Saturday, March 7, 2026

News Feed Comments
You are here: Home / Choosing Lingerie / Is this the end of the 3D boom in our cinemas? Trend fails to take off as …

Is this the end of the 3D boom in our cinemas? Trend fails to take off as …

July 28, 2012 by  
Filed under Choosing Lingerie

Leave a Comment

  • While 47 3D films were released in 2011 – an increase of almost 20 on 2010 – takings were down
  • The average cinema in the UK made £32,000 from 3D films in 2010 but this had slumped by half to £16,000 in 2011

By
Liz Thomas


PUBLISHED:

13:44 EST, 26 July 2012

|

UPDATED:

01:44 EST, 27 July 2012

It was hailed as the future of cinema. But it seems Britain’s 3D boom may be over before it really began.

Film fans fed up with inflated  prices are choosing to stick with the traditional 2D format instead.

The British Film Institute said 3D films accounted for a fifth of box office revenues last year compared to almost a quarter two years ago.

Legacy: Film fans fed up with inflated prices and disillusioned by the lack of added value from watching many movies in the format, opted to stick with traditional 2D showings instead

Legacy: Film fans fed up with inflated prices and disillusioned by the lack of added value from watching many movies in the format, opted to stick with traditional 2D showings instead

While 47 3D films were released in 2011 – an increase of almost 20 on 2010 – takings were down.

According to research compiled by the British Film Institute 3D films accounted for a fifth of box office revenues last year compared to almost a quarter two years ago.

It found the average cinema in the UK made £32,000 from 3D films in 2010 but this had slumped by half to £16,000 in 2011.

The BFI report said: ‘This year saw signs that UK cinema goers are becoming more selective in their choice of 3D films, choosing the format for films where it makes a real contribution to their experience but sticking to 2D where they don’t perceive any added value.’

It had been expected the 3D trend would soar after the success of James Cameron’s epic Avatar, which made £615 million worldwide, with 90 per cent of the audience watching in 3D, and the huge popularity of Toy Story 3.

Hit: TT3D: Closer to the Edge was hugely popular in the format- grossing more than £1.2 million

Hit: TT3D: Closer to the Edge was hugely popular in the format- grossing more than £1.2 million

But after an initial burst of interest it appears British cinema-goers don’t feel it represents value for money for every film.

The major cinema groups charge customers of 3D films up to 41 per cent more than those seeing standard films and many charge an additional £1 for the special glasses.

A spokesman for the BFI explained: ‘Perhaps audiences are becoming more discerning in terms of how they choose 3D and whether to pay the premium prices.

‘They will choose [to watch the format] when it enhances the experience. Audiences can see where the 3D conversion may not be worth the extra few pounds on the ticket. ‘

He added that instead consumers were opting to watch in 3D when they felt it really made a difference.

For example, motor-racing documentary TT3D: Closer to the Edge was hugely popular in the format – grossing more than £1.2 million, which made it one of the most popular documentaries of the year.

Similarly the re-release of the Lion King in 3D was an “event” which meant many wanted to watch a classic in a new format, grossing more than £15 million.

Avatar and Toy Story 3 were huge hits in the format in the UK in 2009 and 2010, grossing £67million and £73.8 million respectively in the UK.

By contrast the only standout 3D hit last year was the final film in the Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2, which was the final film in the franchise and grossed £73 million.

Film fans: The only standout 3D hit last year was the final film in the Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows ¿ Part 2, which was the final film in the franchise and grossed £73 million

Film fans: The only standout 3D hit last year was the final film in the Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows ¿ Part 2, which was the final film in the franchise and grossed £73 million
In this film publicity image released by Warner Bros. Pictures, from left, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint and Daniel Radcliffe are shown in a scene from “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2.” (AP Photo/Warner Bros. Pictures, Jaap Buitendijk)

The rest of the 3D top five for 2011, which included Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, grossed under £30 million.

A recent YouGov poll found that almost half of Britons thought the format was “over-hyped and just a phase”.

Another reason for the slump in interest, is that 2011 saw a rise in the popularity of character-led films in Britain such as The Kings Speech, which made £45.7 million, and Bridesmaids, which made £23 million, and these do not need the special technology.

Daily Mail film critic Chris Tookey said that consumers have also wised up to the fact that sum of the “3D films” are simply a rip off.

He has said: ‘Hollywood has jumped on the 3D bandwagon and is driving it hell-for-leather.

‘The irony is that many of the 3D movies that cinema-goers are paying over the odds for aren’t really in 3D at all.’

pugh.jpg

He pointed to Justin Bieber’s Never Say Never Again, which actually on featured just 30 minutes of his concert in that format.

An additional problem is that some people feel unwell when watching in this format.

Around 10 per cent of the UK population has poor binocular vision, which means it is difficult for them to see 3D effects in movies and video games.

Instead, they see a blurry image, and will suffer headaches, eye strain and even nausea as a result.

Experts do not recommend allowing children under eight to regularly use 3D glasses because their eye muscles are still developing.

There are also question marks over whether 3D television will really take off, with some industry figures insisting that until a “glasses-free, affordable” option is available it is unlikey to.

Some electronics manufacturers have issued disclaimers to protect themselves from legal claims warning that viewing 3D TV may cause ‘motion sickness’, ‘disorientation’ and ‘eye strain’.

Last year, Sir David Attenborough warned 3D television would not take off in Britain.

The veteran, whose documentary for Sky – Flying Monsters – was made in the format, insisted it would not become the norm for viewers because it was ‘too isolating’.

Instead Sir David said consumers would opt to watch ‘big events’ in 3D such as World Cup football matches, Olympic sports, ground-breaking new nature or history shows.

Here’s what other readers have said. Why not add your thoughts,
or debate this issue live on our message boards.

The comments below have not been moderated.



  • Newest


  • Oldest


  • Best rated


  • Worst rated

Oh dear, does no one in the cinema industry realise THEY HAVE PRICED THEMSELVES OUT OF THE MARKET ????? apparantely not

Report abuse

Can’t be that bad, most council houses have a 50″ 3D TV. And I’ve been told, by those tenants that do get up before midday, that Jeremy Kyle is awesome. and DNA results more compelling in 3D.

Report abuse

3D has always been a fad, and it’s always self imploded. The main problem is that for most people it just doesn’t work. Speaking for my self I get terrible nausea and headaches trying to see 3D through those glasses; and no matter how much I would like to see a sword or broken glass come flying towards me out of the screen it just is not worth the pain!

Report abuse

I’ve never been to the cinema to watch a 3D film. I have a DVD which has a 3D version of it on the disc but having to wear silly red and blue cardboard glasses just isn’t for me. I’ll stick with normal 2D please.

Report abuse

With sky you can only have all the 3D channels if you subscribe to all the film channels and all the sports channels, as myself and my family cannot stand sport, we have been denied access to 3D, And we are not willing to pay for sports channels just to get 3D…

Report abuse

I personally think 3D will continue, and £16,000 could determine whether a cinema makes a profit or not. However, for a movie to be successful in the format it seems it should be filmed in it and not merely converted afterwards. The cinema’s in question should also consider a fairer price and forget about ripping off a far more cost aware public who simply won’t be taken for a ride like they were in the past.

Report abuse

good…im sick of girls popping out the lenses and wearing them to look ‘hipster’

Report abuse

I refuse to be forced to wear glasses to watch a 3D film, especially considering the majority of 3D films just throw in the odd scene here and there just to keep up with the fad. When the need for the glasses has been eliminated, or they create holographic stories where you actually play the role, I will be very interested.

Report abuse

- Abby, Leeds, 27/7/2012 3:37
I completely agree with you – unless the film is released only in 3D, it’s really not worth seeing in 3D. Films which are 3D conversions are not worth the money!

Report abuse

the biggest laugh is that this active 3d glasses technology was around whilst I worked on indigo ws in the mid 90′s. It worked great on static things like pipe and electrical diagrams – but just doesnt work for fast changing action movies. Cant understand why it took 20 years to re-release the active 3d glasses…

Report abuse

The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline.

Share and Enjoy

Tags:

Featured Products

Speak Your Mind

Tell us what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!