Well, I was just gonna post a “you’re wrong” post but that was better said.
That’s the difference between a great 3D movie and a good one. We just got our DVD of UP, and it wasn’t until the end of the movie that I remembered we had seen and greatly enjoyed the movie originally in 3D. Same thing with Coraline. But in watching The Mummy Returns on cable, (which we hadn’t previously seen at all), I was a little annoyed by the things that were obviously done just for the *Whiz-Bang-Pow! *3D effect. That truly sucks big 3D balls. I avoided Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs for the same reason - I could tell by the trailer that it would mostly be a Looka this 3d!!!1!! movie, and that simply turned me off.
They were forced to do so by the Americans with Disabilities Act and pressure from activist groups, not that they wanted to serve a small percentage of the population.
They are two different issues that have a small area of overlap. Theater chains and film distributors will move to digital distribution and projection because they will save a huge amount of money by no longer shipping prints, assembling prints, moving prints to different auditoriums in a multiplex, etc. It will save them a huge amount of money. The transition has proceeded slowly because the party that will save the majority of the money - the studios and distributors - don’t want to pony up to help the theater chains, who will also save money, just not as much. Printing and distributing six thousands prints of New Moon obviously costs orders of magnitude more money than digitizing and uploading a single file via satellite.
The servers and current state of the art projectors don’t care if the uploaded file is 2D or 3D.
I see films in digital when I can because the projection quality is vastly better than even the best film projection.
By the way, 3D projection is worse, if only because the image is much less bright because you’re watching the damn film wearing sunglasses.
Again, follow the money. The studios want 3D because they want to increase the average ticket price. Obviously, they want the money. The studio executives want higher grosses to feed their egos as well. The desires of the public barely even figure into all this.
And where does that money come from? The consumers, who are paying to view 3D movies. Were they not, we wouldn’t even be having this argument.
I too thought it would be about Aang and the gang and was dissappointed to find out it wasn’t but good news a movie is being made.
and the movie’s site
On the Cameron film I’m sure it will do well but I have no plans to see it. Some day in the future when SyFy shows it on some saturday when I am bored and being lazy I’ll probably watch it.
I’m basing my opinion off the trailer I saw. It seemed so boring and trite that I didn’t even bother to finish it. When even the *trailer *makes me yawn, that’s a bad, bad, bad sign.
Again, if Cameron had succeeded in his plan to have Avatar only shown in 3D, the public would not have been offered the choice. The move to digital projection is happening for economic reasons having little to do with consumer preference - a better picture is a “happy accident”. The ability of digital projection to show 3D is a side effect that enables them to raise ticket prices.
If there were a burning public demand for 3D, why did it disappear completely for decades? The technology was there. 35mm projectors remained capable of showing old or new 3D films. No, it disappeared because the public saw it as the gimmick is was and remains. It’s being pushed again because of all the reasons I’ve already mentioned. As they saw in Parliament “I refer the learned gentleman to my earlier remarks.”
The Dark Knight.
It’s not a gimmick.
Something that appears, is heavily promoted, disappears for a long time, re-appears, is heavily promoted, disappears again for a long time, re-appears…
What would you call something like that? We’re not talking about color or surround sound. We’re talking about Smell-o-Vision’s slightly more respectable cousin.
60 million U.S. kids age 5-18 will be off of school Dec. 25-31.
What movie do you think they will be going to see?
I don’t recall seeing very much fanfare over 3-d. Then again, being sort of out of the loop, I don’t make decisions based on the marketing.
I know I am going to see it.
I’m taking the day off to go see it, for my 39th birthday. This thread got off track with the 2D v 3D discussions but back tot he OP I think it’ll recoup it’s money $100 mil plus, opening weekend. Over $800 mil before it is over.
It’s being pushed again because the technology for it is superior. Circularly polarized glasses allow the viewer to tilt their head without disrupting the 3D effect, as was the case before.
They would, actually–they don’t have to go see the movie while it’s in theaters, y’know. If 3D is that large of a detriment (which it obviously isn’t, for most people), you still don’t have to see it in theaters.
Let’s clear up something right now. Digital Project and 3D are not synonymous. 3D films cost more to make than were they simply 2D. If people were not attending 3D films, the studios would not be able to justify the cost of making them, and they would go the way of the dodo. So far, that hasn’t been the case.
In short, 3D is anything but a side-effect.
I’ll also be going to see it. I don’t know why people are dismissing it so heartily, I’ve seen lamer looking movies be praised to the hilt, and sometimes it mystifies me that my tastes are so different to the majority.
I have not seen so much as a trailer for it. I think I will seek out one and see if it seems promising, BUT…
it has to look superbly amazing because of the “Incubus” effect: namely, that band wasn’t the worst out there, but I refused to like them because a band called freakin Incubus should blast your socks off with heavy metal goth rockin’, and they don’t. A movie called Avatar should similarly be made of awesome, or else it will also not justify its surpremely cool name.
For me, I have seen this movie already… actually TWICE.
It’s Dances with Wolves AND The Last Samurai. If it was an original sounding story I could get on board… but this… this trite mess- no thank you.
Your $100M/$800 is domestic or worldwide? My numbers above were domestic, but maybe I should have offered both.
Or maybe your first number is domestic open, and your second is worldwide total. that would make more sense.