Saturday, November 26, 2011



[..] 3-D for "Avatar" was absolutely stunning. Using 3-D technology not to have things fly out at us from the screen, but instead to create a realistic depth to what we were watching, was how 3-D was always meant to be.

The interesting part was that the studios didn't pay attention to why those buying tickets to "Avatar" were willing to spend more for 3-D. They were only paying attention to the fact that people were spending more to watch a movie in 3-D.

Instead of Cameron leading a new evolution of filmmaking, we instead got movies -- especially those already heavy in special effects -- to get 3-D converted. Not filmed in 3-D ... converted in 3-D.

It was head-slapping. Hollywood had a hold of some excellent technology, modernized by the genius of Cameron as a filmmaker, and somehow smashed it into the ground. Audiences at first didn't know the difference. They felt that the 3-D had to be as good as "Avatar," so they would snatch up 3-D tickets, paying a premium for the privilege.

However, they would walk out disappointed. The 3-D experience in a film like "Clash of the Titans" was not the same as what they saw in "Avatar." And slowly but surely, people at the ticket counter decided to stick with 2-D, and opt out of 3-D.

Yet, Hollywood sees that only as a negative blip on the overall radar, and feel 3-D is going to come back.


Agree 100%. For me 3D now is a negative that needs to be weighed against potential positives of a movie. If a movie has a good director, one great, two average actors, I might just see it. If this movie is in 3D however, then the negatives outweigh the positivies, and I'll pass.


Link Yeltsin was deeply unpopular at that time in Russia, polling no more than 8% and widely blamed for the rise of the gangster oligarch...