Journey To The Center Of The Earth gained more revenue from 3D than 2D

We'll admit -- we had serious doubts that 3D cinema would ever take off so long as patrons were forced to wear those gaudy glasses, but the opening weekend numbers for Journey To The Center Of The Earth make a good case that 3D is viable. In a release put out by Real3D, we're told that 55% of the box office revenue generated by the film was handed over by guests watching it in the third-dimension. In short, the Real3D version took in "3.7 times the revenue of the 2D alternative." It should be noted, however, that 3D viewings are generally more expensive than traditional screens, so we can't say with any degree of certainty that more people saw the film in 3D than in 2D. Still, this seems like a pretty big deal in the 3D arena to us, and we're sure it's all the motivation some studios needed to move forward with costly 3D endeavors.

[(Unverified) Posted Jul 16th 2008 11:07AM]

Well, in my town probably more than half of the theaters showing JttCotE had it in 3D, so I'm not too surprised that more people saw it that way. In addition, I went to a matinee showing of the 3D version. Normal matinee price at the theater is $8.50, but the 3D showing was $11.00 (normal non-matinee price). So the theater did gross a higher amount on my purchase, but I did get a pair of glasses sealed in plastic, so that has to eat into the difference a little bit.

This was the first modern 3D movie I've seen. My main purpose was to check out the actual live-action stereoscopic cinematography process, which is technology invented by James Cameron. Cameron is using this process to film his upcoming movie Avatar, so I wanted to get an advance preview of it.

My impressions of Cameron's stereoscopic process are mostly positive. During the movie, I didn't see any double images or ghosting, the way I used to with the older analog projection 3D, and I didn't have a headache, even after an hour and a half or so. That's good! I kept the glasses and I'm going to check the Internet for any cool other stuff I might be able to use them for.

There were a few "in your face" moments with the 3D effect, but fortunately they were fairly far between, so it wasn't too badly overdone. One thing I noticed was that some of the shots with excessive "depth" tended to draw my attention away from the story and pull me out of the movie. For instance, there was a shot of a building exterior with trees in the foreground. The apparent depth difference between each of the trees and the building was pretty excessive and distracting. Also, I noticed that when the depth is really cranked up, the scene almost appears like cardboard cutout objects at each location, like a shadow box or a play background with set pieces simulating depth at the back of the stage. It's kind of strange. On the other hand, during scenes with little depth I was ironically disappointed. I remember Cameron saying that by varying the distance between the two lenses, the director/DP can adjust the depth effect as desired. I hope he's erred on the side of a subtler depth effect for Avatar, but more importantly that it stays fairly consistent throughout the movie so the viewer will tend to just accept the added depth as part of the story and forget about scrutinizing the changes from scene to scene. Of course, this is Cameron we're talking about, so I'm sure he'll do it right, especially since he's promoting stereoscopic as more involving, not more distracting.

[SpaceLemur Posted Jul 16th 2008 11:22AM]

55% = 3.7 times?

Or does it mean 55% of revenue for ALL movies over the weekend?

[jcolema1 Posted Jul 16th 2008 12:30PM]

Yeah, this is true because the only reason to see Journey to the Center of the Earth is to see it in 3D...

[(Unverified) Posted Jul 16th 2008 1:22PM]

It was certainly more expensive, $16, instead of the normal $13. $3 for a pair of clean scratch free glasses is a pretty good deal, even if they are a bit small, but then I have a big head and another pair of glasses I had to put them over.

Unlike Mr E. I saw lots of ghosting on things in the distance, the most noticeable things where some white signs/paper in the lab at the beginning of the film. Maybe there is some tuning needed on the projection side, or some glasses have better polarization then others

I was a bit surprised to find it in 3D at a non IMAX theater, and I only watched it because of the 3D.

[(Unverified) Posted Jul 16th 2008 2:10PM]

which 3d system does your theatre have? real d or dolby 3d?

[(Unverified) Posted Jul 16th 2008 3:59PM]

I'm interested in seeing this, but only if it's in 3D. How do I know which theaters have it in 3D and which don't???

[(Unverified) Posted Jul 16th 2008 7:44PM]

Check the listings on fandango.com, they'll tell you which are in 3d.