That is very true. Most films do not. However, the point is not how a particular filmmaker decides to use sound and color but the creative possibilities that sound and color offer and which I am suggesting are not as available for (current) 3D. Whether any given director chooses to explore those possibilities is a different question from whether they have possibilities to explore.

I won’t say 3D has no possibilities because I can imagine using it in limited ways, but ways which current technology will not yet allow.

But if we get to the point of plugging into 4D virtual realities, all bets are off. That would probably be more powerful and more prone to abuse than any drug on the planet, and movies, 3D or 2D, probably won’t matter much to people obsessed with full immersion experiences then.

Trek will win this Box Office showdown.

Whilst i agree with what you have said for the most part, i hope that Paramount do more than pray for the non-english speaking countries to watch Star Trek before 2012 – even if they do watch it, theres nothing to say that they’ll like it.

I was talking to a mate of mine who’s a huge Marvel fan and come hell or high water will go see Spidey at the cinema – even if it’s crap – i think it will all come down to who has the bigger fan-base, SPider-Man or Star Trek; if Trek is knocked off the top spot with 4 days then that will be quite a bit of a disaster for Trek’s long term reputation with the fickle mainstream audience.

Sound and color were_not_added to film as a form of artistic expression. Can they be? Sure, as almost anything we take for granted in the world can be artistically manipulated.

But, sound was added to film, so we could hear what was happening, to bring it closer to reality, where we hear the things we see. In fact “artists” wanted nothing to do with the “novelty” of sound as they feared all that dialogue would distract from the visual artistry. Likewise for color. The world is in color. Why wouldn’t we want our movies to be? The artists again complained it detracted from the composition of light and shadow and rejected it because it made films too “real”. Then, only 30 years after sound was added to film, somebody got the bright idea to add stereo, because we hear in stereo and things sound better that way. And so it only took 60 years to get popular dramatic entertainment back to the same sight and sound experience stage plays were at the turn of the 20th century. Oh, but wait, that’s not the same. There’s no depth. Wonder how they’ll tackle that one? Oh, right 3D. So it’s only taken 100 years to get back to the same basic sensory experience people have had since they began dramatically entertaining each other – stereophonic sound synchronized with stereoscopic color images.

But simply because someone doesn’t necessarily see any artistry in 3D doesn’t mean there can’t be, or isn’t. Hollywood has produced more films that merely posses sound and color than those which actually make an artistic statement with them. But so what? One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. If no one ever does anything “artistic” with 3D, that does not negate it as a valid aspect of film making, any more than failing to exploit sound and color “artistically” within a film.

Besides, what constitutes an artistic choice is highly subjective. One could argue that in sound mixing, deciding what ambient noises to place in the background of a scene is art, even if it is only to re-create the noise that was present when the scene was actually recorded. How then, is deciding which objects are to penetrate the 3D threshold any less artistic? Why is colorizing a coat red in Schindler’s List so “artistic”, and not a “gimmick” then? Or for that matter simply slapping a red filter over a lens and shooting an entire movie that way? Moreover, why does 3D only have to launch objects from the screen? That’s just an uninspired imagination. More can, and has been done with it.

I’m just not sure what the objection here is to 3D as a legitimate part of filmmaking. Its evolution is certainly in line with historical technical developments of the other basic properties of film, and certainly has been used artistically, and has undeniable artistic potential. Whether the uses to date fit an individual’s perceptions of art is irrelevant. It fits the definition. Moreover, there is historical precedent of the desire to create and view images in 3D all the way back to early 1900s with the advent of photography. If history is any indication, 3D is not going to go away. If anything, like the other elements of cinema, the technology will continue to improve and filmmakers will continue to explore its potential until all but the “art” films will be in 3D. Like it or not. And like it or not, Cameron seems to be the director who has turned that corner, whether one appreciates his artistry or not.

I agree, can see them using Avatars technology for creating future earth, vulcan or another alien home worl and even perhaps aliens.

For the traditionalists there will always be the normal 2D version and for the folks who don’t mind spending a few more dollars and wearing glasses in a theatre, it’s a win win.

I for one am sure they are going to do it. After Avatar, they know they want it.

see this article for more:
http://trekmovie.com/2009/10/05/star-trek-finishes-theatrical-run-with-385m-full-box-office-analysis/

With the exception of Germany, Trek’s traditional weakness has the non English-speaking world. That being said a modest improvement in continental Europe, Asia and/or Latin America could easily have pushed ST2009 over the $400M mark or even the $500m mark. Abrams and Paramount are hoping that people in these markets who discounted Trek first time around will see it before 2012 (rented or possibly on TV) and it will change their preconceived notions.

Ha! I’m a liar! If you want total control over who responds to what, of all the things you say, then you’d better create a forum populated entirely by avatars of yourself.

“My prior posts contain a complete response outlining your error in explicit detail; revisit them as you like, or not, as you like.”

Me like. 97, 126, 136, 156, 158, 165, 186, 187, 194. I’ve revisited them several times, and there’s nothing particularly hard to understand in any of them. There’s also nothing in them that outlines this vague error of mine you keep mentioning in “explicit detail.” That is, I do see a few claims that I am in error, but with no explanation following the claims. Now I can “repeat as necessary” as you suggest, but that would be as productive as a bald man washing his hair, i.e., the fifth washing will be no more “necessary” than the first.

I mean I HOPE you are not suggesting either that I don’t know what a continuum of loyalty is, or that my loyalties — if you will — are divided between two mutually exclusive alternative ideas, i.e., between a range of possibilities and an either or with nothing in between.

oddly, i did sort of enjoy WWW in a cringey way. but i’m all steampunk at heart. i meant that A-listers carry their own baggage and can derail a script for some. i just can’t look at will smith without seeing, uh, just will smith anymore. face fatigue, or something. i cease to entertained by characters who play themselves (like shatner has become, btw.).

and yes on your other point. i guess there is a new lower case a-list that works that way, and in fact it’s not unlike what j.j. has always done. cast the up&coming, etc.

dmduncan: have you considered consolidating your posts into a nice little book of trekmusings? your pov remains compelling, and you manage the sharks better than i can… cheers.