I have seen Avatar 3D and...

I have seen Avatar 3D and... (tick all that apply)


  • Total voters
    2,187

franin1

Active Member
I went to see avatar yesterday, it was good but I was sat too close to the screen and having a pint or 2 before going in isn't a good idea. Cinema isn't that grat at the fast moving scenes but to home 3D should be awesome on the Panny V series which I am going to purchase.
If your going to do 3D at home do it properley with a projector. Or these people heading off getting panels its not even close as getting the same impact as what a projector will do. Thats why everyone was impressed with Avatar because of the sheer size of it.
 

Navvie

Member
Also i dont think it will impact in the home until a tv is made where there is no need for glasses as i just cant see it being widely adopted that people sit in thier living rooms wearing glasses to watch a film.
Spare a thought for those of us who wear glasses all of the time! Once people are used to it then it will just become second nature, like putting your seat belt on when you get in a car.

Having said that, I do agree with you. I can't see 3D taking off at home until there is no need for any extra equipment than the TV itself.
 

kopchoir

Banned
Voted for my Bum hurt:D
And i paid for vip seats there not that more comfy.
Anyway went to see this film yesterday been wanting to see it for months thought it might be quieter but was still packed,i thought that certain parts of the film were just stunning.

It did take me a while to get my eyes used to the images,i have watched other 3d film at the cinema recently up for example was visualy stunning and a great film.
But i found the Avatar experience quite hard on my eyes when the camera panned out it looked like someone was stood up in the cinema and i could see blurry heads:thumbsdow think they went a bit OTT at times with the 3d, ill actually look forward to the bluray which i think ill enjoy more.

Avatar does what it does well to sit up and say WOW what it doesnt deliver on is the story and the Linear plotline, which you knew was going to happen and was as someone else said about half an hour to long.

Visuals 10/10-even though it did wind me up i cant knock it even though i want to
Sound 10/10
Film 7.5/10

Did enjoy UP more though

Was a good day out with the wife anyway:devil:
 

kempez

Well-known Member
I did pick up on that but even they still looked to be moving too quickly in comparison to other equipment particularly the helicopters. The handheld gun seemed odd as did the controls given the advanced neural technology they had.
Hmm yeah having watched it again I see your point, although it is fantasy so I kind of put it down to that. They still managed to highlight the difference between the ponderous mechs and the natural, agile Na'vi though.

I thought it looked wrong as well but that it could be explained due to the lighter gravity, I assume it had been designed for Pandora whereas the helicopters were stock models hence them having much larger blade sets proportionately. I still think visually it would have looked a lot better with the VTOL style engines the shuttle had, aside from looking too small the blades had no redundancy and would make it very easy to take down. Was it just me or did all the helicopter engines sound like a large single rotor design rather than four small sets of blades they were actually using? John
Deffo agreed with the engines. Why would they use rotar blades when they seemed to have advanced jet engine tech? Perhaps simple war economics? Rotar blades = easier to fix. Also, why the hell did the huge jet fly just as slow as the choppers?

I think we're probably going into it too much now though ;)
 

Bald Monkey

Novice Member
Finally got to see this film, in all it's 3D glory... or was it. :D

I've seen a few of the not so good 3D films recently such as My Bloody Valentine and was really looking forward to seeing what some one with Cameron's talent could do..

Firstly I thought it was an amazing film. Certainly up there with T2, Aliens etc.. IMHO.

But I found myself total absorbed in the film, unaware of noticing much 3D, although of course I did, except for odd bits where it seemed a bit 'jittery' on edges or the cliche, spears point sout at the audience bit. Apart form that I was just abosorbed. So I only noticed what IMHO didn't work! :D

So after being a keen fan of 3D after last night my opinion has changed.

Whilst I think with poor films the 'attraction' of 3D makes what would be a dull film more interesting or Fun.

A great film is a great film wether it's 2D or 3D and when you get totally absorbed in a good film and the incredible enviroment Cameron and his team created then I'm not sure it really adds anything. I will keep an open mind and look forward to seeing Avatar in 2D but for now my opinion has changed and 3D isn't really adding anything, because as said above a good film will draw you in and a bad film although made more interesting by 3D is still a bad film :D

SO if this is designed to re-create the Cinema experience, ie a reason to pay £30 for 2 people to sit in a dark room with a bunch of pop-corn eating strangers, then I think I'll stick to buyign a couple of 2D Blu-ray movies instead.

One idea that came to me last night, You can use it for free if your reading this Cameron :rotfl:

The 3Dness is often ruined IMHO as it ends at the screen edges, even on very large cinema screens this is still a problem IMHO. Not sure if this tech would work on the 180degree wrap around screens?? anyhow... My idea was to use a smaller aspect ratio for the main picture. :D Then the 3D plants for example in last nights film, the fern leaves, could come out of the picture and with the smaller aspect ratio for the main picture this leaves a black 'border' which the leaves could 'overlap' into hence helping to merge the line between the edge of the screen and the blackness of the cinema room.. and blend the line between the film and reality :D
 
Last edited:

HerniaBay

Standard Member
It seems very plausible that these firms operate at such a high strategic level anything is possible!

HBay.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
3D TV site said:
Sky has announced that the new channels will bring 3D sport and entertainment right into your house – literally!!
Literally? The footballers and actors will be in my house? For real? Why do people keep misusing that word?

(OT)
 

Lee

Moderator
But I found myself total absorbed in the film, unaware of noticing much 3D, although of course I did, except for odd bits where it seemed a bit 'jittery' on edges or the cliche, spears point sout at the audience bit. Apart form that I was just abosorbed. So I only noticed what IMHO didn't work! :D
A bit different for me. I chose this film as the one to take a trip to the Imax for the first time and spent most of the time being in awe at the 3D and sound to really concentrate on the movie.:D Time flew by and I am going to watch it again.
 
3D was good shame about the film, if that film was not in 3D there is no way it would have done half as well. It is no T2 or Aliens SE.
 

Spoonboy90

Novice Member
This is the first time i've seen anything in 3D recently and its come a long way since the red/green cardboard glasses, the main problem for me which has been pointed out before in the thread is watching through 'sunglasses' really did make everything dull, the 2D version is bright and the colours vivid, strikes me that some adjustments need to be made to compensate for the dullness of the glasses.
 

MADEINUK

Standard Member
:lesson:
If your going to do 3D at home do it properley with a projector. Or these people heading off getting panels its not even close as getting the same impact as what a projector will do. Thats why everyone was impressed with Avatar because of the sheer size of it.
DenonFrank hits the nail very squarely on the head. The majority of people i know who've seen Avatar say exactly what's quoted by this member.
Gimmicky additions to movie viewing have been tried before, sensuround anybody!, all of which normally fade away and are soon forgotten. Avatar,however, seems to have re-ignited the 3D interest that never really went away. Having waited until all the bandwagon jumping has died down i was extremely suprised at how well the 3D works with this film, but i still am not totally sold on the idea. I have noted that many posts don't mention the fact that it seems to work better with CGI material over the live action sequences which, although, still good seemed to use the old 50s' method of contrived sequences added just because it was in 3D. The recent re-make of House of Wax did exactly the same thing, which after a while becomes tiresome and obvious. I'm not saying that's the case with Avatar but until we stop seeing this method of movie production as the re-invention of the wheel we will continue to query its' merits over 2D. This is, naturally, my own opinion, and no doubt there are many who will disagree with this, so try just enjoying the film for what it is, a rollacking great adventure worthy of many of the praises heaped against it, and not just a tester for the soon to be standard method of both televisual and movie viewing.:lesson:
 

The latest video from AVForums

Podcast: New TVs, Samsung Q800T Soundbar review, IFA latest, Movie and AV News, B+W Brad Pitt
Top Bottom