James Cameron's Avatar

Features, Shorts, Live-Action and Direct-To-Video
Post Reply
AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 6124
Joined: October 23rd, 2004
Location: SaskaTOON, Canada

Post by Randall » January 10th, 2010, 10:11 pm

Meanwhile, some of us are thinking that Avatar may be the reason to upgrade to a <i>3-D</i> set-up. ;)

Just kidding, though. Actually, after seeing about a half dozen 3-D films this year, I am pretty unconvinced that it added much to my experience. The only one that seemed worth the 3-D in the least was the most gimmicky one, Monsters Vs. Aliens. Because if it isn't gimmicky, I really forget the 3-D is there. Of course, I am disadvantaged in not having an IMAX in town (the closest one being about 5-6 hours away!), and that huge screen likely makes more of a difference. But a 50" TV just isn't going to be the same.

However, Star Trek was the film that made me really wish that I had a projector at home.

And Eric, I personally hope I'm never too old to draw sexy nude catgirls. ;)

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 1419
Joined: October 22nd, 2004

Post by Macaluso » January 10th, 2010, 10:39 pm

After seeing it in Imax 3D, I seriously couldn't imagine seeing it in any other format. It felt like I was actually in the movie.

User avatar
AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 21036
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » January 11th, 2010, 10:32 am

Although we do have a regular digital 3D cinema about 30-40 minutes away, Imax would be my 3D option of choice too, and like I said before if I was more enthused about seeing Avatar in 3D I would have made the trip to Imax. But it takes a bit of time and energy to get to the nearest Imax (probably about 2 hours away) and ticket prices are just silly once you factor in travel, something to eat and drink, etc.

True that it does make it more of an "event", but I have to be really jazzed up about a movie if I go to that length and, having now seen Avatar "flat" at my local 35mm theater (just 10 minutes walk away!) I'm glad I didn't pay the extra to still only be moderately entertained. A gimmick really shouldn't make a movie work, and if it works in 3D it should also work flat.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 4078
Joined: September 27th, 2007

Post by EricJ » January 11th, 2010, 11:22 am

With all the buzz of Up vs. Avatar for the Oscar, can't help thinking of all the reviews last summer saying "Oh, I'd have rather seen Up without the 3-D!...It was too distracting, the colors would've been brighter, and it's too good a movie without it anyway!"

(I saw Up and Monsters vs. Aliens with the 3-D--just for an excuse to go to the theater and not wait for the rental--and while MvA may have benefitted from its crutch, we didn't ask to see Carl & Russell in 3-D, and barely noticed the film had it all.) :D

AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 7485
Joined: October 16th, 2004
Contact:

Post by James » January 11th, 2010, 12:04 pm

Ice Age 3 also is a good example of 3D not working. Unlike the issues with Up 3D, in IA3 it was just too gimmicky and in your face.

User avatar
AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 21036
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » January 11th, 2010, 12:05 pm

The differences there are that MvA played to the 3D, while Up concentrated on its story and merely added 3D as a viewing format.

All the replies to comments that MvA was "just okay" when seen flat were that "you should see it in 3D", while Up's story hit hard whether you saw it in 3D or not. Actually, I think I would have been distracted from that emotional punch if I had seen it in 3D.

AV Team
AV Team
Posts: 5992
Joined: February 8th, 2005
Location: The US of A

Post by Dacey » January 11th, 2010, 12:20 pm

I don't even really remember the 3D effects in "Up." They didn't stand out to me in any way, I guess.

But, when I was watching MVA at home recently, I found myself really, really missing the 3D effects. Yes, it was "in your face," but it could be argued that it was actually one of those rare cases when it made the movie "better," because it added to the overall fun of the story.

Funnily enough, I actually saw "Avatar" in 2D first, knowing that I would see it in 3D later. Having seen it in both formats, I'm happy to say that it's breathtaking either way. :)
"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift--that is why it's called the present."

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 4078
Joined: September 27th, 2007

Post by EricJ » January 11th, 2010, 12:46 pm

Dacey wrote:I don't even really remember the 3D effects in "Up." They didn't stand out to me in any way, I guess.
Up wasn't made with 3-D pimping in mind, unlike Dreamworks' or the BobZ Christmas Carol--They just updated what they had at the last minute as peer-pressure, to stay in the party.
That said, clouds and South American scenery 200 ft. below did look arguably better.
But, when I was watching MVA at home recently, I found myself really, really missing the 3D effects. Yes, it was "in your face," but it could be argued that it was actually one of those rare cases when it made the movie "better," because it added to the overall fun of the story.
Kept it on flat-disk because thought the characters were cute, but MvA loses a lot of its "Eek, a 50's sci-fi!" fun when you can't see how far back Ginormica extends into the scenery. :cool:
Funnily enough, I actually saw "Avatar" in 2D first, knowing that I would see it in 3D later. Having seen it in both formats, I'm happy to say that it's breathtaking either way. :)

You wouldn't have gotten me to see Avatar at ALL in 2D, but for me, the most amazing 3-D shot in the entire movie I saw was that opening sleep-chamber on the ship extending to infinity... :shock:
Unfortunately, then we got all the horny-comic-book stuff with the bloo-babes, Sigourney Weaver acted all grumpy because she didn't want to be back playing misogynist male-bashing Cameron characters again, and the movie ended up opening its mouth and spoiling the effect. :P

AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 6124
Joined: October 23rd, 2004
Location: SaskaTOON, Canada

Post by Randall » January 11th, 2010, 7:32 pm

With MvA, it was almost like the 3-D was part of the 50s sci-fi "joke," so it worked well there.

My daughter (8 years old) and I saw Up in theatres twice (a rarity for me), and when we saw it "flat" in the cheapo theatre she said she preperred it to when we "had" to watch it in 3-D at the ultra-modern deluxe cinema a few weeks earlier. So there ya go.

User avatar
AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 21036
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » January 15th, 2010, 8:19 am

Uh-oh, here we go:
James Cameron wrote:I've had a storyline in mind from the start - there are even scenes in Avatar that I kept in because they lead to the sequel. It just makes sense to think of it as a two or three film arc, in terms of the business plan. The CG plants and trees and creatures and the musculo-skeletal rigging of the main characters - that all takes an enormous amount of time to create. It'd be a waste not to use it again.
Hmmm...first film massive success? Let's start talking about the "always planned" series of "two or three arc" trilogies, etc.

Did someone just find their Star Wars? ;)

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 70
Joined: March 16th, 2009

Post by Locall » January 15th, 2010, 8:24 am

Seriously? were you living under a stone for the last couple of weeks? :P

Cameron said, even before Avatar hit the theaters, that he planned it as a trilogy, and #2 and #3 would only be made if the first would be a succes.

User avatar
AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 21036
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » January 15th, 2010, 10:18 am

Locall wrote:Seriously? were you living under a stone for the last couple of weeks?
Um, actually? Yes...I've been somewhat ill.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 4078
Joined: September 27th, 2007

Post by EricJ » January 15th, 2010, 10:49 am

Locall wrote:Cameron said, even before Avatar hit the theaters, that he planned it as a trilogy, and #2 and #3 would only be made if the first would be a succes.
Uh, yeah, and Lucas said he "always planned" to do six episodes about Anakin, instead of nine episodes about the War...
Those Who Control the Present, Control the Past. :P

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 398
Joined: May 28th, 2009
Contact:

Post by estefan » January 25th, 2010, 10:18 pm

Avatar has now surpassed Titanic to become the highest-grossing film of all-time worldwide, just thought I'd let you all know.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 896
Joined: July 9th, 2008
Location: Australia

Post by Bill1978 » January 26th, 2010, 4:40 am

Having caught Avatar the other week I must say I am not that impressed that Avatar is now the movie with the #1 box office receipt. I left the theatre thinking I enjoyed the movie but I wasn't wowed by it. At least with previous #1 holders I've seen the appeal to why it connected with so many people. Titanic's sinking made that film for me, Star Wars had the impressive opening and chase through the Death Star caverns, ETs sotry had heart and the flying bicycle. All Avatar had was a gimmick. A gimmick that added nothing to the overall experience for me. And a gimmick that has been used by films before it. And I will be a happy man, if I never have to hear the three words of I see you ever again.

I'm still wondering how Avatar is meant to change the face of cinema that all the movie magazines have been promising all of last year. What I got was a movie that covered itself in glorious sci-fi cliches, James Cameron's dreaded heavy dialogue, and special effects that looked great up close but appeared cartoony at a distance.

As I type this I struggle to even think of a memorable moment from the film that would make the people around the world actually recall their love of the film. You could almost just show a scene from The Smurfs to give people a memory jog of this film.

And a question about the concept - if the person is controlling the avatar when asleep when the hell does the person actually get some real true sleep. It seems in the movie that the people are awake the whole time.

I don't think this film needs any sequels. I just can't see where it can be taken without destroying the original. At least films like Star Wars and Alien you could envision more stories.

Post Reply