All aboard for “a potential train wreck!” That’s what NATO* president John Fithian is saying will come next year if Steven Spielberg doesn’t wake up and smell the digital presentation of motion pictures. 2009 sees a whole load of 3D digital films hitting theaters, including Avatar, Monsters vs Aliens and the upgraded Toy Story movies, but there just aren’t enough screens for them. “We have less than 1,000 3-D screens in the U.S. and fewer than that in the rest of the world,” Fithian intoned. He then warned the kids not to go to Camp Blood. They’ll be sorry!
What’s weird is how Spielberg’s name has been dragged into this. He didn’t want to release Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull digitally, but Paramount overrode him and the film will be getting a minor digital run; what Fithian is selling is that unless they get Spielberg on their side, the digital revolution hasn’t happened yet.
But that’s not really the case. The case is that theater owners and studios are clashing over the ‘Virtual Print Fee’ – this is a system wherein the studios help defray the cost of theaters installing new digital equipment; the studios want to pay less. Of course having a Spielberg leaning on the studios to cough up the money for the Virtual Print Fee would help, but it’s obvious that they’re interested in upgrading anyway. They’re just cheap.
But they’ll blink. There’s no way that Fox is putting one of the most expensive films ever made on to 1000 screens. That’s a big indie release, not a decade-defining blockbuster. I feel that we’re not going to get a chance to gawk at a cinematic exhibition trainwreck next year. Unless of course America does what I fully expect it to do and tells Hollywood to shove those stupid glasses up their ass.
*National Association of Theater Owners, not North Atlantic Treaty Organization





18 comments
I'm looking forward to Avatar as much as anyone, but I'm hoping it doens't rely on 3D to be compelling. I understand Cameron, Jackson, Zemeckis etc's enthusiasm for "the next great leap in theatrical presentation" but I hope they're not throwing all their Passion Eggs into the 3D basket and forsaking the reasons cinema has been compelling for all these years.
devin is fat and gay
Is this story about Digital projection or Digital 3D projection. They are not the same thing…
Is this story about Digital projection or Digital 3D projection? They are not the same thing…
Not to worry about Cameron punching-up the 3D effect…in a recent Variety article he made it clear, he's not shooting 'for' 3D, but using it subtly, just to "enhance" the experience…he stated he doesn't feel the need to reinvent visual storytelling and those seeing it without 3D will be just as entertained.
diaglo, I don't think you have to be worried. Check out this article………..http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117983864.html?categoryid=1009&cs=1………….. shit is that Variety? Oh snap! You guys should've cut and pasted this earlier….. Actually really good article.
Well, BEOWULF was great except for the obviously-shot-for-3D-projection shots, like the ludicrously high-def close-up.. on the end of a battered spear. Do away with crap like this and maybe 3D has a chance. But how the hell are you going to get 3D movies into the home viewing arena? For those of us who can't even afford a plasma screen yet, a 3d projection TV maybe be decades away – if in our lifetime at all…
Stay strong, Spielberg. Fuck digital & 3D. I love film! Unfortunately, this standoff feels like the ending of Zulu.
If NATO could pull down Xenu, everyone would win.
Because 3-D did wonders for exhibitors in the 50's! Let's bring back Cinemascope next.
I really don't understand anti-3d sentiments. Regular movies aren't going away ya know.
Wow. This post was all over the place. Devin is pro-digital, and yet anti-3D. Way to take the most curmudgeonly stance you could. 3D is the best way to get people back into theaters, hands down. It's a way to make the cinema experience vital again. Do you have any better ideas, Dev? You decry the death of the theater-going experience, and yet you shit on the only effort on the horizon to revitalize it.
Okay, I know I am in the minority here, with Sammy Davis Jr. dead and all. But here's the rub. I only have one working eye, and I happen to love going to the theater. What happens to us cyclopses who love cinema?
Yeah, digital projection is not the same thing as this new-fangled 3D thing. We've had digital projectors since the 90s. Considering none of us has seen a non-animated 3D movie yet, I think it's a bit premature to proclaim it the new wave. It might not work. Avatar will determine the future of the format.
I hate 3D, its a annoying for people who wear glasses, even with the giant ones that fit over your frames its still kind of uncomforable. I was following Harry Potter fine until the climax
I think what this article is getting at is digital camera vs. using actual film. I for one have always prefered real film versus digital. There is something unique about the properties of film that can not be duplicated on a digital camera no matter what filter you're using. There is a certain texture, a graininess of film that gives the scene more depth. This also helps cg to blend better (case in point: new star was movies were shot w/ digital cameras = cg that stands out way too much). Digital cameras make everything look too clean and generic.
Of course using Digital cameras expedites the editing process and cuts down costs of printing film, but it also lends itself to piracy. And for 3-d you can't get good enough resolution w/o digital which would explain why Cameron's using it. His new movie is supposed to feature a form of 3-d on steroids.
Even with snazzy 3D gimmikry in play, it's gonna be a rare occasion indeed for me to drag my ass to the cineplex. Number one reason? All the dickhole nonsense that occurs in the theatre vis a vis the fucktard ignoranuses who are convinced that they're in their own living room. This includes phone calls, loud talking, and kids running amok down the aisles. When I go to see a film (or a movie, or a flick) I want to be entertained by what's on the screen, not plagued by annoyances from a row behind me. So until the theatre management gets their collective shits together and starts making the experience a favorable one for cinefans instead of pandering to the lowest common denominator, count me out.
Agreeing with Gridbug. We don't get to go to screenings to see movies, we have to go with the poop of society. Why the hell would I want to go to the theater when all I do is get frustrated? I can't enjoy the film, all I can do is hear kids (in rated R shows) whining and kicking my seat and parents ignoring them and chewing and cell phones (if not talking then the little blue lights popping up to text and vibrating buzzes) and talking (stupid shit "who's that" "what's going on") and teenagers who didn't come to watch a movie and eating full fucking meals and lazer pointers and throwing shit and tough guys who act like they'll fuck anyone up who calls them on their bullshit and stinky non-showering fat fucks (Devin-types) and soccer moms who gasp at retarded shit and who the fuck spilled shit on this seat? FUCK IT! I have a killer system at home. I wait 3-4 months I can enjoy the same shit, for the same price (or less) then going to the movies. And it's quite, clean, and more comforatable. And I'm not alone. Fuck the movies.
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.