Avatar re released already???!!!
- Thread starter CustomCreations
- Start date
blipper
Sr Member
Except so far it seems only Tron Legacy is actually shooting in 3d, the others being 3d'd in post. I think the industry is shooting itself in the foot by short changing the public with inferior 3d.
I really think Cameron should have prefaced Avatar with a very brief, memorable short that educates between the different 3d processes.
Solo4114
Master Member
In all honesty, unless it's a really BAD movie (IE: Transformers, G.I. Joe, etc.), I probably won't be that snarky. I'll be snarky about the surrounding rhetoric, potentially, but I'll treat the movie itself separately from the rhetoric.
When it was first in theaters, though, we had a spate of really bad weather here in Philly (like, 2' snowstorms), and the rest of the time I just couldn't be arsed, as they say. >shrug< I'll get around to seeing it one of these days.
From a marketing and development perspective, it's probably a "game changer", at least in the short term. Lots of "Quick! Get our movie into 3D too! Don't you have some software to do it? Well, get to it!!" Bandwagon jumping, as it were. So, yeah, in that sense, game changer (and you don't even have to have seen the film to understand that). Will it be a game changer in other respects? I have no idea, since I haven't seen it. My hunch is....no. It'll be like Cameron's introduction of really impressive CGI as we saw in The Abyss and T2. That became a "game changer' in the sense of "Well, now everyone will use this technology." In some cases it was good, in many it was crap.
Definitely.
Hollywood tends to fall back on technical crutches to resolve what are ultimately storytelling problems (IE: your story is boring, or your script sucks). Frequently, it seems that they do a shoddy job but pretend it's good. (IE: The Incredible Hulk looked like crap to me, but I'm sure people would cite that as "good CGI." Others said similar stuff about Jackson's King Kong.)
I do agree that doing a bad initial job with 3D processing is going to sour audiences at least until other top notch examples come out. Whether the good stuff gets out to audiences fast enough, and to a wide enough crowd remains to be seen.
Next Bond and the Hobbit movies are slated to be shot in 3d too.
Agree re post 3d. People at work have been saying bad things about the Alice 3d; for many it's their first experience of the 'new' 3d. Mine was Avatar and it really was damned good; for these folk they're turned off the format right from the word go.
It's blatantly manipulative and a patchwork of cliches from other films, as you've read. What matters is whether you're engaging with the story nonetheless (as I did) or seeing the mechanics of it sticking out all over the place, like CTF and others.
Can anyone with real experience comment on this? I.E. is a studio exec really likely to say "right, our movie has problems but they will all go away if we convert it to use the Technical Gimmick du Jour!"? Are they really that dumb? I know it is kind of a truism and I have friends in the industry who've told some good horror stories about their ignorance of basic history, science, etc etc. But are they really this clueless on fundamentals of their own business?
Last edited:
Solo4114
Master Member
I tend to think it's more cynical than that. Or that it's mroe like "People won't watch this movie unless we have XYZ effects." Or "Stick some of those effects in. They're hot right now."
Mostly I think it comes down to two or three things.
1.) The people running the show are friggin' idiots who know some stuff abotu business and "the industry" but not about the real world (IE: history, storytelling, etc.)
2.) the people running the show have the ability to make fantastic stories, but choose to use their powers for evil because they have a VERY dim view of the public -- and the public rises to the bait every time, only confirming their cynical assumptions and promoting further stupid crap.
3.) The people running the show are easily swayed by the momentary passions of the industry, and miss the bigger picture in favor of tracking demographics, "hot" developments, and the production schedules of other studios (IE: "Hey, they're putting out this Harry Potter-like stuff and making a mint. Go option me a fantasy series and we'll do the same.") Mostly because they aren't very inventive.
Mostly I think it comes down to two or three things.
1.) The people running the show are friggin' idiots who know some stuff abotu business and "the industry" but not about the real world (IE: history, storytelling, etc.)
2.) the people running the show have the ability to make fantastic stories, but choose to use their powers for evil because they have a VERY dim view of the public -- and the public rises to the bait every time, only confirming their cynical assumptions and promoting further stupid crap.
3.) The people running the show are easily swayed by the momentary passions of the industry, and miss the bigger picture in favor of tracking demographics, "hot" developments, and the production schedules of other studios (IE: "Hey, they're putting out this Harry Potter-like stuff and making a mint. Go option me a fantasy series and we'll do the same.") Mostly because they aren't very inventive.
blipper
Sr Member
It seems like mainstream cinema is now unashamedly being run with the same mentality as the banks - it's become like a science to extract as much profit in as short a time as possible with no view to the future - and consequently it might be quite problematic for the future.
Look at the way many films are front loaded now so they can make big bucks in the first opening week because the suits know word of mouth will soon reveal a turkey for what it is. The studios now are infested with people who don't have a love in film, but do have a degree in business studies and treat movie production like a formula.
I see only today that theatre tickets are now going to rise by 20% for 3d showings and only a few days ago Warner stated that all it's future tentpole releases will be in 3d (mostly post process).
I suspect as well as wanting some of the Avatar pie that a lot of the studio enthusiasm comes from their ever increasing paranioa that piracy is damaging their profits. A 3d film will certainly delay a pirate release as well as create an experience only to be had in a theatre.
I feel for Cameron, I think he had a noble idea and the studio's totally missed his point.
Now we see 3d, inferior 3d, being foistered upon film makers by clueless suits. I'm sure there will be more than the usual amount of breathing down the neck from above as the studio makes sure that a director is taking advantage of the wonderful 3d medium by wibbling things in the foreground.
It's a crazy world when I find myself giving Bay credit for recently saying he feels post-process 3d is a bad move and very fake looking and shooting in 3d isn't a practical solution for everyone just yet.
CustomCreations
Sr Member
Cool points everyone.
I was at an Avatar Seminar and the guys from Framestore basically said 3d was pretty much here to stay because:
A. You cant pirate it from the back of a cinema with a camera (?)
B. You 'have' to go to the cinema to see it, as most home systems cant handle it for another few years.
Just seems a shame to flog it to death so soon......
Also, the problem with shooting 3d was :
1: the huge amount of processing memory and storage- (42tb?) needed- having two lenses means x2 computer power to render a scene
2: one lense is polarised, which buggers up one of the rendering
3: No-ones decided which is best: shooting with parallel or offset lenses...
It still being ironed out but it won't be long if the production houses see the ££$$ signs and put money into development...
I was at an Avatar Seminar and the guys from Framestore basically said 3d was pretty much here to stay because:
A. You cant pirate it from the back of a cinema with a camera (?)
B. You 'have' to go to the cinema to see it, as most home systems cant handle it for another few years.
Just seems a shame to flog it to death so soon......
Also, the problem with shooting 3d was :
1: the huge amount of processing memory and storage- (42tb?) needed- having two lenses means x2 computer power to render a scene
2: one lense is polarised, which buggers up one of the rendering
3: No-ones decided which is best: shooting with parallel or offset lenses...
It still being ironed out but it won't be long if the production houses see the ££$$ signs and put money into development...
cboath
Master Member
I think point A sums it up exclusively.
They're an industry that believes the sole reason for the revenues not going up as much as they predict is piracy. Just like the music biz, they wanna claim piracy is the only reason. I'm not saying it isn't 'a' factor, but i'll say crap product has a large part to do with it as well.
As far as other productions shooting in 3D, well, Avatar can't have influenced that quite yet. I don't know how slow/fast the pre-production portion of things go, but i wager you have to do a lot of pre-work to prepare to shoot in 3D, fine tune large storage systems, get a hold of the proper cameras and equipment and etc, to the point that someone who saw avatar and wanted to shoot that way probably wouldn't be shooting yet.
I think an influence being overlooked is the work done on motion and facial capture which was awfully impressive.
Capn_Jack_Savvy
Sr Member
Don't forget the 2-Disc Version, the 3-Disc Version, the 4-Disc Version, the Gold Version, the Silver Version, the Platinum Version, and the Adamantium Version.
Actually I am glad the are re-releasing it considering we haven't even seen it yet! I hope it will still be in 3D release!
Actually I am glad the are re-releasing it considering we haven't even seen it yet! I hope it will still be in 3D release!
exoray
Master Member
Well those guys are idiots, the 3D effects are not yet included in the bootlegs but this article points out that didn't stop bootlegs, or even slow it down...
http://carpetbagger.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/05/avatar-commandeers-film-piracy-record/
And there is a blue/red glasses bootleg of the 3D DVD screener out there already as well, ahead of the official release...
Exactly right. That's why the next Bond has been put back a year. One of the reasons I asked, in fact - sounds like they're putting a *lot* of weight on the 3D aspect.
QFT.
Mr.Engineer
Well-Known Member
I missed it the first time so this time, if they re-release it near my area, I might or might not see it. Depending on family time, that is.
BTW, is he the guy who started the whole Director's Cut act and put all the 'missing' scenes with Aliens?
BTW, is he the guy who started the whole Director's Cut act and put all the 'missing' scenes with Aliens?
Colin Droidmilk
Sr Member
3D is a retro concept of course, let's all remember here that this is nothing new. With 3D, Cameron has broken no new ground conceptually. What's interesting is why 3D died the first time, why is it being dragged back to life now, and why is there any reason to suppose it will suffer a better fate than in its first incarnation?
The true 3D breakthrough occurred in the 50s, but Hollywood gave up on it, partly since it failed in its purpose of defeating TV. The cost of perfecting the systems was not worth the candle. If today's suits see it fail again, this time as a weapon against piracy, and they see no return for their 3D investment, there's no reason why it shouldn't die a second death. In fact, the postprocess ploy already gives a distinct impression of suits not wanting to make the investment. Is it dying already? From Avatar true 3D to half-assed 3D within 6 months...hmm. Be interesting to see how it all pans out...
The true 3D breakthrough occurred in the 50s, but Hollywood gave up on it, partly since it failed in its purpose of defeating TV. The cost of perfecting the systems was not worth the candle. If today's suits see it fail again, this time as a weapon against piracy, and they see no return for their 3D investment, there's no reason why it shouldn't die a second death. In fact, the postprocess ploy already gives a distinct impression of suits not wanting to make the investment. Is it dying already? From Avatar true 3D to half-assed 3D within 6 months...hmm. Be interesting to see how it all pans out...
Last edited:
blipper
Sr Member
I believe so, although it will be a slow death and take quite a few prisoners with it. I saw Avatar in 3d because of curiosity in 3d development and Cameron's enthusiasm and imo, artistic integrity.
I'd always pass on viewing traditional 3d, mostly due to the severe headache they leave me with, but also the obvious gimmicky nature. I didn't get so bad a problem with Avatar in both regards, certainly I don't see Cameron's use of 3d as gimmicky, but actually a commendable attempt to increase audience submersion in the narrative.
As long as this trend dies and there's the occasional very worthwhile 3d event movie like Avatar I'll be happy. By then I guess I'll probably be dealing with a smell-o-vision revival though.
RussellSculpts
Well-Known Member
Did you say 5 min? or 50?.....:confusedonly 5 really? What did we miss?
I do love this movie and am working on a sculpture of Neytiri.
But I really don't want to have too,(but I will), go see it again in theatres to see the 5 minutes I missed, my luck I'll go to the bathroom at that moment and miss it anyway. And I really don't want to,(but I will), buy the re-release of the blu-ray, again, to have that five minutes. Are they going to release the 3d version WITH the 5 minutes? or re-release that too?
I own mutilpe copies of LOTR, and Pirates, ..My collection is getting full with all the same movies.
I've already seen Avatar in Imax twice with my wife and son, so that was about $125 altogether with popcorn and candy, then I bought the blu-ray for $20 so Cameron's got alot of my money already.
I do love this movie and am working on a sculpture of Neytiri.
But I really don't want to have too,(but I will), go see it again in theatres to see the 5 minutes I missed, my luck I'll go to the bathroom at that moment and miss it anyway. And I really don't want to,(but I will), buy the re-release of the blu-ray, again, to have that five minutes. Are they going to release the 3d version WITH the 5 minutes? or re-release that too?
I own mutilpe copies of LOTR, and Pirates, ..My collection is getting full with all the same movies.
I've already seen Avatar in Imax twice with my wife and son, so that was about $125 altogether with popcorn and candy, then I bought the blu-ray for $20 so Cameron's got alot of my money already.
frosty
Sr Member
I enjoyed the movie, 3d as others have mentioned, only gave me a headache when it was out years ago, and never really worked.
Avatar was great, lots of depth and not much gimmickry, i'd see it again, even though an extra five minutes seems a waste of time,but you never know.
I mentioned elsewhere that i'm done with 3d as an afterthought though, both alice and titans 3d was crap, just not worth it.
Did Nightmare before christmas benefit from the process? i missed it when it was out
Avatar was great, lots of depth and not much gimmickry, i'd see it again, even though an extra five minutes seems a waste of time,but you never know.
I mentioned elsewhere that i'm done with 3d as an afterthought though, both alice and titans 3d was crap, just not worth it.
Did Nightmare before christmas benefit from the process? i missed it when it was out
CTF
Sr Member
corranhornjje
Sr Member
Similar threads
