Histrion Wrote: I work in the education field, and believe me, I've got horror stories. However, I don't think that's the issue here. The reality is: if you do a story like this about a real event or real person, you get wrapped up not just in politics, but in accusations of misrepresentation or lying outright. (Naturally - because real people contain multitides that don't translate well to screen.) Whatever you say in your film about the Canadian government or the natives, people on one side or the other or both will say, "You misportrayed so-and-so to bend the film to your political views." Fictionalize it, and you avoid that problem. You still get politically labeled, but you don't get called a liar... so much.

I see where you are coming from, but in the end the only people that would appreciate social commentaries are the hardcore fans who dissect the movie piece by piece.

If a screenwriter starts putting in political analogies, no matter how fictionalized, then he risks "offending" some hypersensitive studio bigwig.

order abortion pill abortion pill buy online where to buy abortion pill

I'm sure it will not be long before George Lucas has the whole Star Wars Saga redone in the 3-D format. I'm honestly surprised that we haven't heard something allready in light of the fact that Avatar garnered so much cash in this economy!where to buy abortion pill abortion types buy abortion pill online

TRON is different however, since it actually has a decent storyline from what I've read, and will actually make use of the 3-d rather than it being there to "IMMERSE YOU IN TEH UNIVERSE LOLOL ^_^".

Legacy will be no different in that regard - the only point of 3D is as an attempt to increase audience immersion. Even stupid "jump out at you" tricks are, really, an attempt to do the same.

Seriously, what else could the film do with the 3D? Any acknowledgement within the narrative of the difference between 2D and 3D film would just be breaking the fourth wall. It'd be like if Dorothy had said, "Wow, all my life I've been seeing in black and white, but now that I'm in Oz, everything's in color for the very first time! Oh look, Toto's winking at the audience! Isn't that cute?" Seems to me that the best the film could do would have Sam (or Kevin) make some offhand comment about how the computer world "feels more real than the real world, in some way." That doesn't constitute the 3D presentation being part of the story. (It had better not, for the sake of all the 2D theatres out there that will also be showing Legacy.)

The studios are making films in 3D for four simple reasons:
1. They don't want to be left behind when *other* studios jump on the bandwagon.
2. They want to sell the moviegoer a more intense experience.
3. They can justify charging higher ticket prices.
4. 3D films are harder to pirate. (I suspect that's the big one.)

Regarding Cameron's Avatar: I liked it. I didn't find it particularly deep, nor was the storyline groundbreaking (Pocahontas Dances with Wolves in Fengully), but it was well made and enjoyable. Also, unlike the last film I'd seen in IMAX 3D, which was Beowulf, this time I didn't get a splitting headache. Cameron's technicians found a much better way to work the 3D - I suspect it was something in the polarization technique, because I noticed that when I flopped my head to the side, the picture didn't get all wonky like with other 3D films I'd seen.

For the most part, I agree with Roger Ebert, in that I don't think 3D adds much to the moviegoing experience. Avatar came as close to being the exception to that as any film I've seen. I didn't bother watching Toy Story 3 in 3D, because I knew I'd enjoy it better in 2D.

I will probably see Legacy in 3D, though, just because... well... I just will, okay?

Histrion Wrote:I didn't bother watching Toy Story 3 in 3D, because I knew I'd enjoy it better in 2D.

Toy Story 3's 3D was like Avatar's 3D. Mostly depth perception. Actually, that's all it was for, just depth perception and nothing else. I think it really helped to make it look more realistic and convincing.

I will probably see Legacy in 3D, though, just because... well... I just will, okay?

Yeah, me too. abortion pills online http://www.kvicksundscupen.se/template/default.aspx?abortion-questions cytotec abortion

Avatar was a visual feast with a terrible script, and it made a billion dollars. TRON Legacy looks to be a visual feast, and if the script is good... No, I don't dare to hope that TRON Legacy will make more the Avatar, but I do think TRON Legacy has a tremendous opportunity to "own" the Holiday season in a way the original was unable to "own" the summer of 1982. Barring some unforseen project, there isn't anything in the pipe for Christmas that promises as much eye candy as TRON Legacy. Also, the Disney affiliation is MAJOR because parents will be willing to take kids to this movie in ways they might not otherwise have been willing, without the Disney label. I am scared to predict anything, but I think the odds are that TRON Legacy could blow the doors off Christmas 2010.

Let me say this again. I think the reason they're re-releasing Avatar at this time of year is because they ARE scared of Tron: Legacy.

If they are re-releasing this to theaters, then it's telling.

They're afraid TRON: LEGACY is going to make people forget about Avatar. After all, TRON is the more well known product and famous than Avatar, and in which has been around for 28 years. It already has a rich history and is the first CGI film ever produced in 1982.

And keep in mind that the 3D cameras that Kozinski was using is far more advanced than what James Cameron used at the time.

Probably until january.

Sorry, bigbangbilly.exe, I should have been a little clearer. I was referring to Avatar being a threat to Tron Legacy. Or even James Cameron's motivation for re-releasing Avatar. It was not directed at your comment.where to buy abortion pill http://blog.bitimpulse.com/template/default.aspx?abortion-types buy abortion pill online