Hm. It'll be a nifty experiment.<p>It certainly looks amusing when it's covering long spans of time. It'll be harder to keep that engaging when the time span narrows and the background stops changing.<p>Camera motion substitutes for the constant motion of the eye in real life. In the theater you sit in your seat but you continually shift your focus. That shifting focus feels like a lot of change, because you can keep only a tiny part of the field actually in focus.<p>It won't feel the same on a 2D screen, where image itself is at a fixed distance. (I think this is part of the reason I don't care for 3D movies. I want to keep shifting my focus as if it were real life, but focus is set by the camera lens. I find the difference exhausting.)<p>That just means that Zemeckis is going to have to keep your attention in other ways. He'll have to keep a lively pace. (We often cover up flaws in theater plays by hoping that the audience will be too enthralled by something else to notice. If they're looking at some minor flaw, it means you've lost their attention, and the flaw is not the problem.)<p>Zemeckis certainly has the experience to give that a try, as do Hanks and Wright. So, I wish them luck. I hope it's a success.