Despite the slower-than-expected installation of digital projectors into theaters, yet another movie is slated to be released in digital 3-D (which of course requires digital projection plus additional equipment such as a special screen). According to The Hollywood Reporter, New Amsterdam Entertainment plans to re-release George Romero's 1978 zombie classic Dawn of the Dead into theaters after the film is modified, or "dimensionalized," to be shown in stereoscopic 3-D. The transition from 2-D to 3-D will be handled by In-Three, the company that handled George Lucas' presentation of a segment of Star Wars in 3-D at ShoWest back in 2005. The project is expected to be finished within the year. Romero's Dawn of the Dead, which New Amsterdam remade in 2004, will likely be only the second film to be re-released with a 3-D version, the first being The Nightmare Before Christmas.

As wonderful as it is, the original Dawn of the Dead seems like an odd choice for 3-D, which often capitalizes on the gimmick of having objects jump out at the audience. With this film, we'll instead get to see zombies ever-so-slowly coming towards us as we nonchalantly continue eating our popcorn without fear. Perhaps we'll even have time to head to the restroom before the zombies actually seemingly make their way out into the space of the auditorium. See, that was part of the humor of Romero's Night of the Living Dead sequel, that the characters had time to run in circles around the undead mallrats. It would be much more frightening to see a dimensionalized version of the remake, which featured much quicker zombies. Presently there appears to be no set release date for the re-release, but depending on how crowded the 3-D marketplace is a year from now, I'd guess New Amsterdam is hoping for a 2009 bow.

If you're anything like me, you have completely given up on the next installment of Transformers having even a whiff of plot, and instead you are just going to sit back and enjoy the spectacle. Speaking of, it looks like it's going to be quite the show, too. The keen eyes over Comic2Film noticed that in the Dolby News release for ShoWest 2008, Transformers 2 was listed as a 3D film slated for 2009.

There have been plenty of updates for the film lately, but unfortunately most of them turned out to be smoke and mirrors -- just ask Teresa Palmer. But, a 3D release could be the real deal, even though we haven't heard a peep from Michael Bay on the matter. Kind of surprising, too, considering he is not the kind of guy who likes to keep quiet about these sorts of things.

Transformers 2 is scheduled to start filming on location in Pennsylvania this June, but everything is going to hinge on whether or not the SAG strike can be averted. A 3D release does make sense if you think about it, especially since the only way to top the FX of the first film is to have them flying off the screen at the audience this time around. (Yay! A monster truck is flying toward me at 150mph! Ain't this fun!)

Weigh in below and let us know if you think 3D is the way to go for our robotic friends, or will it just be an excuse for Bay to spend even more time on the FX and even less time on the script?

[via Comic2Film]

There's currently a crisis in the theater industry and apparently it's all Steven Spielberg's fault. According to Variety coverage of Sunday's National Association of Broadcasters Show's Digitial Cinema Summit, the filmmaker was named as a constant obstacle in the transition to digital cinema.

Spielberg's insistence against releasing Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull digitally was overruled last month when Paramount announced that it would indeed open the summer blockbuster on some digital screens, but the fact that it won't be a full digital release, coupled with the fact that Spielberg still doesn't "get" the fact that digital is superior to film, is a problematic issue for an industry having difficulties installing a necessary amount of digital projectors by 2009.

Is Digital 3D really the future (and savior) of movie theaters and moviegoing? Or is it, like theatrical releases in general, merely a preview of what's to come out soon on home video? As much as I have championed the new technology -- with some exception -- and touted it as a sort of new hope for the exhibition industry, I have had some minor doubts that I've been trying to hide away and ignore. But it may finally be the time to acknowledge and address the facts: Digital 3D is not here to save cinemas and it isn't exclusively the future of movie going. It's the future of movie watching as a whole. And since we're already prone to choosing our living rooms to auditoriums, it's mostly the future of home viewing.

There have been 3D processors available for your home theater for years, courtesy of Sensio, which I actually wrote about way back in 2006. However, the expenses required to equip your home with the technology were enough that it didn't seem too threatening. And such products aren't exactly that well known, probably for that reason that they aren't reasonable for the masses. Meanwhile, the new 3D technology for cinemas has since been given a whole lot of exposure, mainly because they are available or are becoming available all over the globe. 3D movies are also more expensive than regular movies, but they're still relatively affordable to just about anyone. So, obviously in the last two years, it has been easy to forget about Sensio and go on being excited about Real D and the other companies making Digital 3D equipment for movie theaters.

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about the theatrical inappropriateness of Cloverfield and was subsequently chewed out by my readers. As much as it sucks being told you're wrong by three pages worth of commenters, though, I appreciate that so many people disagreed with my argument. There's nothing better than sparking a conversation, even if it means I have to single myself out and appear as a fool to do so. That isn't to say I don't still believe in what I wrote or that I meant only to be provocative, but I did become convinced by some of the points made, and was able to rethink a lot of the issue. However, I'm not about to redo that column; instead, I'm simply going to contemplate the more general idea of theatrical appropriateness and hopefully continue the discussion.

This week I heard from some college film professors dealing with the sad truth that their students don't actually go to the movies anymore, that they instead watch films primarily on DVD or other home entertainment formats (these particular professors teach in New York City, where there's countless old and new films to see every week, by the way). One professor caught herself, though, telling a class that while many films, such as No Country for Old Men, need to be seen on a big screen, DVDs are fine for comedies, which tend not to lose much in the translation to the small screen(s). As this class was on American film comedy, she quickly corrected herself and noted that comedies too are best viewed in a theater, because we're more prone to laugh when doing so in large groups.

What's hotter Hansel? It's not Derek Zoolander. It's 3D. My good lord, studios are really pushing the hell out of this format. I just don't get the rabid push. Some films, I get. This obsession, I don't get. I saw Harry Potter on IMAX 3D... The entire 3D portion had me dizzy and confused, and it also ruined the goodbye to a character I particularly liked. (Perhaps that was the seating, but since I was just off of dead-center, I don't think so.) Anyhow, with the full-speed-ahead 3D push, Disney has decided to re-release Pixar's Toy Story with the added dimension.

Variety reports that this release is slated to hit theaters on October 2, 2009, a few months before its sequel gets the same treatment on February 12, 2010. Both, of course, are coming out to lead up to the release of Toy Story 3, which is slated for June 18, 2010 -- a film which is already being prepped for 3D goodness. I sure hope they keep to the schedule -- moving the date for one is tricky -- moving the dates for three is trickier.

This move is the latest in the Mouse House's plans to release more of its animated films in 3D. Toy Story follows the likes of The Nightmare Before Christmas, Meet the Robinsons, and Chicken Little. I wonder how far back they'll try to go...

When The Jazz Singer arrived in theaters in 1927, it was far from perfect. In fact, despite heralding the arrival of sound pictures, its audio was quite poor in quality, and it would take many years before the sound in sound films would be accepted as natural. But The Jazz Singer will forever be remembered in the film history books. I'm not so sure that U2 3D will hold the same kind of prestige as that film, but it ought to, because as the first live-action digital 3D film, it is certainly opening the door for a brand new kind of movie experience, one that will likely be the standard in coming decades, if not years.

The problem with U2 3D's prestige could be that it is neither the first 3D movie, nor is it the first digital 3D film. But people have never seen anything like this before, enough that we could consider those early analog 3D films the equivalent of D.W. Griffith's failed 1921 sound film Dream Street, which used poorer technology than The Jazz Singer. And we could consider those recent animated digital 3D movies as the equivalent of the 1926 film Don Juan, which featured a synched soundtrack of music and sound effects, yet no dialogue. Anyway, what I'm saying is that U2 3D must be seen, not necessarily because it's a great film, but because it's an important film, and you can say you saw it when.

Not much of a U2 fan? Well, I'm not either. I've never owned a U2 album (though I will admit to liking most of the band's early singles), and I never had any interest in seeing them live, let alone seeing a concert film of them performing. However, while most concert films are limited to fan appeal -- unless Martin Scorsese or some other great filmmaker shoots them -- U2 3D is obviously different. Plus, it was co-directed by well-known music video director-turned-Hollywood-player Mark Pellington (Arlington Road) and video maker Catherine Owens, who is best known for directing U2's "Original of the Species" video and content for the band's multimedia-filled Zoo TV tour.

It's only been three months since I began this column on theater exhibition and movie going, but already I've covered all kinds of experiences, both good and bad. And now I'd like to recap the year, concentrating on that quarter year in which The Exhibitionist existed, in order to present you with the best and the worst theatrical experiences I had in 2007. However, while this may seem like a cheap way to link back to previous writings and make an easy article out of that, I assure you that it's only a coincidence that some of my favorite and least favorite moments in exhibition happened since October. Anyway, there are plenty of moments I cite that were never mentioned in The Exhibitionist, so regular or new reader, read on:


Theatrical Experiences of 2007 Part I: The Worst


Pan's Labyrinth at Cobble Hill Cinemas, Brooklyn, NY, 01/16/07

I came away from watching Guillermo del Toro's "masterpiece" underwhelmed, thanks primarily to my inability to appreciate the Oscar-winning cinematography of Guillermo Navarro. How so? Well, the projection of the film where and when I saw it was terribly underlit. At least, I'm guessing it was. I've only seen the film partially since then, on DVD, and at that time it looked much brighter than I remembered.

At the time I saw the film theatrically, though, I just assumed the film was really that dark. Well, actually I thought it could be faulty projection, but I didn't want to get into the issue with the management. Most theaters are quite defensive when it comes to the subject of whether or not they dim the projector bulbs, and whether or not it matters. Even before I became a projectionist I knew thanks to Roger Ebert's Answer Man columns about the stupidity and annoyance of turning down the power on projector bulbs, but unfortunately not everyone else seems to know.

Here's some great news for all those who felt left out of the Beowulf IMAX 3D experience: 100 new IMAX screens will be installed in cinemas throughout the U.S. over the next three years. According to the Hollywood Reporter, IMAX made a deal with AMC Entertainment to put its digital projection systems in 33 of the theater chain's locations. The first 50 will begin installation next July, with 25 more installed in 2009 and a final 25 installed in 2010. Apparently this will double the amount of IMAX 3D screens in the country. Had this happened prior to the release of Beowulf, the movie could have been twice as popular -- and twice as big a hit (currently it is just barely a success).

This is a big deal, considering I always just imagined IMAX screens were a luxury. Now more people will be able to see the IMAX 3D versions of Monsters vs.Aliens and Avatar if they are available in the format (I don't see why they wouldn't be). I didn't even really like my recent experience with IMAX 3D, yet I did promise to give it another shot. Unfortunately, it seems IMAX is more interested in broadening its reach rather than concentrating on my own satisfaction. Yeah, I'd be pretty stupid if I thought they'd spend money on fixing the problems I alone have with the format, but I will optimistically imagine the company will at least try to make the new locations as close to perfect as possible. Since AMC will be in charge of reconstructing its existing auditoriums, I hope that they fix the usual seating arrangement so all viewers have the same optimal experience.

It seems a bit late, but New Line has finally joined the animated film business. Fortunately for them, they've avoided the attempt to set up something in-house, choosing instead to acquire something already in the works. According to The Hollywood Reporter, the studio has picked up Planet 51, which is being produced by Spain-based Ilion Animation Studios. Scripted by Shrek and Shrek 2 co-writer Joe Stillman, the film is about the titular planet, which is visited by an "alien" from Earth. I guess it's kinda like a reverse E.T., where NASA astronaut Chuck Baker befriends a young native of Planet 51 and must avoid capture. According to the film's IMDb page, in which it's titled Planet One, Stillman is co-directing with Jorge Blanco. However, The Hollywood Reporter lists the co-directors as Blanco, Javier Abad and Marcos Martinez, all of whom apparently worked together on a video game titled Commandos.

Planet 51 is currently in production but doesn't seem too far along. Ilion hasn't yet cast the voices, which typically come first. Considering that at first glance I thought the promo image was of Toy Story's Buzz Lightyear (yeah, my eyesight is bad), I suggest they just go ahead and get Tim Allen for the lead. And then they should cast Henry Thomas as the alien kid, because all animated films these days need to be full of referential jokes. I also have to add another suggestion to New Line and Ilion: make the film in 3D. With an expected release date of March 2009, Planet 51 is teetering on the edge of the future, as Dreamworks Animation has already declared 2009 to be the year it begins releasing all its films exclusively on 3D screens. It's first, Monsters vs. Aliens, is even set to come out that same month. Now, Planet 51 may not need to be too competitive if it can hit theaters a few weeks earlier (MvA is set for end of month), though chances are audiences will forget about a lame-old 2D release once the real attractions arrive. With a budget of $60 million, Planet 51 probably can't afford to be so easily dismissed.