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.

Q&A - 12/7

Question I still have issues with the baker case. . why could the baker not serve the gay couple? Here is a good analogy Imagine you ...