# Predicting Cameron's Avatar: Waterworld or Titanic? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [December 1, 2009, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predicting-camerons-avatar-waterworld-or-titanic/519638 "2009-12-01T23:29:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2009, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predicting-camerons-avatar-waterworld-or-titanic/519638/41 "2009-12-02T14:48:27Z")
> [@commasense](#): > > Imagine they invented a movie technology that blind people couldn’t see or a sound technology that deaf people couldn’t hear. Oh, wait a minute… Deaf and Blind people can’t enjoy movies the way the rest of us can (without extra help, as has been pointed out) _as it is_. Making all movies 3D adds _yet another_ group which can’t see movies- and, of course, drives up the cost of going to see a movie. Neither my wife nor I can see 3D movies. She’s blind in one eye, and I have amblyopia. Trying to watch a 3D movie is just a quick path to an eyestrain-induced headache… and we see a \*lot \*of movies. We actively seek out non-3D movies whenever possible- if all movies become 3D, we simply won’t be able to go to the theater anymore. This saddens me. On subject- while \*Avatar \*looks neat, I could swear we’ve seen this movie before. I keep thinking that the story can’t be as simplistic as the trailer makes it appear to be, but I keep wondering if Cameron spent all the effort on the visuals rather than on the plot. It also bugs me that the aliens are so similar to Humans that they use the same facial expressions we do. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2009, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predicting-camerons-avatar-waterworld-or-titanic/519638/42 "2009-12-02T14:56:24Z")
I’ve been a Cameron fan from 'way back, but the previews for this have been meh IMHO, and the Hollywood buzz is pretty muted. Given its enormous budget, I predict a bomb. ---
**Author:** ![Tanbarkie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a698b9/32.png) [@Tanbarkie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tanbarkie)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2009, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predicting-camerons-avatar-waterworld-or-titanic/519638/43 "2009-12-02T15:23:29Z")
> [@Lightnin](#): > > Deaf and Blind people can’t enjoy movies the way the rest of us can (without extra help, as has been pointed out) _as it is_. Making all movies 3D adds _yet another_ group which can’t see movies- and, of course, drives up the cost of going to see a movie. > > Neither my wife nor I can see 3D movies. She’s blind in one eye, and I have amblyopia. Trying to watch a 3D movie is just a quick path to an eyestrain-induced headache… and we see a \*lot \*of movies. We actively seek out non-3D movies whenever possible- if all movies become 3D, we simply won’t be able to go to the theater anymore. This saddens me. Way to miss the point. **commasense** is not saying “let the blind/deaf/3D-impaired eat cake.” He’s saying that the existence of such disabilities, unfortunate as they are, should not be reason to stop an entire artistic medium from existing. Of course, filmmakers should make an effort to accommodate the blind and deaf, and they do, through Descriptive Listening and closed-captioning, respectively. And I guarantee you that 3D filmmakers will always do the same. Hell, it’s even easier for them - theaters are already equipped for 2D. It’s hilarious to me how hysterically paranoid people who can’t see 3D get in these threads. Nobody, not enough Jim Cameron or Robert Zimeckis, are planning to do away with 2D films and 2D theaters. They’re not even planning on producing 3D-_only_ films. _There will always be 2D versions of every film. Period._ As for _Avatar_… meh. _Titanic_ succeeded despite the negative hype because it had a killer hook beyond the special effects. The story of Leo and Kate (sorry, Jack and Rose), as corny as it was, resonated with an enormous audience. That audience has since grown up, and their age-group successors are going to be too busy watching_New Moon_ for the bazillionth time to care about a CGI movie about naked blue cats. I predict that it’ll do acceptable business for a normal blockbuster due to the geek audience, but it won’t do anywhere near enough to recoup its gargantuan costs. And so much the better - let it be a lesson to those who imagine that expensive technology and big explosions can make up for a lackluster story. ---
**Author:** ![Hampshire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hampshire/32/4887_2.png) [@Hampshire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hampshire)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2009, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predicting-camerons-avatar-waterworld-or-titanic/519638/44 "2009-12-02T15:32:07Z")
> [@Tanbarkie](#): > > let it be a lesson to those who imagine that expensive technology and big explosions can make up for a lackluster story. You mean like these lessons: Star Wars Phantom Menace (Expensive technology big explosions / lackluster story)- $924 million worldwide Pirates of the Carribean 3 (Expensive technology big explosions / lackluster story)- $1 billion worldwide Transformers 2 (Expensive technology big explosions / lackluster story)- $833 million worldwide Independance Day (Expensive technology big explosions / lackluster story)- $817 million worldwide ---
**Author:** ![Eyebrows\_0f\_Doom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eyebrows_0f_doom/32/3119_2.png) [@Eyebrows\_0f\_Doom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eyebrows_0f_Doom)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2009, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predicting-camerons-avatar-waterworld-or-titanic/519638/45 "2009-12-02T16:02:43Z")
Fucking hell people. There will always be 2D films! Avatar is not being released only in 3D! Quit inventing strawman arguments. You are not being forced to see 3D films. This is yet another instance of people whining that because \*\*they \*\*don’t like something, **no one** should be able to enjoy it. ---
**Author:** ![Tanbarkie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a698b9/32.png) [@Tanbarkie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tanbarkie)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2009, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predicting-camerons-avatar-waterworld-or-titanic/519638/46 "2009-12-02T16:29:16Z")
> [@Hampshire](#): > > You mean like these lessons: > > Star Wars Phantom Menace (Expensive technology big explosions / lackluster story)- $924 million worldwide > > Pirates of the Carribean 3 (Expensive technology big explosions / lackluster story)- $1 billion worldwide > > Transformers 2 (Expensive technology big explosions / lackluster story)- $833 million worldwide > > Independance Day (Expensive technology big explosions / lackluster story)- $817 million worldwide Hey, I said “let it be a lesson,” not “there have been lots of lessons already.” 😃 ---
**Author:** ![BwanaBob](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bwanabob/32/2985_2.png) [@BwanaBob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BwanaBob)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2009, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predicting-camerons-avatar-waterworld-or-titanic/519638/47 "2009-12-02T16:30:29Z")
Biggest mistake is its title. My kid was totally confused by the commercial because he thought it had something to do with the animated series, “Avatar: the Last Airbender”. He’s not interested now. I’m sure he’s not alone. ---
**Author:** ![commasense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/commasense/32/3017_2.png) [@commasense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/commasense)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2009, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predicting-camerons-avatar-waterworld-or-titanic/519638/48 "2009-12-02T16:55:00Z")
> [@gaffa](#): > > Can you acknowledge that both blind and deaf people can enjoy a movie in a well-equipped theater? And that, by contrast, 3D movies cannot be enjoyed by the stereoblind? Contrary to your apparent belief, Rear Window and assistive listening devices do not restore sight or hearing to people with disabilities, they are merely accommodations to allow them to enjoy the experience to the extent their disability allows. The corresponding accommodation for people with stereoblindness is a pair of glasses with one lens blacked out, or some other method of blocking vision to one eye. And yet in previous threads you have rejected this simple option. > [@](#): > > Can you, at long last, admit that your argument is dumb? No, because, as others here and in the other threads have pointed out, you are the one who wants to deny others something they enjoy simply because you can’t. > [@](#): > > As I may have mentioned before, one of the theaters I visit often is AMC’s “flagship” theater, the Mainstreet (just down from their Kansas City headquarters). Every one of their auditoriums is equipped with 4K Sony projection and all can show 3D. They are planning to equip all of their theaters with the same equipment. I spoke with the manager to find out what needs to be changed to go from showing a 2D film to a 3D one, and he said it just involved switching the lens. I’d be interested in what the basis of her claim was. Legacy 2K projection systems? The fact that there are several competing 3D systems? Okay, my source is a professional analyst at a highly respected international journal that studies and reports on media. Your source is a theater manager in Kansas City. I’ll leave it to others to decide which is a more authoritative view of the worldwide cinema industry. Oh, and in a previous thread, I provided [this cite](http://www.investor.amctheatres.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=373314): “‘…we look forward to bringing RealD’s exceptional 3D experience to all of our theatres, as our intent is to feature **at least one screen in every AMC theatre** ,’ said Gerry Lopez, chief executive officer and president of AMC Entertainment Inc.” Not every screen in every theater. > [@](#): > > If Jim Cameron wishes to make 3D films, he should show them in their proper place - amusement parks and IMAX theaters. Ah, yes, we’re back in the marvelous **gaffaverse** , where what’s “proper” is not what the public wants and is willing to pay for, or what creative talents want to provide, but what the benevolent god **gaffa** dictates. > [@](#): > > They are pushing this to get the average ticket price up. I’ve said numerous times that I agree that they are making money on 3D. Where we differ is that you seem to believe that the studios and theaters are somehow forcing the millions of 3D fans to hand over that extra money against their will. > [@](#): > > In a previous thread, I believed you made a bogus claim that previous (actual) improvements in picture and sound had resulted in higher ticket prices. I’m old enough to remember the introduction of Dolby Stereo, Sensurround, THX, digital projection, etc. In no case did they charge more for the tickets. (“Fantasound” and other “road show” features don’t count). I made no such claim. If you can’t be bothered to look up the previous threads, kindly do not put your words in my mouth. > [@](#): > > It’s possible that Jim Cameron either doesn’t know, or doesn’t care that a good percentage of the public cannot see his gimmick. And it is a gimmick. It’s died before, it will die again. A genius like Hitchcock couldn’t make it a vital part of the moviegoing experience, I doubt Jim Cameron will be able to. Keep telling yourself this if it makes you feel better. For reality-based readers, [here’s](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11055469&postcount=25)my response to another 3D-denier in another thread as to why this incarnation of 3D is here to stay. ---
**Author:** ![gaffa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e68b1a/32.png) [@gaffa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gaffa)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2009, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predicting-camerons-avatar-waterworld-or-titanic/519638/49 "2009-12-02T18:18:52Z")
> [@commasense](#): > > Contrary to your apparent belief, Rear Window and assistive listening devices do not restore sight or hearing to people with disabilities, they are merely accommodations to allow them to enjoy the experience to the extent their disability allows. The point that you’re dancing around is the fact that these technologies allow _more_ people to enjoy movies than before, where universal 3D adoption will results in _fewer_ people able to enjoy movies than before. > [@](#): > > The corresponding accommodation for people with stereoblindness is a pair of glasses with one lens blacked out, or some other method of blocking vision to one eye. And yet in previous threads you have rejected this simple option. Actually, **Tanbarkie** (and **Sage Rat** ) had a good suggestion - glasses with both lenses polarized in the same direction. If the theater offers them without the additional 3D charge to the stereoblind (because we obviously are not obtaining the “benefit” of 3D), then I’ll grit my teeth and put up with it so I can see a movie with my wife. > [@](#): > > No, because, as others here and in the other threads have pointed out, you are the one who wants to deny others something they enjoy simply because you can’t. This thread, and the previous ones, serve a very useful purpose. There are always people who were completely unaware that not everyone can see forced 3D. It is (to use an old phrase) a consciousness raising exercise. > [@](#): > > Okay, my source is a professional analyst at a highly respected international journal that studies and reports on media. Your source is a theater manager in Kansas City. I’ll leave it to others to decide which is a more authoritative view of the worldwide cinema industry. It was nothing of the sort. I mentioned that a prototype theater with current state of the art technology can show 3D in all of their auditoriums and asked what issue prevented every digitally equipped theater from doing so as well. I asked you to read and summarize your non-linked cite. > [@](#): > > Oh, and in a previous thread, I provided [this cite](http://www.investor.amctheatres.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=373314): “‘…we look forward to bringing RealD’s exceptional 3D experience to all of our theatres, as our intent is to feature **at least one screen in every AMC theatre** ,’ said Gerry Lopez, chief executive officer and president of AMC Entertainment Inc.” Not every screen in every theater. As a first goal, I’m sure that is true. The rest will remain 2D for a while as they will remain 35mm film. As they convert completely to digital, every screen will be 3D capable by default. Like the Mainstreet. > [@](#): > > Ah, yes, we’re back in the marvelous **gaffaverse** , where what’s “proper” is not what the public wants and is willing to pay for, or what creative talents want to provide, but what the benevolent god **gaffa** dictates. > I’ve said numerous times that I agree that they are making money on 3D. Where we differ is that you seem to believe that the studios and theaters are somehow forcing the millions of 3D fans to hand over that extra money against their will. They are forcing a change upon the moviegoing public in order to raise the average ticket price. 3D is a gimmick to try to accomplish that goal. Several years ago Edgar Bronfman made the moronic suggestion that they charge more for more expensive movies and was roundly laughed down. 3D is a way of accomplishing that. > [@](#): > > I made no such claim. If you can’t be bothered to look up the previous threads, kindly do not put your words in my mouth. My apologies. I’ll have to re-read the thread. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Barchetta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/da6949/32.png) [@Red\_Barchetta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Barchetta)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2009, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predicting-camerons-avatar-waterworld-or-titanic/519638/50 "2009-12-02T18:58:12Z")
> [@gaffa](#): > > They are forcing a change upon the moviegoing public in order to raise the average ticket price. 3D is a gimmick to try to accomplish that goal. How if offering a movie in both formats “forcing a change”? If 3D were not attractive to the masses, the cost to produce such would not be justified. And I say this as one who doesn’t particularly care one way or the other about 3D. ---
**Author:** ![Xavier\_T.Nougat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/bcef8e/32.png) [@Xavier\_T.Nougat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xavier_T.Nougat)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2009, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predicting-camerons-avatar-waterworld-or-titanic/519638/51 "2009-12-02T19:17:50Z")
Ignoring the 2D vs 3D debate for a moment, I’ll chip in with my brief opinion. Regardless of whether the story is good or not, I think its combined domestic and international gross (I predict about 200 / 300 million respectively) will break even with the production costs, and the follow-up DVD sales will give it a very humble profit over a few years. Technically, that would be _Waterworld_. For a more long-term prediction - I think it will initially be regarded as a disaster, but it will be technologically influential on movies further down the line. The 2010s won’t see a huge surge of 3D movies, but if Avatar is any good, then the 2020s will see some really great stories that actually rely on 3D in some way without being cheesy. _Avatar_ really reminds me of _Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within_ from awhile back. The animation was brilliant, but the story was just average. Everybody thought it would set a new standard for animation - and it kinda has (in the sense of the amount of detail put into the work), but we still haven’t seen any other photo-realistic animation. And if we have, then I somehow missed it. > [@Hampshire](#): > > You mean like these lessons: > > Star Wars Phantom Menace (Expensive technology big explosions / lackluster story)- $924 million worldwide > > Pirates of the Carribean 3 (Expensive technology big explosions / lackluster story)- $1 billion worldwide > > Transformers 2 (Expensive technology big explosions / lackluster story)- $833 million worldwide > > Independance Day (Expensive technology big explosions / lackluster story)- $817 million worldwide These movies aren’t really a fair comparison, with the exception of _Independence Day_. They were all sequels and/or based on a well-established franchise with a loyal following. Though Cameron has a following, it’s not the same thing. ---
**Author:** ![Eyebrows\_0f\_Doom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eyebrows_0f_doom/32/3119_2.png) [@Eyebrows\_0f\_Doom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eyebrows_0f_Doom)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2009, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predicting-camerons-avatar-waterworld-or-titanic/519638/52 "2009-12-02T19:25:17Z")
> [@Red\_Barchetta](#): > > How if offering a movie in both formats “forcing a change”? If 3D were not attractive to the masses, the cost to produce such would not be justified. Because \*\*gaffa \*\*doesn’t like that there’s an option out there he doesn’t enjoy. Never mind the fact that any film released in 3D has also been released in 2D. It’s got to be either 100% the way \*\*gaffa \*\*wants it, or it’s being “forced” upon him. Hmmm, gee, where have we heard this line of arguing before? ---
**Author:** ![singular1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ba9def/32.png) [@singular1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/singular1)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2009, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predicting-camerons-avatar-waterworld-or-titanic/519638/53 "2009-12-02T19:39:21Z")
> [@gaffa](#): > > They are forcing a change upon the moviegoing public in order to raise the average ticket price. 3D is a gimmick to try to accomplish that goal. :rolleyes: Jesus, gaffa, did a 3D movie kill your dog? Nobody’s forcing the poor ignorant moviegoing public to see 3D movies. _They’re offering them the choice to have a different moviegoing experience._ If I want to see a movie in 3D, I’m willing to pay the extra $3 and enjoy myself. Totally my free-willed decision. And please don’t come back with “the Nazis offered the Jews a choice to wear flair” or some other disingenuous claptrap. You’re really being ridiculous and pedantic here. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2009, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predicting-camerons-avatar-waterworld-or-titanic/519638/54 "2009-12-02T19:49:46Z")
There’s nothing about a good 3-d movie that’s a gimmick (1995 called, they want their rant back.) It’s hard to find specific shots in _Coraline_ that were gimmicky uses of 3-d. 3-d makes movies better, period. It’s like an entirely new medium. If it weren’t for the extra price and awkward glasses, I’d see every movie in 3-d, even comedies. ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2009, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predicting-camerons-avatar-waterworld-or-titanic/519638/55 "2009-12-02T19:51:19Z")
> [@singular1](#): > > :rolleyes: > Jesus, gaffa, did a 3D movie kill your dog? Nobody’s forcing the poor ignorant moviegoing public to see 3D movies. _They’re offering them the choice to have a different moviegoing experience._ If I want to see a movie in 3D, I’m willing to pay the extra $3 and enjoy myself. Totally my free-willed decision. And please don’t come back with “the Nazis offered the Jews a choice to wear flair” or some other disingenuous claptrap. You’re really being ridiculous and pedantic here. I think that, perhaps, you guys are the ones overreacting a bit here. Personally, I’ll be completely happy as long as 3D remains an _option_. Right now, there are a lot of theaters that can’t project 3D, so there’s a cost barrier to prevent all movies from being presented that way. Will that change in the future? Dunno. I’m kind of afraid that it will- but if it doesn’t, if there’s always an option to see the movie in 2D, I won’t complain. Well, okay, I lie- I will complain, perhaps just a bit. One thing that bugs me about 3D movies is that they always have some sort of “Look! We’re in **3D**!” moment. When I watch 3D movies in 2D, I always find myself wondering why the hero just threw the ball straight at the lens, for example. Kinda takes me right out of the movie to realize that the only reason he did that was to make everyone ooh and ahh over the ball flying right out into the audience. ---
**Author:** ![gaffa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e68b1a/32.png) [@gaffa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gaffa)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2009, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predicting-camerons-avatar-waterworld-or-titanic/519638/56 "2009-12-02T19:59:27Z")
> [@Red\_Barchetta](#): > > How if offering a movie in both formats “forcing a change”? If 3D were not attractive to the masses, the cost to produce such would not be justified. They are offering a 2D showing because not all of their theaters are currently able to show 3D. When that changes, when every movie theater has converted to digital, I’m confident that we’ll see few 2D showings of 3D movies. Follow the money - they are charging more for a 3D showing than a 2D one. That means they will show a 3D version instead of a 2D one, the stereoblind be damned. ---
**Author:** ![TheBoltEater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/779978/32.png) [@TheBoltEater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheBoltEater)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2009, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predicting-camerons-avatar-waterworld-or-titanic/519638/57 "2009-12-02T20:00:29Z")
I’m amused (though perhaps not wildly surprised) that there is already a global consensus that Avatar = great visuals with weak story. Doesn’t Cameron deserve a little credit by now? Which of Terminator, T2, Aliens, The Abyss (director’s cut version anyway) or Titanic had a weak story? I don’t expect Avatar to match or surpass the box office of Titanic (which was being savaged as an enormous disaster long before its release to an extent far greater than Avatar seems to be suffering), but I do expect it to be both a very good film and a legitimate box office hit. I’ll guess something along the lines of $300 million domestic and another $300-350 worldwide. If nothing else, this will be playing in IMAX theaters for a good 2 1/2 months or so, which will bring in some high ticket prices. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Barchetta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/da6949/32.png) [@Red\_Barchetta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Barchetta)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2009, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predicting-camerons-avatar-waterworld-or-titanic/519638/58 "2009-12-02T20:09:28Z")
> [@gaffa](#): > > They are offering a 2D showing because not all of their theaters are currently able to show 3D. When that changes, when every movie theater has converted to digital, I’m confident that we’ll see few 2D showings of 3D movies. Follow the money - they are charging more for a 3D showing than a 2D one. That means they will show a 3D version instead of a 2D one, the stereoblind be damned. And why is “every” theater converting to digital and offering 3D? Because the marketplace is clearly demanding it. That’s not “forcing change.” ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Barchetta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/da6949/32.png) [@Red\_Barchetta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Barchetta)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2009, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predicting-camerons-avatar-waterworld-or-titanic/519638/59 "2009-12-02T20:11:25Z")
> [@Lightnin](#): > > Well, okay, I lie- I will complain, perhaps just a bit. One thing that bugs me about 3D movies is that they always have some sort of “Look! We’re in **3D**!” moment. When I watch 3D movies in 2D, I always find myself wondering why the hero just threw the ball straight at the lens, for example. Kinda takes me right out of the movie to realize that the only reason he did that was to make everyone ooh and ahh over the ball flying right out into the audience. Up had none of those moments, and I suspect that is a trend that will soon become prominent. ---
**Author:** ![Tanbarkie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a698b9/32.png) [@Tanbarkie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tanbarkie)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2009, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predicting-camerons-avatar-waterworld-or-titanic/519638/60 "2009-12-02T20:17:19Z")
> [@Lightnin](#): > > Personally, I’ll be completely happy as long as 3D remains an _option_. Right now, there are a lot of theaters that can’t project 3D, so there’s a cost barrier to prevent all movies from being presented that way. Will that change in the future? Dunno. I’m kind of afraid that it will- but if it doesn’t, if there’s always an option to see the movie in 2D, I won’t complain. Why on earth _would_ it? If it’s true that 10% of the population can’t watch 3D movies, then there will always be a market for 2D films. Keep in mind that both blindness and deafness are _less_ common conditions (at \<4% and \<2% of the population, respectively), and the film industry does just fine in making sure they can still win their entertainment dollars. It’s basic economics: as long as people want to see 2D movies, the industry will provide them. > [@](#): > > Well, okay, I lie- I will complain, perhaps just a bit. One thing that bugs me about 3D movies is that they always have some sort of “Look! We’re in **3D**!” moment. When I watch 3D movies in 2D, I always find myself wondering why the hero just threw the ball straight at the lens, for example. Kinda takes me right out of the movie to realize that the only reason he did that was to make everyone ooh and ahh over the ball flying right out into the audience. As the novelty of 3D fades, so will the gimmicky use of 3D as you describe. It’s already fairly common for more story-driven 3D fare to eschew gimmicky shots. Neither “Up” nor “Coraline” had “LOOK AT US WE ARE IN 3D” moments, for example. But wait, you protest - “Up” used 3D to emphasize the dizzying heights at which the house is flying, while “Coraline” used 3D to reinforce the “diorama” look of the film! Yes, but I would argue that these are effective uses of 3D as an artistic tool, deepening the emotional impact of a shot rather than serving just to “wow” the audience with a visual effect. It’s just like color movies, or movies with sound. When those technologies first emerged, they were largely used in gimmicky ways - “Whoa! Listen to that train roar by!” But as the medium matured, and as audiences grew tired of the wiz-bang newness, filmmakers learned to use sound and color as additional tools in their palettes. “Jaws” would never have had the same impact without Williams’ foreboding two-note main theme. “Star Wars” wouldn’t be the same without the contrast between Vader’s red and Obi-Wan’s blue lightsabers. Are you going to call those gimmicks as well? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predicting-camerons-avatar-waterworld-or-titanic/519638.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predicting-camerons-avatar-waterworld-or-titanic/519638.md?page=4)