I have no doubt that as one, if not the most expensive movie ever made ($230,000,000 to $250,000,000), Avatar will be visually stunning. I have no doubt it will be impressive and entertaining. But I really doubt the hype that this will redefine 3d since, guess what, it's the same fundamental REAL 3d technology that we've seen before. NERD ALERT: REAL 3D is the brand name for a single projector/silver screen system where viewers wear polarized glass. Although a single projection source is an advancement from 5 years ago (think Disney's Chicken Little), the polarized 3d glass method is basically the same as the 3d craze from the 1950s.

My point is this: Doing something better doesn't necessary mean doing something revolutionary. Avatar uses existing technologies, to greater extent than previous CGI/live action efforts. That's not saying much the last live action 3d movie release was The Final Destination.

All I'm saying is enough with the hype already. The artistic achievement should be enough.

Maybe I'll feel differently after seeing the movie, but I doubt it. So what would be deserving of the hype?

Well, there are advancements in LCD displays which could lead to 3D movies without the viewer having to wear glasses. That could be something. An as a non-projected surface, it could represent a real standard for home 3d.

I think the point of cinema technology like 3D is to create more immersive realism, which is cool, but so what?

My issues with 3d are typical of film critics. If 3d is necessary to carry a movie, then the movie probably isn't that great. And if a movie is that great that it can hold up without 3d, then what is the 3d for?

The answer: because it's cool. I'm a sucker for shiny stuff, so I'll admit that even if Avatar is a big pile of mildly amusing derivative crap, I'd go to it just to see the 3d.

And if I want to see an truly immersive experience which connects with the audience, I'll go to live theater.