But Will They Still Be ‘Movies’?

Imagine being served a hot dog and a latte in your seat before seeing the latest effects-laden event film on the big screen--digitally projected, of course. It’s entirely possible in the next millennium. After all, the modern cineplex now offers stadium seating, and a handful of theaters have even been experimenting with personalized concession service.

Yet despite the inevitable improvements in projection, food service and seating, the actual filmgoing experience itself--the communal magic of primal storytelling in a darkened theater--should remain the same in the 21st century.

That is, unless you consider digital cinema the death knell of filmgoing as we know it. Film critic Roger Ebert certainly does. He contends that it is nothing more than big-screen TV, inducing a more passive viewing experience than the one we’ve enjoyed for more than 100 years. According to a theory of physics Ebert endorses, our brains interpret the relatively steadily beamed images of a TV differently from the flickering image that bounces off a movie screen. The end result, the theory holds, is that viewing a movie projected at 24 frames per second in a theater is more subliminally stimulating than seeing it at home. However, with the inevitable digital convergence of technology in theatrical presentation and home viewing, we’ll just have to wait and see.

However it turns out, there’s always a trade-off with new technologies. Remember the naysayers who debunked the coming of sound with “The Jazz Singer”? As it now stands, there’s probably nothing to prevent the digitalization of exhibition in the next decade--except money. The studios and exhibitors still need to work out the financial details of who’s going to pay for these expensive projectors (at $150,000 a pop), not to mention an electronic delivery system (versus thousands of bulky prints that must be physically shipped to and from theaters) that benefits both sides, whether it consists of satellite transmission, optical disk or computer hard drive.

But it’s safe to assume that the conversion to digital cinema will be complete in the not too distant future. Then we will have to ask: Will the film medium go away entirely? Will filmgoers be satisfied? And how will digitalization alter what we see on the big screen?

In the meantime, cinematography is the other remaining holdout for complete digitalization. But that’s slowly changing, too, at least in the world of low-budget filmmaking, with greater distribution channels opening up, including the Internet. The situation should rapidly accelerate, though, when George Lucas begins digitally shooting the next episode of “Star Wars” in 2000.

If the past is any indication, film will be with us for quite some time, but probably in some marginal capacity. Thus, while movie theaters are retrofitted for the Digital Age, a handful of retro houses will still project movies the old-fashioned way. But who knows how long that will last?

To this end, there are several attempts to improve the quality of film projection, such as MaxiVision 48, which at 48 frames per second versus the current standard of 24 reputedly offers enhanced sharpness, clarity and a warm 3-D look. So if audiences are at all enthusiastic about an analog alternative, there could very well be competing media. And since the current trend in stadium-style seating tends to produce taller but not necessarily wider movie screens, there may also be a continuing demand for large-format films such as Imax. However, sustaining film as a me-dium will not be easy. The economics are all against it, not to mention the problem of degradation each time a print is projected.

Another advantage of digital projection realistically opens the possibility for theaters to offer new forms of programming. For example, with satellite transmission, movie theaters could present broadcasts of live concerts and sporting events, expanding the market for pay-per-view events.

This bodes well for exhibitors concerned about overexpansion. At 34,168 U.S. screens and climbing, the industry has begun to witness a decline in film production in the last few years, particularly among the major studios. There could be trouble if the trend continues and if admissions flatten out again. It’s a good thing independently produced films are flourishing in the mainstream, because they may have to help take up the slack along with alternative forms of entertainment.

Other advances in technology will offer improved accountability for consumer and exhibitor alike. With the demand for better monitoring of underage kids sneaking into R-rated movies, there will soon be electronic ID checks. For those who sneak into more than one auditorium, similar devices will snag them too, though the particulars are still being worked out.

Then there’s the burning question of what our movies will be like in the coming years. While one can only hope the next millennium ushers in a renaissance in storytelling, the situation may actually result in more elaborate and dazzling computer-generated images. For those who are into such visceral thrills, this would mean some sensational possibilities. Perhaps the multi-sensory “Terminator 2: 3D” attraction at Universal Studios holds the key to the future. Talk about an adrenaline rush.

On the other hand, there’s always the possibility that an appetite for simpler pleasures will emerge, forcing technology to become a tool once again rather than the raison d’e^tre. Who knows? Human interaction might still triumph over computer-generated imagery. There are already some encouraging signs of this.

“It could well be that ‘Blair Witch’ and ‘Sixth Sense’ will pave the way for more character-driven films in the future, since they proved that audiences want more than an adrenaline rush,” notes Paul Dergarabedian, president of Exhibitor Relations Inc., the box-office tracking firm.

Film editor Walter Murch (“The English Patient” and the upcoming “The Talented Mr. Ripley”) made an interesting observation this past spring in the New York Times, when he suggested that the digitalization of motion pictures was analogous to oil painting overtaking fresco painting in the 15th century. He wrote that it liberated the artist as well as the art form, but cautioned that it created a destabilizing vision that was too hermetically sealed. “One need only look at the unraveling of painting or classical music in the 20th century to see the risks.”

In other words, too much of a good thing can destroy this precious art form for all of us.