First of all, kudos to all the bloggers who downplayed the Monsters vs. Aliens box office triumph over the weekend by recognizing how inflated the gross is thanks to premium 3D fees that have some people paying as much as $20 per ticket. Second of all, shame on all of you who are posting “exclusive” photos of posters on display at ShoWest while ignoring the story (coming out of the same convention) about Fox fucking exhibitors with its decision to put the cost of 3D glasses solely to the cinemas. I wish I could say that this news has inspired me to boycott Fox’s upcoming 3D animated film Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs, but I actually wouldn’t go see that piece of crap anyway.

What has me so angry over Fox’s decision? The fact that this adds to a long history of studios bullying theater owners. Hollywood acts like it’s only the cinemas who need the studios, yet it’s totally a reciprocal relationship. On top of that, though, Fox doesn’t need to make 3D movies if it doesn’t want to. Or, it can make them and just have nowhere to show them. Unfortunately theater chains are submissive and would never attempt to put the studios in their place by refusing to put up the cost for something like this.

Sadly, either way, moviegoers will continue paying a premium fee, even if they bring their own 3D glasses saved from the last 3D feature. Because once the studios and the exhibitors manage to get people to pay a certain price, that price isn’t ever going to come down. When it comes to moviegoing, the savings are never passed on to the customer.

Quotes from the few bloggers who thankfully wrote on this story after the jump.

• Russ Fischer at CHUD.com sees business as usual with this news:
  

  Hey, it’s Fox, right? Big surprise. But if theaters have to pay for glasses, that means you’ll pay for them — really, we’re paying regardless, but this isn’t an argument that exhibitors and other studios are going to like.

• Lane Brown at Vulture points out Fox’s hypocrisy:
  

  Fox Filmed Entertainment co-chair Jim Gianopulos told a crowd that the cratering economy should not allow theater owners to delay the installation of 3-D screens and projectors, since they could help add $1 billion to yearly box-office totals. Hilariously, though, his studio is now informing exhibitors that it won’t help pay for the specialized glasses required to see its movies in 3-D, because of the cratering economy.

• Even before the Fox finger went up, Charles Taylor at The Wrap wrote on how ridiculous and harmful to the industry the 3D glasses problem is:
  

  The studios should immediately drop the surcharge for 3D movies or, at the very least, allow people who hold on to their glasses to pay regular price.

  Otherwise, to an already enraged public, Katzenberg and his colleagues may find themselves regarded as so many non-Hollywood execs already are: schmucks who soaked the public for their financial gambles.

• Dawn Taylor at Cinematical wonders if theaters might decide not to carry Fox’s 3D films (unlikely) and/or if theaters will end up charging even more of a premium for these movies (perhaps, but they’ll then also likely still have to pay part of that extra dough to the studio anyway). Taylor’s got a minor discussion brewing in the comments section. Here’s a sample response from JosephFinn:
  

  Hopefully, this’ll mean fewer “3-D” films are booked and the format dies a well-deserved death. It’s a crummy format that adds nothing and is just an excuse to charge more for tickets.

• Richard Brunton at Filmstalker highlights and responds to another side of the story:
  

  There’s even a quote from another unnamed studio, so there’s no way to tell how big or small they are:

  “They should reconsider their position, until we see how the 3-D rollout goes.”

  Is that a suggestion that there might be issues with the rollout of the equipment? That perhaps the total domination of cinema by 3D as the American studios predict might not happen? Oh I hope so.

• Tricia Olszewski of the Washington City Paper warns moviegoers to “look for another buck or two to be added to the already-inflated price of watching movies with an extra dimension soon.” Meanwhile, she also tells readers to hang on to their glasses, which won’t exactly help unless she’s hinting that we should pay for a 2D movie and sneak into the 3D movie with our carried-in specs. If so, that’s a good idea, especially if done for Fox’s movies.