3d movies disappoint at the box office

The first surprise is that for the past two years 3D movies earned over half of box office revenues. Yet the technology dissappints. My son said it the best: “There was only one scene in Captain America that deserved to be shot in 3D and I can’t remember which.” 

Two years ago it seemed as though a new, improved 3D projection system could rescue a film business battered by falling DVD sales. Fully 71% of the box-office spending on “Avatar” on its opening weekend, in December 2009, went on the 3D version. The 3D showi

ngs of “Shrek Forever After” (amusing green monsters rather than earnest blue ones) accounted for 61% of American box-office spending. Cinemas generally charge at least $3 more for a 3D showing—far more than the glasses cost.

This lucrative business is now looking flat. Despite rapid growth in digital projectors and 3D-capable screens, the proportion of total box-office spending that goes on 3D has dropped this summer (see chart). Four of the past five 3D blockbusters—“Pirates of the Caribbean”, “Kung Fu Panda 2”, “Green Lantern” and “Harry Potter”—made more money from 2D screens on their opening weekend than from 3D ones. That was true of only one widely released 3D film last summer, and none the year before.

Roger Ebert dislikes 3D movies and for a good reason. (They waste a dimension and make the picture dim).