AVATAR: not quite the end of cinema as we know it

So I finally gave in and went to see what all the hoopla's about.
I was prepared to be bored rigid by AVATAR but I was pleasantly surprised. I guess that's the big plus point about low expectations.

The film is undeniably a visual treat. The 3-D takes a little while to get used to but by the film's midpoint it felt entirely natural. Director James Cameron has obviously made a conscious decision not to treat 3D as a gimmick by using it solely to throw things into the audience. The technique serves the story rather than the other way around, so while stuff does appear to come out of the screen and into the auditorium it does so organically. 
But while the film deserves praise for it's cutting edge use of computer technology to create a plausible alien world on the planet Pandora, it's also true that without the hi-tec visuals AVATAR would be an overlong sci-fi epic with far more limited appeal. It's the visuals which breathe new life into the rather familiar story of conflict between technologically superior, arrogant humans, and a community of peace-loving primitive aliens living at one with nature. 
Cameron, who also wrote, produced and edited the movie, has his cake and eats it too, using AVATAR to condemn man's use of technology in pursuit of financial reward at the expense of those who value the natural order, while using advanced technology to make the telling of the story possible.
Granted he's not destroying civilisations and massacring hundreds in the process but - if some of the film's loudest supporters are to be believed - the release of AVATAR marks a seismic change in the way that films are made. The film's impact on cinema is the 21st century equivalent, they claim, of the introduction of sound to films in 1927.
I think that's overstating it's significance. Cinema has been making increasing use of computer generated imagery in the last 15 years (remember your initial reaction to seeing 'real' dinosaurs in 'Jurassic Park'?) but cgi has not replaced traditional methods of film making. AVATAR does mark a big step forward in this process but I'm not convinced it will sweep away all that came before it in the same way that sound destroyed practically all the techniques and practices involved in making silent movies.

Cameron's brand of hi-tec 3D works for action/fantasy stories but is much less relevant to other genres. Comedies and dramas for example, have little need for such effects. It's difficult to figure out how 3D would enhance the storytelling process there. 
The other factor limiting 3D's take-over of existing film-making processes is on the customer end. I saw AVATAR at a typical American multiplex - the kind of place where most people go to see films - and the screen wasn't big enough to do full justice to the technology. 3D emphasised the relative smallness of the screen by highlighting it's edges, which cut off the picture everytime it came out of the screen. Similarly the 3D glasses with their solid black frames constrained my field of vision.
I'm glad I went to see it. It was my first experience of a real 3D movie and I liked what I saw. AVATAR is an impressive achievement and there's much to admire. However I'll still be rooting for "Up in the Air" on Oscar night.