Walking into a movie theater immediately grumpy is not usually the preferred way to approach a film, particularly when you plan on writing a critical piece on the experience. Never have I been charged an extra $2 to don the special glasses to make the movie appear to “come to life.” Yet that’s exactly what happened on Friday night. Let me be clear, I couldn’t care less about the two dollars. I’m not a rich man but let’s be honest: two dollars is barely a drop in the hat. It’s the principle. These specially tagged glasses with a security device so that they can’t be stolen cost each film goer an extra two dollars. This is not a deposit, this is a “rental fee” according to the theater. Rental fee to me, is code for “this is another way for us to fuck you in the ass.” What makes the two dollar fiasco even more infuriating is that now that I’ve seen the film, I realized that you don’t even need the glasses in the first place. I can honestly say I’d have probably enjoyed Coraline much more if I’d gone to one of the local theaters not showing the film in 3D.
The 3D effect in Coraline does not add a whole lot to the experience. It simply gives the unnatural world a bit more depth and texture. Most 3D films use the technology as a gimmick; a way to shove the effects in the audience’ face. Thankfully, Coraline doesn’t do this. That’s right, I appreciated this fact. But if that’s the case, why do it all? It added so little to the experience, that I’d have preferred not to have the nuisance of wearing these glasses and having to scratch my nose and constantly re-situate them on my face.
So I’ve decided. Either make the 3D effect a gimmick so that wearing the damn glasses (and paying extra for them) is worth it (well worth it), or just make a quality movie for which I don’t have to wear the glasses. Until that happens, I won’t be going to any more 3D films (except of course if it’s a re-release of the original Star Wars in 3D). I won’t pay for those films and I certainly won’t pay extra for glasses so that the theater can make its money back on the cost for them to buy/rent the glasses from the studio. If that’s the problem, simply don’t rent the film from the studio in the first place.
I’m quite sure the movie going public (at least at the theater that I was at) was taken by surprise by the extra $200 the theater took in per screening. If enough people see Coraline, they’ll think to themselves the exact same thing I did, “hmmm, that movie could’ve worked just as well without the 3D. Well, now I know for next time.”
I have yet to call other theaters to find out if they were charging extra as well, but rest assured that I will and will be updating this “review” whence I find out for sure. If it is just this particular theater, then I take back my call for a personal boycott and will simply bash this theater privately for their gouging. However, a quick Google search revealed this little article over at firstshowing about Dreamworks plan to charge additional fare for the 3D experience as well. But they’re not charging for glasses, no no no; they’re charging extra because the technology and screening of a 3D film “offers a premium experience”. Really!? When did this happen? Pretty much every 3D film I’ve seen in the past five years has taken away from the experience (Superman Returns, Beowulf, Polar Express, etc.); with the exception of U23D.
So we’ll see. Is the movie going public going to accept these additional charges and line the pockets of studio execs as they watch the economy around them swirl down the toilet? Probably. Main stream audience goers need that additional kick of entertainment. Not this author however. I like my Burn After Reading just the way it is: without Brad Pitt’s brains in my lap.
Oh and by the way, Coraline is quite a good little film. Check it out in a theater without the 3D “experience.” It will be just as rewarding; if not more so. More commentary on the subsequent Cinecast (episode #111).
This discussion currently has 52 responses.
February 8, 2009
I had the same feeling when I shelled out nearly $30 for My Bloody Valentine 3D last week. This was a much more worthy film which we enjoyed a whole lot more. Thankfully for us, the glasses weren’t tagged and since I’ve now paid for them twice, we brought them home this time.
From my experience with 3D, the screenings have always been more expensive. It just happens that the 3D movies have moved from just playing at “specialized” theaters and are now in the big box multiplex.
February 8, 2009
As for the movie, I loved “Coraline” from the opening few minutes in silence to the final roll of the credits. Selick is a genius and I’m happy to see him return to the greatness of “The Nightmare Before Christmas” – even if it took him 15 years to get here. I just hope it’s not another 15 before the next one.
I like the changes that were made to the original story to keep the film moving along, the music was excellent and the film features Selick’s trademark of creepiness; I was particularly happy to see that the film was darker than the trailer. Dakota Fanning’s voice performance is excellent but Keith David as the Cat was easily the best of the bunch. I *heart* this movie. Lots.
February 8, 2009
we’ve always paid extra for 3D at the multiplex near me. One of my nephews didn’t even wear the glasses and said he really didn’t need them. Wonderful film we talked about for a long time after.
February 8, 2009
Doesn’t ie. mean in example?
February 8, 2009
From the dictionary,
i.e.
abbr. Latin
id est (that is)
My Latin teacher in school explained to us that when you use the short form “eg.” (Latin exempli gratia: for example), it means there are a number of examples and you choose to use one of them to clarify your term/point.
When you use “i.e.” on the other hand, there is generally only one item to clarify, as Andrew showed above, to point out that there is the standard way to see the movie, and a pricier way.
The only 3D movie I’ve ever seen is the Muppet Adventure or whatever it’s called at MGM Studios in Florida.
I can’t believe they are charging extra for glasses that you can’t even keep. That’s ridiculous, especially when they are already ripping you off for $10-15 on the admission ticket. This is why I avoid multiplexes at all costs.
February 8, 2009
When I saw Nightmare Before Christmas in 3d i paid 12 dollars, no extra glasses charge, just the ticket. what gives? 30 fucking bucks? what?
February 8, 2009
btw…. Superman Returns was in 3d? thats news to me.
February 8, 2009
Here they were charging an extra $3 for My Bloody Valentine ($15.50 instead of $12.50 – which recently went up anyway) and I was not impressed. I ended up having a freebie on my points card otherwise I would not have gone (and I ended up leaving anyway!).
Historically, I’ve only seen films that are 3D in IMAX, which are more expensive anyway. I don’t remember price differences of stuff like Jaws 3D as I was too wee!
I think it sucks they are charging more, especially considering they ask you to return the glasses. Does that mean if you bring your own next time it’s less?
February 8, 2009
I don’t know where Andrew goes to watch 3D films, but they’ve been charging extra for 3D since it started coming out again here in the Cities.
And RealD glasses aren’t tagged, so I can only assume the theater told people that because they would actually believe they were being watched.
February 8, 2009
Yes, i.e. means “in other words”. e.g means example.
February 8, 2009
Nevermind. I see Ashley already explained it much better. Thank you.
February 8, 2009
And Matt, I don’t know what theaters you go to, but I’ve never been charged and additional fee for the glasses. Everything at the IMAX is the same price whether it is 3D or not. I saw “Spy Kids in 3D” at this exact same theater a few years back and I was not charged extra.
Also, the glasses themselves are “Dolby 3D” glasses and are marked as security tagged. I’ve never seen glasses quite like these before. But yes, I had the same thought: they’re probably just marked that way to scare people. Maybe I should’ve called their bluff.
February 8, 2009
In fact, just looking at ticket prices at the IMAX, the only one that is more expensive is The Dark Knight (I assume because it is a major studio) and it is the same price I paid for U23D last spring.
And Goon, yes, Superman Return had three or four segments that were shown in 3D. Only at the IMAX I believe. A little light flashed in the corner of the screen when you were supposed to put your glasses on and take them off.
February 8, 2009
I didn’t have anyone tell me I had to give back my RealD 3d glasses when I saw Nightmare. I just walked out of the theater with them and left. :/
February 8, 2009
This place was protective as hell. There was a guy standing at the exit 5 minutes before the movie was over to collect the glasses.
February 8, 2009
Wow security sounded tight. Was it an advance screening? They definitely have more eyes on ya there.
February 9, 2009
The guy at the door asked us for our glasses. I told him to shove off – I’d paid for them I was taking them home (for what, I’m still not sure – it was the principle of the thing). He didn’t say anything. Poor kid doesn’t get paid enough to care.
February 9, 2009
You apparently went to the 2D version if you couldn’t see a difference with your glasses off. The film was completely blurred without the glasses, especially in the case of really deep effects. I’ve been to just about every 3D film ever made and this was the first actual 3D experience I’ve had. It was like going to the first Color movie after a lifetime of black and white film. The depth was absolutely unbelievable and they have actually achieved what 3D productions have been striving for for decades, the sense that you could reach out and touch it. Maybe your theater didn’t have the right screen or something or perhaps the projectionist didn’t flip the new filter over the lens. The entire theater was blown away by the experience where I went. There was no security device on our classes and no pressure to return them. We were all thrilled by whole experience.
February 9, 2009
“The film was completely blurred without the glasses, especially in the case of really deep effects.”
Well, yes and no. First of all, I can assure you I saw the 3D version of this movie. Secondly, some parts were really blurry and others were not. In fact, the difference in some of the scenes were almost indiscernible with glasses off or on.
Also yes, I really liked the 3D depth of this movie. I liked that it wasn’t gimmicky and shit wasn’t “flying at you” or giving the audience the feel of trying to reach out and touch the image.
I will make my thought much more clear on tonight’s Cinecast.
February 9, 2009
Andrew is correct, the film did a really good job of switching between 2D and 3D during scenes, and I think it really added to the 3D when it did occur.
Everything else Andrew said is incorrect.
February 9, 2009
So I am incorrect about the following things according to Matt Gamble:
1) i.e. means “in other words”. e.g means example.
2) Everything at the IMAX is the same price whether it is 3D or not. I saw “Spy Kids in 3D” at this exact same theater a few years back and I was not charged extra.
3) the glasses themselves are “Dolby 3D” glasses and are marked as security tagged
4) ticket prices at the IMAX, the only one that is more expensive is The Dark Knight
5) Superman Returns had three or four segments that were shown in 3D.
6) There was a guy standing at the exit 5 minutes before the movie was over to collect the glasses.
retort?
February 9, 2009
Alright, I would revise this statement as it is not exactly accurate (or does not make very clear) exactly how I feel:
“…now that I’ve seen the film, I realized that you don’t even need the glasses in the first place. I can honestly say I’d have probably enjoyed Coraline much more if I’d gone to one of the local theaters not showing the film in 3D.
The 3D effect in Coraline does not add a whole lot to the experience. It simply gives the unnatural world a bit more depth and texture. Most 3D films use the technology as a gimmick; a way to shove the effects in the audience’ face. Thankfully, Coraline doesn’t do this. That’s right, I appreciated this fact. But if that’s the case, why do it all? It added so little to the experience, that I’d have preferred not to have the nuisance of wearing these glasses and having to scratch my nose and constantly re-situate them on my face.”
February 9, 2009
Loved Coraline the movie. Should have seen it in 2D, as I came out with a whopper of a 3D headache! The movie would have worked fine in 2D for me as well.
Although the ‘black & white’ sequence in the film was bloody fabulous in 3D.
/the kiddies were traumatized by the experience though. Seriously scared at points. (The sign of a good childrens flick) yet they talked about it a lot and what happened afterwards…
More to be discussed the cinecast…
February 9, 2009
(Also, is there a serious lack of ‘yellow’ caused by the bleed of the plane-polarized light technology?)
February 9, 2009
Yes, it’s fuckin scary. I admit to being creeped out by the button eyes. That’s the kind of stuff that would have terrified the shit out of me as a four or five year old.
February 9, 2009
Regular IMAX films are $12 and sometimes less, movie movies in IMAX are $14 and up. Spy Kids 3D came out 6 years ago. Let me repeat, 6 years ago. Evidently Andrew is now a 74 year old man complaining about ticket increases while frantically waving his AARP card.
3D movies are always more expensive, though they typically do not itemize the expense. For example, I paid $7 a ticket to see Coraline at a matinee show when it would be $5 for any non-3D film. This is industry standard. Why? Because projectors are fucking expensive and the theaters are having to shoulder the cost while studios blackmail them by not letting them show even the 2D films if they don’t upgrade to a 3D projector. Even if a theater has a 3D projector often times they can’t get a 2D print unless they also devote a screen to a 3D print.
Andrew also let the price of a ticket effect his review of a film. Which is an outside event and has nothing to do with the actual movie. Bad form.
Oddly enough Kurt my showing had a ton of problems with its presentation (I got passes at the end of it) and my eyes were exhausted for much of the film when I usually do just fine. I’m wondering if the 3D transfer was screwed up on some of the discs?
Also Kurt, be sure to pick up The Graveyard Book and The Wolves in the Walls for more scary Gaiman fun for the kiddies.
February 9, 2009
If you’re right, then I would argue that the theaters should tell the studio to go fuck themselves. Coraline made $16 mil at the box office; hardly worthy of a blackmail.
I’m pretty sure there are theaters in town playing the 2D version that don’t have the 3D projector? Or at least aren’t showing a 3D version also. Maybe I’m wrong. But then why does the studio even release a 2D version? If the only theaters that are allowed a print are the ones with a 3D projector, why would a theater NOT get the 3D version? Clearly they can afford it. There’s a leap in logic I’m not fully understanding.
Lastly, if you’ll notice, I didn’t review the film here. I simply put it in the title as sort of a joke. So the extra two bucks did not influence my opinion on the film.
February 9, 2009
Oh yeah, and I too had problems with our screening. Every now and then the screen would go black for about 2 seconds and then everything was really blurry or “moved weird” (I can’t quite explain the visual) for about 10 seconds after that. DEFINITELY worth the extra $2 dollars!
So that’s three of us at different screenings that had this problem. Anyone else?
February 9, 2009
If you’re right, then I would argue that the theaters should tell the studio to go fuck themselves. Coraline made $16 mil at the box office; hardly worthy of a blackmail.
Theaters crave a decent children’s film. They are huge money makers for them as kids=concessions and concessions=profit. And theaters are basically at the whim of the studios, because if they told one to fuck off, then the studio will blacklist them. I know the Weinsteins are blacklisting at least one rather large mainstream chain at the moment and they have to rent films at a huge additional cost through a different chain just to get the occassional print.
Basically the entire business relationship between theaters and studios/distributers is truly fucked up with the theaters getting the short end of the stick from studios and then are stuck feeling the ire of the customers. The bigger chains can dictate terms better do to the sheer number of screens they have, but even they are making jack squat off of ticket sales. Something like 85% of the price goes to the studios while smaller chains will give back 95%.
As for some theaters showing only 2D I’m fairly certain every chain showing a 2D print is showing a 3D print as well, at least in the Cities. Any that are showing just a 2D print would be doing it at an extra cost to them (typically as a much higher print fee), which means they are taking in even less money. Its a double edged sword.
I’m pretty sure Southdale only has one 3D projector, and they are by far the biggest money making theater in the Cities. Some theaters choose to have both prints for variety, others like Southdale only go with 3D as a take it or leave sort of deal. Southdale can get away with that simply because of how many people they draw. The Mann 6 doesn’t have that sort of leeway to take that sort of a risk.
So the extra two bucks did not influence my opinion on the film.
Whatev. You and I both know you hated it because of your stupid $2. Go bug John Cusack for the money if it is so important to you.
February 9, 2009
By the way, if anyone is confused by the term “the cities,” That is Minnesotan lingo for Minneapolis/St. Paul.
February 9, 2009
I undertand how theater economics work (for the most part). I guess “go fuck themselves” was maybe not the term I shoud’ve used. If I owned a theater, you’re saying that a studio would blacklist me if I chose not to screen Coraline and chose to screen Taken instead?
If that’s the case, theaters should band together and simply blacklist certain studios. See how they like it. And again, Coraline didn’t do that well = not much in concessions.
February 9, 2009
One thing I’ve noticed about 3D films is that they never create an immersive experience – immersive being a word that gets thrown about a lot when discussing the potential about 3D. Simply put, 3D is a bit distantiating; it reminds you of the borders of the cinematic frame, it reminds you of your place within an audience, it reminds you of the apparatus process at work.
Cameron’s 3D is going to have to work a bit differently to live up to these immersion ambitions. I’ve heard people describe AVATAR 3D as like looking through a window, rather then stuff coming out at you, which might be more effective.
But yeah about Coraline. Yeah i didn’t really get that much out of the 3D, but I also thought the film was a bit problematic. (really weak pacing, and the narrative’s video game like objectives drained the film of real dramatic tension).
Liked the film for the most part, but its definitely inferior to Nightmare Before Christmas and James and the Giant Peach.
But maybe I’m biased. Maybe I just wanted a TMBG musical.
February 9, 2009
AMC Chain here in the Greater Toronto Area are all showing 2D only prints. I should have gone to that instead. Some of the 3D was certainly nifty, but a great big whopper of a headache after a screening = no fun. I liked the movie a lot, but I think I”m sticking to 2D in the future.
February 9, 2009
(The mild terror experienced by the little ones I’m sure was independent of the 3D, however by the end of the film, both kids were not wearing their glasses, perhaps they were too fidgitiy, or the glasses started to get distracting by the end of the 100 minutes. I’m not sure, and didn’t ask.
February 10, 2009
When I went to see My Bloody Valentine 3-D, nobody asked for the glasses back so I just took them home. I was told there was an extra charge “for the glasses” but they didn’t say it was for a rental, so I assumed it was for a “purchase.”
Two questions for anyone who knows:
Will my glasses from MBV3D work for Coraline?
Will they charge me a glasses “rental” even if I bring my own?
February 10, 2009
Same glasses – they’ll work. I tried the “give me a discount, I’ve got my own glasses” deal. They didn’t buy into it. They’ll still charge you full price.
February 11, 2009
Thanks for the info, Marina!
February 11, 2009
In Kermode’s weekly rant he briefly raises hell about having to pay extra for 3D glasses.
February 12, 2009
I saw *Coraline* in New York City last week, at the AMC IMAX theatre at Times Square. There was no extra charge for the glasses. And I loved the film.
February 15, 2009
Just came back from Coraline. It’s a thumbs up, but I have to say I expected it to be a lot better. The visuals are the movie, and I’d have to dissent from any opinion that pooh-pooh’s the 3d – I thought it made the film significantly better than I might have thought of it otherwise.
The story is slow, shallow, and the characters aren’t very interesting. If it weren’t so pretty it would have been boring. It takes a good while to get going, and when it is going, its going ‘on rails’ and I don’t know if that would have worked without the 3d.
In general, I’m coming to terms I’m not much of a Gaiman fan, in either book or movie form. Nightmare and James and the Giant Peach are both way better than this, and a lot more fun.
3/5
February 15, 2009
btw, when I say ‘shallow’ I mean compared to what I expected, and that there wasnt enough else to make up for it, vs. the zillion other movies I like you could also call ‘shallow’
February 15, 2009
One other thing.
Adults found this scary? Even Monster House was scarier than this.
February 15, 2009
the fact that you liked U23d, which I assume is the ancient unoriginal rock band U2, shows you have bad taste. You must be a grumpy old person to be so worked up about 2 bucks. Especially when almost everyone else loved the 3d.
February 15, 2009
1) NOT everyone else loved the 3D. 2) I DID like the 3D – thanks for reading. 3) The issue isn’t the two bucks – again, thanks for reading. 4) Yes, I really like U2 and the shots in the 3D concert were fabulous. 5) I DEFINITELY have bad taste, but you didn’t need to point it out to everyone.
February 15, 2009
more on Coraline from a post i made on FJ:
“I didn’t really care for the characters at all, especially Coraline, who even in a 3d movie is pretty 2d.
She spends all her time being bored, declaring that she’s bored, and is unhappy, and then out of nowhere we’re supposed to believe she cares so much and regrets it. In terms maybe Jay can understand, imagine if in Home Alone we didn’t have any of the spots of the family trying to get home, and it was nothing but Kevin’s adventures. You could still get laughs and entertainment, but you’re missing a whole other level that actually is supposed to make you connect to these people.
In general, the problem isn’t so much as what’s there, it’s what is missing.”
February 17, 2009
it is definitely the principle of the matter. they shouldn’t charge extra to “rent” these glasses. ticket prices have been inflated enough to pay for all the stupid crap that theaters get, all the fancy huge lights, the intricate arcades, and whatever.
as far as the movie goes, I loved this. LOVED it. very imaginative.
February 18, 2009
We got to keep our glasses…
February 24, 2009
This film Coraline 3D was really wonderful experience for me.I had also taken my kids wih me and they also enjoyed it very much.I myself was excited very much.It is not only for kids but also for grown-ups too who appear to get more excited than the children!Overall I think this movie should be rated 4/5.I think its a well written script and all the 3D effects is just perfect.If you ask my opinion then I suggest you to see it if you want to experience something different from the regular action movies.
July 20, 2009
U know something ur review sucked! ur a grumpy old shit who went to see a good movie and bitched and complained about. heres some advice on for u. U knew what the movei was baout u knew it was 3-d and u knew they were going to charge u for it! SO FUCK U U OLD SON OF BITCH!!!!
July 20, 2009
Actually I didn’t know they were going to charge me. That’s part of the problem. Had I known that I would have gone to the 2D version.
And now that I know that 3D is an emerging technology that the studios are mostly using just to help curb piracy is even more infuriating. Especially when the product doesn’t “snap” quite as well on screen.
Ya young whipper-snapper!
December 15, 2009
blah blah blah shut the heck up if you dont like the 3d cost then dont go see it you cry babies.
December 15, 2009
Dude, read the last comment before yours… mc.