Shortly after James Cameron's 3-D behemoth Avatar flapped its mighty wings past the $350 million mark, three entertainment leaders announced that they were joining forces to create the first full-time 3-D television cable channel in American history. The groundbreaking news came this week from Discovery, IMAX and Sony at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, sending ripples of excitement and waves of confusion through 2-D television connoisseurs. Fortunately, Movieline has compiled a list of questions and answers, with help from IMAX CEO Richard Gelfond (who even discussed the controversy surrounding those "fake IMAX" screens) to strengthen your understanding of the newest tri-dimensional telly.
So just how long has IMAX been batting around the idea of a television channel before announcing it this week?
I'd say that we've been looking at ways to migrate our brand into the home for the last year but this specific venture we've been talking about for the last three months or so. The broader point I want to make though is that we've been looking at different ways to use our brand in the home and there are other irons in the fire. This is just the first one we announced.
When can we expect that the channel will be ready for start-up?
It will probably debut in 2011.
What kind of programming will the new channel offer?
Mostly science and nature shows culled and up-converted from Discovery's and IMAX's libraries. In the future, the companies hope to license television rights to 3-D feature films, music videos and game-related content while shooting new shows in 3-D.
Does this mean that I'll have to get a new television, because I just got around to upgrading to an HD TV?
Yes. Television manufacturers are banking on the transition to 3-D sets to boost sales as much as the transition from black and white to color did. This week, Sony, Panasonic, LG and Samsung unveiled their 3-D screens and revealed that their upgraded televisions should be available to everyone mid-2010. [The TV pictured at left is a Samsung 3D LED 9000.]
I'm scared to know but...how much will one of these fancy-schmancy TVs set me back?
It's hard to say but of the limited 3-D boxes on the market today, Reuters prices a 42-inch set at $1,000 (compared to a 42-inch LCD for $600) and a 50-inch set at $2,000.
If I'm paying $2,000, does that mean I'm at least going to be able to watch Seinfeld re-runs, Jersey Shore and other regular programming in 3-D?
Also hard to say. According to Tech Digest, the television above was pitched as being able to convert 2-D content into 3-D immediately, whether it be broadcast or disc, but it's unclear whether all 3-D televisions will allow you to see Snooki's fist fly toward you and what quality that on-the-spot conversion will be.
Will I have to wear those geeky glasses?
Yes and no. You will have to wear glasses for the 3-D effect but a company called Gunnar Optiks, which specializes in digital glasses, is developing a line of stylish, high-quality eyewear that will be available during the summer of 2010 for the low low price range of $89 to $149.
Does anyone know if you'll have to pay extra to get the channel in your home?
It's undecided whether it will be basic cable or pay.
Will IMAX have a hand in producing some of the network's programming?
We'll definitely play a role in two ways. For part of the content, we'll be converting part of the 2-D library into 3-D. I wouldn't say producing but I'd say that we'll be helping with the 3-D technology because we've been in 3-D for 25 years so we understand a lot about how to set up the shots, what kinds of cameras to use and how to light it. So I think we'll play a role in making the content look good.
Didn't I hear something about a 3-D sports channel too?
Yes. Disney-owned ESPN announced that they are developing ESPN 3D for a June 11 start-up. The network's first program will be the World Cup soccer match and will continue with over 85 live sports events this year, going dark whenever the company does not have content.
How much was the decision to move forward with this gamble motivated by Avatar's success? This is certainly the most popular IMAX movie. Most of the movie's audience don't want to see it unless it is playing at an IMAX theater.
I'd say that this might be the third film that people felt they had to see on IMAX. The first was Polar Express and the second was The Dark Knight. During this week, IMAX has been doing about 25% of the Avatar domestic box office on only 180 of our screens.
Do you foresee a day when all television channels and all movies are show in 3-D?
I don't foresee a day when all movies are IMAX. I think for certain kinds of pictures with real scope and breadth and where the IMAX experience really enhances it, like Avatar, audiences will go see it but I still think there will be many regular theaters that work for a different -- for example, I don't think Alvin and the Chipmunks would really benefit from being in an IMAX theater.
Is there one kind of demographic that you think the 3-D channel will especially be successful with?
No, I think it's going to be more of a general audience but I think that again, we are going to try to create a premium brand, so that means, both how the content looks and the kind of content. If you really want to endure, you really need a special niche and we want to make sure that our 3-D is going to look really good and live up to the brand promise of not only IMAX but Sony and Discovery. So I would think the first audience would really be consistent with the first adapters who look for quality out of the box.
Do you feel like the IMAX brand was tarnished at all by some moviegoers' complaints that they paid extra to watch a movie on a screen that was misleadingly and incorrectly advertised as being IMAX.
I think that the real complaint was that people did not know, whether it was a multiplex IMAX experience or kind of a traditional IMAX experience -- I don't think people really complained about the experience. It was just knowing what they were in for, and we responded by trying to be much more transparent by posting it on our website and handing out cards when they go to the theater. It really has not been a significant issue during Avatar.
How long do you anticipate it taking for 3-D television to really catch on?
I think it's going to take several years before it catches on in a material way like any new technology. It takes awhile and the price points have to change and things like that. I think the forces that are likely to lead to the change are strong and they include all the new 3-D content coming online. At the same time, you have all the 3-D televisions coming online. You have lots of big companies and consumer electronics in Hollywood really pushing in this direction and then you have clear consumer demand, as evidenced by not only Avatar but the twenty 3-D films that will be released next year.
If the channel launches as a pay channel, do you think it would benefit having a spokesperson to really push the crossover, like Howard Stern did for Sirius Radio? Say, someone like James Cameron?
It's too early to say. Jim Cameron certainly knows a lot about 3-D as well as, if not better than, anyone in the world so anyway we could work with him would be great but I have no idea what any formal role would be.
· Discovery, Sony and Imax see TV through 3D glasses [USA Today]
· TV Makers Bet Big on 3D, Payoff Uncertain [Reuters]