The Reel view

As I wrote about last week, people go to the movies to be dazzled by the experience at the cinema. Today’s audience likes heroic figures, exotic settings and audiovisual effects to fulfill its fantasy gratification. Because of this, the normal film experience people enjoyed last century is becoming more obsolete, and studios are making the experience more interactive.

Throughout history, movie theaters have used many methods to try to dazzle the audience even further than showing the movie itself. First came Smell-O-Vision, when evocative smells were pumped through pipes leading to individual seats in the theater and various scents were signaled on the film itself.

Then came Percepto, which utilized electric jolts shot through audience members’ seats during suspenseful scenes.

Then, in the 1970s, studios tried to make the experience even more interactive by building IMAX theaters and making more 3D films. Until recently, these methods never really stuck with the audience. People really didn’t enjoy having a wide range of smells pumped into the air or having their seats shaken while they were trying to watch a movie. IMAX and 3D get a decent response, but still more people attend normal screenings.

So, the most recent attempt to dazzle the audience is 4DX, which is the combination of a 3D film with simulated effects in the theater. According to an article published in The Hollywood Reporter, a South Korean company has launched 4DX in some of its theaters to give audiences that interactive and exciting experience they crave. The company currently has a 4DX version of “Titanic” in the making that will include sharp bursts of air, water in the face and chairs that pitch and roll to the action of the film. The company is planning on creating 4DX versions of “The Hunger Games,” “John Carter” and “The Avengers” in hopes of opening 800 4DX theaters by 2016.

Will 4DX bring more people to the theater? It’s debatable. When I saw “Titanic” in 3D, I felt that it was more of a desperate attempt to milk “Titanic” for all it’s worth than to enhance the experience. Why else would a romantic classic be transferred to 3D?

I thought the 3D effects were superfluous and forced, and I could barely stand them, let alone have water being spit in my face and have my chair flung around. I don’t know about anyone else, but when I want to go see a movie, I don’t want to have to worry about flying out of my seat. If I want that kind of experience, I will go to a theme park. Seat belts shouldn’t be necessary in a movie theater. Period.

I’m sick and tired of all the movies being made in 3D. Yes, it would be really cool if “Captain America” pointed at us in “The Avengers,” and it was kinda trippy to basically be on the ship when “Titanic” went down. But really, Hollywood, take it down a notch.

What is awe-striking about these special effects is that they are special, which means they are out of the ordinary. If Hollywood continues to provide us with every movie in 3D, we will not be in awe every time a superhero puts his or her hand in our face.

If Hollywood continues down this road, the normal movie theater experience will prevail and more people will prefer to watch a movie in which all the characters stay inside the screen.  

­— sarizzi@indiana.edu