Will Budget-Busting 'Avatar' Make or Break 3-D?

They Changed the story and put this at the end.

The original version of this story misstated the cost of the film Avatar as being in excess of $300 million. The correct figure is in excess of $200 million.

Reply

3D is here to stay. I love 3D, and Coraline was awesome. I'm really anticipating Avatar, but I hope the theaters are ready for it. I saw many people leaving showings of Coraline because they thought it was in 3D but not. Hopefully that won't take a toll on the box office for Avatar.

Me Want FOOOODD!

Reply

I don't think I'll ever like 3D. I can't say why, but maybe it's because I feel like if your movie relies on 3D to make it good, it's not a good movie, and if it is a good movie, it's just distracting. Maybe I'm just an old fogey, though. But I'm just 25. =)

Reply

As long as you can keep on the 3D glasses on the whole length of the movie - it'd be worth it. For some movies, there'd be an an indicator to take 'em on/off and that ruins the experience of watching a movie. I've only seen U2 in 3D which was pretty cool ( a person in the audience had a water bottle raised and while jumpin up n down, it splashed out and had the feeling that it was going onto you - which is whats great about 3D flicks - the feeling of being an "Active' viewer.

Reply

In Cameron we trust. Cameron is god.

Reply

I'm with Matthew. 3D is a gimmick I can live without. It's geared to kids I think. I wear glasses and any other glasses on top of those are a PITA. Kubrick never needed 3D and I doubt Cameron needs it either.

Reply

I have little interest in 3D as a moviegoing experience, and absolutely zero interest in wearing a clunky pair of glasses for 2 hours.

2D is perfectly fine, is non-intrusive, and is all I want.

Reply

Every 3D movie I've seen has been distracting. I really can't stand it. It's funny that they're putting so much stock into something so gimmicky. I, of course, hope the movie is entertaining and what not. But I'm just not that excited about it yet.

Reply

I waited until I could see Coraline in 3D and I'm glad that I did. It was pretty stunning, to the point of distraction at times, for the first 1/3rd but after that, I really didn't notice it much except for key scenes like going into the tunnel behind the little door.

Overall, It was a huge change over the pathetic, early-80's attempt to revive 3D, with such non-classics as Spacehunter: Adventures In The Forbidden Zone (anyone?). However, the one thing that hasn't changed is the crappy glasses. The sturdier design was nice but, for someone who wears regular glasses to begin with, it was more than a little annoying to constantly have to adjust and re-position the 3D glasses. Until they figure out a better method for viewing, this still comes down to a pricey novelty for me, no matter how nice it looks.

Reply

I have been itching to see a movie in 3-D that would engage me with the story in the fore ground while hinting at the deeper mystery in the back ground. Kind of a Whodunit? where all the clues are in each frame and you HAVE to pay attention to the scenery. That would be pretty cool.
What is not so cool is watching a film like Watchmen and seeing Dr. Manhattan in all his 3-D glory! Goes back to another post a few months back concerning full frontal and how most folks were uncomfortable. LOL!
Done right 3-D can be revolutionary.

Reply

I'd prefer 2-D. 3-D's fun once in a while but the glasses are distracting, especially if you already are wearing a pear of glasses. I just like seeing movies in plain 2-D and actually I wouldn't mind seeing Monsters vs. Aliens without the 3-D because it looks like a lot of fun. I don't want every single blockbuster movie to be made in 3-D. Other than once in awhile, 3-D should stay in the theme parks

Reply

Interesting that most of the comments about the clunky glasses are coming from those that already where glasses. I don't where glasses, and when I saw Beowulf in 3-D, the glasses didn't bother me in the slightest - they just felt like I was wearing sunglasses. Beowulf was stunning in 3-D, but had it's flaws in other areas.

I'm really looking forward to Avatar, though I think Cameron is a bit overrated as a director considering his limited output. Keep in mind that this so called 'god' (as someone called him above) has directed only 7 (studio) movies, while Steven Spielberg directed 19 movies in the same time frame (1982 to present), Clint Eastwood directed 21, Ron Howard directed 18, etc. Sure, more isn't always better, but come on...7 movies in 27 years? Not exactly prolific or god-like.

Reply

Jim, Avatar is Cameron's first film as a director since 1997's Titanic. Which means he hasn't released a movie of his own in 12 years. That's a huge gap of time. When Titanic became the highest grossing film ever in 1998 and tied the record for the most Oscars won, many film critics honored him with being the most powerful director in the world; unseating Speilberg. That's a pretty big thing. While I think Cameron is a cinematic genius, I don't think he is the greatest director to ever live. Nevertheless, his unprecedented accomplishments in film cannot be ignored, and Avatar will prove that.

Reply

I just saw Monsters vs. Aliens last night at a sneak preview screening on the IMAX screen at the Metreon in San Francisco. The 3D helps tell the story and adds to the "reality" of the animation -- if that makes sense.
I wear glasses and did not at all mind another pair over my prescription, they were light and unobtrusive. Overall rating for the 'New' 3D? Terrific! And, yes, I would pay a premium, an additional $2 - $4, to see this version.

Reply

I think Cameron will make his budget back and a little bit more. The man knows how to entertain and his films have constantly exemplified a solid post-first week release box office shelf life. Early prediction that's totally a hunch - 350 million domestic plus more worldwide, but probably in 2-D mostly - if the film's even getting a 2-D release.

Reply

I'll wait until it comes out on DVD or in 2D in the theaters. The BO on "Avatar" will be nothing like he had with "Titanic." In fact, it will probably be the movie that puts a stop to the current crop of 3D movies, the vast majority of which are kiddie cartoons, anyhow. Those have a better chance of surviving, but live-action 3D just does not work too good on so many levels, primarily on the financials and ROI.

3D movies come and go away once every 15-20 years, ever since the early 20th century, they seem to cycle on and off periodically. Recently, theater owners first balked at even installing digital projectors, now they balk again at making them 3D capable, then there is the issue of the screens, brightness, etc.

I much rather watch a movie with adequate screen brightness in 2D than the same one dimply lit in 3D.

Reply