[photo-3d] Re: Coming to a theater near you

[Michael Watters <michael.watters@xxxxxxxxx>]

>    From: Herbert C Maxey <bmaxey1@xxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Coming to a theater near you
> 
> >>I believe new technology is required.  Theater owners simply will not
> stand
> >>for having to pay for dual projectors, two sets of prints and the need
> to
> >>distribute glasses, polarized or especially LCD.  
> 
> As I mentioned, this needs to happen. There is no infrastructure - less
> than 1% of US Theaters are able to show stereo motion pictures. And the
> reluctance of the theater owner to use gimmicks like LCD is obvious, as
> if the publics's reluctance to wear them. As for giving the patrons
> polarized glasses, this is very cheap.
> 
> A first rate, seriously considered motion picture in stereo would start
> the ball rolling. Success would spawn more stereo movies and more stereo
> movies would force theaters to become equipped for them, sparking more
> movies and better technology. This is simply the way commerce works. But
> these efforts better yield a great movie experience, or it is back in the
> closet for another 50 years.

Actually, I'd suggest that there are a couple of major 
pieces of the puzzle in place already.

1st - IMAX.  Granted, not everything they show is stereo, 
but they are geared up for it.  If anything, we should be 
amazed at how successful they HAVE been considering the 
films they show are mostly crap (IMHO).  To explain (in an 
attempt to ward off flames from IMAX fans...) these films, 
if shown flat at a conventional theatre would open and 
close on the same day with no more than 10 viewers.  In 
terms of CONTENT - they belong on the Discovery channel, 
not on the big screen.  The ones I've seen are badly acted 
and just had a "I just barely graduated from film school 
last week" feel about them.

2nd - Sagging theatre revenues.  The best stereo delivery 
systems (polaroid and LCD glasses) are either not workable 
or somewhat marginal on home TV.  What this means is that 
any film presented in stereo could ONLY be seen in its full 
glory in an honest-to-God movie theatre.  Given that, 
theatres would be much more likely to pull in viewers for 
older films, films already on video etc.  This factor is 
very similar to what we would have seen in the 1950's (with 
the advent of TV).  Movie makers were scrambling to find 
novel presentations that could not translate well to TV 
(stereo picture, stereo sound, increasing use of color, 
widescreen movies).  The primary difference now is that 
movie houses aren't as closely connected to the studios as 
before.

The one thing lacking as far as I've seen is anything 
resembling decent content (a MAJOR lacking of the 50's 3D 
films too).  If IMAX was able to swing a single decent 
high-profile film to be shot and presented in IMAX 3D, 
their popularity would show a massive upswing.  My 
selection (given recent conversation):  A Star Wars related 
film.  Can you imagine the business that would be generated 
by a Star Wars product that could likely NEVER be presented 
in a home product in any way remotely resembling the 
original?!?  If I were running IMAX, I'd PAY Lucas to shoot 
a 45 - 60' short StarWars film in the format, solely for 
the promotional advantages.  Well, as long as it didn't 
turn out like the famed '78 "Holiday Special". ;)

	That's my major gripe with previous era's attempts 
at stereo films - they sucked.  I can think of ONE 3D movie 
that was actually any good:  Dial M for Murder.  After 
that, the best would have been House of Wax.  That's pretty 
sad.  Can't think of a single film in the early '80's 
stereo binge that was any good.  They were all 
laughably bad in fact.  Heck, who can get too excited about 
a film format when it's almost exclusively used for garbage 
films?

-----------------------------------------
Dr. Michael Watters
Email: Michael.Watters@xxxxxxxxx
Valparaiso University