Cameron's great contribution to 3D was using it as a window. Things go into the screen in depth rather than stuff flying out every 5 minutes. The effect was to literally transport you to the world. There were reports of people being depressed when the film was over because it felt so real.There's no way it can possibly be as impressive in an obvious way the way that the beauty of the CGI applied to the mocap actors back in the the original movies and then on top of that, literally putting 3D glasses on and seeing that world pop out at you.
Avatar was really the first and honestly one of the only modern movies made specifically to be seen in 3D and not just as a gimmick like a lot of those 90's and early 2000's movies. Some will call it a gimmick, but it was a feature of the movie. If we're talking about using 3D as a gimmick, it was all of the movies in the immediate aftermath of Avatar that didn't shoot their movies in 3D, but converted it to 3D because audiences were willing to go and see another 3D movie after seeing what Avatar did. A big example is movies that simply didn't need it and it added no value at all such as the Transformers movies in the early 2010's.
You can trust that James Cameron and Disney's marketing team are going to push 3D for this again though as it's probably the first movie in years to actually be shot in 3D. Also, the sequel has been delayed so long, it's almost at the point of coming out at the right time where it will have a bit of a nostalgia/curiostiy factor to it, too.
I don't think we should discount the novelty of in front of the screen 3D effects particularly because we're talking about this on a theme park forum. We know the value of this feature. That said I do agree that Cameron made a good choice in going with the window format. It is far more comfortable and furthermore enjoyable in more seats. 3D attractions in theme parks get away with "gimmicky" 3D with their short experiences and typically more controlled povs. I was extremely impressed by Multiverse of Madness. There are very few scenes with issues and provided a physically deep frame while using in front of the screen effects when it was worthwhile. It impressed me more than the trailer tbh, but that's not really fair. I'm still excited for what Cameron will bring to the medium. I have always loved 3D and it's what got me to go back to the theater, so I'm not the typical viewer.Cameron's great contribution to 3D was using it as a window. Things go into the screen in depth rather than stuff flying out every 5 minutes. The effect was to literally transport you to the world. There were reports of people being depressed when the film was over because it felt so real.
Agree the 3D in Madness was very subtle used. Of course, its a conversion so easier to control, but you can do incredible 3D conversions nowadays ("Titanic" is so good you'd swear it was filmed in 3D) . But Avatar really set the bar for 3D back then... and it wasn't even the one that kicked it off (That would have been "The Polar Express" which did so much 3D business that studios took notice).I don't think we should discount the novelty of in front of the screen 3D effects particularly because we're talking about this on a theme park forum. We know the value of this feature. That said I do agree that Cameron made a good choice in going with the window format. It is far more comfortable and furthermore enjoyable in more seats. 3D attractions in theme parks get away with "gimmicky" 3D with their short experiences and typically more controlled povs. I was extremely impressed by Multiverse of Madness. There are very few scenes with issues and provided a physically deep frame while using in front of the screen effects when it was worthwhile. It impressed me more than the trailer tbh, but that's not really fair. I'm still excited for what Cameron will bring to the medium. I have always loved 3D and it's what got me to go back to the theater, so I'm not the typical viewer.
Avatar: The Way Of Water is coming in right around 3 hours. Can't imagine Disney is too happy with that as - just like with Endgame, it will limit the amount of showings per day it can have.
James Cameron's message to your bladder: "Get up and go pee"
“I don’t want anybody whining about length when they sit and binge-watch [television] for eight hours...It’s like, give me a f*cking break."
Let's bring back intermissions!Thats a really stupid example, does he think no one needs to pee during a binge watch? Its called 'pause' Jim, something not possible at a theater.
Yep. that used to be standard on long blockbuster films before the 80's.Let's bring back intermissions!
I'd like this tbh, but Studios will never let it happen and it couldn't help Theaters much. Sure, they'd get extra concessions sales, but there would be fewer showings per day which the Studios would never let happen and it also minimizes the amount of people coming through the doors.Let's bring back intermissions!
Some theaters in Europe add an intermission if the film is over 2 hours. Also, the number of showings per night on 3 hrs versus 3 hours and 15 (or 10) minutes insn't significant.I'd like this tbh, but Studios will never let it happen and it couldn't help Theaters much. Sure, they'd get extra concessions sales, but there would be fewer showings per day which the Studios would never let happen and it also minimizes the amount of people coming through the doors.
I'd like this tbh, but Studios will never let it happen and it couldn't help Theaters much. Sure, they'd get extra concessions sales, but there would be fewer showings per day which the Studios would never let happen and it also minimizes the amount of people coming through the doors.
This is actually a really solid idea, but the problem is where do you decide to stop the movie? Movies aren’t made or meant to be stopped halfway through.Instead of cramming 25 minutes worth of commercials and trailers at the start, they could do 10-15 minutes at the start then do another 10-15 minutes at "intermission" for these longer films.
Those ads (plus concessions) are where theaters make their money, so its unlikely they would ever give them upThis is actually a really solid idea, but the problem is where do you decide to stop the movie? Movies aren’t made or meant to be stopped halfway through.
It's kind of funny but when I saw "Dances With Wolves", I said to a friend this is where an intermission would be in the old days (the sunset after the buffalo hunt). Sure enough, in the 4-hour Europe release, right after the sunset "Intermission" comes up. (Its on the LaserDisc release, but I don't think on the Blu Ray).This is actually a really solid idea, but the problem is where do you decide to stop the movie? Movies aren’t made or meant to be stopped halfway through.