The history of stereoscopic film, much like the debate over creators’ intent, goes back to the very earliest days of movies. The first patent for a 3-D process was filed just before the turn of the last century. As for when the first director sued the first producer or theatre owner over altering their film without their approval…well, I am willing to bet it was around the same time if not earlier. Even today the struggle over re-broadcast of pan-and-scan versions of films and the process of colorizing old black-and-white films is being fought with passion, including a series of eloquent if not mildly self-serving interstitials on the Turner Classic Movies cable station, wherein directors of note such as Martin Scorsese decry the travesty of edited and cropped broadcast versions of classic films (as well as their own.)

Whether an actual artistic choice or not, the novelty of 3-D has essentially been just that, little more than a gimmick or trick to help draw audiences into theatres, with its most prolific period taking place at the same time theatre owners were competing with television in the 1950’s. The filmmakers who put it to best use were showmen and sensationalists, like William Castle whose other gimmicks included wiring the seats to give patrons a mild electric shock during screenings of the Vincent Price schlock thriller The Tingler.

It was not enough to fill the seats, however, at least not for long. The process was imperfect and 3-D lost its appeal once audiences realized it really did little to nothing to enhance their movie going experience. It would not be the first time audiences tried to tell filmmakers that it was not the bang for the buck that mattered, it was the story, and for what it was worth, early television was ahead of the game on that one.

3-D made a few scattered appearances in the ensuing decades, but it wasn’t until the 1980’s, when Walt Disney Imagineering in conjunction with Kodak and other partners, re-introduced the process in the Disney theme parks that there was anything about the process to make audiences sit up and take notice. (Technically, the parks had already had 3-D back in the early 50’s when Disney’s two forays into the technique – Adventures in Music: Melody and the Donald Duck cartoon Working for Peanuts were screened in the old Fantasyland Theatre as “3-D Jamboree�?.) Of course, this again was a novelty and not integral to the film being screened – the 3-D itself was the attraction, if you will, although, a truly impressive attraction to be certain. Disney and their partners mastered the format, at least in this venue, and it was an affordable process when budgeted as part of the development of the theme park attractions. Hollywood hesitated making a broad investment in the technology based on the history of its appeal and the relative cost. Remember, theme parks have built-in audiences and the cost at the gate quickly helps recoup the cost of the R&D that went into such attractions as Honey I Shrunk the Audience and It’s Tough To Be A Bug!

In 2005 Disney, (doubtless spurred by the impressive response to Polar Express in 3-D Imax which garnered well over 20% of their ticket sales from a mere 62 theatres) took a big leap of faith and presented the digitally animated Chicken Little in 3-D in select markets. (This process, which differed from previous 3-D formats that relied on two prints of the same film projected from two synchronized projectors, relies instead on a single digital projector that projects two polor opposite images – one in one direction and the other in the opposite – and at a much faster projection rate. The vieiwer’s perception of the film is filtered through glasses that diffuse each eye’s view of the opposite eliptical projection and thus gives the illusion of 3-D.) The response to this was solid, if not overwhelming, but the resulting quality – thanks largely to Disney’s partnership with Industrial Light and Magic – was the most impressive factor. However, once again, the film was never conceived to be seen in 3-D, and was seen by a majority of its audience in a flat format.

There are a slew of films about to be released into theatres that all follow suit – partially released in 3-D format. All, naturally, are digitally animated and all were created in a flat format and then manipulated to be distributed in both standard and 3-D prints for various markets. But, until now, nobody had taken an existing contemporary film that never intended to be seen in 3-D and enhance it for a 3-D experience well after its initial release. Tomorrow morning all of that changes with the international wide re-release of the cult classic stop-motion animated Tim Burton’s The Nightmare Before Christmas – 3-D.

The dilemma, of course is in the “why�? and the debate will, I suspect, focus on the “what for�? as critics and audiences alike argue over which is truly the original format of these films – flat or stereoscopic. (If the film is only seen in standard formatting, is the audience seeing something ‘other than’ what the director intended?)

While Disney’s new and ambitious foray into the world of 3-D begs the question of original intent and value added when it comes to the novelty of stereoscopy and how it is applied to an artistic product, the sheer scope of such a project is compelling enough to learn more. We spoke with the project’s executive producer, Academy Award nominated animation godfather Don Hahn to learn more about the why, what and how of Jack Skellington’s re-vamp.

RHETT WICKHAM

Hi, Don! How fortuitous to be talking to you on Friday the 13th about Jack Skellington and company.

DON HAHN

Hi, Rhett. Yeah, it seems particularly appropriate, doesn’t it? (laughing).