I found that comment about the “several large screens” puzzling too. Reporting misinformation is nothing new though. When are they going to stop reporting that today’s 3D is nothing like the 3D of the 50s, which used those goofy “red/blue cardboard” glasses. Those films used polarized glasses. Anaglyphic was used for comic books, some 3D re-issues in the 70s (Creature from the Black Lagoon, It Came from Outer Space, Adult, etc.) No wonder it’s taking light years to reeducate people about how far the technology has come. You may be disappointed in the IMAX system at Rockaway. It is NOT Palisades Center IMAX, but it is an improvement over RealD for a buck or two more. And the glasses are different. Again, read my Dec. 3rd post.
Read my Dec. 3rd…also, If I recall, the IMAX is in Theater 8, whatever the capacity of that one is (320,340,360?) The theaters closest to the lobby, I believe, are the largest…then capacity gets smaller as you get farther away from the lobby. The screen certainly looked bigger. The diagram in the Daily Record article you posted pretty much explains how they did it. Again, read my Dec. 3rd entry. We MUST insure they dim those front 6 lights.
Checked out the digital IMAX today and it was as I expected…not as impressive as the real thing but still very satisfying. The screen was moved forward (eliminating at least one row, maybe two, of seats) and seemed slightly larger. The picture was sharp and the sound system impressive. The glasses were not circular polarized as with RealD, so if you tilted your head, you’d see a double image. That would make them linear polarized. Also, they were slightly tinted (very pale red and blue) but did not compromise the movie’s colors. My only complaint, which I passed on to the attendant, was with the lighting in the auditorium. The back 6 fixtures (3 on each side) were appropriately dimmed but the front 6 fixtures were fully lit affecting the edges of the screen. Many scenes in “A Christmas Carol” were dark so this reflection from the light fixtures was very distracting. Hopefully, this will be corrected. All in all, I was satisfied but I’m also equally satisfied with the RealD system next door for the lower price of admission. Was told IMAX was doing really well. Trailers shown in 3D were: “Avatar”, “Alice” and “Dragon”.
I read the article but have to say this is a tough call. Assuming theaters are not just in the movie business but also in the concession business (where the real money is) and depend on it to make a profit, I can almost understand their point. It all depends on how you define their business. Also, any business has the right to set their policy. We don’t bring food into a restaurant or liquor into a bar…we buy it there. I know concession prices are out of sight but so is everything else. Maybe we could use some of those “Elvis” theaters referenced in the comments below that article. So what if the movies aren’t current. The $2.50 or $3.50 a show would help offset the concession prices. Or, just skip the treats. The popcorn isn’t healthy (latest news) and skipping the drink will save you a trip to the bathroom during the movie.
I agree. I don’t know how decisions are made as to what movies get scheduled but among the criteria, I’m sure, is MONEY! It’s gotta sell. Demographics might also be a consideration and, in a county like Morris, you would think there are enough people who just might want the opportunity to see something a little more “intelligent” every once in a while. How about something simple with a good story and some acting. These films are out there but the trend today is to schedule big budget, loud, eye-popping, date-night type stuff regardless of the genre. I remember years ago (in the Seventies) you could see an independent film or foreign film (with subtitles) every so often in our area. They usually focused on “story” and “character”. I do take exception to including 3D in the criticism. 3D (like color or sound) is simply a technology enhancement. BTW, any word on when the IMAX will be back? This permit slip-up is an embarassment.
Back in April, 2007, I wrote: “Justin, you’re gonna love this. I just called the theater. After confirming that they were NOT showing "Meet The Robinsons” in digital 3D, I asked when Rockaway would get the system. The customer rep replied that they won’t be getting it. I said “ever?” and she replied yes.“ And getting any form of IMAX wasn’t even conceivable. We’ve come a long way! I noticed the morning shows this Friday for both the RealD and IMAX showings of "A Christmas Carol” are only $6.00. Then jump to $11.50 after Noon. Two questions: Is the $6.00 a mistake (normally it’s $9.00 for 3D) and will the pricing structure be the same for RealD and IMAX?
Correct. Furthermore, the RealD glasses are circular polarized so that you could tilt your head and the picture would not go out of focus. Previously, polarized glasses were linear requiring you to keep your head straight. I read that IMAX Digital uses circular polarized glasses (the RealD type).
The goofy headsets you mentioned are referred to as “active” glasses and (if I’m correct) use the shutter technology. Polarized glasses are referred to as “passive” glasses. I haven’t been to Lincoln Square in over ten years so I don’t know which they’re using today. Palisades Center switched from “active” to “passive” some years ago. Personally, I thought the “active” glasses produced a much sharper image (Wings of Courage, Across the Sea of Time, Galapagos) vs. “Ghosts of the Abyss” which I saw using polarized eyewear. But those were “film”. Passive glasses seem fine for digital. If IMAX would distinguish more clearly between its traditional IMAX system and its digital system (call it IMAX DIGITAL…or how about “IMIN”)(ha), people wouldn’t be so upset.
What’s up with the pricing structure of the “Christmas Carol” movie? The 2D versions offer a $6.00 morning show while the first showing of the 3D version is 12:05pm, thereby allowing the theater to charge the $11.50 price vs. the $9.00 price…even on weekends. Isn’t it enough we’re paying more for the 3D version to begin with? If this keeps up, people will start bringing in their own glasses to see a 3D movie on a 2D movie ticket, if they’re not doing it already. You’d have to have an employee standing in front of Theater 7 checking tickets to prevent this from happening. I can only imagine what they got planned once the IMAX is installed. Can anyone explain this?
According to Rotten Tomatoes, the Reviewer(critics) percentage rose from (somewhere in the 50s) to 61% favorability just today, but the RT Community is 94% favorable. Go according to your tastes, not the critics. They are only giving their opinion and, if you read enough of them, they only wind up contradicting each other anyway. Some just don’t like 3D and will trash anything in 3D. How could all their training to be critics result in such disparity? And for this they get paid for it! They are no more qualified than you or I.
I am curious as to why Rockaway is getting an IMAX system when it already has one (and soon two) RealD systems. Is it normal for a theater to have both? What could IMAX do with two projectors that RealD has successfully done with one? Is it a cost-based decision? And if nothing else changes (e.g., screen size) will the average person even notice any difference? I have never seen an IMAX digital presentation so I’ll be curious to see which is better. If anybody has, how does it compare to RealD? So far, all of the RealD shows have been spectacular.
This is great news. Since the frequency of 3D releases will increase over time, adding another 4K projector will help reduce the overlap problem. Now 3D releases will only have to compete with each other for audiences rather than for the same screen. “G-Force” got bumped to 2D when “X-Games” arrived, as did “Final Destination” when “Cloudy” arrived when both could have done better had there been two 3D screens. “Cloudy” will need more than a two-week run for those who want to enjoy it in 3D before the “Toy Story” double feature arrives. Hopefully, the system will be installed by then.
For some reason, Rockaway chose to show the Avatar trailer in 2D (along with the other 2D trailers) before The Final Destination. It was show in 3D before X-Games 3D. If you got digital and the audience is there to see a 3D movie, then showing the Avatar trailer in 2D does not do it justice. If I recall, I’ve seen 2D and 3D trailers shown together in the past. The real star of The Final Destination was the 3D and, most appropriately, the gimmicky, in your face type. That’s what people expect in a horror movie and that’s what they got. So, in this case it made sense and it worked. Without it, this version of the franchise was just more of the same. Also, the 3D version achieved the highest multiple (3.25 times) over the 2D version of any of the new 3D movies so far. So much for those claiming 3D is losing steam.
I agree. The world does not begin or end with James Cameron. He may advance the 3D cause somewhat but it’s already off to a strong start with what’s already been out and will continue to gain strength through other directors and studios. We didn’t kill off color or sound in spite of our history of bad movies using those enhancements. Rockaway’s timing with regard to getting 3D was a little off. It fell between recent blockbusters and upcoming blockbusters. Two days only of G-Force in 3D and one week of X-Games isn’t exactly a recipe for impressive revenue. That said, Avatar will do very well indeed. The trailer was shown in 3D before X-Games 3D and it looked great. X-Games 3D was entertaining and made good use of 3D but I don’t expect it to do all that well due to its limited appeal.
Forgot to mention the 5 trailers shown in 3D before the movie: Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, Toy Story/Toy Story 2, A Christmas Carol, Alice in Wonderland, and Despicable Me.
I attended the 10:20am showing of G-Force and the presentation was perfect…make that “picture” perfect. If all of the showings yesterday were as good as this one, then the transition to digital was seamless. I sat about 2/3 of the way back. My experience with 3D is that the closer you sit to the screen, the more you feel like you’re in the movie since the edges of the screen are less in your field of vision…but there is less of a 3D effect. The further away from the screen, the greater the 3D effect but now you’re “watching” the movie, rather than feeling like you’re in it. Rockaway’s screens are big (compared to say Parsippany) and with the stadium seating, you feel like you’re really close to it. Hence, the decision to compromise and sit where I did. Sound quality was fine. No problems. There were about 25 people at this showing. WE MADE IT! And it only took 33 months and 1 day! P.S. The movie was cute, perfect for kids, and made excellent use of 3D.
I hope they NEVER remake the Stewardesses and if they do, it will probably get a limited release. Rockaway will never show it. The original was a piece of garbage. It was movies like that that cheapened 3D, however successful they might have been. If studios are ever to repair the damage that was done to 3D over the years by bad movies, senseless gimmickry, and poor projection, there is no better time than now. We’ve gotten past the technology hurdle and, so far, the recent 3D movies have been very “audience-friendly”. And the worldwide public has certainly embraced them. If you add in foreign totals to domestic stats, they’re all doing well (ex: Ice Age at over $789 million, so far.) That should quiet the naysayers. Maybe even some day people will stop believing the 3D movies of the 50s required “red/blue” cardboard glasses. That couldn’t be farther from the truth. They were polarized. Also, so far Parsippany and Succasunna will be getting X-Games 3D: The Movie.
I’ll probably catch the 10:20am tomorrow but I don’t expect to see much of a crowd then either. G-Force is wrapping up it’s fourth week in release so sales aren’t going to be all that great at this point. By no means is it a failure though. It should surpass $100 million by the weekend and ranks 7th on Boxofficmojo’s list of top grossing 3D movies (their list says 9th but the first couple of numbers aren’t sequential.)
Once digital is installed in any given auditorium, I assume it will be the only option available in that auditorium. In other words, it would replace the film projector. So, 2D digital movies (can we call them “films” anymore?) will also be shown in that auditorium. And while there are a number of 2D digital movies already being shown in theaters with more than one digital system (i.e., Parsippany), theaters with only one digital system will (and should) favor the 3D movie currently out. It makes more economic sense since the theater can charge more (not to mention that all of the new 3D movies have been financial blockbusters…except maybe Battle for Terra due to a lack of screens and getting squeezed out by Monsters vs. Aliens). Still don’t know who will be playing X-Games 3D: The Movie. Rockaway may just keep showing G-Force until The Final Destination comes out.
How do you know this? And, if true, what a lackluster 3D debut for Rockaway. I wonder how many people even heard of this movie. Unless you’re into this type of entertainment, I don’t see a big rush to see it. But…it’s a beginning and I welcome it!
Anything is possible if current conditions go sour or enough demand develops to reverse course but how likely would this happen? Vinyl records have enjoyed a small resurgence but not enough to replace CDs. VHS, while still around, is not likely to overtake DVDs. CRT TVs are history, as is analog broadcasting. Typewriters? Forget it! And I doubt if rear-wheel drive vehicles will once again become the norm. The list goes on and on and on. So, while a return to 70mm is certainly possible, don’t count on it slowing down the digital train anytime soon. Technology moves forward, not backwards and digital is the future. Any trend toward anything “retro” is just that, a trend. I have nothing against 70mm (or film in general). I just think it had it’s day. It’s hard to accept change sometimes when we don’t like the change, but that’s life.
3D is a separate issue. It’s often lumped in with someone’s disdain for digital because it has become an extension of digital. To all those projectionists out there who feel threatened by digital, I sympathize with you. But is it necessary to trash 3D as well? Afterall, until recently, 3D was mostly 35mm film (I was 8 years old when I saw “House of Wax” in 1953 and became hooked on 3D ever since.) If you hate 3D now, you had to have hated it then when it had nothing to do with digital. Done right though, 3D could enhance the movie-going experience the way sound, color and wide screen have done by bring us closer to the way we actually experience life. It will not enhance the story, only our senses. It’s getting tremendous support from studios, directors, and the public and there’s a lot of interest in using the format for in-theater sporting events, concerts, etc., not just movies (check out the MarketSaw blogspot). But if it’s abused, as in the past, it will fall out of favor with the public. Cameron and Jackson won’t abuse it. Neither will Pixar nor Dreamworks. They know better and have committed to 3D from now on. It’s the fly-by-nighters looking to make a fast buck that we’ll have to worry about. Also, once the standard for 3DTV is established, that will put home entertainment in direct competition with theaters (like it did in the 50s) and that competition will fuel innovation. So, hate digital if you must, but give 3D a chance (keep them separate!). And if you don’t want to see it in 3D, the trend today is to present a 2D version as well. Personally, I’m not hung up on digital and am willing to compromise…70mm (for the projectionists) combined with 3D (for me). As far as the glasses are concerned, I’d wear a toilet seat on my head if it allowed me to see a good 3D presentation.
I found that comment about the “several large screens” puzzling too. Reporting misinformation is nothing new though. When are they going to stop reporting that today’s 3D is nothing like the 3D of the 50s, which used those goofy “red/blue cardboard” glasses. Those films used polarized glasses. Anaglyphic was used for comic books, some 3D re-issues in the 70s (Creature from the Black Lagoon, It Came from Outer Space, Adult, etc.) No wonder it’s taking light years to reeducate people about how far the technology has come. You may be disappointed in the IMAX system at Rockaway. It is NOT Palisades Center IMAX, but it is an improvement over RealD for a buck or two more. And the glasses are different. Again, read my Dec. 3rd post.
Read my Dec. 3rd…also, If I recall, the IMAX is in Theater 8, whatever the capacity of that one is (320,340,360?) The theaters closest to the lobby, I believe, are the largest…then capacity gets smaller as you get farther away from the lobby. The screen certainly looked bigger. The diagram in the Daily Record article you posted pretty much explains how they did it. Again, read my Dec. 3rd entry. We MUST insure they dim those front 6 lights.
Checked out the digital IMAX today and it was as I expected…not as impressive as the real thing but still very satisfying. The screen was moved forward (eliminating at least one row, maybe two, of seats) and seemed slightly larger. The picture was sharp and the sound system impressive. The glasses were not circular polarized as with RealD, so if you tilted your head, you’d see a double image. That would make them linear polarized. Also, they were slightly tinted (very pale red and blue) but did not compromise the movie’s colors. My only complaint, which I passed on to the attendant, was with the lighting in the auditorium. The back 6 fixtures (3 on each side) were appropriately dimmed but the front 6 fixtures were fully lit affecting the edges of the screen. Many scenes in “A Christmas Carol” were dark so this reflection from the light fixtures was very distracting. Hopefully, this will be corrected. All in all, I was satisfied but I’m also equally satisfied with the RealD system next door for the lower price of admission. Was told IMAX was doing really well. Trailers shown in 3D were: “Avatar”, “Alice” and “Dragon”.
Now you’re talking. Nothing wrong with a little bread and water. Hey, where’s our friend SlimShady to give us the lowdown on the IMAX situation?
I read the article but have to say this is a tough call. Assuming theaters are not just in the movie business but also in the concession business (where the real money is) and depend on it to make a profit, I can almost understand their point. It all depends on how you define their business. Also, any business has the right to set their policy. We don’t bring food into a restaurant or liquor into a bar…we buy it there. I know concession prices are out of sight but so is everything else. Maybe we could use some of those “Elvis” theaters referenced in the comments below that article. So what if the movies aren’t current. The $2.50 or $3.50 a show would help offset the concession prices. Or, just skip the treats. The popcorn isn’t healthy (latest news) and skipping the drink will save you a trip to the bathroom during the movie.
I agree. I don’t know how decisions are made as to what movies get scheduled but among the criteria, I’m sure, is MONEY! It’s gotta sell. Demographics might also be a consideration and, in a county like Morris, you would think there are enough people who just might want the opportunity to see something a little more “intelligent” every once in a while. How about something simple with a good story and some acting. These films are out there but the trend today is to schedule big budget, loud, eye-popping, date-night type stuff regardless of the genre. I remember years ago (in the Seventies) you could see an independent film or foreign film (with subtitles) every so often in our area. They usually focused on “story” and “character”. I do take exception to including 3D in the criticism. 3D (like color or sound) is simply a technology enhancement. BTW, any word on when the IMAX will be back? This permit slip-up is an embarassment.
Back in April, 2007, I wrote: “Justin, you’re gonna love this. I just called the theater. After confirming that they were NOT showing "Meet The Robinsons” in digital 3D, I asked when Rockaway would get the system. The customer rep replied that they won’t be getting it. I said “ever?” and she replied yes.“ And getting any form of IMAX wasn’t even conceivable. We’ve come a long way! I noticed the morning shows this Friday for both the RealD and IMAX showings of "A Christmas Carol” are only $6.00. Then jump to $11.50 after Noon. Two questions: Is the $6.00 a mistake (normally it’s $9.00 for 3D) and will the pricing structure be the same for RealD and IMAX?
Correct. Furthermore, the RealD glasses are circular polarized so that you could tilt your head and the picture would not go out of focus. Previously, polarized glasses were linear requiring you to keep your head straight. I read that IMAX Digital uses circular polarized glasses (the RealD type).
The goofy headsets you mentioned are referred to as “active” glasses and (if I’m correct) use the shutter technology. Polarized glasses are referred to as “passive” glasses. I haven’t been to Lincoln Square in over ten years so I don’t know which they’re using today. Palisades Center switched from “active” to “passive” some years ago. Personally, I thought the “active” glasses produced a much sharper image (Wings of Courage, Across the Sea of Time, Galapagos) vs. “Ghosts of the Abyss” which I saw using polarized eyewear. But those were “film”. Passive glasses seem fine for digital. If IMAX would distinguish more clearly between its traditional IMAX system and its digital system (call it IMAX DIGITAL…or how about “IMIN”)(ha), people wouldn’t be so upset.
What’s up with the pricing structure of the “Christmas Carol” movie? The 2D versions offer a $6.00 morning show while the first showing of the 3D version is 12:05pm, thereby allowing the theater to charge the $11.50 price vs. the $9.00 price…even on weekends. Isn’t it enough we’re paying more for the 3D version to begin with? If this keeps up, people will start bringing in their own glasses to see a 3D movie on a 2D movie ticket, if they’re not doing it already. You’d have to have an employee standing in front of Theater 7 checking tickets to prevent this from happening. I can only imagine what they got planned once the IMAX is installed. Can anyone explain this?
According to Rotten Tomatoes, the Reviewer(critics) percentage rose from (somewhere in the 50s) to 61% favorability just today, but the RT Community is 94% favorable. Go according to your tastes, not the critics. They are only giving their opinion and, if you read enough of them, they only wind up contradicting each other anyway. Some just don’t like 3D and will trash anything in 3D. How could all their training to be critics result in such disparity? And for this they get paid for it! They are no more qualified than you or I.
Great news. Whatever happened to the 2nd 4K scheduled for Theater 15 (which would make the IMAX the 3rd digital system)?
I am curious as to why Rockaway is getting an IMAX system when it already has one (and soon two) RealD systems. Is it normal for a theater to have both? What could IMAX do with two projectors that RealD has successfully done with one? Is it a cost-based decision? And if nothing else changes (e.g., screen size) will the average person even notice any difference? I have never seen an IMAX digital presentation so I’ll be curious to see which is better. If anybody has, how does it compare to RealD? So far, all of the RealD shows have been spectacular.
SlimShady, You are the best! We want details! How will this IMAX thing work and how will it differ from the RealD installations (#7 & #15)?
This is great news. Since the frequency of 3D releases will increase over time, adding another 4K projector will help reduce the overlap problem. Now 3D releases will only have to compete with each other for audiences rather than for the same screen. “G-Force” got bumped to 2D when “X-Games” arrived, as did “Final Destination” when “Cloudy” arrived when both could have done better had there been two 3D screens. “Cloudy” will need more than a two-week run for those who want to enjoy it in 3D before the “Toy Story” double feature arrives. Hopefully, the system will be installed by then.
For some reason, Rockaway chose to show the Avatar trailer in 2D (along with the other 2D trailers) before The Final Destination. It was show in 3D before X-Games 3D. If you got digital and the audience is there to see a 3D movie, then showing the Avatar trailer in 2D does not do it justice. If I recall, I’ve seen 2D and 3D trailers shown together in the past. The real star of The Final Destination was the 3D and, most appropriately, the gimmicky, in your face type. That’s what people expect in a horror movie and that’s what they got. So, in this case it made sense and it worked. Without it, this version of the franchise was just more of the same. Also, the 3D version achieved the highest multiple (3.25 times) over the 2D version of any of the new 3D movies so far. So much for those claiming 3D is losing steam.
I agree. The world does not begin or end with James Cameron. He may advance the 3D cause somewhat but it’s already off to a strong start with what’s already been out and will continue to gain strength through other directors and studios. We didn’t kill off color or sound in spite of our history of bad movies using those enhancements. Rockaway’s timing with regard to getting 3D was a little off. It fell between recent blockbusters and upcoming blockbusters. Two days only of G-Force in 3D and one week of X-Games isn’t exactly a recipe for impressive revenue. That said, Avatar will do very well indeed. The trailer was shown in 3D before X-Games 3D and it looked great. X-Games 3D was entertaining and made good use of 3D but I don’t expect it to do all that well due to its limited appeal.
Forgot to mention the 5 trailers shown in 3D before the movie: Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, Toy Story/Toy Story 2, A Christmas Carol, Alice in Wonderland, and Despicable Me.
I attended the 10:20am showing of G-Force and the presentation was perfect…make that “picture” perfect. If all of the showings yesterday were as good as this one, then the transition to digital was seamless. I sat about 2/3 of the way back. My experience with 3D is that the closer you sit to the screen, the more you feel like you’re in the movie since the edges of the screen are less in your field of vision…but there is less of a 3D effect. The further away from the screen, the greater the 3D effect but now you’re “watching” the movie, rather than feeling like you’re in it. Rockaway’s screens are big (compared to say Parsippany) and with the stadium seating, you feel like you’re really close to it. Hence, the decision to compromise and sit where I did. Sound quality was fine. No problems. There were about 25 people at this showing. WE MADE IT! And it only took 33 months and 1 day! P.S. The movie was cute, perfect for kids, and made excellent use of 3D.
I hope they NEVER remake the Stewardesses and if they do, it will probably get a limited release. Rockaway will never show it. The original was a piece of garbage. It was movies like that that cheapened 3D, however successful they might have been. If studios are ever to repair the damage that was done to 3D over the years by bad movies, senseless gimmickry, and poor projection, there is no better time than now. We’ve gotten past the technology hurdle and, so far, the recent 3D movies have been very “audience-friendly”. And the worldwide public has certainly embraced them. If you add in foreign totals to domestic stats, they’re all doing well (ex: Ice Age at over $789 million, so far.) That should quiet the naysayers. Maybe even some day people will stop believing the 3D movies of the 50s required “red/blue” cardboard glasses. That couldn’t be farther from the truth. They were polarized. Also, so far Parsippany and Succasunna will be getting X-Games 3D: The Movie.
I’ll probably catch the 10:20am tomorrow but I don’t expect to see much of a crowd then either. G-Force is wrapping up it’s fourth week in release so sales aren’t going to be all that great at this point. By no means is it a failure though. It should surpass $100 million by the weekend and ranks 7th on Boxofficmojo’s list of top grossing 3D movies (their list says 9th but the first couple of numbers aren’t sequential.)
Once digital is installed in any given auditorium, I assume it will be the only option available in that auditorium. In other words, it would replace the film projector. So, 2D digital movies (can we call them “films” anymore?) will also be shown in that auditorium. And while there are a number of 2D digital movies already being shown in theaters with more than one digital system (i.e., Parsippany), theaters with only one digital system will (and should) favor the 3D movie currently out. It makes more economic sense since the theater can charge more (not to mention that all of the new 3D movies have been financial blockbusters…except maybe Battle for Terra due to a lack of screens and getting squeezed out by Monsters vs. Aliens). Still don’t know who will be playing X-Games 3D: The Movie. Rockaway may just keep showing G-Force until The Final Destination comes out.
Hallelujah!!!
How do you know this? And, if true, what a lackluster 3D debut for Rockaway. I wonder how many people even heard of this movie. Unless you’re into this type of entertainment, I don’t see a big rush to see it. But…it’s a beginning and I welcome it!
Anything is possible if current conditions go sour or enough demand develops to reverse course but how likely would this happen? Vinyl records have enjoyed a small resurgence but not enough to replace CDs. VHS, while still around, is not likely to overtake DVDs. CRT TVs are history, as is analog broadcasting. Typewriters? Forget it! And I doubt if rear-wheel drive vehicles will once again become the norm. The list goes on and on and on. So, while a return to 70mm is certainly possible, don’t count on it slowing down the digital train anytime soon. Technology moves forward, not backwards and digital is the future. Any trend toward anything “retro” is just that, a trend. I have nothing against 70mm (or film in general). I just think it had it’s day. It’s hard to accept change sometimes when we don’t like the change, but that’s life.
3D is a separate issue. It’s often lumped in with someone’s disdain for digital because it has become an extension of digital. To all those projectionists out there who feel threatened by digital, I sympathize with you. But is it necessary to trash 3D as well? Afterall, until recently, 3D was mostly 35mm film (I was 8 years old when I saw “House of Wax” in 1953 and became hooked on 3D ever since.) If you hate 3D now, you had to have hated it then when it had nothing to do with digital. Done right though, 3D could enhance the movie-going experience the way sound, color and wide screen have done by bring us closer to the way we actually experience life. It will not enhance the story, only our senses. It’s getting tremendous support from studios, directors, and the public and there’s a lot of interest in using the format for in-theater sporting events, concerts, etc., not just movies (check out the MarketSaw blogspot). But if it’s abused, as in the past, it will fall out of favor with the public. Cameron and Jackson won’t abuse it. Neither will Pixar nor Dreamworks. They know better and have committed to 3D from now on. It’s the fly-by-nighters looking to make a fast buck that we’ll have to worry about. Also, once the standard for 3DTV is established, that will put home entertainment in direct competition with theaters (like it did in the 50s) and that competition will fuel innovation. So, hate digital if you must, but give 3D a chance (keep them separate!). And if you don’t want to see it in 3D, the trend today is to present a 2D version as well. Personally, I’m not hung up on digital and am willing to compromise…70mm (for the projectionists) combined with 3D (for me). As far as the glasses are concerned, I’d wear a toilet seat on my head if it allowed me to see a good 3D presentation.
If none of this makes any sense, let me know.