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.
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.
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 watchingNew 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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: “‘…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.
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.
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.
Keep telling yourself this if it makes you feel better. For reality-based readers, here’smy response to another 3D-denier in another thread as to why this incarnation of 3D is here to stay.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
: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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
