It's more of a hint of how much money 3D makes the theater. As far as I can tell, most of my friends are pretty neutral on 3D. I don't like 3D, but I'll go to a 3D movie with my friends, especially if the only time we can find that works is a 3D showing.

I personally think 3D sucks because it is a gimmick that affects the cinematography of a movie. Even if you can see a movie in 2D, you are consuming a product that was creatively compromised by filming it in 3D. I've seen a lot of films in both 2D and 3D, and I do appreciate the gee-whiz factor of 3D for some kinds of movies, but it's really unnecessary for movies where spectacle is not the primary consideration.

Plus, 3D is really immersion breaking. When you are watching a 2D movie directors force you to look at a certain part of a shot by using a shallow depth of field. In a 3D movie, this results in a really disorienting effect where something in the foreground can be out of focus, and despite trying to focus your eyes on it, it will continue to be out of focus, while the part of the image that is further away is still in focus.

Realism isn't the goal of movies, telling a story is, and 3D gets in the way of telling that story.

> Even if you can see a movie in 2D, you are consuming a product that was creatively compromised by filming it in 3D.

Mind you, for movies where the majority of many shots are CGI-composited (or for works that are just plain-old digital animation in their entirety), the 3D is "free": you have a 3D master whether you want one or not, and any 2D release is a post-processed edit.

> In a 3D movie, this results in a really disorienting effect where something in the foreground can be out of focus, and despite trying to focus your eyes on it, it will continue to be out of focus, while the part of the image that is further away is still in focus.

I've always wondered whether this problem could be "solved" with eye-tracking in VR. The gear would project a ray from your pupil to the image, hit a pixel, map it back through the projection matrix to the surface of an object in the scene, and then dynamically adjust the depth-of-field so that that part of that object (and everything else at the same depth) was in focus.

> Mind you, for movies where the majority of many shots are CGI-composited (or for works that are just plain-old digital animation in their entirety), the 3D is "free": you have a 3D master whether you want one or not, and any 2D release is a post-processed edit.

It's not free because although the assets are in 3D, the final render still needs to be done, and for stereo you need to render every frame twice, once for each eye. When I was working on animated features the extra production cost for stereo was ~10% of the total production budget.

It's a common misconception that the theatre pockets the 3D surcharge, or that is pays for the glasses. It's a licensing fee for RealD.

Or that theatres or studios prefer to sell 3D for various reasons (like they can charge more, differentiate more from watching movies at home, etc)

Why would they be able to charge more for something people don’t want?

Psychology. People have an inner understanding of how much things "ought" to cost. If you charge more than that, you need a differentiator or it will trigger their scam detector and they'll reject you.

3D is a good differentiator, and allows for a price raise that otherwise doesn't appear justified.

Ok. But if people prefer the 2D version, then they’d not pay more for something they like less.

Actually yes. As a commenter above me hinted at, you would if it was the only option you had. I had to see ep 7 in 3d because there was no 2d showing on release day.. But I'd rather pay a bit more and watch it in 3d than to not watch it at all

If it's the only option you have they could just raise the price without implementing 3D. After all, ticket prices have risen over time for the same formats. Of course, the reality is that you always at the bare minimum have the option to just not go to the cinema.

No not quite. The thing is that they have a normal mix of 2D and 3D showings but not on the release day. So the issue is of wanting to see it the first day. So they have the normal division of prices between the two of them, but you are essentially forced to go for the more expensive one if you want to see it when it is released.

But you still have a choice, which is all I was saying.

Well true, you have a choice in everything. But given the constraint that I want to see the movie on release, my choices are more limited.

Because in a lot of markets they control the supply. 3D provides leverage to increase revenue across the board, and if 3D is the only option to see Star Wars, people will choose to pay more and see it in 3D when faced with the option of not seeing it at all.

Because the people who do do are willing to pay more.

That’s my point. People do like 3D movies. Not everyone, but enough to dedicate screens to it.