Audiences are voting with their wallets regarding the new 3-D technology. Seems they aren’t too keen on paying up to $5 a ticket for the luxury of seeing three-dimensional images.
But will movie goers feel that way about an “enhanced” night at the movies?
AMC Theatres just announced a handful of its theaters will be offering the Enhanced Theatrical Experience (ETX). These select theaters will offer 20-percent larger screens, 3D technology, digital projection and upgraded sound. AMC says ETX projection systems emits images at a higher resolution than HD while offering nearly twice as many audio channels compared to typical auditoriums.
Each ticket, alas, will come with a $3-4 surcharge. Is that enough to dissuade you from checking it out? Are standard movie screens big enough, and clear enough, already? Or will you pony up the extra fee to see larger than life films like “Thor” and “Cowboys & Aliens?”
Here’s the list of theaters in North America now offering this ETX viewing option:
- AMC Aventura 24 (Miami)
- AMC Flatiron Crossing (Denver, Colo.)
- AMC Ontario Mills 30 (Ontario, Calif.)
- AMC Empire 25 (New York City)
- AMC BarryWoods 24 (Kansas City, Mo.)
- AMC Downtown Disney 24 (Orlando)
- AMC Burbank 16 & AMC Century City 15 (LA)
- AMC Northpark 15 (Dallas)
- AMC Metreon 16 (San Francisco)
- AMC Forum 22 (Montreal, Quebec)
- AMC Yonge & Dundas 24 (Toronto, Ontario)
Related posts:
on 
on 
{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }
Enhanced sound? So now the already too loud sound system that makes my ears bleed will make them bleed with digital clarity? Yeah, I want to pay for that.
An “enhanced” movie going experience? No, thank you. Personally, I couldn’t care less about all those bells and whistles. I’d rather see a 2D movie with that most elusive quality, a well written screenplay.
I agree with Paula. The only enhancements I want to see in movies involve making better movies. For myself I’m actually very anti-3D now and will try and see movies that DON’T offer it. It was a great novelty with Avatar but ever since it feels like its being forced down our throats. In the end I don’t want to pay extra for gimmicks. 3D and 20% clear sound are gimmicks. Movies are expensive enough as it is without paying for these minor “extras”.
In a word, no.
I already pay too much (for tickets and concessions) on the few occasions when I gamble my money on a film that more than often disappoints. I usually save that to rent it at home. As for increased resolution, we used to have that before they went to all digital projectors. I get the trade off, we got decreased resolution but got rid of the film splices, spots and the occasional hair. On the other hand, increasing the resolution should be the natural progression to keep movie goers wanting to attend. (Well that and actual decent story telling.)
So movie customers have been slammed with prices increasing well above inflation, concession prices that could pay for a decent restaurant meal all by themselves, being forced to watch commercials during intermission ( or having to wait in the lobby) and ever poorer facilities and unsupervised rude customers. The topper was the 3D fad.
So I vote “yes” for an “enhanced movie going experience”. They’re going to raise the price “3 or 4″ dollars anyway as their customer base evaporates due to movie downloading and ever worse movies, to I say “go for it”.
Thanks but no thanks. I’d rather see a movie that offers me a good story and loveable characters. They can charge me extra for that.
The only enhanced movie experience that I want is to be able to go into a movie theater for a 7pm Friday night show and to not have the movie theater filled with giggling teenage girls, idiot teenagers in general, idiots on cell phones, and the moron trying to impress his date with his vast knowledge of cinema or trying to foreshadow the entire movie. That in an enhanced experience I would pay for.
I don’t care about higher resolution, or more audio channels, or other technical gimmicks. Even the quality of movies I can take it or leave it, but if Hollywood wants us to shell out 12 bucks a ticket and 20 bucks in concessions, then they have to give folks a compelling reason to go.
It is sad, because nothing is as good as seeing a movie in the theater. I have a home theater second to none and I still prefer the big screen, but I don’t prefer it enough to pay the high prices and then have to deal with the items in paragraph 1 as a reward for spending my money.
The only enhanced movie going experienced I want is something I saw being done at a theater in LA a number of years ago.
They would have age limit showings. No one under 21, you could take your seat, place an order and have drinks, alcoholic and otherwise as well as food delivered to you in your seat.
Nope.
And really this is due to the cost. I wouldn’t pay for it simply because I can afford to wait and see it on a smaller screen at home. Is it the same experience? No. Would it have been better? In most cases no.
What I mean is, a film like Avatar, which is visually amazing (if nothing else) might be enhanced. Even Inception might be enhanced, but a run of the mill thriller, rom-com, or horror flick? It would be a waste of resources.
I could care less about the other stuff if the cost was ok. I like the idea of the “Over 21″ nights. And if they didn’t show commercials, but rather Trailers and the film I might consider it. The enhanced picture and sound? Makes no difference.
And forget 3-D. I can’t see why the industry thinks this is so amazing. It’s a fad and nothing more. People won’t be sold until you can view it without the glasses, plain and simple.
The Mrs. and I enjoy going to theaters that offer a “bistro” sort-of atmosphere; beer, wine, light appetizers… We’ve been to a few and we’d pay extra for that atmosphere. The other, technical stuff; sound, 3-D, bigger screen. Nah. I take my kids to I-Max movies, sometimes, but that’s only for documentary fare.
I’m pretty sure this is just another round of “oh no, TV’s eating our lunch!”, like in the 50s; the Great Gimmicky Hopes back then included not only widescreen and the first version of 3d movies, but also Smell-O-Vision and William Castle’s ‘Percepto’ idea that, if someone came up with it nowadays, would probably be seen as some kind of brilliant Post-Modern performance art.
Which is not to say that “The Tingler” is not a great film (but then, Vincent Price makes anything great).