sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,785
- 6,345
- 126
xanis
Lifer
- Sep 11, 2005
- 17,571
- 8
- 0
Saw it at midnight in IMAX 3D on release night.
EPIC. That's probably the best word I can find to describe it. I sat there throughout the whole movie with my mouth half-open just staring in awe and what was gracing the screen in front of me. I think the only words out of my mouth were, "holy shit".
EPIC. That's probably the best word I can find to describe it. I sat there throughout the whole movie with my mouth half-open just staring in awe and what was gracing the screen in front of me. I think the only words out of my mouth were, "holy shit".
- Nov 30, 2005
- 50,231
- 118
- 116
I don't think that's my issue. I saw Sharks 3D in IMAX a few years ago and saw all of that stuff fine. I just thought, aside from a few very cool shots, it did not add anything and a lot of the times it took me out of the film because I thought it looked strange.
KT
feralkid
Lifer
- Jan 28, 2002
- 16,864
- 4,979
- 136
I loved it, looked awesome and the story was pretty good, much better than I expected. Seeing it in 3D was well worth it too. Thinking about seeing it again.... which I never do.
i saw this on thurs and really enjoyed it (in 3D). only saw the trailer a week before and didnt read up on it so it wasn't hyped for me.
the 3D really helps to immerse you in it. only time i've enjoyed a 3D movie really
the 3D really helps to immerse you in it. only time i've enjoyed a 3D movie really
datalink7
Lifer
- Jan 23, 2001
- 16,765
- 6
- 81
I thought the movie was so so but the visual experience was awesome. Overall I am glad I went.
However, the 3-D experience was kind of hit and miss for me. Do you have to be centered to see it best or anything like that? I was way off to the side. Some of the shots were amazing in 3-D, but others seemed kind of fuzzy.
Overall, a good experience.
However, the 3-D experience was kind of hit and miss for me. Do you have to be centered to see it best or anything like that? I was way off to the side. Some of the shots were amazing in 3-D, but others seemed kind of fuzzy.
Overall, a good experience.
- Nov 30, 2005
- 50,231
- 118
- 116
I wonder if that is what happened to me as well. I was off to the side a bit, not all the way over, but there were definitely quite a few foggy shots mainly with respect to the humans. All of the cartoon parts looked fine.
KT
- Nov 30, 2005
- 50,231
- 118
- 116
I wondered that as well. I guess they have a different angle and are closer to the gun ships, so maybe that is why.
KT
Good point, but maybe you could write it off as a difference in angle. Shooting upwards the angle of incidence would be minimal and less destructive, but shooting downwards or straight on but closed to 90 degrees, the angle of incidence would be much more focused and destructive. Yah. Something like that.
Eug
Lifer
- Mar 11, 2000
- 24,153
- 1,798
- 126
Review:
Overall I enjoyed myself quite a bit, and think it's one of the better movies of the year actually. I was quite drawn into the fantastical Na'vi world, and I felt for them.
OTOH, I couldn't really care less about the villains. As real as the Na'vi felt, the villains seemed like video game characters, complete with the stiff acting and terrible dialogue.
Furthermore, the plot was quite predictable. Don't expect to be wowed by a deep and surprising plot, because if you do, you may just be disappointed. Go in with the expectations of an excellent Disney fable with awesome CG and better robot action than Transformers, and you'll probably be happy.
BTW, I don't think this movie needs to be 3D. The 3D was understated, which is nice, but then again with this level of understated 3D, you'd probably be just fine with no 3D at all. However, I may be biased somewhat because 3D gives me a mild headache, and Avatar was no different.
Also, in Avatar at the beginning with all the silver-grey human base scenes, I could see significant flickering in a few shots, sort of like what you see with a CRT with too low of a refresh rate. Luckily, I didn't see this in the Na'vi world or else that would have just severely pissed me off. When I got home I looked this up, and found out that James Cameron feels that we're not quite there yet with 3D, because with 24 fps shooting strobing is visible to some people. Well, it turns out that Avatar was still shot at 24 fps.
Overall I enjoyed myself quite a bit, and think it's one of the better movies of the year actually. I was quite drawn into the fantastical Na'vi world, and I felt for them.
OTOH, I couldn't really care less about the villains. As real as the Na'vi felt, the villains seemed like video game characters, complete with the stiff acting and terrible dialogue.
Furthermore, the plot was quite predictable. Don't expect to be wowed by a deep and surprising plot, because if you do, you may just be disappointed. Go in with the expectations of an excellent Disney fable with awesome CG and better robot action than Transformers, and you'll probably be happy.
BTW, I don't think this movie needs to be 3D. The 3D was understated, which is nice, but then again with this level of understated 3D, you'd probably be just fine with no 3D at all. However, I may be biased somewhat because 3D gives me a mild headache, and Avatar was no different.
Also, in Avatar at the beginning with all the silver-grey human base scenes, I could see significant flickering in a few shots, sort of like what you see with a CRT with too low of a refresh rate. Luckily, I didn't see this in the Na'vi world or else that would have just severely pissed me off. When I got home I looked this up, and found out that James Cameron feels that we're not quite there yet with 3D, because with 24 fps shooting strobing is visible to some people. Well, it turns out that Avatar was still shot at 24 fps.
Weren't they bigger ones and from much closer and a better angle? That's how I wrote it off anyway.
HumblePie
Lifer
- Oct 30, 2000
- 14,665
- 440
- 126
The arrows on the ground where being shot up, less force, and twoards a window screen that was at an angle that cause them to deflect. The arrows still make scratches and dents.
In the flying fight scene, they were fired with more initial velocity, not just standing in one spot, which gave the arrows more force. They were fired downward with gravity, and they were fire at the glass that was perpendicular. The glass being flat in relation to the arrow this time did not allow deflection. So, it is quite plausible for what happened to happen in both cases.
In the flying fight scene, they were fired with more initial velocity, not just standing in one spot, which gave the arrows more force. They were fired downward with gravity, and they were fire at the glass that was perpendicular. The glass being flat in relation to the arrow this time did not allow deflection. So, it is quite plausible for what happened to happen in both cases.
HumblePie
Lifer
- Oct 30, 2000
- 14,665
- 440
- 126
It more than likely was..... And bullet proof doesn't mean much since bullets really don't generate a lot of force. A knife thrust has more force behind it than a bullet. A bullet just doesn't need a lot of force as such a small object to penetrate flesh. Which is why small arms don't work well against vehicles and require much bigger guns with larger amounts of net force to penetrate.
So a 6 foot arrow, probably a thing as my arm, remember how big these aliens were, fired from those guys are bound to have much more force than you would think.
zerocool84
Lifer
- Nov 11, 2004
- 36,041
- 472
- 126
How about you open your eyes and read 2 posts up where I said I loved the movie but hated 3D so jump in the fire yourself.
Gooberlx2
Lifer
- May 4, 2001
- 15,381
- 6
- 91
I loved it. Totally epic. Story isn't terribly complex, but compelling enough. Likeable protagonists, wonderful effects, etc...
3D is immersive in some instances (really helps with perspective of size and distance at times) and distracting in others (seems like things will sometimes "skip" on the screen...especially when panning). I would have liked the movie just the same in 2D.
3D is immersive in some instances (really helps with perspective of size and distance at times) and distracting in others (seems like things will sometimes "skip" on the screen...especially when panning). I would have liked the movie just the same in 2D.
Imp
Lifer
- Feb 8, 2000
- 18,828
- 184
- 106
Just came back from seeing it. What a freaking nightmare. I didn't expect a completely full house at 1pm on a Sunday, and got there at 1pm. Bad idea. Got a reasonably good seat near the back, but because my 3D glasses fell under the seat (in the bag), I had to reach down and get them in the dark. My hands came back wet (please let it be soda), so had to wash them, and lost my seat, then had to sit in the second row. Then some prick family of 4 came in very late, and asked me to move over cause they didn't like their first row seats. So aside from the shitty experience...
Movie was good. 3D was ??? thanks to my terrible seat, so I'll leave that alone. The cartoon parts were nice, overall story wasn't epic, but it was still good. It would have been nice to have a longer intro and backstory. A view of this 'dying world' and how Jake got paralyzed would have helped fill in some gaps.
Movie was good. 3D was ??? thanks to my terrible seat, so I'll leave that alone. The cartoon parts were nice, overall story wasn't epic, but it was still good. It would have been nice to have a longer intro and backstory. A view of this 'dying world' and how Jake got paralyzed would have helped fill in some gaps.
Last edited:
Eug
Lifer
- Mar 11, 2000
- 24,153
- 1,798
- 126
James Cameron supercharges 3-D - Entertainment News, Web Exclusive, Media - Variety
I'm hearing that there are already calls to increase the frame rate to at least 30 fps for digital 3-D because certain camera moves, especially pans, look jumpy in 3-D. I saw that in the Imax 3-D "Beowulf." You've been an advocate for both 3-D and higher frame rates. Have you seen the problem and do you have any thoughts on it?
For three-fourths of a century of 2-D cinema, we have grown accustomed to the strobing effect produced by the 24 frame per second display rate. When we see the same thing in 3-D, it stands out more, not because it is intrinsically worse, but because all other things have gotten better. Suddenly the image looks so real it's like you're standing there in the room with the characters, but when the camera pans, there is this strange motion artifact. It's like you never saw it before, when in fact it's been hiding in plain sight the whole time. Some people call it judder, others strobing. I call it annoying. It's also easily fixed, because the stereo renaissance is enabled by digital cinema, and digital cinema supplies the answer to the strobing problem.
The DLP chip in our current generation of digital projectors can currently run up to 144 frames per second, and they are still being improved. The maximum data rate currently supports stereo at 24 frames per second or 2-D at 48 frames per second. So right now, today, we could be shooting 2-D movies at 48 frames and running them at that speed. This alone would make 2-D movies look astonishingly clear and sharp, at very little extra cost, with equipment that's already installed or being installed.
---
Quick summary:
James Cameron says 24 fps is too slow for both 2D and 3D. However, 24 fps is even worse for 3D, as it is more obvious.
Our current digital tech is fine to speed up 2D to 48 fps and he thinks we should be using that. However, current tech is only good enough for 24 fps for 3D, so we're gonna be stuck with that for the time being.
I'm hearing that there are already calls to increase the frame rate to at least 30 fps for digital 3-D because certain camera moves, especially pans, look jumpy in 3-D. I saw that in the Imax 3-D "Beowulf." You've been an advocate for both 3-D and higher frame rates. Have you seen the problem and do you have any thoughts on it?
For three-fourths of a century of 2-D cinema, we have grown accustomed to the strobing effect produced by the 24 frame per second display rate. When we see the same thing in 3-D, it stands out more, not because it is intrinsically worse, but because all other things have gotten better. Suddenly the image looks so real it's like you're standing there in the room with the characters, but when the camera pans, there is this strange motion artifact. It's like you never saw it before, when in fact it's been hiding in plain sight the whole time. Some people call it judder, others strobing. I call it annoying. It's also easily fixed, because the stereo renaissance is enabled by digital cinema, and digital cinema supplies the answer to the strobing problem.
The DLP chip in our current generation of digital projectors can currently run up to 144 frames per second, and they are still being improved. The maximum data rate currently supports stereo at 24 frames per second or 2-D at 48 frames per second. So right now, today, we could be shooting 2-D movies at 48 frames and running them at that speed. This alone would make 2-D movies look astonishingly clear and sharp, at very little extra cost, with equipment that's already installed or being installed.
---
Quick summary:
James Cameron says 24 fps is too slow for both 2D and 3D. However, 24 fps is even worse for 3D, as it is more obvious.
Our current digital tech is fine to speed up 2D to 48 fps and he thinks we should be using that. However, current tech is only good enough for 24 fps for 3D, so we're gonna be stuck with that for the time being.
I feel the same way. It sucks that amazing visual experience equals top #25 on the imdb imdb list and such a high score of 8.9 but I know it won't stay there. Still it sucks but I really don't care. Just hate how the general population will judge a film like that.
I much prefer a great story with average SFX over average story with Great SFX. Let The Right One In is a great example. Seems like all the small unknown films are always the ones that surprise you. Avatar was far from horrible but it needed more of a story and character development.
Imp has said it best. It really needed this for the story to really go into detail. Like Terminator, Terminator 2 Judgement Day and many other James Cameron films.
A lot of films are overrated even the classics like The Shining, etc. Not trying to single out just one movie but it is the only one I could think of. I disagree it is overrated though. Ok maybe on Rottentomatoes but not everywhere. Still I would be happy with 90% rottentomatoes which is deserves at least.
Yes there is a lot of things Let The Right One In may not explain but the director did that on purpose. He wanted people to find out for themselves. To actually use their brain. Did you realize Eli was actually a boy?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter