2D Versions of Films Are Out-Performing Their Pricey 3D Counterparts

We may earn a commission from links on this page.

Roger Ebert was right. Not about video games not being art, that was pure bullshit. He was right about 3D being a waste of movie-goers' money—and apparently more and more people are agreeing with him.

Slate reports that while 3D films practically printed money in 2009 and early 2010, things started to fall apart with the release of Toy Story 3. The film made $110.3 million at the box office, which is great—except that the per-theatre revenue of the 3D version of the film was 5 percent less than the 2D version. Which kicked off a downward trend that seems to be getting worse.


More often than not, the 3D versions of huge blockbusters are failing to generate the cash the 2D versions are pulling in. Of course, there are exceptions to the rule; the 3D versions of TRON and Resident Evil: Afterlife both annihilated their 2D counterparts at the box office. That that's light cycles—how could you not want to see those in three amazing dimensions?

Avatar Director and 3D evangelist, James Cameron hit it right on the nose when he said that movie goers "don't want to pay extra for something that's not a great experience." Hopefully Hollywood will listen, and realize that slapping a 3D badge on a movie and expecting people to pay a premium to see is a losing proposition. Unless The Lion King 3D makes a gillion dollars this weekend. Then we're screwed. [Slate]