If 3D was not the director's original intent, why would I see it that way?

Or pay more for it?

I'm looking forward to Clash Of The Titans, but it will be in the shot for 2D version, thanks.

Isn't it amazing that Cameron said Avatar was a game-changer and people laughed and spewed bile and called him all sorts of dreadful names and…well, then it actually… was?

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I think the 3-D movement is an overt, concerted effort to save the theatrical movie-going experience and its considerable revenues from becoming extinct. I know people already know and believe this, but I think it's much more calculated than most might believe. It's a strategy adopted by an entire industry — agreed upon by the biggest players — to combat piracy and lure the average citizen, who is completely seduced by technology and shiny things, nowadays. I believe that's why Avatar features only the most rudimentary of storytelling, worn dialogue and stock characters; it was intentional. It "levels the playing field" so to speak, and presents an audience with something comfortable instead of challenging; something inviting instead of demanding. Familiar. As is being demonstrated by the absurd box office numbers, such a film reaches the maximum number of viewers (and we know that the bulk of Avatar's take is coming from 3-D), thereby planting the seed far and wide, and creating a desire for more of the same worldwide. I think Avatar was just the chosen catalyst, exquisitly designed and executed for maximum effect, and dumb enough to catch the most fish in its net.

Commentguy, nobody would call you a conspiracy theorist. Everybody from Katzenberg on down has been saying this for years.

I love the site, but this anti-3d sentiment that keeps coming up is kind of lame. I have no problem with having the option to see a movie in 3d. 3d was literally the only redeeming quality of Avatar. If we start getting movies about the Holocaust in 3d, then by all means start bitching about how much the process destroys cinema. Just because it's a trend in Hollywood doesn't mean it's a bad thing.
In fact, I believe that there were plenty of 3d movies that came out this year before Avatar. Have you ever seen that Coraline movie? It's pretty rad!

The Guitar Hero syndrome argument is what I've been saying 3D is gonna suffer from, and I hope it does.

It's getting out of hand, so that's why I embrace the 3Dification of every movie a studio feels like 3Dfying.

Come on major studios! Feep bringing on the 3D so we can pass this kidney stone of a fad and move on to the next one.

"Isn't it amazing that Cameron said Avatar was a game-changer and people laughed and spewed bile and called him all sorts of dreadful names and…well, then it actually… was?"

Except it didn't change the game in quite the way Cameron expected, did it? The "new" 3-D has been around for years, and I don't see a whole lot of mo-cap films ramping up production.

The 3D technology used on Avatar was developed by Cameron and to date has only been used to film Avatar. So no, the "new" 3D you speak of has not been around for years. Next!

CommentGuy, not only has everyone been saying it for years, we've already seen this concerted approach before – say 50 or so years ago when the great threat was TV. Exact same crap. Ex-ACT.
And TCD…you've bravely completely missed the fucking point, haven't you. NOTHING is being developed using the "game-changing" approach Cameron used (sorry kids, he may have funded the development, but he hardly gets credit for actually developing the technology). This is ALL being done with pre-existing technology that everyone including play-it-safers like Disney have had giants like ILM use in converting thier film for at least decade.

Make mine 2D also. Can't wait for this 3D nonsense to burn itself out.

Why don't they just spend more money t produce original stories. Even Hollywood's fads are "rebooted"

@#9: You mean the cameras or the facial capture? Cameras were used on Final Destination last year and I think some Imax stuff. The facial capture stuff was pre-existing (check the internet for non-Avatar related dev videos), but had a fuck-ton of cash poured into it's development (and it still requires huge animator input to be useable). To continue: The on-the-fly previz was reasonably new, but it was already being developed (and it's not reatime full-textured rendering like some have claimed – it's very basic-looking and still didn't fix eye-line problems). Devin was actually very right in that Avatar is Evolutionary and not revolutionary. 3D Cinema will probably be around for quite a while, but the real kicker will be home-3d. These mass up-conversions will really hit paydirt if they can make 3D-in-the-home work (EVERYBODY gets rich off home video revolutions). JC isn't interested in any of that stuff. He just wants the Box Office glory and he got it. Be happy for him and his solid gold underpants.

You buffoons who are saying 3D is a passing fad need to bang your head against the wall and fix your eyes back in. It's here to stay. It ain't burning out. It's the new REALITY. And also, anyone who says Avatar wasn't a "game changer" are also dimwits. Do you really think we'd be seeing all these announcements about films being converted from 2D up to 3D if Avatar had grossed $50? Get fucking real. That's the game changingBEFORE YOUR VERY EYES, dickheads. The world isn't flat. Use your brains. In a few years you might look back and weep at your own blindness – but then again, the chances are that by then you'll be denying you said anything so retarded. Nobheads.

Yappy's Dog Treats: When Saw VII in 3d comes out, you'll understand. I'm interested in 3d, but not for live action films.

"Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I think the 3-D movement is an overt, concerted effort to save the theatrical movie-going experience and its considerable revenues from becoming extinct."

Hell…. Does anyone NOT think this? It's a given.

I am curious specifically about this 3D conversion. *In the right hands* and used for the right reasons, could it be another useful tool in a skilled filmmaker's toolset?

After seeing the truly pointless 3D at the beginning of the last Harry Potter movie, I'm done seeing movies in 3D that weren't shot for it. I will continue to enjoy it as a gimmick for bad horror movies, though.

It's called business. Capitalism. Darwinism. Companies will keep finding ways to make money by enhancing their product until it's no longer necessary. It's not a conspiracy. There are no shadowy midgets lurking in window-less rooms phoning in vague instructions to corporate lackeys. It's just trends and strategic/tactical thinking. Whether specific directions or trends are right or wrong is up for debate, of course, but there's no conspiracy

I'm curious, too. The same people who did Avatar are upconverting Clash of the Titans. Call me crazy, but I don't think the studio spends the money and pushes the date unless they love, not just like, what they've seen.

gamechanger = 50% rise in ticket price

I have to admit Avatar was a game changer. It made the people in charge of the movies we get realize they can have bad stories that are poorly written and people will eat it up so long as the effects are real purdy. Actually no, wait, I think George Lucas proved that first with the new Star Wars movies. Never mind.

Any Lepuses in this?

This movie will be 10 times better than that overrated shitfest AVATURD. FACT!

What's the point?

Maybe they can add some 3d charisma to Sam Worthingtons performance, cause his 2d version has none. I love you more than any man with bitch tits could, Devin.

The fact is – it costs roughly only $5 million to take an existing digital movie and make it 3D. That is all. This doesn't give as good an effect as films shot in 3D, but it does give an 'ok' – and 3D look to the movie.
Therefore, for only $5 million, a company can release more expensive viewings, adding a substantial amount to their box office takings… Ergo, many films new films will have 3D pass overs before being released if the stuiods believe that the film is good, and would therefore attract the additional audience. This is why we are going to see re-releases of classics making their way to 3D. Star Wars in 3D – more chance for Mr Lucas to squeeze some more money out of its fans… And then a couple of years later – 3D Blu Ray releases of those same films, so we have to re-buy the same films again… Just remember, it's up to the individuals whether they want to see 2D or 3D – or re-buy a classic in 3D (after buying a new 3D TV).. It's called choice, which isn't a bad thing – and will pump more money into the film industry which allows the film industry to at least make some indie and daring films. So, it's not all bad (in fact, choice must = good)… Dontcha think?