I don't know the last time I felt like a kid at the movies, but while watching Journey to the Center of the Earth 3-D this past week, I honestly reverted to my 8-year-old self. That isn't to say the movie is necessarily as good as the movies that astonished me as a kid -- because of the subject matter, I'd think about comparing it to Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and The Goonies, both of which came out when I was around that age, and neither to which this film holds up in terms of originality or storytelling craft. But as far as holding onto my sense of wonder, Journey is up there.

Of course, it's necessary to point out that Journey would be nothing without the digital 3-D factor. It's actually the first live-action narrative feature to be shot and released in the new format (the non-fiction concert films, U2 3D and Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus: Best of Both Worlds Concert Tour were technically the first live-action 3-D features), and while it's far from perfect, it is a terrific pioneer. I shall continue favoring the look of animated 3-D films, especially those directed as well as Monster House, and I anticipate that James Cameron's Avatar will blow away all live-action 3-D films released prior to its arrival. For now, though, I'm telling you, with the utmost cinemaphilic urgency: you need to see this ASAP.

There's currently a crisis in the theater industry and apparently it's all Steven Spielberg's fault. According to Variety coverage of Sunday's National Association of Broadcasters Show's Digitial Cinema Summit, the filmmaker was named as a constant obstacle in the transition to digital cinema.

Spielberg's insistence against releasing Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull digitally was overruled last month when Paramount announced that it would indeed open the summer blockbuster on some digital screens, but the fact that it won't be a full digital release, coupled with the fact that Spielberg still doesn't "get" the fact that digital is superior to film, is a problematic issue for an industry having difficulties installing a necessary amount of digital projectors by 2009.

While most movie theater chains have been more interested in wooing audiences with material amenities like concession variety or a "Guest Response System," Landmark Theatres has been working on delivering the best picture quality to its customers. This week the art-house chain opens its latest theater in Los Angeles' Westside Pavillion, and the cinema is noteworthy because it is offering the city its first (public) taste of 4K digital projection. Landmark already has 4K projectors, specifically Sony's SXRD, in locations around the country, despite the fact that most content is only digitally available with 2K resolution.

While I'm no expert on digital projection, here is what I understand about the difference between 2K and 4K resolution (aided by Jette's post about digital restoration): 2K is the current standard for both digital cameras and digital projectors. The amount of (picture) information offered by 2K is less than the amount of information offered by film and film prints. 4K offers twice as much information as 2K and it more sufficiently represents the quality of film. While 4K cameras are currently available, most digital features are shot with 2K cameras and most features shot on film are digitally scanned using 2K scanners. So why is it so important for Landmark to have overqualified projectors?

Landmark is co-owned and co-run by Todd Wagner and Mark Cuban, the duo that also operates HDNet (and HDNet Films and HDNet Movies). Through HDNet, Wagner/Cuban is currently producing 4K content, which they will be able to distribute to their 4K projectors, as well as to non-theatrical 4K media (like Blu-Ray, HD DVD and HD television, presumably). Cuban also points out that they are simply preparing for when 4K content becomes more common. For now, though, Landmark patrons will only be able to appreciate 4K resolution in the form of pre-show materials provided by Sony. If Wagner and Cuban are smart (which they certainly are), they will also hit up Warner Bros. for newly restored 4K versions of Blade Runner, Cool Hand Luke and Bonnie and Clyde to screen as part of their midnight movies selection.

One part of the Oscar telecast that made me angry was Jerry Seinfeld's routine about the deal between the moviegoer and the movie theater. He claimed that people have the right to drop their trash on the floor after being ripped off at the concession stand. A lot of other people thought the bit was funny, enough to hope the comedian would one day host the awards, but to people like me, whose career is or was in the theater industry, pushing the idea that cinemas are completely to blame for their own attendance problems just makes matters worse.

Of course, the theater industry is at fault a good percentage of the time, at least as far as recognizing their place and duty in the distribution/exhibition process, and according to Techdirt, the industry may finally be waking up to the issues of demand and of the importance of the moviegoing experience. The blog features a great quote for theater owners to remember, originally stated by Marcus Loew: "We sell tickets to theaters, not movies." Some chains and indies have been conscious of the experience issue for awhile now, particularly fun theaters like the Alamo Drafthouse and theaters with special deals like AMC, but the issue of enhancing the movie-going experience has been difficult to address on a wide scale. There is some progress, though -- with the planned broadband and/or satellite distribution of digital movies to theaters, the ability to run more showings of a popular title will be easier and quicker. Theaters will just cancel a less popular movie and run the higher-demand title on its screen instead.

After reporting last week about plans to soon equip one-third of American cinemas with digital projectors, I received a few comments telling of disappointing encounters with the new format. It got me wanting to do some more research on the technology and the experience, and hopefully soon take in a digital showing somewhere. I haven't yet become an expert on the subject, but I did come across an interesting set of articles in Sunday's Ventura County Star, both written by Allison Bruce, which give the pros and the cons of both digital and film projectors.

Aside from the obvious factors that make digital attractive -- clearer picture, cheaper distribution -- Bruce includes an amusing comment from director Barry Sonnenfeld in which he says studios could easily change a movie that has been badly received by critics or audiences, after it has opened in theaters. He cites King Kong as a good example of a movie that would have benefited had Universal been able to cut out 40 minutes of the film after hearing that viewers complained of it being too long. I highly doubt that any studios would actually take advantage of this, though. After all, isn't that why they have test screenings?

One thing I think that hurts digital, evident from Bruce's article supporting digital, is that most of the format's pros are beneficial to studios and theaters more than to audiences. The cheaper distribution, the ease of projector use, the issues with piracy and the scheduling ideas for exhibitors are all meant to save the businesses money. But will it trickle down the savings to the consumer? No way. In fact, I see digital being used as an excuse to raise prices for the ticket buyers. Consider that the big theater chains are about to borrow a collective billion dollars. It is obvious that we, the audience, will be depended upon to pay those loans back.

In case you're wondering why it's taken so long for American theaters to switch over to digital projection, the technology is expensive. One digital projector used to cost millions (now a bit less), and cinema chains just haven't had the dough to replace all, or most, of their equipment with the new stuff. Considering they couldn't get the studios to foot the bill, they seemed to be okay with the slow changeover. It isn't like theaters pay to develop film prints and ship them around the world, so it wasn't a loss to them. Still, they have had pressure to switch, particularly now with all the buzz about 3D versions of the Star Wars films. Finally, cinemas are eying the prospects more clearly.

The major U.S. chains, owned by Regal Entertainment Group, AMC Entertainment, Inc. and Cinemark USA, Inc. are about to borrow $1 billion in order to furnish 13,000 screens (one-third of the country) with digital projectors. A joint venture of the three companies, National CineMedia LLC is working with JP Morgan Chase & Co. to raise the money from hedge funds and private-equity firms. The money will be paid back over seven years with help from the studios (this is still being worked out).

Personally, I've been enjoying the slower process, and this coming from somebody who spent three years working with the annoyances of platter-system film projectors. I love the way film looks and I probably won't change once I do see a movie in digital (I know, it's about time I check it out). Nonetheless, I am always excited about advances in the cinema industry, and am therefore excited about this news, if it is true (it comes from anonymous sources on the fund-raising side of the deal). As long as places like Film Forum always use the old projectors, I don't mind at all if the multiplexes do their thing.