way theater chains have invested big time in the 3D projectors means 3D isnt going away anytime soon unfortunately.....

These two paragraphs are two different topics. I'll take them one by one.

1.) Hollywood has never been about originality. It's a moneymaking endeavor. As with most things, there are people who do it for creativity and aesthetics and people who do it for mass-marketing cash-cow purposes. Think "fancy gourmet chef vs. McDonald's". But, by and large, Hollywood is driven by money. If they can make "Alvin And The Chipmunks 5: Chip's Revenge", and make it for X dollars, and it earns X-times-five dollars, they're happy. If it costs $400M to make and is the Best Film Ever but only makes $300M, they'll never make another one.

And, the truth is, creativity doesn't make money. Here's a list of some recent, creative, praised films, and what they've grossed to date:

"Iron Lady": $23M
"Red Tails": $45M
"The Descendants": $71M
"Girl With The Dragon Tattoo": $100M
"Extremely Loud": $30M
"The Artist": $25M

All those films, total, made $304 million. And most of them are considered to have been successes, doing pretty damn good compared to their budgets and predictions. And, yet, almost all came and went in my theater quicker than I would with a naked Scarlett Johansen. Even "The Help", which made almost $170M (which is astonishing).

Meanwhile:

"Breaking Dawn": $280M
"MI4": $206M
"Sherlock Holmes 2": $185M
"Puss In Boots": $148M
"Alvin and the Chipmunks (Chipwrecked): $129M

So, "Puss In Boots" and "Chipwrecked", combined, made $277M... almost as much as all six of those creative films I mentioned.

2.) Most theater chains haven't invested that much in 3D projectors. The competing companies (Christie, Barco, Sony, NEC, etc.,.) offer trial runs, package deals, and the like. And 3D isn't much more than 2D when you're talking the amount of money being spent. And they're aware of the 3D backlash already. My theater has 16 screens. When we went digital, we started with 3 screens, and put 3D in all of them. When we converted the other 13 screens, we only put 3D in three of those. So we have 6 theaters capable of 3D and 10 that are 2D-only... and of those 6 theaters we often don't have 3D running in them. (Example: currently, "The Grey", "Woman In Black", and "Chronicle" take up 3 of our 6.)

Theater chains, like Hollywood, will go where the money (consumer spending) goes. They all hopped onboard the 3D Gravy Train and started ****ing customers with things like a 3D "upcharge", and now that the tide's turning they'll probably not suck 3D's schlong as much as they used to. Note that the biggest film of this coming summer, "The Dark Knight Rises", will not be 3D. Neither was "Breaking Dawn", or "MI4", or "Sherlock Holmes 2"... yet all were huge.

[007]

Originally Posted by JD10367

These two paragraphs are two different topics. I'll take them one by one.

1.) Hollywood has never been about originality. It's a moneymaking endeavor. As with most things, there are people who do it for creativity and aesthetics and people who do it for mass-marketing cash-cow purposes. Think "fancy gourmet chef vs. McDonald's". But, by and large, Hollywood is driven by money. If they can make "Alvin And The Chipmunks 5: Chip's Revenge", and make it for X dollars, and it earns X-times-five dollars, they're happy. If it costs $400M to make and is the Best Film Ever but only makes $300M, they'll never make another one.

And, the truth is, creativity doesn't make money. Here's a list of some recent, creative, praised films, and what they've grossed to date:

"Iron Lady": $23M
"Red Tails": $45M
"The Descendants": $71M
"Girl With The Dragon Tattoo": $100M
"Extremely Loud": $30M
"The Artist": $25M

All those films, total, made $304 million. And most of them are considered to have been successes, doing pretty damn good compared to their budgets and predictions. And, yet, almost all came and went in my theater quicker than I would with a naked Scarlett Johansen. Even "The Help", which made almost $170M (which is astonishing).

Meanwhile:

"Breaking Dawn": $280M
"MI4": $206M
"Sherlock Holmes 2": $185M
"Puss In Boots": $148M
"Alvin and the Chipmunks (Chipwrecked): $129M

So, "Puss In Boots" and "Chipwrecked", combined, made $277M... almost as much as all six of those creative films I mentioned.

2.) Most theater chains haven't invested that much in 3D projectors. The competing companies (Christie, Barco, Sony, NEC, etc.,.) offer trial runs, package deals, and the like. And 3D isn't much more than 2D when you're talking the amount of money being spent. And they're aware of the 3D backlash already. My theater has 16 screens. When we went digital, we started with 3 screens, and put 3D in all of them. When we converted the other 13 screens, we only put 3D in three of those. So we have 6 theaters capable of 3D and 10 that are 2D-only... and of those 6 theaters we often don't have 3D running in them. (Example: currently, "The Grey", "Woman In Black", and "Chronicle" take up 3 of our 6.)

Theater chains, like Hollywood, will go where the money (consumer spending) goes. They all hopped onboard the 3D Gravy Train and started ****ing customers with things like a 3D "upcharge", and now that the tide's turning they'll probably not suck 3D's schlong as much as they used to. Note that the biggest film of this coming summer, "The Dark Knight Rises", will not be 3D. Neither was "Breaking Dawn", or "MI4", or "Sherlock Holmes 2"... yet all were huge.

Great information JD. Thank you for that.

[Deberg_1990]

Originally Posted by JD10367

These two paragraphs are two different topics. I'll take them one by one.

1.) Hollywood has never been about originality. It's a moneymaking endeavor. As with most things, there are people who do it for creativity and aesthetics and people who do it for mass-marketing cash-cow purposes. Think "fancy gourmet chef vs. McDonald's". But, by and large, Hollywood is driven by money. If they can make "Alvin And The Chipmunks 5: Chip's Revenge", and make it for X dollars, and it earns X-times-five dollars, they're happy. If it costs $400M to make and is the Best Film Ever but only makes $300M, they'll never make another one.

And, the truth is, creativity doesn't make money. Here's a list of some recent, creative, praised films, and what they've grossed to date:

"Iron Lady": $23M
"Red Tails": $45M
"The Descendants": $71M
"Girl With The Dragon Tattoo": $100M
"Extremely Loud": $30M
"The Artist": $25M

All those films, total, made $304 million. And most of them are considered to have been successes, doing pretty damn good compared to their budgets and predictions. And, yet, almost all came and went in my theater quicker than I would with a naked Scarlett Johansen. Even "The Help", which made almost $170M (which is astonishing).

Meanwhile:

"Breaking Dawn": $280M
"MI4": $206M
"Sherlock Holmes 2": $185M
"Puss In Boots": $148M
"Alvin and the Chipmunks (Chipwrecked): $129M

So, "Puss In Boots" and "Chipwrecked", combined, made $277M... almost as much as all six of those creative films I mentioned.

Well said, your 100% right.

Originally Posted by JD10367

2.) Most theater chains haven't invested that much in 3D projectors. The competing companies (Christie, Barco, Sony, NEC, etc.,.) offer trial runs, package deals, and the like. And 3D isn't much more than 2D when you're talking the amount of money being spent. And they're aware of the 3D backlash already. My theater has 16 screens. When we went digital, we started with 3 screens, and put 3D in all of them. When we converted the other 13 screens, we only put 3D in three of those. So we have 6 theaters capable of 3D and 10 that are 2D-only... and of those 6 theaters we often don't have 3D running in them. (Example: currently, "The Grey", "Woman In Black", and "Chronicle" take up 3 of our 6.)

Theater chains, like Hollywood, will go where the money (consumer spending) goes. They all hopped onboard the 3D Gravy Train and started ****ing customers with things like a 3D "upcharge", and now that the tide's turning they'll probably not suck 3D's schlong as much as they used to. Note that the biggest film of this coming summer, "The Dark Knight Rises", will not be 3D. Neither was "Breaking Dawn", or "MI4", or "Sherlock Holmes 2"... yet all were huge.

Interesting. I mentioned this earlier, but Ive noticed one of the large chains around here are starting to nearly force people into seeing a 3D screeing instead of a 2D.

They had 1 showing a day for Journey 2 and it was early in the day. Had about 12 showings a day in 3D. If they continue to do that, they wont get my business at all anymore.