or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment and Culture › Avatar
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Avatar - Page 22

post #316 of 349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim View Post
So... Necro Thread time. In honor of the new cash grab special edition Avatar Blu Ray and DVD, How many of you own 3D televisions now? How has 3D evolved from being a gimmick to squeeze a few more dollars out of your pocket to being the mainstream in cinema? It's been a year. I'm curious. Has anything any of you 3D apologists predicted come true yet? I did notice that my On Demand now has a 3D section. Other than that, I haven't had my mind blown by anything.
I don't find the experience to be any better in 3D. At worst, it's distracting, at best it's just ok. I watch the movie, and if the movie is good, I become engaged, and forget it's a movie and it seems real when I watch it, even in 2D. 3D doesn't make the movie any more engaging, and often reminds me that I'm watching a movie.
post #317 of 349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kai View Post
I don't find the experience to be any better in 3D. At worst, it's distracting, at best it's just ok.

I watch the movie, and if the movie is good, I become engaged, and forget it's a movie and it seems real when I watch it, even in 2D.

3D doesn't make the movie any more engaging, and often reminds me that I'm watching a movie.

Which is the main issue with 3D from my, and many people's perspective. It's a cool trick, but it doesn't make you feel like you AREN'T watching a move, it feels like a special effect, and gradually, your brain stops noticing any subtle effects (because hopefully by that point in the movie, you are interested in the story), which is why really obvious shit has to continue to happen to "remind you" how much money they are spending on 3D. Thus removing your focus from the story and putting it back on the effects.

It's not like film itself doesn't already have amazing depth. Adding more, fake depth to it is not something that adds to a story, it covers it up.
post #318 of 349
I bet when live dialogue was first introduced from the silent movie era, people thought it was distracting to the action
post #319 of 349
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonick View Post
I bet when live dialogue was first introduced from the silent movie era, people thought it was distracting to the action


lefty
IMPORTANT NOTICE: No media files are hosted on these forums. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. We can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. If the video does not play, wait a minute or try again later.       I AGREE

TIP: to embed Youtube clips, put only the encoded part of the Youtube URL, e.g. eBGIQ7ZuuiU between the tags.
post #320 of 349
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonick View Post
I bet when live dialogue was first introduced from the silent movie era, people thought it was distracting to the action
Possibly, but they'd have been incorrect. Dialogue is how people naturally interact with each other. I have yet to see anything in the past 50+ years of cinema that says 3D is anything similar to dialogue. Nothing since Avatar supposedly "revolutionized" 3D has been revolutionary in the slightest, as far as storytelling goes. Or am I wrong?
post #321 of 349
it's pretty pointless and IME makes it look worse for things that weren't filmed with 3D cameras. i loved avatar's 3D for that.
post #322 of 349
Quote:
Originally Posted by grundletaint View Post
it's pretty pointless and IME makes it look worse for things that weren't filmed with 3D cameras. i loved avatar's 3D for that.

Avatar's 3D, while being scores better than most other 3D, was still atrocious. I saw the movie in theaters and hated it for several reasons. The theater I went to had a brand new Sony projection system, so the display was as good as it was going to be. 3D on a screen is not natural. You cannot shift your own focus away from what the focus on the screen is unless you want eye strain and headaches.

Quite frankly, I want this 3D gimmick over with. It's so obnoxious.
post #323 of 349
Quote:
Originally Posted by deadly7 View Post
Quite frankly, I want this 3D gimmick over with. It's so obnoxious.



The few times I've seen a 3D movie, this image always pops into my consciousness.
post #324 of 349
The need to wear 3D glasses is damned annoying. If you wear glasses to begin with, are you supposed to go out and buy special prescription 3D lenses, or are you supposed to just suffer with a blurry film? Or awkwardly wear the 3D glasses over your existing glasses?

Fuck that.
post #325 of 349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim View Post
Possibly, but they'd have been incorrect. Dialogue is how people naturally interact with each other. I have yet to see anything in the past 50+ years of cinema that says 3D is anything similar to dialogue. Nothing since Avatar supposedly "revolutionized" 3D has been revolutionary in the slightest, as far as storytelling goes. Or am I wrong?

[TROLL POST] By that argument, wouldn't 3D enhance our viewing immersion as we live and interact in a 3 Dimensional world? [/TROLL POST]

I agree that the 3D aspect of most movies do nothing to add, but I have to say that watching Avatar in 3D worked for me. It was fairly unobtrusive (after the first 10 minutes) and I was immersed in the visuals. I can see how it doesn't work for most people and movies.

I don't see myself buying 3D TV's or watching too many 3D movies in the future though.
post #326 of 349
Quote:
Originally Posted by whiteslashasian View Post
[TROLL POST] By that argument, wouldn't 3D enhance our viewing immersion as we live and interact in a 3 Dimensional world? [/TROLL POST]
Sure, if a 3D movie was actually three dimensional. But it's not. Edit: What I mean to say is that 3D images do a terrible job trying to "recreate" what people actually experience. Real life, unless you have severely screwed up eyes, does not look anything like a 3D movie. Simply put, it's because your visual cortex is better, faster, and more adaptive than a camera. A 3D movie (television or video game) is a 2D image that (instead of letting your brain interpret and add depth as in every other 2D media) tries to force an illusion of depth by tricking your visual mechanism with two slightly disparate images. But we already see two disparate images, (since we have two eyes) so they have to eliminate that natural process through technology or we'd see a jumbled, blurry mess. Basically, they are trying to recreate an adaptive and natural part of how your brain and visual cortex function, and replace it with something artificial. So instead of becoming more "natural" or "realistic" it's actually kind of the opposite. Making a 3D movie that is natural and replicates what our eyes would actually see would be pointless, because it would look a lot more like the 2D image we already project in a regular movie, the main difference being that the image would change as you moved around the theater.
post #327 of 349
http://blastr.com/2010/12/want-to-get-married-on-pa.php

Yup. Go get married by Chinese people pretending to be Na'avi. Perfect.
post #328 of 349
Just saw Avatar for the first time and it was awesome. That is all.
post #329 of 349
Avatar was the worst movie of the past decade.
post #330 of 349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reggs View Post
Avatar was the worst movie of the past decade.

Even if you didn't enjoy the film this is perhaps the grossest overstatement ever.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Entertainment and Culture
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment and Culture › Avatar