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 :)

"I just saw Avatar" Thread

Saw it in 2D two days ago and just saw it again in 3D. It was definitely made for 3D, where the cinematography worked much better and felt complete. The 2D felt it was lacking at times, despite how much I was enjoying the ride. I wonder how the cinematography would have been if 3D wasn't in the strategy.

Lovely movie regardless of what you watch it on. I would have enjoyed it in B&W with subtitles.

Thank you to James Cameron for realizing such a wonderful concept.
 
Watched it in IMAX 3D Thursday night and didn't notice any ghosting. This was from a film print not digital. Print was matted on 4 sides so it didn't use the full IMAX screen at my location. Once the movie started you didn't notice. Image looked clean and in focus. Did they limit the screen size due to the 2K or render time?
 
I saw it again in RealD 3D tonight - and it really looked amazing! I loved the little things like the embers swirling around the characters in the 3D space, and I'm really glad that we seem to have got away from the 'things flying at your face for no reason' kind of thing that a lot of other 3D films seem to do.

I was looking for ghosting, but didn't see any at all (I got a little of that in Up, which I also saw in RealD). One thing though that wasn't great was that there was some pretty irritating flicker... The 2D version looked perfectly fine at 24p, but in 3D there seemed to be a lot of flicker when there were really fast moving things in the frame - probably exacerbated by the fact that they were usually separated spatially in the frame (that is, it looked worst when the background was either stationary or slowly moving, but then you have a fast, flickering object move by in front). I really like the aesthetic of 24/25p in 2D, but we really do need higher frame rates for 3D content.
 
Cail Young said:
DMR has its limits; I don't recall 300 filling our IMAX screen either.
Click to expand...

I work at an IMAX theatre and my understanding that not filling the whole screen was a creative choice made by Cameron. They could have filled the screen if they wanted to. I get quite a bit of IMAX info from a projectionist website 1570.com
 
Saw it in 3D IMAX, although it is simply breathtaking...I was disappointed that the bad guys were very one dimensional and had a cookie cutter feel to them. Cameron wanted mass appeal and with a 232 million dollar world wide opening is safe to say this is commercial success but I look back at Abyss or Aliens and wish the AVATAR humans were more real...less Disney. Cameron wanted the NAVI to be real and I can say he was successful at that...the creature design, and the NAVI people were so hyper unique that I am going to go back to the cinema to see what I missed. Bravo Cameron and team. :)
 
karapetkov said:
Why?
Click to expand...

Maybe because it looked kinda stupid then? "Kill me, I'm here! I'm here! Kill meeee!!!"

Predator alien jumping over logs and crap looking just like a halfway out of shape stunt guy in a bulky costume with big clown shoes. Because that's what he was wearing.

Truth be told, I always liked Predator. A cool concept and implemented with lots of cheesy goodness and gut-wrenching dialogue. Too bad they made Predator 2. Oh, gawd, what a stinker... Danny Glover was "too old for that shit" too...
 
Avatar. This changes the movies as surely as the talkies killed the silent screen.

I don't remember ever going to the cinema to see a film more than once, but I'll be going back to see Avatar again!

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo
 
Tom L said:
The film feels to be of a magnitude maybe similar to The Wizard of Oz and Star Wars.
Click to expand...
That's the same conclusion that we came up with after seeing this on Saturday night. I think that when we look back at big-budget filmmaking in 20 years we are going to put films into "pre-Avatar" and "post-Avatar" groups; this film convinced me that 3d is here to stay and is no longer just a gimmick.

Put yourself in Michael Bay or Jerry Bruckheimer's shoes for a moment-- how can they not do their next big action flicks in 3d after seeing this?
 
Peter Franzen said:
That's the same conclusion that we came up with after seeing this on Saturday night. I think that when we look back at big-budget filmmaking in 20 years we are going to put films into "pre-Avatar" and "post-Avatar" groups; this film convinced me that 3d is here to stay and is no longer just a gimmick.

Put yourself in Michael Bay or Jerry Bruckheimer's shoes for a moment-- how can they not do their next big action flicks in 3d after seeing this?
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Though "Avatar" is a great movie, it bugs me a bit that ALL big-budget science fiction has to be an action-adventure movie to sell tickets worldwide. We rarely get big-budget cerebral experiences like "2001" or "Solaris" much anymore.
Click to expand...

I really enjoyed "Sunshine". You're right, SciFi lends itself to a cerebral experience... but we all know how cerebral sells to the masses. That bums me out too.
 
Matt W. said:
There are real pacing and tonal issues with the first 2/3rds of the film (our introduction to the native's culture is too plot-point linear to feel experientially "real" but too slow-moving to be engaging on pure narrative terms; the inciting incident comes too late, leading to a disjointed narrative flow)
Click to expand...

Or you were just having a bad day when you saw it. ;-) Just kidding of course. Everyone has a different taste. I'm amazed any movie gets more than 50% of the people who see it saying they like it.

I study screenwriting and read scripts more than anything. You can break all the screenwriting rules in the world if you're not boring people. I really didn't have a moment in this movie where I wasn't actively interested.

I think the Box Office will tell the tale - though I rarely think that's a fair judge alone. I remember Titanic critics saying it was a good movie but no one would see it twice. No one's saying that about this movie. It's a monster.

Get ready for a bunch of 3D box office bombs in the upcoming years though. This is a good movie. Ultimately that's what sells tickets. Not cool 3D alone.
 
Joel Kaye said:
I really enjoyed "Sunshine". You're right, SciFi lends itself to a cerebral experience... but we all know how cerebral sells to the masses. That bums me out too.
Click to expand...

Wait sunshine? Sunshine was about as cerebral as a commentary of WWF fighting strategy.
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
Maybe because it looked kinda stupid then? "Kill me, I'm here! I'm here! Kill meeee!!!"
Click to expand...

Well yeah. :smile5:

There are these lines, but it's kinda cool, I mean for a film of this genre.

Predator alien jumping over logs and crap looking just like a halfway out of shape stunt guy in a bulky costume with big clown shoes. Because that's what he was wearing.
Click to expand...

It freaked me out.
 
Nick Gardner said:
Isn't that a major oxymoron? Every stunt person I have ever worked with has been in tip top shape ;-)
Click to expand...

Most of them yes... But it was a comment made in silliness. It was Kevin Peter Hall who wore the Predator suit in the film and he was also the primary Predator alien in the sequel. Really, go watch Predator. That costume probably weighs at least 85lbs or more, I'd even believe it was over 100lbs. Hall is a big guy, but In all fairness, I bet that suit weighed a lot and was not designed for how it was used in a number of shots.
 
Saw it again. Yup. Still rocks.
Found some minute issues. Don't care.

This one goes as a landmark into cinema history for sure.

Shawn Nelson said:
BO is out, $73 mil domestic weekend take, roughly half what New Moon or Dark Knight took in their openings.
Click to expand...
New Moon and Dark Knight were sequels to popular titles.
Shawn Nelson said:
Now the question is what's its longevity. Does word of mouth and repeat viewings take over or does it do the typical sharp blockbuster decline from here?
http://movies.yahoo.com/news/movies.reuters.com/avatar-earns-73-million-box-office-reuters
Click to expand...

It will go up. Way up than estrogen-erator movie.





So...anyone still having issues with "cartoon looking", or "blue aliens" ? :ihih:
 
Well for me... Having blue aliens no longer means that the movie will suck. In fact, I want to embrace more new films with blue aliens!

In some ways, Avatar did still have that cartoon vibe to it, but the way that all the elements came together, everything just fits and flows. It's so immersive... The "cartoony" feel that does linger only serves to help with the whole fantastical world of Pandora.

One other thing that I keep thinking about is that with the upcoming Blu-Ray 3D format and home theatre 3D systems, just think of what this means for other future entertainment. Within the next decade there's a good chance that we will have video game environments that are as immersive and detailed as Pandora is in this movie.

I think I'm going to see it again tomorrow...
 
Teeth and eyeballs of the NAVI...holly hell. To me it felt like I was watching digital makeup, not CG characters...incredible! The NAVI were more believable then the humans by far...this film will make a billion and more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top