Monday Morning Quarterback Part III
By BOP Staff
April 11, 2013
BoxOfficeProphets.com

Hooray! We're the hugging champions!

Kim Hollis: Jurassic Park returned to theaters with the 3D treatement, earning $18.6 million in the process. What do you think about this result?

Brett Ballard-Beach: It's all gravy. $10 million to convert. "Free advertising" for JPIV in 2014. Gets Jeff Goldblum and Laura Dern out doing the media rounds. I even thought about paying to see it. (Also, it gets me all nostalgic for my 20th high school reunion this summer. Well, almost.)

Jay Barney: I am not a fan of studios going the 3D release route, but apparently it makes money for them. I don’t even spend my money on new films released in 3D, so it is safe to say I am not a fan of these efforts. They put their money into projects that bring home the bacon, and the re-release of Jurassic Park as a 3D venture will make Universal money. At the same time it will keep the fourth film in the franchise in the back of everyone’s mind. I like the franchise in general, except for the awfulness of the second movie. However, from this point on Jurassic Park 3D will be a declining stat on the top ten list.

Matthew Huntley: If Hollywood is going to continue treat its modern classics with 3D, then I think titles like Jurassic Park (and Titanic from a year ago) are the ones to go with. They are, essentially, popcorn movies - purely cinematic and the kinds of movies we love to see on the big screen because they're so grand in scope. As far as JP's $18.6 million haul this weekend, I think it's impressive, mostly because I thought the idea of converting to 3D and re-releasing older movies was starting to fade in popularity, but I guess we can't make a blanket statement like that; it all comes down to the individual title, and clearly people wanted to revisit Spielberg's dino-epic.

Edwin Davies: It's perfectly fine, but it confirms that something like the Lion King 3D re-release was very much an exception to the rule when it comes to these things. What I mean by that is that none of these films make a huge amount of money relative to their first go around, but they can earn a decent bit of extra money for the studios and work as additional marketing, either for the Blu-ray release of the film, which is obviously a very lucrative revenue stream to exploit, or, in the case of Jurassic Park, a sequel. Setting aside whether or not it's right to convert 2D films to 3D (though, for what it's worth: it's wrong and on a par with colorization) it has commercial advantages that are hard to ignore.

David Mumpower: I agree that Jurassic Park is a film that begs for the 3D treatment. I have actually done a pre-order of the Blu-Ray, which is released in two weeks. I agree that the market is ordinarily exploited by this type of re-release in vaguely new packaging. I do not, however, mind such a decision when I love the movie in question. I have watched Jurassic Park multiple times on the pay channels recently and while it's an imperfect movie, it's such a fun concept. And I say that as someone who didn't even like dinosaurs as a kid. Jurassic Park is an ultimate popcorn flick. I'm glad it's getting some renewed attention.

Kim Hollis: It's about what expected JP3D to make, really. It's a good family outing and people that were kids when the film was out may have kids of their own to take to theaters. As many have mentioned, it's easy marketing for the next film in the franchise. I'm impressed that people keep on going to these re-releases.

Max Braden: That's $18 million more than I would have expected considering that even though I now remember seeing ads, I'd completely forgotten that it was being released this weekend. Like many similar polished re-releases, I'm glad it was done and is available to see, but I never get around to seeing them. Jurassic Park especially should be one I go see, because its dinosaur herd effects are still superior to most anything else made since it was released decades ago. As far as the studio goes, is $18 million+ enough to justify the 3D and re-release treatment? It seems like it should cover the expense, so doing so without any loss doesn't seem like a bad idea, especially if it sells more DVDs to new 3D tv sets.

Kim Hollis: What movie, if any, do you think is deserving of the 3D treatment (that hasn't had it already)?

Brett Ballard-Beach: Top of my head, just stream of consciousness here... Lawrence of Arabia (when the tiny speck of TE Lawrence gets closer and closer and then CLOSER!), Sin City (it's already 95% artificial already!); Perfume: The Story of a Murderer (particularly for the insane village square orgy towards the end), What Dreams May Come (a film I hate, but you would feel like you're inside the painting landscapes) and in memoriam of Roger Ebert, Beyond the Valley of the Dolls. Hopefully, he and Gene are verbally fistfighting somewhere out in the ether.

Matthew Huntley: Some movies that jump to mind are Independence Day; Superman: The Movie; and Terminator 2: Judgement Day.

Edwin Davies: None. Not a single film that was shot in 2D should be converted because that wasn't the way they were meant to be seen and it harms the clarity of the original image. It's bad enough audiences are being conned into spending extra money on films shot in 3D, but it's sacrilege for studios to go back and say, "Well, sure, it's a masterpiece, no doubt, but wouldn't it be better viewed with light loss and a pounding headache?"

Max Braden: Even with new 3D movies I tend to choose the 2D option when it's available, because I find the glasses mute some of the color, and fast action and narrow depth of field shots don't work in 3D, so I'm not eager to redo many movies in that format. But one that immediately springs to mind is The Abyss (has this been done already?). I want to see that water snake come out of the screen.

Kim Hollis: I can't really think of any, either. I honestly prefer to watch movies in 2D (other than stuff like Avatar) because the glasses are irritating and generally it's just harder to see what's going on in my opinion. And if it's IMAX, the sound is muddy, too. I might just choose Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (the '70s version) because it's so colorful and crazy. Then again, I don't want to give anyone any ideas.

David Mumpower: Screw all of you snooty people with your uppity cinematic justifications! I want John McClane jumping out of Nakatomi Plaza in three dimensions, dammit! Looking through my Ultraviolet library, some other titles I would enjoy getting 3D releases are House of Flying Daggers, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, GoldenEye, Moulin Rouge!, The Matrix, The Mask of Zorro, Happy Feet, Minority Report, North by Northwest, Transformers (the first one/only good one), Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Amelie, Mr. and Mrs. Smith and (most importantly) Ghostbusters.