Nah, I don't think so. Avatar has definetly triggered a new fad of 3-D, and it'll be around for another few years or so. But I doubt ALL movies will be in 3-D.

But, whenever the sequel to Avatar comes out... then we'll have another 3-D fad.

And when the threequel comes out... another 3-D fad.

And then if Cameron decides to milk it and keep churning out Avatar films... oh boy.

I'm no financial expert, but here's what I'm thinking. Avatar was the big 3-D film, the one that was a huge financial and well-recieved critically success. That's what got everyone thinking that 3-D is what makes a success. So now everyone's doing it. 2010 is the test year to see if their theory of 3-D equals big $$$.

Let's see if that theory works with the major 3-D movies so far:

Toy Story 3 - $940 million on a $200 million budget, universal acclaim.
The Last Airbender - $198 million on a $150 million budget, universal panning.
Despicable Me - $281 million earned on a $69 million budget, mostly positive reviews
Cats & Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore - $60 million earned on an $85 million budget. Negative reviews.
Step Up 3-D - $42 million earned on a $30 million budget. Mixed reception.
Alice in Wonderland - $1 billion on a $150 million budget. Mixed reception.
How to Train Your Dragon - $488 million earned on a $165 million budget. Universal acclaim.
Shrek Forever After - $678 million earned on a $135-$165 million. Mixed to positive reception.
Clash of the Titans - $491 million earned on a $125 million budget. Mixed to negative reception.

Out of these "major" 3-D releases, only three or so had positive receptions. One film flopped financially, every film made enough money to cover it's budget.

But that's all the studios want - as long as the movie makes enough to cover it's budget, it was a success. Meaning more 3-D.

Again, I'm no financial expert. You don't have to take my word for it.

 

Remember when 3D first started like back in the olden days? What was it, 70s? 3D has been around for a long time. It's only now getting into the high-def world that's what is making it popular I think.

 

It started in the 50's.

 

If in 25 years they dont just zap movies directly onto my frontal lobe i will be sorely dissapointed. I mean, have you guys seen the size of my forehead? Were talking imax here.

 

I hope 3D goes away. Damn you James Cameron!

 

I like the idea of 3D..
But I do not like the headache it gives me  

 

i could picture it now, 25 years in the future, transformers 8. you walk in and the theater explodes

 

Yeah, it's been around a long time, both in cinema, and before that in the 1800s with 3D postcards and viewers.

The original 3d movie craze was the 1950s with films like House of Wax and the Creature from the Black Lagoon. Warner Bros fired their whole cartoon department because they thought everything would go 3D, but it proved a short-lived fad, and the animators got their jobs back.

There was a kind of revival in the 80s with Jaws 3D, Friday the 13th 3D and others, but it quickly became associated with mediocre movies and again the fad died out.

You also had 3d theme park shows, like Captain EO and Terminator 2 3D, and then sometime in the nineties, you started to see Imax 3D films. In 2004, animated films started being shown in 3D with The Polar Express, and then live-action films like Journey to the Center of the Earth, concert films like U2 3D, horror films like My Bloody Valentine.

And then Avatar.

I think this time it's here to stay, but whether it takes over or not remains to be seen.

 

I certainly hope not. At least, not in the method that's currently employed. I find that the '3D' illusion is immediately ruined the moment you look at the edge of the screen and see everything cutting off at the same point. Someday, if there's a way to actually project true 3D imagery in the theater, then maybe.

 

Remember in 90s when everyone thought the future of gaming was going to be virtual reality via headsets...Yeah, that totally worked out.

Untill they can develop somekind of holo screen that can do 3D without the glasses, it's always going to be a on again off again fad.

 

In 25 years 3-D without make the movie look nice,but to be more have smellvision.

 

I'll repost what i said in the avengers in 3-d post.

It's like hollywood is prejudice against anyone who can't see 3-D. We can't go to the movies too?

If someone told me 5 years ago i coudn't go to see a movie in my own town becouse i can't see the film i would have laughed. It's not funny anymore.

I would have gone to see toy story 3, how to train your dragon, shrek 4, and many more if they were in 2-d. The last film i saw was iron man 2. It was 2-d.

As a movie fan this the dark times.

 

Schindler's List...in 3D!!!!!!!!

 

Out of curiosity, what was the last film you saw in a movie theater in 3D?

I'm shortsighted, I wear glasses, and I've never had a problem seeing 3D. The polarized glasses fit right over my regular glasses. There's no discomfort, I quickly forget I'm wearing them.

I have a hard time believing so many people out there genuinely can't view in 3D. If you are blind in one eye, or cross eyed, disregard this. But I think it's just a baseless popular complaint. It's like the people who used to complain that colour hurt their eyes, or the people every generation who say that things were better in the good old days.

 

lol end thread

 

I'd rather they improve the writing technology to put an end to crap movies. Crap in 3D will still be crap. Except now you'd be sitting right there, fully immersed in the crap. Mmm... warm...

Basically I'd prefer a great film in 2D to a shite film getting by just trading on the 3D fad. What happens when 3D is the norm? They'll either have to up their game making the movies any good (highly unlikely) or come up with a new display method again to hide the dross.

I really can't see Holodeck-style technology being that great for movies once it needs to move on from 3D screen displays either. If you're right there in the room with the characters you'd lose what good editing does for a film or show. You'd just be sat there with two people talking or whatever and your perspective never changing. If Holodeck 3D were to try and feature edits for pace or to give a certain scene a particular directorial slant you'd probably soon feel ill from your entire environment quickly skipping from one alignment to the next. If you're just gonna sit and watch people talk or whatever without the effects of editing or regular cuts between environments then may as well just go to the theatre and see a play. And those are sometimes boring, even with a good story.
Holodeck is more for roleplay and frankly I wouldn't bothered to do that when I just want to sit and watch something while eating a tasty sammich after a hard day's work.

3D just doesn't do it for me. I don't care about feeling like I'm 'actually there'. Oh look: a dinosaur walking about. Wait, they're extinct. Illusion of being 'actually there' lost. Now it's coming out of the screen at me. Whoopee...

I get plenty of enjoyment watching stuff in 2D and have for years. I'll even enjoy a nice black and white movie, usually just as much as any 3D outing. 3D is just adding bells and whistles which cost even more and mean everyone will have to upgrade to the new systems once it becomes the norm while the same basic product (story) remains the same as if they were in 2D. All this HD stuff puts the same feeling into me too. Normal digital and even bog standard old telly does the job of storytelling just fine. I don't want to be able to see every hair on an actor's head in supah dupah high definition. It adds nothing for me. It's just an excuse to make everyone have to upgrade to a new telly.

Maybe I'm just an old git stuck in the comfy old past, but these days certain sectors of technology are shoved forwards when really there's no need beyond the companies producing things just for the sake of being a new bit of kit so some people just have to have it or to make people have to pay for the more expensive option once their older and perhaps more preferred option has been reduced to minimum availability or pushed aside completely.

 

Cameron didn't even know how well Avatar would be received a couple weeks before it came out, and now since it's release, he thinks he knows what the movie industry is going to be doing 25 years from now? He acts like he fucking discovered 3D. By then, he'll most likely be dead and won't have to answer to this claim anyway, so, way to cover your ass, James.

 

I'm 12 and what is this?

 

Hasn't he been the only guy so far to actually film a whole movie in 3D, though? I can't actually think of any other true 3D filmed movie other then his Avatar. Most of the other 3D films that have come out were edited in post, weren't they?
Still not saying he's right, but I figure that may be what he's actually getting at; that all moves will actually be filmed with these 3D cameras in 25 years.

 

Average life expectancy for Canadians is 80, Cameron's rich, and life expectancy increases every year. I think if it happens, there's a very good chance he'll live to see it.

Also, reading the article, he has a point. They're trying to sell all these 3D tvs right now, but there's only a few days worth of 3D content total. Factor in how interconnected everything is with companies like Sony owning Hollywood movie studios, and I can see it happening.

And I don't think anyone knew just how big Avatar was going to be. People can guess these things, but in the end, no one really knows. But Cameron's a savvy guy and has a pretty good idea of what will entertain the average audience.

Converting movies in post is actually more of a recent phenomenon, especially this year. In the past 3D movies were always shot with dual camera rigs, there was no way of faking it. The reason a lot of the 3D wasn't so good was they were shooting on traditional film, so if you misaligned the two cameras, it could cause problems and you'd only find out later. The new systems use digitally photographed 3D which is more flexible for stuff like that.