Leslie Finlay - The Atlantic: The story was nothing special: dapper secret agents, ribbed metal briefcases carrying confidential contents, double-crossing lovers with a penchant for the extravagant, motorcycle chases that defy physics. It could have been an episode out of any old spy series.
But the audience was gripped.
24 comments:
While ScreenX i s fascinating and looks to be very impressive, the set up reminds me a lot of the TV walls in Fahrenheit 451. In the book, the all-around screens are representative of people who are obsessed with false realities and oblivious to the conditions of the real world -- though that's not really the case here, we are almost startlingly close to reaching that kind of technology. At the moment, it seems impossible that our society would ever reach what it is in Fahrenheit, but TV screens are getting bigger, and it's not unthinkable that someday full wall screens will become common in private homes. For now, though, it's an "immersive experience" and a at least a pretty striking display of new technology.
This sounds like an interesting viewing experience although I feel it to be very flawed. It is hard enough going to the movie theater and looking at one giant scene and catching all the details, imagine it with more screens. The concept of ScreenX causes the viewer to turn their head a look around the three screens. It seems to me that it may make enjoying a movie a little more challenging. I personally am not a fan of this new concept.
What makes me a bit frustrated with movies sometimes, is this urge to make it more exciting, more immersive, more 3D, etc. etc. A part of me thinks that the only reason movies need this is because they just aren't as interesting story-wise as they used to be. Recently I've gotten really into watching older movies like "Roman Holiday" and "People Will Talk." These are definitely in a different genre than an action packed spy movie, but I find myself really appreciating the simplicity, calm, and charming story and dialogue in these films that seems to be so much more rare today. The author explains this sort of run-of-the-mill spy story and continues with saying -- but people were riveted because of the new medium. I'm not sure if that's a good thing. I'm all for trying new ways of presenting media and entertainment, but it should never be an excuse to slack on the story. A movie needs to be good all around, not just in the graphics/presentation/explosion department. That's really my only qualm with these new movie gimmicks and I worry that we get too caught up in them.
I feel mostly ambivalent about the concept of ScreenX.
On one hand, I think it is amazing that people can be immersed into the film. It kind of breaks that "fourth wall" feel that is present in watching movies. However, I also feel like even though the directors should be taking great care to focus your attention where it needs to be, it will still be easy to get distracted and therefore lose the experience of the actual main point of the film. Furthermore, a major thing that I love about film is that you can watch it again and again both in theatre and at home. If this technology were to catch on, how would we be able to watch these films at home on your average television screen?
It's interesting to see how technology changes art. My brother is a film major, and he often talks about how changing technology changes the industry. With a "270 degree" film like this, you'd need a completely different sort of crew. People have to be trained to use the specific cameras, designers have to create a set which can be viewed from so many angles at once, directors have a lot more space to think about at one time, etc. On one hand, it's a really cool challenge, and the new technology keeps audiences coming to movie theaters (as opposed to just using Netflix..). But on the other hand, it switches the focus of the film industry away from a way to tell stories and convey messages and towards a platform for surprising, new effects. But perhaps the industry is just expanding, for while there are many technologically experimental films happening, there are still many that focus on plot and meaning. I'm excited to see the direction the film industry goes in a few years.
This looks like it could be an interesting idea but I feel like there are a lot of drawbacks that will stop this from ever really catching on. The biggest problem, I think, is that the experience will be too overwhelming and you'll end up leaving the theater after an hour and a half movie completely exhausted from trying to watch 3 screens at once. Another problem is when Kim says that the viewer controls their movie experience depending on where they look, which I think is a dangerous concept. I feel like it would make it even easier to miss important details if you are looking at the wrong screen. The last problem I'll mention is that based on the picture of the movie theater, it seems like it caters more to people who like to sit all the way in the back of the theater, otherwise if you sit at the front you basically miss everything happening on the sides. Like I said it looks like a cool idea but I don't think it will catch on .
ScreenX is just slightly wider than Imax and we see how widely that has been adopted since the first Imax theater opened in 1973. This is such a stupid idea, most film makers have trouble drawing focus to the right area of the real estate that they already had. Sure surround sound has enhanced the experience but having visuals in 270 degrees just seems distracting. All of these gimmicks are being developed to enhance our experience because we have no new ideas for story content.
I think this is a wonderful concept which is also a great example of risk-taking.The director talks about how difficult it was to film and translate to the three walls, and I can't help but think of all of the things that could have gone wrong and made all their hard work a waste. I think this method of showing films could be incredibly effective- could you imagine the famous scenery of Avatar surrounding the audience, instead of appearing in just a rectangle in front of them? As mentioned in the article, it would also be a brilliant way to make scary movies more scary- things could jump out where you weren't looking, just like they would in real life. If used right, this method could make certain genres of movie amazing.
Not sure how I feel about this. So kool that people are trying to take movies to a different place then they have been before. That is awesome and neat. I really feel indifferent about this and I really do not care. I would go see a movie like this, just like I have gone to see 3d movies and I max movies but would I go out of my way. Nope. I mean yes you can talk about money and installing into existing spaces and all that jazz but I just do not care. If hollywood wants to do it, they will and they will have movie theatre retrofit for it. Sounds great.
This technology feels to me like an iPhone with a rotary dialer. It is an awkward step towards what will be the cinema of the future, but looking back will seem like a dumb idea. Half the audience in the theatre pictured can't even see much of the side screens, and those that can have to look at the damn speakers breaking up the scene the whole time. I'm sure they'll work out the bugs, just as soon as someone else figures out how to actually create an immersive cinematic experience, and that will be something different than a movie. I think trying to stay within the realm of cinema when what you're really trying to create is something totally different is the problem here. The next true leap in repeatable-congregational-creative-experience-manufacture will not come from a movie director.
At first when reading this article I was thinking how awesome this technology would be, but then there are just too many down sides. First, although the screen would be bigger and be more impressive, depending on where you sit in the theatre alters your viewing experience. All of the pictures are taken in the back of the theatre because this is where you would have the best seat getting the largest viewing angle. Besides fighting for the back row, there aren't many movies that I think would utilize this technology properly. Action could be cool, but at the same time the front main screen is always going to appear father away due to perspective of the side screens. 3D movies would also have a very difficult time because now the screens are at an angle making it nearly impossible to create a 3D illusion. I don't think that is going to become all the rage in America because there are larger things that need to be improved first. 3D technology is here, but its not even used effectively. All movies these days are in 3D because they receive a larger audience, which in turn brings more money. In Disney or Universal Studios, their 3D technology is amazing and movies need to get this capability before they move on to something else.
While I think that the ScreenX technology is very cool and would be neat to see, I doubt that it will become the future of Motion Pictures. Like IMax, I think that ScreenX will be successful as a fun gimmick, with certain films being shot for it that work well, but in practice it will never take over traditional projection for mainstream theatre.
I wouldn't be able to handle a screen like this. The size and position of the screen would make me dizzy. I am all for new innovations for films projections, but I think this is taking it to a less optimal place. The viewing would be less ideal depending on where you are sitting. If you are sitting on the extremes of the theater, the picture would be really out of perspective. With the invention of 3D movies, I have noticed that people are saying they can't stand the 3D movies because they give them headaches or nausea. I think this is going to be way worse for so many more people. Not to mention the fact that the capital to set up for this projection system for the theaters.
Wow! This technology looks amazing. However, I agree with Olivia, how can you possibly watch three screens while viewing a movie? I think sometimes it is possible for the inventors of new technology to go a bit to far and this could be a prime of example of that. That being said I wonder how this technology could be employed in other venues such as rock concerts or even certain theatre productions who are looking for that sensory overload experience as part of the design. Overall cool concept, just not sure it is right for the film industry.
This seems like another type of media that will start off big and then simmer out and just exist in the background similar to IMAX and 3D movies. While I feel as though the opportunities for movies to captivate audiences are multiplied four fold by means of exciting cinematography, thrilling motion blurs, and an immersing world that surrounds you, it seems to me as though it will just result in being a sensory over load and will confuse a majority of the audiences more than anything else. This being said, it still seems like an outstanding idea and I cannot wait to see what kind of films result from this.
This is an intriguing concept for a film. I feel like I might get extremely distracted with the film projecting on multiple walls. It might also just be annoying (mind you I'm also not a fan of 3D films). As distracting as it may be I feel like it still deserves a chance. I'm not really sure how something like this could enter the mainstream. the technology needed for both filming and for projecting is not something most theaters and film companies own. It also seems like the possibility that American audiences will dislike this new style of movies will prevent Film companies stateside from trying it out.
I’m not sure that this technology will find itself in widespread use in the near future. This seems cool and immersive, but in reality, the 270 degree projection is just 3 flat planes. With the advances in 3D technology, this technology already seems antiquated.
I think the best comparison would be that to surround audio:
3D Projection is like 7.1 surround sound.
2D 270-degree projection is like 7 mono speakers all pointed toward center.
It’s neat and innovative, but not revolutionary.
I think that while this is a cool concept, it would only be effective if there was no important information being projected on the walls because the audience would most likely miss it. But if the walls are used just to fill the audiences peripheral vision then it could create a whole new movie experience that would allow for even more in depth immersion. The film maker would just have to be careful with what he puts on the walls so as not to have the opposite effect and distract the audience from the more important parts of the movie.
It is really cool when something I saw and was fascinated by is the subject of the article. When I went to Korea this summer, I went to a theater called CGV and all of trailers were shown with ScreenX display. I see a lot of negative comments regarding this and I understand how some of important information can be distracted because there is so much going on in every degree, it looked way cooler when actually seeing it than just hearing about with picture. One of the trailers that was projected like this was horror movie, so as I watched this, I felt more surrounded and felt that I was actually in that situation because I could feel the tension from left to right. Also, in terms of the way they displayed, they decided on one focus, so that the audience would not get distracted and miss anything. I know that I can not assume that this projecting way will be effective for playing 2 hours of movie because I only saw a glimpse of it, but I thought it was a great step for allowing the audience to be in same place as movie's just like 4D and 3D are trying to do. Also, this requires meticulous measurements and details, so that the screen connects smoothly as an object moves to another wall. I think the team made a great step with risk-taking and I hope to see more developed and stabilized version of ScreenX projection when I go Korea next summer.
I think I've commented on enough things now to say that I am really enjoying reading about the new and burgeoning technologies in the entertainment industry. It does seem to me though that this might not differ so much from an IMAX experience, and also seems like it could very quickly be used to ill effect if the director and the editors are not aware of the high possibility of sensory overload on the part of the views, just as in theater it is vitally import that the focus be in mind. If the audience does not know where to look, they can't possibly enjoy the entertainment
I think the execution of these screens would have be pristine and perfectly synchronized in order for the experience to be fully engaging and seamless. The idea is wonderful and has incredible potential, but I feel like it could easily be ruined by slight flaws or interferences. This technology is really trying to immerse the audience in another world, but in order to do this, everything would have to be perfect for it to be believable. I love the idea and would love to see and well executed show in one of these theaters!
At first I thought that this screen X idea was just a silly stunt to get some attention. It doesn't seem like it would really change a lot. It seems like its just taking the idea of a bigger screen to a new level. But then I thought about a time that I watched 2001 on a 70mm screen and how it totally changed the way I watched the film. I was close the screen so the image filled my vision and I had to move my head a little to see the sides of the screen. After remembering this I had to rethink the way I was looking at screen X. Maybe it could be used to change the way people watch films. The one major problem I have with it is that in the image the seem to not have removed the lights on the walls. This seems like a really easy thing to do that would make the show much better. I understand that they can't remove doors from a wall but they could take a light down I would think.
The future is now. It is exciting to see this creative team exploring the possibility for an arguably "new" medium for movie goers. The possibilities for 270 degree video content seems both interesting and infinite. I hope that more people will pick up where this director left off and refine this medium. Furthermore, I am excited to see where other teams take content designed for this type of medium
I have very mixed feelings about this idea. One side of me thinks that this is really cool and allows for a lot more awesome ways that the film crew can play with the audience. However, I think that what makes film successful is that it is shown on one screen. This idea is almost like a hybrid of film and theater. I say this because when you watch live theater you tend to be absorbed into the world of the play because their are real people acting live. Here they are pre-recorded, but are surrounding you.
Post a Comment