I just wonder how much of the population might react like I did? Maybe we need to form a lobby to protest. lol

(about the darkening thing: one would assume that the projected movie already compensates for that. Does anyone know if that's so?)

Still for me 3-d represents a bigger shift than HD ever did. Neither is necessary for watching a movie. But 3-D if done right adds an extra depth to the image that I find to be more interesting than simply having a clearer picture ala HD.

As for 3d television, yeah, it's pretty silly at this point. Especially when you realize that it requires a new TV and big heavy headsets (nothing like those light glasses at the theater from what I've heard). And you make a really good point about how we're really still in the middle of the HD transition.

Still I could see it someday being worthwhile. It takes small steps to get us towards the future of entertainment and I see 3d being a part of that growth and I'm interested to see what people do with it in the future. Imagine kids who grow up watching 3d movies. They'll be the artists who can really imagine a movie in 3d from the start and I bet they'll be the ones to come up with truly innovative and interesting uses for it...

P.S. I see a lot of people saying they were distracted by it. I bet a number of people were distracted by color in the Wizard of Oz as well. It's something new, of course you find it distracting. Over time you'll get used to it.

That said, I won't go to see any 3D movie of lower standard (ie averything else available at the moment) nor I would ever use my TV to watch a 3D show at home.

I read that Cameron used stereo double-cameras, created specifically for this film, to shoot directly in 3D (that's why he managed to get a 3D that seems natural) instead of adding the 3D in post production like everyone else does (ie making cardboards hurled at you). So, I say yes to 3D if it's state-of-the-art and I think Avatar gave us as high quality 3D as can be produced with current technology. I can't wait to see the 3D of the already planned Avatar II and III — but to anything of lower quality I'll say no, thanks!

And also another point, that May brought up. 3D technology is all nice and dandy, but it should be a special option, not the standard. That is, you should still be able to watch movies in 2D if you want to. What about people with visual impairments? I can only imagine what the old red/green 3D lenses must've been like for people with red-green color blindness... useless.

And now imagine someone who lost one eye to illness or accident (soldiers from the Iraq War, for example) or was born with only one functional eye: until we invent fully funtional cybereyes (or our TVs become truly 3-dimensional holograms, yeah right), 3D-TV would make TV viewing impossible for these people.

Besides, even if you start selling 3D-TVs, millions, billions of people worldwide will still be using a 20+-year-old television set because they cannot afford it. Heck, I know friends here in Germany who stopped watching televison altogether, sold their set, and only watch a handful of series they like via DVDs. They use newspapers and the internet for daily news, and that's it.

I saw Avatar twice. I didn't have the same headache the second time. It's a matter of becoming accostumed.

Partly, it's because movie studios fear diminishing box-office revenues, and are trying new ways to bring back their lost audience, in light of competition from other markets. In the 1950's, it was fake 3D, as well as introducing the widescreen format. Now it's realistic 3D technology.

As for 3D TV sets, I agree it's a blatant attempt to ram the technology down the consumer's throat. I don't particularly care for it. TV programming is not that good to warrant putting glasses every time I sit on my couch. And I doubt DS9's epic battles against the Dominion would look that better. And I'm the kind of person who would pay for this kind of upgrade, since I care about the viewing experience as much as whatever it is I'm watching.

This misguided notion that technology drives the market is exactly what put a hardware company like Sony in severe financial troubles. No wonder the Playstation became a bottomless pit of financial losses. The software became a secondary priority to the hardware. They completely missed the point regarding the consumer's importance. Meanwhile, Nintendo's Wii dominates the market further and further, with each year.

But for the home market? No. No one that I know, even hardcore movie lovers like me, want to sit around watching TV with 3-D glasses on, especially people who, again like me, wear regular glasses. I lost track of the glasses during "Avatar" after about fifteen minutes, but I can't see putting them on every time I want to watch TV.

Oh, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought polarized "lenses" were always what was used for 3-D in movies? From what I remember, weren't the blue/red lenses exclusively for still pictures?

As for 3D TV, no dice. The "Monsters v. Aliens" kiddie film had a DVD release which included a 3D animated short and glasses; couldn't see squat either.

And I also think they did succeed making 3D a real viable option for actual movies (not Spy Kids and that kind of crap). And 3D TV? Sign me up. (Don't actually, that sounds expensive, but if it comes with a standard cable package thats dandy!)

If they're heading for TVs, they need some sort of toggle switch. I don't want 3D if I'm tired late at night, nor when watching scenes with great heights or roller coaster rides. I don't get nausea/vertigo seeing that in 2D, but it's happened in 3D/Imax before. I also agree that we're hardly saturated with HD yet.

Fortunately the glasses fitted over my normal glasses, but they were a bit distracting at first because of the thick frame fencing in my visual field.

As for 3D television... why do we need that? I can enjoy old Carry Grant movies on TV without any 3D fancy stuff.

I'm with you that this isn't really the "future" of film or TV...it's not something everyone will embrace. I think of it as something akin to the introduction of eBooks...everyone assumed no one would want to buy a book anymore, but they are two very different experiences and it's unlikely print will be replaced anytime soon.

For most movies and TV, I completely agree with you about the mis(use) of 3D.

That was my entire problem with the thing. Lovely effects in times, but I was so distracted by the darkened colours and the mere fact that I was wearing glasses (which I normally don't) that I found myself not enjoying the movie as much as I know I would have otherwise. Which has prompted me to go see it again next week, this time without the glasses.

The thing you're talking about has been in the news a lot lately (Kind of along the lines of were do we expect technology to go in the new decade) and frankly, it kind of scares me. I haven't gone to a 3D movie, and I don't know if I intend to mainly because I don't want to pay the extra costs and I don't like the idea of having to wear extra special glasses just to see a movie. Now I hear TV is moving in this direction and I have to wonder, are we going to be a society where everyone is just wearing the 3D glasses because it looks "kool." I sure hope I don't. I hope a lot of this is just talk and this slows down. I can understand people wanting to make money on something, but can anyone say "Fad." I think in a few years time we'll look back at this and just think that was all it was.