It's an interesting theory about panning being the crux of the issue for 3DHFR.

On a more "creative" level, the way I've put it -- and I'm basing this off my experience with higher frame-rates only, not 3DHFR directly though it seems applicable, because I haven't seen Hobbit yet -- is that the fluidity and "realness" of it ends up putting the film into a Theater-Film hyrbid zone...it's basically a new medium.

This has to be accounted for in all aspects of the production to work properly -- from the writing to the directing to the cinematography to the editing room. You can't just change the formatting on a script and put on a play with it. You can't merely film a play from multiple angles, throw in some SFX, and make a great movie. They are simply different mediums and need to be treated differently.

I feel like that's the case with 3DHFR. Panning, as a technical aspect, would certainly fall into that category, as you are correct that it's not something our eyes/mind do in real life.

I actually think older movies would be better "designed" for 3DHDR. Before cameras had much mobility -- blocking and movement within the frame were vastly more important and given more attention. Metropolis would be amazing, especially the sections with loads of extras...it would feel like an epic play that could simply never be performed in real life.

Metropolis. City Lights. Nosferatu. Citizen Kane. Watch some clips and see how the scenes could be seen as theater-ish. Likely because filmmakers were facing a combination of film being a new medium and cameras being huge/heavy and having limited movement capabilities. The most modern examples I can think of...Clerks I think would work well. Moon, at least mostly. Again, films that were written/designed with a bit more of theater "feel" to them.

That's not to say grand action-y movies CAN'T work. I just think it's not just a new brand of film, it's a new medium entirely...and it's going to take a bit before writers/filmmakers get a handle on that medium. Maybe in time they'll design action sequences to be more "within the frame", sticking to cuts and zooms, keeping pans for more intimate scenes. Maybe use a bit of Japanese Kung-Fu movie style, where they tend to stay wide in fight scenes rather than Bourne style close-up & cuts.

3DHFR seems like watching a play through a window. Until they take that into account, I think it'll continue to polarize people.

http://io9.com/5961646/someone-actually … pisode-vii

Some indications that 'Safety Not Guaranteed' director Colin Trevorrow might have to be moved into the "most likely" spot for Episode VII.

A quote from a podcast he did back in June:

Then there's an additional quote from a Swedish Mag interview where he talks about his love of Star Wars and how it's basically a "mythology" or even a religion among fans. The question is whether the word "mythology" was used (which would create an apparent connection between the comments) or if that's a result of translation only.

Certainly not confirmation -- but probably the best "evidence" for any individual director who's been rumored so far...

Brad Bird: http://youtu.be/3rBpliHAVOQ

The more I think about it, the more I come down on the side of two choices:

Option 1: Make a full-bore epic trilogy to lay the foundation of what I've decided I will call Star Wars: The Next Generation (SW:TNG). That gives you 3 movies to lay everything out and build from, wiping the prequels and the ill will towards them off the map. If you do this -- Peter Jackson.

Option 2: Jump right into the Bond-style movie every couple of years plan. Brad Bird or Gore Verbinski could easily pull off a movie that could be very good without trying to do "everything" in 120 mins.

Chatting with Brian, he also tossed out another name (for option 2) that could be interesting...Darren Aronofsky. He was inches away from directing a Wolverine movie, so it's not like he's unwilling (or unable) to stray from the art house. He clearly has the talent for characters and an eye for visuals. I'd put him right behind Bird & Verbinski, if only because they both have more established records for what I think Disney will be looking for.

All told, I'm not coming down on either side (terrible or great) because we won't have anything to even base positivity/negativity on for several months. Admittedly, it's tough to imagine it getting "worse" than the prequels, but how many times have we been burned by that thought before?

For now, my state is "Cautiously Hopeful".