My feelings as well. I think it's similar to how a reviewer spoke about Uncharted 2: "It's every cliche from every Indiana Jones/Action-Adventure movie cooked to perfection."
- Status
I just thought I should mention I, surprising even myself, enjoyed the movie quite a bit.
Yes, the plot is nothing new... but it makes sense. The studio would not have risked giving Cameron 300million for a untested plot in an untested technology. So they went with the safer route of tested plot in untested technology. That was the breakthrough... this movie is going to change how filmmaking is done, and that's what I found impressive. Now that they know the technology works, we're going to see more risks being taken.
Yes, I'm with you in aaall the grievances you might have with the plot, I agree with all of them. But that doesn't detract from the fact that Avatar made me feel like a kid going to the theatre for the first time. And that's a fucking good feeling to have, and I thank Cameron for it.
And I look forward to the ripples his film is going to cause.
Yes, the plot is nothing new... but it makes sense. The studio would not have risked giving Cameron 300million for a untested plot in an untested technology. So they went with the safer route of tested plot in untested technology. That was the breakthrough... this movie is going to change how filmmaking is done, and that's what I found impressive. Now that they know the technology works, we're going to see more risks being taken.
Yes, I'm with you in aaall the grievances you might have with the plot, I agree with all of them. But that doesn't detract from the fact that Avatar made me feel like a kid going to the theatre for the first time. And that's a fucking good feeling to have, and I thank Cameron for it.
And I look forward to the ripples his film is going to cause.
The thing is, Cameron has REALLY been touting the story, as opposed to the tech. Well, he tout's both, but in many interviews he made it clear that the story was very important to him and the story drove the tech and the story is what he hopes people will care about. Which he has been rather eye-gougingly, tear-inducingly wrong about.
ElJuski
Staff member
I should also mention that I have no real ANGER or anything over this dumb movie. It was just dumb, is all, and looked like it cost howmany million. Of course the story isn't going to be risky, trying, or anything other than an action movie. It's just a shame, though, that even dumb action movies can have a good plot while still being true to what they are.
BINGO, with this and Alice in Wonderland, I think it's really going to bring about the long thought dead 3D revolution in movie making.
Yes, I know that this is FAR from the first movie to use the RealD 3D technology, but it garnered the most attention for it, and will really be pivotal in forwarding that technology.
Frankly i was more impressed with this 1994 documentary: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110150/
Of course for some reason Avatar didn't use the whole IMAX screen, so it didn't seem like it reached to the seat in frnt of you, and the documentary wasn't CGI, so those factors might have something to do with it too.
And 3D is fine for movies you go see for the effects/pretty pictures, but frankly those glasses are too annoying otherwise.
Of course for some reason Avatar didn't use the whole IMAX screen, so it didn't seem like it reached to the seat in frnt of you, and the documentary wasn't CGI, so those factors might have something to do with it too.
And 3D is fine for movies you go see for the effects/pretty pictures, but frankly those glasses are too annoying otherwise.
North_Ranger
Staff member
Amen to that, brain-tripod.
I got a bad headache from wearing those... and it didn't help that at times there were glitches in the film when the colours shifted into that twin red-and-green even with glasses before reverting to normal. I guess that was reels being changed...
They should be giving clear 3d glasses. Those red and greens were not meant for human eyes.
Amen to that, brain-tripod.
I got a bad headache from wearing those... and it didn't help that at times there were glitches in the film when the colours shifted into that twin red-and-green even with glasses before reverting to normal. I guess that was reels being changed...[/QUOTE]
I saw it in a theater with a digital projector so that never happened woth me.
North_Ranger
Staff member
Well, it was pretty dark in the theater, so I didn't really get a good look at the colour of the lenses. But if you look at a 3-D movie without them, it looks like two 'ghost images', one red, one green, all hazy and misty. That 'blinked' in some shots when I was watching Avatar.
That is a terrible version of 3D, you need to see it in the RealD 3d. It does require a special screen and cameras, so I don't know how that works out in your area, but the difference between the old red/green 3D and the RealD 3D is night and day.
The point I'm making is that this movie will encourage more theaters to be compatable with the technology.
No one is saying that the movie is important because of the CGI, Story, or actor's portrayals, the impact of the movie is that it's ushering in a new type of movie watching experience.
Super high tech cinema?
Dudes, I live in a third world country and even *I* get access to the Real3D transparent 3D glasses awesomeness... 15 minutes from my house. For a bit less than 7 USD a ticket, which is expensive as FUCK for a movie ticket down here. Top notch theater, too.
I haven't seen bi-colored 3D glasses since like the late 90s.
Dudes, I live in a third world country and even *I* get access to the Real3D transparent 3D glasses awesomeness... 15 minutes from my house. For a bit less than 7 USD a ticket, which is expensive as FUCK for a movie ticket down here. Top notch theater, too.
I haven't seen bi-colored 3D glasses since like the late 90s.
ElJuski
Staff member
Well you lucky duck.
Also, yeah, I can see that. Getting that tech out there is a good thing.
Imax is a different aspect ratio than normal movies. Unless something is specifically filmed for Imax it isn't going to use the entire screen. I fucking hate to use this as an example, but Transformers 2 had had specific Imax shots filmed for it. Of course Michael Bay edited them in at random so the screen would just enlarge for maybe a second at a time before popping back to regular movie aspect ratio.
The Dark Knight also had a few IMAX sequences in there. Not as random and haphazard and shitty as Transformers 2, though.
I first used the mono-colored 3d glasses around 20 years ago, so I'm amazed there are places that still use red-green glasses.
And in other news, Avatar has become the fastest movie to achieve $1billion in global ticket sales.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8438824.stm
Wouldn't it be hilarious if it kept going and overtook Titanic to become the number 1 box office hit.
And in other news, Avatar has become the fastest movie to achieve $1billion in global ticket sales.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8438824.stm
Wouldn't it be hilarious if it kept going and overtook Titanic to become the number 1 box office hit.
I am fairly certain I will never see Avatar again. I would have to give it a lot of thought even if someone paid for my IMAX ticket.
So you're saying it wasn't filmed for it, or what?!
J
JCM
At leat you dont see Avatar, in its Real 3D glory, with shitty portuguese dubbing.
In Brazil, its Portuguese dubbed, or subbed, except the subbed version isnt in 3D (and I have no idea how one could put subs in a 3D movie)
So you're saying it wasn't filmed for it, or what?![/QUOTE]
Yes exactly that. Mainly because filming in Imax is obscenely expensive compared to traditional 70 mm film.
R
RealBigNuke
If you watch the subtitles it makes your head hurt coz they're 2D....[/QUOTE]
And papyrus
So you're saying it wasn't filmed for it, or what?![/QUOTE]
Yes exactly that. Mainly because filming in Imax is obscenely expensive compared to traditional 70 mm film.[/QUOTE]
And they only had like a 200 million budget...
So you're saying it wasn't filmed for it, or what?![/QUOTE]
Yes exactly that. Mainly because filming in Imax is obscenely expensive compared to traditional 70 mm film.[/QUOTE]
And they only had like a 200 million budget...[/QUOTE]
Imax can pump up production costs by 3 to 5 times. That's significant for any movie's budget.
A
Alex B.
IMAX also uses an entirely different camera and film stock, etc. It's a big deal to film that way. Be thankful, though, that they didn't just stretch the image to fit the IMAX screen. That would have sucked.
At any rate, if you didn't see the movie in digital 3D you really missed out. This was the first I'd watched anything in 3D since that Micheal Jackson movie when I was like 8. The glasses were a little annoying at first, but I managed to focus on the movie and put them out of my mind, and I totally forgot I was wearing them after that.
At any rate, if you didn't see the movie in digital 3D you really missed out. This was the first I'd watched anything in 3D since that Micheal Jackson movie when I was like 8. The glasses were a little annoying at first, but I managed to focus on the movie and put them out of my mind, and I totally forgot I was wearing them after that.
- Status