Roger Ebert Hates 3D

[Smokey]

The infamous film critic does not have very nice things to say about 3D. In fact, he just wrote a piece for Newsweek titled, "Why I Hate 3-D and You Should Too." (link at bottom)

He wastes no time laying into the technology. Here is the commentary's opener:

"3-D is a waste of a perfectly good dimension. Hollywood's current crazy stampede toward it is suicidal. It adds nothing essential to the moviegoing experience. For some, it is an annoying distraction. For others, it creates nausea and headaches. It is driven largely to sell expensive projection equipment and add a $5 to $7.50 surcharge on already expensive movie tickets.

Its image is noticeably darker than standard 2-D. It is unsuitable for grown-up films of any seriousness. It limits the freedom of directors to make films as they choose. For moviegoers in the PG-13 and R ranges, it only rarely provides an experience worth paying a premium for."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/237110

[Woochifer]

Ebert also hates digital projection.

I share some of his misgivings, but I don't see the validity of dismissing 3D altogether when the ramp up with cinematographers, directors, theaters, and HDTVs is just beginning. Some movies will make better use of 3D than others, and the killer app for 3DTV IMO will be sports. Several test runs have already been done, and the networks are refining the camera positions and technical approaches.

[Smokey]

I share some of his misgivings, but I don't see the validity of dismissing 3D altogether when the ramp up with cinematographers, directors, theaters, and HDTVs is just beginning.

If you read the whole article, it doesn't seem he dismissing it as much pointing out the nagative side of 3-D, and extra expense that goes with it.

For example, he argued that in 3-D-ready theaters, the 3-D projectors are also outfitted for 2-D films: so it uses the same projector but doesn't charge extra. But when shown a 3-D movies, theater charge $5-$7 extra. "Are surcharges here to stay, or will they be dropped after the [new] projectors are paid off?", he ask.

Or he comment that reason is Hollywood pushing for 3-D is because..."it needs a "premium" experience that is obviously, dramatically better than anything at home, suitable for films aimed at all ages, and worth a surcharge."

But he wrap the article by saying that..."I'm not opposed to 3-D as an option. I'm opposed to it as a way of life for Hollywood, where it seems to be skewing major studio output away from the kinds of films we think of as Oscar-worthy. Scorsese and Herzog make films for grown-ups. Hollywood is racing headlong toward the kiddie market."

[Ajani]

One could be forgiven for assuming that an article entitled "Roger Ebert Hates 3D" is about Ebert dismissing 3D... The title is sensational and consequently: misleading...

I do however agree with most of Ebert's points...

I think Hollywood really needs to grow up and recognize that the solution to low sales never lies in new technology.. New tech allows you to jack up prices and attracts attention briefly, but soon fades away again... The solution is quality... What the industry needs are better films not better recording/viewing equipment... How many times are they going to release a romantic comedy where the main character gets someone to fall in love with them, while they are pretending to be someone else? Why does every film need to have a sequel or worse yet; be a trilogy? How many times can they reboot the same franchise? (As much as I enjoyed Batman Begins and Battlestar Galactica, I blame their sucess for creating this reboot craze)... So now we have a Spiderman trilogy, then a reboot and a new trilogy... The industry needs to start being creative and stop trying to water down every film into the same old formulas...

3D is nice and unlike Ebert I can imagine it used sparingly by a true visionary artist, to create oscar worthy films... But 3D is not going to make up for a pile of bad films being released... Avatar got away with having no plot because it was the first time anyone had seen anything like it... 5 years from now, another beautiful 3D film with no plot will possibly bomb at the box office...

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

If you read the whole article, it doesn't seem he dismissing it as much pointing out the nagative side of 3-D, and extra expense that goes with it.

For example, he argued that in 3-D-ready theaters, the 3-D projectors are also outfitted for 2-D films: so it uses the same projector but doesn't charge extra. But when shown a 3-D movies, theater charge $5-$7 extra. "Are surcharges here to stay, or will they be dropped after the [new] projectors are paid off?", he ask.

He really should no better than saying this...really. You cannot do well done 3D with film, it requires a digital solution. The means replacing the tens of thousands of film projectors in the field. It also means adding secure servers, buying 3D glasses by the millions, and changing screens as well. None of this is cheap. Yes, once you buy the equipment you can project both 3D and 2D films, but that is after you have paid for the new digital projector, and secured server. Once the price goes up though, it rarely comes back done. But let's face reality here, is there anything out there that has pricing that has remained exactly the same for years? Not many. Price increases are a way of life, and so is premium pricing as well.

Or he comment that reason is Hollywood pushing for 3-D is because..."it needs a "premium" experience that is obviously, dramatically better than anything at home, suitable for films aimed at all ages, and worth a surcharge."

There already is a premium experience that is better than the typical movie theater experience. It is called Arclight theaters, and it has been around for years. You don't need 3D to give a premium experience. 3D price raising are paying for equipment upgrades - upgrades that will eventually cost the theater exhibition chains more than $10 billion dollars when all is said and done

But he wrap the article by saying that..."I'm not opposed to 3-D as an option. I'm opposed to it as a way of life for Hollywood, where it seems to be skewing major studio output away from the kinds of films we think of as Oscar-worthy. Scorsese and Herzog make films for grown-ups. Hollywood is racing headlong toward the kiddie market."

In other words he is looking for high art, which by the way does not fill seats. Hollywood has to make big money off of big box office movies to subsidize high art movies. If they don't make the money, don't expect low budget indies pictures to see the light of day, except amoung independent exhibitors which are falling by the wayside a six pack at a time these days.

[RGA]

I have been dissapointed by every 3D film I've seen. Avatar was a badly written badly acted spectacle and nowhere near the impact on the film industry that Star Wars possessed. Big deal - Disney animated characters alongside humans - seen that in that "Who framed Roger Rabbit movie. Adding 3D may be interesting but it still looks like one screen is sitting in front of another screen - you always know you are looking at a 3D screen and not actually a seamless 3 dimensional image. The recommendation to me was to see Clash of the Titans in 2d because it actually looks better with a brighter more vibrant image. That movie was idiotic so no amount of visual trickery was going to save that boring mess. Too bad because it had a terrific cast.

The Hollywood movie industry is about making "thrill ride" brain dead movies and I see nothing wrong with making them 3D if the idea is to enhance the ride. Roger Ebert is correct on his points about "art films" but the majority is the majority and the majority prefers Transformers and G.I. Joe and Avatar to the likes of Citizen Kane. People can't be expected to imagine and interpret anything - it has to be 100% immersive. The ability to suspend disbelief is disappearing along with attention spans.

But like anything - no one forces you to buy it - if you like it buy it if you don't don't. When 3D becomes a bigger seller chances are the regular non 3D flat screens will have a huge price drop. So if you're not into 3D just wait a little while and you'll be able to get those 52-60inch top of the line LCD and plasma for $500-$600 while everyone dumps their tv's for 3D. Which of course will be great for the environment but...

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I have been dissapointed by every 3D film I've seen. Avatar was a badly written badly acted spectacle and nowhere near the impact on the film industry that Star Wars possessed. Big deal - Disney animated characters alongside humans - seen that in that "Who framed Roger Rabbit movie. Adding 3D may be interesting but it still looks like one screen is sitting in front of another screen - you always know you are looking at a 3D screen and not actually a seamless 3 dimensional image. The recommendation to me was to see Clash of the Titans in 2d because it actually looks better with a brighter more vibrant image. That movie was idiotic so no amount of visual trickery was going to save that boring mess. Too bad because it had a terrific cast.

I liked Avatar, Night Before Christmas, and Alice in Wonderland. Clash of the titans I knew was going to be a bomb, but it made Warner a bit of change, as people came to see it as well - no matter how bad it was.

The Hollywood movie industry is about making "thrill ride" brain dead movies and I see nothing wrong with making them 3D if the idea is to enhance the ride. Roger Ebert is correct on his points about "art films" but the majority is the majority and the majority prefers Transformers and G.I. Joe and Avatar to the likes of Citizen Kane. People can't be expected to imagine and interpret anything - it has to be 100% immersive. The ability to suspend disbelief is disappearing along with attention spans.

You cannot stir all of Hollywood in one pot, just like you cannot stir all audio companies in one pot. Hollywood makes all kinds of movies, you may not like any of them, but you cannot just put Hollywood in one generic pot. From our surveys taken outside of theaters, moviegoers don't want to think hard when going to the movies, they want to be entertained and escape the troubles of this world. That is the bottom line, and the studios are giving the public just what they asked for. When a really good movie with a good story line comes out, the public does not support that movie. Precious was one of those movies. The problem with this movie is that it is too much like real life - the very thing that people are trying to escape from for 90-220 minutes. There is a place for Citizen Kane like movies, it is called the art house. They are folding up big time because nobody is going to see high art films. It doesn't make people stupid, they have other desires right now, and it isn't high art. Attention spans are short, but that does not mean people are dumb. The like the stimulation and entertainment that current box office movies have, and they are willing to pay for it.

Hollywood is no worse than Wilson Audio, Goldmund, MB, Genesis Audio, or any other high end brands selling overpriced speakers to willing customers. If folks don't like the price, they can walk - it is just that easy.

But like anything - no one forces you to buy it - if you like it buy it if you don't don't. When 3D becomes a bigger seller chances are the regular non 3D flat screens will have a huge price drop. So if you're not into 3D just wait a little while and you'll be able to get those 52-60inch top of the line LCD and plasma for $500-$600 while everyone dumps their tv's for 3D. Which of course will be great for the environment but...

I do not think anyone is going to dump their 2D televisions just for a 3D one. And the top of the line televisions extending all the way down to the middle of the line televisions will have 3D as part of their feature set in the future. When folks current television goes on the fritz, it is likely their next one will have 3D built in, as it won't be a big deal like HD isn't anymore.

3D television is no more a novelty as tube or SET amps are. A layman could look at tube and SET amps and say the exact same thing as you say about 3D television or movies.

The funny thing to me is that all of these same comments were made when sound came to movies, when color came to movies, when ultra-wide screens came to theaters, and when 5.1 sound came to theaters. Each introduction of a new theatrical concept is met with doubts, comments of gimmicktry, and so on and so forth.

[RGA]

I partly agree with things here.

Yes Hollywood can make a quality film (and of course this is all subjective as to what a quality film is) but at one time I was planning on being a film critic but I had to watch soooo much garbage just to see a decent film that I tip my cap to the Roger Ebert's of the world who has to sit through 20 train wrecks to see a Shawshank Redemption.

Technology isn't really a strait line since judging from CES most of the top makers are presenting rooms with tube gear. One could make the argument that tubes to younger crowds are "new" since they didn't grow up with the technology and tube glow is appealing aesthetically. But most of the folks stumbling the halls were roughly 10-20 years older than me. The problems with tubes in the 50's have been resolved for the most part. Tubes and SETs began the ball of audio, the technology shifted to SS and Compact disc and all the while a great many audiophiles spoke loudly and often that these sucked the life out of music. And after awhile more and more audiophiles listened to those people and started listening closer to good turntables and good tube amps and generally have switched. The masses have not of course but exposure is the issue there.

A small clothing store in my town has a few DJ Technics tables set up at the back with a bunch of hip hop trance vinyls. The comments from several of the 18-20 year old girls was "records sound way better than CD" and two other used records stores are within walking distance carrying many thousand black discs. It's nice to see some of the young ones getting excited about the "naturalness" of the music despite some of the "ticks."

These technologies have not left us - their sales diminished but they never disappeared - unlike the black and white tv, silent tv's, or even tube TV's which have disappeared entirely from my area. If there is still a maker of tube tvs I don't know of it. Thus I do not see a direct parallel between audio and television. The "audiophile" community which is a niche market of people who "care the most" about sound reproduction have very largely supported Tube/SET/Vinyl technology. The masses left them entirely for convenience which is why CD is being killed by worse sounding 128kb downloads (which are the kind most sought) to stuff bad sounding iPods with as much drivel music as possible.

The masses left tape behind - so did audiophiles so it basically killed tape. But audiophiles have always kept vinyl going as well as many of the best manufacturers.

And let's face it - people get lazy - I hate the work involved with vinyl - it's a big pain in the ass. And tubes are a big pain in the ass. I am somewhat at an advantage as all Audio Note amps require no biasing - you simply take the tubes out and stick new ones in and they auto bias or require none. But that is a minority. If I had to bloody well use meters all the time to screw around with the damn tubes every time I wanted to try out a different flavor I'd probably just buy a Sugden and be done with it. And vinyl with the cleaning and the brush, and not being able to pause or skip from chair and having to flip the damn thing and don't get me started on the speed change on a belt drive. And then you have to get a good phono stage - blahhhhh!

I have the 300 disc Sony mega changer which is instant access to most music instantly. I put up with the stupid vinyl because it sounds so very much better on a quality turntable rig.


As for movies - yes I get that people go to movies for entertainment - I loved Jaws and Raiders and the Empire Strikes back. Hollywood can make great thrill rides from time to time. Would Raiders be better in 3d? Well maybe they'll come out with it and I'll see for myself. But generally when Lucas and Spielberg start messing with their previous works - they make them worse.

[Feanor]

The infamous film critic does not have very nice things to say about 3D. In fact, he just wrote a piece for Newsweek titled, "Why I Hate 3-D and You Should Too." (link at bottom)

He wastes no time laying into the technology. Here is the commentary's opener:

"3-D is a waste of a perfectly good dimension. Hollywood's current crazy stampede toward it is suicidal. It adds nothing essential to the moviegoing experience. For some, it is an annoying distraction. For others, it creates nausea and headaches. It is driven largely to sell expensive projection equipment and add a $5 to $7.50 surcharge on already expensive movie tickets.

...

Sure, so what else is new? All technological "advances" are motivated by the hope of skimming the consumer for a extra dollars -- all about charging a premium for the latest & greatest. What? Do you suppose it's about the public good? Or art?

On the other hand many advances do improve the popular experience. We shall see good use of 3D. Eventually -- maybe -- all flicks will be 3D once not only the technology is perfected but when the creative/artistic potential are well understood by producers and directors. It will take a while; after all, how many decades did it take for color to overtake B&W?

[Smokey]

The solution is quality... What the industry needs are better films not better recording/viewing equipment.

Totally agree with you there. Just look at recent remake (and twice remake) of such movies as Dukes of Hazard, The Hulk and Nightmare on Elm Street and one think that Hollywood has lost its creativity.

In other words he is looking for high art, which by the way does not fill seats. Hollywood has to make big money off of big box office movies to subsidize high art movies.

Sir TT, remember that I'm only the messenger , but I think part of Ebert's argument was that with 3-d movies , the hollywood has tilted mostly toward action pack movies at expense of "serious" movies.

For example, Disney recently announced it will make no more traditional films at all, focusing entirely on animation, franchises, and superheroes.

Eventually -- maybe -- all flicks will be 3D once not only the technology is perfected but when the creative/artistic potential are well understood by producers and directors. It will take a while; after all, how many decades did it take for color to overtake B&W?

Don't know feanor. W are going into 7th decade that 3-D been with us and its feasibility and practicality is still being debated. I think the glasses are still the biggest draw back. With glasses, 3-D is a gadget rather than the next format.

[Smokey]

The problems with tubes in the 50's have been resolved for the most part.

Not to change the subject , that is probably not true. The worst problems with tubes such as noise and distortion are still not resolved as they are inherit to tube protocal.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Sir TT, remember that I'm only the messenger , but I think part of Ebert's argument was that with 3-d movies , the hollywood has tilted mostly toward action pack movies at expense of "serious" movies.

That trend has been going on much before 3D hit the scene. Remember, the public decides what kind of movies Hollywood makes with their dollars. If there are no serious movies out there, it is because when some where released, they were not well supported, or the support was spotty.

For example, Disney recently announced it will make no more traditional films at all, focusing entirely on animation, franchises, and superheroes.

Animation is Disney's foundation, we do have some very successful franchises, and we did spend big bucks buying a comic franchise full of superheros, so don't hate us for mining our resources. LOLOL

What is a traditional movie anyway these days?

[pixelthis]

Basically I think Eberts problem with 3D movies is that they tend to be as shallow
as a mud puddle, amusment park rides, basically.
A good movie with a real plot, about real people, even sci fi, won't need
3D, basically.
Not a fan of the 3D, but going to see one and expectng a real movie is like expecting a
talky thread to make sense.

[RGA]

Not to change the subject , that is probably not true. The worst problems with tubes such as noise and distortion are still not resolved as they are inherit to tube protocal.

Actually that is not true. If it were then tube amps could not be used with headphones. I have had several headphone amps here including SS and the quietest one of the lot is the SET headphone amp from Antique Sound Labs. It is also the only headphone amp that has not suffered from picking up some sort of slight noise (RF I'm guessing). Moreover i have owned 5 solid state amps and all of them experienced a bad hum due to cable interference - the ASL and the OTO had no such noise. While I grant that a bryston 3b has a lower noise floor than my OTO and my Sugden SS was better with crosstalk the OTO is a SE Pentode and is far quieter than one would expect from a tube amp. Where tube amps can generate noise is the power amp section of certain designs and from certain makers so I would agree with you that a great many tube power amsp have higher noise (though not audible at the listening position or during playback). But then I am listening to quality tube amp makers - I can't speak for the non quality variants. Although I did audition a $299 Vuum tube amp and it was dead quiet???

It should be noted that SS has far higher distortion than SET. SS uses feedback to make the numbers look good but before the feedback actually engages the damage has been done. That is why in every case a good SET amp sounds far clearer, less grainy, whole, and isn't dynamically constipated. SET is to the best recordings, that SS is to highly loud highly compressed pop IME. I recently directly compared a bryston Preamp with some of their best power amps and what was fascinating was that the SET amp in direct comparison was clearer - more instruments, better transiant attack, layering, cymbal decay, the flow from note to note. The bryston gear sounded incredibly conjested, thin, and I had to keep turning UP the volume to make things out, up and up and then the speaker began to compress. I have done these session with bryston for over a decade. They are so patently bad at resolution it's almost absurd. Though they are noise free - I get the sense they're taking the music out along with the noise. Something I complained about with various and some degree "all' of Dolby noise reduction systems and various speaker damping systems. They may take out the noise but they take the baby with it. Indeed that's been my compalint with the vast majority of panels - they take out the box resonances which is probably true, but they also take out the bass, dynamics, and ability to generate the air pressure of actual instruments in the room. To me they gut the entire sense of live scale and believability in the narrow focus to get rid of a bit of box noise (which many boxed speakers get away from enough to not sound like a box).

The thing about arguments over tube distortion and noise - they neeed to actually be heard and the tube noise "should be cumulative" if it were actually true. I am sitting here with a tube cd player and tube amp - it is far less noisy than my other room which has a Marantz receiver and less sensitive speakers. And not long ago I had a tube preamp dac, tube hybrid monoblocks and again dead quiet.

The only tube amps I remember being somewhat noisy were from Jolida and the famed ST 70. But the latter was something like 40 years old so it has somwhat of an excuse.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Basically I think Eberts problem with 3D movies is that they tend to be as shallow
as a mud puddle, amusment park rides, basically.
A good movie with a real plot, about real people, even sci fi, won't need
3D, basically.
Not a fan of the 3D, but going to see one and expectng a real movie is like expecting a
talky thread to make sense.

Funny Pix, but I think a shallow movie would be right up your ally given with less than one brain cell firing, that would be the best you could comprehend.

Interesting thing is that too many folks are evaluating 3D as a seperate component of the movie experience. One you just look at the story line of Avatar as a separate element from everything else, it fails. When you compile the great visuals and sound along with the storyline(no matter how shallow it is) it entertains. Avatars dead Benjamin haul proves this. I saw Alice in Wonderland in 2D, and while I still liked the movie, the 3D just enhanced the experience, and that is all that is expected of 3D

I am willing to bet good money that when Iosono sound hits theaters folks are going to complain that its too distracting, it to this, its to that. When it comes to new technology for the theater, its the same ole drum over and over again.

Richard, I think various home brew implementations of Dolby noise reduction( A and B) did take away some of the highs from music. However the theater version of Dolby A and B did not do that. As a matter of fact, I would put Dolby SR and 3" tape at 30fps against every sound format(including vinyl) any day. It falls short when compared to DXD and 24/192khz digital audio, but beats the crap out of everything else.

[pixelthis]

ANY movie that needs 3D to get by is a p*ss poor "movie".
AND nobodies going to notice your new type sound, talky.
NOBODY CARES

[Geoffcin]

OK Guys, lets play nice in the News & Rumors forum.

And let's try to stay on the topic. This is not a SS vs. Tube or, Box vs. Flat thread. Save that fight for the "Steel Cage" OK?

[Geoffcin]

Roger can hate anything he likes. He can even point out the flaws in 3D tech to everyone and we can all agree that there are flaws. The fact remains that this is the biggest upgrade, and REASON to go to the theater since multi-channel sound changed the movies. Hollywood and the movie industry is getting a big $$$ pump from it, and hopefully someone will take this new format to the next level. Up! and Avatar are just the first of many movies that will expand the 3D market. 3D is going to be a format that many directors besides Cameron will choose to use. To discount the tech because the first movies were action/adventure I think is short sided. Who can say at this eary stage what will come of the format. Who knows, even some of the films might be good in a way that your looking for. I think that the best is yet to come for 3D.

[kevlarus]

Roger can hate anything he likes. He can even point out the flaws in 3D tech to everyone and we can all agree that there are flaws. The fact remains that this is the biggest upgrade, and REASON to go to the theater since multi-channel sound changed the movies. Hollywood and the movie industry is getting a big $$$ pump from it, and hopefully someone will take this new format to the next level. Up! and Avatar are just the first of many movies that will expand the 3D market. 3D is going to be a format that many directors besides Cameron will choose to use. To discount the tech because the first movies were action/adventure I think is short sided. Who can say at this eary stage what will come of the format. Who knows, even some of the films might be good in a way that your looking for. I think that the best is yet to come for 3D.

Granted, however the studios need to do a better job of their selection of films to produce/fund. It's getting really tiresome of the "remakes" which don't hold a candle to the original production, despite the great advances in technology (both camera and sound), which is too bad. I guess it's the LCD (lowest common denominator) effect that I'm seeing in the production of the remakes and maybe the "mass produce, mass market" mentality to get it to the theatres and get some bucks for it.

Of course, 3D is only 1 aspect of the HD/HDMI spec that is coming, such as increased resolution and certain colour specs. I don't think there were any audio changes in the spec, but I could be wrong; just don't remember.

[E-Stat]

The infamous film critic does not have very nice things to say about 3D.

He is certainly entitled to his opinion. My experience with Avatar and Alice in Wonderland doesn't support this observation:

"Its image is noticeably darker than standard 2-D. "

rw

[Geoffcin]

Granted, however the studios need to do a better job of their selection of films to produce/fund. It's getting really tiresome of the "remakes" which don't hold a candle to the original production, despite the great advances in technology (both camera and sound), which is too bad. I guess it's the LCD (lowest common denominator) effect that I'm seeing in the production of the remakes and maybe the "mass produce, mass market" mentality to get it to the theatres and get some bucks for it.

Of course, 3D is only 1 aspect of the HD/HDMI spec that is coming, such as increased resolution and certain colour specs. I don't think there were any audio changes in the spec, but I could be wrong; just don't remember.

While I agree with you, it really has nothing to do with 3D tech. What the studios pick to fund is based on what they think will make money. As I see this now, with IMAX 3D available in most affluent areas of the country, many more films will take advantage of this tech, and you'll see many directors choosing this format.

No matter what spec they put into HDMI a home theater is not going to approch what a IMAX theater can produce, so therefor if you really want to see a movie as the director wanted you to (if he had chosen the IMAX format to begin with) your going to have to see it in a theater. I think that's going to be a great thing for the industry as a whole.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

While I agree with you, it really has nothing to do with 3D tech. What the studios pick to fund is based on what they think will make money. As I see this now, with IMAX 3D available in most affluent areas of the country, many more films will take advantage of this tech, and you'll see many directors choosing this format.

IMO IMAX 3D is the hardest on the eyes, but has the deepest convergence of all the 3D tech out there. Unfortunately most IMAX theaters build in the last few years use smaller screens, and stacked 2K projectors which yield a resolution no better than what you will see on a 3D Blu ray disc. IMAX's old 3D technology based on 65mm film had a much higher resolution, but was much, much more expensive to implement. Hollywood saved IMAX, and 3D has given IMAX a real financial boost.

No matter what spec they put into HDMI a home theater is not going to approch what a IMAX theater can produce, so therefor if you really want to see a movie as the director wanted you to (if he had chosen the IMAX format to begin with) your going to have to see it in a theater. I think that's going to be a great thing for the industry as a whole.

IMAX's benefit is the screen size, but that is about it when compared to hometheater. Blu ray will have 1920x1080p 3D image, and IMAX 3D is roughly the same resolution in its digital implementation.

You don't shoot for IMAX presentation, you shoot for 3D. Avatar was shot in 3D, but encoded into IMAX 3D, Dolby 3D, Real 3D, and Xpand 3D. These formats are either passive(polarization) or active (shutter based).

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Granted, however the studios need to do a better job of their selection of films to produce/fund. It's getting really tiresome of the "remakes" which don't hold a candle to the original production, despite the great advances in technology (both camera and sound), which is too bad. I guess it's the LCD (lowest common denominator) effect that I'm seeing in the production of the remakes and maybe the "mass produce, mass market" mentality to get it to the theatres and get some bucks for it.

Alice in Wonderland was not a remake, as it wasn't a copy of another movie. Avatar was also a new creation. The Night Before Christmas was not a remake, it was based on the original book. How to Train your Dragon is an original creation. Clash of the Titans was a remake, and it was not shot for 3D, but it was encoded to 3D in post production which is why it looked lousy.

Of course, 3D is only 1 aspect of the HD/HDMI spec that is coming, such as increased resolution and certain colour specs. I don't think there were any audio changes in the spec, but I could be wrong; just don't remember.

There are no additional audio enhancements with the new HDMI spec.

[Geoffcin]

For some reason I thought the digital Imax 3D had higher resolution than a traditional digital theater. We've got a Imax dome near us and i've seen several features there, They use the 70mm film on immense reels. The projector room is behind glass so you can see all the workings. Outstanding!

[3LB]

I'd love to agree with RE with regards to new technology dumbing down movies, but that horse left the barn a long long time ago, and it twern't technology as much as it was profits. The summer blockbuster is what killed "serious" or "conventional" movies. With movie and concession stand prices continuing to go up, people are doing their own cost/benefit analysis - even when they see a so-called serious movie trailer, one that they think will be really good, they axe themselves, "does this warrant being seen in a theater?" or they tell themselves, "I don't need to see this on a big screen, I'll just wait until it comes out on DVD" or they amuse themselves trying to guess which antiquated amusement park ride Disney is going try to prop up next with a movie...Sir Terrier is right; people have voted and they'd rather watch Brendan Fraiser jump the shark (again) than watch something that might have some social or cultural merit. People want their senses challenged, not their sensibilities.