• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Rottenwatch: AVATAR (82%)

Status
Not open for further replies.
It really does feel like the film industry have been staggering since the release of AVATAR to get a good 3D film into theaters. I know tons of people who loved AVATAR in 3D but has since been turned off of it due to shit theater experiences.

Who can blame them? I love 3D and even I agree that many of the films released these last two years just doesn't do 3D justice.

I need to go see Hugo this weekend though. I hear great things about it's 3D.
 
The movie was dumb fucking shit, but the 3D in TF3 was definitely well done. The opening scene on Cybertron alone was gorgeous.

Probably the most pathetic attempt at 3D ive ever seen is Tron Legacy.
 
Gary Whitta said:
It's a shame that two years on, 3D sucks.
Click to expand...

One word: Hugo.

Also, if Avatar "offically" started the new wave of 3D then 2 years is about when we'd expect the really good movies that have been planned and shot in 3D to start coming out.

I expect next years crop of 3D movies to look spectacular.
 
I just realized that its exactly 2 years to the day (not date) since Avatar was released. 730 days ago at this exact time, I was about halfway through the movie on opening night!
 
I wonder if there are still people stupid enough to deny Avatar as a game-changer now.

These days you have to go to ridiculous lengths to find a big movie that isn't in 3D. Back then it was worrying about whether enough screens could even show it in 3D.
 
Scullibundo said:
I wonder if there are still people stupid enough to deny Avatar as a game-changer now.

These days you have to go to ridiculous lengths to find a big movie that isn't in 3D. Back then it was worrying about whether enough screens could even show it in 3D.
Click to expand...

in the late 80's/ early 90's it was the exact same thing.

Also the 50's.

3D comes and goes as people realize it's a useless gimmick 90% of the time.
 
Nappuccino said:
in the late 80's/ early 90's it was the exact same thing.

Also the 50's.

3D comes and goes as people realize it's a useless gimmick 90% of the time.
Click to expand...

Disagree. The new 3D technology is miles beyond what was available in previous eras. There is no comparison between anaglyph and Real-D, Dolby or active glasses solutions.

Chicken Little was the first release of this new wave of 3D. It came out in 2005. It's been 6 years and it's just picking up steam. How long does it have to be popular before it's no longer a fad?

3D done right is incredible and can benefit any film.
 
Nappuccino said:
in the late 80's/ early 90's it was the exact same thing.

Also the 50's.

3D comes and goes as people realize it's a useless gimmick 90% of the time.
Click to expand...

Once again Nappa, you have no idea what you're talking about. 3D has never been adopted by the industry the way it has been now. Once you've started integrating the practice into home viewing, its all over.

Cameron started the 3D New Wave.
 
Scullibundo said:
Once again Nappa, you have no idea what you're talking about. 3D has never been adopted by the industry the way it has been now. Once you've started integrating the practice into home viewing, its all over.
Click to expand...
Consumers still have to accept it, which so far they have been very slow to do. Look at the breakdowns of 3D vs 2D ticket sales, 3D is taking a beating. That's why Hollywood has fewer 3D movies scheduled for 2012 than last year, and even fewer the following year.

And as much as people complain about 3D in theaters the experience is even worse at home. My 3D glasses here do nothing but gather dust because (a) there is almost no content worth viewing (I understand this will change) and (b) the home experience is shit in its current incarnation.
 
Avatar was shit and in my opinion 3D is a gimmick that adds nothing to a film (unless the film is so bad it becomes the only selling point... Avatar)
 
Scullibundo said:
Once again Nappa, you have no idea what you're talking about. 3D has never been adopted by the industry the way it has been now. Once you've started integrating the practice into home viewing, its all over.

Cameron started the 3D New Wave.
Click to expand...
Yeah but that doesn't change it will be exactly the same thing as it was than, 3D will be forgotten and the sooner the happens the better. I feel 3D is a waste.
 
Agreed. But 3D is finally at the point where there is enough momentum for it to be taken seriously and last long enough to progress past the main hurdles, rather than dying out. If we can have glasses-less 3D in six years, so be it.

Its just like the progression from two-color to Technicolor in a way.
 
Gary Whitta said:
Consumers still have to accept it, which so far they have been very slow to do. Look at the breakdowns of 3D vs 2D ticket sales, 3D is taking a beating. That's why Hollywood has fewer 3D movies scheduled for 2012 than last year, and even fewer the following year.

And as much as people complain about 3D in theaters the experience is even worse at home. My 3D glasses here do nothing but gather dust because (a) there is almost no content worth viewing (I understand this will change) and (b) the home experience is shit in its current incarnation.
Click to expand...

According to this list there were 46 3D movies released in 2011 and there are 50 released scheduled for 2012.

Also according to this article Hugo had a 75% 3D split showing that people will go see the 3D version if it's deemed worth the extra cost.

3D television adoption is growing.

http://www.3d-display-info.com/displaysearch-66-million-3d-tvs-sold-q3-2011-27-growth-penetration-reached-12

DisplaySearch reports that LCD 3D TV shipments reached 6.6 million units in Q3 2011 - a 27% increase compared to last year.
Click to expand...

Lack of content is always a problem with new technology and as a constant early adopter myself I've experienced that many times. I own so many crappy movies on HD DVD and Blu-ray simply because there was so little selection.

"Nearly 40 per cent of homes in Western Europe will own a 3D TV by 2015."

It's not going anywhere.
 
Watching 3D on the new Elite TVs convinced me that 3D at home not only works but offers a much superior experience than the cinema. Everything benefits...

Utterly perfect brightness levels, phenomenal depth with little to 0 crosstalk or any other kind of visual blemish. Not to mention the glasses, so light and comfortable, you forget youre wearing them.

Its revelatory.
 
I really don't care much about sales of 3d films and such because I have seen with my own eyes the power of 3d and I can't imagine the industry not eventually progressing towards it. Just a matter of time imo.
 
Seems that Cameron still has his heart set on 60fps for these sequels. Should be an article in January's issue of WIRED.

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/12/pl_screen60fps/
pl_screen60fps_f.jpg


Jackson is shooting The Hobbit in 3-D at 48 fps with high-end digital cameras—no more film for him. And Cameron is leaning toward 60 fps for his Avatar sequels. Cameron says that when he screened test footage for theater owners, “you could literally hear a gasp from the audience when they were shown the difference between 24-frame and 48 frames. And they liked 60 frames even better.”

The irony is that filmmakers have known about the technique for decades. Visual-effects titan Douglas Trumbull wanted to use 60 fps for his 1983 film, Brainstorm, and invented a projection technology he called Showscan. “I got very hooked on this whole idea of immersive cinema,” Trumbull says. “We saw a profoundly different kind of experience happening at up around 60 frames.”

But studios and theaters snubbed the pricey Showscan gear. Trumbull was so bummed that he left Hollywood for Massachusetts. Cameron thinks the world is finally ready. “Doug had the right idea,” he says. “It was just premature brilliance.” Sometimes the industry judders.
Click to expand...
 
I was excited about this, but the Hobbit trailer is really horrible. But if nothing else, Cameron knows tasteful forward thinking effects, so if he's convinced it works, I imagine it does.
 
StuBurns said:
I was excited about this, but the Hobbit trailer is really horrible. But if nothing else, Cameron knows tasteful forward thinking effects, so if he's convinced it works, I imagine it does.
Click to expand...

The Hobbit trailer's look has to do with how its lit rather than the frame rate its being shot at.
 
macuser1of5 said:
60 fps for avatar 2 and 3? i'm gonna have to drive 8 hours for this movie aren't I?
Click to expand...

Digital projectors just need a firmware update to project at 60 fps. The tech is already out there. Cameron (and Jackson) is just going to put it to use. :D

I've been awaiting the death of 24 fps projection for years, and am ecstatic about this development. I know Ebert has as well, he's going to flip at seeing The Hobbit at 48 frames.
 
Sorry if this has been discussed in the past but I just picked up the extended bluray and noticed it's 16x9. Cameron said the best 3d experience is 1.78, but the best way to experience 2D is 2.35. Are there separate editions or are all the blurays 1.78?

It seems a bit weird he allowed that.
 
sk3 said:
Sorry if this has been discussed in the past but I just picked up the extended bluray and noticed it's 16x9. Cameron said the best 3d experience is 1.78, but the best way to experience 2D is 2.35. Are there separate editions or are all the blurays 1.78?

It seems a bit weird he allowed that.
Click to expand...

Yeah, all bluray editions are 16/9, no scope to be found despite his stated preference.
 
I'm very ready to buy into 60fps 3D as a total upgrade to cinema presentation.

3D by itself on the other hand, has been underwhelming in movies, I don't really sense it being any more immersive, and a bad cinema screening (dim picture) takes me out of the experience more than a good one puts me in it. Its also way too common you get a bad experience.

I have real high hopes for The Hobbit and Avatar 2 though, The Hobbit more for story and Avatar on the technical end. I still haven't watched Avatar all the way through at home, while I saw it in theaters twice. I don't have a 3D tv or even a 1080p screen, just a 26-inch 720p screen. The film doesn't hold my interest by just its story.
 
I wasn't impressed by it either. Maybe part of the problem was how clean it looked considering its an LOTR movie. That said, I'm no fan of digital grain either.
 
For a while I'd have Avatar just on in the background while listening to music or whatever, it's prettiness certainly worked for me outside of the real 'film' experience.
 
The Hobbit has crazy color saturation(it has nothing to do with 48fps). I don't know what's up with that, but it gives the film an interesting look. Wish they would release a 48fps trailer online...
 
J2 Cool said:
I'm very ready to buy into 60fps 3D as a total upgrade to cinema presentation.

3D by itself on the other hand, has been underwhelming in movies, I don't really sense it being any more immersive, and a bad cinema screening (dim picture) takes me out of the experience more than a good one puts me in it. Its also way too common you get a bad experience.

I have real high hopes for The Hobbit and Avatar 2 though, The Hobbit more for story and Avatar on the technical end. I still haven't watched Avatar all the way through at home, while I saw it in theaters twice. I don't have a 3D tv or even a 1080p screen, just a 26-inch 720p screen. The film doesn't hold my interest by just its story.
Click to expand...

The thing I look at 3D as (And upping the FPS too I might add) is that it only enhances the experience. The problem is that you can't enhance a turd, and if there is problems in the 2D presentation, it will become even more apparent in the 3D and higher FPS version. Most of the really bad 3D were either sloppily done, or had source material (Cinematography) that had problems in 2D and they got even more obvious in 3D. To shoot and to utilize 3D you must take even more care in making the 'stage' more believable, you can't mask it with with a flat 2D picture, or in the case of frame rate mask it in a sea of motion blur and 'cinema standard' sub par frames per second. The closer you get to reality, the more obvious the fake and off stuff becomes. Its kind of like the 'uncanny valley' issues, the closer you get to real life, the more off the mistakes become, and when you stylize reality (2D, less FPS) it comes off as a whole other experience that your mind doesn't equate to reality.
 
http://movienight.mtv.ca/2012/01/avatar-2-underwater-filming-has-sam-worthington-nervous/

With the destruction of the Na’vi’s Hometree in the first flick, Jake Sully, Neytiri and the rest of the tribe are apparently going to be spending some quality time in the planet’s ocean. And, to try to keep the filmgoing experience as authentic as possible, Cameron would like to shoot those scenes underwater.

As an avid fan of diving, this is a passion project for Cameron, though he admitted to MTV News in the past that he likes to keep his work and extracurriculars separate. At least it’s not going to be all new to him, as Cameron previously said that he learned a few tricks from producing the underwater thriller “Sanctum.” The difficulty is trying to figure out how to do performance capture underwater, which is something he said has never been done before.

In preparation for the film, Cameron is apparently trying to convince his leading man, Sam Worthington, to go diving with him.

“He’s trying to get me to scuba-dive,” Worthington told MTV News on Friday (January 6). “I’ve never been, but he got me the gear and the tanks, so I’ve got to give it a go. I’ve got to get my lessons. I’m a bit nervous.”

“I love the ocean, but I’m just a bit unsure about it. I suppose once I’m down there and have done it, it will be [snaps fingers],” Worthington said. “I’m not worried about [the unknown]; that’s the exciting part. It’s more the claustrophobia.”

But sacrifices must be made for the greater good of the film. Cameron told MTV News that he wanted to shoot in the water because “we’ll have characters that are in and under the water.” At least Worthington has a better sense of how the ocean plotline will fit into the greater “Avatar” narrative than we do.

“I don’t know when [Cameron]‘s going to start ‘Avatar 2,’ but I know he’s been telling me bits about it,” he said.
Click to expand...
 
Hmm. I'm kind of worried about the underwater sequences from a design standpoint. I just can't imagine it being as spectacular as the jungles and floating islands. Water is all dark and murky.
 
Jtwo said:
Hmm. I'm kind of worried about the underwater sequences from a design standpoint. I just can't imagine it being as spectacular as the jungles and floating islands. Water is all dark and murky.
Click to expand...

It won't all be underwater. Cameron has likened the underwater sequences to the floating mountain sequences in the first film. I'm more interested to see how he's going to make the underwater life forms look, considering some of Pandora's land-based life is inspired by our oceans.
 
Yeah I know. I'm sure it will be great. I hope there is more evolved/active/magical underwater plant-life than there is on the surface. Also insanely curious as to why they need to go under the sea in the first place. Pandora is a giant giant planet, but the oceans were never even mentioned in the first film. Aside from the coastal tribe shots.

I hope the only way they can survive underwater is by linking to some other creature than can provide them their "air" or whatever chemical they breath. In fact I hope the film further explores the ideas of consciousness and physical form being unrelated in general even more than the first film did.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

RIP Cora (my avatar)
46
732
gamingforum1 replied
Funk musician Sly Stone, 82, has passed away
11
576
GeekyDad replied
What's the deal with your avatar.
2 3
131
1K
Sand Dan Glokta replied
Brian Wilson Legendary founder of the Beach boys dies at 82
28
890
LiquidMetal14 replied
Avatar Error?
7
489
Nocty replied
Top Bottom