The brave new/old world is, always has been and always will be writing.

There is nothing brave in using the latest technology to cover up the fact that the entire story was written on a napkin over a lunch meeting. And Avatar falls into that category as well.

Nothing wrong with technology, but first things first, then worry about how many dimensions to use.

$hit in 3d is still $hit

On the pure technological aspect, it still needs some work and I don't think glasses are the way to go. Something else needs to happen and when you can get that 3d depth with a TV alone, that's when it becomes the next big thing, not until then.

well said deusx....

heard an interesting discussion on the bbc - gist was that the 'resurgence' of 3d by hollywood studios was no so much 3d in itself but a deterrent to piracy, after all, they can't do 3d (yet!). seems quite a reasonable argument to me.

meanwhile, there's hardly anything worth watching in 2d, let alone 3d....

I have to agree with desux's and ushere's closing remarks.

And John Cline makes a good point that 3D is not for narrative films alone.

However, I honestly believe that "content" will always be king, regardless of the genre or the technology being used to deliver it. That was the crux of my original post.

"However, I honestly believe that "content" will always be king, regardless of the genre or the technology being used to deliver it"

So please tell us what isn't "content".

Assuming we're talking about a movie shown in a cinema then all that comes to my mind is the decor in the cinema and even then I have certainly had a different reaction to a movie based on the decor in the cinema and from general comments from others I don't think I'm alone.

My view is everything is content and it all matters. Change anything and our reaction to what we see and hear changes. It goes beyond just things being in focus. Film stock, focal length of lens, costume design, everything affects the narrative. It doesn't just matter, it all interacts.
To put this another way and assuming we're talking about narrative drama then first there is the story, then there is the story telling. Of course if the story sucks nothing is going to save it but from then on everything matters, the best story in the world told badly is no better than a bad story well told. It's a bit like a joke, who tells it and where you hear it makes all the difference. A bad joke will always suck but the best joke badly told never raises a laugh.

Bob.

Bob, watch the movie Ishtar and/or Heaven's Gate then we'll talk.

Content within the above context equals "the principal substance," e.g. story/script. All of the items you listed are "elements" or "components" of cinema, not "content."

meanwhile, there's hardly anything worth watching in 2d, let alone 3d....

Which is why some of the winter Olympics is the only thing I've watched on TV lately.
And I'll be glued to it tomorrow to watch the Canadian men take the gold medal in hockey, just like the women did.
I know those may be fighting words here but I'm ready for it :-)

Mike

"Bob, watch the movie Ishtar and then we'll talk."

I don't fancy my chances of getting to see it but I did watch the first 10 minutes of it on Youtube. Don't know what there is to talk about. It's a good example of why Hollywood was going bust if that's what you mean.
If you're after a good narrative driven drama I'd have chosen something like The Usual Suspects.

Bob.

HDTV? You mean the thing that has better colors & better resolution and just looks better/more natural and you don't need to wear any special glasses for those benefits? If 3D was such a natural progression & so vital to the viewing experience, then folks would have pushed technology harder to improve back in the 50's/60's. Today's 3D is an improvement over yesterday's 3D, but once the novelty wears off and people get tired of wearing glasses and paying extra cash for only a marginally better experience (or worse experience for all the movies that overdo/overuse the 3D effect) it will likely run its course.

Of course, anyone can make any brave proclamation he/she wants, but only time will tell. John - if 3D is still the rage in the movie theaters in 5 years from now (ought to be VERY well established then by your estimate, or ought to be fading fast by my estimate), then please contact me. I'll mail ya a NICE bottle of wine to help you savor your vindication!

Deusx- yeah, the plot for Avatar was unbelievably predictable. Gorgeous environment, though.

I liked 3D in the 50's, the 2.66 x 1 cinemascope aspect, the stereo slide viewers, and the new 3D on HDTV. I never liked black & white, silent film, 18 fps, 4 x 3 aspect, 16 x 9 aspect, 24P judder, Cinerama, high speed film grain, VHS, and using lights to take indoor films. IMOP 24P ruins a great movie.
JJK

I wonder if the upcoming Panasonic 3D camera will make a difference in the market.

BTW, the only way the Canadians will 'take' the Gold tomorrow, is if they suddenly run up into the stands and start pulling teeth.
Go team USA.

3D, of course, has been with us since the '50's when all they did was throw axes at the camera. The problem has be, IMHO, that as long as people watch 2D movies and TV and don't complain, the studios will keep shoveling out 2D pictures. Whey invest heavily when they don't have to. The time we are in now is that a 3D movie has set a record financially. Will this draw studios into the new/old technology. Perhaps, but only if they HAVE to.

Personally I think 3D has had it's day and that day is past. What we need to concentrate on now is holographic presentations. Think of it as 3D projected in your living room where you can get up and walk around the image and see it from all angles--just like Princess Lia was in Star Wars.

Holograms are the future.
Burt

Didn't CNN try that during the last presidential election?

Didn't CNN try that during the last presidential election?

I think that was a 2D simulation of a hologram.

heck, give me a decent joint or tab of acid and EVERYTHING'S in 3d!!!

seriously, i love this thread - we still haven't got a universal standard for tv / video (pal, ntsc, interlaced, progressive, 5.1 ch, mono, etc.,), transmissions still break up with regularity, there's a lot of players (especially in the states) that can't play pal, or vice-versa, we're not sure if it's lower field first in some encoders, writing a universally playable hd dvd is still an arcane science to many, etc., etc.,

and now there's people talking about looking at 3d cameras.... i haven't one client who's even ASKED for hd yet! and even if they did, they probably wouldn't realise they'd have to have a hd player....

yes, i deliver hd over the net, on dvd, or hard drive, to ALL my clients whether they know what to do with it or not ;-) but in truth, i'm shooting and editing in it only to produce a better dvd.

pity the poor wedding guys when 3d becomes the seasons BIG thing.....

I'm expecting to see an outstanding body of work in 3D on RedTube anytime soon. Once that happens all our clients will be wanting their stuff in 3D.

Bob.