Althouse: "I don't want that grand, visionary, transporting movie experience made for the big screen to become a thing of the past."

April 24, 2006

"I don't want that grand, visionary, transporting movie experience made for the big screen to become a thing of the past."

That's a general idea -- expressed by James Cameron -- that I can embrace whole-heartedly. But the specific idea is frightful: 3-D.

I've enjoyed some 3-D films in my time -- including "Flesh for Frankenstein" in its original theater release. (I well remember what it was like to have a human liver dangled on a spear out over the audience.) It's a fun novelty. But how could it possibly be what could save film? It's just one more thing that would make film like a theme park ride. So destructive!

22 comments:

Rick Lee said...: Geez, I'm such a geezer. You get to a certain age and all of a sudden it seems like you've seen it all before. It's an idea we've seen come and go how many times? Every few years somebody tells us that technology has evolved so that all the bad stuff about 3D is going to be solved... no more eye-strain, etc. But it always comes off as a gimmick. I think it always will.; 4/24/06, 8:31 PM
Harkonnendog said...: I think great writing is all that can save movies. If you look at where the money goes, writing seems to come last.
Contrast this to TV where writers are much mor respected and have more power.
TV is in sort of a golden age of writing while movies get worse and worse, resorting to making movies about crappy television shows or being carried by actors like Vince Vaughn who basically do their own writing by ad libbing.; 4/24/06, 8:43 PM
Ruth Anne Adams said...: How about silent films? That would simultaneously solve your sound problem, too!; 4/24/06, 9:04 PM
XWL said...: Seems some heavy hitters are serious about 3D for home, plus Lucasfilm is working on converting all six Star Wars films into 3D versions to be rolled out starting next year (it's mentioned in the article you linked).

If done right it could add to the visual vocabulary available to cinematographers, if done wrong, it will just be an excuse to amp up the 'thrill ride' quotient of films (which is the likely impetus behind the remaking of the Star Wars films).

But what I'm really curious about is this whole new stab at 'smell-o-vision' a few exhibitors in Japan have tried along with Terence Malick's New World. (I also wonder how Malick felt about the idea given that neither his consent nor input was sought).

(and I liked 'Blood for Dracula' better, have scene both on the big screen, though not the original release, given that I was still in kindergarten when that film was initially released. Udo Kier should be in every film made)

(Looking at Mr. Kier's credits I find it interesting that he worked as an AD on two pictures, a film about him making those films would be great); 4/24/06, 9:39 PM
Ann Althouse said...: I saw the Dracula one too. (Just want that on the record.); 4/24/06, 9:49 PM
Rick Lee said...: "Flesh for Frankenstein"?? I just realized what you were talking about. It was called "Andy Warhol's Frankenstein" when I saw it in Time's Square somewhere around 1975. What a trip that was.; 4/24/06, 10:10 PM
Anonymous said...: Porn would be cool in 3-D.; 4/24/06, 10:16 PM
XWL said...: Don't know if the flavor of porn that Downtownlad is more likely to prefer ever did the 3D gimmick, but there were a few films starring John Holmes back in the 70s, so the 3D porn thing has been done (and they showed one of the Holmes ones at the Laemmle Sunset 5 as a midnight movie for awhile back in the mid 90s); 4/24/06, 10:47 PM
David McDougall said...: as a filmmaker, I'm with James Cameron and Ann that movies are special for their ability to provide transcendant experiences, but 3-D is by no means salvation. I'll agree with harkonnendog that great writing needs to save movies, but let's be honest, even if great writing returns to big-budget cinema (and, as I see it, fat chance), there will still be too much worthwhile content available on TV screens and computers and iPods to coax people into theater seats.

The cinema will be kept alive only by cultists, the way words written on paper are now. and as people prefer home viewing more, even more writers of consequence will follow the viewers into their homes. the cinema will become a place of the past, and will be inhabited only by those willing to visit the past.

porn in 3-D sounds frightening. giant silicone breasts should stay on the internet where they belong.

[and maybe my obituary for the book is premature also, but not by much, I'd wager]; 4/24/06, 10:54 PM
SippicanCottage said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/24/06, 11:23 PM
SippicanCottage said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/25/06, 1:02 AM
Cousin Don said...: I don't know about plays. I've gone to quite a few, but especially lately when plays have often been remakes of movies, Producers, Spamalot, the Graduate,
I've often felt like my wife and I could have saved our money and rented the movie.

Plus the ticket price of the major plays like the major rock concerts have gone sky high.

And the cheaper theaters are generally too experimental for me.; 4/25/06, 5:39 AM
SippicanCottage said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/25/06, 7:26 AM
reader_iam said...: There's a drive-in not all that far from where I live.

It is sort of fun to sit outside while watching. And every little should have the opportunity, once in his or her life, to wear footie jammies in public and play on rusty old equipment with strange kids during the previews, while the parents drink beer.

First drive-in movie I recall seeing (yes, in footie jammies): "A Shot In The Dark." The kiddie feature, which I don't remember, aired first, and I was supposed to be sleeping (in the back well of a VW bug, lol) during the main one, but was too curious. Natch!

Ba-dumpa-dum .... ba dumpa-dum ...; 4/25/06, 9:25 AM
SWBarns said...: I saw "Flesh for Frankenstein" under the title of "Andy Warhol's Frankenstein." It was a totally forgettable movie, except for the liver on a pike scene.

About Smell-O-Vision, the only time I ever was unlucky enough to experience this was watching "Polyester" at a John Waters Film festival. It was ODORAMA (tm) and you really didn't want to scratch and sniff number two. What did it smell like? "Number 2" of course.; 4/25/06, 10:19 AM
Jeremy said...: Sippican -
The future sounds good! Maybe we can get to the theatre by hovercar, too?

The one resource that never gets cheaper is time. You seem to suggest that if a playhouse is charging $35 a seat now, upping the performance schedule to two daily shows plus more on the weekend is somehow going to result in lower, more accessible prices. Or maybe we'll see some kind of pricewar among theatres? What am I missing?; 4/25/06, 11:21 AM
SippicanCottage said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/25/06, 11:28 AM
SippicanCottage said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/25/06, 12:10 PM
SippicanCottage said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/25/06, 1:14 PM
Jeremy said...: Sippican-
Thanks for the clarification. I did indeed misread you.

According to the National Association of Theater Owners, the average price of a movie ticket is $6.41. I know that LA/NY are much much more, but on average, it's $6.41. That said, how much of a premium do you think a regular joe and his family are going to be willing to pay to see live performance?
Taking a family of four to see the new Disney flick is gonna cost ~$30. People can generally afford that on some regular basis, but I don't think you could get anywhere near the attendence level or frequency of return if that family had to shell out ~$120.
I guess that's just speculation, though.; 4/25/06, 3:30 PM
SippicanCottage said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/25/06, 7:04 PM
SippicanCottage said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/28/06, 10:12 PM