GoodGame
Red, White, & Blue, baby!
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2004
- Messages
- 13,725
So was it "Dances with Elves"?
I'm not impressed with the ideas of this movie. Seems like old ideas, dressed up again in new Fx.
Avatar
- Thread starter MobBoss
- Start date
So was it "Dances with Elves"?
I'm not impressed with the ideas of this movie. Seems like old ideas, dressed up again in new Fx.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Really?
Was there a sequel to Titanic?
Kinda, it's name was Britannic...
This film got me really excited about 3d-films. It's almost funny, I suppose it was like this for people when they saw moving pictures for the first time 100 years ago. Before this going to movies hasn't been anything special for me, but now I'm actually interested about it, and will probably go and see everything 3d in the following months. I just saw Up, and it was quite nice, for it's plot too.
Someone said that the 3d in Avatar looked like there were just separate layers, and I noticed now, that this is probably because the ground is seldom in the picture. The deepness of human face for example contrasted to the deepness of a room is very small, so it looks like that. But when there's something visible in the picture that extends to the deepness-dimension, it looks different.
Also Avatar used traditional means cinematographically, which distracted me at first. For example, I thought that 3d films should not have close ups, and the camera shouldn't move much, or it should rather move as some person or vehicle (that is: if it has to move). Scenes shouldn't be cut at all, if possible. In short: more theater-like, so that the watchers get more immersed.
The scene where the dontrecallsaurus attacked Sully was in my opinion quite unfortunate with it's very fast cuts and confused picture usually used in action pieces. It would have been better if they had tried to picture that as clearly as possible, and used the 3d-technique instead of fast cutting to impress the audience. Of course for the movie's sake it's better not to exploit the 3d-thing too much, and I'm glad they didn't, but if the other alternative is confusion, it would be very ok.
Of course all the suggestions above might make the film only worse, but it just seems to me that the way 3d-movies are filmed must be different from the usual.
Did you btw have trailer of the coming Tim Burton-film? It was pretty amazing, as that smiley cat (don't know what it is in English) came almost to my lap. Pretty scary actually.
Someone said that the 3d in Avatar looked like there were just separate layers, and I noticed now, that this is probably because the ground is seldom in the picture. The deepness of human face for example contrasted to the deepness of a room is very small, so it looks like that. But when there's something visible in the picture that extends to the deepness-dimension, it looks different.
Also Avatar used traditional means cinematographically, which distracted me at first. For example, I thought that 3d films should not have close ups, and the camera shouldn't move much, or it should rather move as some person or vehicle (that is: if it has to move). Scenes shouldn't be cut at all, if possible. In short: more theater-like, so that the watchers get more immersed.
The scene where the dontrecallsaurus attacked Sully was in my opinion quite unfortunate with it's very fast cuts and confused picture usually used in action pieces. It would have been better if they had tried to picture that as clearly as possible, and used the 3d-technique instead of fast cutting to impress the audience. Of course for the movie's sake it's better not to exploit the 3d-thing too much, and I'm glad they didn't, but if the other alternative is confusion, it would be very ok.
Of course all the suggestions above might make the film only worse, but it just seems to me that the way 3d-movies are filmed must be different from the usual.
Did you btw have trailer of the coming Tim Burton-film? It was pretty amazing, as that smiley cat (don't know what it is in English) came almost to my lap. Pretty scary actually.
bestrfcplayer
Steppin' up!
The only thing that looks really interesting about the film is the 3D special effects. Otherwise I'm smart and am not going to see it.
GenMarshall
Sin'dorei ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
Doesnt really interest me at much. Blue natives resisting industrial progress of man. I thought Ewoks were bad enough.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
No, but this is an original series and he said he'd make a trilogy if the first made enough money.
(And holy crap. You're almost at 30k posts.)
I wasnt aware that he had said that.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
bestrfcplayer
Steppin' up!
NO, things can get worse than Ewoks.
Neonanocyborgasm
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2004
- Messages
- 4,695
I saw Avatar, expecting a poor plot and dazzling images. I underestimated the images. The 3d special effects were so incredible that the story became unimportant to the movie. In fact, looking back, the story was quite hollow and uninteresting. Many of the themes have been done before. One theater-goer told me it reminded her of Dances with Wolves with bluepeople. All in all, it was worth seeing, but only for the effects.
Phrossack
Armored Fish and Armored Men
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2008
- Messages
- 6,045
Teddy bears with pointed sticks and small stones should not defeat an entire legion of the Emperor's best armor-clad stormtroopers.
GenMarshall
Sin'dorei ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
That's because you are a racist
Says the man who hates Gypsies
.For the record, I aint a racist.
Huayna Capac357
Deity
I just saw it. It was enjoyable, but too long.
PlutonianEmpire
King of the Plutonian Empire
Just saw it too. Of course, there were a few scenes where I literally squirmed, but overall I liked it.
GenMarshall
Sin'dorei ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
Weren't you the one earlier complaining that you are being dragged kicking and screaming?
PlutonianEmpire
King of the Plutonian Empire
Yes.Weren't you the one earlier complaining that you are being dragged kicking and screaming?
My mom gave me the option of which movie to go see. All the choices looked like crap. Avatar seemed the least crappiest. Turns out I made a good choice, IMO.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Says the man who hates Gypsies
I don't hate them, at least not more than I hate a month of a year and their weather patterns. Some are more pleasant than others
Referring to the skin color of the Na'vi in this way strikes me as deeply racist, especially when coupled with the derogatory bottom line message - natives = primitive, useless; humans = industrial progress, technology, good.
You're a closet racist, admit it
GenMarshall
Sin'dorei ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
Full stop, the Na'vi are a fictional group of species who have stone age technology. Arent the Na'vi a native species on the planet the humans want to mine in? In that case, it's not a derogatory statement. If I said the Ewoks are a native of Endor or the Wookiees are a native to Kashyyyk. Then that is the planet that there species are a native to. Also, natives do not necessarily mean primitive nor useless. The Wookiees have a full grasp of technology for example.
No. Again, I'm not a racist.You're a closet racist, admit it
Similar threads
