Sony to Stop Covering the Cost of 3-D Glasses in 2012

Posted by on September 29th, 2011   Filed under: Industry News, Technology
Source: Hollywood Reporter

It’s no secret that the past year has been a rough one for the still evolving 3D format on the big screen. After a handful of massive hits like Avatar and Alice in Wonderland, many recent 3D releases have been less successful with the 2D versions of various summer blockbusters attracting a significantly higher turnout and, as a result, a higher payout. Are 3D movies on the verge of extinction, or is this just a sign of growing pains? Many analysts have argued that moviegoers are not willing to pay the extra premium for 3D screenings, and now it looks like there is a chance they may actually have to pay even more. According to the Hollywood Reporter, Sony Pictures Entertainment has told theatre owners this week that they will no longer be footing the bill for providing 3D glasses for their releases as of May 1, 2012. This brings up an obvious question: if they won’t pay for them, who will?

Up until this point, studios have always covered the cost of the 3D glasses for their respective releases, an expenditure that can range from $5 to $10 million per movie. It was a decision that was made early on in order to help encourage more theatres to install the 3D technology, but the studios never intended for it to be a long term thing. Now that Sony is the first to make this policy change, others could easily follow suit; Fox had already tried once before but was met with much resistance from theatre owners.

The studios are proposing that theatres should start selling the glasses to consumers, but with moviegoers already wary of the extra $3 to $4 they are paying for 3D screenings, this could deter them even further. Some countries already have consumers buying their own 3D glasses, but American audiences are not used to this — not to mention the fact that 3D continues to be popular overseas while it is struggling in the U.S. Deadline reports that Sony is open to discussing other alternatives, but it’s unclear what those alternatives might be. Would you be willing to pay for your own 3D glasses? Could this be the final nail in the coffin for 3D movies in the U.S.?



  • Blake

    Good god damn riddance! I think we all expected this to be a “fad” in a post-Avatar medium, it’s just surprising how long it’s lasted to this point.

  • Cannondale

    In my country since they introduced the paying for the glasses, there’s been a huge decline of the 3D fever. Up until then most movies would come out and because here we don’t have as much theaters, there’d be only the 3D version available, but since that decision a lot of movies came out with the 2D version and only a few theaters have the 3D. Captain America, Conan, Thor and others were finally mostly available in the 2D version.

  • Matt

    I certainly hope it’s the last nail for this overhyped and underwhelming technology. Now make with the holodeck.

  • Nick

    I’ve seen this one coming for a while. From a financial perspective, this is suicide. It’s already a dying trend and now you’re going to charge more for it? See you later 3D. See you in 10 years when someone else tries to resurrect this God forsaken format.

    In all honesty, it will still be around but limited to about 3 or 4 releases a year. Maybe then it will be worth seeing in 3D.

  • Dave

    Good. The studio should be doing all it can to turn people off. I can’t believe people still have faith in this stupid trend. Especially in this economy.

  • Over here in Ireland we have always had to pay for the 3D glasses. Not surprising considering we get ripped for almost everything. But at least the glasses are only €1. I bought a pair when I went to see Alice in Wonderland and I still have them.

    €1 isn’t going to break the bank. I think if all 3D movies worked as well as Avatar then the format might succeed. But everyone of them since Avatar has failed to live up to it.

  • antho42

    Excuse my language:

    Fuck 3D

  • Ovenball

    There are several different 3D systems in use at theatres. I’m not certain, but I think in the case of RealD 3D theatres are already footing a portion of the cost and paying some kind of licensing fee to RealD for glasses and equipment. RealD also has a recycling program and offers refurbished glasses.

  • The article specifically refers to RealD glasses as being the ones that Sony won’t pay for. You’d think the recycling program would help cut back costs for these things but I guess a lot of consumers probably keep the glasses as well. Maybe we should all start stocking up anyway.

  • I’m a manager at a theater that uses the RealD system, and if Sony is going to stop footing the bill, I’m guessing that the outcome isn’t going to be as dramatic as some people are making it out to be, like charging fees on top of fees. As it stands right now, we have boxes and boxes of glasses that we haven’t really needed between the lackluster performance of 3D movies lately (movies like Conan and Fright/Shark Night doing badly that no one wanted to see, period, 3D or not) and just a lack of Fall 3D films in general. If Sony stops paying for the glasses themselves, I’m guessing that maybe the cost of admission will go up slightly (which is bound to happen from time to time anyway), but we won’t start charging for glasses. They’ll probably become items that we have to track in our inventory every day like most concession items, where we keep track of what we go through from week to week and re-order accordingly, rather than have boxes and boxes of them stockpiled, because right now I think we just get them when we get them, whether we request them or not. I could be wrong, as I typically don’t handle the ordering of those things. We’d probably become more involved in the recycling program ourselves (as far as the theater chain goes) and stress even more heavily to the customers to drop the glasses off in the boxes after their film or hold on to them for their next visit.

  • Niklas

    why exactly are 3D movies more expensive? I thought it was to cover the glasses but I guess that was never the case

  • Partly to make up for all the money that theatre owners had to put out to upgrade their systems. But mostly it’s just because they think they can.

  • Theaters that didn’t already have digital projection had to upgrade to digital to be able to project 3D films. My theater has 10 auditoriums, and we just finally got digital equipment in 3 of them last year (we got a 4th this last spring). That stuff’s expensive, and it doesn’t pay for itself, right? If 3D goes away for a while, we at least have better projectors, so jumping on the bandwagon a little late isn’t a complete loss.

    The big problem we HAVE had with 3D so far is that only our largest theaters have been converted to digital. This was a big problem over the holidays when our most popular films were True Grit and Little Fockers, because Tron, Narnia, and Yogi Bear had a lock on the biggest theaters, but didn’t need the space. When everything was just film, we had the freedom to put movies wherever we wanted, but in this case, True Grit could only be played in our 4th largest auditorium and was selling out regularly while Tron played to maybe 30 people. A lot of 3D films or just regular movies that we get digital prints of are dead on arrival (Alpha and Omega anyone?), and it doesn’t hurt us most of the time to not be able to just throw it in the smallest theater possible, but until we’re ALL digital, scheduling is always going to be more trouble than it needs to be.

  • Ovenball

    There’s also the promotional RealD glasses like the ones issued for Harry Potter and The Lion King. I’m pretty sure some of those customers would have payed $100 for a pair of Harry Potter RealD glasses. Maybe this is an untapped revenue stream.

    They need to release Risky Business in 3D and sell special Tom Cruise shades.

  • On a somewhat related note, I know that until very recently I still had my “Freddy’s Dead: The Final Nightmare” 3D glasses that were put out by New Line in 1991. If I remember correctly, there was an ad for “House Party 2″ printed on the inside.

  • RC

    Do they have 3D contact lenses?

  • Partly to make up for all the money that theatre owners had to put out to upgrade their systems. But mostly it’s just because they think they can.

    Theatres don’t get the money from the 3D surcharge. The studios and the format provider (IMAX, RealD, Dolby 3D) split it.

  • Really? But how does that make any sense, especially since different theatres have different surcharges?

  • Ovenball

    I pay a fee to the format provider and a % of ticket revenue to the studio, but I do not pay a flat rate to these groups equal to the 3D surcharge. I still see a portion of that revenue.

  • Different surcharges would be dependent on the agreements negotiated with the studios and the format providers. That being said individual theatre chains could still choose to set it higher and attempt to make a profit, though the studios would frown on that heavily and in turn demand a portion of that revenue.

    Theatres don’t make money on 3D surcharges, they help cover the cost of 3D print rental, licensing and rental fees, recycling fees, shipping costs and whatever else the studio and format provider feel like tacking on. Though it should be noted in the interest of fairness that the studios for a time did help pay for digital and 3D upgrades to projectors nationwide, but that stopped several years ago. Now theatres (primarily independently owned) have to foot that bill as well with studios now threatening to discontinue analog prints within the next couple of years.