Avatar

Few of my friends are raving about it, but, does anywhere show it in 2D? And is it actually worth seeing?

As i've explained in another thread, my eyes don't work with the whole 3D thing, so i'd be watching it either in red or in blue and blurred...

_______________________________________________________

Team Japan Owner - GPGNC




Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/14/2010 09:04AM by mortal.

i'm not sure if you understand the new technology in its entirety. the old 3d (color anaglyph --> red/blue glasses) is the one that causes you headaches. the new 3d technology works with a polarisation filter. don't ask me how the details work, but it is no longer that color mess. the downside of the new technology is that the color space is down to 70% and the whole picture is a little darker.

hope that helps.

I'm not sure what you mean by watching in red or blue, this isn't the whole 1970s style paper glasses.

This really is a must 3D film unfortunately, it was filmed using stereoscopic cameras and is only really available in 2D just to fill the whole in the market. It was no way intended to be a 2D film if they could help it.

I suggest you read up on RealD's website - they are the company behind the majority of UK cinemas using 3D technology at least (cant speak for the rest of the world) and their website gives you an explanation how it works. [www.reald.com]

---

CK1249 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> i'm not sure if you understand the new technology
> in its entirety. the old 3d (color anaglyph -->
> red/blue glasses) is the one that causes you
> headaches. the new 3d technology works with a
> polarisation filter. don't ask me how the details
> work, but it is no longer that color mess. the
> downside of the new technology is that the color
> space is down to 70% and the whole picture is a
> little darker.
>
> hope that helps.

But it gives most characters a somehow bluish tint.

---

REHAB IS FOR QUITTERS

to put it in a few words. yes, and yes

some theaters should have it in 2D, and for me it's one of the best movies I've ever seen, is epic!.. tbh i wasn't very interested, and every time i saw a chance to see the previews i always skipped it.. the blue guys was something that i wasn't interested in watching, i tought of it as another final fantasy movie or harry poter type or narnia or something like that... but i went out with my gf on Monday and we bought the tickets for 3D, and i went out of it wanting for more.. i remember thinking to myself while watching the movie, that that's how a movie should be done

there's the typical love story and the hero guy, but it's not centered around it... it's more like a Independence Day type of film... if you rather see Jeniffer Aniston history about how she falls in love with the guys than this movie is not for you, if you like to see tobbey mcwire turning from gay to hero than it's not for you either.
in a way is bad luck that you can't watch it in 3d because that's how it's meant to be seen, with "all the toys"

anyways for me was worth it, and to think that i wasn't waiting for much and came out of it thinking that it was one of the greatest films I've ever seen. i'd say go watch it, you'll like it



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/13/2010 10:42PM by Slash.

I saw it in 3D, kept distracting myself by looking over the glasses and trying to work out how it all works. Thus during the movie I was thinking I should've seen it in 2D to just concentrate on the darn movie. I dunno what it's like over there but here in oz each screening was either "Avatar" or Avatar (3D)", so there was certainly an option.

TBH I hope the whole 3D thing is just a fad, I'm yet to be let's-change-the-face-of-cinema impressed with it

I don't think its a fad for the cinema, it really does work very well these days and really adds to the experience (If you concentrate on the film rather than trying to work out how it works during said film :P) just those few niggles to iron out.

I do however think its a fad for the home. 3D TV has been labelled the saviour of the industry, yet I really don't see it.

---

MikaHalpinen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> TBH I hope the whole 3D thing is just a fad, I'm
> yet to be let's-change-the-face-of-cinema
> impressed with it


James Cameron had to invent new cameras to be able to create that film at incredible expense, so its likey it will be used again.

From what i gathered its main use was of the live actors being filmed through the fancy new camera system, but through the bit james cameron was looking at had all the CGI scenery mapped against the green screen invisible to everyone else present, all the actors looked real on the set ( as they would) but the camera/computer system had them displayed as the actual blue avatar characters so he could piece together how it would look on the cinema screen.




LS's Tip of the week
ESSENTIAL OILS aren't essential unless you're an engine, a gearbox or a twat

The glasses are unconfortable, but once you get into the movie its an annoyance that soon goes!

---

"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL

This post has a link that could be considered a spoiler
As long as you don't go planning on committing suicide after watching it. Apparently there is a forum out there to help those nut jobs who come out of it feeling incredibly depressed because the real world is nothing like Pandora.
I thought it was an epic movie, and it will probably be the highest grossing movie of all time soon. I'm planning on going to see it again.
Avatar Depression!

---

[www.mediafire.com] Some say you should click it, you know you want to. [www.gp4central.com] <----GP4 Central



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/14/2010 07:50AM by mortal.

Might I make a humble suggestion, mortal, and by no means take offence or consider me as a troll or something similar, but if you were to specify only in your post that your link is a spoiler rather than that subject heading, we won't scare off all the forum residents who haven't seen it yet

I shall fix that right now, quite right.

---

[www.mediafire.com] Some say you should click it, you know you want to. [www.gp4central.com] <----GP4 Central

CHeers folks. Have read the link from 97KirkC, and wouldn't make any difference to me - it still wouldn't work for me, because it relies on the brain combining stereo images, something which just fundamentally doesn't work with my sight.

@MikaHaplinen - what does it look like without specs?

_______________________________________________________

Team Japan Owner - GPGNC

LS. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MikaHalpinen Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > TBH I hope the whole 3D thing is just a fad,
> I'm
> > yet to be let's-change-the-face-of-cinema
> > impressed with it
>
>
> James Cameron had to invent new cameras to be able
> to create that film at incredible expense, so its
> likey it will be used again.
>
> From what i gathered its main use was of the live
> actors being filmed through the fancy new camera
> system, but through the bit james cameron was
> looking at had all the CGI scenery mapped against
> the green screen invisible to everyone else
> present, all the actors looked real on the set (
> as they would) but the camera/computer system had
> them displayed as the actual blue avatar
> characters so he could piece together how it would
> look on the cinema screen.

Cameron getting praise for Avatar is somewhat confusing me. Even some of Avatars biggest fans have said that if you remove the CGI and the 3D aspect, the movie is actually quite dull. Had it be done with regular actors, then it'd be below average. Cameron is the one responsible for the story. He didn't do the CGI. He didn't invent the technology used to film it in 3D. The bit that Cameron did is said to be the worst part of the film, yet praise is being thrown at him from all directions. That somewhat confuses me, but that is probably because I hate anyone who sticks their name in front of the film just to make sure people know it was them. James Cameron's Avatar. Peter Jackson in Association with Peter Jackson's King Kong, presented by Peter Jackson. PS. Peter Jackson.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com

A friend of mine's seen it in 2D first then 3D, and she still thought for the first time that it was the best movie she'd seen in a long time, so yeah I think it's worth watching it.

DaveEllis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LS. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > MikaHalpinen Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> >
> > >
> > > TBH I hope the whole 3D thing is just a fad,
> > I'm
> > > yet to be let's-change-the-face-of-cinema
> > > impressed with it
> >
> >
> > James Cameron had to invent new cameras to be
> able
> > to create that film at incredible expense, so
> its
> > likey it will be used again.
> >
> > From what i gathered its main use was of the
> live
> > actors being filmed through the fancy new
> camera
> > system, but through the bit james cameron was
> > looking at had all the CGI scenery mapped
> against
> > the green screen invisible to everyone else
> > present, all the actors looked real on the set
> (
> > as they would) but the camera/computer system
> had
> > them displayed as the actual blue avatar
> > characters so he could piece together how it
> would
> > look on the cinema screen.
>
> Cameron getting praise for Avatar is somewhat
> confusing me. Even some of Avatars biggest fans
> have said that if you remove the CGI and the 3D
> aspect, the movie is actually quite dull. Had it
> be done with regular actors, then it'd be below
> average. Cameron is the one responsible for the
> story. He didn't do the CGI.




CGI work is usually farmed out to specialised companys like ILM in majority of films




He didn't invent the
> technology used to film it in 3D.


No one here has claimed he did invent the technology to film it in 3D







The bit that
> Cameron did is said to be the worst part of the
> film, yet praise is being thrown at him from all
> directions.


what a sweeping dismissive statement, "the bit that cameron did" are you justing posting other peoples opinions or have you seen the "makings of" documentrys?



That somewhat confuses me, but that is
> probably because I hate anyone who sticks their
> name in front of the film just to make sure people
> know it was them. James Cameron's Avatar. Peter
> Jackson in Association with Peter Jackson's King
> Kong, presented by Peter Jackson. PS. Peter
> Jackson.

i agree with the associated name thing though, tagging someones name on the front of film just to give it credibilty isnt the right way to mask a poor film.

Your always going to find people that criticize films. Avatar for me was an awesome spectacle, sure the story has been done before and wasnt that gripping and you can see from a mile off how its gonna end, but that was said about starwars, if your a fan your gonna enjoy certain stuff like this

As a cinematic experience, for me it was second to none.




LS's Tip of the week
ESSENTIAL OILS aren't essential unless you're an engine, a gearbox or a twat



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/16/2010 02:57PM by LS..

No one here has claimed he did invent the technology to film it in 3D

huh?

James Cameron had to invent new cameras to be able to create that film at incredible expense, so its likey it will be used again.

Really, all that it seems to be is a giant wankfest over how utterly gorgeous it looks. Whilst I do agree, it looks stunning, and the 3D version is probably awesome to experience, Cameron seems to be getting a hell of a lot of credit for what would be an average movie at best otherwise. Kinda like 2012 I suppose. Half the viewers said it was awesome, the other half said if you took out all the special effects then there would not be a movie anymore. If that is what floats your boat then fair enough, I am not marking you down for that at all, but other than "it looks fantastic", I don't seem to read much praise about the entire thing.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com

I'd watch a film in pixelated monochrome 2D if the storyline was outstanding. No amount of CGI and graphical wizardry can dress up a poor story.

"A turd wearing an Armani suit is still a turd."

---

K*bots UK, specialist providers of 'fun science' Curriculum Enhancement days for Primary and Secondary schools in Britain.
Please find us on [en.wikipedia.org] for more information.

DaveEllis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No one here has claimed he did invent the
> technology to film it in 3D
>
> huh?
>
> James Cameron had to invent new cameras to be able
> to create that film at incredible expense, so its
> likey it will be used again.
>

did you read the rest of the post where i detailed the new camera system?


From what i gathered its main use was of the live actors being filmed through the fancy new camera system, but through the bit james cameron was looking at had all the CGI scenery mapped against the green screen invisible to everyone else present, all the actors looked real on the set ( as they would) but the camera/computer system had them displayed as the actual blue avatar characters so he could piece together how it would look on the cinema screen.

At no point did anyone claim Cameron invented the technology used to film it in 3D, its been around since the 1950's




LS's Tip of the week
ESSENTIAL OILS aren't essential unless you're an engine, a gearbox or a twat

saw the film (in 3D) today for the first time. The most impressive aspect of the film is certainly the innovation and technology, but the plot itself certainly wasn't awful.


Its quite incredible that Cameron has now directed the two highest grossing films worldwide, and by quite a long way.

As at 15 January 2010:
1. Titanic (1997) $1,835,300,000
2. Avatar (2009) $1,356,667,005
3. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) $1,129,219,252
4. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006) $1,060,332,628
5. The Dark Knight (2008) $1,001,921,825
6. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001) $968,657,891
7. Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007) $958,404,152
8. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007) $937,000,866
9. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009) $933,956,980
10. Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999) $922,379,000
[www.imdb.com]

---

X (@ed24f1)