'Jurassic Park 3-D' and Re-Releasing Movies in 2013

I am not against re-releasing movies in theaters. On the contrary, I wish it happened more often. It’s great that we have the opportunity to see just about everything on our own time and on the devices we choose, but there will always be something about seeing a movie in a theater that can not be replicated anywhere else. The closest thing would be a darkened room at home with a nice television, but even there you will find distractions that don’t exist in the cinema. Before going in to see Jurassic Park 3-D on Friday, I had never seen the film in a movie theater. In fact, that was the only reason I even went. I did wish it wasn’t in 3-D—as I learned when I (voluntarily!) went to see The Phantom Menace in 3-D, these kinds of conversion jobs are normally terrible—but there was something exciting about going out and seeing a movie I liked on an IMAX screen with my phone off and all other distractions gone.

Spielberg’s old blockbusters are great candidates for re-release, and in an ideal world they would all end with a shot of Spielberg screaming “that’s how you do it, suckers!” into camera and then dropping the mic.  Most folks around my age have not seen these movies on the big screen, and viewing them in such an environment really makes one appreciate them on a whole new level. Just last year the powers that be sent Raiders of the Lost Ark out into IMAX theaters for another go, and it was awesome. (Note the lack of 3-D.) It was another Spielberg film I’ve always loved, and when viewed in IMAX it becomes even more obvious why so many people flocked to see it back when it was released in 1981. Jurassic Park and Raiders are both action/adventure spectacles, and as such seeing them in cinemas is the best way to experience them. For that reason alone I like the idea of sending them back out there and giving people a chance to see them.

The one thing I don’t like about these re-releases, however, are the aforementioned 3-D conversions. Here’s the funny thing about movies that aren’t shot for 3-D: they make lousy 3-D movies. Even then, it’s one thing to take a modern CGI-heavy movie shot in digital and give it a conversion in post. (See: GI Joe: Retaliation and the like. Or don't see them.) Since those films are half animated anyway it barely even matters. However, when you take a movie like Jurassic Park, which is shot on film and uses far more practical effects than most modern blockbusters, at best the 3-D makes the characters look like cardboard cut-outs acting out scenes with their environment pushed backward ever so slightly. At worst there’s no change at all. Sure, if you take your glasses off you might notice that Jeff Goldblum’s face seems a little blurrier than normal, but the 3-D adds absolutely nothing to the otherwise awesome Jurassic Park experience. In fact, it probably hurts it far more than it helps. If you’re planning on seeing Jurassic Park during this period it’s back in theaters, see if you can find a place showing it in 2-D. I’ve been told they exist.

Re-releases are a cash grab regardless, of course, but the 3-D just makes it even more blatant. Not only are you paying the price of admission to see a movie you could potentially see a million other places, but you’re paying the few dollars on top of that as well. Plus, if you spring for the IMAX 3-D you can add a couple more bucks. Unless the filmmakers have been able to crack the 3-D code and create a truly awe-inspiring conversion, it’s probably not quite worth it. And yet, I shall play devil’s advocate: maybe it’s necessary for them to add on the 3-D in order to get people into the theater for the re-release. If they don’t do that, it’s entirely possible audiences will just give it a miss because of a dismissive “I’ve already seen it" mentality. In these days where human beings can almost literally pull a movie they want to see out of thin air, it may be a tough sell to get people into theaters to experience something they can potentially see for free. However, that’s why I’m all for the IMAX re-release without 3-D like we saw with Raiders. It’s a gigantic screen that no one would be able to recreate at home without considerable funding, and if you put the right movies out you may get a solid enough audience. You won’t make a lot of money, obviously, but by doing it that way you’ll be able to charge more than a normal ticket without completely wrecking everything with lousy conversions.

So what films should be re-released in IMAX or otherwise? As much as I like the idea of seeing more intimate classics on a big screen, I think it’s probably best they stick with the spectacle-heavy crowd-pleasers. While I did not see Titanic again when it got its 3-D re-release, that’s exactly the kind of film that should make the rounds every once in a while. For people who never had a chance to see “the classics” on the big screen, regularly putting one out there for public consumption could be just what the doctor ordered. I don’t know entirely how this all works, but I almost like the idea of a third-party distributor stepping in and taking care of everything. (Basically, a theatrical Criterion Collection-type deal.) It probably would not be cheap, and it almost certainly will never happen, but a boy can dream. It should also be noted that some theaters will occasionally show old movies again on their own, be it an independent screening or something they arrange with their chains. It doesn’t happen too often, but if this is something that interests you be sure to keep an eye out.

You’ll notice I didn’t actually talk all that much about Jurassic Park in this post. That’s because the movie is the same as it ever was, and even through the annoyance of the 3-D I was able to enjoy the film immensely. (There was also a solid 20-minute power outage during the first act, which somehow resulted in the audience staring at a still frame of Laura Dern’s backside for five minutes or so.) If you like Jurassic Park, you will probably enjoy seeing it again in any format. It remains a masterfully directed special effects film that doesn’t have a ton in the way of plot, but that’s more than made up for in Spielberg’s ability to play the audience like a fiddle. He’s a filmmaker that always seems to know what he’s doing, and Jurassic Park is no exception. I think he’s got a future in pictures, this kid.