So I just got back from checking out that fancy-pants new digital projector at the Lloyd Cinemas. I did this by going and buying a ticket to Meet the Robinsons and then watching it. So no, I have no “behind-the-scenes” anecdotes, nor “hot scoops,” nor “insider info.” But I can say that Meet the Robinsons in digital 3D is pretty damn awesome.

First, the movie’s surprisingly great: Smart, funny, sweet but not saccharine, had cool stuff in it. (Fuck, it has a giant octopus fighting a T-rex, Tom Selleck references [!], and eeeeevil bowler hats. If that’s not a recipe for an excellent film, I don’t know what is. Don’t trust the trailers for this, which just make it look annoying and Shrek-y.) But the 3D thing was pretty cool too. It’s not a whole lot of showy, Captain EO-style theatrics or anything; the 3D’s actually pretty subtle, but just adds a weight and a heft to the visuals that’s not there in traditional film. It takes a few seconds to get used to, but then it looks perfectly natural—and flipping up the glasses to reveal the standard 2D image, which I couldn’t help myself from repeatedly doing, actually sucks about 90 percent of the visual punch out of it. That old-school 3D style (Creature from the Black Lagoon, House of Wax, etc.) never looked right to me—it always just looked jumbly and flickery and planar and headache-y—but this stuff just adds a… well, sorry, but yeah, a dimension to the visuals that feels way more natural, and makes the visuals far more engrossing, whether it’s a cool special effect or (as I almost preferred) just the normal dialogue or action. Think stereo vs. mono, in terms of sensory experience. It’s hard to explain, but it’s worth checking out.

More stuff after the jump.

To answer what I was wondering, and the first question I got asked when I got back to the office: Yes, you have to wear glasses. These just look like cheap sunglasses, though, and are way more comfortable than those old paper ones w/ blue/red cellophane for lenses.

The other hitch is the price: $9 for a matinee, which is pretty rough (the usual price is $6.50), and if I hadn't liked Meet the Robinsons so damn much, I probably would've been more angry about this than I am. I'm not sure if that's going to be the price for just 3D stuff, or if it's the price for all the digital films I assume Lloyd Cinemas is going to be showing from here on out, but I guess we'll see. (If it is the going rate for just all digitally projected films, well, that both makes sense and not--these digital images are way sharper and cleaner than those from film projection, and--this is important--the HD thing being the pivotal thing that sets this theater apart from other Portland theaters w/ non-HD digital projection, like the Living Room Theaters. So I'm cool w/ paying more for digital HD, I suppose, if it means a better picture. On the other hand, it should in fact cost less, since once you get past the set-up cost for the HD projector [which is, as my grandpappy would say, no small potatoes], the theater no longer has to worry about a print, which saves a ton of money in both print-striking and transportation charges, since the theater just has to download a file rather than lug a billion-pound print all over. So yeah, once you think about it, it should be less $, not more.)

The digital HD thing, for me, is more of an issue than the 3D stuff. Once you've seen shit via HD digital projection, it's kind of hard to go back. The image is just so much more vibrant and sharp, and there's none of the flickering that you get from film projection. Sure, the flicker of film and its slightly fuzzy look are part of the moviegoing experience, but they're rapidly becoming more of a novelty than a necessity, so it's hard to justify having a scratched or worn-out print when you could have a pristine one, unless you're just being sentimental. (Exhibit A: Tarantino and Rodriguez's upcoming Grindhouse, in which Rodriguez shot on digital, then used a computer program to muss up his virtual "print," so it just looks worn down and aged. Exhibit B: Battlestar Galactica, which shoots on digital, but then uses a program to add grain, thus making it look like it was shot on celluloid.) Anyway: Up until today, the only way to get the whole HD digital thing was at either Cinetopia in Vancover or at the Bridgeport 16 in Tigard, both of which kind of suck to get to from Portland. Having a legit HD digital theater in the actual city limits now is great. Sure, I wish it wasn't at a Regal theater, and I wish it was cheaper, and etc. But until these things become the standard--which they will, I'm guessing, within five to 10 years, if not less--I guess we kind of have to take what we can get, and at this point big companies like Regal are pretty much the only places that can afford these billion-dollar HD digital projectors.

Speaking of the standard changing to digital, and relatively soon: This story is a few years old, but pretty much still stands, I think: I know that James Cameron's Avatar is likely to be released in this format in 2009, and re-releases of films in 3D (or simultaneous releases of tentpole summer blockbusters in both 2D and 3D) isn't long off. Right now the 3D angle is mostly being covered by Disney's animation--Robinsons, Chicken Little, a retrofitted 3D version of The Nightmare Before Christmas--mostly because, as I sort of understand it, CG animation is apparently super-easy (or easier, at least) to switch into 3D--all of the full backgrounds are present, the characters have three dimensions already, etc., instead of having to cut out 2D film elements and then stagger them to make them "look" 3D.

Anyway, so go check it out, if you get a chance and don't mind dropping a few bucks. I was pretty pleasantly surprised, but I'm really curious as to what other people think.

Also, I'd like to note that at the pretty full screening I just went to, there was one little boy, maybe five or six, sitting across the aisle from me, who refused to put his glasses on, and thus watched the film in a sort of blurry 2D, because, as he told his mother, he was just opposed to wearing glasses. Like, on principle. Which seemed to me to be a pretty rad stance to take.