Originally Posted by Max Mike
Yes Avatar was derivative tripe dressed up up gimmicky visual baubles the movie equal to a empty meal and as a result it will end up as a technological footnote and not considered a great movie, that is exactly the point. Yea people rushed to see something they had never seen... they saw it and after the rush yawned.
Say what you thought of the movie but don't put words into everyone else's mouths. Not just about Avatar but you also have a habit of acting like your lack of appreciation of 3D is somehow more authoritative.
Yes movies are a visual medium but the story is still king and will stand without additional not so shiny baubles if the movie is truly good in 3D it will be truly good in 2D, 3D does nothing to make movies good just makes them different. Of course nice cinematography is important this has nothing to do with 3D.
Most movies would be fine in mono black and white and shot like a play. But there are many details that enhance the overall atmosphere of a movie. 3D is no exception in that regard, 3D can be used as a tool to enhance the visuals for either aesthetic or even emotional reasons. I see something like Pandora in 3D and I am in awe and in love with the world, moreso than if I had only seen it in 2D. That is not to be debated, that some people appreciate 3D more and consider it to play its own role and isn't just a shiny thing- show an inkling of respect.
Yea I know true believers rage it ain't so but markets have actually decided and contrary to what some think in this thread the vast majority could care less about 3D.
That doesn't prove anything. Pricing is important, I'm sure, but I can't speak for everyone. I mean, people don't pay extra just because a movie cost more to make- they don't have to pay more to see Dark Knight than to see 21 Jump Street.
Also, tthat percentage fluctuates based on the season and based on the movie. Hugo and Tintin? High 70's.
This is mostly about the emotion some seem to invest in 3D look at the hysterics a couple posts up and the absurd claim anyone who see 3D as a gimmick is a hypocrite...
Do you have a counter-point about that or are you just here to make cocky references with no context? Seriously, grow the hell up.
seriously, really it not like 3D has failed before and before and 3D is somehow the same as actually important improvements in cinema, 3D is in fact recycled gimmick.
So because 3D died in previous iterations, it's somehow proof that today's 3D will die too? Uh... analog film, dual strip 3D, uh, switching film, syncing it, aligning it, dealing with huge bulky cameras, not having many theaters to show it in? Those reasons are why 3D failed previously. You should study up on your history of 3D.