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.

Earlier today, I wrote up a piece about the upcoming 3D, CG film Monsters vs. Aliens. Since the movie is going to be 3D from the get-go, rather than getting converted, the price tag on the picture went up $15 million. Why should we care? Well, if you have any interest in seeing it, you'll have to pay more to make up for the extra cost, and what Jeffrey Katzenberg calls "a premium experience."

Paying extra to go see an IMAX production is one thing -- you're paying for the post-film formatting and all that special experience -- and it's a choice. You don't have to spend the extra for it. But to say that we're going to have to pay more because this new technique costs more? That's just ridiculous.

The best family films aren't only for the kids; they look like a kiddie package but pack enough of an adult punch to make everyone happy. It looks like Monsters vs. Aliens might be just that. It is, and I quote from the new goodie extravaganza over at USA Today, "a throwback to those B-movie glory days of the '50s when Martians invaded our backyards and rubber monsters stalked the Earth."

This even includes specific references, such as the heroine Susan Murphy. She's a regular California girl who gets hit by a meteor and becomes 49' 11" tall (Attack of the 50-Foot Woman!), gets taken by the military, and renamed Ginormica. She's also being voiced by Reese Witherspoon. But that's not the only big name attached -- Rainn Wilson will handle the evil alien Gallaxhar, and Ginormica will be joined by Dr. Cockroach, Ph.D. voiced by Hugh Laurie, jelly-like B.O.B. handled by Seth Rogen, and the half-ape/half-fish Missing Link voiced by Will Arnett. Plus, there's Kiefer Sutherland as the aptly-named Gen. W.R. Monger and Stephen Colbert as the "plays it on steroids" president. (Some of them you can spot in the pic on the right, which you can see full-size at USA Today.)

But there's also a twist in this. Since the feature will be the first CG movie shot in 3-D, rather than converted to it, it has an extra $15 mil added to its budget, which will find its way out of fans' wallets. The tickets will cost more, although the price hasn't been determined. Jeffrey Katzenberg is hoping we'll all pay for "a premium experience." This sounds cool and all, but paying more for this movie sounds silly, esp. if it ends up killing at the box office. What do you think about this monetary twist?

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.

Well, I did it. I saw Beowulf in IMAX 3D. It cost me $17.50, which included the Fandango service charge (I knew it would sell out, even for a 1:45 showtime on a Monday afternoon). And guess what? I don't think the price was worth the experience. Maybe it would have been worth a regular ticket price ($11), but I'm not even sure about that.

Now, here is not the place for me to discuss the actual movie. Both Scott Weinberg and James Rocchi have already delivered you their reviews, and I think their thoughts were sufficient. This is also not the place for me to discuss the box office -- which was relatively disappointing considering its budget, yet relatively successful in terms of the per screen average of its 3D screens (I may comment on the 3D box office later).

Instead, this is the place for me to comment on the experience of Beowulf's exhibition in the IMAX 3D format. First, I'd like to apologize for not being able to afford the money or the time to see the regular 2D version, or even the non-IMAX 3D presentation, either via Real D or Dolby Digital's technology. I can just barely compare this to my prior experience with Real D 3D, which I've raved about and have honestly championed as a possible future for the success of cinemas. Fortunately it's the non-IMAX technologies that will end up in most theaters, since not every screen in the world can be an IMAX.

Get out your 2009 calendar, and write this down. What, you don't have a 2009 calendar? You don't plan things more than a year in advance? Oh, you must not work in Hollywood -- those studio execs like to schedule movies farther and farther in advance these days. Back in April, before the 2007 Memorial Day holiday had even come, both Dreamworks Animation and 20th Century Fox had already penciled in their Memorial Day 2009 bows -- Monsters vs. Aliens and Avatar, respectively. Despite the serious competition involved in having those two blockbuster 3-D movies go head to head, the studios could have sat on that news for awhile, at least until 2008 or so. But since then, Dreamworks has twice shuffled its release date for Monsters vs. Aliens. First, it moved the animated pic back a week in order to avoid a clash with James Cameron's hugely anticipated Avatar, and now, according to Variety, it has again changed its mind, pushing the animated movie up a couple months to March 27.

Dreamworks claims the bump up is due to a desire to distribute on the most screens possible, banking on the fact that at least 5,000 theaters will be 3-D equip by then. The studio also points out that the spring month has proved to be a good time for family films. Well, yes, but the summer has obviously been pretty good for giant family films like those Dreamworks' own Shrek films. If I wanted to be cynical about the move -- and I rarely miss an opportunity to be a cynic -- then I might throw it out there that Dreamworks is truly afraid of Avatar, particularly fearful that Cameron's new 3-D cinematography will be so good that it will make the 3-D in Monsters vs. Aliens look like a throwback. This could very well not be the case; Dreamworks' own next-generation 3-D technology is likely to be very impressive, too, and surely the kiddies will not be comparing the two films anyway. That's our job.

So, in case you don't have a 2009 calendar, make one out of construction paper and brass fasteners, and then pencil in (Dreamworks could always change its mind again in the next 18 months) March 2. Monsters vs. Aliens will be the studios' first animated film produced in 3-D -- rather than modified after production -- and will be a sort of comic reinvention of old monster movies. Shrek 2's Conrad Vernon and Shark Tale's Rob Letterman are directing.

Those of you who aren't attending a wedding on August 8, 2008 (aka 8/8/08 -- dun dun dun) will most likely be able to check out Bryan Singer's new flick, Valkyrie (or, The One That Doesn't Involve a Superhero ... Unless You Consider Tom Cruise a Superhero. Which You Might. And That's Okay. Just Don't Tell Anyone). According to a report over at Coming Soon, United Artists is eying the date -- romancing it a little -- and trying to decide whether or not it wants to invite it up for the night. If all goes as planned, Valkyrie (which IMDb is now calling Rubicon) will share that date with New Line's Journey 3-D, Sony's Pineapple Express, Disney's South of the Border and Warner Bros.' The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2 (this time ... the pants come off!) Based on actual events, Valkyrie tells the story of German generals who come up with a plan to assassinate Adolph Hitler during World War II. Hilarity ensues.

On another front, Dreamworks Animation has decided to push the release of its Monsters vs. Aliens flick back one week to May 15, 2009. This was fairly expected, as it was originally set to go up against James Cameron's Avatar. And since both films will be released in digital 3D, it was smart to put them a week apart so that they're not fighting to the death. Apparently, Monsters vs. Aliens will debut on a whopping 6,000 screens -- however, right now only 800 screens are capable of showing 3D projection. What does that mean? Well, it means people need to pick up the pace ... and fast. Monsters vs. Aliens marks the first film for Dreamworks Animation that's produced in stereoscopic 3D technology (hopefully that means we get to actually take home one of those monsters after watching the film) and, according to CS, "reinvents the classic '50s monster movie into an irreverent modern day action comedy." There ya have it folks -- mark your calendars now.

The 2007 summer movie season hasn't even begun yet, but we're already receiving news about release date competition for 2009. Yes, 2009. It wasn't enough that we saw such premature territorial battling over Memorial Day, 2008 (Indiana Jones and the Fourth Installment vs. Speed Racer); the studios had to go and start the claim for that kick-off holiday of a whole two years away. There is something more significantly different about this battle, though. Both of the movies scheduled for release on Memorial day in 2009 will only be exhibited in the new 3-D format. 20th Century Fox has James Cameron's Avatar duking it out against Dreamworks Animation's Monsters vs. Aliens, which is being planned as that studio's first release to play exclusively in 3-D.

The reason that this is such a noteworthy conflict is that in 2009 there may not be enough 3-D-equipped screens to handle simultaneous 3-D releases. The expected amount of screens that will be able to accommodate a 3-D movie at that time is 5,000 (currently there are only 700 screens able to do so), which doesn't even meet the demands of Dreamworks' Jeffrey Katzenberg, who claims he needs 6,000 screens for Monsters. And since Cameron's film is now being said to have a budget close to $200 million, it is assumed that Fox will have a similar demand for its own title. Obviously one of the films will need to move, and it will likely be Monsters. With Avatar being Cameron's first film since Titanic, it is certainly the more eagerly awaited picture and is therefore the most powerful. Expect an announcement sometime in the next year that states that Monsters will relocate to June.

After a bad year at the box office, which resulted in a major financial blow, DreamWorks Animation is anxiously awaiting the release of Shrek the Third. The sequel will be out in a month and it is sure to put the studio back in the black, though I have to point out how appropriate the movie would have been in the new 3-D format. Aside from 3-D being so hot right now, it would have been great for the film to be released as Shrek 3-D (when I was a kid it seemed all franchises went to part three just for that gimmick.) Now the studio must wait and put out the planned fourth installment of the green ogre as Shrek 4, in 3-D. And we can be sure it will actually be in the format because as of 2009 all of DreamWorks Animation's features will be in 3-D.

If a 3-D Shrek title sounds familiar, you may remember the short film shown at Universal Studios and then released on DVD a few years back (even before Shrek 2 came out.) The IMDb actually labels the thing as Shrek 4-D, but I'm pretty sure the video is titled Shrek 3-D. Of course, it was made before the current Real D 3-D technology was being utilized (it still used the red and blue glasses.) Actually, if you follow all the trends closely, you may even remember that the first Shrek was supposed to be shown on IMAX in digital 3-D (again, the old kind.)