As an opinionated cinephile, Roger Ebert has every right to dislike 3-D movies. And recently, on his blog, Roger Ebert's Journal, he wrote about such disfavor. Basically, in response to accidentally missing the press screening for the new animated 3-D flick Fly Me to the Moon, he admits that, because of a certain prejudice against the format, he likely wouldn't have enjoyed the movie anyway.

My issue here is not to attack Ebert's opinion or his belief that after half a century of dissatisfaction with the format he's never going to change his mind about it. He's free to express both. And while I disagree and am disappointed, I would never claim that Ebert doesn't know what he's talking about. He's certainly smarter about film than I'll ever be, and his opinions are far more respected than my own.

However, Ebert is also one of the most widely read film critics in the world, and therefore he is a pretty influential person when it comes to the subject of movies. And I would hate for moviegoers to dismiss the new wave of 3-D movies simply because of Ebert's stance on the format. So, I merely intend to respond to his opinion with an opinion of my own, as apparently one of the wider read gushers on the topic of digital 3-D.

I don't know the last time I felt like a kid at the movies, but while watching Journey to the Center of the Earth 3-D this past week, I honestly reverted to my 8-year-old self. That isn't to say the movie is necessarily as good as the movies that astonished me as a kid -- because of the subject matter, I'd think about comparing it to Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and The Goonies, both of which came out when I was around that age, and neither to which this film holds up in terms of originality or storytelling craft. But as far as holding onto my sense of wonder, Journey is up there.

Of course, it's necessary to point out that Journey would be nothing without the digital 3-D factor. It's actually the first live-action narrative feature to be shot and released in the new format (the non-fiction concert films, U2 3D and Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus: Best of Both Worlds Concert Tour were technically the first live-action 3-D features), and while it's far from perfect, it is a terrific pioneer. I shall continue favoring the look of animated 3-D films, especially those directed as well as Monster House, and I anticipate that James Cameron's Avatar will blow away all live-action 3-D films released prior to its arrival. For now, though, I'm telling you, with the utmost cinemaphilic urgency: you need to see this ASAP.

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.

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.

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.

Always be wary of overblown announcements from Hollywood. Disney is announcing a great achievement in the opening weekend of its latest animated flick, Meet the Robinsons, but the studio is making a bigger deal out of its supposed success. The announcement pertains to the performance of 3-D showings of Robinsons versus the more available 2-D version of the film. Yes, Robinsons now holds a record for having the greatest opening for a 3-D movie, with regards to the width of its rollout and to its box office gross, but there are a few details that aren't being revealed in Disney's promotion of this news.

First of all, the wider rollout is due to more screens being equipped with Real D's 3-D exhibition technology -- Robinsons in 3-D opened on 521 screens (3413 with 2-D screens included) compared to Monster House in 3-D on 178 screens (3553 with 2-D screens included). Second of all, Robinsons technically did worse business than Monster House in 3-D theaters if you consider each film's per-screen average. Robinsons made $7.3 million off its 3-D showings, which makes its per-screen take only $12,220. Monster House, on the other hand, made only $2.3 million from its 3-D screens, making its per-screen take $15,000. Overall, with 3-D and 2-D screens tallied, Robinsons grossed better in its opening weekend than Monster House ($25.1 mill. vs. $22.2 mill.), and Robinsons' percentage grossed from 3-D was higher than Monster House's (13% vs. 11%), but otherwise it seems that people may have been a tad more curious about the new 3-D format last summer than today.

Now that Disney is no longer the best name in animation, it seems to at least be interested in controlling those studios that are the best. It already has Pixar; now it wants Robert Zemeckis' motion-capture, 3D films, which are the next big cutting edge thing in animation -- and very popular, too. Zemeckis already moved his production company, ImageMovers, to the Disney lot last year, but that didn't necessarily mean the director's animated films would have to be distributed by the Mouse House (so far, though, there's this one). His last home was at Dreamworks, but The Polar Express was released by Warner Bros. and his upcoming Beowulf will be brought out in the States by Paramount (foreign distro carried by Warner Bros.). He also produced the Sony-released Monster House.

It was announced yesterday that Zemeckis, with partners Jack Rapke and Steve Starkey, will start a new production company at Disney, which will envelope ImageMovers. It isn't clear, though, whether or not this partnership means Disney will be distributing all of the trio's animated films similar to its former deal (turned acquisition) with Pixar. If so, then only Dreamworks, with its potentially never-ending Shrek franchise, will be significant competition. However, it will be a long time before Zemeckis will be able to finish a film at Disney, and there's a chance that the Mouse House could ruin its reputation as a brand for 3D toons before it has the chance to show off the goods. Disney already left a bad taste with Chicken Little, and its upcoming Meet the Robinsons could very well be just as rotten.

Learning is fun -- especially when done in 3-D! National Geographic is working with Real D, the leading 3-D cinematic technology provider, in order to bring their films into regular theatres. National Geographic currently makes films viewable in museums, science centers (if you're in Los Angeles you can see it at the reopened Griffith Park Observatory) and other learning facilities. These museums are already equipped with the 3-D technology -- mostly known as IMAX theatres.

Real D will distribute two National Geographic documentary films in 2007 giving them a wider theatrical release than they are used to. Real D is also working to bring their 3-D technology to more theatres nationwide. National Geographic has also decided to keep these films separate from the competition by making screening times during the day and not conflicting with show times for more mainstream films. These films will be geared toward a school-aged audience; they are expecting that most ticket sales will be to school groups for field trips.

I can't even remember the last time I watched a film in 3-D. It very well may have been the Honey I Shrunk the Kids show at Disneyland back in the 80s. I'm not even sure as to which theatres provide 3-D as an option in my area. I do think that National Geographic may be doing themselves a disfavor by not broadening their audiences beyond the young kids. As a fan of documentaries I think that it would be that much more of a draw to watch March of the Penguins in 3-D -- you'd actually feel like you were migrating with them, minus the possibility of freezing to death.

Whoah! Hold your horses, cinema chains. You might want to hold off on installing that Real D hardware to your theaters. Sure, Monster House is a big hit on your existing Digital 3D screens, which probably use Real D's technology, but now there is apparently a cheaper solution. Dolby Labs, who you may remember from such hits as Dolby Stereo and Dolby Digital, is developing its own 3D projection systems in a partnership with Infitec GmbH.

Dolby's system will be less costly than Real D because it will not need a special silver-based screen. This saves theaters on some of the installation process and charges. Of course, there are other systems that can currently be shown on a regular, old white screen, but their glasses are more expensive and require batteries. Dolby says their system will use the same type of glasses currently used for Real D's system. Well, I guess they're just absolutely perfect. (Let's just hope they don't blind us with their science, har har.)

The best thing is that Dolby figured out the need to develop their own system after aiding in the installment of Real D technology to theaters for the debut of Chicken Little. They saw the drawbacks and then worked out solutions ... for themselves. I guess any company thinking about working with Dolby in the future should think again. The company is planning to be ready with the system by next spring. I hope so. Cinemas need to prepare for Star Wars 3D already.