I think 3D makes movies worse, because it's utterly distracting from the story. With Avatar, that helped, because the story was so poorly written.

CGI is something that can be used badly by looking fake or used well by being used in a realistic manner (or alternatively in a hyper-stylized way). But unlike a lot of people who see 3D as a natural evolution towards realism like color was, I think it's the opposite. When I watch a "2D" film, it looks real to me, depth perception seems accurate and it is like looking into a window. In a "3D" film, people and objects look like flat cardboard cutouts in a pop-up book. I think there's a place for it, every now and then and rarely, for stylistic visual purposes, but I just can't fathom watching most movies and TV in 3D. Imagine a Woody Allen film or Dexter in 3D. It would be a joke.

I don't think every single film lends itself to 3D, but again, it's a tool. Some will use it well, and many won't.

My problem with this movie isn't the 3D, it's that it wasn't as photorealistic as James Cameron hyped it to be. When his blue CGI people are dropped into a real world setting, they look photorealistic; but when they're in a scene surrounded by CGI jungle, CGI animals, CGI sky, and CGI mountains, the whole thing looks animated to me... like a moving painting. This was one of my biggest complaints about the Star Wars prequels. (Off the top of my head, the battle of Geonosis in Episode II comes to mind.) I was hoping digital effects had advanced a bit more between the Star Wars prequels and Avatar, to the point where CGI characters and scenery always look 100% photorealistic, but I guess it hasn't. Then again, maybe the culprit is Hi Def TV; watching Avatar in 1080p makes every scene SO clean and SO crisp that it may actually detract from the photorealism Cameron was trying to achieve with his CGI characters and scenery.

I just hope the success of this movie doesn't mean more movies will be filmed entirely inside a studio against a green screen rather than traveling to locations or stepping outside to capture the effects natrual sunlight has on scenes and their subjects.

What I love is now Cameron is speaking out against post-production 3D and encouraging people to use the 3D cameras... which, of course, his company invented and patented.

Well, it helps that it does provide a better 3D image.

I strongly think movies that reach that level of achievement have a negative influence for the short term. In that copy cats come along rather quickly and are NEVER as good. Years from now after everybody is done trying to out gimmick each other maybe, and then maybe, the storytelling aspects and good direction will start to play again in movies that want to utilize the new technologies that James Cameron explored. After all, the countless Star Wars rip off movies that followed the 1977 epic are long forgotten but the work ILM started back then changed the look of movies for decades following and eventually resulted in good movies being made.

I agree. There needs to be something 'real' in the composition to sell the illusion.

There were certain things that I would call "photorealistic". I remember the floating mountains, the "heights" and the final battle's aircraft all looking 'real'.

Honestly, my 3D experience was better than the 2D. The 3D gave so much to pay attention to, that I was more immersed and thought less about how 'real' it was. The 3D/theater gave it a grain that isn't present in the DVD. So I think that the DVD isn't quite as impressive. Still a fun, enjoyable flick, though. And, as I said when it came out, I'm more 'appreciative of the craftsmanship' of it than anything.

It's effect? I looovvveee that it's a sci-fi movie that made big bucks. I want to see more of them. The 3D fad (it's still a fad, for now) is obvious. But that's the thing about movies. Just because Avatar was made and made $2bil, it doesn't mean that we'll see a bunch of similar movies. It's still something that only James Cameron (and maybe a few others) can tackle.

I actually enjoyed the film more at home, on Blu Ray in 2D, then I did in 3D. When it comes to image quality, I'm really picky and like to see all the details clearly, with 3D that is nearly impossible. When the image is dimmed and stuff is popping out at you its hard to fully take in beautiful imagery.

Well, the results speak for themselves.