Would you ever consider paying $352.00 for a movie?

[Sith]

Ok, I'm sure we can all see that you can buy Avatar 3D for the very low price of $352.47.

Would anyone consider paying that for anything other than a 35mm print of the movie?

Not sure I would even pay that for Empire.

[iam1bearcat]

i saw this a couple days ago an thought it was a pricing error, but it never changes.
but, but, but it's the 3D version and comes with two pairs of glasses!

this is completely ridiculous and a total waste of money imo.

[BaronVH]

Originally Posted by Sith

Ok, I'm sure we can all see that you can buy Avatar 3D for the very low price of $352.47.

Would anyone consider paying that for anything other than a 35mm print of the movie?

Not sure I would even pay that for Empire.

Of me and Scarlet Johannsen, then, yes, I would pay that much.

[ArmyOfDarknessAW]

No I would never but I have to point out you are paying for the 3D starter kit with 2 shutter glasses included. I am sure that some fans bought that just for the 3D copy of the movie but I would rather wait a year or two till it's a non exclusive.

[Nielsb90]

I would - but only of it was a 3D release of Cannibal! The Musical or Redneck Zombies..

Only true classics would ever deserve a price tag like that

[Mandalorian]

But it comes with two pairs of fancy sunshades. I've seen sunglasses for more.

[Show spoiler]

[cinemaphile]

It's not an outrageous price for a movie. Because it's NOT the price of the movie. It's a set including glasses.
3-D glasses cost like $150+ each, so for a set with 2 pair plus a major movie, that's about right.
You people are acting like they're actually charging $350 for just the movie.

[blujacket]

I would never pay that for any movie.

[coolmilo]

Nope, never. I realize that active shutter 3D glasses are expensive, but I would never pay that much for ANY movie and I could care less about Active Shutter 3D.

No Sale!

[iam1bearcat]

Originally Posted by cinemaphile

It's not an outrageous price for a movie. Because it's NOT the price of the movie. It's a set including glasses.
3-D glasses cost like $150+ each, so for a set with 2 pair plus a major movie, that's about right.
You people are acting like they're actually charging $350 for just the movie.

i would never pay that much for 2 pairs of glasses and a movie. still incredibly ridiculous.

[HD Goofnut]

No, especially when home 3D in its present form is already failing. I think the most I have ever paid for a movie, excluding box sets, was $35 for the Japanese HD DVD of Equilibrium.

[OG Pooh]

Originally Posted by cinemaphile

It's not an outrageous price for a movie. Because it's NOT the price of the movie. It's a set including glasses.
3-D glasses cost like $150+ each, so for a set with 2 pair plus a major movie, that's about right.
You people are acting like they're actually charging $350 for just the movie.

Exactly. And if you read the posts after yours, they still don't get it!

[Mandalorian]

Originally Posted by OG Pooh

Exactly. And if you read the posts after yours, they still don't get it!

Maybe people do get it...but don't care. That's a possibilty.

[kdo]

Originally Posted by Sith

Ok, I'm sure we can all see that you can buy Avatar 3D for the very low price of $352.47.

Would anyone consider paying that for anything other than a 35mm print of the movie?

No (3-D goggles included or not).

[OG Pooh]

Originally Posted by RJ Smoove

Maybe people do get it...but don't care. That's a possibilty.

Maybe they should start a thread for people with no reading comprehension then? Or one that has no topic?

[Sith]

Originally Posted by cinemaphile

It's not an outrageous price for a movie. Because it's NOT the price of the movie. It's a set including glasses.
3-D glasses cost like $150+ each, so for a set with 2 pair plus a major movie, that's about right.
You people are acting like they're actually charging $350 for just the movie.

If I'm paying $150.00 for glasses they better be Oakleys.

I'm pretty sure I've seen 3D glasses at Fry's for way cheaper than that.

[blufellas]

No!

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

No, especially when home 3D in its present form is already failing.

This is what Im seeing too. many people are just not into it and are NOT willing to pay the extra money or deal with glasses and whatever else they have to do. Only a handful of films really benefit from 3D and even then its questionable as to the real value. I still see it as novelty. Something you do a few times, enjoy it during that time, and then move on with your life. Its a theater thing, IMO.

Now, in 20 years if 3D is the only thing available and no special glasses or hardware is required then yeah, people will get on board. Until then? Its just not making the waves it needs to to be anything other than a pure niche for the "must-have" crowd.

As for the $352 bucks for a movie? If I was told that the Star Wars films were being released in limited numbers and I was gonna get all 6 films in every version they've ever been released in with all the extras...Id probably pay that for the SET, or even more. Thats it though.

[OG Pooh]

Originally Posted by Sith

If I'm paying $150.00 for glasses they better be Oakleys.

I'm pretty sure I've seen 3D glasses at Fry's for way cheaper than that.

3D glasses (from a good manufacturer) run about $150 a pair. At least they did, I haven't checked in a while. Maybe they've gone down because 3D isn't doing as well as they'd hoped?

[Mandalorian]

Originally Posted by OG Pooh

Maybe they should start a thread for people with no reading comprehension then? Or one that has no topic?

So are you insulting me, or everyone on this thread? I can't tell because I know my comprehension skills are sufficient.