I’m not suggesting it was centrally planned, but you’re massively underselling James Cameron’s role in this.
For starters the 3D cinematography technology created specifically for Avatar was legitimately innovative and better than anything in the past (though still a terrible experience imo).
When Avatar was in production barely any cinemas had the projectors to screen it, and most of them had a big and expensive rush to upgrade for Avatar
> In the UK alone, only around 320 out of 3,600 cinemas are digitally equipped, while in the US the ratio is even worse (2,500 out of 38,000). "So there is a big problem looming," admits Peter Buckingham, head of distribution and exhibition at the UK Film Council. "You are looking at about a minimum of £80,000 to get yourself into a 3D position. Even with the hike in ticket prices and the potential hike in audiences, that's quite a stretch for the smaller venues. The danger is that, in this digital switchover, a number of cinemas may well be left behind."
I vividly remember this at the time, and the huge amount of FOMO coverage of stories about whether your local cinema would be able to play 3D Avatar. Obviously none of this would have happened without the expectation that a wave of new 3D movies were about to be released.
The direct results of James Cameron wanting to make cool new 3D technology for Avatar was an immediate (and permanent) increase in ticket prices at the cinema, and 10 years of awful 3D movie screenings from cinema desperately trying to claw back the money they wasted on it.
This is obviously an emotional topic for you, and it is distorting your view of how incentives and commerce work. Your view is akin to the archaic supply-side views on drugs or taxes.
Consumers don't buy screening rights from movie distributors, cinemas do, and Avatar generated years worth of demand from Cinemas to get a return on the expenses they incurred from screening it. Consumers never had any substantial level of demand for this product, and it took years for the industry to correct for this mistake. You are the one who is trying to rewrite history by claiming James Cameron and his movie Avatar weren't responsible for all of this.
For starters the 3D cinematography technology created specifically for Avatar was legitimately innovative and better than anything in the past (though still a terrible experience imo).
When Avatar was in production barely any cinemas had the projectors to screen it, and most of them had a big and expensive rush to upgrade for Avatar
> In the UK alone, only around 320 out of 3,600 cinemas are digitally equipped, while in the US the ratio is even worse (2,500 out of 38,000). "So there is a big problem looming," admits Peter Buckingham, head of distribution and exhibition at the UK Film Council. "You are looking at about a minimum of £80,000 to get yourself into a 3D position. Even with the hike in ticket prices and the potential hike in audiences, that's quite a stretch for the smaller venues. The danger is that, in this digital switchover, a number of cinemas may well be left behind."
https://theguardian.com/film/2009/aug/20/james-cameron-avata...
I vividly remember this at the time, and the huge amount of FOMO coverage of stories about whether your local cinema would be able to play 3D Avatar. Obviously none of this would have happened without the expectation that a wave of new 3D movies were about to be released.
The direct results of James Cameron wanting to make cool new 3D technology for Avatar was an immediate (and permanent) increase in ticket prices at the cinema, and 10 years of awful 3D movie screenings from cinema desperately trying to claw back the money they wasted on it.