I strongly suggest that you see the Avatar, even if you are not interested in the inventions of science fiction, or even if you hate the quasi-religious and ecological narrative of the so-called ‘new age’. Watch it, but only in theatres, where you will be given special glasses (which you can wear without any problem above the regular ones you might already have), in order to form a good idea about the potentials of 3D shooting, where Cameron believes the future of cinema lies.
The three dimensions transport the viewer inside or nearly inside the events. I think that ‘nearly’ will disappear completely with the evolution of this technology, especially the technology used in the theatre itself, but now we care to think about the purpose of this technology, and this purpose is already palpable in creations such as Cameron’s. If we consider the film as a theatrical scene, obviously incomparably more dynamic and flexible, the three-dimensional picture carries us onto the scene, and, depending on the decisions of the director, maybe face to face with the actors, as if we were in the same room with them, as if we participated in the plot, even as observers, but situated right there.
To the degree that the movie wants to create a world, if possible, as real as the world we live, where none of our senses is neglected, the three-dimensional technique is necessary. Smell, taste and touch remain unmet, but the visual repleteness covers a multitude of sins, to paraphrase the saying. At first instance the advantages are undeniable: being in the Delphi or in its theatrical release, become approximately identical, and indeed the artificial view may be superior to the physical presence!, if we are guided by a capable director, putting us and Delphi in the exactly appropriate angles, distances, etc., perhaps in ways that usually during the visit we can not even have available, through helicopter views, close-ups, etc.
Similarly this technique can bring out as plausible and vigorous a more or less new reality, a reality coming from the imagination of the director and the scriptwriter, say an image of the earth after a thousand years, or the planet Pandora, in which the events of Avatar unfold. If we imagine various documentaries, but also common adventures, to be created with this technique, immediately we understand the benefits. But what about movies as an art with even greater ambitions, say the ambitions of ancient drama? Would this technique benefit, for example, the Citizen Kane? We can still ask, Sophocles or Aeschylus, if they were among us today, would they use this three-dimensional technique for a cinematic version of their works?