Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Questions about 3-D.


A convention for movie theatres called Showest just ended in the US. There was a lot of talk about 3-D being the saviour of the theatre since it can't be duplicated at home. A few questions occurred to me.


Some of the films are supposed to be coming out exclusively in 3-D. The Hannah Montana film was like that and so is the upcoming Journey to the Center of the Earth. I wonder how long the exclusive part will last? There are still a lot of places that don't have a 3-D theatre. 3-D is expensive both to put in and maintain. For example the small city St. Thomas south of London isn't likely to have a 3-D screen any time soon. Are they willing to forsake all places like it in order to play exclusively in 3-D?

There's also the matter of second run and independent theatres. Western Film won't have 3-D any time soon either so does that mean we won't be able to play James Cameron's Avatar when it comes out next year?

The 3-D thing also messes up the normal pattern in a multiplex. Normally a film opens in one of the larger screens then gradually moves into smaller screens as the run progresses. Unless they all have 3-D this won't be able to happen.


For example,the Silver City at Masonville converted their largest screen (#2) to play digital and 3-D. They are playing the Hannah Montana film but since none of the other screens can play it they will have to drop it right off the big screen.


Hannah is a bit of a special case but imagine this. Let's say Shrek 4 opens in 3-D only on May 1, then Spiderman 4 opens May 7 in 3-D only. The Silver City would have to either drop Shrek completely after one week or not play Spider-man. Not a choice I would want to have to make.


I predict a similar situation to when Stars Wars: The Phantom Menace opened. Initially Lucas insisted it could only open on screens with digital sound. There was a huge uproar since so many places didn't have digital sound and that requirement fell by the wayside. The 3-D movies will all or at least most have 2-D versions available as well.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I never really understood the whole 3D thing... if anything, I think I would find it annoying. I had never really thought of the implications you mentioned, but it just give me one more reason to dislike this whole 3D hype... If it were up to me 3D should only be used if it will significantly AND relevantly enhance the movie experience... i say relevantly because a couple of unrelated but parallel examples come to mind.

The Matrix Trilogy - First movie: amazing action scenes and deep philosophical concepts that were in all ways pertinent to the movie. Second movie: still good action scenes but a bunch of irrelevant philosophical concepts put forth in weak dialogue that had nothing to do with the movie itself.

Richard Linklater flicks - Waking Life: the movie's animation was entirely pertinent to the protagonist's dream world, where anything and everything was possibler. A Scanner Darkly: sure, the movie was about distorted reality and all that... but come on? The same style of animation? Was there no other original way of conveying that idea? Frankly, I think appealing to Waking Life fans was a cheap trick, and I expected more from a talented director like Linklater.

In summary: I know nothing about 3D but I am convinced that it sucks.