http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/354025/nvid ... y-for-2010

Ordinary BR hasn't exactly set the world alight just yet, never mind banking on what hardware people have/are willing to buy

Blu Ray rocks. But with high ticket prices it's stuck rocking in local pubs rather than setting Wembley Arena alight.
Once good players are less than £50 and Discs aren't 3x the price of DVD's, it'll take off

There is absolutely no need for films to be 3D, it's just another marketing trick to get people into cinemas and keep people buying physical media.

Companies like Sony should be spending the money on developing solid, dependable and secure (and good value) online movie delivery systems.

Some films would cost miles more to make in 3D. eg. LTOR used a lot of false prospective shots. In 3D that would be obvious so almost every hobbit shot would have to have been digitally altered, costing a fortune.

3D isn't even worth paying extra for at the cinema, let alone having to buy completely new equipment to watch it a t home, I think from that it's even more obvious this is about Hollywood gouging film watchers.

I disagree.

I've never felt so much that I was IN the actual film when I went to see Up in 3D.

I'm thinking of going to see Avatar if the promotion in one of our local cinemas is still on - 3D flicks are the same price as the standard ones

I may go to the iMax in Bradford to see it.

Being a film maker I'm something of a purist, all people are talking about with Avatar is that it's 3D, take a closer look and it's the story is the same old rubbish done to death. I think a lot of the craft has gone out of film making and people like James Cameron are largely responsible, he's a technician and a businessman who manufactures product. Fair enough everyone (including me) likes a good blockbuster but I want to see strong ideas, engaging characters and compelling storylines, and it's possible with mega budget films, Nolan's Batman, Watchmen and Hellboy are good examples. I know I'm not going to get that with Avatar because Cameron can't do story or character well enough and when I saw the trailer I thought I was watching a toy advert.

Up on the other hand, from what I've heard, does have strong ideas, engaging characters and compelling storylines and I suspect that's the reason you felt so into the film.

That said I'd certainly be tempted by some 3D films assuming it didn't cost any extra or the girlfriend paid, but ultimately paying is what 3D is all about.

I have severe doubts about 3D too, but Cameron does story and character better than most

The Terminator films and Aliens wouldn't have worked without either (it wasn't my sort of film, but Titanic obviously had those aspects for women too), though I do wish he'd get back to sci-fi* that was more bloke-orientated

* Or even a high-tech thriller, or superhero flick (his Spider-man read well)...

Edited for accuracy.

I think the problem with 3D is that it’s very seductive for film makers. The idea that you can immerse your audience is not new, and unlike theatre, film is always distant; a plane on a wall. I want to see Avatar - I am keen on 3D, not because I believe that it adds anything to a narrative, but because it’s currently so bloody nerdy. The whole glasses/filters 3D experience is a fascinating phenomena.

However, I’m not sure I’d want it in the home at the moment. You need glasses for anyone you have round to watch the film, and there will no doubt be a “sweet spot” for it to work properly. A cinema can cope with this due to scale, but even a 37" TV needs to work at wider viewing angles, and I’m not sure if the 3D TV hardware can work in that setting.

Guys I disagree, I think Cameron is good at caricature not character and scenario not story as his plots serve merely to link from expensive and impressive set piece to the next, and with the majority of his films it's only by virtue of clever casting he is able to convince the viewer there is more going on with the characters than actually there is. Michael Biehn, Sigourney Weaver, Bill Paxton, even Arnie are fine examples of this.

Titanic is the best and worst example of this, largely because the two leads are very good actors they make their characters engage with the audience. Consequently when the boat starts to sink so does the film because Cameron is so focused on the spectacle he completely forgets about the audience, and concentrates on abusing his stars, the ending of The Abyss is the same. Aliens unfortunately has dated very badly, when you're sixteen it's the greatest film ever and many people maintain that fondness. However it's now the weakest in the series (partly as a result of the overused stereotypical military and the conniving company rep caricatures) whilst many of the lines are memorable little else is apart from the visual spectacle, it doesn't have any of the dread and tension of the first film.

In terms of structure (and entertainment) Terminator 3 is superior to the second in the series, it's simply a balls to the floor action film, without Terminator 2's cynical and manipulative mawkishness , it's cold and hard, like the first film rather than fluffy and sentimental. I think is down to having experienced and professional writers who understand the concept of story and structure not to mention pacing, it's one of the best examples of a film tha rolls from one set piece to the next by virtue of the characters, not at their expense.

Cleverly brining this post back on topic and see how something like 3D is appealing to Cameron and others like him because it's another means with which to paper up the cracks of poor story lines and underdeveloped characters. No doubt Michael Bay's next film will be 3D.

Sorry for the long post, I'm off sick and have time on my hands.

We could argue round in circles about that, but at the minute, I can't think of a single director who gives you some of the finest crafted action scenes ever and believable characters, especially in sci-fi.



I just thought Titanic was a bloated love story, and consequently struggled to even really enjoy the effects, so I'm not best placed to comment there. The Abyss I can barely remember beyond being bored



I think Aliens is one of the better films ever made, and probably the best in the series! Only the miniature work has really dated IMO, and I'd watch it time and time again over most of the other films from that time or even the 90s, which is when I actually saw it (I'm 27). I'd say it gets the right mix of character, action and tension sorted early on (Alien dragged just a bit ), especially with the hospital Alien birth dream scene.



Hold a mirror up to that and I'd agree with you

All T3 did was copy the best bits of T2 and add completely unnecessary comedy - about the only thing it got right was the ending. I had the film pegged as soon as Arnie put on the Elton John-style glasses



With Cameron you just don't know, I personally have big doubts about Avatar (see and hear the theme tune for one thing ), but nobody else will push something to see whether it works or not like he will, and if anyone has earned the right, it's him. I doubt Michael Bay will ever direct a good film ever again tbh...

Knocking Aliens is certainly dodgy territory, it's a film people love dearly so I'll leave at agree to disagree. To be honest, I think it's more the distasteful metaphor for American colonialism that really put me off it, a theme further expounded in an equally distasteful manner in True (ly afwul) Lies.

I view Aliens as 'Vietnam in space', I think Cameron was aiming for 'Big brash Americans don't understand enemy, get bogged down and wiped out' tbh. Seems to be a big part of the theme with Avatar too, also comes with added eco-w@nk nonsense apparently

Cameron has always said True Lies was a comedy, and also said quite a few years ago when asked about a sequel that it wouldn't be funny after 9/11...