Media Megaforum

Avatar
isukun at 12:33PM, Jan. 10, 2010
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
I can think of quite a few movies and TV shows that didn't. And the movies I can think of that did use that shot are typically centered around golf.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:05PM
mlai at 8:24PM, Jan. 10, 2010
(online)
posts: 3,035
joined: 12-28-2006
Anyone played The Movie: The Game? Does it suck just like the reviews said? How/why?

FIGHT current chapter: Filling In The Gaps
FIGHT_2 current chapter: Light Years of Gold
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:06PM
Baron_Terrence at 5:02PM, Jan. 16, 2010
(offline)
posts: 4
joined: 8-14-2009
I enjoyed the movie an was impressd by the 3d to, much better than i thoughtt it would be
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:15AM
Product Placement at 9:56PM, Jan. 16, 2010
(online)
posts: 7,078
joined: 10-18-2007
Here's something that's kinda funny. Apparently there's this big sex scene that got edited out at the last minute. Only now they made an announcement that they're going to add it to the DVD feature.

So in essence, if you want to see this…


…go and by the DVD.

P.S. 5 bucks it has something to do with those nerve tails on their heads that they use to “join” with their mounts.
Those were my two cents.
If you have any other questions, please deposit a quarter.
This space for rent.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:52PM
Peipei at 7:07AM, Jan. 17, 2010
(online)
posts: 462
joined: 7-18-2006
Product Placement
Here's something that's kinda funny. Apparently there's this big sex scene that got edited out at the last minute. Only now they made an announcement that they're going to add it to the DVD feature.

So in essence, if you want to see this…


…go and by the DVD.

P.S. 5 bucks it has something to do with those nerve tails on their heads that they use to “join” with their mounts.

I also heard this. According to the script (It's on the internet xD), it involves the use of those tendril thingies they use on their banshees :p. So if you really think about it, they use their ‘private parts’ to make love with AND tame animals with @.@! Scarrrry!

I did like this movie a lot btw :3.

I like Pie!
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:41PM
I Am The 1337 Master at 10:29AM, Jan. 17, 2010
(offline)
posts: 3,785
joined: 1-16-2009
I get responses that the movie was AMAZING or that it SUCKED. The people who liked it either saw it in 3D or saw it in an IMAX theater. I haven't seen it yet myself but the commercials don't appeal to me much.

To PP: :) nice image. Blue F*ck. (jk)
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:53PM
ramlama at 3:31PM, Jan. 17, 2010
(online)
posts: 137
joined: 11-6-2009
Peipei
So if you really think about it, they use their ‘private parts’ to make love with AND tame animals with @.@! Scarrrry!
Isn't that how most people tame anima-

err… I think I've said too much.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:00PM
ParkerFarker at 12:56AM, Jan. 22, 2010
(online)
posts: 1,451
joined: 4-29-2009
I Am The 1337 Master
I get responses that the movie was AMAZING or that it SUCKED. The people who liked it either saw it in 3D or saw it in an IMAX theater. I haven't seen it yet myself but the commercials don't appeal to me much.

I saw it in 2D on a standard screen and I loved it.

“We are in the stickiest situation since Sticky the stick insect got stuck on a sticky bun.” - Blackadder
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:39PM
Peipei at 6:37PM, Jan. 22, 2010
(online)
posts: 462
joined: 7-18-2006
ParkerFarker
I Am The 1337 Master
I get responses that the movie was AMAZING or that it SUCKED. The people who liked it either saw it in 3D or saw it in an IMAX theater. I haven't seen it yet myself but the commercials don't appeal to me much.

I saw it in 2D on a standard screen and I loved it.

I second you *^^* I saw it in 3D, it was splendid! :D

I like Pie!
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:41PM
I Am The 1337 Master at 4:36PM, Jan. 25, 2010
(offline)
posts: 3,785
joined: 1-16-2009
Well not including you ParkerFarker. I hadn't asked you when I said that, had I? (hohoho, clever one!) :D

Since I went and saw the movie on Friday I must say that it wasn't as amazing or as bad as some of what I was told. The initial storyline was interesting but there was too much to each character. I was so tempted to yell out “smurf” millions of times in the theatre, PP… I will tell you one of the scenes where I broke out laughing, when started being all “modern teenager” when her mom told her she had to show …Jason… the ways of the…. It was fricking funny. :). …in my eyes…
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:53PM
ParkerFarker at 9:09PM, Jan. 25, 2010
(online)
posts: 1,451
joined: 4-29-2009
I Am The 1337 Master
Well not including you ParkerFarker. I hadn't asked you when I said that, had I? (hohoho, clever one!) :D

DAMN! You got me there, punk!

But I will be seeing it again in 3D sometime this week.

“We are in the stickiest situation since Sticky the stick insect got stuck on a sticky bun.” - Blackadder
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:39PM
The Gravekeeper at 11:52AM, Feb. 2, 2010
(offline)
posts: 232
joined: 3-13-2009
I enjoyed it. Yes, I knew going in that it was very much over-hyped so I didn't expect it to blow my mind or anything. All I was expecting was a competent movie with very good special effects, and that's what I got. Well, that and “Dances with Wolves in SPAAAAAACE”.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:14PM
Sea_Cow at 8:38PM, Feb. 2, 2010
(offline)
posts: 2,687
joined: 4-5-2007
Fern Gully the last rainforest.
I am so happy to finally be back home
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:27PM
lothar at 8:14AM, Feb. 13, 2010
(online)
posts: 1,299
joined: 1-3-2006
i think i would be far more likely to go see this movie if it actually did have a smurf sex scene
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:45PM
Comicracy at 11:10PM, March 8, 2010
(offline)
posts: 77
joined: 3-28-2008
I think it's a reaction to the whole 3-D style that has everyone ga-ga over this movie. Yeah it was great visually but storyline not so.

What really cracks me up and I think is wishful/delusional thinking are those that are stating this movie is right up there with Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, etc… I highly doubt we are going to see sequels or cartoon offshoots of this movie and I am pretty sure that kids won't be playing with the toys 20 years from now.

Basically I think it will fade away as most fads do, it's no classic. Only time will tell.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:44AM
isukun at 12:52AM, March 9, 2010
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
I think we can expect sequels. There was talk of making it a trilogy before the movie even came out and with its overwhelming success, I don't see ANY reasons for them not to follow up on that.

Honestly, I think people are just getting jaded and looking for any reason they can find to nitpick the film on account of the hype and the budget that went behind it. People are getting to the point where they expect anything with a high budget and good special effects to automatically be bad. They are so convinced of this, they need to tear down a decent movie just because of it. You say the movie isn't right up there with series like Lord of the Rings or Star Wars, but neither of those series were exactly perfect. Star Wars was plagued by bad acting, poor writing, and a creator determined to destroy what good there was in his original creation. Lord of the Rings was hurt by plot holes, character changes that upset the existing fan base, bad camera direction and editing, and choreography that had a knack for sucking any coolness factor out of a scene. Does Avatar have its problems? Of course, but nothing worse than other classics have shown us in the past.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:05PM
ministrybase at 4:10AM, March 9, 2010
(offline)
posts: 20
joined: 3-31-2009
I thought it was visually stunning and the creatures’ designs were imaginative. However, I found the story tediously predictable at first. I then chose to view the story as being on the same all-ages level as a Disney 2D film and enjoyed it enormously. I do think the movie has been reviewed too highly by critics. Will Avatar stand the test of time once this quality of 3D becomes common in movies?
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:02PM
elektro at 6:17AM, March 9, 2010
(online)
posts: 807
joined: 6-18-2009
I know I already posted my opinion in this topic, but since the 3D aspect was mentioned, I've got to expand on it.

Personally, this whole 3D thing is a fad. It was a fad in the 50s, it was a fad in the 80s when those cheesy movies like “Jaws 3-D” came out, it was a fad in the 90s (somewhat) when the American ABC had an entire week of their shows use cheesy “3D” tricks to gain viewers, and it's a fad now.

Sure, it's hot shit now and it sells tickets, but in a few years the fad will die down a bit and no one will care as much. Unfortunately, the movies using the 3D now probably won't hold up in a few years (just look at the already-mentioned “Jaws 3-D” on that, although it sucked when it first came out).

Technology is always surpassed, or abandoned, or, in the case of 3D effects, dissappears and comes back again. However, good storytelling never fades with time. Maybe movie developers should focus on that instead. Yeah, that will also be the day I ride in the popemobile dressed in a Miss Piggy costume.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:21PM
Product Placement at 9:09AM, March 9, 2010
(online)
posts: 7,078
joined: 10-18-2007
I don't know if 3D technology is gonna stay in the “fad” zone forever. It's becoming easier and easier (and subsequently cheaper) to make 3D films as the technology keeps on improving and side effects like viewers suffering from blistering headaches are now a thing of the past (mostly). Directors experimenting with 3D movies of the past often fell into the trap of showing off what the technology could do, giving you the impression as if the movie was actually a screaming nerd boy saying “look at what I can do! *swoosh* See that? It went right at your face! Isn't that cool!?! Here! Let me show it to you again!”. Old 3D films were often low budged flicks that were made around the fact that it was 3D but now the big producers are looking at it more and more now that it's become more viable (and they most definitely will now thanks to Avatar). Movies like Avatar don't need to be in 3D but it sure feels more immersive and I like the fact that they're learning that it's possible to use 3D to make us believe we're looking into a stage but not a screen with things popping out of it. The technology is still advancing and they're even experimenting with TV screens that don't require glasses to enjoy.

My prediction: Some people didn't like the idea of movies with sound and there's this famous quote somewhere where someone asked: “Who would want to listen to actors talk?” (I guess the one who spoke those words never went to a theater). Filming with a color film was considered to be pointless for a while since the new film was more expensive and most people owned a TV screen that couldn't display color. Back then making a color film was the gimmick since you could only show them in theaters. Eventually these things changed. It might not happen now and it might not happen the next time that 3D projection becomes popular again but we will one day see a time where this method of movie making will be considered to be the norm rather then exception. And that day is probably closer then we think.
Those were my two cents.
If you have any other questions, please deposit a quarter.
This space for rent.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:52PM
ozoneocean at 9:54AM, March 9, 2010
(online)
posts: 25,115
joined: 1-2-2004
About 3d… I sort of disagree a bit PP. I think it really is pretty gimicky in that its purpose more than anything else is a marketing gimick. In the case of films it was to get you to see one film rather than another. In the case of the new generation of TVs it's just a trick to make you buy a new TV.
Most people have upgraded to flatscreens now. Plasma is being edged out because it's a great hot unpopular power hog and LCDs are winning slowly… The next thing was going to be the ultra flat low power screens like the LED backlit LCDs or even the new OLED TVs if they ever make them big enough or cheap enough finally.

But the big impetus isn't there. The main push for flat screens was threefold:
1. Because flat screens were big and less bulky than your old CRT screens.
2. Because the new flat screens can get digital HDTV signals.
3. Because there was the big push for the whole “HDTV” idea, as if an image 1900 pixels wide is somehow amazingly better than anything that has ever happened before… So you had Blueray, HD-DVD and the games console market all pushing that too.

With the new 3D TVs they haven't got the same push behind them. People have already spent a few grand to get their big flat screen, or a couple of them and so on… They've got it for the Blueray, the games console, the digital TV signals etc Why would they get another expensive TV that's only good for a few limited movie titles?
A few people WILL for sure, but I doubt the majority will jump on it like they did HDTV flatscreens. Not yet.

First you have to have the media supporting it, like new games consoles that do 3D, a LOT more movies doing it, and TV shows as well.
It could very well become the norm eventually, but I don't see any reasons to upgrade your home theatre stuff yet and meanwhile all the technology is still evolving… Maybe instead of 3D TVs we'll have a nice projection system on water vapour or smoke or something?
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:36PM
isukun at 10:56AM, March 9, 2010
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
However, good storytelling never fades with time. Maybe movie developers should focus on that instead.

Most issues dealing with movie production aren't an either/or scenario. The producers budget their money based on what they need for each part of the production and often studios will pay extra to get productions that utilize gimmicky presentation formats since it draws more people into the theater. Earmarking money for 3D or Imax doesn't take money away from purchasing a screenplay.

As for TVs, 3D isn't going to be the next big revolution in TV or movie technology. It isn't a big enough step for the industry. Honestly, HD is proving to not be a big enough step for the industry and many analysts are still saying Blu-Ray is going to fail since most consumers are satisfied with lower resolution downloadable video.

Another issue is that there is no standard way of handling 3D at this point. Even with films using the Real3D tech, they have at least three different ways of presenting 3D in the theaters and none of them are particularly well suited to consumer TVs, especially using current LCD technology.

The lenticular approach that all of the “no glasses” 3D monitors use at this point is expensive and only works if you view the TV from the right angles. If you are off the target viewing area, you will get either double vision or a flat image. The systems that work ideally still use the glasses. Even with that setup, though, 3D is best suited for viewers in an upright position. 3D is designed to emulate what you would see through your eyes if you were upright and looking into the screen. This is fine for theater viewing where everyone is forced to sit in a chair while they watch the movie, but who really wants that limitation in their living room?

For 3D TVs to become the norm, the technology would need to be adopted widely. So far, there is no way of broadcasting a 3D signal. So not only would they need to develop a way of getting 3D to the household, they would need to go through yet another transition like they are still doing for HD. Seems like a lot of work for an effect people stop noticing after a few minutes, anyway.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:05PM
Product Placement at 6:59AM, March 10, 2010
(online)
posts: 7,078
joined: 10-18-2007
I wasn't saying that these things are gonna happen overnight. Of course nobody is going to buy an experimental 3D TV with limited functionality apart from gadget freaks with enough money in their hands. Just for the fact that they can say that they own a 3D TV.

It's still a gimmick when it comes to home use but it's becoming more common at cinemas where the next advancement in movie technology normally becomes available first. That's where sound and color made their debuts. Even high definition cinemas popped up before HDTV's entered the market. Even then people were complaining about them because those types of TV's popped up so shortly after the first flat screens.

I did say this was not gonna be a overnight change. I doubt even if it's going to start in 10 years but this will eventually happen.
Those were my two cents.
If you have any other questions, please deposit a quarter.
This space for rent.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:52PM
Faliat at 7:53AM, March 10, 2010
(online)
posts: 582
joined: 10-17-2006
Everybody's calling it Dances With Wolves in space, but as far as I understand, the “Space” element automatically makes it different because it changes so many things.

And besides, how many other movies have used a similar plot and nobody complained?

Has a lot more in common with the Last Samurai than Ferngully or DWW. And even though I liked the movie and am trying to appeal to my parents and sister to go and see it in 3d and decide for themselves (They only ever went to one 3d movie and we had to leave halfway through when my dad collapsed in the aisle and had to go to hospital because of an inner ear problem he'd be having and has now recovered from but all three of them are still terrified of going to another one.) , I still admittedly cringed at Neytiri being a kind of warrior princessy figure.

Call that jumped up metal rod a knife?
Watch mine go straight through a kevlar table, and if it dunt do the same to a certain gaixan's skull in my immediate vicinity after, I GET A F*****G REFUND! BUKKO, AH?!

- Rekkiy (NerveWire)
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:25PM
isukun at 10:08AM, March 10, 2010
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
Even high definition cinemas popped up before HDTV's entered the market.

If you're simply talkling resolution, technically, old movie theaters used film which has always offered a “higher definition” picture than digital formats. That technology had nothing to do with the advent of HD, though. It wasn't digital and there were ways for home viewers to get a similar experience in the days before VHS and Beta.

If you're talking about the newer digital theaters, though, then they certainly did not pop up before HD TVs. That's one case where theaters followed TV technology and not the other way around. Digital broadcasting has been in the works since the 70's with HDTVs on the market since the 80's. Digital theaters started out using DLP projectors, which weren't even invented until the late 80's, and even then, they were primarily consumer electronics used in businesses or the home. They started making their way into movie theaters in the late 90's. The projectors used in theaters today (the 2K projectors) weren't introduced until 2005 and monitors with the same resolution were already in use, although mostly for advertising and trade shows. The only ones that are really a step up are the 4k projectors, but at this point, it's just a matter of pushing up the resolution and not really advancing technology.

Actually, the RealD 3D tech started out on the consumer market with rear projection TVs before the first movie to use the tech even came out (Chicken Little in 2005). It wasn't expensive on the TV market, but still didn't catch on. Instead it went to theaters where it was a better fit for audiences. 3D had its chance and didn't take hold, so I really don't see it becoming the next major advancement in TV tech. It may accompany the next big advancement as a bonus feature, but for peole to rush out and buy new TVs all over again, they need something bigger than just a boost in resolution or a 3D feature they won't use. Plus the broadcast technology has to be brought up to speed to use such features and it will likely be another couple of decades at least before anyone tries to change the broadcast standards again.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:05PM
lba at 1:31PM, March 10, 2010
(online)
posts: 2,686
joined: 5-29-2007
On the 3D thing, Avatar was really not the first to take advantage of the technologies that were used. Earlier movies like Speed Racer got to a number of them, like the method by which the backgrounds were rendered first, but they didn't use them to the extent or quality level Avatar did. Cameron is the just the first to use them extensively.

My beef is the concept work of the movie. Yeah, the graphics are well rendered, but the conceptual end on a lot of things is lacking and it's graphics porn. A number of the character and set designs seem flawed or outright goofy ( the panther-like thing for instance. ). The whole movie seems like it's a platform to show off the technology. I don't buy that Cameron had the script ready 10 years ago. I don't feel like there would be as many weaknesses with the movie as there are, ( ie: outright issues like the leaving battle incident, or the problematic issue of every species on the planet all evolving a 100% compatible method of communcation. ) if Cameron has actually spent 10 years sitting and thinking on this movie. Even on and off, focusing on other things, 10 years of thinking and planning is more than enough to whip your plot into something resembling a masterpiece of film instead of an eye candy pop experience. In no way do I think this movie is going to be a classic ten years from now. It'll be remembered by film critics for it's excellent use of CG, but I expect this one to be a film that goes onto people's movie shelf and gets forgotten in favor of films with more involved, emotionally investing work.

If I remember right Cracked mentioned something about the ponytail rape in on of their articles about the movie when it came out.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:30PM
Product Placement at 9:11AM, March 12, 2010
(online)
posts: 7,078
joined: 10-18-2007
isukun
If you're talking about the newer digital theaters…
Yeah, that's what I was talking about and I stand corrected.

None the less, I still stand by that eventually, once enough movies will feature 3D option, more and more people will look at the idea of making it more readily available on the 3D market. Already do I see 3D DVD's comming out that comes with cheap glasses and you can find more sturdy versions of those same glasses in some stores. I've already stated that this is not an overnight thing and I know very well that people are not gonna rush to by yet another TV.

Couple of questions: What problems do current broadcasting technologies have? Would fiber optics fix that?
Those were my two cents.
If you have any other questions, please deposit a quarter.
This space for rent.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:52PM
shikaruchan at 8:02PM, March 17, 2010
(online)
posts: 5
joined: 10-6-2009
i thought that the movie was amazing,the graphic's were very vivid and trust me i tend on watching it over and over again:)
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:33PM
kingofsnake at 1:34PM, March 19, 2010
(online)
posts: 1,374
joined: 9-27-2006
isukun
I didn't mention it because the 3D seemed like an afterthought to me. There were a lot of shots where there wasn't any 3D simply because they didn't shoot any of the live action footage with 3D in mind.

All of it was in 3D. They just allowed the scenes to have natural depth instead of throwing shit at your face all the time.

Honestly, most of it is so natural looking that it's easy to forget they're doing it at all.

Also lba, I disagree with you. The plot of the film wasn't groundbreaking, but the story-telling was excellent and it was thematically congruent in a way that a lot of movies aren't. Just because the storyarc isn't unique doesn't mean it's mediocre film. If you don't like this movie, it's something you were predisposed not to like. You're not judging it by it's own merits.

Basically, what I'm saying is, without making a different movie, they couldn't have made a better movie.

As far as whether or not it'll be a classic, that depends on a lot of factors. I think the biggest thing it has against it is market over saturation. But really, is it a worse movie than Terminator 2? Absolutely now. And that's a classic.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:16PM
isukun at 5:49PM, March 19, 2010
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
All of it was in 3D. They just allowed the scenes to have natural depth instead of throwing shit at your face all the time.

Not even. There were spots where the only noticeable 3D were the fake elements like the CG screens added in afterwards. In other spots you could see where they spliced together two or three video feeds and put them on separate “layers” making the splicing even more evident than it would have been in the 2D version since the only change in depth was between the layers. There were spots in the movie where I took my glasses off and couldn't see any difference in the picture. That's not “natural depth” it's no depth.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:05PM
lba at 7:37AM, March 20, 2010
(online)
posts: 2,686
joined: 5-29-2007
kingofsnake
Also lba, I disagree with you. The plot of the film wasn't groundbreaking, but the story-telling was excellent and it was thematically congruent in a way that a lot of movies aren't. Just because the storyarc isn't unique doesn't mean it's mediocre film. If you don't like this movie, it's something you were predisposed not to like. You're not judging it by it's own merits.

No, I am judging it by it's own merits. 10 years is more than enough time to iron out the wrinkles. I'm not saying it wasn't coherent or calling it a bad film because the story isn't 100% original. You put those words into my mouth. I said I don't like the character designs and there were a number of issues I found with the believability of the world he created. I said my problem with it, is that if he's been working on it for 10 years as has been claimed, he could have done better. James Cameron isn't a bad creative, but for the work he's done in the past I expect more from him if the guy has had 10 years worth of time to go over his plot and the world he's creating with it to clear up things that don't quite make sense. I think it's a mediocre film based on that standing.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:30PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved