Why a 4DX movie is a sub-par movie-watching experience!
You are reading a novel. Jake, your protagonist, is scaling a silent volcano. With his friend in tow, his mission is to throw a ring into the volcano’s vicious pit. The volcano suddenly erupts back to life. The protagonist along with his friend are appallingly propelled to the base, hurting both of them. And when this happens, you too fall vicariously and the unexpected fall throws you off balance. What just happened ?
At first, you are confused. You dismiss this as a minor inconvenience and resume reading your novel. Now, where were you — Oh yes, Jake and his friend scurry back to the ground, very afraid of what is to happen next. The Volcano starts pumping rancid smoke into the air. Jake and his friend are tossed into an adjacent lake. You too are bolted from your seat, again! What is this?
A similar scenario is recurrent with the 4DX movie experience. Sure, it sounds interesting : Spray mist mildly splashed at your face when there is a snowing scene, your seat bolted in sync with some action scenes and strobe lights flickering in the dark.
But if you are the kind that would rather zone-out to another world — this experience would be heavily incompatible with your need.
For one, it is distracting. In your anticipation for the next bolt, you would lose sight of the main narrative. For most of us, watching a movie is a contemplative experience. We would diss at anyone if they were to pose a minor distraction – Even if they were an intimate partner.
Watching a movie almost parallels reading a book in a cozy corner, being transported to another world. While reading a book, our minds are busy creating the imagery, and in the movie we immerse ourselves into the imagery projected onto us. Effects serve as distractions and not augmentations; and thus drain the cinematic value of the main narrative.
Secondly, it requires conditioning and massive experience. For years, we have been exposed to the regular 2D format. We have been conditioned to sit in a static cushioned seat and take-in the projection. It would take years’ worth more of 4DX movie-watching experience for us to get there and embrace these effects as augmentations.
Thirdly, a seamless integration into the regular movie watching experience is missing. When cinema modernists wanted to create a version where we could experience the same vividness as the protagonists on screen, we didn’t expect a mini roller-coaster straddled on our seats to be anointed “the next best thing”. Sure, it serves as a cinema shorthand to “come-experience-it-all”, but is far from it — which brings me to the next point.
Effects fail to capture those moments, those feelings which render emotions to a scene.
Fourthly, Why have effects for a few scenes, why not have them for most scenes : When effects follow a template of covering a few scenes and not the others it gives you a gaping feeling of having missed something. Like a binary of sorts — either present or totally absent. When Rey Skywalker (née Palpatine) rode those tumultuous waves of Kef Bir, I experienced the waves — but when she landed on the Death Star — nothing. There were no effects for landing or the next sequence of events on the defunct Death-star which was a pivotal moment in the movie. It was devoid of transitions. Also, presence of action doesn’t necessarily equate the scene having meat. Effects fail to capture those moments, those feelings which render emotions to a scene.
Fifth, and last, accuracy : Shots change in a matter of seconds, and capturing these shots with effects requires meticulous accuracy. And, effects last for 5–10 seconds. You don’t want to get bolted from your seat “after” an action scene. Movies’ run-time typically runs for 7200–9000 seconds, and even a slight room for error renders a highly dissatisfying watch. Also, 4dX movies are most expensive. You wouldn’t want a customer to pay a hefty price only to come-out dissatisfied and never experience it again. It’s bad for your business with no repeat customers.
Research in psychology and effective neuroscience often relies on film as a standardized and reliable method for evoking emotion. In a study, it was examined whether 3D film and its higher variants are more evocative than 2D using a tightly controlled within-subjects design. Participants (n = 408) viewed clips during a concurrent psycho-physiological assessment.Results indicated that both 2D and 3D technology are highly effective tools for emotion elicitation. However, 3D and its higher variants do not add incremental benefit over 2D, even when individual differences in anxiety, emotion dysregulation, and novelty seeking are considered.
In summary, making a progress in an immersive movie-watching experience is not a step in the wrong direction. There is always room for improvement. Perhaps, tweaking the experience in incremental pieces with a sustainable research output with test and control, could yield long-term positive impact. For now, it doesn’t seem to be the picture. I emulated the journey of Jake and his friend. But when I experienced these effects, it made for a dull and an exhausting watch and felt more like a roller-coaster than a story-telling immersion. Unless I were a kid, in which case it doesn’t matter anyways.
