Did Sony just kill 3D? Who foots the bill when studios won't pay for 3D glasses?

The Hollywood Reporter uh, reported (sorry) yesterday that Sony Pictures will be the first of the major studios to no longer pay for the 3D glasses in the Real-D format (as opposed to specialized IMAX 3D glasses), but rather demand that exhibitors pay for the $3-4 glasses themselves.  Several studios have apparently been looking into such an arrangement, but Sony struck first blood, in a move that could have devastating consequences for the 3D movie business in America.  The policy is set to go into effect May of next year, just in time for Sony's two big summer films, both live-action 3D franchise pictures.  Men in Black 3D comes out over Memorial Day weekend while The Amazing Spider-Man drops on July 3rd.  While the reality is that the situation won't affect most kinds of 3D (Real-D is just one of several kinds offered in first-run theaters today), the perception could do real damage to the format if the theaters choose to pass down this extra expense to the consumers.  And all-things considered, I can't imagine why they wouldn't.

The movie or the marketing? Will going from Paramount to Disney help or hurt Marvel Studios' upcoming films?

It is a clear case of quitting while you're ahead.  Paramount pulled off another $65 million+ opening weekend for another Marvel property, this time with the somewhat more questionable Captain America.  Despite opening in the middle of summer and without the IMAX advantage, Captain America still opened with almost identical numbers to Thor's debut last May ($100,000 more as of this writing).  And that's all she wrote for the three-year long distribution relationship between Marvel Studios and Paramount.  Thanks to a deal whereby Paramount basically sold the distribution rights to any Marvel characters they had dibs on (The Avengers, Captain America, Thor, Iron Man, etc) to Disney for $115 million late last year, the fate of the ongoing Marvel movie mythology rests with The Mouse House.  As you recall, Disney bought Marvel Studios for $4 billion just under two years ago, but many of the most popular Marvel properties (X-Men, Spider-Man, Daredevil, Fantastic Four, Ghost Rider, etc) belonged to other studios.  Disney grabbing back Paramount's key properties was a major step in bringing the Marvel universe under one studio roof (and likely the last step for awhile, as I imagine that Fox and Sony will keep rebooting or remaking their respective properties until doomsday).  But for now the question is simply: Will the Marvel Studios film universe suffer without the seemingly unbeatable Paramount marketing team?

3D isn't dying, it's just leveling out. Why consumers choosing 2D is a good for the 3D format and good for the industry.

The sky is not falling in the realm of 3D films.  There has been much handwringing over the last couple weeks as moviegoers have embraced their right to choose to see the latest summer tentpoles in 2D over the higher-priced 3D venues.  For the record, over the last two weekends, audiences purchased tickets to Kung Fu Panda 2 and Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides in their respective 2D formats at a rate of 55/45.  So, despite those films playing in majority 3D theaters (around 65%), 3D ticket sales made up only 45% of the box office for their respective opening weekends.  This is not a new issue and it is not cause for panic or rebuttal.  Rather, it is a healthy sign that audiences are making an informed choice and that studios are offering a wide swath of moviegoers a genuine option when it comes to their 3D franchise pictures.

Another business SHOCKER! IMAX makes less with Green Hornet and Sucker Punch than with Avatar and Alice in Wonderland!!!

Yet another 'no shit, Sherlock!' business story this morning, as IMAX has announced a $1 million quarterly loss for the first chunk of 2011. Yes indeed, The Green Hornet, Mars Needs Moms, and Sucker Punch were just not enough to equal the money-making muscle of Avatar, Alice in Wonderland, and How to Train Your Dragon. And once again, I'm sure this particular company will be just fine as the summer season starts. They have a deluge of major new product over the next three months debuting in IMAX on an almost weekly basis starting tomorrow. They've got Fast Five (April 29th), Thor (May 6th), Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (May 20th), Kung Fu Panda 2 (May 26th), Super 8 (June 10th), Cars 2 (June 24th), Transformers: Dark of the Moon (July 1st), and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part II (July 15th). Green Lantern (June 17th) and Captain America (July 22nd) are forgoing IMAX at the moment, but that could change as the summer goes on. Point being, I'm pretty sure IMAX is going to be just fine.

Scott Mendelson

STUNNER! Animated film studio makes LESS money when it doesn't have new animated film in marketplace!!!

In a 'no shit, Sherlock' development, Dreamworks Animation is reporting a 60% drop in profits for the first quarter of 2011, when compared to the first quarter of 2010. What could have caused this astonishing statistic? Dreamworks Animation was most burdened this quarter by the lackluster box office performance of... oh wait. That's right... Dreamworks Animation had a surprisingly strong first quarter of 2010 when they were feasting on the unexpectedly strong box office performance of How to Train Your Dragon, which grossed $494 million worldwide. And in the same quarter of 2009, Monsters vs. Aliens had a robust worldwide take of $381 million. But for the same quarter of this current year, Dreamworks saw softer-than-expected grosses from the theatrical release of... NOTHING!!! They didn't have an animated film out this quarter!! They haven't had a theatrical release since Megamind back in November of 2010. Los Angeles Times calls that one a 'misfire', which I suppose is what you call a $130 million picture than grosses $321 million worldwide (it was much cheaper than the other recent Dreamworks animated films, which all cost about $170 million). Point being, let's not sell off your Dreamworks stock and/or demand that the company be sold yet again. I'm sure once the theatrical animation film studio will be just fine once they actually have a theatrical animated film (such as Kung Fu Panda 2 opening in exactly one month) to offer.

Scott Mendelson

Why did Paramount sell off distribution rights for Avengers and Iron Man 3 to Disney for a mere $115 million?

Just how much money trouble is Paramount in these days? Or, just how bad is Thor and/or Captain America? Or is Paramount in the middle of a major change in the kinds of films they make? The Wall Street Journal reports that Paramount plans to sell the distribution rights to The Avengers (due May 4th, 2012) and Iron Man 3 (just announced for May 3rd, 2013) to Disney for just $115 million. As you all know, Disney bought Marvel Studios for $4 billion a year ago, but we were told it would be a good-long while before Disney had the distribution rights to the characters they really wanted, the ones held by Fox (the X-Men, Daredevil, Fantastic Four) and Paramount (Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, anyone associated with the Avengers), and Sony (Spider-Man). Well, Paramount just gave up its stake for a measly $115 million. Paramount will still distribute and market the 2011 summer tentpoles Thor and Captain America, but after that, it appears that Paramount's role in the Marvel universe is pretty much done.