I know I’m harshing on the animated features, and I loved all three examples you chose, but I still think Avatar is the only good 3-D movie of the bunch. I saw all of those movies in 3-D theaters. Certainly, it’s more fun to watch some movies in 3-D, and animation lends itself to 3-D more than most live action films. But I would argue the quality of those films was not improved at all by 3-D. 3-D was not essential to their success as art or, more importantly, escape. Did learning that Toy Story 3 would be released in 3-D make you any more excited for the film? Personally, I greeted the news with a shrug, and I left the theater wondering if I wouldn’t have enjoyed the movie more without the dark sunglasses on. Further, the appeal of seeing those movies in 3-D may have been negatively impacted by the age of the audience.

Second, as you yourself admit, the correlation between 2-D revenue and 3-D revenue relies on a shaky assumption. In your equation, the benefit for Avatar to show in 3-D is marginal, but I believe that the film would not have been the #1-movie-of-all-time-blockbuster that it was without the 3-D experience. I believe a huge percentage of the 3-D audience was enticed by the use of the technology to its most impressive ends so far.

Among the points you don’t account for in your comparative correlation: Age of the audience, subject matter of the film, critical reviews, promotions and cross-promotions, performance history of the backing director/studios, subjective relationship between subject matter and 3-D medium.

You make no conceit about subjectivity, but you’re judging an art form. You might as well say that movies whose color palette leans toward colder blue tones are in decline. It’s true, until someone makes a blockbuster movie about Picasso, and then it’s not. You can get a little nasty and say that I haven’t given it much thought or don’t understand, but I’m trying to look at the medium from a subjective, artistic viewpoint. You’re trying to use statistical analysis, but you haven’t come close to proving a statistical correlation in the real world, you’ve only manipulated a few statistical points on a graph. And you know what they say, there are lies, damn lies . . .

Here’s why you’re entirely wrong in your assessment of 3-D, and of my box-office analysis:

First, Avatar is not the only good 3-D movie. My list included films like Coraline, Up, and Toy Story 3— each of which used the medium in an intelligent way, to support an otherwise interesting and well-made film.

Second, Avatar did not do especially well, from the perspective of 3-D vs. 2-D box-office returns. The marginal benefit of a 3-D screening was a 70% increase in revenue, which is well below what 3-D movies were making in the previous year. Which suggests that fewer people considered the 3-D experience as integral to the movie, than they had for, say, Beowulf or Monsters vs. Aliens.

Third, it’s not ridiculous to ask whether the medium is producing diminishing returns. That fact will determine how much energy is put into upgrading 2-D screens, developing new technology, and producing new (and better) 3-D films.

It seems as though you haven’t given this topic much thought, and/or don’t understand the issues involved.

=======================
“I’m going to make him an offer he can’t refuse.” -Don Vito Corleone, Godfather (1972)
Watch movies online for free here: moviesonlinelive.com