3d Movies and the purchase of polarizing glasses

[Mark Mentzer]

With the advent of films such as "Avatar" and "Alice in Wonderland" I question the fairness of having to pay an extra $2.50 to buy the polarizing glasses over and over again. 

I did some research to see if anyone else is questioning the fairness of this extra charge and found only one blog. Here's a link to the discussion: http://www.blogbydonna.com/post/2008/08/Why-Should-We-Pay-Extra-For...

The theaters have "recycling bins" making it seem like your being green when, in fact, all they are doing is getting you to throw your $2.50 in the bin so they can clean them and sell them to you again.

The answer of course is CAPITALISM and GREED plain and simple. Remember the old red and blue 3d glasses? You didn't have to pay for those even once let alone every time you saw another 3d movie. But now you do. 

Why are so many of us such suckers to allow the greedy capitalist PIGS to rip us off over and over again?

Many people including Wanda the Faye are accepting of this practice which surprises me. What are your thoughts on this issue?

— Mark

[Boothby171]

What'll it be boys?

Government regulation of movie pricing? Or allowing the free market (yes, snicker!) to operate.

I can just imagine what would happen if No1Toolmaker wandered in here!

Or would you somehow regulate the prices that the film industry (or that theaters) can charge?

I still see ads for theaters (never nearby, unfortunately), that run last month's movies at roughly half-price. If you want to challenge the costs at the main-stream theaters, go there.

Or rent the DVD from the library.

[Boothby171]

Ron,

Unfortunately, no on both counts. Regular--even polarized--sunglasses won't work. Each lens has to be polarized in a unique way, sunglasses are linearly polarized, and aligned. 3D glasses, if linearly polarized, have their lenses mounted 90° opposed. There is also "Circular" polarization (far more typical these days), and each lens has a unique form of this polarization (I'm not sure I understand that part of it well enough to explain).

And a lot of movies these days--from "G-Force" to "Clash of the Titans" to "Alice in Wonderland"--weren't even (primarily) shot in 3D, or initially produced in 3D!! Their live-action scenes were shot with a single (2D) camera, and then foreground and background elements were cut and pasted (still not an easy task) to provide the needed 3D "parallax." It adds roughly 75% of the cost (pulling numbers out of my hindquarters here) that a full 3D film would have cost you, but hardly gives you the same quality--but it then is able to "compete" against other, "real" 3D films (such as "Avatar," "Final Destination 4," "Monsters and Aliens," and the IMAX 3D films).

So...if the market was there, "Inglorious Basterds" COULD be re-composited into a 2-1/2D movie!

[Mark Mentzer]

Boothby, I'd like to see Alice but I don't buy in to the gimmick that is modern day 3D. Do you know if they run these movies minus the 3D at a regular price?

[Westerly_2]

I just went to the movie & bought the glasses. You don't have to buy them; part of the movie is filmed in 2-D, and you can see the 3-D all right w/your regular eyes, but it's a little fuzzy. (I took the specs off and checked.) It looked like most of the people saved theirs for the next time, not depositing them in the bins.

[Mark Mentzer]

But you're still paying for them in the ticket price. The price is still $3.00 more.

[Boothby171]

Alice is available, at the theaters, in GLORIOUS 2D!!!

But I've heard it STILL sucks.

[Mark Mentzer]

Am I to understand that these are available in regular theaters without having to pay the extra $3.00 then?

[Boothby171]

Yes, of course. But you're seeing them through a regular projector, etc., etc.