What made the 3D succesful in "Avatar" was the fact that it wasn't gimmicky. There was nothing popping out at you. It was done in a way that made it feel like someone had cut a big hole in the wall of the movie theater, and you were watching something that was really happening, just on the other side of that hole in the wall. I think the best testament to Cameron's version of 3D is that if you let yourself go, you forget that you're watching 3D -- it just feels natural.
I know that shallow depth of field is a very important filmmaking tool. In fact, it's one that I wish I could use (my "prosumer"-level miniDV camera will do nothing of the sort). However, shallow depth of field does not accurately match what our eyes do in real life.
Why (as a general rule of thumb) is a dolly shot better than a zoom shot? Because it more closely matches what we experience in real life. Our eyes don't zoom. Moving the camera is like moving your eyes (by walking somewhere else).
In real life, unless you're vision is jacked up, everything is in focus. There's no such thing as depth-of-field for our eyes. So, by making something 3D, and putting everything in focus, you make this fake fantasy-world a more accurate representation of what our eyes naturally digest. I feel that this tool, when used right, can help break down that wall of disbelief. I believe that 3D technology is a really good tool to allow the audience to use their imagination, let go of their inhibitions, and allow themselves to be swallowed up into this fantasy world.
THAT is what Cameron did right. Plus, he told a beautiful story, and threw in some really cool action sequences.
I think it's rather insulting to the overwhelming number of people who saw this movie, and loved it, to infer that the it's only value is in the visuals. Are we fans of "Avatar" really that stupid? Visual "oohs and ahhs" cannot sustain interest over the course of nearly 3 hours. There's got to be an appealing story there, for people to sit through that, and walk out satisfied enough to recommend it to everyone they know. That movie had crazy legs. It did not make $2.7 billion dollars because of advertising. If you think that's the case, I'm sorry but you have no clue about analyzing box-office results. Advertising primarily affects openning weekend only; after that, it's word-of-mouth. Even a good movie will drop 50% week-to-week. Really bad movies will drop 70%. "Avatar" didn't open that big. But then, for three months, it dropped a mere 20% each week. That's unheard of. It simply doesn't happen. Except for this one time, with this little movie about people on a boat that crashes.
I don't care what you think about Cameron; you don't have to like his movies. But give the audience some credit. It has been well-established that general audiences are suckers for advertising and big-name actors, and those two factors alone can produce big openning-weekend dollars. But for a movie to have legs, you need to tell a good story, and "Avatar" has legs like all other filmmakers can only dream of.
And 3D is here to stay.
)