Hugh Laurie - Dr. House

Written by: Chawonza Nash, February 8, 2012

House the night time medical drama will vanish this season after its eight year run on Fox Broadcasting. British actor Hugh Laurie the show’s executive producers David Shore and Katie Jacobs painful choice to bring House to a close was made based on rising costs and declining ratings. In a statement made Wednesday both Laurie and producers wanted Dr. House’s character as an enigmatic creature to quietly vanish in an air of mystique.

Laurie’s sarcastic yet spirited character has for eight years pushed moral and ethical envelopes challenging mentee doctors to analytically diagnose patients that had questionable and complex medical conditions.
He and co-stars gave audiences a front seat view into the medical diagnostic process investigating and dissecting environmental or genetic factors that contributed to their patients’ conditions. He’s the doctor audiences tune in to watch having both contempt and admiration for his brilliance.

House will have aired 177 episodes by April, about 175 more than originally predicted in 2004.

Departure of the drama will impact cast members Lisa Edelstein, Omar Epps, Robert Sean Leonard, Jesse Spencer, Jennifer Morrison, Peter Jacobson, Olivia Wilde, Kal Penn, Amber Tambylyn, Odette Annable and latest newcomer Charlyne Yi, along with a host of supporting crew members.

Cast member Omar Epps said on his Facebook page Wednesday, “This experience has been simply incredible!” Thanking committed die-hard fans for watching the show.

Of course viewers and fans worldwide will be impacted by the departure of House from Fox Broadcasting and Universal Television; however there is always show syndication for passionate die-hard viewers.

Fox Entertainment president Kevin Reilly said,

“While it’s with much regret, and a lump in our throats, we respect the decision Hugh, David and Katie have made. A true original, on the page and amazingly brought to life by Hugh Laurie, there is only one Dr. House. For eight seasons, the entire HOUSE team has given us – and fans around the world – some of the most compelling characters and affecting stories ever seen on television. They have been creatively tenacious and collaborative throughout this incredible run, and they are amongst the most superior talents in the business. For all the above, we wholeheartedly thank them, and the fans who have supported the show.”

While the drama may end leaving an air of mystique behind the departure of Laurie’s main character, audiences are left with the ever familiar Dr. House adage, “Everybody lies.” Dare audiences hope that this is also true of House?

Technorati Tags: final season, House, season, television show, tv

Written by: Kaitlyn Burkhart

Sorry music, this one's gonna hurt.

It seems as if the death of the arts has been the latest trend, from Katy Perry and Kanye West slaughtering any integrity that the music industry had left, the Twilight series bringing a marked end to literature as we know it, and ‘innovated, recolored, enhanced, revamped, IN 3D NOW’ Frankensteins of Disney classics both hitting us in the childhood and any aspiring screenwriters’ right in their creative little hearts. No exception to the rule, Theater has been quietly slipping away into something-that-Seniors-do-on-Sundays, or the novelty off-Broadway rendition of Wicked that is rolling through your closest venue that you desperately have to see because it’s SUCH AN AMAZING SHOW.

It doesn’t surprise me that the general public believes that the good musical theater that’s around now is Spiderman: The Musical or American Idiot, it’s what they’ve been conditioned to believe. With the absence of any groundbreaking shows, the classics are lost to all but those who truly love the art itself, and the ones that can appeal to a teen-novel sort of audience are thrown up on front pages around the US in a last ditch attempt to reiterate that ‘Yes, you can relate to Musical Theater, see!? She’s flying, this is WAY better than your flat screen HDMI whatchamacallit!’

Perhaps the worst clamor for attention by the Theater community was to attempt the adaptation from stage to TV, in the form of a show supposed to trail-blaze the way for tolerance, the arts, and musical theater itself. The beginning was a fairly harmless, humourless, brainless sort of stretched out music video, including the computer processed voices, that wasn’t going to bother you with making you think, known as Glee. People ate it up, they absolutely loved it.

And then it happened.

The critics hailed them as having been the thing that held the heart of Musical Theater everywhere, and was making it applicable to the masses. And then Glee tried to take itself seriously.

Dear God, why?

The end result was the Industry presenting the public with a washed out, plot-less television show that began slowly ruining great classics by ‘modernizing’ (running them through Lea Michele’s voice which is actually a computer), glamorized stereotypes and calling it ‘The New Musical Theatre’. And even with the Arts community essentially crying ‘Uncle!’, Glee keeps on rolling, having, in it’s three season run, desecrated the sanctity that was Michael Jackson, completely removed any artistic integrity from Rocky Horror Picture Show, and made Barbara Streisand look less like one of Theatres’ most talented women and more like a Disney Princess to be adored for her shoes or Prince.

The way Glee is representing Musical Theater to the masses is an insult to every person who has ever set foot on a stage, had to make it in an auditorium on their own vocal cords, ever spent days delving into the mind of a character with the hope of maybe beginning to understand, or slaved over any technical end of a production. Theater is an art that can adapt with the times, and has, and should not be left dead in the hands of Hollywood.

Technorati Tags: Autotune, Death of Theatre, Glee, Lea Michele, Musical Theatre, tv

Written by: Josephine Bridges

Somewhere Between, a documentary film that focuses on teenage girls adopted from China as babies or young children, asks questions about identity but finds no clear answers.

Director Linda Goldstein Knowlton made Somewhere Between for her daughter Ruby, adopted from China at 10 months old. “She will have so many questions that I won’t be able to answer. And I wonder, how will I be able to help her build a strong sense of identity when there are so many missing pieces from the early parts of her life? To find those answers, I have to meet the girls who have already walked in her shoes.” Over the course of three years, four girls, age 13 to 15 and living with adoptive families in cities across the United States, allow Knowlton and viewers of this film an intimate look not only at their lives, but at their feelings, which are often tinged with a sense of loss.

Ann, 14, seems the least conflicted of the four girls, but the most self-effacing. She participates in color guard at school, which she calls, “a reject sport” for “the people who don’t necessarily always fit in.” Born in China in 1993, she was adopted two years later. While they waited for the adoption to go through, her adoptive family in Lansdale, Pennsylvania set a place for her at the dinner table every night to remind them that a little girl would eventually sit there. Ann’s friendship with another of the four girls, who is determined to find her birth parents, makes her think hard about her own feelings about her birth family. “I’m happy with my parents now,” she says, though she also admits that she has always told herself that finding her birth family was impossible. She has yet to visit China.

Haley, Ann’s friend in Nashville, Tennessee, is the youngest of the four at 13. Adopted at six months old, Haley was the “starter” for her mother’s charitable work on behalf of children in Chinese orphanages. She has traveled to China many times, but she is prompted to search for her birth family by a visit to the Netherlands and a conversation with Hibrand Westra, founder of United Adoptees International and a Korean adoptee who encourages her to begin her search as soon as possible, because many adoptees get started too late, only to discover that records are not available. It isn’t an easy decision for Haley, who confides that she thinks about finding her birth mother but, “I wouldn’t want to make either of my moms feel unwanted.” Haley’s adoptive family supports her quest, and on her next trip to China, she affixes a poster to a wall in her Chinese village. Within hours a man has come forward claiming to be her father.

Jenna, 15, studies long hours at prep school, figure skates, and holds the demanding position of coxswain on her school’s crew team. She lives in Newburyport, Massachusetts. Her adoptive mother, Peggy, understands her daughter’s motivation to push herself: “Early on she became very aware that she was the only Chinese child living in a white town. If you’re always being seen, never just blending in, of course you want to appear like you’ve got everything under control and you’re doing everything perfectly.” A trip to Barcelona to speak to adoptive families of Chinese children is a turning point for Jenna. When she responds to a question about being abandoned, she admits, “I am always searching for a way to compensate for the fact that I am a girl and that I was probably poor, and for some reason maybe I wasn’t good enough.” Upon her return home, she trades crew for yoga.

Fang, 15, from Berkeley, California, was adopted at five years old and remembers a great deal about her early years in China, including the occasions of her abandonment and her adoption. Though she travels to China frequently, visiting villages where she finds “people that might look like me,” she is not optimistic about discovering any more about her origins than resemblances. “It’s a blessing to be able to know your roots and be able to know the people that you came from, but in a country of billions, the chances are slim.” Fang spends a lot of her time in China at orphanages, and assists a Missouri family in their adoption of a girl with cerebral palsy who captured Fang’s heart the first time she saw her. “When you come into the world and you know that your parents, at least your dad, thinks less of you because of your gender, something that you can’t control, it’s wrong. I want to prove him wrong. We deserve fair treatment, especially in China. I know I can’t change a whole country, but I’d like to.”

At the end of the film, the director plays with her daughter and concludes, “I’ve learned that there are no clear answers to give her. Ruby’s journey will be her own, and the questions will be hers to ask.”

Technorati Tags: movie

The cast of Firefly pose for a group photoshoot on set

Written by: Katie Garren

Quick! Try and think of a television show for 2002 that only lasted one season.  If you answered “Joss Whedon’s Firefly, of course!” you would be among the many throngs of fans that particular show has maintained since its debut.  The fact that a geeky television show from nine years ago still maintains an almost religious following, despite only having produced 14 episodes and a companion movie, boggles the mind.  Why is this show so popular, even after cancellation?  What makes it different from the legions of other television shows that have come and gone before it?

Firefly maintains a high margin of popularity due largely to it’s wonderful interweaving of science-fiction elements and character-driven story lines.  Because of these elements, the show speaks to many different subsets of society, not just those who are drawn to science-fiction, but also fans of traditional dramas and comedies.

The show’s star, Nathan Fillion, has many times commented on the continued love the show experiences from fans.  Speaking to Entertainment Weekly on a fan-lead campaign to bring the show back to the air, he said, “I appreciate so much people who still have such love for it. And I think that that’s love.” Fillion later continued, “I think it touches people in their hearts. It makes them feel, and it makes them feel something good. I feel it, too.” This love is not specific only to actual people, but also referenced in current television shows.  In a recent episode of the hugely popular The Big Bang Theory, a character named Sheldon is laying out an agreement for a new roommate.  He says, “Roommates agree that Friday nights shall be reserved for watching Joss Whedon’s brilliant new series Firefly.” His roommate, Leonard counters, “Does that really need to be in the agreement?” Sheldon’s rebutal is, “We might as well settle it now; it’s gonna be on for years.”  This is designed to both create humor from the fact the show lasted only one season, and create a relationship between the characters and the viewer based on a mutal understanding of Firefly.  Another popular current show called Community has also made reference to Firefly.  While the characters on the show are discussing death, A character names Troy states that he and his best friend Abed have a pact that, if one of them dies, they will stage it to look like a suicide caused by the unjust cancelling of Firefly.  He then looks at his friend and says, “We’re gonna get that show back on the air, buddy.”  Both these references speak to a continued love for Firefly.  As far as nine years later, people are still dedicated to the show and incensed by its cancellation.

Part of the appeal of the show is also based on the quality of the scripts.  “So it was always great,” said Fillion in the same interview quoted above. “There was never a day I went to work on Firefly where I looked at the script and went, ‘Eh, today will be alright.’ Everyday I was doing something so great. So great.” Viewers and fans can relate to the characters and story lines on the show, because the scripts were always related to the human experience.  The situations were always truthful and the performances never seemed as though they were forced from the actors.  In essence, the show was honest with its viewers.

Joss Whedon’s Firefly remains massively popular for many reasons.  For a show that only produced 14 episodes and a movie, it has touched many lives.  The basis of the show’s popularity lies in the easily relatable storylines paired with science-fiction elements and the high quality of both of those elements.

Technorati Tags: Classic, Firefly, Fox, Geeky, Joss, Nathon Fillion, Nerd culture, tv, Whedon, Whedonverse

Can Dwight Schrute and his proud family tradition carry the weight of a spinoff?

On Wednesday, Deadline.com began the rumor mill by announcing that NBC was considering an Office spinoff starring Dwight, Schrute farms, beets and the whole Schrute family. The show would be slated to begin sometime in midseason of 2013.

According to Deadline, the genesis of the spinoff started with actor Rainn Wilson and Office executive producer Paul Lieberstein (a.k.a Toby). A Deadline source is quoted as saying, “Paul and Rainn have been joking for years about Dwight’s life on the farm, his family and how ill-suited he is to run a B&B. A while ago, it started to feel like a show to them. NBC agreed, it’s been further developed to include multiple generations, many cousins and neighbors. At its base it will be about a family farm struggling to survive and a family trying to stay together.”

Considering the poor track history of TV spinoffs (think Joey, The Brady Brides, Baywatch Nights), the proposal may initially come as a bit of a surprise. In fact, can you name even one or two spinoffs that went on to become successful? However, The Office has been one of NBC’s great pickups. Winning an Emmy in 2006 for best comedy series, and still drawing more than 6 million viewers per week in its eighth season, The Office has become the staple brand of  NBC.

If the spinoff is indeed in the works, it could signal for this to be the final season of the network’s prime-time draw. With Rainn, hypothetically, leaving to start the spinoff, and Ed Helms, John Krasinksi and Mindy Kaling all unsigned for next season, this could be the end of NBC’s most successful show. Could the show possibly continue without Andy, Jim, Kelly and possibly others? Doubtful. And as critics have opined, it may be for the best. After Steve Carell’s departure, the remaining core characters, and an infused James Spader as Sabre CEO, have been unable to save the show’s ratings from declining.

TV shows rarely last as long as The Office. For every Friends (10 seasons) and Cheers (11) there are dozens of shows that barely make it to a third season (wishfully hoping Whitney falls into this category), let alone past the pilot. And for those that do enjoy a long running voyage, few end with their dignity and ratings still intact (see Smallville). So, whether or not the spinoff becomes a hit with the 18 -49 demographic that has sustained Jim, Pam and Dwight’s long run, perhaps it’s all for the best.

Technorati Tags: dwight, jim and pam, office, schrute, spinoff, television show, the office, tv

Written By: Sarah Clausen

For movie buffs, the start of the new year means one thing: Awards Season. Starting in January it seems like nearly every week there is another awards show being held. So what are some of the different types of awards can a film receive?

One of the first awards show of the season is the Golden Globe awards. This annual ceremony and dinner recognizes the year’s best domestic and foreign films and television shows. The first Golden Globes were given out in January 1944 by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association. Since 1961 the awards show has been held at the Beverly Hilton Hotel in Beverly Hills, California. The 2012 Golden Globes were held on January 15.

The Golden Globes are held annually in January

Those interested in the directorial aspects of film should be aware of the Directors Guild of America Awards. These annual awards are given out by the Directors Guild of America to films with outstanding direction. And interesting note about the DGA Awards is that only six times since the awards’ inception in 1949 has the winner of the Award for Feature Film not won the Academy Award for Best Director. The 2012 DGA Awards will take place on January 28.

A similar award is the Producers Guild of America Awards. A new addition to the field, they were started in 1990 as the Golden Laurel Awards. The Producers Guild of America seeks to honor and recognize those who produce motion pictures and television. The PGA Awards also have a good track record of predicting which film will win Best Picture at the Academy Awards. The 2012 PGA Awards were held on January 21.

Of course, one would be remiss to not mention the culminating awards show of the season, the Academy Awards. Also known as the Oscars, these awards have been given out since 1929 by the American Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS). The nominees are voted on by the members of AMPAS, with the nominations being made public in late January of each year. The 2012 Academy Awards will be held on February 26.

The Oscar is given out at the Academy Awards

This is just a small sampling of the myriad awards presentations held each year. Whatever awards show you follow, the most important question is: Did you favorite film win?

Technorati Tags: academy awards, Directors Guild of America Awards, golden globes, hollywood, movie, Producers Guild of America Awards

Technorati Tags: Books, E-Readers, Kindle

Written By: Catherine Wolinski

Finn and Jake fans, get ready to reenter the Land of Ooo. Adventure Time, the critically acclaimed animated series on Cartoon Network, will begin airing new episodes next week—the young television show embarks on its fourth season on Monday, Jan. 16.

Jake the Dog and Finn the Human fist-pump a victory.

What’s not to love about a heroic boy and his magical dog taking on quests throughout a mystical land of monsters and bubblegum?  Some might say there are a few things, but they risk being refuted. Though passed up twice by Nickelodeon in 2008, Adventure Time (originally titled Adventure Time with Finn and Jake) was picked up by Cartoon Network later that year, to begin airing in April 2010. Nearly two years later, the adventurous television series continues to win the hearts of many. The PG series has garnered a cult following that captures children and adults alike, along with commercial success, award nominations, and praise from critics.

“Adventure Time makes me wish I were a kid again, just so I could grow up to be as awesome as the kids who are currently watching Adventure Time will be,” says D.F., a critic from Entertainment Weekly.

This remark holds quite a truth to it—viewers are constantly in awe of the surrealist scenes, electric soundtrack, and bizarre characters, all of which are inhuman and range from gremlin to Berry Princess. Although it is primarily a kids program, chock full of colorful landscapes, lighthearted escapades, and goofy facial expressions, the show as a whole is

Finn kicks away evil as he defeats the Ice King.

far from simple or childish. Adventure Time creator Pendleton Ward uses a unique style to communicate a sense of magic in a post-apocalyptic world, a setting which tends to include punchy subject matter that far surpasses the cognitive awareness of its target audience. Finn, presumed to be the only human left, employs himself as a hero of the various worlds within the Land of Ooo, fighting evil and boredom as he goes from adventure to adventure with his sidekick Jake. While it is true that Finn and Jake are most often concerned with the safety of various princesses, they are also faced with dark situations, like the lonely Ice King who tries to capture and marry said princesses though he looks to be a much older man.

According to television critic Robert Lloyd, Adventure Time exhibits “a fantastical land peopled with strange, somewhat disturbing characters and has at its center a young male person or person-like thing making his way in that world with the help of unusual, not always reliable, mentors.”

Both disconcerting and delightful, Adventure Time proves that our interaction with the world can be far from ordinary.  For those looking for weeknight television adventures, tune in to Cartoon Network this January.

Technorati Tags: adventure time, animated, animated series, cartoon network, fourth season, kids, nickelodeon, season 4, television, television show

Written by: Jacob Kleinman

Last night IFC’s breakaway hit TV series Portlandia premiered its second season and it came as no surprise that the episode delivered the show’s patented bizarre brand of comedy while dishing out healthy servings of social satire.

Portlandia stars Fred Armisen (of Saturday Night Live) and Carrie Brownstein (guitarist of the Portland based feminist-rock band Sleater-Kinney, currently on hiatus). The two play the majority of the show’s main characters throughout each episode, which is composed of a series of unconnected skits surrounding the narrative of Fred and Carrie, who moved to Portland from California in the pilot.

First let’s discuss the weird skits, which are usually more fun. The episode opens on an entrepreneurial couple with the catchphrase “We can pickle that,” who pickle anything they can get their hands on from cucumbers to the broken-off heel of a shoe to a dead bird. Later an uptight couple attempts to go rafting but is shocked to find that the river is full of beer drinkers in inner tubes. In a skit poking fun at helicopter parents, a teenager collecting signatures for an environmental cause is dismissed by a homeowner. Seconds later the boys parents ring the doorbell and demand to know what their son has done wrong, and when the door is slammed in their face the boy’s grandparents show up to set things right.

Finally we arrive at Women and Women First Bookstore, an independent bookstore run by two insane feminists. In past episodes, the shop’s owners Candace (Armisen in drag) and Tony (Brownstein) have locked Steve Buscemi inside the store while going to the bank for change and heard Heather Graham discuss the details of her sex life at a journaling class. This time an elderly air conditioner repairman visits the owners and after being lectured for calling them “sweetie” and “ma’am” is given a tip jar containing 28 dollars instead of the $300 he’s earned for the repair. But even that is a loss for the owners who ask themselves “Now what are we going to do for money?’ before answering, “I guess we’ll have to sell some books.”

Meanwhile Fred and Carrie venture outside of the title city for the first time after Carrie falls in love with a bartender/mixologist played by Andy Samberg. The two first meet at a trendy bar called Mint where Samberg offers to create an original cocktail when Carrie can’t decide what to order. The drink, which contains ginger, bourbon, home-made bitters, whole eggs and rotten bananas, is delicious, and Fred thinks this mixologist may have a crush on his friend. “He mixed you a drink. Now you mix him a tape,” he suggests.

But when they return to Mint the next day, mix tape in hand, they learn that their favorite bartender has taken a new job in South California. After a quick drive Fred and Carrie arrive in California, where they are burnt by the intensity of the sun and retreat into a store to purchase burqas before deciding to walk to the bar on foot, figuring it can’t be too far.

After a pit stop at a restaurant where the waiter offers to cook their entire meal into an omelet or douse it in Jack Daniels our heroes finally make it to the bar, where Sandberg has completely transformed from mixoligist into brainless bartender complete with sunglasses and a dab of sunscreen on his nose as he pours endless shots for blonde girls. After being initially rejected, Carrie succeeds in winning Samberg’s attention with a song, accompanied by Fred on the flute. The two declare their love for each other and agree to drive back to Portland immediately.

Overall, season 2 of Portlandia’s first episode was a complete success. Although the weirdness factor has not diminished all of the jokes connected and had me laughing, unlike in the first season where I was sometimes left simply scratching my head. It feels good to be back with Tony and Candace in their bookstore and to be back in the twisted alternate dimension version of Portland that Portlandia.

Technorati Tags: armisen, brownstein, ifc, portland, portlandia

3-D is just as exciting and innovative as it was in 1960

Written by: Holly Troupe

3-D is the bane of the contemporary cinephile’s existence. It is brain-addling. It encourages filmmakers to insert awkward and jarring stunts. The ticket cost is prohibitively high. Yet movie studios cling to the new technology as one might to a life raft in the swirling seas, even in the face of dwindling receipts. Will 3-D weather the storm of passing fancy, or will it go back on the shelf for another 50 years?

Who doesn’t enjoy a novelty? Impresarios have dazzled consumers for hundreds of years with innovative methods for the absorption of diversions: P. T. Barnum and his menagerie of wonderment; Nickelodeons projecting images of strongmen and dancing ladies; Al Jolson strapping on a microphone for “The Jazz Singer.” 3-D technology is nearly as old as movies themselves, and was one of the numerous movie amenities entertainment industrialists attempted over the decades. However, for the past 10 years with the implementation of digital technology, 3-D has enjoyed a boom that has surpassed even its 1950s heyday.

The biggest technological innovations in filmmaking—color and sound—began as curiosities. As use of the technologies became more sophisticated, the market demand became such that color and sound became studio no-brainers. While black and white films will never entirely go away, use of black and white is a specific style choice, rather than something the industry drags out of mothballs when the color bloom wears off. Once those technologies came into the mainstream, it was all on-wards and upwards. The same cannot be said for 3-D. Yasser Hamed, a senior 3-D animator, attributes the fluctuations in popularity to short-sightedness on the part of filmmakers. “3-D failed once before in the 1950s because directors considered it more of a gimmick,” he said. “People no longer go to the movies just for a story, they go for the experience. But directors need to ensure they are not making the same past mistakes to secure the long-term future of 3-D.”

Can 3-D ever be more than a gimmick? We can hear and we have color perception, so it makes sense that an audience wants the flickering on screen projections to be perceived just as they would be live. But 3-D on screen isn’t really three-dimension as in life. “The biggest problem with 3-D is the ‘convergence/focus’ issue,” says film editor Walter Murch. “The audience must focus their eyes at the plane of the screen — say it is 80 feet away. This is constant no matter what. But their eyes must converge at perhaps 10 feet away, then 60 feet, then 120 feet, and so on, depending on what the illusion is. So 3-D films require us to focus at one distance and converge at another.” This optical phenomenon is what causes many movie-goers to experience headaches and nausea while watching 3-D films; our brains just aren’t wired to efficiently absorb visual information that way.

The quality of projected 3-D films is also an issue. Some theater projectionists have been deliberately dimming the bulbs in the projectors during screenings to save money. As a result, many films have a dark, muddy look theatergoers (and, occasionally, reviewers) attribute to the filmmakers. Filmmaker Michael Bay, in desperation, wrote to projectionists before the opening of his film “Transformers 3: Dark of the Moon,” asking them to turn the bulbs back up, telling them: “Projectionists are of ultimate importance because your expertise defines the audience’s experience. Let’s make the audience believe again.”

What does 3-D offer? Something that has no convenient hand-held alternative. An enormous swathe of stimuli; a sensory wash of color, shape and excitement; something impossible to recreate at home. “3-D is about choice and it’s an option our guests have when they come to our theaters. We believe 3-D has a bright future as undoubtedly evolving technology will only work in its favor,” said AMC Director of Public Relations, Ryan Noonan.

3-D has evolved, albeit in a meandering way. The technology existed, in some form or another, for nearly 100 years. It first made an appearance in 1915, when the Lumiere brothers modified their original film “L’arrivée du Train” for 3-D using Stereoscope. Studios have released at least one 3-D film nearly every year since 1934, with 57 released in 1953 alone. These films were primarily a series of oddities—Andy Warhol’ version of “Frankenstein” was in 3-D—that became more and more laughable as the culture became more politically and socially charged in the 60s and 70s. 3-D dwindled until the late 90s, when digital technologies made 3-D conversion more practicable. IMAX cinemas with specialized projection also began showing huge screen productions that eclipsed anything seen in a standard multiplex. IMAX’s gain in popularity caused a steady increase of 3-D conversions in the early 2000s. We all have James Cameron to thank for the rest.

“Avatar,” James Cameron’s fiscal magnum opus and the world’s blue-skinned cultural touchstone, earned 71 percent of its $2.7 billion total gross on the 3-D version of the film. However, the biggest 3-D releases since—“Shrek Ever After,” “The Green Lantern,” “Pirates of the Caribbean”—earned more money opening weekend on standard screens than their 3-D counterparts. For many, the 3-D experience isn’t markedly better, at least not enough to justify paying as much as $6 more for a ticket, not including the cost of glasses. “So many movies are made in 3-D now, people are tired of it and so many are just not that impressive,” said Rob Weiner, film librarian at Texas Tech University. “The suits in Hollywood think that audiences only want to see something 3-D which is totally wrong.”

Not according to James Cameron. “When color came out, was it overkill? It’s just the way things are. Everything is in color now. It’s not in black and white. Everything will eventually be in 3-D.” Woe betide the cineaste planning to re-make “My Dinner with Andre.”

Technorati Tags: 3-D, blockbuster movies, film industry, films, hollywood, ticket prices