The Official "Use of Screenz" Thread

[GAcoaster]

AMC buys and maintains their own projection equipment. It will have no effect on the Cineplex.

 

[ThreePack Shagur]

I don't understand if that's supposed to be contradictory to what I posted?
Yes, I understand AMC's projectors. Thank you.

I was meaning that if I were a projector manufacturer with a multimillion dollar deal for my products to be used in theme parks, I wouldn't want my competitor's version of my most recognizable product to be used in the shopping mall that park guests are forced to walk through before reaching their destination.

I understand that most of the time they're not the same types of projectors used in theaters and in the parks, but when people think projectors they think movies.

 

[quinnmac000]

Well we complain about screenz and 4D and simulator attractions...it seems its actually being cherished and becoming even more so popular..

Maybe universal was on the right track with this one
Moving on Up: 4D and motion seats are gaining more traction | Film Journal International

 

[belloq87]

Well we complain about screenz and 4D and simulator attractions...it seems its actually being cherished and becoming even more so popular..

Maybe universal was on the right track with this one
Moving on Up: 4D and motion seats are gaining more traction | Film Journal International

But here's the rub... if these things one day become so commonplace that even your local multiplex eventually has a variation of one, what's the incentive to pay a theme park premium to experience them?

This is why a good balance/variety of park offerings is paramount.

 

[Red Carpet]

The more movie theaters become like theme park attractions, the harder it is for theme parks to impress with a screen based attractions.

 

[shiekra38]

Once movie theaters pull off something like Transformers, Gringotts or Spiderman let me know

 

[Mike S]

Once movie theaters pull off something like Transformers, Gringotts or Spiderman let me know

Or Kong.

At the theater you're still just an observer of the story even with all this 4D stuff. On theme park rides like these you're part of the story.

 

[RevFreako]

Well, now I know while I'll be more active on these forums in 2017.

I'm bummed, man. Literally found out about this on this forum. Here I thought it was just because F&F was delayed.

Good for Christie I suppose. I hope their technicians are as well trained as Dolby's.

Wait, what did I miss? Are you back?

 

[Mad Dog]

Or Kong.

At the theater you're still just an observer of the story even with all this 4D stuff. On theme park rides like these you're part of the story.

Especially when something goes "horribly wrong".

 

[Mike S]

So my cousin came back from Universal. She told me that she loved it but there is too much 3D. Two things that stood out as her favorite things from what I asked her over the phone were the beginning of Gringotts and the Kong AA. Those were her favorite parts of those rides (honestly, mine too). She loved Mummy too. Didn't like Shrek though. She also joked about how all the rides end with you saving the day and why can't it once be like you suck and fail at life

That's all I got.

Out of all the "screenz" attractions I say Shrek and Terminator need to go at some point after Nintendo to bring more of a balance to USF.

 

[belloq87]

Out of all the "screenz" attractions I say Shrek and Terminator need to go at some point after Ninyendo to bring more of a balance to USF.

Shrek for sure needs to go, and be replaced by a dark ride of some kind.

As for T2, I think it's still the best 3D show at any theme park, so I'd be a little sad to see it go. Let's replace Fear Factor with something interesting before training our sights on Arnie.

 

[bob albert]

Those 4D motion seats in major theaters are going to be a money grubbing fad that will go away after everyone tries it out once. People have complained about how awful it is to sit through a movie this way once the novelty wears out. I love ride experiences in chunks that have motion synced to screens, but I wouldn't want to be jolted every time batman gets punched for two hours. I could see VR as the future of film as it feels like a new experience, not a gimmick.

 

[belloq87]

I could see VR as the future of film as it feels like a new experience, not a gimmick.

I think as the future of narrative, cinematic storytelling, VR will have some extreme limitations, and will require too much of its audience to keep up and stay focused. In a movie, if you need the audience paying attention to some important plot point or piece of information, you direct their attention to those things through camerawork and editing choices. In VR, we could be looking anywhere we want, and miss crucial action or information. And frankly, the appeal of the cinema (for me), is being taken in by talented filmmakers and given a vision of something. It's the director saying, "Okay, now I'm really going to show you something." I don't particularly want to interact with that in a "choose your own adventure" kind of way, I want the artist to deliver his/her vision the way he/she intends it.

I do think VR is 100% the future of gaming, but not narrative film.

 

[quinnmac000]

I do think VR is 100% the future of gaming, but not narrative film.

Don't go there yet. Last year, I saw this amazing short called Henry which was made for VR and it was amazing. The thing is you need directors who know how to create a VR film and who know that you need at least 270 degrees of action to take place as thats what most people will notice and look at.

 

[MrRoamer]

Forcing people to look where you want them is actually pretty simple. While I was in college, one of my focuses was on indirect control. This is something used in all theme parks, gaming, movies, and even more ho hum applications.

 

[belloq87]

I don't know, maybe it's the film major in me, but too much participation from the audience, and it's not really a movie anymore; it's some other form of storytelling that's probably closer to a game.

I'm not saying there can't be some incredible and cinematic VR experiences, but I don't see its possible film application being anything more than a novelty for a long, long time. I'm all for people experimenting with the form and with storytelling, but I don't want to live in a world where the more traditional movie experience goes away.

 

[ThreePack Shagur]

Wait, what did I miss? Are you back?

Yep I'm just back to being a regular nobody.

 

[Parkscope Joe]

I think as the future of narrative, cinematic storytelling, VR will have some extreme limitations, and will require too much of its audience to keep up and stay focused. In a movie, if you need the audience paying attention to some important plot point or piece of information, you direct their attention to those things through camerawork and editing choices. In VR, we could be looking anywhere we want, and miss crucial action or information. And frankly, the appeal of the cinema (for me), is being taken in by talented filmmakers and given a vision of something. It's the director saying, "Okay, now I'm really going to show you something." I don't particularly want to interact with that in a "choose your own adventure" kind of way, I want the artist to deliver his/her vision the way he/she intends it.

I do think VR is 100% the future of gaming, but not narrative film.

VR also raises questions about how filmmaking is done (can't do normal scene transitions) and even Jeff Gerstman from Giant Bomb is peddling back from him wanting to be in VR all the time to thinking it's mostly a hassle.

 

[belloq87]

VR also raises questions about how filmmaking is done (can't do normal scene transitions) and even Jeff Gerstman from Giant Bomb is peddling back from him wanting to be in VR all the time to thinking it's mostly a hassle.

You'd almost have to be locked into real-time scenarios, or have really clunky "blackout" type transitions to jump to another point in time. Logistically, how you'd plot out the narrative could be taxing.

 

[OLSinFLA]

UGH, I had another of those "well you can go to a movie theater..." people. So forgive the following (long) rant as I explain WHY you wont be seeing stuff like these at the movies...

Spiderman (and more so Transformers) use highly curved screens to give the illusion of forward momentum. Theaters tried this in the 50s and 60s with Cinerama, which used a 146 degree curved screen. The effect is the brain interprets this as motion, as anyone who attended a screening of "This Is Cinerama" can attest to (it opened with a famous roller coaster sequence that terrorized half the patrons). This effect generally requires stationary or very little movement, which is why the cars stop in Spiderman in the finale and so much in Transformers.

Kong, besides using two very large multi-projection screen, is shown as 60 fps. Above a certain frame rate the mind also goes into a mode thinking its real. Douglas Trumbull attempted this with ShowScan, a 70mm 70fps projection system. However due to the cost of using 70mm, the idea was reduced to being used in theaters attached to Chuck E Cheese. Recently Peter Jackson attempted to bring the idea back with his 48fps "Hobbit" films - however using digital instead of film produced the hyper-real 'Soap Opera' TV effect.

Simpsons uses an OmniMax screen, which can indeed be found at your local science center. None of those are going to install motion bases.

Probably the closest you can get to what theaters do is Shrek and Despicable Me (although DM projection system is superior to almost all theaters).

Terminator combines 3 70mm projectors with live action and in theater effects. Not coming to your local cineplex.

Forbidden Journey combines mini-Omnimax screens, moving vehicles, and sets and animatronics.

Gringotts also combines screens, moving dark ride vehicles, and a huge multi-projector finale covering a vast screen.

And finally, with the exception of Shrek and T2, all the 3D use wavelength multiplex visualization, rather than polarization like your local Real 3D Cinema. While it produced a sharper, brighter image and doesn't require special screens, it is also way way WAY more expensive to install, and the glasses are very pricy. So unless you can find a Dolby 3D theater near you (good luck!), thats not happening at your local cinema as well.

So while they are all screen-based, they are all NOT the same technique and are designed to fulfill a specific requirement of the attraction.

Sorry for the rant