There is no such thing as a 3D movie. 3D is not a genre, it's a tool.

There's a new article out from Anne Thompson, who I usually enjoy, regarding the alleged downturn of 3D. Basically the gist is that 3D is in peril, and the big savior of the format will be Tron: Legacy. The piece itself is harmless, and to be fair it's more of an advertisement for Tron: Legacy than a real discussion about 3D. But it's just another notch in the 'dear god, the 3D sky is falling' bit that forgets the most important part of this whole mess... I'm going to try really hard not to turn this into another endless rant, so bear with me. It's the movie. It's the movie. It's the movie, stupid...

James Cameron (Avatar) Vs. Mark Canton (Piranha). That's an easy one...

I could complain that James Cameron is criticizing a movie that he apparently did not see. But I have seen both films being discussed. Piranha was a terrible, an unforgivably hypocritical and misogynistic piece of boring garbage that was made that much worse by the mediocre 3D conversion that turned this trashy matinee picture into a $15-a-ticket eyesore. Avatar was one of the best films of last year and is by-far the highest-grossing film of all time at least partially due to its pure storytelling quality. I don't agree with James Cameron in principal that only certain-level films should be in 3D, but I'll give the win to the man who knows how to actually make 3D work in live-action. Until someone, anyone, can make a live-action picture that looks as good in 3D as Avatar did, Cameron gets to whine all he wants about others cheapening 3D technology.

Scott Mendelson