No. Of course not.
And 3D is not going to replace all 2D movies, I don’t know why people get their panties in a bunch over this. :rolleyes: It’s an alternative, that’s all. If you can’t see it/don’t like it, then just don’t pay the extra to see it.
They fit perfectly fine over mine.
Which is exactly where Titanic was at this point in time before its release.
I’m hesitantly predicting a success. Though the budget might be so large that even being massively popular, possibly it won’t make its money back.
I have no interest in the story (it looks cheesy as hell) but I did see the 15 minute IMAX 3-D preview, and the effects looked completely amazing. (I watched the same preview online later and it looked like nothing special. The IMAX was incredible.) So I probably will end up seeing it, unless all the reviews come in saying it’s utterly terrible.
I think the question is do *you *have any taste?
None taken. I have good taste in film, but I also have a very wide ranging taste in film. I enjoy both art house films and Hollywood films. I enjoy Bollywood musicals. I enjoy comedy, action, drama, you name it. I don’t see quite as many films as most professional film critics, and it’s barely more than three films a week. It’s not hard to find three films to see if you enjoy a wide range of genres.
The last dozen films I saw (in reverse order):
[ul]
[li]The Blind Side[/li][li]Ten9Eight[/li][li]The Damned United[/li][li]Good Hair[/li][li]Pirate Radio[/li][li]2012[/li][li]Where The Wild Things Are[/li][li]The Box[/li][li]The Men Who Stare At Goats[/li][li]London Dreams (Bollywood)[/li][li]Amelia[/li][li]An Education[/li][/ul]
Some were great (Where The Wild Things Are and The Damned United), some were disappointing (Amelia and Pirate Radio), two were documentaries (Ten9Eight and Good Hair).
I’d say you enjoy movies where me and my wife love movies.
It was a very good year, and if motherfucking iTunes hadn’t ate my list, I could give you fifty films you should have seen as well.
I saw the 16-minute IMAX 3D preview and have to say that it did nothing for me. I didn’t get the sense that there’s going to be a compelling story under all the CGI and effects. The basic story outline – soldier infiltrates natives before attack and becomes sympathetic to them – is fairly cliched and uninteresting. That’s not to say that a great movie can’t be made from the theme, but I’m not highly optimistic. And now that I’m a grown-up, I’m more interested in interesting characters and an engrossing and original plot with emotional power than a bunch of computerized spaceships, aliens, and explosions.
Also, I don’t think Cameron is as good at 3D as he thinks he is. His IMAX 3D films did not use 3D very well, and unlike Zemeckis, who did a separate 3D version of A Christmas Carol just for IMAX, Cameron doesn’t seem to have paid much attention to the IMAX version of Avatar. He has inexplicably shrunk the image on the IMAX film prints so that it doesn’t fill the full height **or **width of the screen. He claims this smaller image somehow makes the 3D better. WTF?
But for all that, I’m not predicting it will bomb, because the success of Transformers and Twilight and many other films has proved that my tastes and the public’s are not one and the same. But I don’t think it will live up to expectations, because after all this hype, the only way it could would be if every human being in the world went to see it the first weekend. Anything short of that and some people will declare it a flop.
I’m only rising to your bait to point out how ludicrous this statement is:
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…
3D is no more a matter of discrimination against you than all movies (and TV, and books, etc.) are discrimination against blind people or sound tracks (and radio, telephones, iPods, etc.) are discrimination against deaf people. It’s unfortunate that you and others can’t resolve 3D, but I haven’t heard any blind people saying we should do away with all forms of visual communication because they can’t participate. We get that you don’t like 3D. Most of the rest of us do. Get over it.
In any case, according to an analyst from Screen Digest who spoke at a conference I attended in September, when the transition from 35mm to digital cinema is complete in a few years, only about one-third of movie screens will be 3D capable. (Unfortunately, her report is not available online.) Good news for you, gaffa! There will always be 2D films and 2D theaters!
The other piece of good news is that Cameron is money-grubbing enough to compromise on his 3D-only position: “Avatar will play in 3D at around 2,500 locations (180 IMAX) and 2D at 1,500 locations.” [emphasis mine] More good news for gaffa and JohnT.
But on that point, gaffa, let me ask you how you feel about colorization. If a director makes a film in B&W, should he be required to allow a colorized version? Doesn’t he have the artistic right to decide that his vision is B&W, and that colorizing would destroy that vision?
Then doesn’t it follow that if he decides that 3D is integral to the story he’s telling, he should have the right not to let it be shown in 2D, if he feels that would damage the integrity of his film?
Speaking of failing to prove things, gaffa,
Do you have an authoritative cite for this statistic?
And, at this point in the eternal dance, I point out that movie theaters have added Rear Window captioning so deaf people can enjoy movies in the theater, and Descriptive listening systems so blind people can enjoy movies in the theater as well. And, at this point, you try to change the subject.
The simple fact is that your supposed riposte is dumb. 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?
Can you, at long last, admit that your argument is dumb?
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?
Good, thanks. I wanted to see this film, and I’m glad that it is going to be in 2D.
What are you talking about? Here’s a list of logical fallacies. Please try to avoid them. Thank you.
If Jim Cameron wishes to make 3D films, he should show them in their proper place - amusement parks and IMAX theaters. They are pushing this to get the average ticket price up.
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).
You’re pretending that I have the power to forbid this shit. All I’m doing is arguing against it, and letting people who are unaware that:
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.
OH shit! ONLY 3D?
Yeah, I’m another one of those whose eyes can’t cope with this. Dammit!
Of course, I haven’t got money to see a money right now anyway, but I was hoping to scrape together enough for a combined Holiday/anniversary present for my husband and I to go see a movie, and he wants to see Avatar. Which means HE gets to enjoy himself - at best I get eyestrain and jacksquat.
No, it’s not only in 3D.
They don’t have glasses that both show the same image for the 3D impaired? It seems too easy to do for them not to do it.
I’m a gimpy-eyed freak who can’t do the 3D thing.
So what? Just because I can’t enjoy it, nobody else should?
In any case, it’s a false alarm. Most movies will never have the budget to go 3D, and in any case there is enough demand for 2D, from us and from luddites who refuse to try something new, that there will always be plenty of 2D releases.
I think I will never forgive him for this movie.
I imagine it’s much like websites that are hell for the colorblind - it’s so easy to test beforehand to make sure that’s not a problem, it seems too easy to do for them not to do it. I guess some sites don’t care if they alienate 10% of their potential visitor/customer base. I guess some movie makers/theaters don’t care if 10% of the public has no use for their product.
Those with fully normal sight typically don’t care, aren’t aware, and don’t give a flying [expletive deleted]
This belongs in another thread, but, 2007 was an outstanding year for films. You do list 2 of the very best ones. I personally think that There Will Be Blood was not only the best film of 2007, or the best film of the decade (so far, anyway) but one of the best films ever, and I was very happy that, if it had to lose the Academy Award to another picture, that it lost to No Country For Old Men. Still though, with that kind of good taste, assuming you live in a place where you have a good choice (and maybe you don’t) you should have found several dozen other films worth seeing. (that’s not my list, I just found it in a search, but damn, there are so MANY great movies on that list).
I saw at least 170 movies in the theater last year, and like gaffa, I think I have good taste in movies, but I also have WIDE taste in movies. I also try to see movies I love several times on the big screen. I saw There Will Be Blood 9 or 10 times in the theater, and wish I’d seen it more.
On topic, I want to and will see Avatar. I don’t like the previews at all, but I like James Cameron, so I expect better than what the previews promise. I have no idea how it’ll do, I’m terrible at predictions.
I can see 3D, but I’d rather not if I can help it. Besides not wanting to encourage them in charging extra, I too wear glasses and the 3D glasses are clunky and uncomfortable over my glasses. If I could get prescription 3D glasses, that’d be so cool, but I’d only use them for really REALLY special 3D movies. Like Avatar.
I have no interest in seeing *Avatar *personally. However, my 16-year-old geekling daughter is rather excited about it. She has gotten into the habit of seeing films with me that The Wife is not interested in (since Cloverfield, we saw Beowulf, Star Trek, Inglourious Basterds, and *2012 *among others.)
I am going to encourage her to take one of her geek friends to see it with her. I believe I am no longer the target demographic for dragon-riders vs attack helicopters.
I was just humming along, reading this thread with interest but not really having a dog in this fight until -
skreee[SIZE=“3”]eeech!!![/SIZE] (best representation of needle across a record sound I could come up with)
Hold up just one fucking minute here! I love 3D animated movies (well, the good ones, like Pixar and whoever did Coraline - we just discovered them last year). Where the fuck do you get off telling me I have to go to a goddam amusement park or drive an hour and a half to an IMAX theater to see a movie in a format I really enjoy? I’m a crippled old hippie and I’ll be damned if your disability to see 3D trumps my disability to travel comfortably in a car for long periods of time, and don’t even get me started on the ludicrous notion of amusement parks. You can’t see it. I get it. Ignore it - it’s not being forced on you.:rolleyes::mad:
The entire Harrier jump-jet sequence at the end was CGI - very revolutionary for its time.
I’ll be watching Avatar. Cameron is a terrific director of action sequences - particularly chase scenes - and for that reason alone his films are worth seeing.
The DVD and Blu Ray release will be regular 2D as well.
And I had no idea that some folks can’t see forced 3D.
My ability to see it isn’t great either though I am able to focus my eyes on it and resolve the double image that I see even with the glasses on into one. It gives me eyestrain after a while though so I don’t care for it.