|
|
Welcome to the Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis. |
GFF is a community of gaming and music enthusiasts. We have a team of dedicated moderators, constant member-organized activities, and plenty of custom features, including our unique journal system. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ or our GFWiki. You will have to register before you can post. Membership is completely free (and gets rid of the pesky advertisement unit underneath this message).
|
|
Thread Tools |
Don't forget all the banshee piss. Also, it's not like a mountain would stop having an aquifer just because it's floating. It's just that the scale is way off; the waterfalls would be too big for the "peaks" even if the mountain clumps were on the ground.
I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? |
I was speaking idiomatically. "Oh sirrah" -Hedonism Bot |
I finally saw this last night to see what the fuss was about and I have to say, this movie was hyped for the right reasons.
The story was pretty predictable but the overall impression with the characters and visual effects is what made the movie as a whole. I didn't really like main villain because he was a generic Disney type of character but I guess for this type of movie, I would take any villain just to keep the movie going. I actually thought this kind of movie was going to be 60% real people with some boring talk about the planet but the majority of the movie was with the Navi people which was quite a surprise to me. I didn't have any idea of what i was walking into with this movie and I think because of that, I just freaking loved it. The movie replayed in my mind as I went to sleep @_@ I saw it in Digital 3d, nothing really impressive from what I saw, just a few flies or leaves popping up and the occasional holographic screens. Or maybe I just have an eye problem. Most amazing jew boots New Record! |
The thing about the 3D was they deliberately did NOT go for shoving the 3D in your face. The 3D just became part of the movie, and about 20 minutes in you're easily able to just treat it as a part of the movie. It made it more like you were there without constantly having a "WOOOOOOOAH THEYRE SHOVING THE SPEAR IN MY FACE THIS IS SO COOL" moment every 5 minutes to remind you.
FELIPE NO |
Floaty seed pods. 'S all I'm sayin.
What, you don't want my bikini-clad body? It was lunchtime at Wagstaff.
Touching butts had been banned by the evil Headmaster Frond. Suddenly, Tina Belcher appeared in the doorway. She knew what she had to do. She touched Jimmy Jr's butt and changed the world. |
The only thing that bothered me was when protruding foreground objects were out of focus, because my instinct is to try and focus on the floaty bits jutting out towards my face, and it feels weird to not be able to. That's the point, I guess--I'm not supposed to be looking there--and maybe the impulse will go away once I get used to seeing 3D movies.
But, if a film's going to be in 3D, wouldn't it make sense to have a really deep focus and let your eyes do the work naturally? I know playing with focus has been in a cinematographer's toolbox for forever, but it just doesn't make sense to me outside of a 2D projection. Maybe dudes smarter than me who know more about the technology and filmmaking could explain why this would be a bad idea. Jam it back in, in the dark. |
I had a headache during this and for about 3 hours afterwards.
Terrible script IMO. Spoiler:
How ya doing, buddy? |
I was surprised how little the 3d bothered me even though I've got cokebottle glasses. Generally 3d stuff gives me a pretty bad headache.
This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. |
That's something that bugs me about 3D, there seems to be a "right way" to watch a 3D movie. Since when is there a "right way" to look at an image? My sister got headaches when she saw it because she's used to looking at the whole screen as opposed to one particular object, and I found that slightly annoying as well.
Some of the shots were really well done though, like the water droplet in the opening because it was just a way of deep focus (like Worm was saying) but more XTREME Will be interesting to see what someone else does with the technology, but Avatar didn't sell me on it. Fun movie though, pew pew, explosions I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? |
Feel free to correct me here, but it seems to me like that comes from an issue with what people expect from 3D movies versus what actually physically can happen.
In the real world, you can focus on whatever you want to because everything exists in 3 actual dimensions. In a normal movie, cinematographers use changes in focus to draw your eye to what they want you to watch, and just like an eye, a camera can't focus on everything all at once (well, it CAN, a technique called deep focus, but it's not a popular method these days. Citizen Kane used it extensively.) This was one of the big advances that WALL-E nailed, actually, because they spent a lot of time focusing on depth of field and having focus on specific objects. The temptation when you CAN focus on everything is to do it, but most people expect the selective focus that other movies use. Anyway, a 3-D movie only APPEARS 3-D because of a combination of how it's being displayed on the screen and the glasses you're wearing. It tricks your eyes into seeing things as closer or farther away than they actually are. In the end, though, it is still a 2 dimensional image, and just as you can't willfully focus on the background in a 2-D movie if you don't want to see Harrison Ford staring wistfully in that new movie he's in that sucks, you can't willfully change the focus on this "3-dimensional" image because in the end the choice was made for you and it's on that flat screen in front of you. I was speaking idiomatically. |
Thought this was funny. I still haven't seen it, unfortunately.
What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now? |
So yes, I appreciate the cinematographer is using the same kind of tricks to guide your eye, but I think the technique isn't mastered yet. The cinematographer even said something to the effect that he had a much harder time directing the audience's eye using the 3D stuff because of the depth of field. Since you seem to be a cinematography guy, you'd probably appreciate the article they did on it in American Cinematographer. Pretty interesting. I guess the problem was the cameras had a limited ability to put things into a shallow depth of field, so they compensated with the lighting and set dressing by taking things out of the background. In that sense, it'd be interesting to watch the film in 2D just to see what all of that looks like without the 3D effect guiding it along. FELIPE NO |
Avatar has become the highest grossing film of all time.
Post your reasons on why this is a grave injustice to art and the world at large below this line: ____________________________________________ What, you don't want my bikini-clad body? |
Why would art care?
Jam it back in, in the dark. |
You didn't really leave enough room to approach the topic with any seriousness but I think that sums it up alright. There's nowhere I can't reach. |
You know, I'm pretty sure that the Harry Potter books have made more money than War and Peace but you see surprisingly little internet nerd-rage about that.
Who actually gives a fuck if Avatar is popular? Big studios are in the business of making money and they're very good at it, that's why they make films they think will be popular and throw a lot of advertising at them. Soap operas are often the most watched programmes on tv for the same reason, if you want something to have wide appeal, you need to aim it at the lowest common denominator. Anyway, Sprout, didn't you say you liked Avatar in your journal? That you have an opinion at all suggests you paid to see it, in which case you have exactly zero grounds on which to complain about how much money it's made. Most amazing jew boots |
Furthermore:
I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? |
Oh, sorry then, got the wrong end of the stick.
Carry on. I was speaking idiomatically. |
Hey, come on, the movie ain't that bad. Then again, I have to admit that I also like Michael Bay flicks :/
Also, I wonder if Cameron played the game Albion Spoiler:
wtf? What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now? |
It's kind of like complaining when a song has dumb lyrics. Yeah, sure, good lyrics can certainly help a song, and some great ones can be made just by being very poetic, but there's still a place for shit like Bang the Drum. FELIPE NO |
I still haven't seen the movie, so can't really comment on how good or bad it is, but I wonder if the enormous financial success of his last two films (Avatar, Titantic, natch) will give Cameron enough leeway to make Battle Angel Alita without a lot of Executive Meddling ?
What, you don't want my bikini-clad body? |
And calling film a "visual medium" discounts all the writing, acting and sound work that go into making a good film whole. Jam it back in, in the dark. |
Well, it being visual is what sets it apart from radio.
Also, is anyone actually saying that Avatar is a pinnacle of film as art? I'll I've heard people say is it's a pretty good popcorn flick that's entertaining for your $10 (or $15 if you're doing the 3D thing). At least it does what it does well, as opposed to, say, 2012. Why is liking a movie for one reason better than another? There's nowhere I can't reach. |
This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. |
I'm curious if they include the sales/rentals of 3d goggles into the gross sales. Those tickets don't come cheap.
I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?
Last edited by Skexis; Jan 27, 2010 at 01:07 AM.
|
Thread Tools | |
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Video Games Live | Tommy Tallarico | General Game Music Discussion | 523 | May 26, 2011 11:33 PM |
Night In Fantasia 2009 - Anime and Game concert in Sydney Australia | Kairi Li | General Game Music Discussion | 0 | Aug 27, 2009 12:03 AM |
[Anime] Avatar: The Last AirBender | Sepharite | Media Centre | 149 | Dec 23, 2008 04:13 PM |