Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Avatar time!!!

I honestly don't get the negativity.
I would have thought that in the RED forum of all places, where people should by definition be interested in technological advancement and new ways to make cinema, there would be a more positive response.
I saw the IMAX 3D twice and I deliberately sat at two very different places in the theater.
First time was in the middle, the second time near the back.
For the most part, the middle provided a better experience and a more "true" 3D immersion - and it was bloody spectacular. The fact that I was watching blue CGI characters did not even enter my mind. It only took a few seconds to be completely immersed in the world, which looked incredibly real. I did not notice any of the foliage looking "plastic".
The second time was different. The depth of the 3D was not as spectacular, and therefore felt less like "being there" and more like looking at a 3D movie.
I also think sitting too close to the screen might be an issue because of 24p blur. Action scenes could get disorienting, especially if the image is covering your field of vision.
So, I'll be sitting near the middle when the movie finally comes out.
I find it sad how much negativity there is. It's almost like the Titanic backlash (which I still don't understand - it's a great movie) is happening before the movie comes out - which leads me to believe it has more to do with the filmmaker than anything else.

There were a total of two shots that didn't look "real" for me. Both involved Sam Worthington's character Jake Sully, hitting the ground. Each one had a distinct "non-contact" feel. But that's less than 2 seconds worth of frames in a 15 minute presentation. I have a feeling people's expectations are getting just a tad high.
How spoiled are we, when a fully photo realistic alien environment is "meh" or "zzzz"?
I'm reminded of a recent Louis CK rant:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXStPqhLmIk
 
Jeff I don't share your opinion that Hollywood ever had a golden age of sci-fi. Unless of course you're talking about the 80s and early 90s. But even then just this year alone we've had D9 and Moon.
 
I would most certainly count Empire Strikes Back and the original trilogy as Sci-Fi. It's a space opera, after all, like Flash Gordon. It's also Adventure, to be sure, with Action and Fantasy.

For me the golden age of sci-fi would be the late 70s and early 80s. Since then, there have been very few decent entires in this category, IMO. Even fewer if we are talking strictly about space warfare and alien worlds.
 
I totally agree with you Jeff.

I was underwhelmed by the trailer. But I also know that trailers are usually rushed and the vfx typically aren't final. My biggest peeve with fx heavy movies is that I hate when films that look overtly like concept art. Typically over saturated, overly well composed, hyper real vistas...etc... The trailer did have a very flat matte painting look to it and I found it too jarring the way the live action people didn't quite fit into nearly entire cg environment. It just look too much like an animated film. I hope it looks better.

The movie faces a difficult challenge with the particular art direction they took. The over-saturation is unrealistic and looks like digital art. It makes it harder for us to accept visually as reality. And with little in the scene grounded in reality and little real environments, it's that much harder.

The key to all this, however fantastical you go, is that a sense of believability is maintained. However way you achieve this, it's the believability that allows us to become immersed and lose ourselves in the story without being distracted. I think I'm going to have a hard being not being distracted.

I too wish to return to a the golden age of good sci fi and wish that studios didn't TRY SO HARD TO ENTERTAIN US and just make a good film. I don't watch films for a ride, I go to a theme park instead.
 
By the way the recommendation to watch it through VLC (or even through windows media player with Windows 7) made a HUGE difference. It looks SO much better with the correct gamma and black levels.
 
So I finally got a chance to see the AVATAR trailer in digital 3D at an "IMAX Lite" theater.

Wow. I am convinced now that this movie is going to be absolutely HUGE.

What I noticed about the 3D viewing vs 2D is that the jungle and the plants and just everything about the movie seemed to come *alive* and become more real in 3D. It was hyper real. In that shot where a Marine helicopter is landing in the jungle, it looked like an actual 3D camera crew had been out in a real alien jungle shooting it. Amazing stuff.

Box office wise, this is going to be an absolute juggernaut, IMHO. The only audience that will be tough to reach is probably middle-aged and elderly viewers, who tend to see all CGI films as "cartoons." However, the cultural forces at work and word of mouth might even sweep up older viewers. The classic forbidden love story will help, too. Keep in mind that "Titanic" actually drew out 90-year-olds from retirement homes who hadn't seen a movie in 25 years, so there is that connection to "Titanic." Judging from the trailer -- "From the Director of Titanic" -- it's obvious that marketing efforts will be directed at older viewers as well, in an attempt to not only outgross "Dark Knight," but "Titanic" as well.
 
3D films (oh dear).

Flogging a dead horse...again.

Been there, done that, the T-shirt didn't fit.

"In the 1950s, families were abandoning city theater seats for suburban lawn chairs, a Supreme Court decision toppled the studio system, and a little medium called television was becoming the biggest thing since, well, the movies. So Hollywood tried to entice audiences with marvels that only movies could offer, including 3D. Stereoscopic 3D had been around since the late 1800s, but it was with 1952's Bwana Devil that moving pictures in three dimensions became a sweeping fad. It didn't hang around long -- the format was too cumbersome and inconvenient -- but 3D has been revived and revised several times since"

http://blogs.amctv.com/future-of-classic/2008/07/top-ten-3d-movies.php
 
I have not really enjoyed any 3D films (Coraline was decent, Up was a bit better), but Camerons 3D is a whole other league.

This is based off of seeing 20 minutes, but that was long enough to get a feel for how the 3D is used. Completely immersive, 3D is no longer a gimmick. Mark my words.

Also, I don't find this movie looks very cartoony either.

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r313/Vovine3/Avatar4k1.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top