Spielberg Resistant to Digital Theatre Transition?
Here’s kind of a weird story that would seem to contradict the news we heard yesterday about Dreamworks doing a 3-D Ghost in the Shell movie and Steven Spielberg’s enthusiasm for the project. As more and more digital 3-D films head into production, there is mounting pressure on theatre owners to upgrade their facilities in order to be able to accommodate this new technology. They are scrambling to make this happen in time for the wave of 3-D flicks that are looming in 2009, however, they have been encountering a few obstacles along the way. One problem is that no one has been able to agree on how the cost of this transition will be split between studios and theatre owners. However, the other roadblock, surprisingly enough, is Steven Spielberg and next month’s release of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.
How is this a problem, you ask? Well apparently Spielberg has been adamantly against showing the new Indiana Jones movie on digital screens. While Paramount have gone behind his back and agreed to release a few digital versions, there are still many theatres that won’t upgrade their equipment for fear of being unable to have enough screens showing what could very well be the year’s biggest blockbuster.
Current industry estimates say that 4,000 to 6,000 digital screens will be required in order to handle next year’s 3-D onslaught, but currently only about 1,000 theatres are outfitted with the new tech. This has caused John Fithian, president of the National Association of Theatre Owners, to warn of a “potential train wreck” ahead. What do you think, will the digital movie revolution actually play out as they are predicting? And is Spielberg right to keep the Indiana Jones pure and non-digital?
Comments (9)
I think it’s a good sign that somebody like Steven Spielberg can have a say in what happens with his movie. I guess it would take a brand like his to get the opinion heard.
I don’t really care either way. I have seen a couple of films digitally (Sunshine was the latest I think, or maybe they just stopped putting the label on the listings), and to be honest, after 5 minutes it doesn’t matter if you’re watching film, a dvd projection or a digital copy. There are some examples of film being hard to watch because it’s old and deteriorated, but with new releases, I hardly have an issue. I do feel however, that the whole idea of digital anything is cold and unromantic. I find the idea of actual film way more appealing than a harddrive. There is a limit to my abilities to visualize abstract concepts I guess, I definitely will say that I much prefer something tangible.
It’s probably inevitable, because it can save money for the capitalists, but the most important thing I think, is an artist (or in this case a popular craftsman) standing up for his product and making sure he decides what happens to it. That is a good thing, no matter if his decisions are dumb or smart.
Posted by Henrik on April 16th, 2008Henrik nailed it. Unless told otherwise, I very rarely find myself thinking “Hey, this isn’t a 16mm print!” – this only seems to be an issue with the arthouse movies I see around here. For major releases, it hardly matters.
At this rate, someone is going to have to buckle because the onslaught of digital is on the horizon and upgrading now or in 5 years could mean the end of entire chains if they decide not to upgrade. It seems to me like they’re just quibbling about the cost of the upgrade, not actually the decision to go digital.
Posted by Marina on April 16th, 2008Analog rules!!! I’m with Spielberg, can we not turn EVERYTHING into pixels? some stuff fine…but nothing has the “look” of film.
Posted by Bob the Slob on April 16th, 2008Film is dead. Long Live HD!
Posted by theman on April 17th, 2008I feel like Spielberg’s aversion to having Indy 4 released in digital is less an aversion to the digital itself than it is wanting to keep the film in line with the same film-history aesthetic he used for the first three where they *look* like older (film) movies despite the fact that they were made in the eighties. It’s like how Scorsese wanted to use the old school 4:3 ratio sized film for The Aviator but the studio wouldn’t let him, so instead he opted for making the reference to the era being depicted on screen via the way the film was coloured. (Although of course Scorsese is a staunch film restoration guy, so I don’t think he’s necessarily going to be going digital any time soon.) For a guy like Spielberg, who has worked significantly and extensively with CGI, I don’t think he really has a problem with digital on a philosophical level, he just has a problem with it for this movie.
Posted by Liz on April 17th, 2008Well Liz, unless I have missed the announcement, Steven Spielberg is still having his editor edit on film! He has stated in interviews that he will be the last person on earth to still edit of film if necessary, he won’t let go of walking into the editing room and seeing his editor sitting in a chair with film all over the room and floor. So if he’s against cutting on an avid, I think he is against shooting on a harddrive as well.
Posted by Henrik on April 17th, 2008Okay, you could be right.
Posted by Liz on April 17th, 2008It is weird though, considering he’s such good friends with Lucas. And I thought I heard something about how he was using computers to shoot War of the Worlds really quickly too.
Posted by Sean on April 17th, 2008There was a story that in order to shoot War of the Worlds fast enough, he mapped out any sequence that required computers to be finished and made sure to get those done right at the get-go. Not sure if that’s what you were referring to though.
Tarantino and Rodriguez are close buds as well though, and they are on opposite sides of the debate too. I guess it goes to show that preference in film stock somehow doesn’t get in the way of a good friendship!
Posted by Henrik on April 17th, 2008Leave a Reply