Jump to content

Avatar

Happy Face

By Happy Face,
in General Chat

 Share

Recommended Posts

SloopJohn

SloopJohn 0

Posted
Posted
the trailer was unbelievably bad

 

i'm still in a state of shock

 

10 years and he gives us that

 

it scares me to think what he'd come up with in the normal 2-year time span...

 

Ah, cool, which 3D cinema did you see this 3D film in? :aye:

 

 

 

 

:razz: You should maybe temper your sensationalism until you've seen it via it's intended medium? It's like shooting down Toy Story after someone should you a flick book version.

 

"Still in shock", take a look at yourself man, it's a trailer for a film, not proof of the Yeti :lol:

 

what a terrible argument. so you're telling me that we all to go out and by a 3D Home Cinema system when this comes out on DVD so we can judge the film on the merit it deserves to be judged on?

 

Or that we need to find a local cinema that supports 3D so we can go watch this? How many cinemas all over the world support 3D films? Talk about destroying a mediums universality when no-one outside a 1st world country can watch it as it was meant to be.

 

And if it was meant to be watched in 3D then why release the trailer in 2D?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 117
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

SloopJohn

SloopJohn 0

Posted
Posted (edited)

you need a shit hot digital projector

 

not many cinemas have them

 

http://www.variety.com/article/VR111797754...yid=13&cs=1

 

Pushing back the release of "Avatar" from May to December allows both more time to work on the effects and that much more time for additional theaters to install 3-D screens both here and abroad.
Edited by SloopJohn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Fish

The Fish 11080

Posted
Posted
what a terrible argument. so you're telling me that we all to go out and by a 3D Home Cinema system when this comes out on DVD so we can judge the film on the merit it deserves to be judged on?
No, mongaloid I'm saying you can't judge a 3D film on a 2D trailer.

 

Or that we need to find a local cinema that supports 3D so we can go watch this? How many cinemas all over the world support 3D films? Talk about destroying a mediums universality when no-one outside a 1st world country can watch it as it was meant to be.
You're right and I'm sure the lost revenue from Guam is really going to eat into their plans... Why stall progress just because people find it hard to keep up?

 

And if it was meant to be watched in 3D then why release the trailer in 2D?

Because they needed to get the buzz out there. You're suggesting they either a ) only put out a 3D trailer b ) fashion a 2D version of the film specifically for the trailers, that somehow conveys what they're aiming for with the 3D film, or c )don't put out a trailer at all.

 

You seem a bright lad, so I think you know all of this, so I don't know why you're slating a film on the back of a trailer that doesn't justly represent the finished article.

 

Happy, Could you assess Pixar's films if they were watched on a black and white tv? Sure if you watched the whole film you could properly pick it apart, talk about the story, the (voice) acting, etc. etc.

 

But this is a trailer, where you get no idea of the (voice) acting, no idea of the story and no idea of anything other that the graphics, which look clunky in 2D.

 

I don't know, to slate a 3D movie on a 2D, 30 second trailer seems a little dismissive to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Happy Face

Happy Face 29

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Happy, Could you assess Pixar's films if they were watched on a black and white tv? Sure if you watched the whole film you could properly pick it apart, talk about the story, the (voice) acting, etc. etc.

 

But this is a trailer, where you get no idea of the (voice) acting, no idea of the story and no idea of anything other that the graphics, which look clunky in 2D.

 

I don't know, to slate a 3D movie on a 2D, 30 second trailer seems a little dismissive to me.

 

I'm not doing a Parky and bashing the whole film on the evidence of a trailer. You've taken what I've said as a categorical statement that the film is shit. I'm saying it's the most eagerly anticipated trailer of the decade....and it's underwhelming (the trailer, not the film).

 

If a trailer is not put out there for the public to make a judgement, then what purpose does it serve?

 

You said it yourself...it looks clunky. It's the most expensive film of all time and it's clunky. It's supposed to be live action...and it looks like a cartoon. Rather than say it looks great and arguing in favour, you seem to be agreeing it looks shit, but hoping the specs and more work will make it better...hardly a ringing endorsement, but a sentiment i agree with entirely.

 

When the time comes, 3D is not the only factor that the film will be judged on. We can make a judgement on the story, the script, the acting, the editing, the effects, the cinematography, the set design, the character design, the costumes, the direction, the originality.... We get a good taste of many of those things from the trailer, and it didn't look good to me....the 3D is the the one thing that categorically can't be judged yet and i wouldn't slag it off on that score at all.

 

3D is just an anti-piracy move by the studios though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Fish

The Fish 11080

Posted
Posted
I'm not doing a Parky and bashing the whole film on the evidence of a trailer. You've taken what I've said as a categorical statement that the film is shit. I'm saying it's the most eagerly anticipated trailer of the decade....and it's underwhelming (the trailer, not the film).

 

If a trailer is not put out there for the public to make a judgement, then what purpose does it serve?

 

You said it yourself...it looks clunky. It's the most expensive film of all time and it's clunky. It's supposed to be live action...and it looks like a cartoon. Rather than say it looks great and arguing in favour, you seem to be agreeing it looks shit, but hoping the specs and more work will make it better...hardly a ringing endorsement, but a sentiment i agree with entirely.

 

When the time comes, 3D is not the only factor that the film will be judged on. We can make a judgement on the story, the script, the acting, the editing, the effects, the cinematography, the set design, the character design, the costumes, the direction, the originality.... We get a good taste of many of those things from the trailer, and it didn't look good to me....the 3D is the the one thing that categorically can't be judged yet and i wouldn't slag it off on that score at all.

 

3D is just an anti-piracy move by the studios though.

 

Re: the bit in bold, surely it's the same reason any trailer is put out, to raise awarness of the film?

 

I suppose I just think people are all to quick to barrack something that's a little bit new. I don't think Cameron'll have got it perfect. I do think it'll open the doors to other film-studios to unleash their creative promise onto this new type of film. I'm not expecting this film to be much other than an experiment with new technology. So I won't dismiss the film on the back of the trailer, simply because I'm not expecting great performances or insightful storyline, certainly not from Cameron. I won't judge the look of the film on the back of the trailer either.

 

meh, I'm going to see it, to see how they've improved the 3D stuff, if anything else entertains me, it' a bonus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Happy Face

Happy Face 29

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
I'm not doing a Parky and bashing the whole film on the evidence of a trailer. You've taken what I've said as a categorical statement that the film is shit. I'm saying it's the most eagerly anticipated trailer of the decade....and it's underwhelming (the trailer, not the film).

 

If a trailer is not put out there for the public to make a judgement, then what purpose does it serve?

 

You said it yourself...it looks clunky. It's the most expensive film of all time and it's clunky. It's supposed to be live action...and it looks like a cartoon. Rather than say it looks great and arguing in favour, you seem to be agreeing it looks shit, but hoping the specs and more work will make it better...hardly a ringing endorsement, but a sentiment i agree with entirely.

 

When the time comes, 3D is not the only factor that the film will be judged on. We can make a judgement on the story, the script, the acting, the editing, the effects, the cinematography, the set design, the character design, the costumes, the direction, the originality.... We get a good taste of many of those things from the trailer, and it didn't look good to me....the 3D is the the one thing that categorically can't be judged yet and i wouldn't slag it off on that score at all.

 

3D is just an anti-piracy move by the studios though.

 

Re: the bit in bold, surely it's the same reason any trailer is put out, to raise awarness of the film?

 

I suppose I just think people are all to quick to barrack something that's a little bit new. I don't think Cameron'll have got it perfect. I do think it'll open the doors to other film-studios to unleash their creative promise onto this new type of film. I'm not expecting this film to be much other than an experiment with new technology. So I won't dismiss the film on the back of the trailer, simply because I'm not expecting great performances or insightful storyline, certainly not from Cameron. I won't judge the look of the film on the back of the trailer either.

 

meh, I'm going to see it, to see how they've improved the 3D stuff, if anything else entertains me, it' a bonus.

 

 

I started the thread because I expect so much more of Cameron. I'm a huge fan. Terminator and Terminator 2 were fantastic, not just because of the effects but because of the story they told, which didn't pander to studio demographics with war for the lads and romance for the lasses.

 

3D has been in the experimental stage for years and still hasn't been used to improve a story in any way. Cameron is the one that took CGI and showed what was possible. Used sparingly on T2 it was breathtaking. It convinced Spielberg he could make Jurassic park, and Kubrick that AI could work (if he had lived).

 

I don't believe 3D will ever make that much of an impact, but if it could, I had hoped Cameron would be the one to show us....it was disappointing to see the kind of film he thinks will win people over.

Edited by Happy Face
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Park Life

Park Life 71

Posted
Posted
I'm not doing a Parky and bashing the whole film on the evidence of a trailer. You've taken what I've said as a categorical statement that the film is shit. I'm saying it's the most eagerly anticipated trailer of the decade....and it's underwhelming (the trailer, not the film).

 

If a trailer is not put out there for the public to make a judgement, then what purpose does it serve?

 

You said it yourself...it looks clunky. It's the most expensive film of all time and it's clunky. It's supposed to be live action...and it looks like a cartoon. Rather than say it looks great and arguing in favour, you seem to be agreeing it looks shit, but hoping the specs and more work will make it better...hardly a ringing endorsement, but a sentiment i agree with entirely.

 

When the time comes, 3D is not the only factor that the film will be judged on. We can make a judgement on the story, the script, the acting, the editing, the effects, the cinematography, the set design, the character design, the costumes, the direction, the originality.... We get a good taste of many of those things from the trailer, and it didn't look good to me....the 3D is the the one thing that categorically can't be judged yet and i wouldn't slag it off on that score at all.

 

3D is just an anti-piracy move by the studios though.

 

Re: the bit in bold, surely it's the same reason any trailer is put out, to raise awarness of the film?

 

I suppose I just think people are all to quick to barrack something that's a little bit new. I don't think Cameron'll have got it perfect. I do think it'll open the doors to other film-studios to unleash their creative promise onto this new type of film. I'm not expecting this film to be much other than an experiment with new technology. So I won't dismiss the film on the back of the trailer, simply because I'm not expecting great performances or insightful storyline, certainly not from Cameron. I won't judge the look of the film on the back of the trailer either.

 

meh, I'm going to see it, to see how they've improved the 3D stuff, if anything else entertains me, it' a bonus.

 

 

I started the thread because I expect so much more of Cameron. I'm a huge fan. Terminator and Terminator 2 were fantastic, not just because of the effects but because of the story they told, which didn't pander to studio demographics with war for the lads and romance for the lasses.

 

3D has been in the experimental stage for years and still hasn't been used to improve a story in any way. Cameron is the one that took CGI and showed what was possible. Used sparingly on T2 it was breathtaking. It convinced Spielberg he could make Jurassic park, and Kubrick that AI could work (if he had lived).

 

I don't believe 3D will ever make that much of an impact, but if it could, I had hoped Cameron would be the one to show us....it was disappointing to see the kind of film he thinks will win people over.

 

 

I'm glad the trailer looks dodgy, it separates the men from the boys. Nobody alive but Cameron can make this film work and it will work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SloopJohn

SloopJohn 0

Posted
Posted
No, mongaloid I'm saying you can't judge a 3D film on a 2D trailer.

 

So that means if I watch the film in 2D at home...then I can't have a relevant opinion on it? bizarre.

 

You're right and I'm sure the lost revenue from Guam is really going to eat into their plans... Why stall progress just because people find it hard to keep up?

 

Because I believe cinema, in theory, is a completely universal medium - it's for everyone - not just the West / economically elite. It's utterly selfish, snobbish and a ridiculous waste of insane money (I read 300 million dollars) to make a film purely for those limited theatres that can financially and technologically support 3D cinema.

 

And you call it 'progress' but what kind of 'progress' limits a work of an art form (I hesitate to call Avatar a work of art) to a score of countries?

 

Because they needed to get the buzz out there. You're suggesting they either a ) only put out a 3D trailer b ) fashion a 2D version of the film specifically for the trailers, that somehow conveys what they're aiming for with the 3D film, or c )don't put out a trailer at all.

 

I'm basically saying that I have no idea why people even bother making 3D films when there are hardly any good 2D ones around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Fish

The Fish 11080

Posted
Posted
No, mongaloid I'm saying you can't judge a 3D film on a 2D trailer.

 

So that means if I watch the film in 2D at home...then I can't have a relevant opinion on it? bizarre.

 

You're right and I'm sure the lost revenue from Guam is really going to eat into their plans... Why stall progress just because people find it hard to keep up?

 

Because I believe cinema, in theory, is a completely universal medium - it's for everyone - not just the West / economically elite. It's utterly selfish, snobbish and a ridiculous waste of insane money (I read 300 million dollars) to make a film purely for those limited theatres that can financially and technologically support 3D cinema.

 

And you call it 'progress' but what kind of 'progress' limits a work of an art form (I hesitate to call Avatar a work of art) to a score of countries?

 

Because they needed to get the buzz out there. You're suggesting they either a ) only put out a 3D trailer b ) fashion a 2D version of the film specifically for the trailers, that somehow conveys what they're aiming for with the 3D film, or c )don't put out a trailer at all.

 

I'm basically saying that I have no idea why people even bother making 3D films when there are hardly any good 2D ones around.

 

 

 

you can't judge a 3D FILM by watching a 2D TRAILER, don't know how I can make that more clear?

 

Cinema evolves, not all cinemas could cope with talkies, but they soon did, not all cinemas could cope with colour, but they evolved, silent to sound, black and white to colour, from film to digital cinema's entire history is evolution. Hell it's very inception was a technological departure from it's parent. I'll wager there were theatre goers screaming, what's the point in this new moving picture nonsense, when I can see (and hear) real actors on stage!

 

You make a 3D movie to prove that you can, to open it up to other people to make 3D movies because someone will make a start. I agree that the quality movies are hidden under the avalanche of Dance Flick and it's brethren, but they;'re out there. Your argument seems to be "Give up now and don't bother trying.", which is derisible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fop

Fop 1

Posted
Posted
No, mongaloid I'm saying you can't judge a 3D film on a 2D trailer.

 

So that means if I watch the film in 2D at home...then I can't have a relevant opinion on it? bizarre.

 

You're right and I'm sure the lost revenue from Guam is really going to eat into their plans... Why stall progress just because people find it hard to keep up?

 

Because I believe cinema, in theory, is a completely universal medium - it's for everyone - not just the West / economically elite. It's utterly selfish, snobbish and a ridiculous waste of insane money (I read 300 million dollars) to make a film purely for those limited theatres that can financially and technologically support 3D cinema.

 

And you call it 'progress' but what kind of 'progress' limits a work of an art form (I hesitate to call Avatar a work of art) to a score of countries?

 

Because they needed to get the buzz out there. You're suggesting they either a ) only put out a 3D trailer b ) fashion a 2D version of the film specifically for the trailers, that somehow conveys what they're aiming for with the 3D film, or c )don't put out a trailer at all.

 

I'm basically saying that I have no idea why people even bother making 3D films when there are hardly any good 2D ones around.

 

 

 

you can't judge a 3D FILM by watching a 2D TRAILER, don't know how I can make that more clear?

 

Cinema evolves, not all cinemas could cope with talkies, but they soon did, not all cinemas could cope with colour, but they evolved, silent to sound, black and white to colour, from film to digital cinema's entire history is evolution. Hell it's very inception was a technological departure from it's parent. I'll wager there were theatre goers screaming, what's the point in this new moving picture nonsense, when I can see (and hear) real actors on stage!

 

You make a 3D movie to prove that you can, to open it up to other people to make 3D movies because someone will make a start. I agree that the quality movies are hidden under the avalanche of Dance Flick and it's brethren, but they;'re out there. Your argument seems to be "Give up now and don't bother trying.", which is derisible.

 

 

3D risible.... alex?

 

 

 

 

 

Wasn't Beowulf in 3D too? Was that better or worse than Jaws 3D? :icon_lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Fish

The Fish 11080

Posted
Posted

Oh, cool. I didn't know that. Do you know if it's still being shown? Might trickle along to see it.

 

Ps you could have been nicer to me

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Happy Face

Happy Face 29

Posted
  • Author
Posted
No, mongaloid I'm saying you can't judge a 3D film on a 2D trailer.

 

So that means if I watch the film in 2D at home...then I can't have a relevant opinion on it? bizarre.

 

You're right and I'm sure the lost revenue from Guam is really going to eat into their plans... Why stall progress just because people find it hard to keep up?

 

Because I believe cinema, in theory, is a completely universal medium - it's for everyone - not just the West / economically elite. It's utterly selfish, snobbish and a ridiculous waste of insane money (I read 300 million dollars) to make a film purely for those limited theatres that can financially and technologically support 3D cinema.

 

And you call it 'progress' but what kind of 'progress' limits a work of an art form (I hesitate to call Avatar a work of art) to a score of countries?

 

Because they needed to get the buzz out there. You're suggesting they either a ) only put out a 3D trailer b ) fashion a 2D version of the film specifically for the trailers, that somehow conveys what they're aiming for with the 3D film, or c )don't put out a trailer at all.

 

I'm basically saying that I have no idea why people even bother making 3D films when there are hardly any good 2D ones around.

 

 

 

you can't judge a 3D FILM by watching a 2D TRAILER, don't know how I can make that more clear?

 

Cinema evolves, not all cinemas could cope with talkies, but they soon did, not all cinemas could cope with colour, but they evolved, silent to sound, black and white to colour, from film to digital cinema's entire history is evolution. Hell it's very inception was a technological departure from it's parent. I'll wager there were theatre goers screaming, what's the point in this new moving picture nonsense, when I can see (and hear) real actors on stage!

 

You make a 3D movie to prove that you can, to open it up to other people to make 3D movies because someone will make a start. I agree that the quality movies are hidden under the avalanche of Dance Flick and it's brethren, but they;'re out there. Your argument seems to be "Give up now and don't bother trying.", which is derisible.

 

3D has been going for over a hundred years now...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-D_film

 

There are literally hundreds of 3D films (39 since 2000)...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_3-D_films

 

...and every time there's a resurgence, they find it adds nothing but headaches and ill-fitting glasses.

 

...and every one of those films trailers could be judged without seeing them in 3D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest alex

Guest alex

Posted
Posted
3D risible.... alex?

Look, I let Fish invent his own words in the same way I let you invent your own realities. OK? No harm done, is there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

  I accept