Daily BoxOffice -- Also opens in China this weekend.
Last edited:
Rate Avatar (James Cameron)
- Thread starter Krug
- Start date
Merkuri
Explorer
I have to agree that this name came the closest to pulling me out of my immersion, closer than the CGI, which I think was beautifully done. As my fiance said, the fact that the only noticeable CGI was for alien creatures explained their "unrealness" as less of a "this is artificially added to the movie" thing and more of a "these are so alien they are unreal" thing.
But yeah, I had to groan at the name "unobtainium" because I was unaware of the joke in the scientific community. My fiance's comment on this was, "It sounded like a name they used at first as a placeholder and forgot to change for the final script." Now that I know the history of the phrase I guess I can kinda see its place in the movie, but I think I might have been happier if they had called it "space rock" or even "this stuff" or really anything other than what sounded like a meta joke.
How did they do the floating mountains? If that was CGI it was some of the most impressive CGI I've ever seen.
This was the first 3D movie I've seen since... let me think... probably since I went to Universal Studios ten years ago and saw the Terminator attraction. I thought it was okay in Avatar. I forgot about the glasses a half hour into it or so until somebody stood up in the theater in front of us and put a big black in-set appearing blip on the screen or when things got slightly out of focus, which made me think my own prescription glasses were on crooked. It was a little awkward wearing two pairs of glasses like that at first, but like I said, I did get used to it. My fiance got a headache from the 3D, but said he'd give it one more try before he decides whether the headache is worth it or not.
I was not terribly impressed overall with the 3D, though. After a while I stopped noticing it unless it did something "wrong", like go out of focus in my peripheral vision or I tried to focus on something close to the camera which was out of focus. If I stopped noticing it then in theory it wasn't adding much to the movie. I suppose I'd need to see the same movie in 2D before I could make a sure comparison on whether the 3D was worth the extra couple bucks.
Actually, there was one effect that made me notice the 3D in a good way. The most impressive 3D parts were the flying ash or bugs in a few scenes, anything small like that which was close to the camera. They weren't hit-you-in-the-face 3D, but I actually lifted my arm to try to swat away the flies at one point. Big things that pop out in 3D tended to annoy me (especially when they were out of focus), but those little tiny bits floating through the atmosphere really made me feel like I was there.
Klaus
First Post
But just imagine: Avatar Archie!Uh, I think you mean "Jarhead" there, Klaus.
Johnathan
Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
I found that one of the impressive benefits of 3D was when Jake looked over a precipice (e.g. especially when they were up in the tree getting the banshee, he peers over the edge of the tree limb and it did "feel" high up to me).
Merkuri
Explorer
I don't need 3D to do that. I'm petrified of heights when there's nothing between me and the drop, so even 2D movies make me nervous when the characters walk next to a high drop or start to fall off of a cliff.
(Strangely enough, I'm not afraid of heights at all if there's a wall or fence or glass or something between me and the edge. I think I'm more afraid of my own balance than the drop itself.)
catsclaw227
First Post
That was awesome wasn't it? I was really impressed by those scenes as well.
Too bad you didn't get to see Up in 3D. It was well done and not in your face. I agree about the little floating spirits. They really helped with the immersion.
I should go see it again, now that I know the story, so that I can focus on the technology and properly analyze why this film will change film making in the years to come (or so they say).
Merkuri
Explorer
I can't help but do this whenever I see a film with CGI. I took a computer graphics course in college and now I always find myself evaluating the CGI I see anywhere. It's actually a testament to how good Avatar was that I found myself more pulled into the story than I was judging the graphics. I was absolutely blown away by those floating mountains, though.
I didn't see Up in 3D, but I did see it in 2D recently, and I have to say what stunned me most was the fabrics. At one point I wondered if they had switched to claymation instead of CGI, the fabric looked so real. The motions of the balloons and how they interacted with each other and other objects was pretty awesome, too.
catsclaw227
First Post
That movie was unbelievable on many levels. Laugh, cry, laugh, cry... The people at Pixar are amazing storytellers.
Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
I think that the main point about 'change film making' isn't so much in terms of what we see on the screen, but the camera technology which was invented in order to make Avatar - specifically the way in which Cameron could be filming the actors against the greenscreen and see a rendered version of them in a rendered environment at run time (as it were). In one video interview I saw, they make the point that Cameron can point the camera at the actors with stuck on ears and see Na'vi, point it down and see grass, point it up and see Hallelujah mountains.
That is what is likely to change film making (I don't know whether that will be evident from watching the film per se).
