3D movie grosses are not trending "Down, Down, Down" (rant)

No matter how it's spun, the data on the expected 3D explosion just isn't going in the right direction.

This is the first sentence of The Wrap's story titled: "3D at the Box Office: Down, Down, Down." Hit the jump to read why it's a load of bull. 

More crazy claims

The second sentence of this article claims that: 

After nearly 80 percent of those who saw "Avatar" saw it in 3D, it was assumed that the format would quickly overtake theatrical distribution.

Who assumed that it would overtake theatrical distribution? People who write on blogs? The media? And what does that mean? 3D distribution is still theatrical distribution. 

Graphs are good!

After we see this title and these couple sentences we're treated to charts and graphs like this:

These graphs are used to show that 3D is dying. Unfortunately, charts and graphs that look like this tell you almost nothing, but they are used like mana from heaven--empowering TV shows, newspapers, blogs, and anyone else who wants to spout off. I hate this.

This graph is terrible!

First off, this graph is scaled to have a Y axis that goes from 40-80%. Why these percentages? It makes the drop from 70-45% look more dramatic.

Second, this shows the percentage of opening weekend sales in 3D. Why only the opening weekend (3 days)? Why don't we look at the entire theatrical run? Oh, well that is because most of these films haven't even left theaters yet.

Third, this graph leaves out Cats & Dogs (55%), Clash of the Titans (52%) and Alice in Wonderland (70%), perhaps others. Why? These three movies would wreck the beautiful bell-like decline this chart has. Who wants a chart that goes up and down when you can have one that just declines?

Another graph

When these three films are put in, we see a chart that looks like this: 

In this graph, more films are included, but a new tactic is employed to make it look bad. Instead of simply showing the percentage of "opening weekend box office gross," whoever made this decided to add in the actual dollars, probably because it creates a chart that drops off more steeply at the end. In reality, I'm not so sure comparing the opening gross of Cats & Dogs, a throwaway film, to a tentpole release like Alice in Wonderland is worth much. 

Common sense

There are a limited number of 3D-capable screens, and that number is increasing. Avatar is an anomaly. It's made $2.7 billion dollars in worldwide box office grosses, was the first movie filmed entirely for 3D, and was marketed as such. That is why it grossed so much on 3D screens. Avatar fever was cooling just as Alice in Wonderland came out in March, leaving many 3D screens open. Since everybody loves Johnny Depp, this one did better than expected in 3D and 2D, impressing everyone (though it's a pretty boring film in my opinion). After Alice, 3D releases have become quicker and quicker, and the films have been forced to share 3D screens. Of course individual grosses have been down.

When the writer of this article starts quoting experts, his initial claims begin to dissolve. Everyone he interviews is reasonable and expects 3D to be a valuable part of the industry for years to come, just not its savior. 

“I think the overall message isn't that 3D is a fad or that it’s going away, but I’m not sure we’re moving to a point where 50 percent of the box office is derived by 3D ticket sales as some of the bulls currently believe,” BTIG Research analyst Richard Greenfield told TheWrap.

...

"We believe 3D is very much here to stay and that audiences have a tremendous appetite for high-quality 3D content that can differentiate itself from the other choices in the marketplace," [Jeffrey] Katzenberg told investors.

The article dilutes into a series of quotes that generally show that 3D box office isn't plummeting, it's maturing. The real conclusion is that theaters need to adjust the high ticket prices, studios need to make better 3D (and 2D) movies, things will get better as there are more 3D screens, and that not all movies should be made in 3D. These are all perfectly reasonable thoughts.

My question: Why intro an article like this...

No matter how it's spun, the data on the expected 3D explosion just isn't going in the right direction.

You have no reasonable data to back up your claims. The entire rest of this article dismisses this opening line. Comparing Avatar to anything since Titanic is stupid. Everything is hottest when it's new, and that's certainly the case with 3D. Every time studios have done 3D well, paired it with a good movie, and had the screens to support the release, 3D grosses have been high. Toy Story 3 is the most recent example. 

I am not a huge fan of 3D. I think it dims the screen and it's not my favorite way to watch movies. But I hate bullshit more.