When are the industries going to start releasing statistics on "Tickets Sold," instead of these Box Office grosses? You guys know that the relative cost of a movie ticket has been increasing steadily, even offset by rising inflation, gas and food costs, right? Titanic may have made a lot of money, and same with Avatar, but you realize that no where near as many people are getting to go to the theaters and see these films because ticket costs have exceeded the budgets of a huge number of lower-middle and middle class consumers, right? We're talking about families with kids who don't get to see movies that their friends do, because the theater is too far away, the tickets are too expensive, and God help you if you want popcorn.

Just because James Cameron has an ego trip every 10 years, doesn't mean Avatar is at all comparable to Gone with the Wind or other classic and more universally-attended films. At least when Hitchcock did 3D, everybody could still afford to see it. Do you have to exclude poorer people from things you enjoy in order to enjoy them?

What exactly do people mean by the "3D community"? I doubt that there are serious cinemaphiles out there demanding that 3D be made available in all cinemas, or even most cinemas in all cities.
Given the rising costs of tickets and popcorn, and the rising syndication of "Ticket Sales" middlemen by 3rd parties who are beginning to court theaters for exclusive sales rights (it's happening in the concert industry and no one is fighting it, so movie-lovers, get ready for more extra fees!), are you guys in the "3D community" really going to wanna be responsible for the extra expense of installing silver screens and new projectors so that all theaters can be "RealD" compatible? The other viable alternatives, Dolby 3D and Masterimage, are perhaps slightly less expensive and don't have the "tilt" problems of previous 3D systems, but they still cause eye-fatigue and strain (especially in the elderly and infirm), and even if they are less expensive it doesn't mean that RealD systems won't end up with exclusive contracts (again, more rising costs)

You guys know that because of this 3D thing, Disney is going to re-release the Lion King in 3D, right? Why? "(B)ecause it hasn't been released in 3D before." Anybody wanna bet that if this 3D thing keeps up, Disney won't release ALL their old movies in crappy releases using the same techniques you're deriding Tim Burton for using?

I just think it's kind of sad that film-making has become so cliched and stale that people have to attach themselves to gimmicky things like this... absolute conversion to 3D is a preposterous myth. The headaches and eye strain are never going to go away, and somewhere between 5% and 30% of people find the effects drastically less noticeable and cool than the average person. Because of this, it can't be really viewed as a permanent change, or even as a change for the better. What are you going to do after you're bored of it, tired of getting headaches in the theater, and after the studios are tired of tagging on additional costs for shooting in 3D or paying foreign animation studios to chop up their 2D productions into multiple 3d reels?

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy 3D once in a while! Coraline was great, and Beowulf was tolerable. But frankly, I saw Avatar in 2D, and it was thoroughly spectacular without all this 3D crap, and the reason is that hundreds of talented and dedicated animators poured their hearts and souls into the project, not just that James Cameron got a wild hair up his ass to revive and exploit 3D gimmickery. Again, I enjoy going to a good 3D movie - I just enjoy going to good movies, period, and thanks to magnates like this, it doesn't look like we get to have it both ways. What a shame!

Not everybody has acces to millions and millions of dollars for expensive 3D cameras, you sucking up to the FOX executives might have paid off, but not everybody likes to do that. Disney doesn't care for risks much, the budget would have escalated with those kinds of cameras, meaning that the succes could go either way - while now it's almost a garanteed succes.

So stick to your own movie, and stop criticizing others - you selfcentered prick. There's one MAJOR difference between Cameron and Burton, while Burton's films have heart, soul and most important a good storyline, Cameron's films have special effects and a garanteed box-office success.

Remember kids, box-office doesn't point out ''good'' movies. Though it does buy Golden Globes apparantly.

What the hell does james know about 3D?
just because RECENTLY he has been talking about 3d doesnt mean he is the authority.
He hasnt done anything since titanic. SHUT UP AND SIT DOWN JAMES.

I'm a big fan of both Burton and Cameron, but I feel the same way as Cameron on this one. It does make absolutely zero sense to do the 3D conversion.
Is Tim Burton that broke that he can't afford 3D camera usage? It would look better, it would end up selling better....wtf?

I will be highly entertained if Avatar sucks. I will see it, but will be amused if it sucks after all the buildup and godliness.

On the other hand, he shouldn't bash Burton until the finished product is at least sort of seen.

Peter, just a simple request, please don't ever open another paragraph about James Cameron with "The Titanic filmmaker..." :o)

Cameron is a visionary, without a doubt. But I'll actually WAIT AND SEE his epic 3D film Avatar before I start praising his efforts. By the way, how do you promote a 3D film to a 2D audience? Adequately, I mean?

I couldnt give two shits about Avatar.
The hype is growing??? Lol,,, maybe on /Film, most ppl don't even know he's working on a film or care.

I love you guys that praise Cameron like he's some kind of movie god... Gimme a break.
If any of you spent some time working for him, you wouldn't praise him at all. Sure he's made some great films but as a human being the guys a walking turd....

Yeah people seem to rip on 3d all the time these days and I guess its because of all the shitty 3d releases. But when Avatar comes out I think people will start to see things differently, that is of course if Avatar and the technology behind it is really as awesome as everyone is making it out to be,

"IN CAMERON WE TRUST"

Since Mr. Cameron is so powerful, and all knowing, I motion that you guys begin using this image when discussing any topic about him.

http://news.filefront.com/wp-content/uploads/2008...

Thanks JIMMY

Yeah I forgot to say that the level of anticipation for Avatar is nearing Dark Knight levels. James Cameron is about as money in the bank as you can get so it's hard to not expect to walk into the theaters and not be blown away by this one.

I had absolutely no idea that was Burton's intention with Alice. That is retarded.

Cameron rules. The guy knows what he's talking about. I also hope we get an Avatar teaser for Christmas.

If James Cameron says it.. I've got to think he's the authority on this one so..

O rly? What exactly is he the authority on again?

Why in god's name do people always comment on posts from ages ago?

You cant argue with burton until we see what he comes up with!! and to be fair he rarely lets peeps down..

Avatar is being shot with real humans.

3D is a gimmick. It's lame. It sucks. I hope it dies off soon like so many other trends. The sooner James Cameron, Robert Zemeckis et al get back to making movies with human beings, the better off we all are.

If Burton wants to do it his let him. Cameron is just dogging everything that is 3D related to hype his Avatar. And with the 3D glasses thing, they just release the DVD's with the glasses because it is becoming popular.

Maybe he wanted to shoot on film and prefers the more "stylized" look of 2D processed into 3D.

Hey, this movie has been in development for years now. Not even a single pic has been released yet the hype is already gigantic.

The Dark Knight hype only started gaining some momentum after the trailer, then the shit really hit the fan after ledger died,. Maybe without a dead star Avatar has a hype disadvantage but I think things are realy going to go crazy after some footage is released

Also there is no easy way (with current TV's) to present Polarized 3D which is the theatrical standard. Right now they can only reformat it to the red blue glasses (anaglyph) format which looks lacking even under ideal conditions -- or a complex system involving timed shuttered glasses that is also way too much trouble for the end result.

There are 3D TV's in development that can show stereoscopic imagery without glasses (finally) but they're a ways off and there's no video standard to support them at this time, but supposedly Panasonic is pushing to tweak Blu-ray to make it the format for next gen 3D in the home.

Converting 2D to 3D is a work intensive process that involves digitally creating "layers" to simulate a 3D image. It looks much more like layers and "cutouts" than images captured in true 3D.

3D shoots an image for the left eye and right eye. When going to home video they pick one eye angle for each shot.

Avatar is NOT nearing "The Dark Knight" levels. It isn't nearly as mainstream or familiar to garner so much non-fanboy buzz. I am slightly confused about home videos/3D, and I really know nothing about 3D but here I go anyway. If you film a movie in 3D, won't it have to be released on DVD/Blu-Ray as 3D, yet Cameron says that 3D at home is bad? Can you convert down to 3D?

PWND!