Is this the end of the 3D boom in our cinemas? Trend fails to take off as …
July 28, 2012 by admin
Filed under Choosing Lingerie
- 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
13:44 EST, 26 July 2012
|
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
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
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
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.’
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.
-
Kicked out for a racist tweet: Greek triple jumper is banned…
-
Locked in combat: Mother lion takes on deadly crocodile to…
-
Dark Knight gunman ‘forced to wear a face guard in prison…
-
The murders so brutal they shocked even South Africa: Couple…
-
Astonishing images of the moment apocalyptic ‘derecho’…
-
Chick-fil-A forced to deny using fake Facebook profiles to…
-
Horror as woman drops dead at counter of McDonald’s… and…
-
Greatest show on Earth begins! Eight billion eyes on Britain…
-
‘I love you’: Shocking voicemails Jerry Sandusky left for…
-
Backlash after Australian newspaper describes Olympic…
-
‘What you see is what you get’: U.S. beach volleyball team…
-
Great-grandson of ‘conman’ L Ron Hubbard claims Scientology…
Share this article:
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
Olympics 2012: Year of the Woman
July 28, 2012 by admin
Filed under Choosing Lingerie
Claressa “T-Rex” Shields gives new meaning to the term girl power.
The 17-year-old middleweight from Flint, Mich., is known for powerful combos and lightning footwork, and is the youngest competitor in women’s boxing, a new event at the London Olympics.
She’s also one of a crowd of female athletes grabbing the limelight at the 2012 Games, which are quickly shaping up as a watershed for women’s sports.
Cynics say Olympic organizers have been touting the coming of gender equality for years, but 2012 does bring several important crossovers.
For the first time, there are more women on the U.S. team than men, 269 to 261, and Russia’s team, which is nearly as big, is also majority-female. Saudi Arabia has sent its first two women to the competition, and the games feature what in all likelihood is the most pregnant athlete to compete in an Olympics: Malaysian shooter Nur Suryani Mohamed Taibi, who is due to give birth to a girl any day now.
Even Britain’s poster athlete for the Games is a woman — heptathlete Jessica Ennis, who in addition to appearing on countless London billboards also beams up at arriving visitors from a field along the Heathrow airport flight path. A 173-by-264-foot likeness of the telegenic star is painted on the grass there.
“This is a big moment for women’s sports,” said Shields, who was stretching and shadowboxing at a sweltering training facility near the Olympic Village, her hands wrapped tightly in pink boxing tape, an American flag do-rag on her head.
Boxing was the last sport organizers needed to add so that women compete in all Summer Olympic events, “and now they have,” she said.
“How far have women come in the Olympics?” asked Karla Wolters, a retired professor and longtime coach of women’s softball at Hope College in Michigan. “Put it this way: If Baron Pierre de Coubertin, the founder of the modern Olympics, knew that there were more (American) women than men in this year’s London Olympics, I’m sure he would be rolling over in his grave. He was totally against having women in the Olympics.”
Indeed, in the first games, in Athens in 1896, all 256 competitors were men. Women were allowed to compete four years later, with tennis player Charlotte Cooper the first champion. (Medals were not awarded until 1904.)
But the surge in high-profile women at the world’s premier sports competition is a relatively recent phenomenon. The numbers began to pick up in the 1990s.
“I’m proud to say that the Olympic movement is living up to its own ideals of fair play and mutual respect,” said Anita DeFrantz, a former Olympic rower and chair of the International Olympic Committee Women and Sport Commission. “All the sports on the program have women and men. I’m very proud where we are now that all the National Olympic Committees in the world will have women Olympians.”
DeFrantz said more women took part in Summer and Winter Games from 1998 through 2010 than in all the competitions from 1900 through 1984 combined, and 45 percent of the 10,800 athletes in London are women, a record. For the first time, every nation will have at least one female athlete.
While the Dream Team men’s basketball squad, American swimmer Michael Phelps and Jamaican sprinter Usain Bolt are still likely to generate the biggest headlines, female athletes such as American hurdler Lolo Jones and Italian swimmer Federica Pellegrini aren’t far behind. And in some of the less-followed sports, female athletes are the main story.
That is certainly the case in shooting, where fans are holding their breath to see whether Malaysia’s Taibi will give birth before competing in her specialty, the 10-meter air rifle competition. And in weightlifting, where American superheavyweight Holley Mangold has captured hearts with her irreverent, sometimes bawdy comments on living with obesity.
And then there’s Zara Phillips, the 31-year-old granddaughter of Queen Elizabeth II, who is competing in equestrian and expecting a few royal fans to show up to cheer her on.
Some women are making headlines off the court as well.
Victoria Pendleton, another British hometown girl, has parlayed her looks and growing fame into a marketing bonanza, appearing in shampoo ads and a racy lingerie shoot in which she proclaimed herself proud of her ultra-muscly thighs. One look at the photos and it’s easy to see why.
And U.S. women’s soccer goaltender Hope Solo, who is pitching a memoir she just wrote, turned heads with some comments to ESPN the Magazine about widespread sex in the athletes’ village during the Beijing Olympics.
Still, there have been several reminders in the lead-up to the competition that total equality hasn’t arrived just yet.
Australia booked its women’s basketball team to fly to the games in coach, while the men got business-class treatment. Ditto for Japan’s women’s soccer squad, which had to squeeze into economy despite the fact they are world champions, while the men, who are not expected to medal, stretched out at the front of the plane.
And DeFrantz said there is much work to do before women have an equal say in the business of the games. The 100-strong IOC has only 14 women, though one, former hurdles champion Nawal El Moutawakel of Morocco, on Thursday became the first woman to be elected a vice president.
“On the field of play, we are nearly there,” DeFrantz said. “It’s in the decision-making sense — in the rooms and halls — that we have more work to be done.”
Tennis legend Billie Jean King, one of the world’s leading voices for women’s sports, said the strides made by American female athletes stem directly from Title IX, the 1972 U.S. law that banned sex discrimination in educational programs — including sports — that receive federal funds.
“What we are seeing with the London Olympics is a reflection of the growth and impact of Title IX,” King said, adding that American women might not only outnumber men at the Games — they could very well out-medal them, too.
“We now have a stronger foundation for future generations of female Olympians,” she said, “and we need to remain committed to sustaining this movement and the progress we are making, here in the USA and globally.”
——–
Associated Press reporters Graham Dunbar in London and Melissa Murphy in New York contributed to this report.
——
Follow Paul Haven on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/paulhaven