Comments on: McGinnis: 3D’s impact on ‘Avatar’

By: Lonny Moehn

Lonny Moehn — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 18:09:02 +0000

I love the Avatar 3D film, particularly the story line, not only it brings a totally new sensation however inspiring ideas of humanity. I heard the New Avatar 2 is comming soon, can’t wait to see it again…!

By: Home Projectors

Home Projectors — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 19:07:24 +0000

I spent an age typing a nice long comment about this and then my computer to crash…so I’ve given up and will just say nice article lol

By: G Man

G Man — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 21:11:49 +0000

This is an interesting article on Avatar

http://www.moneyteachers.org/Deadmanmusings8.htm

By: Arch in Santa Cruz

Arch in Santa Cruz — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 01:27:53 +0000

Jeff:
I came back by here to see if there were any new comments.
Thanks for your reply.

I’ve been on enthusiasm overload. I feel the same about
Avatar, the story, not just the presentation,
as I imagine Mel Gibson feels about The Passion
of the Christ, so my emotions are pretty intense on
this subject.

In 1953, there were complaints about headaches from 3D.
MGM released Kiss Me Kate in New York at two theaters,
one in 3D, one flat. The flat far outsold the 3D,
and studios dropped the system. The problem was not with the Polaroid glasses.
Two projectors were used and they could get out of sync without great
care on the part of the projectionist. This could have been fixed,
but it was too late. Audiences had voted. This has been my worry,
that the same would happen with Avatar, the first significant
movie in digital 3D, as most might
avoid it, because they still perceive it as a gimmick.
My concern has been the opposite of yours, that Avatar
would sink 3D.

One Billion in box office so far, and growing, to compete with
Cameron’s own Titanic– not so worried now.

The loss to audiences who who can’t see it
in 3D, and may be persuaded not to go,
can be resolved by what I think will soon happen. Virtually
every cineplex will have at least one 3D Screen, and
it will come back for
another run when the screens are ready. It’s all going
away from film to digital projection in any case,
and one process, Dolby 3D, doesn’t even require a new screen,
just new projection equipment.

But, oh yes. I do concur that if there’s no way to see it in 3D, it would
be a shame to miss it.

By: Allan in Ventura County CA

Allan in Ventura County CA — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 18:29:56 +0000

I made a 3D film about 40 years ago that was number one in the domestic box office for two weeks. It
was shot with a single camera with twin lenses through prisms, to keep it in perfect sync. Also,
we kept the 3D fairly undistorted, which made it comfortable. I was pleased to see that Cameron was
using a similar approach with his 3D. You could take off the glasses, and watch it with the stereo effect, with only slight doubling of the image. We showed our film in only 850 play dates, but it took in about 10 times the typical gross in each fairly long engagement. A few held it over for nearly a year! Comfortable 3D can be a
very strong plus. I’m still in 3D, a just made a promo for a new generation transport jet. HDTV
will be the next big venue for 3D. Probably 10%
of sports, and flashy programing, Like Nat.Geo.
or PBS music specials will be offered in 3D within
two or three years. If movies reverted to all
B&W, it would kill the movie business, the same
on a lesser scale, will be the impact of 3D.
Look for a solid 15% of films, and 5 to 10% of
high end hd programing and sport to be offered soon!

By: Jeff McGinnis

Jeff McGinnis — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 01:18:11 +0000

I’m not sure you really responded to the column I wrote – my question was not about the quality of 3D in an artistic medium (we could debate forever on that), but the effect it has on a film like Avatar. Your last comment about Avatar seems to suggest that the film is of 3D as a medium, not film. So, does that mean on your point of view, Avatar seen any was other than 3D is without value? I wholeheartedly disagree – Avatar would be an excellent film experience no matter the format. And by implying that, you’ve kinda made my point — my arguement is that 3D may, in the long run, keep some folks from seeing an excellent movie, and that would be a shame.

-Jeff

P.S. – I have no problem with digital projection, own a Blu-Ray player and love HDTV. No problem with innovation here. My problem is with 3D.

By: Arch in Santa Cruz

Arch in Santa Cruz — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 20:00:19 +0000

I’ve been going to the movies since the age of four in 1949,
and not just as a way to keep the kid quiet. I was watching,
getting into it.

I don’t have the jaded attitude of youth, about wonderful
technological breakthroughs. I saw the gamechangers come into view:
Technicolor, rare until the 50′s, Cinerama, which changed everything, right on
up to widescreen HDTV, CinemaScope and Stereo sound, and the first
wave of 3-D. And by the way, the 3D of the fifties was in color and used the
Polaroid process.

Nothing new here in today’s objections to innovation. Even cinematographers
complained that Technicolor was a distraction and an unnecessary gimmick.
People would be watching the color, not the story, they said. Then Gone With the Wind
changed all that. Was anyone speculating that it would bring on more
Technicolor, or if color would become the standard? I think not. Gone With
the Wind and Technicolor are integral and inextricable to the intent and
experience of that story. As Gone With the Wind is a work in Technicolor,
Avatar is a work in 3D.
To paraphrase Al Jolson at the advent of sound, “You ain’t seen nothin’ yet’.