They will. Love it or hate it, Avatar was painstakingly created by a director who paid a LOT of attention to and spent a LOT of the studio's money on the technical details of the process. Studio's converting half-finished projects just to cash in will result in crappy 3D that won't work right and will quickly sour the audiences, especially if they're still charging a premium for 3D showings.

Yeah, small doses. 3D should be reserved for when the director has a specific aesthetic purpose for it. Who the hell needs the next Woody Allen film in 3D? I'll check out Alice in Wonderland and anything else James Cameron wants to do, but a done-in-post Harry Potter or James Bond? F that.

Seriously, I thought I walked in to bizarro world when people seemed to be so concerned about the artist Michael Bay and his respect for the craft.

Doesn't that prove his use of IMAX in TF2 was nothing more than a cheap gimmick? The IMAX shots take up only 2 minutes or so of the film. But hey--he was still able to market TF2 as an IMAX experience, which probably helped him sell a few more tickets.

At the risk of becoming a Bay apologist, the IMAX footage overwhelmed ILM and was scarcely finished in time for the release of the film. Paramount set the release date; Bay's job was simply to execute and deliver on time. It's a tad unfair to interpret the small use of IMAX in the film as evidence of his thoughts on it one way or another.

[QUOTE=Ash Ketchum;9978975]I don't think any director's ever really mastered 3-D. In the old days, Jack Arnold came the closest, having shot three of his best films in the process (CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON, IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE, REVENGE OF THE CREATURE). I've seen all three in 3-D and I thought the last one (REVENGE, 1955) did the best job with the process. Too bad he couldn't have developed it more, but by then the 1950s 3-D craze had passed. Even so, the one 3-D film from the old days that I thought did the best job with the process was George Sidney's MGM musical, KISS ME KATE (1953).

Jack Arnold also did THE GLASS WEB in 3-D; and IMO that had the best stereo of the bunch. You really like REVENGE the best? It's generally considered to be very flawed; as the cameras were out of phase in a few shots and it also includes a considerable amount of flat footage; presumably because of further problems.

I think KISS ME KATE is good too, but it still has a few problems. From a purely technical standpoint; William Castle's 3-D movies were excellent (FORT TI, DRUMS OF TAHITI and JESSE JAMES VS THE DALTONS).

Most of the 1950s films are very good technically; far better than what came later.

Does anyone know Spielberg's opinion of 3D? If Spielberg says he won't do 3D then it won't last long.

Tintin will be in 3D.

I don't think Spielberg is all that relevant at this point.