Because you need a screen that will reflect the light back in a polarized fashion. In film terms, you're talking about a screen with silver crystals in it for reflectivity. But those screens are enormously fragile - which is part of why 3-D keeps flopping over in theaters - if one person throws their drink at the screen, or even touches it, the screen is wrecked for good and needs to be replaced.
That's not technology suitable for home usage. Which is why home systems have always been based on field sequential systems of 3-D.
I'm surprised that the only engine on this list to derive from the Quake family is the Call of Duty engine. I'm not enough of a game engine expert to disagree with any given choice, but it's very, very surprising to me to see one of the major families of engines basically ignored. At the very least, some discussion of its omission seems in order.
I advise caution in believing this story. ProtesterHelp, earlier today, was spreading false information that Mousavi had been arrested on Twitter. The combination makes me suspect attention whoring in lieu of truth.
Oh. Maybe the parent comment was referring to that. But through the 80s, Disney also had a practice of doing theatrical re-releases of its classic animated films - they stopped in favor of home release. Similar practices, but I took re-release to mean theatrical release.
To be fair, by most accounts Disney has improved over the last year or two. Yes, the era where Home on the Range and Brother Bear were coming out was a bit of a trainwreck. But their most recent animated film, Bolt, did appreciable business and was generally well received. And the buzz they're getting for The Princess and the Frog, their return to traditional animation, is significant. Rapunzel is also getting generally good buzz.
The general sense seems to be that Disney bought Pixar in a large part to get John Lasseter to work on all of their films. And that he's been turning the ship around.
Well, yes, but I'm not entirely sure how Toy Story 2 is an example of how Disney is prone to sequels and Pixar is becoming more like Disney.
Yes, all right, i was (perhaps unfairly) assuming that the comparison was being made between Disney's animated films and Pixar's films. If we are claiming that Monsters Inc 2 is an example of Pixar being more like Kill Bill, then let me be the first to say "oh hell yes."
We'd generally call those DVD releases. "Limited re-release" implies theatrical release.
I'm trying very hard to think of a theatrically released Disney sequel.
Ah yes. The Rescuers Down Under.
I do not believe there is a second. So theatrically released sequels are in fact pretty un-Disney.
I also don't think Disney has done a limited re-release in about 20 years.
First of all, Pixar has two announced films not mentioned here - The Bear and the Bow and Newt - both of which are original properties. Bear and the Bow is slated to share 2011 with Cars 2, and Newt is set for 2012.
Second of all, the suggestion that the "most likely" date for Monsters Inc 2 is 2012 is tenuous at best. The only time in the last decade Pixar has had a director do two films with only three years in between is when Brad Bird did Ratatouille three years after The Incredibles, and that was him coming on a film in mid-production. If Docter is directing it, it would be surprising to see it before 2013.
This story, in other words, is nonsense - the only actual content to it is that there's a sequel to Monsters Inc.
"Pascal is Pascal is Pascal is dog meat." -- M. Devine and P. Larson, Computer Science 340