Granted, some movies have more "spectacle" than others, but a film should hold up on whatever screen you watch it on. If it doesn't, then it has problems. Obviously YMMV.
While I want to agree with this statement, I find that it doesn't end up holding true in real life. You absolutely need certain technology to experience certain movies. It doesn't mean it's a problem with the movie.
Can you imagine how disappointing it would be to watch The Wizard of Oz on a black and white TV versus the spectacle of that movie in full color? I had the pleasure of seeing it in the theatre as a kid, and I can tell you the black-and-white-to-color switch is so much more dramatic and meaningful on the big screen than it ever was watching at home on VHS. But I would never count that as a problem with Wizard of Oz.
I could continue with a discussion of aspect ratios (the Kubrick section on that is particularly intricate). Or modern movies that require high quality HD so you don't miss important plot points. Or audio limitations due to number of channels and quality. For real fun, we could get into theatre gimmicks like The Tingler.
But going back to the original topic, do you really need to have full 3D to appreciate Avatar? I don't know; I think a high quality HD screen with bright colors may be sufficient. But even if 3D is considered a requirement, I can't call it a fault. Technological requirements are ingrained into the medium of film.
Last edited: