Viewers get in on the plot
“THE real fear of roller-coaster rides is the fear of no control,” observes a character in New Line Cinema’s “Final Destination 3.” But control was key when filmmakers wanted to amp up the entertainment factor in the DVD version of the movie -- the most recent installment in the hit horror franchise about a group of teens who are at the top of Death’s list, having survived a plane crash, a highway accident and, now, an amusement park catastrophe.
“Final Destination 3: Thrill Ride Edition,” due out July 25, pushes the boundaries of interactivity and digital technology, letting viewers determine how six characters will die. They also can decide whether sleazy Frankie Cheeks will survive his big-screen perils. Those who spare Frankie see him resurface in a later scene, and a bonus feature shows how their choice affected his life.
“Movies, usually a passive experience, now put the viewer in the director’s chair,” says Mike Mulvihill, senior vice president of content development for New Line Home Entertainment. “Some independent films used remotes as interactive tools to affect the narrative of the story. But this is the first time that has been done on a DVD from a major motion picture studio.”
Viewer-driven film narratives are an idea whose time has come, says Ralph Tribbey, editor-publisher of the DVD Release Report. The 2006 version of the idea is a far cry from Paramount’s 1985 “Clue,” for which consumers went from theater to theater to view one of three alternative endings.
“Movies have traditionally been linear stories, like reading a book from cover to cover,” says Tribbey. “But digital technology, with chapter markers and the ability to branch out, is changing all that. This is probably the first of many because form follows function, so to speak.”
The alternatives were programmed into the initial shoot -- reflecting the ongoing clout of home video. DVDs bring in more money than box office, cable and airlines combined, Tribbey says. When “Final Destination” (2000) and “Final Destination 2” (2003) emerged, annual double-digit DVD growth was a given. But now that soaring sales have leveled off, studios have to work harder for the dollar.
Without the extensive library of a Warner Bros. or a Columbia, his company must rely on ingenuity, suggests New Line Home Entertainment President Stephen Einhorn. Just as it introduced animated menus (“The Player,” in 1997), deleted scenes and DVD director’s commentaries (both in 1997’s edition of “The Mask”), New Line wanted to explore interactivity. This film’s tech-savvy 18- to 24-year-old target demographic was tailor-made for the task.
“We always had this fantasy lurking in our minds,” Einhorn says. “But without the right kind of material, interactivity would seem like a gimmick. ‘Final Destination 3’ is perfect not only because of the plot twists but because thriller audiences are big gamers -- comfortable with this kind of programming. While the approach added a total of five days and $750,000 to the $25-million budget, formats get tired quickly and you have stay ahead of the curve.”
Two years ago, Einhorn asked Mulvihill to run the idea by “Final Destination 3” writer-director-producer James Wong and writer-producer Glen Morgan. That fall, they met with producer Craig Perry and studio executives, giving their blessing to the project.
But interactivity hasn’t been easy to get his mind around, Wong says, taking a break on the Vancouver set last spring.
On this day, a runaway truck is to smash into vehicles parked at a car dealership refashioned to resemble a drive-in restaurant. Even before the main stunt, the action has been problematic. The special effects team rigged up models of Frankie’s head, sheared off by a dislodged engine in the theatrical version of the film. One of the mock-ups, spinning around, has malfunctioned. And shooting an alternative scene for the DVD only adds to the director’s load.
“I would never have gone along with interactivity on a personal film -- only on a popcorn movie,” says Wong. “My mind doesn’t work like that. I’m a passenger on this trip.”
*
INTERACTIVITY IN MIND
IN the alternate version of the scene, when the protagonists (played by Ryan Merriman and Mary Elizabeth Winstead) are rear-ended in the truck crash, they pull Frankie out of the convertible in front of them. And his head remains unscathed. In another scene, the original had two high school girls getting stuck in a tanning bed and burning to death -- one of the more gruesome scenes in the film. The DVD, though, allows viewers to reset the thermostat, triggering a chain of events that leads to electrocution.
This is a only a beginning, Morgan points out -- the new concepts were “crowbarred” into an existing script. The next step, he suggests, is developing a movie with interactivity in mind -- inserting a coin flip, perhaps, into the big-screen roller-coaster scene to determine who sat where. Different versions could be shot, for theatrical or straight-to-video release.
Although this opens up all kinds of possibilities, Morgan observes, it’s not without its risks.
“Studios are already shooting more alternative endings to create DVD bonus features,” he says. “With interactivity, they might push for alternatives that are easy or popular. Why does Dustin Hoffman have to die at the end of ‘Midnight Cowboy’?, they might argue. Only the most successful producers, I suspect, could resist that kind of pressure.”
Director Wong agrees. “Like the development of the wide screen in the 1950s, this is a watershed in filmmaking,” he says. “The digital end is affecting the creative process. While that empowers the viewer, it’s a mixed blessing for the filmmaker because it allows for a less definitive vision. ‘Story’ has to be much more than deciding which way a ball bounces at various points. There’s nothing inherently wrong with the process, but it’s open to abuse.”
Producer Perry notes that this interactivity is far more complex than that in “Mr. Payback,” Bob Gale’s 1995 short, billed as the first theatrical interactive film. Pushing buttons on a joystick, the audience voted for one of three story lines -- and the majority ruled.
“Instead of just going one way or another, this is modular filmmaking that can dovetail back into itself,” Perry says. “People can reference the main trunk of the story which changes as a result of the decisions they made. Creatively, it’s another plate to keep spinning.”
Though the permutations are limitless, Tribbey notes, the choices can’t halt the narrative. If the natives killed “King Kong’s” protagonists when they got to the village, they would never have encountered the monster, he explains. Those opting for that scenario “would be in and out [of the movie] in 27 minutes.”
Whether interactivity will become a home video staple is open to debate. Dramas or romantic comedies don’t lend themselves to the format, Perry concedes. Mulvihill isn’t so sure.
“This technology isn’t genre-specific,” he says. “We don’t want ‘Final Destination 3’ to be a one-shot deal. You can even use this technique on a documentary or biopic -- as long as the filmmakers embrace the idea.”
