Avatar

Seriously though, there's games and there's the charming feeling and look of the film in cinema. Mixing the two is a very bad idea with commercial roots (of course), trying to aim more and more to the teenage masses who have (obviously) very low standards and spend so much more in the cinemas than older generations. I am glad i'll be seeing it in standard cinema.

Indeed; to show movies in 3D, you have to use digital projection automatically, which means those updated theatres can show 2D movies digitally from now on, and THAT improvement would be hard to deny even by the harshest critics. My first digital movie projection was like as if getting new glasses - everything was incredibly sharp, down to the smallest details. That was an eye-opener in itself.

Regarding to 3D, I can see where that "marketing trick" approach and scepticism is coming from, but after all, they are trying to get the audience into 3D since the Fifties, so this is hardly a new trick, just another try at pimping things up. 2D isn´t going away, but indeed I see 3D as an additional possibility to lure people back into theatres to watch a movie, which is where it actually belongs, in a theatre.

Beside that, I don´t have to wait for Avatar to know about the effect 3D has on me. Personally, I like it very much. Years ago, we had an IMAX, and the experience to see a 3D movie on a big screen was amazing. There was a scene with people sitting around a table at an inn, and it was filmed to make you believe that you were sitting there with them, and it worked. It was NOT about throwing things at you, not about showing off some shiny effects, it was just to pull you into the setting, and it was breathtaking. If Cameron went for that approach with Avatar, this truly could be a revolution.

In the end, EVERYTHING is done to earn money. So what? As long as it is GOOD, I have NO problem with that. If the 3D enhances this "new world" experience the way I hope it does, this is EXACTLY what I´m paying for. And since it´s a Cameron movie, we´ll get lots of action and amazing effects work, too. I see nothing bad about this AT ALL.

In the fifties there were no electronic games. Now, that those are at their highest peaks, it's the right time and the market is ready for the new technology but allow me to have my doubts on its overall quality just yet. You seem predetermined to like it no matter what, i am awaiting to see first and then decide. After all, all my 3d experiences so far weren't particularly great (in Beowulf i got a headache too) and i'd not rate them higher than standard cinema. Just wait and see is what i am saying, not everything new is better than the past (lossly compression in mp3s taking over the musical world vs the cd and vinyl for instance).

Damn.
That isn't very reassuring.

In fact, some quick research yielded that almost no one can watch a 3D film without physical discomfort (usually expressed as a head ache) and almost 10% of people is unable to watch 3D films altogether!
10%!

I fear very much this is not a development for me.

Sure, and I should probably have added that the few times I've watched 3D movies (very brief ones! 45-60 minutes!) I ended up with severe double vision well before the end and a truly splitting headache that took a day to subside. SO I'm understandably a bit more focused on possible downsides. To me it's more than just being uncomfortable. It's a pretty severe hindrance.
(It's probably to do with a cylindrical deviance I have in my right eye. Makes my contacts pretty expensive too. )

Ah, but it certainly does!
In fact, it's one of the top concerns for the industry: are we or are we not going to push on with a technology that 10% of media consumers is physically unable to watch?

That's a concern they never had with the advent of colour, or stereo!

(The other two of the top three concerns are indeed sheer technical: how to translate quality demands into 3D products.)

It's two different questions: the tech per se is obviously neither good nor bad. It's just new.
But whether it's a viable success is still a long way off from having been definitively determined!

Sure, and I´m far from saying that 3D will be the next step, I just doubt that it will fail because of that viewing problem. How large is the percentage of people who never go into a (2D) theatre for any other kind of reasons?

Not sure what you mean? I don't think there's a very large percentage of the population that misses out on cinema because physical impossibilities or defects.
Well, the blind, obviously?

I´ve talked to my wife about these "wonder" books just this morning. As a matter of fact, watching a 3D movie very much feels like when you finally "got" the 3D object and then go on watching it for a prolonged time. I guess if you were able to do it, you would get a headache quite soon.

My wife can see them, so I hope for the best.

Guys, at least at the moment, 2D replacement is not even considered or an option. So let´s just concentrate on the tech for what it is, another way to watch a movie, and not look at it as a potential danger for what you love and hold dear.

I really can´t see where this kind of negativity about 3D is coming from. Every movie that´s shwon in 3D is shown in 2D as well, so where´s the problem? If you don´t like it, so be it. But you seem almost afraid.

Afraid?

I'm just discussing the pros and cons of the technique, and the market ramifications.

Don't you think that 3D is really harmful to human eyes?

Good one!



EDIT: (Erm. You were kidding, weren't you?)

I think it doesn´t matter what I think. I´m sure in twenty years, there will be lots of studies about the topic that will either prove or laugh about your theory.

I have no idea where that "gaming" stuff is coming from. If you´re referring to that "Viewmaster" tech, I´m quite sure is was developed after the Fifties, after 3D was developed for cinema.

I´ve always seen 3D coming from the movie industry, not from the gaming industry.