Avatar 3D - Anyone else seen it?

[flyinghaggis]

As a film, to be honest, it's fairly generic sci-fi pulp.....

 

BUT

 

..... as a technical glimpse into the future in 3d it's amazing and definitlely a preview of things to come. Sure some of the scenes give you chronic eye-strain and there's noticeable unnatural blurring between the 'layers' of 3d in some shots but when it works it's utterly amazing and unlike anything else you've seem before IMO. I think this is the main problem as you can definitely pick out parts of the picture where they've decided that this is on layer 1, this in in layer 2,etc and between these layers there seems to be a kind of weird blurring that spoils things when it rears it's head IMO.

 

Seriously though, when it works which is only about a quarter of the time (maybe less), it's impressive to the point you can fully believe it might change the way everything else is done from now on!

 

Anyone else been to see it?

Edited December 29, 2009 by flyinghaggis

[mac_shinobi]

Not seen avatar yet but have seen ice age 3 and g force ( with the guinea pigs etc ) both in 3D although I would also like to see Alvin and the chipmunks 2 - the squeakwill ) as well as avatar of course - they are bringing out iron man 2 and robin hood, old dogs and a few other ones oh and that reminds me still want to see ninja assassin

[ahuxham]

Saw it Boxing day at Cinema De Lux in Bristol.

 

What an amazing concept, the 3D and CGI were absolutely outstanding, I really enjoyed the movie, did even notice its almost three hours long by the time we left.

 

For once a movie where I didn't check the time, and I was engrossed throughout the whole thing. I think the SCI-FI aspect was good as well, at least it was believable in some ways.

 

Defiantly the best movie I've watched this year, on par with Inglorious Ba****ds.

[LeMarchand]

It was entertaining, but (once again) Cameron promised more than he (or anyone else) could ever hope to deliver. I enjoyed it, and "intellectually" appreciated the technical advances but remain unmoved by the movie. Next time Cameron should try a little less hype.

 

Oh - and I still can't see how 3D or mocap will "change everything". Whilst I can think of a few of my favourite films that might be improved with better FX, I really can't think of one that 3D would improve.

[mjs_mjs]

I'm planning to go and see it in 2D with the gf, as she can struggle with 3D, but wouldn't mind seeing it in 3D. Is the film no good then?

[ahuxham]

It's good, however everyone has their own opinions on the matter

[mjs_mjs]

worth seeing then? i must admit both me and the gf thought st trinians 2 was s**t.

[ahuxham]

Worth seeing it, I can't see how someone would regret watching it. Was an utter pleasure, and something new and exciting to get engrossed into.

[flyinghaggis]

I'm planning to go and see it in 2D with the gf, as she can struggle with 3D, but wouldn't mind seeing it in 3D. Is the film no good then?

 

I'm probably being a bit harsh. It's not a bad film as such but it just feels a bit too cliched. None of the performances from the lead characters stand out as being particularly good (apart from the colonel who's quite entertaining!) and the script is a bit 'meh'.

 

It's literally like you took the general plot-line from dances with wolves, throw in a few props and references from the matrix and aliens, mix in a few greenpeace sensibilities with some pseudo-religion, let it simmer for a couple of ours and hey presto.. Avatar.

 

That's my opinion anyway. Yours may vary so by all means go and see it

 

I'd definitely make a point of watching it in 3D if you can though.

[SpuffMonkey]

Had tickets to see it in 3D on the IMAX - then couldn't go - dagnabbit

[dhicks]

Had tickets to see it in 3D on the IMAX

 

Confused about this bit: Wimbledon Odeon have Avatar on in 2D, 3D and "IMAX 3D". Anyone know what IMAX 3D is? Does that mean it's in 3D on an IMAX screen? What, exactly, is an IMAX screen - just a wide-aspect ratio (and curved?) cinema screen? I think when Up was on in 3D it cost £11 a ticket to go and see, which is starting to get a bit silly - it's getting to the point where you have to do product research before going and seeing a movie.

 

Also, anyone know how being colour blind affects 3D? My sister has managed to be the one in 10,000 women who is colour blind (as opposed to about 1-in-20 for men, I think), is Avatar still watchable if you're colour blind?

 

--

David Hicks

[morganw]

I was going to see it 2D but only a 3D showing was available. I found the 3D effect to be impressive in some scenes and almost absent in others, it never totally works as when something floats across in the foreground or background and you look directly at it, it doesn't come into focus so it breaks the illusion. Slow moving objects seem to move smoothly, but I found that something moving quickly would seem to stutter across the screen a little. I don't think the 3D added anything to the film (which to it's credit didn't seem to have any scenes that were purely there to wow the crowds with 3D technology), but it is basically just a hi-tech Pocahontas which dragged a little for the 3 hour running time.

[mjs_mjs]

Also, anyone know how being colour blind affects 3D? My sister has managed to be the one in 10,000 women who is colour blind (as opposed to about 1-in-20 for men, I think), is Avatar still watchable if you're colour blind?

 

Largly depends on the type of 3D effect used.

If it's a blue red like the comics used to be then colourblind will affect i believe,

if it's 2 polarised images with polarised glasses then having one eye differ to the other will affect, but not too badly,

if it's the new shutter type of 3D (which i doubt), then having one eye that differs will affect it badly.

 

Most now use the polarised i beilieve where 2 images are projected on different planes, one vertically polarised the other horisontally polarised, with glasses that allow one plane to each eye. Hence you see two seperate images creating a 3D image. Being colour blind with identical eyes shouldn't affect this. My GF is -17 in one eye i think (so practically blind in it), and she just wore the glasses and saw it in 2D.

[m25man]

Whilst the story is just an updated version of how "civilised" society takes what it wants from the indigenous populations of a country or planet in this case I thought it was a brilliant presentation both technically and morally.

The ending obviously giving Mr Cameron plenty of opportunity to make a number of sequels and animated series for the machine!

I saw it first from a rather medocre torrent, but it compelled me to go straight out to the local VUE well worth the trip.

[mattx]

Just got back from the flicks after watching this in 3D and thought it was a pile of crap. I was more entertained before the film as the manager kicked out some kids for trying to sit in the more expensive seats.

Some of the 3D bits were ok, some were just terrible, out of focus and badly done, the 3D action parts were a complete waste of time as you could not see what the hell was going on. Too many effects just took me out of the film but at least I got to keep the 3D glasses. Last time I saw a 3D film before this [ and most probably before a lot of you were even born ] was Friday 13th Part 3 In 3D - this was much better in my opinion as it was so stupid it was funny. Oh and one stage I thought I was in the middle of a Command & Conquer / Red Alert Came. Call me an old fart but for me 3D films just don't do it. Give me something like Clerks, Gandhi, The Godfather, Kes, La Dolce Vita etc and I'm happy.

Edited January 6, 2010 by mattx

[MkII]

Can see what you're saying Matt. I hate the bits in your peripheral vision that never focus. The opening shot of them waking up from stasis in that huge chamber with medics floating around them was very impressive I thought. I loved the CGI mostly except for the humanoids - the leg movements were very unnatural. It was, as Paul McCartney used to say a sore bum movie for me... not very engaging.. tho' it was 3hrs long so I guess that's understandable. I got hooked in the last half hour with the action going on.. It was that dull.

[SpuffMonkey]

Confused about this bit: Wimbledon Odeon have Avatar on in 2D, 3D and "IMAX 3D". Anyone know what IMAX 3D is? Does that mean it's in 3D on an IMAX screen? What, exactly, is an IMAX screen - just a wide-aspect ratio (and curved?) cinema screen? I think when Up was on in 3D it cost £11 a ticket to go and see, which is starting to get a bit silly - it's getting to the point where you have to do product research before going and seeing a movie.

 

Also, anyone know how being colour blind affects 3D? My sister has managed to be the one in 10,000 women who is colour blind (as opposed to about 1-in-20 for men, I think), is Avatar still watchable if you're colour blind?

 

--

David Hicks

 

IMAX has a screen that is HUGE!

 

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMAX]IMAX - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

 

 

I'm still tempted to have another go as its on in Birmingham til the end of the month at least.

 

I'm colour blind too - and the 3D was fine for me - irritatingly colour blindness is only passed down through the female line, but as you say - affects mostly men - harumph!

[Domino]

the new 3d tech is perspective based rather then colour based like the old method.

 

theres a breakdown of the techs here Giz Explains 3D Technologies - Home Entertainment - Gizmodo

 

so you shouldn't be affected by colour blindness.

 

I found avatar okay in a "fern gully in space" kind of way. I liked the depth provided by the 3D tech, but its all gimicky stuff really - I hardly think it's the revolution its hyped up to be

[jumpinjamez]

the new 3d tech is perspective based rather then colour based like the old method.

 

theres a breakdown of the techs here Giz Explains 3D Technologies - Home Entertainment - Gizmodo

 

so you shouldn't be affected by colour blindness.

 

I found avatar okay in a "fern gully in space" kind of way. I liked the depth provided by the 3D tech, but its all gimicky stuff really - I hardly think it's the revolution its hyped up to be

 

Cant beleive i had forgot all about Fern gully until just then when i read this post . I loved all the disney stuff as a kid but a few non disney films were great and this was one of them.

 

Nice to see the pixar man has made Disney go back to do drawing animation in the new move

 

The princess and the frog

 

maybe CGI and 3D are not the furture, we are just being told it is by people wanting to sell us new TV`s after we have just got HD.

[Robot]

 

I found avatar okay in a "fern gully in space" kind of way.

 

God I used to love fern gully.

[Gerry]

Story wasn't anything new (and in some places, very dumb), some have said it could have been called "Dances with Na'vi". Sci-fi ideas were obviously ripped from various sources. Liked the look of the film though, but didn't think the 3D did anything for it. The RealD tech was only used for a subtle effect, and most of the time I couldn't tell the difference between 2D and 3D where this film was concerned. I'll still buy the blu-ray though.

 

Motion capture of limb movement has been around for years now, but facial capture is relatively new. Saw a demonstration a while back of a system that rendered using the Unreal Engine. It could apply facial movements in real-time to a character model, but after post processing, result was even more awesome. The problem still exists though that the human brain isn't fooled by a CG human face - I read somewhere that it needs to be at least 99% accurate to fool us. Also, if it's between something like 80-99% accurate, it just looks creepy/wierd.

 

I think most of the $500 million reputedly spent on the film went on the details, not on the actual tech, and the fact that rendering in 1080p (possibly higher for future-proofing) took more time and money than previous CGI films.

 

As for Fern Gully... I still find myself saying "Gravity works!" sometimes

[SpuffMonkey]

Agreed - the story was nothing great - "A Man Called Horse" or "Little Big Man" in space on a Roger Dean designed Yes album cover - but it was very pretty, and the (nigh on) 3 hours just flew by.

[james14100]

Just got back from the flicks after watching this in 3D and thought it was a pile of crap. I was more entertained before the film as the manager kicked out some kids for trying to sit in the more expensive seats.

Some of the 3D bits were ok, some were just terrible, out of focus and badly done, the 3D action parts were a complete waste of time as you could not see what the hell was going on. Too many effects just took me out of the film but at least I got to keep the 3D glasses. Last time I saw a 3D film before this [ and most probably before a lot of you were even born ] was Friday 13th Part 3 In 3D - this was much better in my opinion as it was so stupid it was funny. Oh and one stage I thought I was in the middle of a Command & Conquer / Red Alert Came. Call me an old fart but for me 3D films just don't do it. Give me something like Clerks, Gandhi, The Godfather, Kes, La Dolce Vita etc and I'm happy.

 

Matt, don't mean to sound rude but I think you might be missing the point with the 3D with this film. It was filmed to give perspective. The object in 3D displayed in front of other objects was not neccessarily what you needed to look at. Its to resemble human sight rather than looking at a flat image. I personally loved the tech and thought that it is certainly the future of film!

 

James

[mattx]

Matt, don't mean to sound rude but I think you might be missing the point with the 3D with this film. It was filmed to give perspective. The object in 3D displayed in front of other objects was not neccessarily what you needed to look at. Its to resemble human sight rather than looking at a flat image. I personally loved the tech and thought that it is certainly the future of film!

 

James

 

Be as rude as you like !! For me the 3D element did nothing - but like I already stated I prefer films to be just films without the high tech razzmatazz that's needed to sell it.

I like Cameron's work [ apart from that big ship one ] - for me he got it right with The Abyss - no 3D needed - just a ton of water.....

With a good book I can't put it down, and with a good film I like to lose myself in it - when I have things popping out the screen that are out of focus and generally not really adding anything to the story line it just puts me off !!

I must watch around 5 films a week [ mostly at home ] - this one and other 3D ones I feel [ IMHO ] are just a passing phase and unless something can be done without having to put on the daft glasses it's not worth the effort or price.

[webman]

Bossman and I saw this at the new digital 3D IMAX at the Metro Centre in Gateshead. We both thought the story and technology was fantastic. We ended up having rubbish seats at the front and to the side, but that couldn't be helped.

 

For me, sometimes the edges of people/things were slightly fuzzy which was a small annoyance.

 

But an interesting story in The Register reveals some people are taking it a little too seriously, and feel depress because Pandora is only fictional

 

Avatar renders this earthly life meaningless ? The Register