I miss the time when movies were about real people and real stories.(for example Black and white movies). It was not about huge explosions or whatever. Steady camera shots, good acting. that's what it was about.

Seems hollywwod loves to make these kinds of movies that are full of Special FX and fancy camera movement.

I personally think they are overdoing it. what's your take?

as computer FX advances in the area of motion pictures many studios find it necessary to stay on this cutting edge to help advance, or bring to light this technology
for those who are FX "geeks" they enjoy this cutting edge use of computer FX, while those who enjoy the acting and story line more will find it a bit much
in the end to some the glass is half empty while to others the glass is half full..
just my $0.02

In some cases the studios are overdoing it, but then again, not every movie (like dramas) need special effects.

Some recent films have sacrificed story for Special FX, Avatar being the worst one that I can think of right now, UP on the other hand while being entirely CGI actually has a decent story that takes centre stage over the pretty pictures.

Hollyweird studios can get it right if they try but then they get all excited when they hit the mark the first time & start churning out special FX laden dog turds by the dozen.

PS. I can see them going the dog turd direction already with 3D movies, They've had a few goodun's & now they're cranking everything out in 3D.

Almost every movie released over the last decade has some FX and/or CGI element in it.  The best ones are often those you don't notice.  

SF, Fantasy and Action movies depend on CGI.  As long as there's a story in there, the FX should enhance the experience.

 Well.. Avatar was a rather.. plain story made GREAT by the FX (Yes, I LOVE Avatar! - but I recognize that 5 minutes into the movie, you can guess the plot!)

Other movies are still plot-driven and use FX for emphasis. Unfortunately I can't name any off the top of my head L (shows how rare they are I guess)

And then there's the mixed lot, probably most of the mainstream movies.  FX has been the GREAT thing of movies ever since they began - the whole IDEA that you could show something that didn't exist in reality - unlike theater - you can't,, like in a very vintage movie (1928!) , Jeanne D'Arc - burn someone on the stake in a theater and make it look real. 

I agree that the plot should be what drives the movie BUT generally FX are needed. Imagine Star Trek (or the ugly cousin, Star Wars ;) ) without any FX?

Over doing it!  Movie houses have become more interested in luring viewers with eye candy than a good and creative story line because they feel that Mr. and Mrs. movie watchers have the attention span of belly button lint.  Why have a team of great writers when you can fill the screen with pretty colors and big booms this way one that is watching the movie will not get bored with a stupid story line, characters that actually interact with each other or have to THINK about what they are seeing.

UP was the exception to the rule for CGI it was wonderfully written it had a real story line. It was not a 120 minute commercial for toys and video games.

Quite often special effects do take the place of a good story, but it depends what you kind of mood or film you are looking for at the time. I think that there is room for both. You just have to watch the film for what it is.
I often find old black and white films scarier than modern ones, because it is what you don't see that keeps up the suspence, same as it does in the old detective films like the Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes ones.
If I'm tired or not in the mood to be mentally or emotionally challenged I sometimes watch a comedy, or low budget sci-fi / horror film, even if the story, acting or special effects are total rubbish. I can still enjoy them just as much, but for different reasons.
I know that Hollywood seems to rely on the latter at the moment, but sometimes I can be surprised at how good a film is.
We are also lucky that the size and low cost of making dvds means that lots of old classic films which were never available on vhs are now being released. So in some respects we have more choice than ever.

 I LOVE FX!!!!  Avatar is one of my top "put my feets up and watch again"  movies.  It sent me on a journey to another, totally differant world.  

That said, I also LOVE "The Man From Snowy River" (the first movie).  

So there you have it... but what you have..........I haven't a clue :)  

No matter how you slice it, special effects is here to stay.  Sure, the more elaborate and technical the gimmick, the more people will flock to see it.  However, as more and more overseas resources dwindle and prime locations become more dangerous to film in, Hollywood will resort to the convenience of computer reproduction to bring those place to life.  Even period movies will see it's fair share of computer imagery just to put the story into a proper historical setting.

Quote - I miss the time when movies were about real people and real stories.(for example Black and white movies). It was not about huge explosions or whatever. Steady camera shots, good acting. that's what it was about.

Seems hollywwod loves to make these kinds of movies that are full of Special FX and fancy camera movement.

I personally think they are overdoing it. what's your take?

That's been my pet peeve about movies for a very long time now.

It seems that today's movies is all about special effects. The special effects of many movies are so over powering that they take over the entire movie and completely overshadow the acting in it.

There are a lot of people acting in movies these days. Are any of them "great actors"?  I wouldn't know.  The movies aren't about them and their acting. It's about who can create and produce the biggest and most spectacular special effects. The acting is secondary and very forgetable in most cases.

I really don't like watching movies with "block buster" special effects. I'd rather watch a movie that stands on its own based on the story and the acting itself.

Quote - Almost every movie released over the last decade has some FX and/or CGI element in it.  The best ones are often those you don't notice.  

SF, Fantasy and Action movies depend on CGI.  As long as there's a story in there, the FX should enhance the experience.

Bingo.  They should be secondary to the story and acting, not the primary focus which many of the movies "today" seem to be.

To me it's acceptable to see a car or building exploding in the background because it's necessary for the scene, but many movie makers go way overboard!

I can give you an example of a recent movie, reliant on FX and CGI which contains a great story and superb acting from almost all the cast...  The Dark Knight.

Whether or not you're a Batman devotee (I am) it's a first class movie which integrates (for the most part) first class CGI and FX with the live action.

I'd go so far as to say it's one of my all time top 10 movies. 

Quote - I can give you an example of a recent movie, reliant on FX and CGI which contains a great story and superb acting from almost all the cast...  The Dark Knight.

Whether or not you're a Batman devotee (I am) it's a first class movie which integrates (for the most part) first class CGI and FX with the live action.

I'd go so far as to say it's one of my all time top 10 movies. 

I'll check it out. Not really a superhero movie fan though.
One of my favourite movies is "Fargo".  Just a good storyline and good acting. Some might find that style of movie boring to sit and watch, but those are essentially the types of movies that I really enjoy.

A movie with "special effects" that I absolutely love and watch it whenever it's on is "Fantastic Voyage"

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060397/

Given the period of this movie, I think they were really well done and rather innovative, all things considered.

Films with too much CGI effects look bad in ten years and less and will not remembered fondly because they don't trust stories or actors and very often the direction is like from a computer too. Lord of the Rings does not look that good on TV because the CGI effects are too evident.

One of the good examples here mentioned is The Fantastic Voyage, what is the difference? The special effects were obviously needed to tell the story.

The story  in Clash of the Titans from 1981 was extremely bad, the acting too (even by Laurence Olivier), it was considered a box office flop then and nevertheless it was remade by an even worse version last year that tried to cash in the recent 3D vague. When I read the reviews last year the 1981 version was mostly described as a "classic". That's false, it was never a classic and it will never be (Raiders of the Lost Ark made in the same year is a classic), just crap, despite the work special effects guru Ray Harryhausen had in it, they looked cheap but it's the only thing that one remembers about the film.

I'm a James Bond fan, I had to live with Roger Moore and those boring Octopussy, but I was very very disappointed with Die Another Day (Brosnan's last) - the first Bond that used CGI effects instead of classic special effects and stunts. The scenes outside the Ice Hotel, especially at the cliff and waterfall were badly done and did NOTHING to tell the story or deliver needed action. Thankfully the Bond producers started all over again with Casino Royale (Quantum of Solace was bad but that had to with the cinematography and editing).

I did not like Avatar, what an idiotic story and I don't care about 3D films anyway, but I have to admit the director knows at least how to tell that story carefully and the acting was not bad either.

The problem are the formula films Hollywood produces like other industries put out their formula fast food or those all similar looking cars from all over the world. I cannot stand Jennifer Aniston and I don't understand why she is in one "romantic comedy" after the another, to me they are disaster movies, the woman has no charisma, the stories are shit, it's like going in the bathroom and see your face in the mirror: it's always the same and you cannot change anything about it. But it can be worse, if Aniston is starring in action movie or those brainless comic adaptions with lots of CGI effects that I discover without my glasses on, add to that a noisy bombastic sound score by Hans Zimmer and sound effects that make the dialogue unrecognizable and you know why the best films are told in 13-22 parts every year on TV now, True Blood, Six Feet Under, Lost, NipTuck - the writers behind such TV shows should produce and write for films and replace the Hollywood generation that knows life only from film schools that teached them a lot about money but nothing about the creative process.

 I think there is a combination of "Let's use FX to make a ok story look great" "Let's try to use bigger and (in their opinion better) FX to out do the competition." "Let's over emphasis the fx so the audience will catch them."  And "We can do special effects so we can do what ever we want in the story and don't have to depend on wires."

Let's face it. Most of these movies would be lousy even without the fx. I really liked Avatar. Not because of the story, which was so amazingly unpredictable i doubt the actors even needed scripts, but because of the fx. but I was watching it because of the cg and having a so-so story helped prevent my from being distracted from seeing all those special fx.

Is this thread about Vis-FX that are noticeable and poorly done, or those that aren't?

I ask because, earlier this year, I saw a compilation of scenes from movies and TV shows I've seen that were chock full of CGI in scenes I never knew were fake.  I was completely blown away, and absolutely stunned by just how prevalent CGI has become in everything we watch, regardless of genre.

Speaking as a person who works in the film biz as an special effects technician (pyrotechnic/mechanical/environmental FX), if there's an overabundance of F/X of ANY sort, it's of the CG kind.  It's all over the place, and it's often used as a crutch instead of a tool like any other tool at a filmmaker's toolbox.  It's often so overused that it takes away from the "gee-whiz!!!" factor that is supposed to be a big part of movies, as practically everything can be written off as being done on computer, which -in the end- will often times ruin the overall impact of a given production. 

This was the case with "2012", which was so over-the-top with CG destruction of whole towns that it literally turned off audiences who yawned and went for their cell phones as a result (at least as I noticed when I saw the film at my local theater).  You could hear people write off various events as "totally done by CG" and other punchline-spoiling remarks that totally defeated the point of the film- to leave you on the edge of your seat. 

Of course, I'm not a fan of CG effects mostly because it horns in on MY work, which has gradually been whittled away from me the last decade-and-a-half.  Creating whole city skylines that fold up over themselves (a la "Inception") is one thing, but leave the real-time explosions and shoot-em-ups to me... it's what I spent almost half my life training for.  

And yes- you CAN tell the difference between real-time (nowadays called "practical" effects) and CG effects, as the CG stuff usually doesn't usually conform to the laws of physics and thermodynamics that guys like me have to keep in mind with doing stuff, even with the numerous physics plug-ins available for MAYA or any of the other software packages they use.  

If nothing else, it's like what a former-mentor of mine told me once with regard to films- "too much of anything is not good".  The same thing can be said about CG effects or anything else for that matter. 

The special effects are not the problem per se.   By your account we could argue that silent films are superior to the 'talkies' because some of the dialogue is ridiculous :)

As for me, I can't imagine 'Saving Private Ryan' without those special effects.  As in all aspects of cinematography and any other art by extension, the means by which the creator(s) employs techniques is what makes a success.    In Spielberg's hands those special effects are used when needed to create realistic effects. So, they might get dated in time but I can still watch Jurassic Park or Forrest Gump.   In Michael Bay's hands they're all over the place - usually taking precedence over plot, dialogue, etc.

And then, of course, there are the shining examples of superb acting and plot as in '12 Angry Men' where even the setting is limited to only a bare room with a table and chairs for most of the duration.  No special effects needed although your average teenager would probably be bored to tears if they had to watch it :)

I guess it all depends on what you want to see at a particular time and I am glad there are options for creative minds.

That scene of the city folding in on itself in the "Inception" commercials is just effing breathtaking!  How could anyone NOT want to see that???

2012, Avatar, The Star Wars Prequels, The Airplane scene in Superman...Titanic for pete's sake...

Special effects are our friends.  Occasionally a movie like 2012 comes along and story be damned, it's just plain fun!  If I want story I'll catch an indie film.  There's plenty of different films out there and we can pick and choose from the movie buffet of life any time we'd like.

By the way, if you want a really GREAT movie, check out "Whip It!"  Starring the Juno girl and directed by Drew Barrymore.  HUH?  Yeah, it's really, really good.  Strong Indie vibe without being pretensious....skirts around formula but manages not to fall into the forumla pool.  No CGI, as far as I can tell.

By the way...good CGI is infinitely better than claymation, stop-motion, scale models and the like...although Pupppet Yoda is superior to CGI yoda for some reason.

Quote - And yes- you CAN tell the difference between real-time (nowadays called "practical" effects) and CG effects, as the CG stuff usually doesn't usually conform to the laws of physics and thermodynamics that guys like me have to keep in mind with doing stuff, even with the numerous physics plug-ins available for MAYA or any of the other software packages they use.  

I did my BA Hons in creative modelmaking 10 years or so ago and found that even then more and more people wanted cgi rather than practical models. Even with architectural work, many clients prefer to see cgi rendered "beauty shots" and virtual environments than physical models.
CGI in films can be good or bad, even if the actual effects are good. (Possibly down to the director or studio).
If a film is science fiction for example the laws of phyics could be broken, bent, whatever.
In other movies, the best cgi special effects are the ones that you do not know are cgi.
Unfortunately as directors, studios, whoever want over the top explosions and effects that look good in trailers, they completely loose the sense of reality, and action films for example become more science fiction. Just because you can use a cgi stunt double to fall 50 feet then get up without a scratch on him, doesn't mean that you should.
Before it sounds like I'm dissing cgi in action movies etc altogether, I'm not. When used for certain things for example fire and water (near impossible to get scaled properly with small scale models) and digital set extensions etc they can be far superior to practical models.

Oh boy...
Keep in mind that out of the hundreds of studio films coming out of Hollywood every year, only a very small handful can be considered effects heavy.
There's plenty of great stuff out there; it's just that the tentpoles get all the attention. Fact of the matter is that smart, challenging, sophisticated films usually don't make any money-this is as true now as it was 40 years ago.
If you're not happy with the movie industry as a whole, and you're looking for somebody to blame; then smack the nearest Twilight fan in the face. That one franchise will do more damage to the quality of films than CGI ever will. And don't even get me started on the goddamn remakes...

Sparkly vampires or how about a speccy tw@t on a broom? both franchises are killers.

Quote -  And don't even get me started on the goddamn remakes...

Saw the trailer for The A-Team. Tank being used while falling from a great height.... really!?

At least with Liam Neeson playing Hannibal there are unlikely to be any sequels (apparently he doesn't like doing sequels). Unless Hannibal spends the entire next movie in one of his disguises,... or that lizard costume he wore on a regular basis in the series! :-)

I'm back off to the shed, to see if I can build an armoured car using some power tools, a '89 Mini Cooper, some plywood and a Nerf gun.

Quote - That scene of the city folding in on itself in the "Inception" commercials is just effing breathtaking!  How could anyone NOT want to see that???

2012, Avatar,

Raises hand!  Neither of those movies interest me in the slightest.

I like real,  live,  actual people on the screen in the movies I watch, not voice overs. I don't care for computer generated characters staring in movies.

And that scene of the city folding over....way too out there for me!  I watched the trailer for that movie and was so completely lost that I won't even be tuning into the movie when it's on a movie channel, let alone paying money to go see it in a theater.

Well, it takes all kinds, and there's all kinds of movies for all kinds of people.  This is a good thing.

Fargo isn't just a movie though, its a work of art :o), another film with no CG is Ronin, now I almost agree with PaganArtist but i do think there are plenty of good films being made that aren't about cash, or at least give that impression. Two other movies I love, 1 with either no CGI or at least they hid it well "The kingdom" and 2 with lots, "DejaVu", i also love the fact that someone thought of a new twist on a time machine ;o)........Steve
PS Like Darren said, we need movies like say American Pie for those tired days you just want to chill and have a laugh :o)

 in the movie "2012", did the points when the theatre audience looked at their cellphones
follow the incidences of characters using cellphones on the screen?  the audience is highly
imitative, but they lose focus in extended scenes (cuts less frequent than every 1 or 2 seconds)
unless appetitive behaviour (smoking, drinking, eaing, sex) is depicted.  by analogy, a cat or
dog might relate well to watching people eating, but wouldn't understand a 15-second shot of
L.A. sliding into the ocean.  in addition, it's hard to understand how somebody who paid $15
to get in, $15 for popcorn and $15 for a diet coke could juggle their cellphone whilst holding
all that junk.

 The question isn't whether it'd being overdone, but whether a habit is forming where CGI takes the place of good scripting, acting, editing and scoring. Is the story in 'Avatar' familiar? There are no new stories, and haven't been for centuries, if not millenium. All that changes is -how- those stories are told, and the hopefully unique characters in them. Avatar's storyline was a bit simple, but you also have to factor in the fact that several new technologies were being beta tested (think how much better Beowulf would have been visually if said tech was available then. Which does not degrade what was done with the tools at hand), and only a moron deliberately complicates a beta test.

Unfortunately, there are movies, like 2012, that =are= nothing more than vehicles for computer, visual, and special effects. We could all name others. I'm more concerned with the 'Remake-itis' that media in general is wallowing in atm. Originality is taking a beating in the 'We own property X that was a smasherooni in 55! Let's make it the next big effects thing and rake in the moola!!!' mindset that corporate control seems to inflict anywhere it lands. Creativity is taboo. The lowest common denominator is the only denominator. Right now CGI is the hip trend; soon it will burn out as the driving force and recede back into its proper place, as one tool amongst many.

And while The 'Batman Begins' & 'Dark Knight' movies technically qualify as 'comic book movies', there is so much more going on than bif bam boom. They are worth watching for the peek into the mind of a driven being......

Acadia, don't misunderstand Inception on the CG angle.  Christopher Nolan has made a point not to use CG unless it is absolutely necessary.  A tremendous number of those incredible scenes where performed in soundstages, in real sets, and with live actors.

Quote - The question isn't whether it'd being overdone, but whether a habit is forming where CGI takes the place of good scripting, acting, editing and scoring.

Yes!  CGI isn't necessarily overdone, but too often the writing is underdone on a project which is CGI-heavy.

I also dislike certain design trends in contemporary special effects.  I'm thinking largely about the "monster" designs used by the Mill in Doctor Who.  But also about the costume designs used in superhero films.  Somehow it seems like the details are often compelling, but not put together quite right.  The final effect is too much fiddley stuff on top of a weak composition.  Which is sort of the flaw with so many CGI projects overall, IMO.

I just saw Despicable Me today and this thought occurs to me: has everyone seen Shrek, which is 100% CGI?  It was a good movie and fun too. 

The only problem nowadays with 100% cgi is now you have people who are adding or extending scenes to movies just for 3D graphics.  So for an extra $5 (or not), you are forced to sit through a few bad sequences that scream hey, I'm in 3D and detract from the rest of the film.

Quote - > Quote - The question isn't whether it'd being overdone, but whether a habit is forming where CGI takes the place of good scripting, acting, editing and scoring.

I also dislike certain design trends in contemporary special effects.  I'm thinking largely about the "monster" designs used by the Mill in Doctor Who

If you mean that giant eyeball thing in "The Eleventh Hour" then I agree it looked bad, (athough "giant eyeball appears in the sky" might have looked good in the script) but many of the other effects were alright and alot of the monsters are prosthetics anyway. In Doctor Who's defence, the majority of the series was spectacular. They had to make it with a smaller budget than before (which is way smaller than American tv programs get anyway). Plus the BBC is funded by the tv licence that British tv viewers have to pay (whether they watch the BBC or not) and I don't fancy having to eat nothing but cornflakes all day! ;-)

Quote - If you mean that giant eyeball thing in "The Eleventh Hour" then I agree it looked bad, (athough "giant eyeball appears in the sky" might have looked good in the script) but many of the other effects were alright and alot of the monsters are prosthetics anyway.

I'm thinking about the giant eyeballs and their spaceships, as well as Prisoner Zero, from TEH.  The Krillatane design is usually the one I think about in that context.  I love the New Who series and The Mill does a great job with the animation.  But so many of the designs seem a bit generic, a bit same-y, like they've been pulled from the same basic design pool as everything else in contemporary science fiction.  They're not as striking as so many older designs, not as iconic, and they end up looking to me as though near-realistic levels of detail have been piled on top of a haphazardly composed foundation.

But I'm really not down on Doctor Who, the BBC, or The Mill.  That's just the context in which I've become most aware of a tendency which seems much more widespread.  And Stephen Moffatt is one of my current heroes.  :laugh:

Quote - > Quote - If you mean that giant eyeball thing in "The Eleventh Hour" then I agree it looked bad, (athough "giant eyeball appears in the sky" might have looked good in the script) but many of the other effects were alright and alot of the monsters are prosthetics anyway.

I'm thinking about the giant eyeballs and their spaceships, as well as Prisoner Zero, from TEH.  The Krillatane design is usually the one I think about in that context.  I love the New Who series and The Mill does a great job with the animation.  But so many of the designs seem a bit generic, a bit same-y, like they've been pulled from the same basic design pool as everything else in contemporary science fiction.  They're not as striking as so many older designs, not as iconic, and they end up looking to me as though near-realistic levels of detail have been piled on top of a haphazardly composed foundation.

But I'm really not down on Doctor Who, the BBC, or The Mill.  That's just the context in which I've become most aware of a tendency which seems much more widespread.  And Stephen Moffatt is one of my current heroes.  :laugh:

I thought the Daleks emerging from the Genesis Ark looked terrible.  It looked like they rendered a Dalek onto a flat surface then moved it Z.  Thought the witches in the Shakespeare episode were lousy, too.  Don't get me started on the new Daleks.

Forgot to mention...

@ Acadia - Batman isn't a superhero.  That's what makes the character more interesting.  :) 

I know what you mean, but I suppose that if they were really to go to town on something different, so called "fans" would complain that it was too different. Half of them weren't even born when Doctor Who went off air, the other half, me included ( I was born about halfway through "Genesis of The Daleks" (No that doesn't make me a Dalek!!)) have slightly rose tinted memories of it. Basically think of Star Trek, most aliens were men in rubber suits or metal ones.

"The Moff" is also one of my current heroes, and I'll definately be watching his new series "Sherlock" tonight. Another modern day  set re-invention, but supposed to be a really good one (you can't do classic Holmes and Watson better than Brett and Hardwicke).

I actually quite like the new Dalek design except for the J-Lo butt. The previous ones were built to match the eyeline of Billie Piper, With Karen and Matt being taller, those ones would not have seemed as menacing, like they could just be shoved into an enclosed space by Richard Hurndall aka  Doctor 1.2

Quote - has everyone seen Shrek, which is 100% CGI?  It was a good movie and fun too. 

I tried to watch it but didn't get very far.  I just don't like movies that star CGI characters. They just don't capture or keep my interest. I find myself nodding off or my mind wandering and itching to get up and be anywhere else but watching what is on the screen.  I prefer movies that have real, live people in front of the cameras acting, not CGI characters with actors doing voice overs.

The exception are the old cartoons such as The Flintstones, The Jetsons, Yogi Bear , Bugs Bunny etc..... basically mindless entertainment.  Yes I know they aren't computer generated...or at least I don't think so.  However, I was using it as an exception to my "real live people in front of the camera" preference.

Quote -
  I actually quite like the new Dalek design except for the J-Lo butt. The previous ones were built to match the eyeline of Billie Piper...

I'm surprised this myth is still circulating.  They were the size they were because the production team wanted to keep the classic Dalek size and shape with extra bits and bobs to make it look brutal.  The skirt section was a fan donated "classic" build.  Everything else followed proportionately from that.  The whole build of the NSD reflects all the previous builds in some way, with added bits here and there.  Quite a clever build, IMO.  The new ones... ah, I've already made my feelings clear over at Project Dalek.  No point in repeating them here.

I actually enjoyed one of the recent dr. who episodes with the pandorium in the under-henge,
even developing some sympathy for the non-eyebrows guy they cast this season.  my theory
is that he burnt them off in a glass-pipe-smoking accident and they're slowly growing back.

but we useta believe that cartoon animation had bottomed out with handle-barbarian stuff
like yogi.  however, we were wrong - it's actually a bottomless abyss (south park, cartoon
channel et al.) IMVHO.

I like the new series just fine.  Not the NPDs though.  

Apparently the final two Harry Potter movies will be in 3D.

Read a report yesterday which suggests the major studios may be abandoning 3D because audience numbers are dropping. 

 quote:-
"I can give you an example of a recent movie, reliant on FX and CGI which contains a great story and superb acting from almost all the cast... "

Latest star trek movie!

Quote -  quote:-
"I can give you an example of a recent movie, reliant on FX and CGI which contains a great story and superb acting from almost all the cast... "

Latest star trek movie!

Good call.  Watched it a couple of days ago and - I'm not a Star Trek fan - I thoroughly enjoyed it.

the amount of cash to be had from consumers pressured to buy 3d televisions, subscribe
to 3d movie suppliers, watch 3d movies in theatres, and all the associated equipment is
like a gold mine, and they will now buy anything if there's enough publicity and peer pressure,
even if they can't afford it and it doesn't work.  they've shown that time and again.  hence producers
will be relentlessly pushing 3d tech and there will be constant promotion everywhere one looks.
television news stories, newspaper and magazine articles (for those who still read), enthusiastic
endorsements in blogs and forums like this, stock tips on 3d companies, etc.  it might seem like a
stupid fad to anyone with a brain, but there's too much money involved for them to let it go IMVHO.

Attached Link: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/26/3d_films/