Hi, Roger!
Kings Island, in Cincinnati, has a theater with similar seats. They show a Spongebob Squarepants 3D movie there. (this is probably your idea of hell, isn't it?)
Every time I've been inside (not my choice - I have a son), there is always fresh vomit somewhere on the floor. Every. Time.

D-Box has been around for awhile. At my local theatre, there's a console that has two D-Box seats that pitch and roll and shake to trailers like Battle: Los Angeles, which wasn't any great shakes, cinematically. Unsurprisingly, nobody ever sits in the D-Box seats, because who wants to be the guy who paid $16 to see Battle: Los Angeles?

I actually tried D-Box last summer when I saw "Inception" a second time. I never wanted to try the contraption on a first viewing, and considering the sound and fury of "Inception" I thought the film might make for a nice test.

I never want to watch a film in D-Box again. The so-called immersion the chair is supposed to give was not there. The chair only kicks in in action sequences so there's lag, so when the movie's action kicks in so does the chair, and instead of being involved with the action my attention went to the sudden shifting of my chair. Fiddling with the controls of the chair is also a distraction from the film. I love the quote where they say you can shut the chair off altogether if it's just too much. The chair isn't really comfortable to just sit still in, and the theater that had the D-Box set up offered no refunds after the purchase of a D-Box ticket. After two hours of a chair jerking to the action of "Inception" I found myself feeling terrible for ever giving my money to the experience. Why did I think I would I care about a chair jerking around to the action beats of full length film?

I'll pay a premium to see a film in 3D if a hear it's supposed to be spectacular. But you'd have to pay me to see a movie in D-Box again.

I wonder if anyone will try and have sex while in one of those chairs? I Still haven't forgotten about Christy Lemire's experience while watching "Sucker Punch."

I remember as a boy seeing "Earthquake" in Sensurround -- basically a number of massive subwoofers to each side of the theater that rumbled at the appropriate times and shook your seat. If I recall correctly, a rollercoaster disaster flick and "Midway" also were released initially in Sensurround. This D-Box thing sounds like something adapted from those flight simulators at air and space museums or the state fair. Appropriate for those venues but a ludicrous gimmick for a real movie.

Couldn't agree more, Roger. I'm fortunate enough to have a large cinema nearby that rarely nets over two dozen people per movie and almost never bothers with 3D.

This D-Box abomination reminds me of that scene from "Bean: The Ultimate Disaster Movie". If it takes off, we can only hope that some Bean-inspired pranksters will find a way to control everyone's chair remotely. That I would pay $23 to see.

Yeah, I don't get the point of this technology, either. See, I'm on the fence about 3D--it's distracting, but a fun little gimmick. But D-BOX? Why would I want to pay more for a movie to become "Star Tours?"

Maybe 3D can immerse you in a movie if you're in the right frame of mind or whatever. But how is feeling like your chair is trying to imitate a roller coaster supposed to immerse you? It's a worse distraction than 3D.

The really annoying thing is that I don't think directors would want to have people experience their movies this way, either. Christopher Nolan doesn't want his movies to be in 3D. Is he okay with showing "Inception" or the next "Dark Knight" movie to people in shaking chairs? I can't imagine that he would be. Why would he not speak out about this if he knows about it?

I'm trying to think of more to write, but honestly, I can't think of anything more than "D-BOX sounds like it's trying to make going to the theater like a theme park." Truth be told, there's nothing wrong with amusement parks, but it's just not something I want to do at a movie. I want to watch a movie. It's a cliche that I hate to write because it feels like everyone's said it at some point, but Hollywood should stop spending money on these distractions and spend more on screenplays.

"Hence, in regard to our subject, the art of not reading is highly important. This consists in not taking a book into one’s hand merely because it is interesting the great public at the time — such as political or religious pamphlets, novels, poetry, and the like, which make a noise and reach perhaps several editions in their first and last years of existence. Remember rather that the man who writes for fools always finds a large public: and only read for a limited and definite time exclusively the works of great minds, those who surpass other men of all times and countries, and whom the voice of fame points to as such. These alone really educate and instruct.
One can never read too little of bad, or too much of good books: bad books are intellectual poison; they destroy the mind.

In order to read what is good one must make it a condition never to read what is bad; for life is short, and both time and strength limited."

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/essays/chapter3.html

Similarly, apart from the number of dimensions a film possesses, the art of refraining from watching a film is the most important, A film you don't see has no dimensions at all--it consumes no time, invadeth not thy mind, there be no glasses to wear, thou needest no knobs to manipulate.

I remember someone's article on this site or one of the related blogs talking about Avatar appearing in... Taiwan, Korea, I forget the country exactly, with seats exactly like these. I guess it's just now coming to America.

Also, "Governor, the city's in flames, the National Guard is powerless to deal with the situation, the dam is threatening to burst, the airport has been seized by terrorists, and the nuclear powerplant's about to blow any second! Governor, what are we going to do?"

"The only choice for a reasonably intelligent grown-up, I begin to feel, is to seek out what are called art or independent theaters, where the projection quality is likely to be more closely monitored, and the audience is likely to be civilized. ... Or wait for the DVD. It hurts me to say that. I feel as if I'm abandoning movie theaters, which I love. Or are they abandoning me?"

You have pretty well spoken my sentiments. At this time even well presented digital cinema can't match the quality of film and the theater chains in Portland, OR are converting to digital at a breakneck pace. I will see 3D digital since it's digital based technology when I expect it to be put to good effect. And we have an independent theater that does a great job presenting 3D. I will see some low budget indy releases digitally (mostly at the Northwest Film Center at the Portland Art Museum) because they are created and presented digitally due to budgetary constraints. In fact I just saw "The Oregonian" which played at Sundance at NWFC tonight and "The Off Hours" (which is great and you should see if you get the opportunity) there last week. Both digital and both looked good, but not film good.

I will not watch a "Hollywood" movie in digital 2D in a theater; I can get an equally satisfying presentation at home - and that's even though I can't afford anywhere near a top-of-the-line home theater. If the theaters that show those bigger budget movies can't better my low-budget home viewing experience they aren't earning my money; I'll invest it in a better experience at home.

I'm fortunate to live where there are still quite a few opportunities to see films, but I know those opportunities will decrease so I see as much film as I can while I can. If digital projection in theaters reaches a quality I can't achieve at home, I'll be back; but until then it looks like very, very soon my Hollywood movies are going to be viewed from DVDs and BluRays I get at the library (we have a good library).

The movie theaters are abandoning me as well.

I feel exactly the same way. I currently work in a movie theater and everyone seems so confused as to why we aren't doing the crowds that we used to. Even though there still are some great movies being released, for the most part movies are becomind products as opposed to art. A perk of working at a theater is that I'm allowed to see the movies for free and I go less frequently than most of my friends and family. There's just simply nothing to see. The Pirate of the Caribbean movies had progressively gotten worse and worse and I heard horrible reviews about the new one. I wanted to see the Hangover sequel but I heard terrible reviews about that too. I did see Thor and Priest, both of which were awful. I just feel like movies are losing their magic. Intriguing, complex plots are becoming fewer and fewer and gimmicks like 3D and excessive CGI are getting used more and more frequently. Most of the movies I've seen this year I feel like I'm watching something thats been dumbed down. I feel like I'm being treated like a child who can't understand thick plots or wouldn't appreciate fine acting and cinematography. I've been a movie buff my whole life and I used to think nothing compared to the magic of the movie theaters and it kills me to see the industry going the way it is.

Incoming injury lawsuits! Duck and cover!

Roger,

I think you and I disagree greatly that 3D is a distraction. While I don't think every movie needs to be in 3D some movies (like the recent "Kung Fu Panda 2") gain a lot of extra punch thanks to the clever use of the stuff. That said I do agree that D-Box is really just a lousy way to watch a movie. It's never constantly moving, so it never really involves you. It costs way too much money. Heck, the mere fact that it's moving is distracting enough to kill the movie.

The first movie I saw in D-Box was "Hannah" (which I wrote a lukewarm two and half star review for). I saw it again recently at a $1 theater with friends. Obviously there was no D-Box. Amazingly, now that I could watch the movie without the distraction of the chair rumbling, the movie was much better. Still not great, but at least worth recommending this time around. Though I dislike D-Box, I don't blame Hollywood for trying these things and I don't feel they are "abandoning" me.

Hollywood has always experimented with new film technology to try and enhance the theater experience. Some of them work (surround sound, cinemascope) while others fail (you mentioned Smell-O-Vision). So some of these experiments will fail. Live and learn as they say. If something truly isn't making money and making people want it then it won't last. I guess that means we're still up in the air about 3D, but I think in that case it's going to depend on the movies themselves that use it more than the 3D itself.

Seriously, though, what's with the gimmicks? I actually used these seats when I watched the Stallone movie "The Expendables." Every time there was a gunshot or a sudden action (say, a knife being thrown), the chair would rock, or jolt, like in a theme park ride.

Suffice it to say that it was completely distracting.

It did not "immerse" me in the film, and, after a minute it got really old and annoying. And I wouldn't suggest drinking a bottled carbonated drink on one of those things, either. I turned off the option in the chair and watched the movie like I normally would. I believe you have to pay extra for those seats; however, I paid for the normal admission. No one was around to patrol whether or not I had tickets for those seats (an additional concern for theater management).

Haven't the powers that be learned the lessons of the past? Must we all suffer for their sins? Oy vey.

Roger, when I saw your initial Tweet about the D-Box, my first thought was a mid-20th-century gimmick called "Percepto," which I remember reading about in (I believe) "The Golden Turkey Awards" movie book many years ago. I found a mention of it at Time.com. B-movie director William Castle "installed vibrating devices in the seats" of theaters showing his film "The Tingler," which was about a horrifying creature that grows at the base of the spine -- a spine-tingler, get it? When the Tingler attacked onscreen, people sitting in the audience received a jolt. According to Wikipedia, the vibrating devices were actually made out of military surplus airplane wing de-icers. Somehow I suspect that D-Box will not have much more staying power than Percepto.

Hollywood has been suffering a economic slump for the last few years so their solution is to punish the audience by charging them extra due to a gimmick. They have to wear those silly glasses as well!

I remember going to see TRON: Legacy in 3-D with my brother not too long back. I was immediately against it from the start - I wear glasses all the time and my eyes do not fit the standard depth or spacing required to properly view anything in 3-D without inducing a migraine. But my brother, the only person I ever see movies with, insisted that it would be an experience worth remembering (a hard sell, since I was one of the few who did not see Avatar in 3-D when it came out). Not wanting to disappoint him, I tagged along, hoping I would at least get decent entertainment out of it.

Naturally, the tickets cost me about eight dollars more than what I'm used to paying at my regular 2-D movie house, but low and behold, the theater we went to see the movie in had the D-Boxes in them. Now, bear in mind, the only showing we could make was one for 9:00 P.M., and even then the theater was packed with people more tightly squeezed together than a sardine canister.

But here's the interesting thing: NOBODY sat in the D-Box row throughout the film. The movie was sold out, except for the D-Box seats obviously, but even for a movie as wildly anticipated as TRON: Legacy was at the time, nobody wanted to shell out the $20 for a seat in the only 3-D showing of the film. Many people opted to wait until tomorrow to see the movie (I distinctly remember a family of four and how upset the kids were about having to drive all the way home without seeing TRON), and given the fact that the cinema housing TRON was in a rather upper-level part of my city, I was even more surprised.

The D-Box just won't work in this market. People already are spending a fortune just to wear those uncomfortable glasses for a 3-D viewing of a film that is mostly targeted to a viewing audience wanting good entertainment over good film quality (needless to say, my fears were confirmed: the film was modest entertainment at best, but easily forgettable after a few days, and I took at least three Advil tablets afterwards to satiate my headache). They don't want to pay for something that is clearly superfluous to what is already superfluous. I think the new Star Wars ride opening at Disneyland today would offer people a better motion-viewing experience than anything Hollywood could come up with on their own.

Roger,

Commenter Leslie writes about confronting fresh vomit on the floor of D-Box type theaters. Nothing new here. I ran into that problem when I went to see "Sex & the City 2."

Anyway, I believe you have a point about the value of the traditional movie experience. By way of analogy, I wonder if those who appreciate art would be impressed by a gallery that showed Picasso's Guernica complete with appropriate effects imitating earth-shaking explosions and the smell of burnt flesh.

Robert

*sigh*... Guess it's time to just bite the bullet and build that home theater in the basement with the biggest screen possible and great sound and never again have to put up with this kind of nonsense.

Because a herky-jerky chair can totally replicate the physical sensation of flying, falling, swimming, running, jumping, rolling and fighting, right?

Blah.

What's so sad about all of this is that 'Omnimax' screens can and will create the sensation of motion and immersion when used properly. For some reason, IMAX is everywhere, but Omnimax, which uses a domed screen, is only available in a handful of science centers.

Roger, I'm with you. The current trend in using 3D and gimmicks does not a better movie make! The D-Box reminds me of "Emergo" with William Castle's The Tingler. As much as I adore Vincent Price, it was a ridiculous movie and the Emergo made it just that more laughable. Today of course, all of this makes it a cult classic.

After Clash of the Titans 3D I have intensionally avoided 3D movies. I'd much rather have a better written, better acted film than the higher priced gimmick which in most cases just gets in the way. I had hoped that 3D would go the way of the other gimmicks by now, but I guess it does say something about the viewing audience today. Too bad.

"I feel as if I'm abandoning movie theaters, which I love. Or are they abandoning me?"

It is, alas, the latter....

I'm 27 years old and I can still recall a time when you could see a movie without worrying about a projectionist who left the 3D lens on, a dark movie, or texting teenagers. What I worry about is the future of film, not only in the presentation, but in the quality of the film's content itself. Roger, you pointed out in an article recently that most of what hollywood churns out is sequels and remakes. I'm not necessarily condeming them. There have been a handful that have been above average such as King Kong and Spider-Man 2. Still, this is a sign of the times where corporations are trying to make a profit by setting up a franchise or retreading old material that was successful at the time it was released. All I want is a good film. It doesn't necessarily have to be "original". But all these added "features" are unnecessary. You want immersion? Give me a 2D movie with a great story, great acting, and a great presentation (cinemetography, direction, etc). I don't need all this 3D and D-Box nonsense. Especially with the ridiculous surcharge. For $32 I can take my girlfriend to see a D-Box movie or I can go take her to a really nice restaurant. Which do you think I'm going to choose?

What happened to simply sitting down and enjoying the movie? Is it any wonder attention spans are dropping and the public demands so little of movies beyond mechanical thrills? How can movies develop a good story which requires concentration (I know, I know, I just said the dirty "c" word) to follow? Stop the gimmicks, give me a good movie I can JUST sit and enjoy.

Maybe they should bring back Smell-O-Vision, if you really want to kill off gimmickry in selling movies. All you would have to do is tie it in with one of Adam Sandler's latest piss, crap, puke, burp and fart comedies and no on would bother with trying to make movies more interactive than they already are again.

OK, I'll admit that on my short list of things to do when they get around to inventing a time machine is to see "The Tingler" in 1959, Percepto-shocks and all--or "13 Ghosts" in Illusion-O or "House on Haunted Hill" in Emergo. In the meantime, I'm going to a matinee of "Mant"--"half-man, half-ant, all terror!"

I just love “Earthquake”. The movie has a hilarious semi-3D scene in which the cable of an elevator full of people snaps and while they hit the ground, fake blood is splattered manually on the camera’s lens. I do wonder if the trailer’s editor put together on purpose the parts with George Kennedy saying “you are going to have to help yourselves!” immediately followed by Genevieve Bujold yelling “help me!”
I don’t care nor mind the D-Box or 3D for that matter, as long as their availability doesn’t affect that of regular options which the latter unfortunately has. When I heard 3D was coming back, I thought it was a dumb idea and nothing has changed my mind since. I even thought unwise that a movie chain down here built “VIP theaters” with lazy-boy seats because I thought they’d make it too easy too nap during a movie, come to think of it, they should probably use the D-Box option for particularly boring features, it’s more convenient than constantly having to slap or pinch yourself in order to keep awake.

'Tis the season to bash Marvel,
Fa la la la la, fa la la la.
Don we now our gay apparel,
Fa la la la, fa la la la.
Troll the blog of Roger Ebert,
Fa la la la la, fa la la la.

I heard about this technology in 2009. It is called "4D" in my county. When they showed a disaster movie featuring mega-tsunami in this "4D" screening room, my online acquaintances said that not only the seats were trembled but also the water was sprayed over the audiences. Anyway, the movie, which was not a 3D movie, by the way, sucked when I watched it in 2D.

I agree, that the D Box technology, while fine for amusement park attractions, are too distracting to enjoy a movie that was not designed to support the technology. Interestingly, both 3D and smell o vision are used to great effect in Disney World in the "It's Tough To Be a Bug" and "Fantasmic" attractions. The "Bug" attraction goes even further than D Box, and includes a trick that makes it feel like bugs are crawling under you. Cool stuff, but only in the context of the attraction. I think 3D can be well integrated into a film, as it was in Avatar, and, in a much more nasty way, Piranha 3D, but these post production 3D conversions are terrible. A bigger problem is that the theaters that are using Sony projectors are not removing the 3D part from the projector when showing 3D movies. You get an 85% diminution in the brightness, and the movie isn't even in 3D. Apparently, it takes 20 minutes or so to remove the piece from the projector, so they aren't doing it. It just gets worse and worse all the time to see movies in theaters. I objected to digital projection, my heart was always with celluloid, but even with the lessening of definition that digital brought, it was kind of a tradeoff, because the theaters had long passed the time when they actually paid attention to the movies they were showing. Basically, every time I went to the movies, there was a problem. It was out of focus, the print was scratched, the bottom or top were projected onto the ceiling or below the screen...Something was always wrong. Add to this the complete lack of civility of audiences, and I have to say that I prefer now watching movies on my HiDef TV, on Blu-Ray, when everything is just about perfect every time. I still go to theaters, but am anxious waiting to see what will be wrong when the film begins. If I'm alone, I just go out and demand my money back, but if I'm with my family, they insist that it is just me. Just me-when the tops of the actors heads are not being projected onto the screen? The theaters have pretty much lost me.

Eventually, movies- as we know them- will change forever. Become, I think, much more of an active experience for the audience. Rather than mere stereoscopic mimicry, there will be, perhaps, a holographic sense of presence and depth. The audience members might each be able to view the story from a different perspective- tailoring the story to their interests as they go along.

I don't know the details- how things will shake out, what the transcending format will actually involve. But I know it's coming. And I know it's nothing to worry about.

The format changes, the need to tell the story- and to experience it together- doesn't.

And I know that 3D, as it is now, and stuff like motion chairs... are simply desperate tricks, attempts to pull the audiences back into the theaters by offering something that we cannot get at home. An experience we cannot have well enough by inviting over some friends and watching a video on our home systems.

They'll fade. Probably. Like they have before.

What worries me here... is that you seem to be edging toward rejection of anything that alters what you see as the ideal viewing experience.

Well. People complained about sound... and about color, when that came around. How that would change the nature of the experience, water it down, cheapen and degrade it.

And from their perspectives? They did. The experience of watching a black and white film, with title cards and live music- rather than a sound track- is much different than watching a modern movie. Arguably a different attitude is required from the audience, a different style of immersion, of suspension of disbelief.

I imagine many people stopped going to movies over these changes. Complained and laughed up their sleeves.

And think of what they missed by doing so! Garbo talks! Cary explaining the need to get a message out to - if memory serves- the Colonel. Rhett and Scarlett, Wayne's rolling walk into any scene, The bridge exploding, the ape, falling. The yellow brick road.

By all means, avoid the motion box, and the 3D if you want. They aren't likely to be more durable than tissue paper in the rain. But... don't box yourself off from the wonders that might be coming. That might enhance the experience, rather than degrade it.

Abandon the theaters, Roger! Someone in a recent blog of yours suggested you start reviewing cable TV movies and I say do it.

Okay, so maybe don't abandon the theaters--still review the movies (after all it's fun to read you giving a good ripping to a crap film) but toss in a review of an HBO film every so often. Start with Too Big to Fail. It's better than anything big budget Hollywood has put out in years.

I understand and agree with your objection, but I'm trying to put my finger on why this gimmickry is so off-putting, rather than charming. Is the problem with D-Box that it seems to take itself seriously? That it's being used for movies that aren't intentionally designed to be exploitative? That it is obvious mercenary intent feels less like salesmanship and more like a mugging?

I seem to recall that you were charmed by the old fashioned hucksterism displayed by sleazeball filmmaker Lawrence Woolsey in "Matinee." Atomo-Vision! Rubmle Rama! From your review:

"Woolsey, portrayed by Goodman as an affable man who genuinely enjoys his work, is a combination of dozens of exploitation filmmakers who prospered in the 1950s by adding showmanship to their cheapo productions. For the premiere of "Mant," Woolsey wires the theater seats with electrical buzzers, sets up equipment to blow dry ice vapors at the audience, and hires a guy to dress up like a giant ant to run up and down the aisles.

"All of these techniques were actually used in the 1950s, often by the legendary William Castle, who once allowed the audience to choose between two possible endings of the same horror film. In "Matinee," they come together to produce a premiere showing of great hilarity, as the audience leaps from its seats on cue, and the awfulness of "Mant" is equaled only by its demented craziness."

Maybe what D-Box needs is a new (old) marketing strategy -- and a sense of fun. Don't try to be The Future of Motion Picture Entertainment! Embrace your low-brow, gimmicky nature, and stick to thrillers and exploitation flicks. It can be a lot of fun, and certain audiences will definitely turn out for it, if you sell it right. Just please don't intrude on movies for grown ups.

Normally I hate it when people start referencing dystopian novels for doomsday prophesies, but the first time I saw a commercial for D-Box (they run in front of the previews at the theater I regularly attend) I couldn't help thinking of the "feelies" from Brave New World.

But I also can't help but observing that, while every time you poo-poo 3D you get an army of people disagreeing with you (and for the record, I'm on your side in this debate), I have yet to see a single person on this thread say you're wrong about D-Box. While the 3D debate will continue to rage on for a bit, it might be safe to say that D-box will be yet another failed attempt to add unwanted sensory experiences to the movies.

Hell, this ain't nothing new. I used to bounce around on Pop's lap at the Drive In, way back in '50 or '51. System worked great, particularly for the second half of Bowery Boys double features.

And no dumb Smell-o-Vision gimmick, no matter how positive its aim, could ever compare with the memories of our old Studebaker teeming with the aroma of fresh buttered popcorn.

In video games, these exist to a small extent in game controllers. When you crash, the controller will vibrate.

For 3D, in Ghost Recon for the Nintendo 3DS, I thought the 3D added to the game. This is a turn-based strategy game, so think of it as a set of chess pieces in a highly detailed 3D castle. Each turn, you need to direct the moves of your chess pieces. Having time to plan out everything while exploring about in the castle helps the immersion. I thought the other 3D releases were poor.

Larger scale items have never caught on in games, even though many spend thousands on their gaming systems. After the getting good sound, good video, and a good connection, anything else tends to be a poorly supported gimmick.

Why? People don't much like being passengers in a game. They want to be in control, and the gimmicks don't help with that. They distract. I found the other Nintendo 3DS titles poor because the 3D effects whizzed by too fast for my mind to grasp them -- I wasn't really in control.

Disney Parks have done an okay job with fixed, fancy seats -- for 10 minute movies designed for the seats.

So a lot of people have trouble with 3D just because of focusing problems. So we add shaking chairs to the mix?

The secret to any narrative entertainment form is the story. A compelling narrative makes for a compelling experience. Simply going for sensation has its points, but, in the movies, stopped being the point early in the silent era. After you show one train wreck, elephant being electrocuted, etc., you're pretty much done. Not that sensation and gimmicks ended there; Smell-o-Vision, etc. were a way of drawing attention to bad B-movies.

So that's the Hollywood of today: emphasizing the elements of the most primitive or bad cinema. Wonderful.

The world needs a new William Castle.

I don't think anyone has to champion the cause against all these theater gimmicks. There is nothing to fear, since they always self-destruct. As history has shown, any audience member who is curious about them will spend their hard-earned money on the inflated ticket once or twice before their curiosity is appeased, and then no longer seek it out. The fads will die off, and studios will learn, again, that the only thing that brings audiences in are the well-establlished ingredients for good old fashioned 2-D moviegoing. (The last considerable gimmick to stick was the addition of sound [and it's later upgrade to stereo and surround sound], which many resented and considered a fad -- and it's probable that moviegoing evolution leveled there.)

That's not to say that such stuff doesn't have a place in entertainment. I've been to amusement parks where they show a movie with 3-D, moving seats, sprays of water (Shrek sneezes), and motorized whips or jets of air at the audience's feet (as a throng of mice run from the screen into the theater, for example) -- and it works just fine as an occasional amusement park gimmick. But that is more akin to a "ride" -- and nobody wants that in their everyday moviegoing.

Hi Roger,

I remember seeing "Earthquake" in the theater with Sensurround. Even at that young age I was unimpressed. 2 giant metal boxes in the front of the screen that causes vibrations and noise did not add a thing to my enjoyment of the movie. It was just distracting.

Even for "Earthquake".

For me, the theme park experience is completely different from the movie going one. When I go to a theme park I am seeking Exhilaration. When I go the movies I know now that I am seeking Elevation (thanks in part your fine meditations / explorations on the matter).

The two may be connected and felt, but in very different ways.

Two of my favorite movie theater memories come from the seventies. And the films couldn't be more different. "Nashville" and "Jaws".

Maybe "Jaws" could be seen to be the perfect 3D or D-Box fit. But if I had first seen it in these modes, my memory / feeling of it would be quite different. The quiet moments in that film were just as important as the action sequences. Maybe I'm alone in this, but I do not go to Six Flags for quiet moments.

And as for "Nashville", it provided me with the a similar sense of wonder and Joy as "Jaws" did. Different movies to be sure. But I left the theater satisfied and thinking about both movies for days.

The only 3D film I have seen and can say that about is "Avatar".

And they don't release those every week. Despite what the executives would have us believe.

I sympathize with this post completely. I love seeing movies in a theater, but parenthood and bills have forced me to rely on netflix more and more. Even though I get a crisper picture(often) and a quieter atmosphere at home, I really miss the communal feeling of being in a big dark room. I remember seeing Star Wars Episode One at the first showing in my state in a room with a couple hundred huge Star Wars fans(I'm, at best, a moderate fan) and all of us fed off each others excitement and fooled ourselves into thinking it was a good movie. Or Dancer in the Dark when the film ended and no one left during the credits because the entire theater was in tears.

Since I can only make it to a theater once every couple of months, I tend to be unforgiving when it comes to people on cellphones or talking to their friends. I will ask(politely, but firmly) that anyone on a phone either shut it off or take the call outside. I've never once had anyone cause a problem, and most people are too ashamed once they've been called out on it to do it again.

I'm also beginning to dislike 3D not only for how it looks in a theater, but how it looks at home when I watch it in 2D. The color and lighting looks unnatural, and characters often look as if they've been cut out with scissors and pasted in front of a background.

There will always be a battle over theaters and home video. Much of what has defined cinema was done so to compete with the limitations of TV and home video, such as widescreen, surround sound and 3D. As home video catches up, new gimmicks must be made to compete.

Ironically, the idea of a home version of the D-Box seems more practical. If people want to spend the extra money to have one in their home, wonderful. Leave the theaters alone. I'm sure there are some other benefits to having a shaking chair in my livingroom.

I live in Vancouver, BC, Canada and have noticed every single arthouse theatre has either closed or has threaten to close because the city property is too expensive to operate them anymore.

Studios complain attendance is down because the DVD is released three months later. Who's responsible for the quick DVD release? The studios can't have it both ways.

I can still remember "The Empire Strikes Back" being released in 1980, which was a guaranteed hit, and yet it was only released on two screens in a city of three million people. There were line-ups around the block for months and movie played for close to a year.

Today the blockbusters appear on 35 screens around town, it's gone in four weeks and then out on DVD three to four months later.

I guess the idea today is to get 80% of a film's potential earnings within the first three weeks and then quickly dump it on the DVD market while the theatrical advertising buzz is still hot.

I'm sick. Just sick. I appreciate the article. I would never, ever go to a D-box movie (I'm sick of "Pirates" and "Transformers" movies, was sick of them the first time I saw the originals -- saw them by force not personal selection. Avoid dumb girlfriends.) 3D is already the worst thing that has ever, ever happened to the movies. I read your article on it awhile back, that was an expert deconstruction. I also recommend an excellent recent essay by James Berardinelli on his website www.reelviews.net. See link:
http://www.reelviews.net/reelthoughts.php?identifier=665 For you idiots out there, no I am not Mr. Berardinelli nor do I know him personally. I just happen to read Mr. Ebert and Mr. Berardinelli regularly because I am a fan. Berardinelli has had his website ever since the mid-90's, he can survive on his own. I'm just saying if you want to read an excellent piece on abysmal feelings towards 3D, go see the link.

Ha ha, D-Box. I'm surprised it's still around, much less expanding. The first time I saw a Blu-ray with a special D-Box track encoded (yes, you can buy your own chair and wire your entertainment system to support this at home) it sounded mighty stupid to me, and I'm a longtime fan of 3D and other gimmicky junk. Moving chairs are fine for the kind of ten-minute film/ride they used to show at the Empire State Building—wow, it's like you're flying over the city and just took a sharp bank to the left!—but I can't imagine it doing a thing for any of the real movies I've seen it attached to so far. (And a feature-length version of that Empire State Building film would be torture.)

Why the scare quotes around "3D television," though? It does exist, and it works as it's supposed to; there's no persuasion to be done on that front. There is the question of whether you'd enjoy using it of course, as with any other product or service on Earth, but surely that can't be an open question for you; if you dislike 3D in the theater, all 3D TV lets you do is dislike it equally at home.

Last year, while waiting in the lobby for the 2D version of "How To Train Your Dragon," I saw a family of four walking into the 3D version of "Clash of the Titans." They had tickets for the D-Box seats, and the usher took them into the theater. I mentally calculated how much money that I just saw go by: Tickets for the 3D/D-Box were $18 each=$72. Plus each person had a large bucket of popcorn and a large drink: $10 each=$40. I incredulously said to my wife: "That family of four just paid at least $112 to see 'Clash of the Titans'??!!"

Another drawback to these seats is they have forced my local theater to start selling assigned seats. When I'm taking my kids, I like to sit up near the front aisle (near the handicapped seats) because my children have an irritating tendency to swing their legs when sitting down. If there's no chair in front of them, at least they aren't kicking someone in the back before I notice it and tell them to stop. If I'm by myself, I like to sit in the top back row. Assigned seating means that I can't just walk into the theater and sit where I want, or move if the family that can't afford a babysitter for the night and decides to bring their four-year-old to the adult drama I just paid $8-$10 to see starts to make "I'm BORED!" comments.

I've already commented on my one negative experience with 3D glasses fitting over my trifocals. I won't pay for one of those ever again. I'm also damn sure that I won't pay for a D-Box seat. Not only because I don't want to go on a two-hour rollercoaster ride, but because I'm cheap.

Oh, by the way: You can buy your own chair with D-Box movers and shakers for the home for about $15,000. Select Blu-ray discs (usually Universal releases, I believe) have the D-Box coding. Now you can save yourself the embarrassment of barfing on your fellow theater patrons and do it at home. Of course, I expect that the adult film industry will be all over this (pun sort of intended).

Yeah, pfft. The other thing about these techno-chairs is that they won't make good antiques or collectors' items like barbershop chairs do.

I'm not even sure an old Smell-O-Movie machine would look all that attractive in my rumpus room. Plus, neighbor kids would probably always be leaving the "dog poop" knob turned up. Not a fun thing to have to get out of bed to shut off at 3 a.m.

Next up, virtual reality helmets. 20 years ago they were selling virtual reality helmet time for, I think, ten dollars a minute, at the student union at UC Berkeley. Maybe they've got the price down.

Here's what you do: suspend the moviegoer in an anti-gravity bubble a good dozen feet off the floor, wearing a virtual reality helmet. The slightest budge in the movie will produce an equal budge in the anti-grav bubble. Or say, flying off a cliff or just missing a StarZoom Fighter by inches, a snap to emulate. Or say, if it's a scene where you're supposed to feel surprised or shock, the bubble will vvvvvvvvvvvibrate at the same rate your alarmed nerves would.

Boy, it could supply whole new dimensions for, like, "I Am Love."

NEXT: INSTANT HORMONAL INJECTIONS APPROPRIATE TO THE DRAMA

Actually, Roger, I should correct you on one point. Sensurround wasn't "quickly discontinued" after "Earthquake" came out in 1974. It would be used three more times over the next 5 years before it was forgotten. "Midway" in 1976, "Rollercoaster" in 1977 and "Battlestar Galactica" in 1979.

A fascinating article as always, Mr. Ebert. Your views on the "miracles of modern technology" hitting the movies are far ahead of everyone else's. Technology changes have always been essential to the movies, ever since sound first hit in the form of The Jazz Singer. However, the implementation of sound was in order to have a more mature way of storytelling. Don't interpret this wrongly; I love silent films! But the people implementing sound saw that it could lead to a change for the better in the way that stories are told through film. But what seems to be happening now is that the technology is coming before the storytelling in terms of priority. What does D-Box do to advance storytelling through film? Nothing, and nor is it intended to. It is a purely comercial move. I'm fine with new technology--although d-box and 3-d are both complete busts--but people must always remember that the top priority is storytelling, not the technology used to tell it. Check out my blog post at http://ahillofbeans-moviesnick.blogspot.com/2011/03/another-one-bites-dust-crash-of.html, which came out just after the Robert Zemeckis produced Mars Needs Moms bombed earlier this year. It's really a post about technology in general and how it is implemented in the movies.

I sent a really long comment in earlier today, but the Captcha went looneytunes on me and I don't know if it got through.

Since I won't know until Monday whether it made it through or not, let me allow you to share quotes from a parody trailer I saw somewhere:

Pulse-Pounding ACTION!!!
Heart-Stopping SUSPENSE!!!
Senses-Shattering THRILLS!!!
We Guarantee That At Least ONE MEMBER Of Your Family WILL DIE As A Result Of Watching This Picture!!!!

Based on this D-Box thingy, I'm guessing we've come closer to this sentiment than ever before.

Progress ... ain't it wonderful?

Oh God, D-Box sounds horrible. the last thing we need is for film to converge with theme park rides.

In 1987 you wrote a brilliant essay titled "Legacy of Star Wars". Readers, it's in his must-have "Awake in the Dark" book. Anyway, you wrote:

"In the decade before 1977, young American directors were trying to make the Great American Film. Afterward, many of them were trying to make the Great American Hit. In 1976, a year before Star Wars, Martin Scorsese was an example of the best young American directors, and he made Taxi Driver. In the years after Star Wars, the directors after Scorsese have, by large, stopped swinging for that particular fence, and started measuring their success by the box office."

I hope in the future I won't have to write a complimentary piece to your essay...call it "Legacy of Avatar" where I quote you and add:

"After 2009, Hollywood sought neither the Great American Film nor the Great American Hit, but rather went for the Great American Gimmick."

Someone mentioned vibrating controllers earlier in the thread. I know that we should put the "video games and art" debate behind us, but I'd like to compare these controllers to D-BOX, because I think there's an important distinction.

When you shoot a gun in real life, your whole body doesn't shake. Your hands and arms, maybe your torso are thrown back. Vibrating controllers can't simulate that exactly, but they do give you a sense of what it would feel like.

D-BOX, by the sound of it, throws people around whenever something action-packed happens. I doubt even the actors and stunt men feel like that.

Further, there's a point that I feel I forgot before. Video games are all deliberately designed by someone overseeing everything. They make sure the graphics, sound, controls, etc. are as they feel they should be. This includes vibration.

D-BOX, on the other hand, does not sound like it has directors guiding these movements. Sure, maybe a James Cameron or someone like that could be involved with it. But so far, the impression I get is that it's nameless technicians deciding when to shake someone.

In that way, it's like the recent trend to shoot a movie flat and "convert" it to 3D, in that it's almost entirely decided on after the point where it could be planned for. Except even then, the director is usually involved. At the least, I'm sure they get to see what it's like beforehand.

The idea of adding something to a movie after the fact goes back at least to when sound started dominating the industry. Harold Lloyd discussed adding sound to one of his movies, and admitted that it was terrible. But the Italians started doing it well with movies for a long time. This didn't happen as much with color (the last real advance in movie technology, I believe, not sound), at least until the late 80s/early 90s and Ted Turner decided to puke all over his library of classics. Sometimes that still happens, but somebody is involved to guide them.

D-BOX, in other words, takes the worst part of 3D conversion, colorization, and post-dubbing sound: Giving a movie to a technician to add things seemingly at random, without any input from the director, without an idea of how to integrate it well. All this, and it's distracting, too.

Save me another seat.

The concept reminds me of this scene from Kentucky Fried Movie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCq_nzlou0Q
...maybe that's where we're headed.

Is it bad for me to hope that someone has a heart attack on one of these things so that the theater will be sued and the seats removed?

These things can't be silent, right? How can you hear the movie explosions and buses flipping along highways when your seat is grinding its gears?

I imagine that the future of movies is to have them downloaded into our nervous system so that we can feel every punch, every shotgun blast, every kiss...

Want to put asses in the seats?

1. Display the picture properly.

2. Enforce a modicum of decorum.

There you go. I saved the industry.

Even with 3D, audiences are shunning a night out at the movies. Could it be that it's not worth their money anymore? Do they actually sense a drop in quality? Maybe we're not so stupid after all.

Roger,

You can blame James Cameron and "Avatar" for what the movie studio corporate executives are doing with forcing 3D onto the scene. They saw the huge grosses with "Avatar" in 3D, and naturally concluded that that was what the movie public wanted right now with every movie - so just do every movie in 3D and they will get "Avatar" like grosses over and over again.

Wrong.

3D was a minor reason people went to see "Avatar" in such high numbers. Other things like story, scenery, and characters played much bigger roles. Once people see "Avatar", they were satisfied with their curiosity about where 3D is today, they saw it was no real significant breakthrough, and they went back to good old 2D.

Because of James Cameron and "Avatar", and the huge splash both of them made, it's going to take a long time for 3D to gradually fade back to where it was and where it belongs.

Why people feel they have to mess with movies is beyond me. Can't they just leave the art form alone? If it ain't broke, don't fix it! Oh, by the way, this weekend's show of Ebert Presents at the Movies had a mention of Videodrome, which you didn't like. I thought that was funny. Would've liked to have seen you say, "Why is this guy praising this crap?"

You the man, Roger.

Clearly the majority of people here that are ripping into D-Box have never used the seats. I have a 3-seater with D-Box at home and love it. The D-Box motion artists have done some really great codings for nearly 1,000 films, like The Dark Knight, Avatar, The Empire Striked Back, Shrek 4, etc. Also, the system is designed in such a way as to never move so much as to cause motion sickness, so people are greatly exaggerating when referring to the seats as vomit inducing.

While I know the seats are not for everyone, I am surprised at how much hate they are receiving on this site. D-Box has been around for the home market for over ten years and theatrically for at least two years. Their theatrical division is exploding as approx. 80 theaters have already installed this tech & it is growing.

Eventually after all the 3-D hype is over, 4-D, 5-D or whatever is next; virtual reality simulators in our living rooms that project full interactive images in our homes (god forbid); we will eventually come full circle and arrive at the beginning once again.... People will say, hey come outside and play catch, it's the latest thing. You'll love it. Eventually we will find the written word again, perform one act plays. By then, hopefully we'll all be cyborgs and not need entertainment. It will be just like Brave New World. Only worse. Still, I hope movies are never disposed of. There just so much fun and they remind us why we're human. That's the most important thing of all and has always been... Far more than the latest special effect of the week.

Want to put asses in the seats?

1. Display the picture properly.

2. Enforce a modicum of decorum.

...nailed it there!

I think technology is making us less active cerebrally in regards to our interaction with mediums such as movies, and training our neurons to be lazy mechanisms that require a gimmicky world in order to respond.

We have lost the time when we would walk out of a theatre with chills up and down our spine because we had engaged and had been fully entertained and affected by what he had just witnessed.

Our imaginations have retreated, and I don't believe we remember the purity of story, character and the life changing moments that a really amazing film can produce for a person.

I still remember vibrantly as a small child in the theatre, the moment E.T. was lying sick and ill in the tent...crying out Elliiooottttt...., rarely now do I feel this same effect.

It is too bad really, and I feel sorry that the human mind is at risk at evolving to the point where it needs external stimulus in order to interact, instead of imagination and individual thought to help create experiences.

Now that I've got a good tv and a Blu-Ray player, theatres seem to be giving me less and less reason to spend money for a ticket.

I think it's been ten years since I've gone to a movie and not been distracted by somebody's cellphone. I sit through twenty minutes of advertisements. Sometimes I have to find a manager to inform him that the film is showing in the wrong ratio.

The thought of paying an extra eight bucks to add a moving chair to the mix is laughable. Not in a good way.

And, I can't get the Captcha thing to work.

I saw this thing in action at a Harry Potter screening. A bald man in front of me kept rolling around, which was really distracting. I also kept expecting the chair to fail, and to start bumping and rolling at inappropriate moments in the film, like the death of a major character. It made the screening unintentionally funny.

I want a seat that will give me handjob during erotic scenes in cinema.

BTW I am REALLY surprised that they didn't invent movies that when you watch every few minutes you have to vote with your mobile phone of what will Jack do, where will he go and so on.

The only choice for a reasonably intelligent grown-up, I begin to feel, is to seek out what are called art or independent theaters, where the projection quality is likely to be more closely monitored, and the audience is likely to be civilized.

What a load of rubbish! Such is the worldview of a Film Snob -- "megaplex bad/arthouse good", "chain theater bad/indie theater good".

The closest arthouse to where I live is an indie theater with shoebox auditoriums, 35mm projection and analog sound (plus they're not aggressive at all on current releases). "Midnight in Paris" just opened in my area but the theaters playing it have it only in 35mm. Tomorrow I'm driving over an hour to see it the proper way ... in a chain-owned megaplex with digital projection and digital sound.

Smellovision Pt. 1

(...Carl Stalling sez, "It'll Never Work!") ;)

Aside from this just sounding terrible, wouldn't shifting you around mess with the 3D, since your eyes really need to be lined up horizontally. Tilt your head 45 degrees to the side, 3D doesn't work anymore. Shake yourself all over the place, and can you even tell it is 3D? You'll also be more likely to lose the glasses, and trying to pick them back up while being tossed around will be no fun, I guess you'll have to turn the intensity knob down and hunt for them. I say this ends shortly after someone's chair injures or kills someone that is looking for something they dropped on the floor. I'd almost be willing to sacrifice myself for this cause.

D-Box sounds like it has a great future as the answer to a very difficult trivia question.

Oh! movies that make you feel like you're moving along with the camera! Where did I hear about that? Oh, that's right! It was the original IMAX format!

If theatres want the level of immersion D-Box seems to promise, they should just start projecting more movies onto a true IMAX screen at 70mm.

This is a really cool thing at Disney World and Universal, but I walk into those attractions expecting outrageousness. And, those attractions are short. I can endure anything for five minutes. I hate, I mean HATE, 3D. But, you and I and people in my inner circle must be the only ones. It doesn't seem to
be going away. Why? I honestly don't see what the big deal is. It doesn't add ANYTHING to the movie. And I hate spending close to $20 per ticket for an amusement park gag, and not get the rest of the fun stuff you get in an amusement park. Not only that, but I never get the full 3D effect...I don't think I do, anyway. I guess it's because I have a bad stigmatism in one eye, but everytime I watch something in 3D, I feel like my eyes are crossing. I end up with a headache. I'll stick with 2D, reasonably-priced, non- migraine and nausea inducing movies.

Who is looking forward to D-box while watching Casablanca? I know I am !!!

I strongly prefer to see movies at chain theaters because none of the art house or independent theaters here have stadium style seating, and that makes a huge difference in my movie enjoyment. There are obviously movies that only go to the art house theaters that I have to see there, but when they do go to chains (AMC tries to show some) I'd rather see them there. I typically drive out to an AMC theater in the suburbs for after 10pm shows on Mon/Tue/Wed nights. Most of the time I am the only one in the theater. It's a great way to see movies. I love the theater too much to ever think about switching to only Netflix/dvd. I would suggest this method for anyone else having theater issues. :)

Also I think sequels/prequels are great when they're done well or even alright after a good movie. I've come to care about those characters and knowing more is a big plus in my book. I'm really sad that this is the last Harry Potter. :(

Roger, I'm twenty years old and I think I was born fifty years too late. I wish I could go back to the days where movies really meant something, when they weren't gimmicks or marketing ploys to sell across seas. I can't even imagine what seeing a movie at the theatres would have been like in an older era. Seriously, how the hell can anyone be more interested in a text message than the magic that can appear on screen?

Yes, I think the industry has hit a low, but there's still a lot of good going for us. With only three thousand dollars, my younger brother has bought all the equipment it'll take for us to make our own film -- something simple and authentic, something like Putty Hill. Three grand (and then some) is all it takes nowadays, which I think is great. With all the advancements in technology--for better or for worse--it's giving us all the more opportunities.

But what I mean to ask is this:

What are your thoughts on Martin Scorsese and Bernardo Bertolucci on their next films, which they plan on shooting in 3D? Or will you hold your mouth until you've seen them?

Epcot harbingers every cinematic doom: Honey, I Shrunk The Audience('s brain).

There are many obvious reasons why this is flawed, unnecessary, unwanted, and not fun. The one that concerns me most is subjectivity. We aren't supposed to be experiencing what these characters are, we're just observing. Thats how stories are supposed to be.

I'm in total agreement with you and I'm only 21, so this isn't just a generational difference. It was encouraging, however, to see mid-range budgeted and intelligent films like The Black Swan, The Social Network, and (though you weren't sold) The Fighter do excellent business. You're right about the lack of confidence within Hollywood; marrying a layered script with the talent that's certainly present in town often makes for an engaging product, and engaging products make money. Even a genre pic like The Town earned good notices because it was so well-done and, hey, it made a bundle. These films need no embellishment, no flourishes. I get the feeling that Hollywood promotes such additional theatrics (literally) to mask mediocre stories. Too bad.

They are abandoning you. Even at Sundance Madison I sometimes see idiots with their damn cell phones out. In a perfect world I could see a great film on a big screen, but I'll take a small screen without dummies over a big screen with them any day. I know that's harsh, but I'm fed up. You once said you'd sacrifice every video game--I'd sacrifice every mobile device and sleep well. Plus several drivers would survive their daily commute.

I whole hardily agree that d-box sounds awful, but I have to disagree on your view of 3D...Well, the future of 3D anyway.

I know it's not quite there yet. When particular technologies are first introduced they aren't quite where they should be. Think of the potentials 3D has, rather than how most of it makes you slightly nauseous with each new film churned out of Hollywood. nauseous. I know it'll continue like that for a while but I'm really excited how 3D will shape up in upcoming decades. People are going to keep trying to advance the medium until it's something beyond satisfactory. I keep wondering how the technology would fair in the hands of people like Aronofsky or Fincher. P.T. Anderson or Spike Jonze would have an amazing time playing around with perspective and what character the audience plays in watching the movie.

Again we're still gonna get crap like Marmaduke 3D, POTC6, the next Twilight movie, Alvin and the Chipmonks the Squeakquel part 2, Fantastic Four 3 and countless other awesome sounding blockbuster ideas that completely waste 3D. I'm going to stand behind 3D as something with a lot of potential, not necessarily the technology as it is today. These things take time, and 3D isn't the best it can be.

I saw Tangled in 3D a couple months back and it was an experience both exhilarating and headache inducing. While lots of the scenes were gorgeously animated, I had a problem with "I See the Light" and it's freakishly intense dimensional issues. Maybe there was a bad calculation in the film's transition over to 3D screens, but this scene was a clear example of getting skull-f***ed by the cinema. The colors and dimensions made me really dizzy, resulting in a raging headache that didn't pass for several hours.

It's clear we're gonna get a lot of horrible 3D movies, but I think the technology will improve as time goes on. I say just give it time.

Takes me back to 10th grade English when we read Brave New World. Ms. Ziegenfuss was so excited by the movies in that novel where the audience feels everything the film characters feel. She went into descriptive detail about feeling every hair of the bear skin rug on which the film characters rolled. That was twenty years ago and I remember it clear as yesterday. She was fantastic.

Anyway, I'm hoping that with chairs shaking and rumbling, movie patrons will be left unable to rustle through their popcorn bags, shake the ice out of their super-sized soda goblets, and crinkle candy wrappers.

"I also wonder what it would be like to watch a movie while seated next to bored kids entertaining themselves with their joy sticks."

You could always ask Pee Wee Herman.

I remember watching Empire Strikes Back as a boy, and when those snow speeders were zooming along looking for Luke Skywalker and Han Solo, the camera looking over the shoulder of the pilot as he went....uuuuppppp and....dowwwwnnn, uuuupppp and.....dowwwnnnn over those snow covered hills I felt like I was pulling the same g's in my seat. Awesome.

I also remember launching an entire box of candy skyward when that head floated out of the boat hole in Jaws. Scared the bejezzes out of me. I must jump 6 inches in the air from the force of sphincter contraction alone.

BTW - Excellent article on the main site (An Autumn Afternoon) about Ozu. Such a poignant life he had. I always wonder why it was that he and the lovely Setsuko Hara never married. I sense that there is a great tragic love story in there somewhere. Could you imagine an Ozu film in a D-Box theatre? The chair would remain utterly motionless, while your heart gets flung every which way by the story.

Here in Vancouver, one independent movie theatre is closing and another is for sale. We're also losing what's possibly the best video store in North America. I see a future in which only the most mainstream of content is available, save for a few films made for the small market of film festivals. It's depressing.

I don't know how couples can possibly make-out during a 3D movie.

I had friends who saw Pirates with the D-Box and 3D add-ons recently. It wasn't worth the extra money. D-Box particularly is an annoying, painful gimmick.

I can't resist sharing this timely Entertainment Weekly story on Austin's ALAMO DRAFTHOUSE.

http://popwatch.ew.com/2011/06/06/alamo-drafthouse-texting-video/#comment-1631512

At least ONE theater in America knows how to provide a superior movie-going experience.

I came across an essay by Willa Cather. I''m placing an excerpt from it below. Although Cather wrote it in 1920, I immediately thought about how it is related to Roger's complaints over the declining reliance on substance in the film-going experience for that which is merely novel--as in the case of the amusement park chair.

On the Art of Fiction

By Willa Cather

One is sometimes asked about the “obstacles” that confront young writers who are trying to do good work. I should say the greatest obstacles that writers today have to get over, are the dazzling journalistic successes of twenty years ago, stories that surprised and delighted by their sharp photographic detail and that were really nothing more than lively pieces of reporting. The whole aim of that school of writing was novelty—never a very important thing in art. They gave us, altogether, poor standards—taught us to multiply our ideas instead of to condense them. They tried to make a story out of every theme that occurred to them and to get returns on every situation that suggested itself. They got returns, of a kind. But their work, when one looks back on it, now that the novelty upon which they counted so much is gone, is journalistic and thin. The especial merit of a good reportorial story is that it shall be intensely interesting and pertinent today and shall have lost its point by tomorrow.

Art, it seems to me, should simplify. . .

This is a terrible invention...period. However, it would be interesting during a picture like 2002's "Irreversible." Haha!

Hollywood needs to take a page out of the foreign market's book. You don't need 3D or D-Box or crack-rocks to enjoy a decent film. I recently saw "I Saw The Devil" and it blew me away, without gimmicks. What more can you say?

Re. "I don't know how couples can possibly make-out during a 3D movie."

Answer: By paying extra at the door

Two thoughts cross my mind when I think of the new D-box chairs:

1. Will they self-destruct if I accidentally spill my drink on them?

2. Will they gain consciousness and choose to take over civilization? (And if that's the case, should these chairs be allowed to view any screenings of Terminator sequels or Kubrick flicks?)

Must I now fear for my life when I go to the movies?

I was going to post the link to the Alamo Drafthouse blog, but I see that somebody has already mentioned it. That blog post is now approaching 1000 comments, and the video they made is going viral. The vast majority of the comments on the blog and on youtube are from those who support the Alamo's policy of kicking out people who talk and text during the movie.

If theater owners really want to improve the movie-going experience, they don't need expensive D-box seats. Simply enforcing rules against talking, texting, and rude behavior while the movie is playing would do wonders. I am lucky to live in Austin and the Alamo is the only place I go see movies anymore, because they actually care. If the other big theater chains would adopt a similar policy, and enforce it, it would take away one of the major reasons people would rather stay home and watch a film on Blu-ray instead of going to a theater.

Roger I think you would appreciate the Drafthouse theaters in Texas, for the following reason:

http://cf.drafthouse.com/she_texted_we_kicked_her_out2.html

Your post brought back memories of this scene from "Kentucky Fried Movie": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCq_nzlou0Q -- this demonstrates what happens when you take these ideas to their logical conclusion.

Okay, I've got it! If the wiggle chair doesn't work out, here's a cheaper, better way to improve great films like "I Am Love" without breaking the bank: hire Tilda Swinton look-alikes to come in and smooch young men in the audience during the appropriate scenes.

Now, THAT has it all over a wiggling chair for sex scenes. And for safety's sake, post "Sexual solicitation strictly prohibited during movie" signs.

And I just figured out the future of 3D! You know on those google sattelite maps where you can go down to street level and turn the camera in any direction? Well, provide a toggler in every seat for a 3D movie so that when it gets boring, you can turn the camera to see if there's anything interesting going on someplace else.

Man, Roger. I'm gonna wanna live to be 104 after all, with techno-tainment like this in the offing.

Roger,

SCTV had it nailed... Do you remember Dr. Tongue (John Candy) and his line of cheap 3D films?
Here they took it one step further:
Dr Tongue's 3D House of Slavechicks (in Smell -O- Rama)
(Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CycgQmeWFeE)

Dave Thomas once said that SCTV could not work today, TV has become too much a parody of itself...

This reminds me a great deal of the banal "feelies" in Aldous Huxley's prophetic classic, Brave New World. It would appear that our culture's distraction with sensory over-stimulation, and the consequent apathy toward real art, has us headed toward the realization of Huxley's disturbing vision.

I can't see myself strapped into one of those things for a two hour movie–granted you wouldn't be gyrating the entire time (unless it's a Michael Bay film). Motion simulators work great on theme park attractions of a short duration. The new Star Tours at Disney is a 3D motion ride and a lot of fun but it's also highly tuned by the Imagineers for a very specific experience. I can't imagine these D-Box people can program every last blockbuster properly.

Hi Roger..
Hope you're well.

Thought you'd appreciate this story about a woman being removed from a theater for texting.

William

P.S. Still waitin' on my "Ebert Fine Film Criticism since 1967" t-shirt!!

I am honestly baffled by all the talk about dim lighted screens.

Here in Montreal, whenever I feel like going for a blockbuster I go to the Paramount theater on Ste-Catherine's street, I once stumbled upon a Box Office Mojo article which put that theater second for the highest grossing theater in North America, the first one being in Toronto and the third in NYC.

Maybe it is because they make so much money they don't need to be cheap when it comes to lighting the screen right but I never came upon a showing that was either dark or was lacking in contrast. So I pity then you fellow neighbors who have to endure such malpractices.

As for the D-Box, well at that theater they were experimenting with that technology as far back as 2002-03, way before the 3D came into play. Back then it was no more than a big vibrator underneath your fanny, it really felt like you were sitting on a giant pager that was set to vibrate.

The first (and only time) I realized I was sitting in a room with such seats was during a showing of Kill Bill, me and my buddy looked at each other, sighted, and proceeded to exchange our tickets for the next showing that was in a room with normal seats. The staff happily obliged with no questions asked.

Will this madness ever ends....!!!

Part of the comment that I lost earlier on had to do with The Chamber, a Fox network game show that went on the air about 10 years ago, give or take. Incredidibly, no one else who's commented here has mentioned it. I was certain when my original post was lost, that at least someone else would remember it, especially in the context of this blog.

Briefly, then: The Chamber was a small cubicle at center stage, in which a contestant would be strapped in (after first signing a waiver indemnifying Fox from liability in case anything went wrong). Before going in, the contestant would push a button to determine whether The Chamber would become Hot or Cold. Once inside, The Chamber would begin to move around - back and forth, side-to-side, rotating 360 degrees (meaning the contestant would be upside-down at some point), while the temperature inside would either rise (to 100 degrees or more) or drop (to Zero or below) - very slowly. Additionally, the chair inside The Chamber had little prickly things in the back to take your mind off the other things that were happening.
And while all this was going on, the contestant had to answer quiz questions - just like on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire, except you were being whirled, pricked and boiled/frozen while you answered. How much money was determined by (a) how many questions you answered correctly and (b) how long you were able to take The Chamber (there was a safe button in case you wanted to bail before the set time elapsed).
After seeing the first few minutes of this, I quickly popped a tape into my VCR to get most of the rest of it. I guess I felt that I would need proof. I may still have that tape somewhere around my place. One thing I do remember was one lady contestant who got Cold. When her game was finished, she had a thin layer of ice on one side of her face. I can't recall how the guy who got Hot ended up (perhaps mercifully). I seem to recall that both of them made use of the safe button.
The Chamber only ran for a few weeks, but it had one copycat show: ABC's The Chair, a not dissimilar device which put you through a like gauntlet of Q&A, with the added indignity of the MC being John McEnroe.
I think you can see why this D-Box thingy would make me remember this show, but what seeing it at the time made me recall was a Sid Caesar sketch from the'50s, a quiz spoof called "Break Your Brains". Carl Reiner was the MC, Sid was the contestant who had to answer elaborate questions while the air was being sucked out of the isolation booth.
I was a little kid then; I thought it was a joke. Little did I know ...

So now this technology comes to the modern movie theater.
Lucky old us.

Sometime soon, when I get some time off from the job, I really ought to go through my accumulated tapes and try to find The Chamber.
If only to prove to myself that I didn't just imagine it.
I wonder if any of it is on YouTube?

Roger :IMPORTANT (if off-topic)

My inability to link to things again bites me in the rear end.

At your first opportunity, go to a site called Criminal Brief.
If it isn't still Wednesday, scroll down to an entry called Tune IT Or Die! by Rob Lopresti.
You will find three embedded videos.
Watch all of them.
(Particularly the first one. But watch all of them.)
You can thank me later.

Ebert: It''s not rocket science. Copy the URL. Paste it. I went there, found no videos.

Why do only some comments get through? I've seen some pretty scathing responses to your blogs before that obviously went through, is there something I'm missing about having the honor of getting a comment I write posted on here (much less get a response from you)?

Ebert: I post virtually everything. Did you annoy the mindless spam filter?

It's all smiles until a chair tries to take off your pants.

Haven't read all the comments yet, so I may be repeating, but D-Box has been available (though few have it) at home for a long time. Some DVDs have D-Box tracks on them for use with chairs and actuators for home cinema setups. Others have tracks you can download from the company. See the D-Box (.com) website for details.

If anything, I'd say this is bringing something from home into the cinemas rather than the other way around. People who like this sort of thing would probably rather do it with no one watching.

I don't know anyone who actually has a D-Box rig, but I'm sure you could check in at AVSForum and find some. I do know that I have several DVDs that list D-Box as a feature on the back of the package. One is Saw III. Few, if any, are in the Criterion Collection.

After seeing your insulting reply to last comment, my initial reaction was to respond in kind.
However, since I try to avoid using that kind of language in this venue, I decided to give your suggestion a try.
First off, let me remind you that I do this on my office computer, because I don't have one at home.
When I pushed the Edit button, I noticed that the Copy, Cut, and Paste all appeared in a gray typeface, as opposed to the various other functions elsewhere.
This made me suspect the answer, but to be certain I tried various other functions that were in black typeface.
My deduction: for whatever reason (most likely my comparatively low status as an employee), I am not allowed to do Copying, Cutting, or Pasting.
I think this probably ties to my company IT's bar against Twitter, Facebook, and the like. Websense blocks these functions as "Social Networking." I'm guessing here that to send something not strictly work-related would fall under this bar.
I know that often ads on certain sites are being blocked by Websense for various reasons, without losing the site itself.
Your little blue Twitter box still appears, but the Twitter site is itself blocked.
So there's one possible answer.

As to the dreaded URL:
Back somewhere I said that URLs lwere "a mile-long string of letters/numbers/symbols that look like comic-book profanity".
Many times I've tried to replicate URLs that you used instead of actual links to things, and l get nowhere.
lt might be simply my decIining eyesight, or it may be frustration at having to type gibberish in order to find something.
When you're typing a string of letters, how exactly do you distinguish between an upper-case 'I' (as in Indiana) and a lower-case 'l' (as in Llewellyn)?
Maybe your machine has serif capability; mine does not.
As l've been typing this, l've been switching back and forth, typing small 'l's for capital 'I's and vice versa. If you have serifs, you'll see where l did the trade-offs; if not it'II aIl look normal, as it does to me right now.
That's not the only problem I have with URLs, but it's the easiest one to demonstrate.

OK. I just hit Preview, and sure enough, there are teeny-tiny serifs on the lower-case 'l's, and since the preview typing box employs a completely different typeface, the 'l's, the'I's, and the '1's all look distinguishable.
But that is not the case elsewhere on this site, or on many others.
In any case, for me, URLs are aII but useless.
If I were a cockney, I'd say they make me 'url.

Anyhow, in the interest of preserving our friendship(?), permit me to try to put you together with those videos I mentioned last night.

(1) The full title of the website is Criminal Brief: The Mystery Short Story Web Log Project.
This site is written in rotation by a small core of good mystery writers, one of whom is named Rob Lopresti.

(2) Mr. Lopresti's weekly contribution carries the general title Tune It Or Die!, appearing most Wednesdays.

(3)In yesterday's installment, entitled "Triple Feature", Mr. Lopresti included the three videos I referred to in my comment.
I checked back this morning, and they are all still there, and still working.
Hey, Roger - you don't suppose that maybe, just maybe ... you made the mistake?

Well, that's it. My instructions are as clear as I could possibly make them, even if they aren't so technically savvy. I may not be allowed to Copy, Cut, or Paste, and I may never figure out URLs, but I had no trouble re-finding the site or the videos this morning.
And frankly, Roger, neither should you.
After all ... this isn't Rocket Science. :-P

Ebert: I didn't intend to be insulting. I thought maybe you didn't know. I didn't think of another possible reason.

Ah yes- the ubiquitous "computer error" - like bigfoot, it exits in usage but not in fact. Computers do not make errors nor is a filter mindless. The filter is set up with specific words or phrases to identify, not by random generation but by detailed human selection and input. I am one of those posters who responses must have "annoyed" the filter- the responses have generally identified and discussed a threat to our culture which liberals have chosen to ignore and deny! A "spam filter" is just another word for suppression of free speech- Roger, you are either easily misled or an apologist for an administration that needs to be exposed for the evil that it is- or you may feel that this site is not appropriate for political and cultural discussion. However posting opinions such as your comments about the 1%ers opens up the threads to informative responses of opposing thoughts.

Tell Janet, dammit: How it is virtually impossible for TSA to X-ray those of US who are riding the Cain Train!
Allelujah, brotha!

Dear Roger,

I have just bought a book of crosswords. I enjoy it. Do you do crossword puzzles? I sort of wish that they would give me energy, like an energy drink or something. I think I need more energy.

I wish I could go through my window and stay afloat on the wind. I could spend forever being tossed about by gusts. Wouldn't that be something? To be the man known only by his occupation of gust floater? I'd like to be the gust floater. Gust floater the great! Maybe I could be something like that.

I've always wanted to live in the desert, though. Are there many gusts in the desert? Can I be a desert gust floater? Would police get suspicious of someone who seems to be so light that gusts can raise him into the air? I'd want that sort of power over people. I'd need like a staff too. Or a cloak. Or a shoe horn that I could throw at naysayers. Though I might be throwing at a lot of horses. Badum-ching.

I think a shoe-horn is a good weapon to have for no reason other than it's immaculate originality. Can originality be immaculate? What qualifies things as immaculate or not? I ask you because you're the critic. You're the judge. You're the ruler. You own the keys to the city. I am just the poor boy who pounds on the glass, begging to be let in. And when the crowd dies down, I sit in the middle of street singing "times is hard" while the snow finds bedding on my hair and shoulders, and slush seems to be not only on the street but on my hands and in my socks.

I am lying in bed now. I was thinking about making up a story about me swallowing the completed crossword pages just to feel the buldge of paper trudge through my intestines. I figured you would think that mighty pretentious. I was trying to think of a metaphor for the paper in the intestines with the image of a fist doing something, but I failed.

As for these chairs, doesn't it seem kind of like an erotic act? Joy-stick in-hand? What is a penis but a joy-stick? A fleshy joy-stick whose purpose is pleasure and less important things. I think that's something Dorian gray would have said. He was very much into pleasure, you know. He should have spread that pleasure around, though. Maybe rub a few cats, parakeets? That made me laugh. I am unsure if I should write when something makes me laugh. I'm really cracking up as I write this. I find myself hilarious. I really do! And I know how that sounds but it's the bloody truth. Yes, the bloody, wounded truth.

Im beginning to find things to be absurd. I havent seen the tree of life, but from what ive gathered, it is sort of a straightforward, tell-all photograph of how absurd life is. Life really is absurd. I find so many things to be absurd. I find it absurd that people bother doing anything during the day. I find it absurd that I have spent a good 7 years of my life thinking about 1 year. I find it absurd that my only and thus best friend is either a paranoid schizophrenic or a liar. How often does that happen? It is quite interesting.

Is this comment self-indulgent? Do you think? Hmm? I hope not. I just wanted to share some thoughts. If Henry miller isn't self-indulgent then this isn't. Can blog comments be self-indulgent, anyways? What the hell do I care.

I figured Id post this because I've had an urge for awhile now to tell an intelligent person my thoughts. I figured my thoughts are always welcome here. It is unfortunate, though, that I don't really know any intelligent people but my lying or schizophrenic best friend. I only see him maybe once a week because he works dos jobs-- tis the problem. When I do see him I try to get everything out. He says I'm the most entertaining person he's ever met. I once heard someone say that about ee cummings. I'll then assume I'm the next ee cummings. But I won't be a racist. t'Was a humour causer, or otherwise known as a joke.

This was good. I feel like I really let a lot out. I'm trying to think of a good metaphor for something pouring. Rain is a cliche. Soup is a cliche. Really any liquid. Perhaps tea? Very well. This stuff sometimes pours out of me like tea being poured from a kettle. That's awful, I think.

Well, its's 509 am, so goodnight! I was up all night watching YouTube videos of conan and ol' Chrissy hitchens and one of bertie Russell. Good stuff! This was fun, though I think it started out a bit rough. I am going to wait until the afternoon to post this.

indeed!
Luke

Just so you know, they are releasing this on blu-ray as well. You can get D-BOX adapters to go on your chair/couch. A friend of mine installed one he got cheap in his theater room under the sofa. After one movie, he stopped using it unless a guest wanted to check it out.

If they want a gimmick, do only over 21 screenings. I also like the idea of the booze and leather seats. Booze could cause bathroom break issues though. I've drank at a drive in though and didn't have a problem.

D-Box might work for Earthquake & Transformers 2 but why would I want to see The Kings Speech in those things?

I just hope we're not going to a future where only big budget action movies can be shown in mainstream theaters. It's a drama? Oh no, we're not showing that, it's not in 3D and it can't use our fancy chairs.

Over the years, many promoters have tried to attract audiences to their schlock movies with distractions such as odors, vibrations, waiting ambulances, and of course, 3D. That was fun at $2 a ticket, but $16? No way! I'm retired on a fixed income, and I stopped visiting movie theaters some years ago as ticket prices rose and because of the super-loud soundtracks, the grainy images, poor projection, and the nauseating smell of the oil they put on the popcorn. Plus the fact that many films were mostly about computer-generated effects. Nowadays I'm visiting my local library for DVDs and reading books again.

I know that some filmmakers still make movies with real people, and I urge my library to stock them.m25fkz

Aye. I meant laughter causer.

This looks familiar...oh yes! I remember something like this was explored in the movie, "matinee."

"The three boys of the O'Brien family are browned by the sun, scuffed by play, disturbed by glimpses of adult secrets, filled with a great urgency to grow up and discover who they are."

I know this has nothing to do with the content of this particular page, Roger, but I just wanted to say that, damn, you craft some beautiful sentences that capture wonderful thoughts.

Watched your show in the 70s while I was a kid in Boston and read your blog as a middle-aged guy in Australia. I work now as a high school English teacher. Thanks for the lessons.

It was amusing when promoters used gimmicks like vibrating seats, aromas, and ambulances standing by to attract audiences for their schlock. But that was when a ticket cost a dollar or so. At 16 or 18 bucks, there's no way I'll be in attendance. I'm retired on a fixed income, and since prices have gone up, soundtracks have gotten louder, prints grainier, and theater lobbies reek of whatever oil they pour over the popcorn, my movie-going relies on DVDs from my local library (which conveniently also provides books and a polling place for local elections).

Roger, D-Box seats could be made really useful with one additional feature. They should drop into the floor like a hatch to dump rude patrons who talk or text on their cells.

Movie theaters abandoned us long ago. I love DVD and streaming, because I can control the experience. I don't pay exorbitant prices and take the chance on dim projection, loud patrons, or cell phone lights. There was that recent viral audio of the dumb girl ejected from a theater who left an angry voicemail angry about how she was treated. She was dumb, inconsiderate, and hilarious, and we all had a good laugh at the nitwit's expense.

What's less funny is that the behavior of that theater is not the norm. It's reasonable for that girl to be surprised by her ejection for that behavior, because I have personally NEVER seen it enforced at a theater, and I go to a lot of movies. I bet it's because theaters, knowing how omnipresent smart phones have become, are afraid of alienating a large chunk of their customer base (people with smart phones). But the theater that ejected the obnoxious texter has the right idea. They used her angry voicemail as an ad, and if that theater were in my city, they'd be getting my business, and I bet I'm not alone.

But instead of fixing these easily fixable problems (eject or at least reprimand for bad behavior, block cell phone signals in theaters, uphold projection standards), we get expensive gimmicks: 3D and interactive seats. No thank you. I still go to movies in theaters, but more and more I wait for the DVD so I can see the movie my way.

Re: Jeffrey's comment: "*sigh*... Guess it's time to just bite the bullet and build that home theater in the basement with the biggest screen possible and great sound and never again have to put up with this kind of nonsense."

Amen, brother. I've been developing my home theater for the past few years, replete with 58" plasma and a set of Martin Logans that I'd make love to if they were human. I learned that if I want to see a film without the distractions from today's mindless and inconsiderate audiences, then I have to see it from the comfort of my couch. Now I go to a theater only on the very rare occasion...when I absolutely cannot wait for Blu-ray. I hope you have some idea of how much this saddens me.

wowzers i'm just LOVING all the innovation in cinema these days!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwo-JkfRGuE&feature=related

I think that you might find this interesting. It is a short video. Mind the headbanging music.

The more I think about that video I posted, the more stupid it seems. If you watch/have watched it, I apologize for the waste of time.

Apologies for this not being about this particular blog entry but,

I just want to say that I never meant to insult anyone on this blog when I did, but I only did it because they're minds were asleep out of habit and I falsely allowed myself to believe that I might be able to get through past their asleep world by engaging in it, which only understands fighting and mind-shut down by cheetos or whatever other literal or figurative junk food, such as brain junk food, to kind work from the inside out....but, of course, big cheeto, or big bucket-o-chickened out, plus only understanding of fighting does not make one look like quite the tasty cheeto

Wow, so many negative comments from people who have not actually tried these. You sound like my kids who are just certain they won't like food they have never had.

I have owned a D-BOX system since 2002. Yes, they have been around THAT long, so don't expect them to disappear in a couple months. Over 900 feature films have been encoded to work for their system.

3 months after getting my D-BOX system, I went to Disneyland and rode Star Tours. I was disgusted at how horrible that ride was compared to what I had at home. The amusement park ride had a tremendous amount of displacement and no finesse - the opposite of the D-BOX systems. Recently, Disney renovated Star Tours and I went and checked it out. While it was much better than before, it still fell far short of the D-BOX system. I was able to get the pod race scene at the park and I have the pod race programmed from Episode 1 at home. The home system on D-BOX was far superior to what they have at Disney still.

This is NOT an amusement park ride and for the love of Pete, it isn't smell-o-vision. Sure, it isn't moving all the time, much like a subwoofer isn't pumping out bass 24/7. It is on when it is warranted. Most people who have mentioned to me that it was distracting when I spoke with them about it were actually trying to focus on the seat to see what it does. I told them to ignore the seat and focus on the film and suddnely, it wasn't distracting any more. As a side note, people originally said surround sound was distracting and it was even said about the original talkies.

You actually might not like it, but as a reporter, you really do owe it to yourself and your readers to actually experience something before you bash it. You should also try it with an open mind.

For the record, the first 3D movie was NOT "Bwana Devil." That honor goes to "The Power of Love"(1922). This silent classic was filmed in the 'anaglyph process,' which was later said to have caused headaches. I cannot confirm since there are no existing prints or extant contemporary reviews of the movie available. Nor, I assume, is there a single person above ground who experienced "The Power of Love" firsthand. So my research for this comment has been limited. It did however star Noah Berry, whose son, Noah Berry Jr., was the great James Garner's dad on "The Rockford Files."

Please Roger for the love of all that is still good and honorable in this world, write a blog on THE TERRIBLE new Netflix design.

Perhaps you chiming in with, what is seemingly the majority, they'll pay a bit more attention and put it back.

I have faith in your powers.

Smell-O-Vision might have been effective if it could have been properly implemented. Our olfactory senses are our most evocative, since they connect directly to our memory, providing no opportunity for intellectual processing of the input. That's why an aroma from childhood can stop you in your tracks in the midst of whatever you may be doing.

I realize this is a little late, but I only just read this post. Skimming the first paragraphs, I couldn’t believe you were endorsing the D-Box! Of course, reading the article thoroughly, I stand corrected.

I don’t have anything particularly insightful to add, just my own experiences with poor projection and 3D. Before I started reading your blog (I’ve read your reviews for a long time), I wondered why films in the theater looked so dismal. It was most noticeable when I went to see The Dark Knight. The projection was so dim and the color so washed out Heath Ledger’s hair looked its normal color, if a bit dirty. Imagine my surprise when, watching it on DVD on an old TV, it turned out to be green. For the second, the only 3D film I’ve seen is Legend of the Guardians, last autumn, with family. It was blurry and distracting, and it didn’t add anything (although I didn’t like the film, anyway). This, I was told later, was good 3D. In that case, I’ll pass on the rest. While it’s fun to go to the theater, for me at least it’s also not worth it anymore. I think I’ve only been to one movie this year.

Oh, not the most important thing, but is the mention of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part One supposed to say Two?

Cheers!

John in Denver:

It's Monday and I'm cranky. Apologies in advance.

It's Noah Beery Sr. and Jr.
The brother and nephew, respectively, of Wallace Beery, of whom you may also have heard.

*from one show-off to another* ;-)

I never mentioned the friend's service on Netflix, the new design though is terrible.

I doubt I'll become a "laughing stock" when you can do a 5 second search regarding the topic and see that I'm certainly not the only one who feels it's a terrible design. Go ahead, I'll wait. Google.com is your friend!

I know Roger is a fan of the NF service so I was hoping he'd chime in with a blog about it. It's an absolutely terrible design and clearly made to hide content changes. Not to mention the details page where you can read reviews is practically hidden with the only access to it being a "click for more info" after holding your cursor over a thumbnail.

God awful design, plain and simple. I posted here because it's the only effective way I have to contact Roger and plead that he post a blog about it :)

Ebert: I tweeted about it.

About ten years ago I realized that the quest for the perfect home theater setup was not only fruitless--every year something bigger/better/sharper/whatever comes along--but also distracting (more so than pesky audience members or bad prints or creaky seats) from the pleasures of moviegoing. Do you recall that scene in Picture Bride in which a traveling benshi (Japanese film narrator who would describe and even act our scenes from the film being watched: http://aboutjapan.japansociety.org/content.cfm/a_brief_history_of_benshi) sets up a makeshift screen in a sugar cane field and shows a samurai movie? The icing on the rice cake: The benshi is played by Toshiro Mifune.

And as for the "home theater": We were the first of our friends to get married while in grad school, so for a while acted as the official grownups: hosted Thanksgiving, made fried-egg sandwiches at 4:00 am for bar-weary buddies, organized movie nights. A friend had given us a color TV as a wedding present, 13" of diagonal bliss. We pumped early HBO into that sucker, and I still cherish the memory of seven or eight of us huddled around that postmodern little campfire, singing along with the early-'80s HBO theme song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGPRWePIUUI&feature=related), waiting to watch The Onion Field or Blazing Saddles for the umpteenth time.

(And let's not even get into the lovefest that is an Ebertfest audience--year before last, someone got to stay for the late show because Chaz announced they needed a ride, and friendly strangers offered downhome help.)

Keep your shaky-seats and deep-o-vision, your subwoofed lovers and plasma-schmasma. I'll take a shoulder-to-shoulder evening with my favorite crunching, sipping, yelping, laughing fellow-species.

My friend saw Super 8 via D-Box this past weekend. He was telling me about it, how awesome the experience was, and how at one point he thought he was going to fly out of his chair. I was all like, "What?"

Wow, I just can't believe I have read through this, but I just couldn't help it. I went to see Fast Five in D-box a few weeks ago with some friends. We had no clue about D-box and decided to give it a go. It was pretty good. I was quite surprise by the quality and details we were getting from these things. I don't like 3D for a few reasons, but mainly because I wear glasses.

Have you ever been to a movie where people applaud, I mean c'mon Fast five isn't about acting, it's about flippin the switch off and enjoying an action movie... I don't remember the last time I went to see a movie and people applaud at the end of the show, well half of the folks in the D-box rows did which I thought was funny.

Now I go through this painful blog, where almost all of you bash on something you haven't tried. Not suited for every type of movies I agree, but certainly worth it for action pack ones... like transformers for instance.

I'll be going again...

Ok,

Sorry Roger for continuing to reply on this topic. I suppose I should tweet this to you.

But for any of you who use chrome, someone made a quick browser addon to get back the original layout for Instant view:
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ngacmlmclfopgbnmefcffgbcjiafbfpo?hl=en-US#

I'm using it now and it's exactly as advertised. I can sort my lists and browse just like nothing changed again.

Ebert: Tweeting!

I'd try a D-Box movie in 3D once (if I had the option, which I do not) just for the sheer hell of it, but certainly not as a first viewing. And not exactly in a packed theatre and there's only one D-Box seat and I'd get the feeling you'd feel like a bit of a tool.

Mid-week matine show, about 3 weeks after 3D Blockbuster XYZ comes out just to see what it'd be like.

Another thing in this article Roger mentions is VOD and day-and-date DVD release, which I do not think is a good model for the aforementioned 3D Blockbuster XYZ film but, let's get down to brass tax, as much as people talk about the sanctity of the arthouse theatrical experience, there simply are not that many options out there for people to actually go to what they would call an "arthouse" theatre. But I totally supporting VOD and DVD releases for movies like Tree of Life, Greatest Movie Ever Sold, and Midnight in Paris, all 3 movies that are currently out that I simply can not see where I live. That is the VOD I can totally get behind to share the experience.

reply to Mike Doran(Lowbrow Crank)

Sir, i do take umbrage at your allegation that i am a show-off. i do however cringe every time i see one of my typoes. And by the way, did you know Wally Beery was an assistant elephant trainer for the Ringling Brothers Circus in 1902? For real.

The Starplex in Normal is my usual theater of convenience (just a mile from my house). We went there this past weekend to watch "Thor" (in 2D, thank you), and I saw they had set up a demo of these D-box seats in the lobby. I literally said out loud "I'd love to hear what Roger has to say about these." Thanks for obliging!

They had this at the biggest theatre in St. Louis for a while in which one of 1 theatres was D-Box and now it is gone and so is the loby display. You would think if they wanted to get people to see what it was like they would have charged a reasonable price instead of more than an IMAX 3D ticket. I am surprised to see this is still around and being promoted as something new and exciting when it was ripped out all the way in St. Louis about 1 year ago with no afterthought. Nick

Roger,

You seem to enjoy other writer's work. Below is a link to Bill Simmons, a sports columnist for ESPN that blends sports, pop culture, and comedy together about as well as anyone. He writes here on Hollywood, Movie Stars, and the decline of 'good movies.' Enjoy.

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/6716942/page/2/the-movie-star