I came across this article which details a theater in Korea that has been showing Avatar in “4D.” In addition to seeing 3D imagery on the screen, the theater in question has added sensory effects such as laser lights, splashing water, and “smells of explosives.” This is the only known area that has turned the film into a theme park ride, but it certainly isn’t the first time that movie theaters have pulled out stunts to appeal to the other senses.

3D was not the only technique that movies used to compete with television. Other tactics included sensory effects such as “Smell-o-Vision” and creating tactile sensations that went off during the film in specially-equipped seats. It’s easy to see why such processes didn’t catch on at a technical level – I imagine there weren’t a lot of theaters looking to install special seats and keep stock scents on hand.

"The Tingler," a film that employed tactile effects that included buzzing audience members when the "creature" was loose. Image: http://www.flickr.com/photos/originalalamo/2595038194/

I think that ultimately, though, 4D films were doomed from the start because it asked for too many senses to be involved with a visual medium. That might seem like a strange claim from someone who touts 3D’s potential to turn cinema into a virtual reality. I do think that is an advantage, but it is still a property that comes from visual effects. It stays in line with what cinema has to offer as a medium and enhances this offering by creating a stunning visual effect. You feel as if you can reach out and touch the images, but in the end, they are still images, ones that are experienced strictly by the eyes.

4D, on the other hand, works so hard to encompass all the senses that it ends up feeling less like a realistic experience than pure visuals alone. When so many senses are becoming distracted, it removes audiences from the visual component, and in turn may remove people from the film itself. Think of it this way – when something jumps out in a scene in a horror film, you scream but are still watching the film. But when a friend of yours jumps at you while you’re watching the horror film, you scream at your friend and look away from the screen. Your friend may have timed his/her actions to coincide with the film, but because you were distracted by something that was not embedded in the film, you are taken away from the film itself.

A 4-D experience I'm sure no one is eager for. Image: http://screencrave.com/2009-09-14/the-ring-3-will-be-in-3-d/

Further, there is such a thing as sensory overload, and films are no different. Films are at their immersive best when they work with what they have – amazing visuals. Yes, audio comes into play, but ultimately a great film is determined by how it looks – how it tells a story, how it pieces everything together, how shots are composed, and the like. Adding extra senses to the bag make the process of viewing a film all the more complicated and thus takes away from the immersion itself. 3D even runs this risk by the incorporation of items such as glasses and special equipment, though I do think this is something that can be overlooked once grown used to, as the effects remain rooted strictly in the visual. Getting shocked in my seat or having a scent blown in my face  causes me to look, and think, elsewhere, removing my attention and myself from the film at hand.

4D does have has its place, though – theme parks. In a theme park a film is structured with the idea of a ride in mind, which is an entirely different experience. While I see longevity for 3D, I do not see a similar future for “4D” outside of Disney World.