duca Posted:

Why are we arguing about whether or not Avatar is a ****ty movie in a thread that’s supposed to be debating the different methods of presenting 3D? There’s allready a thread about avatar and 90% of what you guys are saying has allready been said in it.

I honestly think that the main problem is that 3D continues to be treated as gimmick. Another issue I have with 3D is that I am unable to see any movies in it because I don’t live near a major urban centre. My local theatre is too outdated and I really don’t feel like driving 8 hours to see a movie. So I end up with ****ty looking movies that are trying to have **** jump out at me and crap. Also, I have astigmatism and require glbumes to see things properly. You ever try to watch a 3D movie with a pair of glbumes on? Not that good man, not that good.

So I guess my point is that the technology has not reached the point where I am capable of enjoying it. Whether this is something which can be readily changed is completely beyond me though and I have no urge to really find out. 3D just isn’t that important to me I guess.

I think there are a few problems.

The technology is treated as a gimmick

The cost is too high and is pbumed down to the viewer who, seeing it as a gimmick, does not buy in

The technology, while mature, is not as immersive as it could be

3D isn’t going to reach it’s full potential until it’s advanced to a point where 1) it requires no glbumes and 2) it costs very little (comparatively).

I think the real thing to look for is advances in 3D hologram technology, it exists, and while in it’s infancy it’s got potential and when perfected will replace “3D”, since it will really have depth, as opposed to trick you into thinking it does.