Bigger better, and closer too

Bigger better, and closer too

The bigger the better for me, at home and in theaters.

I have a 65-inch Panasonic plasma in one room and there are very few movies I go see in theaters unless I can see them on the bog IMAX screen (well, I call it the mini-MAX at the local AMC theater since it’s nowhere near as big as the “real” seven-story-tall screens in the traditional IMAX theaters).

Scott Hettrick
Scott Hettrick

Likewise, I prefer 3D to be equally as dynamic — I want it in my face, or at least my personal space.

So far that isn’t happening, in theaters or in theaters, no matter how big the screen or how close I sit. Filmmakers seem to be making a conscious decision to resist pushing anything out of the screen more than a few inches. Rather, movies are settling for showing a greater sense of depth in what’s happening on the screen.

Sometimes the difference is so subtle I have to take my glasses off to reassure myself that what I’m watching is actually 3D. That’s not a satisfying situation, especially when I’m paying $2 – $5 more for the experience. And if it’s on IMAX, I’ve paid as much as $10 more than I could have paid to see the movie in 2D on a regular screen.

For that kind of extra dough, I want just about every scene in the movie to feel like it’s happening inches away from me in the same way that I feel I am actually in/under the water when I watched “Under the Sea” in 3D at a real IMAX theater. For the entire 40 minutes everyone in the audience was intermittently reaching their hands up in front of their face when it appeared that they could touch the fish on the screen.

That’s not theme-park gimmickry, that’s making me feel like I’m immersed in the movie. Heck, I’d even like to feel like I’m sitting in the room when it’s nothing more than a scene with dialogue between two people.