Avatar

[Kadri]

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 

[domdib]

@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.

[CCC]

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.   

[Oshyan]

@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

[Matt]

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!

[Matt]

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.

[Oshyan]

I wear glasses (nearsighted), and had them on under the 3D glasses...

- Oshyan

[TheBlackHole]

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.

[Kadri]

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

[Jack]

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

[Jack]

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.

[old_blaggard]

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).

[latego]

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?

[Seth]

I wear glasses , and had them on under the 3D glasses...

- Oshyan

me too
and no headache or anything bad happened to me ^^

[Kadri]

From a technical side it is maybe the best . But "The Best Film" excuse me but... Absurd !

Kadri.