View Full Version : The Avatar Thread
Pumpkinstew
17-12-2009, 01:28
I just watched it in threeeeedeeeee and my first thoughts are that it's self indulgent, has a hugely derivative plot yet remains a spectacular, beautiful and amazing cinematic experience.
The 3D effect works really well mostly and starts pushing some of the buttons in the wow part of the brain - the part that lit up when the Star Destroyer whooshed over your head for the first time, or Trinity performed her first kick in bullet time. Without this I think the film's flaws would be become glaring instead of just a peripheral annoyance.
If you plan on seeing it then go and see it at the cinema and put some funny glasses on. It's the way it was meant to be seen and I think you'd be robbing yourself to do it any other way.
3D glasses don't work on me, but this could just be the excuse I was looking for to go and try our shiny new cinema. :)
LeperousDust
17-12-2009, 17:51
Want to go glasgow because its the nearest iMAX, and i'm assuming if i'm going to pay to watch it (well watch a movie in general! :p) then i might as well do it right and do it iMAX :)
From what i've read though, Avatar isn't a proper IMAX film, its just upscaled onto the big screen, also IMAX 3D is supposedly inferior to Dolby 3D, depending what your regular cinema uses.
LeperousDust
17-12-2009, 21:55
Oh really? Poop, how should i choose where to go then? I was looking at going to the glasgow science museum because it has a 1570 IMAX cinema as opposed to the new digital pap, but if dolby3D is decent i may change my mind! There's an iWerks cinema close by not totally sure what that is either? I just want to make the most of the movie really since i feel its quite a lot about that...
SidewinderINC
23-12-2009, 02:55
That was freakin' beautiful!
Loved the film, even though the plotline was very predictable.
I've forgiven him for Titanic now.
Knipples
23-12-2009, 10:04
Going to see it in 3D at Vue cinemas this afternoon, will report back!
Great film, 3D effects are amazing.
As an animation student I felt obliged to go see this. Beautiful film - dissapointing story :(
Knipples
24-12-2009, 09:38
Really really enjoyed it, definitely worth catching it in 3D.
The only bit that slightly disappointed me was
the slightly tenuous way he was able to change into his avatar just to give it a happy ending.
Didnt detract from the fact I really enjoyed it, and would recommend it, can also see why it cost that much money to make.
SidewinderINC
24-12-2009, 12:49
Really really enjoyed it, definitely worth catching it in 3D.
The only bit that slightly disappointed me was
the slightly tenuous way he was able to change into his avatar just to give it a happy ending.
Didnt detract from the fact I really enjoyed it, and would recommend it, can also see why it cost that much money to make.
I don't understand how that was tenuous :shrug:
They tried it earlier to revive Grace but she was too injured for the forest/planet to take her soul from her body and transfer it to her Na'vi body.
What grated me is the fact that the element they were mining for was called unobtainium.
leowyatt
24-12-2009, 13:10
Exactly Sidewinder could they not come up with a better name!!! :angry:
unobtainium.
Totally agree!
Exactly Sidewinder could they not come up with a better name!!! :angry:
Apparently 2 years spent developing the alien language and they call the material THAT?!?!
LOL :shocked:
I think 'Gold 2' would have been more imaginative ;D
I loved the film - 3D made things really special and immersive too.
The storyline was not as intricate and as complex as I was expecting, but it won't stop me enjoying it many times over, no doubt on Christmas Day at some point in the future. :)
Beautifully created artistry throughout, I doth my cap to all who had creative input to the film - I especially liked ....
the whole 'link to nature' with the bonding strands etc - brilliant :D
Just seen this at the local Vue in 3D and I must say it was amazing visually.
As most have said the plot was a bit thin and obvious and I couldn't agree more on the naming of the mineral. :)
Just back from watching this with my dad and loved it. So glad that 3D has moved on now, although at times I didn't think that I was watching a 3D film. Plot was almost see-through, but I didn't watch it for that, I was there for the visuals which were brilliant.
as mentioned in the film thread, I saw this in 2D last week and 3D yesterday. Definitely think 3D was the way this movie was meant to be seen. Spectacular.
Matblack
31-12-2009, 15:36
I enjoyed that a lot, even though I didn't really get on with the 3D glasses.
Some really good concepts in there including the link between the Na'Vi and the creatures, but what impressed me the most was the animation/ real world integration, it is the first time I have managed to really suspend disbelief where there have been humans and animation together on screen in a movie, this is really apparent at the end when Neytiri meets Jake.
There were some great subtle things I liked, like the scale of the Na'Vi in comparison to humans and the integration of the human features, Sigourny Weaver's Avatar looks just enough like her but not too much.
Yes it's a bit week plot wise but Cameron has done well here and it has a strong message :)
MB
Some really good concepts in there including the link between the Na'Vi and the creatures, but what impressed me the most was the animation/ real world integration, it is the first time I have managed to really suspend disbelief where there have been humans and animation together on screen in a movie, this is really apparent at the end when Neytiri meets Jake.
Never really even thought about that you know. That shows how well integrated it was, it never occured to me it was animation meets r/l :o
Saw this yesterday in Real3D (Dolby).
Wow... what an awfully transparent plot. As soon as they introduced any plot element you could immediately figure out exactly what was going to happen :)
It was very weird seeing Phoebe's stupid brother from Friends as the on-site manager. I kept expecting him to start trying to melt things.
Visually it's superb. Stunning. James Cameron has done a fantastic job setting the bar for those that follow. An absolutely solid throwing down of the gauntlet: "This is here, this is what we can do, DO BETTER!"
Contrasting the trailers that preceeded it (Shrek 4 3D, Piranha 3D.. and something else I've already forgotten) it was noticeable the completely different approach he was taking. Avatar was never felt like it was "3D for 3D sake". There was no shoving of stuff in the face, no attempt to have bullets or arrows or anything flying past. It made the 3D feel just completely natural.
The only one complaint I have was that when action on screen was fast, e.g. someone walking past right in front of the camera, there was an element of jerkiness to it. Wasn't enough to be distracting, but was there.
Speaking of trailers, there were no 3D trailers before the film when I went the other day, which is weird as everyone else says they saw them. Must just not be the cinema I was in then.
none at ours either. :/ Were you in a cineworld?
Paul is in the States though so maybe he saw newer ones than people saw here?
We had 3d trailers ... can't remember what for though :o
The trailers before the film were mainly 2D.
I've a niggling feeling I've forgotten at least another one or two trailers pre-film. It's beginning to annoy me that I'll have to watch 7-8+ trailers before a movie now.
We had no trailers - 3d or otherwise!
No trailers on any IMAX film I've been to which is great.
Admiral Huddy
04-01-2010, 17:44
Smurfs all grown up.. Didn't do it for me. To much effort on the artwork not enough on the story.
Pumpkinstew
04-01-2010, 19:20
The trailers I remember were Shrek and some Step Up You Got High School Dance Offed clone. All the trailers were in 3D.
(Odeon, Weds night preview screening)
Pumpkinstew
04-01-2010, 19:25
The bits that stuck out for me were the opening shot when all the new arrivals were floating about in 3D and a moment during the training when a lizard suddenly spun off a branch. Stupid I know but it just delighted me for some reason. I must have looked like a toddler waving his first sparkler about at that moment.
That feeling alone made it a tenner well spent.
One thing that struck me throughout the film was how frightfully annoying it must have been to be one of those spinning lizards!
Mmmm Insects...*om nom nom*....whathe-*SPINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!* :D
Well my sister has managed to convince me that I want to go and see it.
So I'm going to book the IMAX cinema and watch it there in 3D. Anybody else want to come with Sam and I? It'll probably be in Feb some time as it's fully booked until then.
One thing that struck me throughout the film was how frightfully annoying it must have been to be one of those spinning lizards!
Mmmm Insects...*om nom nom*....whathe-*SPINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!* :D
Heck yeah. Unsurprisingly everyone burst out laughing in the cinema. What would have made it perfect would have been to have a tiny squawking voice going "WaaaaAAAAAaaaaAAAAAaaaaAAAA"
We went to see it last week. I thought it was brilliant! The story wasn't anything new but it was so beautiful! I loved it when he was walking through the forest and everything he touched lit up. Trailers on TV just don't do it any justice.
The thing that ruined it for me was for some reason Americans can't keep quiet at the cinema! At every quiet part there was people talking and one girl needed stuff explained to her every 5 minutes!
leowyatt
05-01-2010, 20:39
If you haven't seen the film don't look at the attachment!
If you haven't seen the film don't look at the attachment!
Apart from the ending, that's pretty much it.
After all the humans are defeated and sent home. No understanding is reached at all beyond "Leave and never come back"
I'd give the film 7/10. South Park basically had it right with their episode called Dances With Smurfs. The 3D was especially good when stuff was happening in the foreground. A couple of times I swear I could have just reached out and grabbed Michelle Rodriguez's chest.
Out of interest, has anyone ever been to Disneyworld and seen the Muppets 4D show? I swear it's exactly the same technology they used for that, and I saw it in 1992.
Edit: One other trailer we saw was for Alice in Wonderland in 3D. I'd give up the use of both my nipples to see that film.
Edit 2: Damn these 3D glasses give me a headache. I should probably take them off.
Edit 2: Damn these 3D glasses give me a headache. I should probably take them off.
You are supposed to take them off after the film :D
TinkerBell
21-01-2010, 09:49
I went to see this Tuesday night and it is AMAZING! I loved it, the 3 hours just flew by :D
Paul and I are going to see this at the IMAX in February so will be interesting to see how good the IMAX is :)
Booked to see it in Feb at an imax cinema in 3d. Let's see if it's as good as the hype says.
A couple of times I swear I could have just reached out and grabbed Michelle Rodriguez's chest.
I swear there were people in my theater that were trying.
I went to see this Tuesday night and it is AMAZING! I loved it, the 3 hours just flew by :D
Paul and I are going to see this at the IMAX in February so will be interesting to see how good the IMAX is :)
I wouldn't use it as a judge of IMAX in general, as afaik it isn't filmed in IMAX, it's just upscaled normal film, so it will be bigger but not necessarily with the extra quality you would usually associate with IMAX.
Also I think IMAX 3D uses linear polarisation rather than circular, so tilting your head ruins the 3D, unlike the RealD system in most cinemas.
Because of the way IMAX is set up there's little need to tilt your head though isn't there? I've been to IMAX a few times and always highly impressed with it I must say as you don't really need to move your head as the picture is "right there" in your face. Wasn't it filmed in high definition or equivalent so that it could be upscaled to IMAX more emphatically?
Well you don't need to tilt your head in any cinema but if you went with a partner say and wanted to rest your head on their shoulder during the film, RealD would work, IMAX3D would be a big heap of fail :p
Ah ok. Is that across all IMAX? Or just certain IMAXes?
All IMAX 3D will use linear polarisation afaik, so you have to be lined up properly in respect of the polarisation else the picture will get dimmer and dimmer the further out of alignment you get.
Also, to address the other point about resolution, the point of IMAX was to vastly improve visual quality through much bigger film (IMAX is 69.6 mm × 48.5 mm according to wiki, regular 35mm is 21.95 mm x 18.6 mm). Avatar afaik, only used regular 35mm film so where traditionally IMAX would make a big difference (think the difference between SD and 1080p on a big screen at home), with Avatar you won't get that, the screen will be bigger but the source image is the same just being projected bigger. Digital IMAX isn't really the same and projects with a pair of 2K projectors rather than a single 2K set up and they've got a bit of stick for not making it easy to identify Digital IMAX cinemas as they don't provide a 'true' IMAX experience.
Regardless Avatar will still look awesome but don't take it as an example of the pinnacle of what IMAX can do, as a proper IMAX filmed movie will look even better.
Avatar afaik, only used regular 35mm film so where traditionally IMAX would make a big difference (think the difference between SD and 1080p on a big screen at home), with Avatar you won't get that, the screen will be bigger but the source image is the same just being projected bigger. Digital IMAX isn't really the same and projects with a pair of 2K projectors rather than a single 2K set up and they've got a bit of stick for not making it easy to identify Digital IMAX cinemas as they don't provide a 'true' IMAX experience.
Filming was done on HD cameras, special stereoscopic mounted versions of these:
http://pro.sony.com/bbsccms/ext/cinealta/shoot/hdcf950.shtml
I'm not sure whether that's 2K or 4K like Red cameras.
Filming was done on HD cameras, special stereoscopic mounted versions of these:
http://pro.sony.com/bbsccms/ext/cinealta/shoot/hdcf950.shtml
I'm not sure whether that's 2K or 4K like Red cameras.
'HD' means little in these terms.
35mm film stock if I am not mistaken is the same size as 35mm photographic stock and it's generally regarded you need a 12MP digital image or so to get approx. the same resolution power as film provides. 'Full HD' is 2MP. A 4K camera (meaning ~4000 horizontal pixels) is about 9MP and so is almost as good as 35mm film. That camera looks to be 2K though from the brochure, so not even really as good as a 35mm film can be.
IMAX film is much much much bigger than 35mm film is and has a far greater resolving ability, so can produce much more detail in images. Even a 4K camera (which is as good you get atm really, even 2K projection only became common in 2005/2006) comes nowhere near IMAX quality.
As I said, it won't look bad, it just won't look as good as a proper IMAX film so if it is your first IMAX experience, that isn't as good as it can be.
LeperousDust
21-01-2010, 18:19
I wasn't really all that impressed with the 3d at all, i think it was 3d for the sake of, and not really worth the money spent on it. I'd rather watch it in 2d and at that rate i didn't think the actual plot was all that to write home about either. Although weeks later (now) and seeing Avatar related adverts still, looking back i did enjoy the film and i guess thats what its all about on reflection. But 3d did NOT win me over at all :)
Out of interest then divine; where should i go close to Edinburgh to see decent IMAX glasgow science centre i can see has a screen, is that "real"? And what should i see that does it justice? :p
I think the only UK based Digital IMAX are in London (Greenwich and Wimbledon) but I can't find much since they opened in 2008 so there could be more. If it opened before the end of 2008 it's probably a proper one unless it has since been converted.
As for films, there is a list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IMAX_films) on Wikipedia but it includes 'digitally remastered' versions, which is what Avatar is, even though that effectively means 'upscaled'.
HMMMMMM
In a horrifically embarrassing twist, it seems most IMAX is in fact not filmed on 70mm IMAX film at all but digitally rescaled from 35mm film.
http://gizmodo.com/5250780/how-regular-movies-become-imax-films
HMMMM
So, IMAX is usually not quite the beast I first assumed it was and Avatar probably does look just as good as any other 'IMAX' movie would. The Dark Knight had some genuine 70mm shot IMAX scenes in it, though I doubt you'll manage to find that showing in an IMAX anywhere still :p
I've also seen plenty of 35mm movies (like Star Trek) up on the IMAX screen, projected from a 70mm film print, after DMR. There is absolutely no comparison. Star Trek is fun to watch on a big screen. The Dark Knight is so ridiculously detailed that your brain can barely process it.
So whilst what I was saying is true in theory, I was mistaken in assuming that IMAX films were actually... IMAX films.
The linear polarised 3D point still stands though :p
What about the BFI Imax in Waterloo?
I watched the Matrix 2 in an IMAX in San Fran - it was mind blowing. Monica Bellucci's boobs in IMAX glory were a sight to behold! :D
I wasn't really all that impressed with the 3d at all, i think it was 3d for the sake of, and not really worth the money spent on it. I'd rather watch it in 2d and at that rate i didn't think the actual plot was all that to write home about either.
Having seen both, I'd have to disagree with that. The 3D took it from being average to being something worth the 2.30 hours to watch again. There wasn't that much of it towards the last hour or so, but the first parts, where they're exploring was just beautiful - and fell quite flat in 2D, comparatively speaking.
I watched the Matrix 2 in an IMAX in San Fran - it was mind blowing. Monica Bellucci's boobs in IMAX glory were a sight to behold! :D
Funnily enough, I saw that in the IMAX In the Luxor in Las Vegas, and you're not wrong ;D
LeperousDust
21-01-2010, 21:57
Having seen both, I'd have to disagree with that. The 3D took it from being average to being something worth the 2.30 hours to watch again. There wasn't that much of it towards the last hour or so, but the first parts, where they're exploring was just beautiful - and fell quite flat in 2D, comparatively speaking.
It's very possible i was being a little overly harsh on it i guess. Some of the forrest scenes were actually spectacular, but i felt it was more becuase it was just really cool cgi not 3d. Also you make a good point, i didn't realise it was so long when watching it because actually it can't have been that bad! So i'll take it all back a bit, but i still feel with the hype and advertising taken into account it wasn't worth it :p
TinkerBell
21-01-2010, 22:47
For me all I had really heard were a few people saying how good it was, hadn't seen trailers of it and wasn't really interested in going to see it. It is only because people said it was so good that I went. It was absolutely amazing, and I loved every minute of it. Couldn't fault it one bit :D
I'm going to cast my opinion once I see it. This sort of movie doesn't really appeal to me normally, but I'm going in with an open mind, and thought I'd give it it's best shot by doing IMAX & 3D. :)
Stan_Lite
22-01-2010, 09:04
Kell and I will be going to watch this when I get back. I'm looking forward to it although, it'll be a week or so after I get back before we can go as I need to recover from a mad podiatrist hacking at my big toe :(
Hopefully the film can cheer me up.
Pumpkinstew
22-01-2010, 10:06
Question for Divine as he obviously knows this stuff pretty well.
I saw the film in a preview screening at the Odeon in Oxford and was pretty impressed by the 3D effect despite being close to the far left hand side of the auditorium.
Last week I went to see it again at the IMAX in Cardiff for a friends birthday and was sat in almost the same place – far left hand side. To begin with I’m certain the 3D effect was not as good as at the Odeon. The image was blurry and the foreground didn’t pop out in the same way. After about 20 minutes the image sharpened up again and I assumed it was just a trick of my brain or my eyes adjusting.
After the film both my friends agreed that the first 20 minutes had seemed blurry. We spoke to one of the ushers and they assured us it was impossible for the image to be out of focus because the two projectors were continually laser aligned during the screening and it was just our eyes adjusting. We responded that the trailers seemed fine, and my eyes hadn’t needed to adjust the first time I saw it. No free tickets, boo :(
So can an IMAX setup be misaligned? Or did we all imagine it?
Blighter
22-01-2010, 19:42
So can an IMAX setup be misaligned? Or did we all imagine it?
Or was you actually somewhere else for those 20 minutes :shocked: Alien abduction maybe? :D
Greenlizard0
23-01-2010, 06:20
Hopefully I'm going to see it this afternoon which should be fun.
I hated 3d films years ago, it was gimicky and not worth it. I went to see A Christmas Carole a few weeks back and realised things had really moved on since those times.
Stan_Lite
23-01-2010, 07:06
realised things had really moved on since those times.
That's what I'm banking on. I'm sure things have improved drastically since the last 3D experience I had (admittedly, that was 70s porn mags with those red and blue cardboard glasses, lol).
Greenlizard0
23-01-2010, 16:29
What?
Wait, there was 3d porn years ago? :eek:
Greenlizard0
23-01-2010, 20:35
Woah! That was great!
Woah! That was great!
You got to see some of Stan's 3D porn?
haha, that was my thought exactly ;D
Greenlizard0
23-01-2010, 21:09
Lol no, though of course email in trust etc. :p
$1.83 billion, jesus Cameron knows how to make money.
Greenlizard0
26-01-2010, 20:10
It'll be interesting in the next few weeks just how much money it will bring in. The raw $$ figure will be huge, but don't forget that being a 3d film (special) and the fact that cinema tickets are ridiculously expensive* are both going to skew that number.
The adjusted rankings show it's the 26th highest film of all time. Though when I went this weekend it'd have been out for 6 weeks, and we got the last two tickets available for that showing. It was running in a large capacity room too. It's certainly possible that it may climb up a few places, though I think it's stopped showing in the US now.
*£9.20 for an adult, I'm supposed to be "up North"!
bloody hell, £6.80 at our cinema (and we orange wednesdayed so we got in for the princely sum of £3.40 each :D (and got to keep the goggles!)
I paid over £10. Am I the biggest mug here or did anyone pay more?
Pumpkinstew
26-01-2010, 21:10
I paid over £10. Am I the biggest mug here or did anyone pay more?
I think it was 12 pound something for the premier seats at the Oxford Odeon and also at the Cardiff Imax.
Mine was just in a standard Vue cinema (still in 3D though of course!). I even tried to pay an extra £1.50 for a deluxe seat but they'd sold out.
:shocked:
QFT!
Would be £6.80-£8.55 here . Not seen it though and no real urge to either!
The adjusted rankings show it's the 26th highest film of all time. Though when I went this weekend it'd have been out for 6 weeks, and we got the last two tickets available for that showing. It was running in a large capacity room too. It's certainly possible that it may climb up a few places, though I think it's stopped showing in the US now.
Still showing here, too many bums on seats for it to be worth stopping it just yet.
Paid $12 for a matinée viewing, think it was around $18 for the normal.
Nope I'm a bigger mug, close to £15, for IMAX 3D :'(
Knipples
26-01-2010, 23:39
I think we paid close to 9 quid each when we went.
Greenlizard0
27-01-2010, 03:33
At least Odeon (Liverpewl) are giving them away for free, better keep mine. I suspect they've included it in the price the cheeky buggers which is why the ticket was so dear.
I thought the tickets were always dearer for the 3D movies. If we'd have seen it in 2D, it would have been £4.80. They ain't giving you them free mate ;D
Nope I'm a bigger mug, close to £15, for IMAX 3D :'(
Nope, Belmit's still somewhere in the lead, he went to a regular cinema and paid over a tenner! It's not how much you pay, it's what you get for it.
Ah good point well made.
Bwwwhahahaha *points at Belmit* what a helmet! :D :p
Think ours were around £10.20 including glasses but we did it on an orange wednesday so it wasn't too bad (also saw sherlock holmes the same day - think we were in the cinema for 6+hours :p )
I like to think I got my money's worth by wearing the glasses for three hours afterwards as well. Driving home was fun - I had difficulty with the slip road but after that it was almost as if the cars on the motorway were coming right at me!
TinkerBell
27-01-2010, 11:29
It is cheap here looking at other people's prices. It was £6.20 for the 3D at cineworld and 80p for the glasses, and then it is £9.60 for the IMAX in Birmingham :)
£1.30 here. Yay for unlimited card :D
It's about £9 adult 3D - but we stick to Orange wednesdays and blag our student cards so usually pay about ~£4 :)
It was £6.50 for 3D in Wigan and you had to give the glasses back, its £5 for just a non 3D film.
Bloody London, bloody IMAX 3D prices, bloody bloody bloody bloody hell. :angry:
Blighter
27-01-2010, 16:15
£1.30 here. Yay for unlimited card :D
This! :D
Unlimited card would be wasted for me. Just don't go to the cinema enough to warrant it.
Ditto. I wish I went more, but I feel it's only worthwhile going if it's an epic movie that requires a big screen and amazing sound. I think I went about 4x last year!
Greenlizard0
28-01-2010, 07:41
Ditto. I wish I went more, but I feel it's only worthwhile going if it's an epic movie that requires a big screen and amazing sound. I think I went about 4x last year!
Couldn't agree more. There's got to be something to take advantage of massive sound/speakers and a giant screen.
These days I almost make it a point to not bother seeing films at the cinema without special effects. I'm also far too likely to regret the fact I paid money for it; very few movies are really good these days.
I thought the tickets were always dearer for the 3D movies. If we'd have seen it in 2D, it would have been £4.80. They ain't giving you them free mate ;D
£7.40 up here for a normal 2D film. I bought a rubbish cheap phone and stuck and Orange PayG sim into it, I should start using it. :o
Admiral Huddy
08-02-2010, 12:31
Got to see this at the weekend.
The 3d is a gimmick and spoils what otherwise is arguably the best action film I've seen.
I have to say I completely disagree. I thought that the 3D was absolutely incredible. It's going to be hard to watch another cinema movie without it! In IMAX and in 3D I was just completely immersed in the film. I was absolutely and completely skeptical of the movie before I went in. It took about 10-15mins to get used to the 3d effect - however you soon lose yourself in the film, and my god it was an experience. The sound quality was incredible as well, and well, IMAX is just brilliant of course. I actually found myself ducking a couple of times during some of the battle scenes when stuff came flying towards you!! ;D
Huge success - definitely worthy of the praise. I can't see me ever owning it on DVD as it just won't do justice to the film. You need top class surround sound, a large screen and seeing it in other than 3d I can imagine would be less fulfilling although it was a very good film, though a little hollywood/god bless america at times.
Big thumbs up from me worth the £15.
Got to see this at the weekend.
The 3d is a gimmick and spoils what otherwise is arguably the best action film I've seen.
That's pretty much the polar opposite to pretty much every other view i've seen criticising the film, most of which say the 3D is about the only good thing there is and the film itself is a pretty lacking 3 hour long cliche :p
Admiral Huddy
08-02-2010, 15:40
Well the experience is obviously clouding people judgement which is why I said it's just a gimmick. Impressive it is, I won't disagree with that, but all I could see is 2d layers giving the appearance of a 3d image.. i.e. background, mid, foreground and a few bits between plus there appeared to be no depth..
For example, when I look a across the room I'm sitting in, everything is in proportion in distance from the foreground to the vanishing point. Depending on what my eyes focus on at the time, either the foreground or background is out of focus. The screen in front of me isn't anymore emphasised than the glass on my desk, or the picture behind that.. yet in 3d film, it gives the impression that everything in between these two points is static. Hey I'm no photographer but it just looked too false.
If this film is being merited purley on the 3d element, then that's a shallow reason to rate it so highly. It's a bit like judging a game puely on the visual experiance and not the game itself.
I thought the near 3 hours went really quick.. That's always a good sign.
I think the 3d effect adds tremendously to the film - I felt completely absorbed and almost "in" the movie. I've been to imax cinemas and some of the world's best cinemas, but they wouldn't be able to re-create that 3d effect IMO. It does immerse you completely - I agree it took me about 10-15mins or so to "ignore" the 3d "noise" that you initially get, when you stop looking for the 3d effect it becomes far more easy to enjoy the film.
I think it was cheesy and so on, and the script was paper thin, but the film would have been good even without 3D but it certainly made the film exceptional to have that added depth to immerse yourself and lose yourself in it.
TinkerBell
08-02-2010, 16:23
I saw it on 3D at cineworld and in 3D in the IMAX. The 3D effect in the cineworld was off putting, you could see the layers/edges for the 3D effect which wasn't very good. However when I went to the IMAX cinema it was fantastic, no edges or layers when the 3D effect was there.
I think it is an absolutely fantastic film, nothing to do with the 3D effect (it made it more real but not the only reason to see the film) It had something for everyone, the romantic side, the sci-fi, the shooting. Just Amazing.
Admiral Huddy
08-02-2010, 16:36
Looks like I should have seen this at iMAX then.
Aren't most action films a little cheesy.. Isn't that what makes them film? A break from normality.
I thought the whole film was cliche and predictable - but I didn't care, since it was captivating to watch. It wasn't that original either - however, it doesn't take away any part of the film. It really was breath taking to watch and see the imagination of someone unfold before your eyes. I was on the edge of my seat throughout, wowed by the scenery and attention to detail, so much so you ignore the loosness of the story.
It's release on DVD will do it no justice though. This is one of thes films that NEEDS a big screen and a good sound system IMO.
I'm sure most people will agree that it's Blue Pochahontas in Space, but that's easy, enjoyable viewing and purely on a visual level it's truly spectacular.
Absolutely. It's hard not to be drawn in and captivated by it.
leowyatt
08-02-2010, 19:18
I'm sure most people will agree that it's Blue Pochahontas in Space, but that's easy, enjoyable viewing and purely on a visual level it's truly spectacular.
did you see post 35? ;)
Blighter
08-02-2010, 19:22
I can never get on with imax screens.
All the ones I've been to distort as soon as you turn your head to the side :S
Real3D is where its at :cool:
Well the experience is obviously clouding people judgement which is why I said it's just a gimmick. Impressive it is, I won't disagree with that, but all I could see is 2d layers giving the appearance of a 3d image.. i.e. background, mid, foreground and a few bits between plus there appeared to be no depth..
For example, when I look a across the room I'm sitting in, everything is in proportion in distance from the foreground to the vanishing point. Depending on what my eyes focus on at the time, either the foreground or background is out of focus. The screen in front of me isn't anymore emphasised than the glass on my desk, or the picture behind that.. yet in 3d film, it gives the impression that everything in between these two points is static. Hey I'm no photographer but it just looked too false.
That's purely down to poor understanding of 3D currently I think and directors inexperience of it. It's caused by shallow depth of field and when in 2D, this works incredibly well to draw your attention to where it should be. Because it is only 2D it doesn't feel entirely unnatural either.
In 3D though, this cause a problem because 3D presents more of an opportunity for your eye to explore the scene, you expect the focus and field depth to change as it would for real but it just doesn't. Limited depth of field shots fail hard in 3D and are the main cause of eyestrain when viewing. Ideally 3D films would be shot entirely (as far as possible) in high field depth shots so everything is in focus, this will feel more natural as you can then look wherever you want.
Trouble is what works for one doesn't work for the other, a film totally made for 3D to that extent would look massively amateur when converted for 2D release and as you experienced, low depth of field doesn't transfer well to 3D. Currently with 2D being so prevalent in the home cinema market I can't see a massive move to properly implemented 3D so what we get now is as good as you can hope for for a while.
I found that stuff in the very foreground was quite realistic, almost like it was just past the front seats in the cinema. There was one part where someone was sat behind a console and it was like they were actually there. If they could extend that to the rest of the shot it would be very good indeed.
I paid just over £10 for mine - and that's inc. deluxe seat. However, I did go at the cheapest time (4:15 PM on a Tuesday). It showed - I could count the entire audience without running out of fingers. ;D
3D doesn't work on me (never has, never will - I watched the entire film left eye only - as usual). I should have asked for a 50% discount. :p
Still, I enjoyed that. Would watch again - a few rows closer - deluxe seats aren't all that and they're too far back IMO.
I assume you watched it in Newbury? The seats are terrible there, I had a numb bum after an hour (and I cycle 2 hours a day, so my bum isn't exactly demanding of nice seats). I needed morphine when the credits started rolling.
Yes, yes, and yes. I think that just about covers it.
Will try the other seats next time. :)
Flibster
11-02-2010, 00:19
Just got back from seeing this.
My god! Did Cameron get given the Fisher Price book of Movie Clichés for christmas a few years ago?
Absolutely first rate animation and graphics, but with a script that even Edward D. Wood Jr would reject for being too obvious.
I really feel that it's going to clean up for the oscars... sadly.
I really feel that it's going to clean up for the oscars... sadly.
Of course it will...
Lots of hype = lots of Oscars, always has, always will.
:confused:
TinkerBell
11-02-2010, 01:04
I don't see why you are being so negative about the film.
I wasn't even intending to go and see this as I wasn't even interested, the only reason I did is after hearing paul's brother and nephew say how brilliant it was. At the end of the day if a film wasn't good it wouldn't get so many people recomending people to watch it and having so many people interested. Not only that you wouldn't get people seeing it twice in such a short amount of time. It is worth the oscar's as it is a brilliant film.
I agree Flibster it is cliche after cliche - but hey, I was bought by it, why? Because cliches are a part of life, something we can relate to, and something we subconsciously enjoy.
I agree it was gash from that point of view, looking at it from an impassioned and objective outlook, however you have to take it as a complete package, and as much as i hate to admit it the whole package does deliver, and deliver it in an awe inspiring way.
It will win oscars, hopefully not for acting or the script, but for other categories.
Flibster
11-02-2010, 14:22
It will win oscars, hopefully not for acting or the script, but for other categories.
Luckilly - it's not nominated for Screenplay.
Streeteh
15-02-2010, 12:44
I'm never going to pretend this was an 'intelligent' movie, but then i don't think it was ever meant to be. Cameron has always loved his cliches so i went in expecting them. I had a thoroughly good time tbh.
Even though I've seen it and it'll cost me £10, I'm considering going for another viewing this week. It'll be a spur of the moment thing but I enjoyed it enough that I want to go see more (and I'll get a closer seat this time so I can).
Finally went to see this in 3D.
Never been to a 3D showing so can't compare to other films but visually it seemed decent. Some nice understated 3D effects that weren't too in your face imo.
Plot wise though I thought it was awful! Not enough action (excluding the last 30mins) to call it a 'switch your brain off' action film but not enough plot to call it anything else. Weak character development, plot holes galore and the dialogue was abysmal. I was desperately trying to suspend my disbelief but some films just get too silly to do so.
I've now seen most of the Best Picture Oscar nominations (except Precious, A Serious Man and The Blind Side as they're either not out at the cinema or not on DVD yet) and I'd rank Avatar at the bottom of the list personally.
Having said all that I can see why Avatar ably deserves to win any visual effects award and should be remembered for years to come in regards to its technological achievements. Never ever for anything else though :p
I did go for a second viewing - and was decidedly underwhelmed compared to the first. Whether it was knowing what was going to happen next, or lack of engaging plot, or frustration at not 'getting' any of the 3D, I don't know, but there we are. Wished I'd have left it at one. :)
PS - the 'cheap' (not really very cheap at all) seats are better than the VIP seats. Duly noted for the future. :)
Finally got round to seeing this today. A very enjoyable film I certainly didn't begrudge paying the ticket price (which is saying something as cinema visits are a rare occurence with me - usually 2-3 times a year). However, as mentioned a number of times already the plot was very simple and completely predictable but for this type of film it is I didn't really think that was a problem.
The 3D aspect was spectacular in some areas and distracting and annoying in others (it's early days though so hopefully this will improve in time? or maybe it's just the way it was shot as I've seen no other 3D films to compare it to).
One thing really took me out of the film though....and yes I know it was during an all out action sequence but it still doesn't excuse it for me! :p
Colonel Quaritch managing to get from the cockpit down into the belly of the ship into his mech and then run and jump out of the exploding ship and it's blast wave and hit the ground ready to fight? I actually laughed out loud to myself as I couldn't quite believe they had done something so incredibly lame. (It's almost like what your brain does in a dream when you realise halfway through it would be better to do something else as the way it's going will spoil something that could happen later on!)
Then moments later they handle beautifully the suspension of disbelief with the interaction between Neytiri and Jake in his human body. You get one bit so right and the other so wrong.
I really don't think it's worthy of the Best Picture and Director Oscar nominations. Whilst a very entertaining film I just don't think it's up there in that category. However, the other nominations seem justified, in fact I expect it to win many of them.
Despite my criticisms I think it's a good enjoyable watch and would recommend it to anyone who asked if it was worth seeing at the cinema.
leowyatt
01-03-2010, 22:36
Mubs, the man was as hard as nails! ;)
My favourite review:
NSFW
uJarz7BYnHA
Stick with it and get past the facetiousness and there's a lot of valid points in there; most of them the things that I didn't like about the film.
I took Mrs. Feek to see this today, I finally decided it was time we got around to seeing it.
I'd not indulged myself in any of the hype, I had absolutely no idea what it was about except there were blue people in it and I'd heard the term Smurfahontas bandied about. I've never seen Pocahontas and I know nothing about the story of that either so it really meant nothing to me except that there were blue people in it.
It was OK, I thought the 3D was nicely done and not in your face just for the sake of it, it was subtle and worked quite well although I did notice a certain jerkyness in some scenes that I found a little offputting. The 3D in the trailers before hand was far less subtle.
I sort of dozed for about ten minutes around the hour point, it was just after matey bloke had gone back to win their trust and integrate himself but after that I was with it to the end. Certain plot points stood out a mile in advance, some things were very obviously going to happen.
I still don't know the Pocahontas story but I've also heard it described as Dances with Smurfs and I'd agree with that.
It was a good way to spend an afternoon, I'm pleased that I've seen it.
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.