Sony Wants Movie Audiences to Pay for 3D Glasses

[Sefket]

SOURCE

Sony has sent theater chains a letter indicating that they will no longer pay for 3D glasses — and they want audiences to pay for them instead.

The 3D craze that swept the planet in the wake of James Cameron’s Avatar seems to have waned as of late. While 80% of people watched Avatar in 3D, fewer dollars have been spent on subsequent 3D film tickets. Is the economy to blame? Is it the 3-5 extra dollars one has to pay to watch a 3D film? Or is it the 3D itself?

Now, in somewhat hilarious news, Sony has sent a letter to theater owners across the nation informing them that, as of May 3rd, 2012, they will no longer be paying for those awkward 3D glasses you have to wear to watch blurry things come out of the screen at you. And who does Sony want to foot the bill? You.

According to The Hollywood Reporter, Sony Worldwide President of Distribution said of the letter:

“This is an issue that has to be resolved between us and our exhibition partners. We are trying to give them a very lengthy lead time in regards to the change in policy.”

Basically, Sony is fed up with having to pay from $5 million to $10 million on 3D glasses for tentpole projects – and since The Amazing Spider-Man and Men in Black III are both coming out next summer, they want to make the switch before they have to incur any additional losses. Fair enough! Except, what’s the extra $$ we’re paying for already, if not the 3D glasses?

Exhibitors are expected to respond negatively to Sony’s letter, especially if there’s any chance they’re going to have to pay for the glasses themselves. After all, weren’t they pressured in the first place to upgrade their projectors, et al, to make way for the future of 3D?

Which is why Sony supports an ownership model where the glasses would be a new means of revenue for theaters, and theatergoers would pay for their own glasses. Would this be a one time fee? Would you keep your glasses and only pay for new ones when you misplace your first pair? It’s unclear at this point.

Furthermore, who wants to be the guy to say to theatergoers, “Sir or madam, in addition to the $4-5 you’re already paying on top of a typical $13 ticket, we’d like you to pay an additional fee for the really annoying glasses you have to wear to fully experience that $17-18 3D experience”?

Sony's 'Amazing Spider-Man' was filmed in 3D

f course, there’s always the argument that no one has to purchase what they don’t want to purchase. But isn’t that the point? People are not going to go for this. Perhaps audiences would’ve been more open to the idea back when 3D was initially implemented – in this economy, it’s doubtful – but if Netflix has taught us anything, it’s that you can’t keep worsening a deal when there are better, cheaper deals out there. And the best, cheapest deal in the world of cinema tends to be the 2D experience.

It should go without saying that not all 3D films are bad. Some, indeed, are very good. But rarest of all is the 3D film that is superior to its 2D counterpart. Is the extra cost worth that rare example?

3D sucks.

[Adam|Note]

Never been a big fan of 3D, maybe it it'll be better once they develop it more.

[Marc|Criti]

we've been paying extra for those glasses from day 1 in france.

[Next In Line]

Never been a big fan of 3D, maybe it it'll be better once they develop it more.

I'm with you, wearing 3D glasses over my normal glasses suck ass.

[Blitz]

Don't care much for 3D, but yeah, we've been paying for those glasses since day one over here aswell.

[Env]

the fuck? they already charge us extra as it is

[Steroids]

very interesting topic, ty mole for bringing this to our attention. i read it all numerous times. ty again.

[gfdgfd]

thx mole rly interesting, 5/5 topic good as always

[Prozss]

I cant afford that sht!

[DeltaPapa]

u already gotta pay for glasses in my cinema

...... keep up mole. 

[Cronic]

Oh, OKAY!!!!!!

[Gareth l Rare]

...... keep up mole. 

[Juelz]

been paying for it since day one

[Snow]

Fuck that, 3D movies already cost a shitload.

[FearMy Def]

i like normal movies

[Mortuls]

3D movies hurt my eyes

so fuck paying for glasses

[DeltaPapa]

3D movies hurt my eyes

so fuck paying for glasses

SUN LIGHT HURTS MY EYEEYEEESSSSS

wubwubwub

[Archryda]

ok

[TJ]

.

[Mila Kunis]

3D is 4 new fags, 4D is where it's at ;)

[Chad]

We already pay $4 extra here per 3d movie, it only costs them like 25 cents at most to make those damn glasses, if they make us pay for them they will sell em for like $5 then you gotta turn them in after the movie..

Movies before 6: 750

after 6: 850

3d anytime : 12

soon 3d anytime RENTING GLASSES PER MOVIE: $17

fucking ridiculous

[Tris]

Movies are fucking expensive here already.

$19 NZD for a 3d movie and then $1 extra for cheap plastic shit 3d glasses, so unless you preserve your glasses from one movie you buy a new pair everytime. $20 NZD is $16.1~ USD or 10 GBP.

$14 for a normal 2d movie being a student.

I never see the 3d version if they have a 2d running at the same time.

[Marc|Criti]

Movies are fucking expensive here already.

$19 NZD for a 3d movie and then $1 extra for cheap plastic shit 3d glasses, so unless you preserve your glasses from one movie you buy a new pair everytime. $20 NZD is $16.1~ USD or 10 GBP.

$14 for a normal 2d movie being a student.

I never see the 3d version if they have a 2d running at the same time.

i only go to the cinema if i want to see a 3d movie. If i want to see 2d, i just download it and watch it at my place.

besides, it's ridiculously expensive in france too

[Tris]

Hah yeah true. Most movies come out as AVI/DVD rips before they even hit NZ cinemas so I stream quite a lot of them.  Only time I go is when I'm out and about with mates but thats uncommon, usually we have a hard drive of movies we pass about.

[Next In Line]

My friend works at the movie theater I get free tickets. :)