What you're talking about isn't based on learning lessons but rather on basic human nature (re: being greedy). I also agree with what you said- Cameron is actually trying to advance the art of filmmaking while the makers of Clash of the Titans are trying to get more green out of our wallets.

3D TV's are coming very soon. ESPN will broadcast a couple of World Cup games in 3D this summer.

Don't like 3D. There's a sense of fake-ness about it that I don't like. Maybe when the hardware improves, and I'll review my judgement.

Incidentally, I watched Avatar in 3D. The poor story detracted me from the movie so much (heck at times it reminded me of World of Warcraft) that the visuals didn't help. Top it off since I wear glasses the 3D glasses over it only helped to drag them off my head. Not a great experience at all!

I have seen interesting news reports today concerning the box office numbers on first weekend 3D releases. Apparently, the proportion of people watching movies in 3D on their respective opening weekends is in steady decline. While 71 % of the opening week box office for Avatar was from 3D showings, it was down to 69 % for Alice in Wonderland, 68 % for How to Train your Dragon, 61 % for Shrek 4, 60 % for Toy Story 3, 56 % for The Last Airbender and 45 % for Despicable me. (I couldn't find a better link than this: http://gizmodo.com/5592956/is-3d-already-dying).

On the basis of these data, it could be argued that audiences have now experienced 3D and don't generally think that it justifies the extra expense. Then again, it may also be marketing related. After all, Avatar was pretty much a must-see 3D movie (or marketed as such).

It could also be a sign that the latest boom in 3D movies, as usual, is being perceived and consumed as a novelty experience. By definition, novelty enjoys a brief period of existence before fading away.

Yeah this isn't surprising in the least, the next 3-D film is that Cats And Dogs sequel and I don't think 3-D is going to do that movie any favors at the box-office. I also noticed that Green Hornet is slated to be in3-D-though unlike most films the filmmakers were actually the ones pushing the studios for the 3-D instead of the other way around, so I'm not too worried about that film.

My guess is that 3-D isn't going to go away completely, but it's going to end up being used primarily for select animated films. There is a backlash against so much 3-D. When it was fairly unique, people liked going to 3-D because it was something different. Now it's becoming merely expensive and irritating, especially with bad 3-D transfers like CLASH OF THE TITANS and THE LAST AIRBENDER.

Hollywood and theaters want more 3-D because the surcharge provides additional revenue. Ironically, it may be the surcharge that's killing the format. My guess is that more people would be willing to see 3-D if it cost the same or just a little more. At $4 a pop, it's a rip-off, just like Fake IMAX. It will be interesting to see if theaters reduce the surcharge from $4 to $2 if 3-D attendance continues to erode.

I received an e-mail a few weeks ago from someone who works in an eight-theater multiplex. According to her, they were showing TOY STORY 3 on two screens - one in 3-D and one in 2-D. For a 7 pm Saturday evening show, the 2-D theater was sold out but the 3-D theater was not.

Also, I have a question. As best I can recall, POLAR EXPRESS was the first widely distributed digital 3D feature. Was there a surcharge for seeing it in 3-D? I don't remember, probably because I don't think I ever saw it in 3-D.

Hollywood tries 3-D about every 30 years, and each time it has failed, because it's just a gimmick. It's probably going to fail again this time. It costs too much to produce, and the returns are often not worth that cost. I'm sure we'll be having this same discussion in 2040.

And there's the basic truth that it (so far) just hasn't added anything essential to the art of movie storytelling. It's a valid cinematic technique, to be sure, but so is the tacky high-speed zoom.

Personally, I don't see how 3-D can add anything essential to the movies. If the story is good, then the audience will be captured by the film. If it is bad, then they won't. I don't see how 3-D changes that equation.

I disagree with that, actually. You can have the best story in the world, but if your filmmaking is shit, it's not going to matter. How a message is conveyed will add or subtract from the potency of that message, in any medium. Film is no different.

Well despite what some people say, 3-D DOES NOT make or break a film, I saw Avatar in 2-D and thought it was decent at best and I can't imagine how seeing it in 3-D would've done much to improve my opinion on it, it certainly wouldn't erase the flaws in that film. I don't see how 3-D is "essential" to films in any way, to me it seems like little more then an elaborate excuse for Hollywood to drain more money from the pockets of moviegoers.

No filmmaking technique is "essential" in the sense that it's something that the film needs (there are obviously many different ways to tell a story), but it is "essential" in how the audience will receive the finished movie. Every little thing affects the whole, and that can mean good or bad. It's literally essential, in that it affects the essence of the experience.

I agree.

For some reason, I happen to be thinking of Yasujiro Ozu, who hardly ever moved the camera while filming, and would often hold shots at the same medium-height angle for minutes at a time. His style was very observational, but films like Tokyo Story are infinitely more affecting than Avatar and all its technical wizardry.

I should add one more thing: I also saw Avatar in 2-D (my local theater didn't have a 3-D system set up). I don't think my opinion of it would change if i saw it in 3-D.

Make a film? Probably not. Break a film? It most definitely can. My viewing experiences of CLASH OF THE TITANS and THE LAST AIRBENDER were compromised by shoddy 3-D. Ignoring the technical problems inherent with poor 3-D is like saying that watching a movie with a half-wattage projector light source and vasoline smeared on the lens won't ruin the viewing experience.

Now, if you mean that "competently composed 3-D that's intended to be 3-D from the beginning" won't break a film, I tend to agree. At least in that case it won't get in the way of watching the movie.

Yeah that was what I meant more or less, I'm saying that 3-D alone dosen't automatically make a film good or erase it's flaws.

Having had a year of seeing a reasonable number of films in 3D I can confirm that, without exception, every visit to the cinema was a waste of the additional money. With the exception of the end sequence in Despicable Me which I thought an engaging demonstration of the potential of 3D to amuse, studios have used the label to justify a higher seat price without delivering a better product. Although The Jazz SInger was a game-changer in proving the viability of talking pictures, 3D is just an excuse to soak gullible audiences into parting with their hard-earned cash.

Hi dmar91
Completely agree with your comments

I was at Costco last month and the AV guy said that 3D TVs just were not selling.
Number one iss is the idea of wearing glasses at home

Rob

On 3D movies: Walter Murch has my back.