The new movie “Sanctum” had plenty working against its box office potential.
Its biggest star, Ioan Gruffudd, could probably saunter through the Mall of America without a soul recognizing him. The film isn’t a remake, reboot, sequel or update on a beloved TV series.
Yet the film still should have earned more than a paltry $9.7 million during its debut weekend, about what it’s expected to haul in once the final pennies have been counted. And that figure is inflated since 3-D ticket prices are much higher than those for 2-D features.
That’s bad news for 3-D content to come. The 3-D factor for “Sanctum” was its biggest selling point, and executive producer James Cameron did plenty of press to promote both the film and that extra dimension.
“Sanctum” didn’t have any appreciable competition, but it still came up short compared to “The Roommate,” a film with two television actors which wasn’t screened for critics prior to opening.
Is this the first of several bad signs for 3-D films in 2011?
WWTW has spent the last week working on two 3-D-related freelance projects. I talked to plenty of smart, talented people who are deeply invested in 3-D features and their future. Will their passion go for naught?
Upcoming films like “Thor,” “Captain America: The First Avenger” and “Green Lantern” will all be in 3-D and each will make a mint. But it won’t be due to 3-D effects. Each represents a recognizable brand with plenty of built-in audience interest.
Studios may squeak out a few extra bucks by attaching 3-D visuals to can’t miss blockbusters. But the 3-D format faces serious hurdles if it can’t draw a crowd by itself.
(Photo: Ryhs Wakefield plays Josh, a cave diver stuck in a very tight spot in “Sanctum.” Universal)
Related posts:
on 
on 
{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }
Sorry Christian, but I disagree.
Story is king.
I’ve seen too many bad movies with great actors, great visuals, great sound tracks, great special effects and confusing or boring story lines.
Expecting a movie to be successful simply because of 3D is the equivalent of expecting success due to a John Williams score.
Back in the 1920s, a movie could be a smash simply because it was a “talkie.”
In the 1930s, color was the big draw, but even The Wizard of Oz wasn’t a huge success at the time.
In the 21st century, movies have a lot of competition: television, computers, video games, etc. 3D had its WOW moment with Avatar. Why pay inflated prices just to see a poor movie just because of 3D?
Give me characters and a good story, then I’ll fork over the dough.
3D sucks and it looks like [expletive] most films. It’s a stupid shtick to get more money from morons. I hope it goes away very quickly.
If they really expected a blockbuster, they wouldn’t be releasing it now. We’re in the time slot where bad movies go to die.
“Sanctum” is no “Piranha 3D” baby!
Gee, Mycroft (Holmes’ brother?)…are you meaning “StarWars 1, 2, 3″?
One of the things I dislike about any movie critic? even one I like and trust as much as you (at least as it applies to horror flics?) Don’t predict boxoffice, just talk about the movie. We the consoumer will dictate the boxoffice.
I have to respectfully disagree, Douglas. The box office tallies mean a great deal … they dictate the kinds of movies we see, the trends that endure and the styles that filmmakers will embrace down the road.
If a movie like “Sanctum” tanks, it isn’t an isolated incident.
That said, there is the possibility here of going too ‘inside baseball,’ something I may do from time to time because this subject interests me. It’s good to get a reminder of what the blog readers want, so I appreciate your criticism. Keep it coming – just be gentle!
Personally speaking, “inside baseball” is one of my favorite things about talking with/reading people who have different professions and interests from myself. None of us live in a bubble without access to outside information (how boring that would be) and I enjoy when my movie critic(s) apply their knowledge to broader topics and the industry at large.
Wow!! That was by far the worst movie I have ever see. Horrible acting, plot was conducted and produced by a preschooler, over all a big waist of money & time!! I can’t even believe I paid to see that so called 3D piece of trash.. This was one of the first time that I almost walked out of the movie! What made me angry was the story line. They absolutely did not put any thought into it and the editor should never be allowed edit in any movie EVER AGAIN!! I give this movie two thumbs down and a punch in the face for waisting my time!!
“Is this the first of several bad signs for 3-D films in 2011?”
Lord, I hope so. 3-D does nothing for a good movie, and actually detracts from one. Since movies of late are of such poor story, acting, and bad soundtrack, maybe that is why the powers that be are doing such a push towards the format… to up the profit margin.