-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Rottenwatch: AVATAR (82%)
- Thread starter SCULLIBUNDO
- Start date
- Status
Odious Tea
Member
You make good points. But I have a very difficult time agreeing. I watched it in RealD as well and I feel like the 3D played a MASSIVE part in engrossing me as much as was. The world was so fully realized there were points where I forgot that it was goddamn SciFi. Yes, I know how stupid that sounds.Masaki_ said:
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
Dead said:
Cheers. I hope Cameron means re-insert them into a new cut of the film, as opposed to including them in the extras to watch out of context.
Same, but at least there's good precedent with both Aliens and the Abyss. I'm pretty sure I read in (yet another) one of his interviews when thinking about Blu-Ray how cool it'd be to have multiple versions, and even maybe find a way to have viewers choose which additional scenes they'd like to put into the film to do their own custom cut.Scullibundo said:
Odious Tea
Member
I really hope the expanded universe doesn't dilute its magic too much.Masaki_ said:
Stuff like this is what keeps me wanting to go back to Avatar in theaters. He can expand away, this stuff will always be around.Odious Tea said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXF-VZVdR2Y
I used to love Cameron for his characters and the way he framed and staged action. Now he's added a joyful sense of wonder to the mix, and that's what's really hooked me on Avatar and the experience of it in theaters especially. But even the dinky youtube clips are gorgeous.
I'm just pretending it's a clip from the next-gen Panzer Dragoon game.
T2 still holds up really well if you can look past some of the FX used when the T1000 gets shot. Obviously the movie screams early 1990's.. but it's set in the 1990's so it works.
Most of the SFX still look pretty decent. Not mind blowing or anything, but they still work. The scene where he turns into the floor is really the only one that looks absolutely terrible.
WHen he gets shot you can clearly see (especially on BRD) that they just attached some tin foil shit to his shirt. I really have a hard time thinking they couldn't have made it look better since they were using physical props to pull it off.. or done some quicker cuts as to not focus on the really cheap looking props. I remember it looking really fucking awesome back in the day though, so it's probably me being spoiled by the new SFX technology.
The movie is still a lot of fun and has some really nice action scenes.
I still prefer the original since the good guys felt much more powerless in the face of attack. Giving the good guys their own terminator worked story wise and allowed for better action scenes but it took a good deal of tension away.
Most of the SFX still look pretty decent. Not mind blowing or anything, but they still work. The scene where he turns into the floor is really the only one that looks absolutely terrible.
WHen he gets shot you can clearly see (especially on BRD) that they just attached some tin foil shit to his shirt. I really have a hard time thinking they couldn't have made it look better since they were using physical props to pull it off.. or done some quicker cuts as to not focus on the really cheap looking props. I remember it looking really fucking awesome back in the day though, so it's probably me being spoiled by the new SFX technology.
The movie is still a lot of fun and has some really nice action scenes.
I still prefer the original since the good guys felt much more powerless in the face of attack. Giving the good guys their own terminator worked story wise and allowed for better action scenes but it took a good deal of tension away.
Giolon
Member
Masaki_ said:
I read an article about how not to get a headache watching Avatar in 3D and it mentioned this as Cameron's choice to use a narrow depth of field setting on his cameras - not an artifact of the 3D. Are you saying that everything is in the focus zone in the 2D version of the film at all times? Because the backgrounds aren't always blurry in the 3D (I saw RealD 3D four times), only in some shots where the depth of field is narrow.
I'm glad you had some points to back up your opinion though I feel competely opposite. The 3D makes me feel like I'm looking at this stuff happening out my window instead of just on a TV screen if that makes any sense.
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Ugh... no. Salvation is the Resurrection of the Terminator franchise.Jtwo said:
No, it's not. Boys have a penis, and girls have a vagina, even on Pandora.Vic said:
Ah, so you're a late adopter. The first T2 DVD was the theatrical cut.jett said:
Unless you want to count Rambo: First Blood Part 2... or Point Break if you really want to stretch things.Scullibundo said:
Shallow depth of field does not cause headaches in 2D, otherwise I'd hate Panavision.Giolon said:
There were several shots where foreground images that were "popping" out of the screen were out of focus and the focus of the shots were behind these 3d objects.
I think it was a somewhat poor decision because peoples natural tendency is going to be to try and focus on what is on the foreground.
You also get this weird sensation where the viewer is focusing on something that is out of focus while not focusing on something that is in focus. Having stuff pop out of the screen draws attention to it.. while you are simultaneously "focusing" on something in the background.
Seemed like contradictory camera work.
99% of the 3d worked well. I just didn't care for that particular trick that they used a few times.
I think it was a somewhat poor decision because peoples natural tendency is going to be to try and focus on what is on the foreground.
You also get this weird sensation where the viewer is focusing on something that is out of focus while not focusing on something that is in focus. Having stuff pop out of the screen draws attention to it.. while you are simultaneously "focusing" on something in the background.
Seemed like contradictory camera work.
99% of the 3d worked well. I just didn't care for that particular trick that they used a few times.
Odious Tea
Member
Absolutely. The original will always trump the expanded stuff. I feel like Avatar is a landmark on the level of Star Wars was -- but, some of the Star Wars expanded stuff is absolute bullshit.GhaleonEB said:
I originally meant that I hope that whatever the comes out of Avatar won't be too much of a disgrace to the source material.
Masaki_ said:
That may be what happened with me actually. I noticed it a good deal at the beginning of the movie and it bothered me. Either they stopped doing it so much or I got used to watching the film in 3d and started focusing on what was in focus and ignored what was popping out of the screen.
Odious Tea
Member
Anybody know how much it cost to produce and how much it's grossed? Tried Googling, came up with a bunch of different numbers.
Odious Tea
Member
His eyes! They pierce my soul!
Thanks. I'm glad it's been profitable. Would be a shame to see all that hard work go unrewarded.StoOgE said:
TacticalFox88
Banned
I swear with each repeated viewing of the final battle, the more I think it had to have SOME influence from the Panzer Dragoon Series.
Dead said:
I like the sound of that. Hopefully he, unlike a lot of directors and/or studios, will actually make use of the branching technology that has been part of the both the Blu-Ray and DVD spec for a years and put the theatrical and an expanded cut on the same disc (I'm looking at you LOTR, the expanded editions should have both cuts, dammit!). I want a 4-disc version like my BRD of Monster's Inc (Movie on Blu-Ray + Extras on Blu-Ray + DVD + Digital Copy). With the new-fangled Multi-View Video Codec so I can watch it in 3D when I can finally afford that tech.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
Combine said:
Who cares how much it made before a certain date, its how much it makes in its initial theatrical run that matters.
Expendable.
Member
Combine said:
Too bad that's not how it works.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
Giolon said:
But it is beating it out. Why not say compare AVATAR's opening day grosses to the entire New Moon theatrical run grosses? I'll tell you why: because its goddamn retarded.
Expendable.
Member
Avatar is projected to hit $341M domestically in it's 17 days at the box office.
17 DAYS!
It took Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (#1 of '09) 114 days to hit $402M
That's insane and WW is even crazier. I really didn't think it would be this strong.
17 DAYS!
It took Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (#1 of '09) 114 days to hit $402M
That's insane and WW is even crazier. I really didn't think it would be this strong.
Expendable.
Member
Combine said:
this weekend.
http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/Combine said:Of course that's not how it works. It just would have been a nice thing to see for the books when you looked back at the year of 2009, to see that Avatar blew by that crap with so few days left in the year.
StoOgE said:
It really isn't a trick though. If you pick any traditional movie off of your bookshelf, you'll find several scenes like that.
StoOgE said:
The latter is exactly what happened.
At this point, we are simply not really used to 3D movies ... so it takes a little while for us to acclimate to the visuals.
universalmind
Member
Not if you're on the internet.JayDub said:
Friday estimate:
Opening Friday was $26.7m; Friday #3 is down 10% from Friday #1. If that holds for the weekend, it's another $69.3m weekend.
Holy FUCK
AVATAR (Fox) [3,461 runs] Week 3 - Cume $307.8
Friday $24M
http://www.deadline.com/hollywood/n...-payday-the-blind-side-crosses-200m-domestic/Friday $24M
Opening Friday was $26.7m; Friday #3 is down 10% from Friday #1. If that holds for the weekend, it's another $69.3m weekend.
Holy FUCK
Possibly, but in the past holidays on Friday tend to act just like another Saturday. At the least a $60m weekend is a lock; the previous record 3rd weekend is $45m.icarus-daedelus said:
adjectives
shintoki said:
I don't know the numbers, though in reality I don't think it's that high. This is simply due to the limited availability of 3D theaters versus the number of seats sold. That said, the reports I've read have shown a higher average number of seats sold for 3D viewings versus 2D.
What people don't seem to realize though is that this has generally been true of all movies released in 2009. When available, more people go to 3D showings than 2D for most movies.
Whether this will translate to the home market obviously remains to be seen. However, those trying to argue that people simply don't want 3D have no ground to stand on.
- Status