3-D movies have made a recent resurgence at the box office, but critics are doubtful of their longevity.

By Emily Tao, Carolina Thomas and Patrick McGill

In an industry that makes multi-millions of dollars a week, movie companies have dusted off 3-D technology to earn a bit extra.

How much money does 3-D add? “Monsters vs. Aliens” can sell 7 to 9 million less tickets to pay for its $175 million production budget because of the premium attached to the 3-D movie ticket.

Increasingly expensive movie tickets in a struggling economy combined with decreasing costs of large flat-screen televisions points to movie companies battling to get people out of their homes and into the theaters.

John Pierson, a lecturer in the department of radio-television-film at The University of Austin at Texas, said the numbers for 3-D movies prove that people are willing to pay a premium for the experience.

 
“It’s an experience you really couldn’t recreate or get close to in any other way,” he said about IMAX screens. “You can really see how disproportionately those screens add to the gross of the theater. ‘The Dark Knight’ only had three IMAX scenes, so that wasn’t a big part of that movie.” 

Introduced in the 1950s and enjoying huge popularity in the 1980s, 3-D technology is not new to the movie industry. The 1980s saw many 3-D films in the horror and science-fiction genre, such as “Jaws 3-D,” “Friday the 13th Part 3,” and “Starchaser: The Legend of Orin.”

While the technology has been revamped and modernized, movies have only recently started using it again. In 2005, the only 3-D movie released was Disney’s “Chicken Little.” But the first four months of 2009 have already boasted four 3-D releases with another 14 films queued up for the rest of the year.

The new, recyclable 3-D glasses are a step above the old red-and-blue frames in quality and price. (Sources: reald.com; numiko.com.)

Clearly to theater owners, the premium on 3-D movie ticket sales is enticing, but managers of the Bob Bullock Texas State History Museum and the Alamo Drafthouse have differing opinions on the technology’s sustainability.

John Lewis, the museum’s director of theaters, thinks 3-D will be very successful. Lewis said the museum’s IMAX theater has seen healthy sales from 3-D movies. Alamo Drafthouse manager Thomas Hanawa said audience response to 3-D is “not the best” but still better than other 2-D movies. Despite “okay” sales, Hanawa does not think 3-D will be around too long.

“It’s probably a trend,” he said in the North Austin theater. “It’s happening more, but it won’t continue very long. There will be some 3-D movies, but not everything will be in 3-D.”

The domestic cumulative earnings of six heavily promoted 3-D movies since April 21, 2009. Source: boxofficemojo.com

Hanawa added that 3-D is a benefit of the movie, not a determinant of if the movie will sell or not.

“’Up’ will be big no matter what,” he said of Pixar’s upcoming 3-D film.

Movie executives have since learned from the 1980s, with most of the upcoming 3-D movies aimed at young children and their families. The first 3-D movie of 2009, “My Bloody Valentine,” is one of the few horror movies lined up.

UT Austin radio-television-film senior Jim Henson said this technology is not suitable for all movies.

“3-D has the potential to add to a film, but it can also detract from the quality of the film,” Henson said. “Animation probably works a lot better. Stuff like Hannah Montana and the Jonas Brothers concert in 3-D is unnecessary, but I’m sure it’s exciting.”

While the technology’s novelty hasn’t worn off on this generation of moviegoers yet, its future as a gimmick or innovation is still not clear.

“Jim Cameron’s ‘Avatar’ will be the watershed moment for 3-D,” UT lecturer John Pierson said of the movie slated to release December 2009. “He is using all the available technology, so we will see if it proves to be successful or not.”

For more information of the businesses mentioned in this article, please visit the Bob Bullock Texas History Museum or the Alamo Drafthouse.

	The 3-D premium means theaters can sell less to break even for the $175 million production cost of “Monsters vs. Aliens”(Source: boxofficemojo.com.)