Solid Snake

Cameron wanted to go 60fps but Fox said no. It'd be a bitch and a half for sure to work on it like that. Animators alone would commit mass suicides.

We did some 60fps stuff here at school...it's just too much. 24 is safe but 60 is obviously better.

Rob V

PS 3D haters -- it's not going anywhere anytime soon either. With Lucas announcing the SW trilogy being converted to 3D (right, wrong or indifferent), it'll be present until probably 2017 and beyond.

RocShemp

Supposedly he's gonna do 48fps in the sequel.

Mabuse

What about the possiblility that Avatar was a one-off success that will never be replicated? Nothing has come close since. Meanwhile the technology and reputation of 3D have been debased by films aimed to cash in on the fad.

At this point I don't think 3D can be saved from itself. Poor films, cheap conversions, and poor quality screenings might turn audience opinion against it.

Where I definately 100% agree with Murch is that it is alienating. The IMAX 3D experience (the only recent 3D exhibition format I've personally experienced, starting with Polar Express) is very immersive, it makes you feel like the film is playing right there in your lap, just for you. This is an incredible sensation and it helps certain films. It immerses, but it also alienates. It alienates you from the rest of the audience. The cinema has always been a communal experience, but 3D takes a lot of that away. 3D will never work for comedies. It doesn't work well for horror films. It robs film of its communal nature.

Audiences might actually embrace this issolation as we all increasingly insulate ourselves with laptops, iphones, etc, but even if they do embrace it and 3D wins the day, it will not be a "win" for quality or art.

In the end there's one thing audiences crave: Novelty. "Show me something I've never seen before" is what the viewer asks for. Avatar did exactly that. Does that mean that from now on every film should be a 3D CGI fantasy? Of course not because that's not novel. Avatar already gave them that. H'wood goes wrong when they see Avatar's success and say, "This means people want 3D. This means they want everything in 3D!" They just aren't getting it. Avatar's success is rooted in novelty, people wanted a unique experience and Cameron gave it to them. Hollywood's five year plan is to keep giving them the same thing as many times as possible.

Some day 3D will be old hat and audiences will ake off their glasses look around and say "Show me something I've never seen before"

Labor

What about waiting until what directors like Spielberg, Lucas, Scorcese, Jackson, Scott, Del Toro, et all (hell, even Bay) do with their own films before writing off Avatar as a one off success?

I mean, I think that is more than sensible rather than writing it off due to poor conversions and in general poorly directed films made by poor directors.

But I agree that someone needs to put a stop to 3d-izing any movie with a large budget. I mean Marvel, in addition to making crummy looking upcoming films have decided to convert those films as well. An unsurprisingly stupid decision from the studio. At least WB learned their lesson and called off the conversion for Sucker Punch (though the Green Lantern might still be converted afaik)

And there's no arguing 3D would benefit from improved frame rate, but that is another issue entirely.

as an aside, Im not sure how alienating oneself from the rest of an audience in order to be immersed into the film can be considered bad. Audiences are by far the worst part of modern cinema viewings. Anything that helps to focus their attention on the screen rather than each other is a move in the right direction as far as I am concerned. This has nothing whatsoever to do with "quality" or "art"

Supermallet

I think Titanic was a one-off success for 2D.

PopcornTreeCt

Avatar would've been a blockbuster even without 3D.

Labor

It probably would have been different in several ways, but still successful for sure.

The final edit pretty obviously puts the 3D immersion experience to the forefront...then again, not like Cameron had a choice as he had to cut out 50+ minutes of movie just to get it to fit in the IMAX format.

slop101

Even if the same number of people went to see Avatar, it would've made about 20% less money due to the inflated cost of 3D movie tickets.

Mr. Cinema

I'm a fan of 3D movies. I've only seen 2 so far, Avatar and Piranha. The former of course made great use of the tech. The latter's was shoddy for the most part, but still used it effectively when it needed to and made the film more enjoyable.

Indy Jones Fan

Excellent point.

RichC2

20% less $2.8 billion is still a lot of money.

Indy Jones Fan

Another excellent point

PopcornTreeCt

Exactly. That's why I stated it would still be a hit.

As for 3D, well I'm kinda anxious to hear what Spielberg is doing. Despite Cameron's big movies, Spielberg is still the blockbuster king of the world.

bluetoast

Spielberg is doing Tintin with Cameron's technology, and Jackson is on deck for the next in the series. I hope it will be awesome, the Empire article indicated as much. Before his death, Herge said that Spielberg is the only one who could do a Tintin film justice, and here we are almost 30 years later. Then again I am a huge Tintin fan. Wait I was supposed to talk about 3D?!

Mabuse

After Titanic was a hit Scorsese and Bay each made epic period romances set amidst a historic conflict and both were awful. Just because big names jump on the band wagon doesn't mean it's a wagon worth taking a ride on.

Like I said before, if 3D were just one of many tools in an artist's bag, and he could choose to use 3D when the subject or moment really warranted it, that would be great. But right now it's a commercial cash grab.

Draven

It will always be a "cash grab". Theaters spend millions adding 3D capabilities to their theaters. Moviemakers aren't going to just pull out 3D when needed (which I think is never but whatever). There will be a constant influx of 3D until either the theaters or Hollywood call uncle.

The problem with 3D, when people compare it to color and sound, is that it's not universal enough. I'm sure Hollywood and the movie theaters dealt with a similar issue back in the day, but I think at this point we can all agree that color and sound applies to any mainstream movie. (And yes I know some movies are in black and white even today, but most are not). So everything from a romantic comedy to a big-budget action flick can play in the same movie theater.

Now we have this niche technology that only seems to apply to a few specific genres of movies, costs more to shoot, show and watch (so everyone feels the pinch) and may ultimately fall out of favor with everyone involved.

It's a huge mess and I think it all will eventually cause some serious problems in an industry that is already struggling.

pinata242

3D in movies is as essential as scratch 'n sniff pages in the works of Dostoevsky.

arminius

Ahh, I love the smell of Raskolnikov in the morning. It smells like victimry.

Ash Ketchum

I had to look Bay up on IMDB to see which of his films fit this description. This is the first time I've heard PEARL HARBOR referred to as an "epic period romance." But in the context of TITANIC and the Scorsese one, which I'm assuming is GANGS OF NEW YORK and not THE AVIATOR, both of which starred TITANIC's star, I can see that. I tended to like PEARL HARBOR, but chiefly because I was amused by the sheer audacity Bay showed in making a WWII propaganda film 60 years after the fact.

foofighters7

3-D is and has always been a gimmick for people who fall prey to gimmicks. It's for people who like shiny things, plain and simple. It does nothing for me in any way. I hope it's relegated back to the 'rare use category'. It's moronic and if anything hurts the art of cinema, and dumbs down film goers.

Mabuse

I was recently reminded of Ebert's review of the film
I fail to see how it could be described as anything BUT a period romance. Clearly Bay thought he was making his Titanic. The romance was shoehorned into a story that didn't need it in a bid to grab Titanic-like success. Remember, the romance in Titanic was a big factor in its success, with teenage girls seeing it 2-3 times and the like.

bluetoast

Interesting article.

4 reasons 3-D movies don't have to suck

reverie

I agree more with that article than the original one in the thread.

PopcornTreeCt

Blah, Blah shoot it in real 3D, blah blah ... saw Avatar and the 3D wasn't that great.

Now don't get me wrong I'm all for a better depth of field and I think 3D or (4D?) has great potential to explore those areas but I'll never buy into it if I have to pay extra money and wear glasses.