http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/avatar/
WOW! :o Looks epic!
Severe awesomeness alert ;D
I have to see this in IMAX 3D, which means travelling for 1,5 hour, but I'm sure it will be worth it!
I've seen some shots of the game. It looks cool also.
I'm usually wary of something that looks like sorta "real" animation. But, this looks pretty good all around.
Oo'
Quote from: calico on August 21, 2009, 07:32:11 AM
I'm usually wary of something that looks like sorta "real" animation. But, this looks pretty good all around.
You mean, something that tries to be photoreal (kind of like the Final Fantasy movies)? In that case, I agree with you. The color palette of the trailer looks kind of weird, and the complete lack of story in the trailer leaves me a little skeptical about what might be in the movie.
You're talking about the "uncanny valley" I think :)
My guess is that it is way from finished. There was hardly sound in it for example, except for the music of course.
Don't know where I've read it but at the moment the CGI and other FX are ~50% finished, also quality-wise.
It is told that this movie will be the next level of 3D experience.
I believe its being released in 3D, so you will have too wear the funny glasses to see the whole Monty. The CG people do look a little too blue ... so maybe this is a teaser.
Yousa might'n be sayin dat, - Anytiing is bedder than Jar Jar. Yoosa follow me now, okeeday?
@matrix - LOL
@TU and @OB - Yes. That is what I'm thinking - "Uncanny Valley"
I'll still go see it. :-[
this isn't a trailer, it's just a teaser.
there was a screening in IMAX 3D last night of about 16 mins of the film, 3 whole scenes plus a sizzle reel like the teaser...
it was INCREDIBLE.
I do this stuff for a living and have a number of friends working on this at Weta...
it's just about the best CG I've ever seen...and even though I don't much like the design of the Na'vi I think it will grow on me when watching the whole film.
Thanks goldfarb. I might be more looking forward to seeing it now, based on your witness. ;D
New Theatrical trailer out now, looks even better now imo and bloody epic, watch in HD if you can, link to yahoo on page
http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/10/29/avatar-full-theatrical-trailer/
Thanks, this new trailer is really better.
Kadri.
Hmm... well, looks like they just revealed the story of the entire movie.
I'll still go see it for the pretty colors, though :P.
Quote from: old_blaggard on October 29, 2009, 09:13:48 PM
Hmm... well, looks like they just revealed the story of the entire movie.
I'll still go see it for the pretty colors, though :P.
You are right Old_blaggard. Some trailers are like a summary.
Is it me or not i don't know, but i remember that the studios were more carefull in the past about revealing the story or to much in trailers ?
Kadri
It really depends on the movie and the director, I think.
I really hope there will be a way to see it without all this 3D crap, because if your sight is not perfect (like mine, I am shortsighted and, as often happens, the two eyes are different >:( ), the only thing you get is a monumental headache (just google for 3d headache glasses...)
Bye...
P.S.: the only real reason for 3D is that 3D movies cannot (and probably will not for a long time) piratable from a hidden camera you carry into the theather.
if you put one of the lenses from the glasses in front of the camcorder lens then it can be filmed - and most pirated movies come from a post or duplication facility...
and I think the film will play in 2D theatres as well as 3D
Looks like fun.
latego... couldn't you just wear contacts or just put the 3D spec over your glasses? I have managed to watch 3D without the headache.
Quote from: goldfarb on October 30, 2009, 12:56:23 PM
and I think the film will play in 2D theatres as well as 3D
...this is my hope.
Any lucky basterds here who were able to see it already?
I'm going the day after tomorrow. Luckily they have adapted one theatre here to a brand new IMAX 3D theatre, so I will be able to see it in full glory, can't wait ;D
Quote from: Tangled-Universe on December 14, 2009, 10:43:10 AM
Any lucky basterds here who were able to see it already?
I'm going the day after tomorrow. Luckily they have adapted one theatre here to a brand new IMAX 3D theatre, so I will be able to see it in full glory, can't wait ;D
I plan on going Friday evening, saw the trailer at the website and it looks awesome.
Damn !!!
I have to wait 2 more weeks so my kids will be away for holidays...
I want to watch this movie !
I already got loge tickets for Saturday afternoon. Of course for the 3D version of the film ;)
Can't wait!
Cheers,
Frank
Hi Guys,
Yesterday I went to our freshly built IMAX theatre here in Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
I never went to an IMAX theatre before and was amazed by the huge screensize and the laser-alligned audio was truly amazing and utterly loud ;D
Avatar was really really amazing! There are no words to describe how beautiful it is made and so extremely convincing! Simple story, effectively told and worked out, but also acted quite nicely. Say; story 7 out of 10.
Pandora and its lush tropical forests with so many plants and trees, they all look so freaky real!
Some camera shots looking up in the canopy, with all the translucency and dense wet atmosphere. It looks soooooo good and realistic.
The 3D effect really adds to the realism and feeling of really being there.
The animation of the Na'vi and pretty much all the CGI characters is near flawless. Near flawless, yes, but I assure you that the average viewer won't notice any flaw.
Just in some cases the interaction with CGI characters with the environment/floor is not as extremely convincing. However, this is not happening to the main characters, mostly in the background. Say; CGI >10 out of 10 ;)
I could write for an hour here about it, but, especially as "TG-engineers", you just have to go and see it. I might even see it again so I just can watch it in awe without focussing on the story but only on the visuals. This is really one of my best cinema-experiences ever among Jurassic Park, Terminator 2 and LOTR.
Martin
I'm envious. I have to wait until Saturday :)
Just saw it in IMAX 3D as well. I found the visuals to be absolutely amazing, but something was up with the alignment of some of the shots, making them jerky and blurry within the 3D effect. Additionally, the dialog and some of the characterizations of the natives were in some cases so poor that it jerked you out of the world that was created, which is really too bad. In my opinion, it brought what could have been a fantastic, compelling film destined to be a classic both in storytelling and visual effects down to more of a standard Hollywood VFX-fest level. However, those who can get past the cheesiness inherent to so many moments and actions will still absolutely love it, and those who can't will still find a whole lot there to be entertained by.
As Martin said, I certainly recommend it for the visual effects, and also simply as a good film; but not a great one.
Not an expert about graphics or even about storyline, but I have seen lots of movie and this one rates at the top of my list. I have not seen a movie this good for about 10 years. But, I recommend seeing this in 3D IMAX (with the glasses). I'm not sure there is a better way to see this one.
It's an amazing film. I felt like I was there.
If we want to be critical, I found maybe two shots out of the entire film that the perspective was a little off. 2 whole shots. Not hardly a deal breaker. Rottentomatoes rates this as 83%, so I'm in good company when I say "GO SEE IT!!". ;D
I've seen the film last Saturday, 3D of course.
(By the way, my brother went with me, we's wearing glasses. He could just conveniently put the 3D glasses over his glasses and was just fine).
It was absolutely the best cinematic experience I ever had. I had to promise myself to just watch the story, and not investigate the CG, or analyze it, or anything other distracting. Just sit there instead and really watch the movie. This is just a great story, and the apparent director's love to details really made this whole world a complex and whole one.
The 3D was just perfect, in the sense that it wasn't "stuffed" with thing that come at you or point at you, or otherwise pop "out" of the screen. Instead - and that's good - the 3D was mainly there to give yo a sense of depth, towards the screen and beyond, giving you the impression to really be there.
Of course there where things that came towards you, but it wasn't overdone.
If you have to watch the movie in 2D, it's still very much worth it. Great story, great visuals. If you just watch and enjoy the movie, like I did, you will rarely "wake up" because something looks CG. Most of the CG world and characters look very real most of the time.
I didn't realize until I booked my seat that the film was actually quite long, and I am happy about that. It gave the story enough room to develop their characters and the world they were on. The culture of the Na'Vi and their spiritual way of life.
Great stuff. I will definitely see this film a second time, just like TU probably will. I never watch films twice, usually. That should tell you what my rating for this movie would be ;)
Cheers,
Frank
Seen it today and I must say: a must see!
Story is okay. Nothing groundbreaking, but still interesting and I liked the characters. The visuals are breathtaking though. I watched it on a "regular" screen with reald technology, they use circular polarized lenses which has the advantage that you can move your head without loosing the 3d effect.
The visuals would have been great in a regular movie - but 3D was just amazing.
Saw it in the Glasgow IMAX - my jaw is still on the floor ;) We knew Cameron could do action and romance (of which there is plenty) - but we didn't know he could do beauty! My guess is this will become the defining film for all young geeks - a bit like Star Wars was for my generation.
Am going to see it again next Monday with my wife - this time in a regular cinema, so I can compare the two - all in the interests of scientific research, you understand ;)
http://www.cinematical.com/2009/12/22/the-geek-beat-bury-my-heart-on-pandora/
http://io9.com/5422666/when-will-white-people-stop-making-movies-like-avatar
Cheers.
Kadri.
Good links. I like it when people do some more intensive readings into films like this.
no, not really into depth. This sentence : "and its ilk as white fantasies about race" and that one: "When will whites stop making these movies and start thinking about race in a new way" shows, that the writer himself should start thinking about race in a new way.
For me (only read one link, I have to admit), this is just a white person trying to be overly political correct, not more and not less.
And this often leads to strange results.
Just as an example: here in germany they had a disucussion about a school book. Some people claimed it was "mild" racists (sorry, hard to write stuff like that in english for me, I hope you get what I mean).
They claimed in this book only german children where visible - but there have to be other races too - because in school there are a lot of foreign people.
Then the authors said, okay, we rename some of the kids - but that also was not okay, because there was no "visible sign" that they are foreign.
So sometime those overly, political correct people are very racist themselves. Because for them the foreign kids had to be of other color. And apart from that - do we then need different books for different schools? I mean, we have schools where the percentage of foreign people is about 75%, other schools the percantage is probably just 15%. So do we need a book for each "percentage" that reflects the world out there.
If people have to fight about stuff like this, then we still have a "race problem". If people would get over it and simply would not care if its asian, african, european or whatever, then the problem would be solved. But I fear this won´t be the case, because there always will be "anti-" people, there always will be overly political correct people that have to be "anti-anti".
And about stories repeated over and over again - this happens since the greeks.
I have to agree with Walli here.
In the US we have many PC people as well that are quite common in most news media with a few celebrities. Our school system and some politicians are notorious for this silly ideology. Personally i do not believe in race (i believe in cultures) and believe all people should be equal. After all were only humans, right. One race, the human race.
Quote from: Kadri on December 22, 2009, 09:48:13 PM
http://io9.com/5422666/when-will-white-people-stop-making-movies-like-avatar
Cheers.
Kadri.
What a STUPID article! I never get around as to why some people like to interprete all sorts of mad things into stories, dissecting it based on ridiculous assumptions, ... instead of just enjoying the story. ???
Quote from: FrankB on December 23, 2009, 07:14:26 AM
....
What a STUPID article! I never get around as to why some people like to interprete all sorts of mad things into stories,
dissecting it based on ridiculous assumptions, ... instead of just enjoying the story. ???
FrankB , Walli is right in a way. But the article has right points too i think . I am sick with films , romans (Tarzan ?), comics etc.
with one man , who happens to be white and someone from Europa or ABD and such ,
who teaches new and most of the time better (!) ways of life and technology to the natives .
I liked the film in a way .For the visual world he created so real.
But the problem
is the Story , FrankB unfortunately .
The problem is a little more broader then race i think ....imperialism ,
capitalism etc. would maybe more appropriate . But race problems come with this too...
Kadri.
In this story, the exact opposite happens. The hero (and the imperialistic culture) is not successful with teaching things to the natives, instead the natives have the superior culture and way of life.
There is no hint that in the distant future that white is somehow superior among mankind. It's just mankind "in general" that is invading an alien world.
Anyway, the invaders are not displayed as the better culture, the opposite is the case.
Cheers,
Frank
You are right , Frank . But in the end who becomes the leader of the native rebellion , or the natives in general ?
Kadri.
a man, reborn as a native ;)
:)
Great. That article could have ruined Avatar for millions before they even get a chance to see it. Then they would go on and on about how they hate the movie because it's "racist" (which it's not) without even seeing it, thus ruining it for millions more and if it was published just before the release and referenced by a huge, popular site, Avatar could have been a flop just because of one article.
Sometimes a stick is just a stick. English class nearly ruined my enjoyment of reading with all the stuff about analysis of the stories. Thank god I re-learned how to just enjoy the story.
Guys i understand your feelings and thoughts but i have friends who would puke on such a film and i can understand them too .
What you are saying is like put your reason behind and only watch it with your feelings. I don't think that is right.
Especially in a film that speaks about imperialism-capitalism environmentalism and such .
You can not handle these kind of thinks with only your feelings or enjoy the story kind approach .
Writing like this seems that i only watch art films or so... No!
In my background are films like Star wars and such films beside the really good ones , so i can relate.
I want to say it in this way :
What Star Wars was and is today , Avatar will (nearly ... because i think it is really much better then Star Wars) be the same 40 years later.
Groundbreaking (or great) in visuals but really flawed in substance .
Cheers.
Kadri.
But anyway... 30 years later Star Wars is still everywhere . So ...
Never mind ...
Or should we ?
Kadri.
Exclusive Interview With James Cameron ... about the vfx .
Near the 11 minute mark it got more interesting for me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aao0YSITuxc
Kadri.
Having looked at the io9 article and the GeekBeat one, I'd say that the perspective of the writers is balanced out by some of the commenters. It's always easier to pick holes than to make constructive points.
I think that Cameron makes a good broad argument that all oppressive exploitative ideologies are dangerous and wrong. To be more nuanced in his argument, he would have needed a 4 hour movie (will there be a Director's cut??? And there is nuance too - just reflect for a moment on the motives of Grace - how pure are they?). Let's not forget that Cameron makes these points in the context of a mega-blockbuster whose pace scarcely flags for 2 hours 40 minutes, and which in addition looks positively ravishing. He may paint the aliens as a little too noble, but they're not perfect (I won't say why to avoid spoilers).
One of the io9 commenters makes the good point that it's unusual to be cheering on the aliens against humans. All in all, the story is more sophisticated than Star Wars, yet at the same time manages to deploy recognisable archetypes intelligently in a kick-ass action movie that's nicely leavened by romance and looks absolutely stunning. What's not to like?
Saw it this afternoon. The 3D was a little too realistic, though. In the scene where Jake wakes up after the destruction of the Home Tree, there were ashes flying all over and I saw one that looked like it came right out of the screen and then I felt something in my eye! ;D
Quote from: Kadri on December 23, 2009, 05:52:22 PM
Exclusive Interview With James Cameron ... about the vfx .
Near the 11 minute mark it got more interesting for me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aao0YSITuxc
Kadri.
Wow what an amazing interview, thanks a lot for posting it.
This is not just another sanitised movie interview with a journalist asking the same old questions. It's like Jim Cameron has gone round to this persons house, sat on her couch, she has turned on her budged camcorder and they just had a chat about all the interesting techie stuff about the film. They go into a lot more detail about the cgi than you wouldn't normally get in an interview such as the GI, self shadowing etc. Highly recommended.
I can't wait to see where Jim Cameron goes with the technology over his next few films.
Here comes my review. As the IMAX theater was completely sold out I had to downgrade to the regular screen 3D version. For those of you with glasses, unless they're oversized, don't worry, the 3D glasses will fit over them just fine.
But on to the movie. I was blown away by this one. I am sure the 3D effects are a big part of it, I have a hard time believing I could be so absorbed by this movie without it, but so are the cinematics and the world one enters. Luckily, my expectations for the characters and story were greatly tamped down to begin with - having seen the trailer and reading a few reviews helped a lot. It proved to be very true - nothing original about the story and the dialog at times is quite painful. Luckily, that let me fully concentrate on what I was looking at - and that just filled my senses to the brim. What a ride! Yeah, for this bundle of cash you would expect something extraordinary, but this is something that truly pushes the boundaries.
I propose Peter Jackson drop all current commitments and get to work on LOTR 3D. $300 million or so should not be hard to come up with for funding. As computer technology has evolved quite a bit as well, I shudder at how those monsters would end up looking today 8)
Quote from: reck on December 29, 2009, 06:55:41 AM
...
Wow what an amazing interview...
This is not just another sanitised movie interview with a journalist asking the same old questions. It's like Jim Cameron has gone round to this persons house, sat on her couch, she has turned on her budged camcorder and they just had a chat about all the interesting techie stuff about the film. They go into a lot more detail about the cgi than you wouldn't normally get in an interview such as the GI, self shadowing etc. Highly recommended.
...
I thought the same. Most interviews are really standard question-answer routine .
This was in depth and really informative. First i thought nearly 30 minutes...too long...but then ı wanted more of it :)
Cheers.
Kadri.
Hey techhie types! Check out the hardware that rendered this movie:
http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2009/12/22/the-data-crunching-powerhouse-behind-avatar/
http://www.newsweek.com/id/227737
Only 3 pages . Not so much new things. But the last page was interesting for me.
" CAMERON: I think you're right. What's interesting in the marketing evolution of Avatar is that we put out a teaser trailer that was all about the imagery,
and people were less than satisfied, because they weren't learning enough about the story.
We put out a story trailer that set the stage and told you what the main character was, and all of a sudden people were wildly excited about the movie.
There's the proof within the marketing evolution of a single film. "
With directors James Cameron and Peter Jackson .
Kadri.
LOL
Quote from: TheBlackHole on December 26, 2009, 09:10:58 PM
Saw it this afternoon. The 3D was a little too realistic, though. In the scene where Jake wakes up after the destruction of the Home Tree, there were ashes flying all over and I saw one that looked like it came right out of the screen and then I felt something in my eye! ;D
Quote from: matrix2003 on December 31, 2009, 05:59:12 AM
Hey techhie types! Check out the hardware that rendered this movie:
http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2009/12/22/the-data-crunching-powerhouse-behind-avatar/
That is definately a Powerhouse to envy!!! 8)
Well, I finally saw it. I must say I was a bit underwhelmed, especially after all the hype. Are the environments beautiful and well-rendered? Absolutely. Do they look virtually photoreal at all times? Unfortunately not, but a reasonable amount of the time I suppose they do. Are there some glaring flaws? Absolutely. Well, glaring to me at least. But the visuals aren't really what disappointed me so much, at least not the computer graphics.
Instead it was the 3D and IMAX theater I saw it in and, as I have now heard from others who have seen it elsewhere, this does not seem to be entirely unique to me. The 3D effect does work, but it makes a 70 foot tall screen look a lot smaller (still big, but not nearly as impressive), and worst of all it makes almost everything look slightly fuzzy at all times. This was really disappointing considering I paid extra not only for IMAX but also for 3D. So now I am thinking I might see it in 2D in a regular theater to see the comparison.
The other thing that was disappointing, though expected, was the story and dialog. But honestly I did not expect how really pretty bad it would be. This is a movie that borrows more than just a little from many better movies that came before, from Dances With Wolves to The Matrix to Braveheart and many more, and they're not just general concepts or little things, there are some pretty blatantly copied things.
Visually, as I said it was fairly impressive, but I didn't find it to be hugely creative. The main alien race was so humanoid it was almost not worth calling them alien (I imagine this was to keep them as easy to empathize with as possible), and all the creatures of the planet seemed to basically be versions of Earth creatures with a couple extra limbs and reptilian skin. There is a dog analog, bird analog, horse analog, and so on. All stick to the same formula - take away all the hair (one wonders if this was a rendering issue), add some limbs, make the face more scary/toothy, and you're done. Nevermind the creation of totally unique species. Heck some even had the same name as Earth creatures - lemur, for example.
And the vegetation? Why 50% or more of it looked almost exactly like our vegetation. It was only at night that much of it looked different, and that was just glowing. Beautiful, yes, but honestly not that creative IMHO.
So yeah, Avatar is maybe a small landmark in the evolution of 3D, but not as large as anyone thought I think. Pirates of the Caribbean still impressed me more, and even Benjamin Button, despite not totally succeeding at suspension of disbelief, still had a harder task and accomplished it better I think.
Still, I will probably see it again and line Cameron's pockets even more, just to satisfy my curiosity about 3D vs. 2D. Given the great hype at CES this year about 3D coming to the home, I'm quite curious to see just how it affects the quality of presentation. If it's as bad as I fear, I have strong doubts that 3D will become popular at home any time soon. But do keep my experience of the softening 3D effect in mind when considering my opinion of the visuals. Perhaps I'll be more impressed when I see it in 2D...
- Oshyan
I think i was a bit more unimpressed by Cameron's world and story. The story itself was formulaic. I did not feel for any of the protagonists because mainly due to i think we did not get to know them well enough and events were taking place to quickly. The natives and creatures were in fact not very alien when one looks at what HR Giger did for the Space Jockey design, now there is something other worldly which in effect inspired me to create my own odd worlds in my spare time trying my best to make a world seem less familiar to earth rather then familiar but by no means am i against anyone film maker being inspired by the world around them, however i feel that lessens the experience of something fantastic.
I just wish with all of the time and money put into a mass scale of a film production that we would see something more alien and a better layed out plot and characters you care about. I felt more for Wall-E, a trash robot then i did any of the Na'Vi, let alone Jake. I was thinking Dances With Wolves as well, i though ah man, Cameron, come on, you did so well for Terminator 2, Aliens. What happened there?
The film score was even mundane. I read that Horner said that this was his most ambitious score to date. Not really, what made me even think less alien and more earthy was the themes and instruments he used throughout the score. A lot of Celtic, South American sounds. This could never top Goldsmith's Alien score which he used a multitude of out of place instruments that most composers do not use as well as running some though a tape echo to get some really odd acoustic sounds. Horner used to do better before he toned his flair down since the mid 90s.
The floating terrains are nothing new if anyone has ever played the Shatter Zone pen and paper RPG so to me it was no big deal. Seen it in ink. The forests were just a glorified amazon thing with ocean stuff thrown in. The Na'Vi were like the Mayan and Native Americans of the US so what i summed up was a big deal reaction to most of the aspects of the Na'Vi.
Benjamin Button i had only seen once. Could never watch it again because it made a grown man cry but Wall-E did the same thing.
I can't be to up on 3d myself. I mean i feel that it is very hard to bring the high-end theater experience to most costumers in such a way as to emulate the HD 3D thing and this is coming from a person who used to work with multi-millionaires a few years ago and do a bit of home theater until the market crashed. I don't think you can justify a large enough screen, a uber expensive projector or TV, enough speakers, banana cable and so on. I think for the most part the theater will still serve its grand purpose.
funny how the impressions vary. For example, I totally regret to have rented the Benjamin Button movie once, and Wall-E was as lame as it can get :)
... for me, that is.
Whether you liked the movie or not, you should get a kick out of this: http://failblog.org/2010/01/10/avatar-plot-fail/
Quote from: old_blaggard on January 10, 2010, 11:30:43 AM
Whether you liked the movie or not, you should get a kick out of this: http://failblog.org/2010/01/10/avatar-plot-fail/
LOL ;D
@Oshyan - I'm slightly surprised that you found IMAX fuzzy - I didn't notice this - although obviously, if you take the glasses off it looks horribly blurred. I wonder if you had a pair of sub-standard specs?
I also wonder if the 3D effect varies with your position relative to the screen - I went to see it again in a regular theatre, still in 3D, and it seemed that, in places where the 3D was marked in the IMAX theatre (like the landing of the shuttle at the start), it wasn't so obvious, and conversely, I don't remember being "surrounded" by the falling ash after the big destruction scene in the IMAX, but it was very evident in the regular theatre. Does anyone know of any evidence for this?
Edit: Apparently the 3D system in IMAX is different from regular theatres, so that might explain the discrepancies noted in my previous para.
Quote from: FrankB on January 10, 2010, 06:57:33 AM
funny how the impressions vary. For example, I totally regret to have rented the Benjamin Button movie once, and Wall-E was as lame as it can get :)
... for me, that is.
This is the first time i had ever come across someone who thought that about Wall-E. ;D
Quote from: domdib on January 10, 2010, 05:33:02 PM
@Oshyan - I'm slightly surprised that you found IMAX fuzzy - I didn't notice this - although obviously, if you take the glasses off it looks horribly blurred. I wonder if you had a pair of sub-standard specs?
I also wonder if the 3D effect varies with your position relative to the screen - I went to see it again in a regular theatre, still in 3D, and it seemed that, in places where the 3D was marked in the IMAX theatre (like the landing of the shuttle at the start), it wasn't so obvious, and conversely, I don't remember being "surrounded" by the falling ash after the big destruction scene in the IMAX, but it was very evident in the regular theatre. Does anyone know of any evidence for this?
My girlfriend also saw the fuzziness, so it probably wasn't the glasses. Might have been where we were setting, but we were about as close to the center of the theater as one could probably get without counting rows and seats, so I doubt it's that either. Like I said it may have been the older IMAX theater, the Sony Metreon, and I haven't seen a 3D IMAX movie in another theater yet so I can't compare. But if that's what's being shown to all of the San Francisco area, and it's sub-standard, someone has a lot to answer for!
Frank: I wasn't saying Benjamin Button was necessarily a better or worse movie, just that the 3D effects, the character rendering, was no less impressive than Avatar, and perhaps more so in some cases.
- Oshyan
Quote from: Oshyan on January 10, 2010, 12:26:08 AM
The 3D effect does work, but it makes a 70 foot tall screen look a lot smaller (still big, but not nearly as impressive), and worst of all it makes almost everything look slightly fuzzy at all times.
I haven't seen it yet, but I wonder if the softness has something to do with whether you are short or long sighted. If the 3D makes the screen look smaller, that tells me that many of the scene could have focal planes much nearer than the physical screen. If your eyes converge on a point that's nearer than the screen, your brain naturally wants to focus your your individual eyes' lenses on a point that's nearer too, which means they won't focus perfectly on the physical screen if you have normal vision. If you're short sighted it will be even worse, unless you're wearing glasses that correct the near-sightedness.
Edit: seems I didn't know what "driving glasses" meant!
Also, I don't think the physical size of the screen should matter, at least not in terms of its absolute size. If I watch it in 3D, I want the 3D effect to fool me into thinking that there is no screen :) I just want a large screen for the increased field of view.
I wear glasses (nearsighted), and had them on under the 3D glasses...
- Oshyan
I saw it in just a normal theater and the 3D effect wasn't fuzzy and the 3D didn't change or fall apart if you moved.
I think this Avatar thing (!) is going to for a little too long...but
http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/11/avatar.movie.blues/index.html
Hmm... no comment .
Kadri
Quote from: Kadri on January 12, 2010, 03:26:29 PM
I think this Avatar thing (!) is going to for a little too long...but
http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/11/avatar.movie.blues/index.html
Hmm... no comment .
Kadri
Haha look at that fat guy with the pizza lol
I finally watched avatar today in 3d and it was singularly the best cinema experience I have ever had .it was not just the graphics it was the way the characters acted and how believable they were, and the attention to detail was second to none.
I also found the story straight forward and at sometimes very emotional :'( especially when their tree home came crashing down in flames and i felt their pain that mere ignorant and greedy humans could destroy such a beautiful piece of nature.
so overall I absolutely enjoyed the movie not only for the graphics but the story and the emotions it generated, very rarely a movie touches my emotions with the exception of schindler's list and blood diamond.
So it just won the Golden Globe for Best Drama and Cameron got Best Director. This bugs me, because while the visuals were well-done, I hardly think Cameron did a truly inspirational job directing and it certainly wasn't as good of a film as many others that I've seen this year (e.g. Inglourious Basterds and Un Prophète).
Quote from: Oshyan on January 10, 2010, 10:56:00 PM
I wear glasses (nearsighted), and had them on under the 3D glasses...
...and didn't you get the headache and the seasickness many have reported?
Quote from: Oshyan on January 10, 2010, 10:56:00 PM
I wear glasses , and had them on under the 3D glasses...
- Oshyan
me too :)
and no headache or anything bad happened to me ^^
From a technical side it is maybe the best . But "The Best Film" excuse me but... Absurd !
Kadri.
Quote from: wetbanana on January 17, 2010, 03:47:57 AM
I finally watched avatar today in 3d and it was singularly the best cinema experience I have ever had .it was not just the graphics it was the way the characters acted and how believable they were, and the attention to detail was second to none.
I also found the story straight forward and at sometimes very emotional :'( especially when their tree home came crashing down in flames and i felt their pain that mere ignorant and greedy humans could destroy such a beautiful piece of nature.
so overall I absolutely enjoyed the movie not only for the graphics but the story and the emotions it generated, very rarely a movie touches my emotions with the exception of schindler's list and blood diamond.
I add "The Color Purple" (1985) to your list cause when "he" (Denny Glover) said: "She is too ugly for my tastes", I was like OMG!!!!! :o
I watched it here in Salvador (Brazil) in a shopping center and didn't noticed any fuzzyness and used the glasses over glasses too. ;)
No headache or dizzyness for me. My girlfriend complained of a bit of a headache though.
This is a superb reflection of my experience of Avatar: http://autotelic.com/avatar_-_the_metacontextual_edition
Highly recommended and hilarious read!
- Oshyan
Quote from: Oshyan on January 21, 2010, 01:26:20 AM
...
This is a superb reflection of my experience of Avatar: http://autotelic.com/avatar_-_the_metacontextual_edition
Highly recommended and hilarious read!
- Oshyan
:)
That's fantastic ;).
Well I finally saw it a couple days ago. Regular screen/ 3D.
I am very sad to report that I am truly disappointed.
I am disappointed that Cameron did not come up with his techniques 30 years ago!
Terminator, The Matrix, Star Wars... all shot like this. Hell -Minority Report, or the mother ship: Blade Runner.
I was blown away, and hope that Cameron gets very rich, - selling this technology to ever film maker on the planet.