Earlier today, I wrote up a piece about the upcoming 3D, CG film Monsters vs. Aliens. Since the movie is going to be 3D from the get-go, rather than getting converted, the price tag on the picture went up $15 million. Why should we care? Well, if you have any interest in seeing it, you'll have to pay more to make up for the extra cost, and what Jeffrey Katzenberg calls "a premium experience."Paying extra to go see an IMAX production is one thing -- you're paying for the post-film formatting and all that special experience -- and it's a choice. You don't have to spend the extra for it. But to say that we're going to have to pay more because this new technique costs more? That's just ridiculous.
Is this what we can look forward to in the future? A company spends a lot, so it ups the prices to make sure the picture makes money? Luckily for Katz, this is a kid's movie, and no kid will understand a parent refusing to pay because the ticket costs more. But what about the rest of us? I wouldn't think of investing more in a theater-screening of a certain movie unless everyone swore up and down that it would be worth it, and even then, I'm not sure that I would. Isn't this the sort of thing that will further hurt struggling theaters?
There's also the idea of fear. It used to be that a studio would overspend and hope for the blockbuster. But if they start taking on this pay-more notion, will we think we're getting more for our money, or will it just suggest that the film isn't worth its large price tag? Also, would you have seen the big films of the past if the price tag had been upped?
Sound off below!
1. Actually a 3-D movie is in a separate class. When I saw "Nightmare Before Christmas" in 3-D last year (during it's re-release) it was about $3 more than the other movies showing at that multiplex. I was okay paying a few dollars more. I just assumed all theaters were charging more for 3-D. I'm almost certain they also charged a premium for the U2 concert movie as well. Hey, 3-D glasses aren't free you know!
However, you are correct in that it is a slippery slope. What is to stop them from charging $4 for some indie gem, while asking $8 for the next Devlin/Emmerich trainwreck.
But to be honest, the studios are looking for ways to get more butts in the seats, and a radical shake up like that could potentially backfire, so I don't expect prices to change much.
Posted at 9:27PM on Mar 11th 2008 by techstar25