I think that they should have a pirates 4 and they should have one in 3d and one in 2d that way the people can watch it how they want.

I still love it .......
Enjoy creating new styles and upload it to www.uploaded.tv

2008 and I STILL would rather see hand-drawn 2D animation. I think there is a point I'm trying to make, but I'm not sure what it is. Screw 3D as a marketing ploy. If film is done right, there isn't a need for gimmicks. Watch a movie like Thin Red Line or 2001 and tell me that we need "3D."

I guess we'll see when the big ball drops, Peter, who was right.

Just promise me this, when the studios formerly do release the statement that 3D movies is their ploy against piracy and to rejuvenate their box office and you are forced to report it here, you spell my name right next to that "I told you so".

Guess what I do for a living? I can argue about design all day, because at work I use a Mac, and at home I use my PC. Both are used for design, and both have their ups and downs. Indesign, Photoshop, and Illustrator work pretty much the same on both platforms.

Movies aren't a practical medium. Did this conversation happen when Talkies were introduced? Or color? Movies are entertainment, and will always evolve.....Even though remakes are taking us backwards.

I recall the big VR push in the late 80's, very early 90's. Virtual reality, lawn mower man, we'll all have helmets over our heads while we use our computers type stuff.

In the end, designers found out that people just weren't willing to wear it.

Now back to my initial point. I agree that they will chase 3D in-home technology. Like I said, they recognize that there are always suckers out there who will buy anything. But they know that most won't have a few grand lying around to buy it, and that most will be willing to just instead plunk down $22 to see a heavily hyped 3D movie at the theater, if that is their only other option.

Some would argue the same about macs. I personally use both, and find that the mac may have some practical applications, but it also has limitations. My point wasn't to argue which is better, but it was to pose that they market macs as being better. When in truth, both are about the same, but people will pay that premium, because they feel they are getting something better. All it takes is this kind of marketing in order to sell 3D.

I don't know, I don't see masses of people coming home from a hard days work, only to put on a pair of 10 lb glasses on their heads to watch tv with.

Or what if you invite your family over to watch a movie? Is every unit going to come with 20 spare glasses?

They might throw the technology out there for the hardcore tech clowns, like the projectors these days, but average person wouldn't be willing to burden themselves with one.

Yeah, this 3D push is to get people to go to the movies, where industry can regulate them and it is ensured that everyone is paying. And paying a premium at that.

Hey, how come he's a negative prick and he gets a decent response? I call Shens.

Btw, I still maintain that 3D is the film industries "big plan" to counter torrents and dvd's. Their final card to keep people in theaters. Give them a presentation that they can't get at home, or off the web.

That is the point. You just said it. Can't get this experience at home. It is something even the most expensive home system can't duplicate. You have to go to the the theaters and submit yourself to $14 for a ticket and $25 for a bag of popcorn.

nothing wrong with some IMAX 3D

Thank God Depp has Public Enemies. I still love Depp, but I kinda agree that he need to stay away from Burton for a while.

"Guess what I do for a living?"

Nothing?

I vote CaptainHowdy for best username ever. Actually, I wonder why studios don't make films like the good ol' days. Instead of 3D, stick with beautiful and simplistic 2D. Instead of special effects, stick with on screen effects. It all looks so much more real. They should wait to play with these tools once they're perfected. They're still in the improvement stages.

When will they stop this stupid bullshit? The only problem with 3D is that once it drops off the map...some other magical and shiny new toy will come along to "amaze" us all in the movie world. How depressing.

If you want Smell-O-Vision, come watch a movie in my crappy apartment. HA
In 3D

That's a good point. Part 3 wasn't exactly spectacular. Woeful comes to mind.

I heard a vague rumor somewhere (maybe on BoingBoing?) that some cinemas in L.A were working on getting Smell-O-Vision back.... anybody knows if this true?

I dont know. Blu-Ray discs haven't really caught on, have they? I feel so annoyed that we are always being bombarded with so much new technology everyday. First we need the iPhone, now we need the G1 phone. First we needed a DVD player, then they tell us we need a Blu-ray dsc player.

it's all too much.

hear, hear. Johnny Depp, like Burton, have become a real cliche of himself.

I am now SICK of him and he leaves nothing but bad taste in my mouth. He used to be really cutting edge and unpredictable... now he's become a joke, always playing the same dark roles... BORING!!!!!

He is overrated.

Again, I agree. No matter what they do, they are destined to fail.

When and if that does happen I will get a good laugh....
Only because I will know that someone somewhere has already found a way to pirate it.

Average everyday people already spend thousands on a nice TV, and and sound system. Is it so far fetched that if marketed correctly, people wouldn't buy into it?

ohhhh yeah no doubt. Public enemies is gonna be a nice break.

Average everyday people already spend thousands on a nice TV, and and sound system. Is it so far fetched that if marketed correctly, people wouldn't by into it?

I think the bigger question in all of this is.... Do we really need a 4th installment? I miss Depp in roles like Ed Wood, Fear and Loathing, and Dead Man.

I don't think anybody would want to spend that much money on home technology bullshit like that.. but that's ME, of course.

3D is a good, fun experience to enjoy in the cinema, but how would they retain the quality of a movie once it's released on DVD?

All it will take is Porn in 3D. After that it will sell itself.

how about this? NO MORE POTC crap!!! I am sick of Johnny Depp and of those stupid pirate moves.

Jerry, VR will happen when technology is ready to support it, it was an idea way ahead of its time. And I think things like World or Warcraft and Second Life are the start of what will become a VR craze.

Jerry tell me this. A good movie is good because its authentic and relatable. We see in three dimensions. So for a movie we're watching to be 3D means that it will only be that much closer to the way we experience our own stories. It will be used to enhance storytelling, and not be used for "stuff popping out of the screen" type gimmicks. In fact, James Cameron's 3D is more like a window into another world. He rarely uses it to come out of the screen. It is used for depth.

There are two big challenges now: Eye strain, which is being worked on and the glasses. And as I said, glassless 3D is inevitable.

I agree that it wont make a dent, but I am not so sure this initial push is to combat any form of piracy. Aren't many of the directors making the choice and the push for 3D? I think its a new toy that people want to try, and many studios are simply thinking about the marketing and higher priced tickets.

Tell a graphic designer that their Apple is bells and whistles and to just get a pc. You will never be laughed at harder.

Macs serve a niche. A practical niche. 3D does not. Not even you tried to argue that point. No one "needs" to have pictures in the screen appear to be coming at them.

Oh no, I agree. I doubt it will make a dent in piracy.

But traditionally, the Film Industry has made stupid and largely fruitless moves in relation to countering file sharing technology. More possible evidence that I'm right, no?

Hmmmm...I'm getting sick of all the 3D crap. Then again, I still haven't been to a good 3D flick....

Jerry, The glasses now are not heavy, just bulky. If there were a market for them to be used in the home, the glasses would surely be made much smaller. And who are we kidding, in 10 years we'll have a glassless 3D solution. They already have computer monitors that do it, its just you have to be in the exact center and distince for them to work. Those kinks will all be worked out. That is one of the keys to 3D cinema becoming mainstream, in and out of the movie theater.

Exactly. Perhaps if they concentrated on creating original ideas, unique stories (instead of reboots and remakes) and better quality films they might get the results they are chasing.

Less is more, keep it simple. I still say a movie promting itself as 3D is screaming that gimmick as promotion, as apposed to the quality of the story... I guess the point is, they have a long way to go to convince us. Audiences are fickle, and with good reason.

Macs have practical applications. 3D has no practical application. It's just bells and whistles.

Apple computers are proof that people will pay that premium for something shiny and new. If it is package right, people will buy it.

I doubt that it will keep piracy from happening. It may keep 3D out of the hands, but by the time it is really marketable someone will have figured a way to pirate it.

When I was at Dreamworks Animation they showed us how they edit a 3D animated film, and part of the process is determining the convergence. In that room we were shown 3D footage on a regular 60 inch samsung television. We just had to wear glasses that have some kind of electronic flicker in them. They were bulkier than you would want, but the 3D looked incredible. I think 3D in the home isn't that far off. All that is required is demand. And that will be fueled by more theatrical movies.

They will definitely need to pull out all the bells and whistles to save this franchise. I can easily see it in 3D and with IMAX cameras.

Actually, 3D is slowly being ported to home systems, it's just that it's coming to America very slowly...

You guys just wait until you see Citizen Kane remade in 3D. You will all see how amazing 3D is.

Edward: I would disagree. 3D has just not been done right. Beowulf was the first test of contemporary 3D and it was a huge selling point for the film. I have seen things for upcoming films that would have you change your mind. And then there are comments from respectable filmmakers like Jon Favreau, who has seen what James Cameron has up his sleeves, that agrees - it is a game changer. Until now 3D has been just a gimmick. You will see, in the future it will be used to enhance storytelling and cinematography. I'm not saying all films will be 3D. But I'm confident that it will become a very marketable technology.

I hope AVATAR bombs like a motherfucker so we can get past this 3D gimmicky bullshit. It won't last - especially because it can't port to home theatre. So, what exactly is the point?

i'm gonna be an asshole:

peter, who gives a fuck?
3D isn't that marketable, it's not impressive. it's just gimmicky.
doesn't enhance the artistry of something. it's just fucking stupid.

I also hear it was going to be in smellivision 3D, and tastivision 3D.

I Say NO! trust me

Fun ride, not so fun movies.