8mm Forum: Avatar

This is topic Avatar in forum General Yak at 8mm Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=001539

Posted by Stuart Fyvie (Member # 38) on December 27, 2009, 07:37 AM:

'AVATAR'. Not everyones cup of tea story wise, but for sheer cinematic spectacle and escapism it is wonderful. The bar has been raised. Pay for the best seats and catch it in 3D. That is before you book your tickets for 'NOWHERE BOY'......

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on December 27, 2009, 10:42 PM:

I put the 2D print together a few weeks ago all 10 reels of it plus all the stuff on the front, screened the movie the next day no time for test screening here and thought this looks really good, nice print and sound and thought "wow" [Smile]

I must see this one, however about just over a month ago I ran an hour and a half of an old 35mm print at work of "Dances with Wolves" just to see what it was like after all those years... well as I was keeping an eye on "Avatar" on its first screening I started to think back to "Dances with Wolves" and the resemblance, at this point my enthusiasm for "Avatar" took a bit of a nose dive. I hate to sound like a "party pooper" with this movie but apart from the brilliant effects the rest just lost me. How can one relate to characters that are CGI. "Dances with Wolves" however had... "real people"... stunning scenery etc. I might go and see the 3D version of "Avatar" [Roll Eyes]

and I am sure the effects are very good. I keep telling everyone that I work with... go and see it in 3D but I am afraid even with the young ones I work with there is little interest to pay the $20 to watch it. I intend to put together the rest of "Dances with Wolves" after the school holidays for a once only screening.... anyone want to come to watch it [Wink]

Graham.

Posted by Patrick Walsh (Member # 637) on December 27, 2009, 11:18 PM:

Ahhhh Graham! nice to hear the WOLVES is getting a well deserved run!, I hope it looks good!
I would not mind having a look at it.

I am showing AVATAR here at my cinema and the attendance has been rather poor due to the fact that most people want to see it in 3D and are driving that extra distance and paying that extra $10 to see it, the nearest cinema to me with 3d is about 1/2 hour away.
I am running my 2D copy with an intermission so I can make some more money in the shop!
Pat [Big Grin]

Posted by Larry Arpin (Member # 744) on December 27, 2009, 11:57 PM:

I saw the AVATAR trailer in 3D and thought there wasn't that much depth, and since I wear glasses and I get a little annoyed at the 3D glasses, I decided to see it in 2D. I thought it was somewhat entertaining and the effects were great I felt there was something missing. In reviews there were so many references to DANCES WITH WOLVES, I had picked up the extended laserdisc some time ago for $1.99 and decided to finally watch it. I was simply captivated by it. Even at almost 4 hours I wound up watching the whole thing. There were some similarities, but really DANCES was a far better movie. If you haven't seen DANCES you better see AVATAR first then rent or buy the DVD of DANCES.

Patrick-I saw it opening weekend in 2D and it was packed.

Posted by John Clancy (Member # 49) on December 28, 2009, 03:37 AM:

Funnily enough we ran the laser disc of 'Dances With Wolves' a few weeks ago - a wonderful film. However, the original version of 3 hours is superior.

Avatar looks utter crap to me. Having said that, I'm prepared to give any film a go and when I do eventually see it I expect I'll really enjoy it. I know I just won't enjoy it right now as I don't like the look of computer generated imagery. This will undoubtedly look better to me in years to come as the look of films in general deteriorates.

Posted by Stuart Fyvie (Member # 38) on December 28, 2009, 03:58 AM:

I didn't think that 'Dances with Wolves' was an original film either, but it is a great film.
To say that 'Avatar' looks utter crap because it is computer generated is a bit harsh!
Does Toy story/Lord of the rings/Star wars look crap because it uses CG?
It really has to be seen in 3D on the best screen possible. In the cinema and that is what it is all about.

Stuart

Posted by Jean-Marc Toussaint (Member # 270) on December 28, 2009, 05:54 AM:

I went to the premiere at our local IMAX theatre a couple of weeks ago. Problem was that they had received the wrong D-print. They moved us to a really big theatre (next door) and showed the scope 3D version. It is quite entertaining, very spectacular, the 3D is superb (and I too wear glasses), but as it is the case with most of Cameron's films, it lacks a little emotion.

Posted by Jeroen van Ooijen (Member # 1104) on December 28, 2009, 08:35 AM:

I have see it in Imax3D great movie!

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on December 28, 2009, 09:26 PM:

Pat
Will let you know about Dances With Wolves [Smile]

the soundtrack although not in Dolby Digital is Dolby Stereo and sounds really good I guess the reverse scanning red LED makes the difference.

Regarding "Avatar" its a pity they released it here in the middle of summer [Cool]

as most people have other things they want to do when the weather is nice as it is at the moment.

Its interesting about "Avatar" and "Dances With Wolves", in the past I have only ever watched "Dances" on DVD, one might hope that after nearly 20 years it might again get the chance to be re-released. "Dances With Wolves" is the only feature film I can think of that takes a serious look at the american indian and the effects of change to their way of life as told through "Dunbar" Kevin Costner who as director and actor along with an outstanding cast and film crew did a brilliant job bringing the story in its full "Scope" to the big screen.

Graham.

Posted by Patrick Walsh (Member # 637) on December 28, 2009, 11:51 PM:

Yes the weather is not very good here for movie going but give us a rainy day and we are in the $! [Wink]

Avatar print quality in 2D is very good and is one of the best I have seen in a long time.
Pat [Big Grin]

Posted by John Clancy (Member # 49) on December 29, 2009, 03:40 AM:

I didn't quite say Avatar looks utter crap because it is computer generated. It just "looks utter crap to me" (please note "to me"). And that is because the imagery doesn't work to my eyes and therefore looks poor. Most people like the look of video games so they're more prepared to accept a film that looks like one.

I enjoyed Toy Story but only the once. Lord of the Rings looked very poor to me and I also found the film a bore. Star Wars is a classic with very artistic special effects but that is not the same with the re-hashes and the new films. However, the re-hash of the original had a very impressive attack on the death star sequence so it is possible to do computer cartooning well. I also like Phantom Menace but suffered from one or two things flying around too many in some shots.

Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on December 29, 2009, 04:37 AM:

I do agree with you John, todays CGI graphics if used lightly can make you belive anything but i think they are being overdone and relied on used to much, look at the classic battles of the films of the 60's with hundruds, even thousands of extras, today these are done with imigary. I can see the point of cost etc but as time goes by the newer blockbuster films are begining to look more like a PC game than a movie.

[ December 29, 2009, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: Tom Photiou ]

Posted by Stuart Fyvie (Member # 38) on December 29, 2009, 07:08 AM:

I think that it is also a stylistic approach that puts a lot of people off as well.
If you compare 'Casino Royale' to the editing style of 'Quantum of solace' , The latter film put a lot of people off with the 'stroboscopic' editing style in which the editor seems to suffer from attention deficit disorder.....
All of the 'Lord of the rings' films could of been chopped by at least half an hour as well especially the last one.

Our Kiwi friends should be especially proud of Avatar as a lot of it was made at Weta in Wellington. There is some great photo real effects in there.
And yes you can't beat 'in camera effects' that's why a lot of older films like 'Spartacus' and 'Ben Hur' look amazing still.

Now can we all get a petition to James Cameron to release a 400 ft scope cutdown?
[Wink]

Stuart

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on December 29, 2009, 09:30 AM:

Though Avatar will no doubt make back it's 300 plus million that it cost to make it, I was rather struck that on it's first weekend, Sherlock Holmes was only beat out by Avatar by slightly under ten million, yet Sherlock Holmes cost a lot less money.

Though Avatar will make back it's money, I don't think it will be the cash cow people thought it would. Personally, I'm kind of tired of the whole "humans rape the environment" storyline.
It's been way overdone. It almosat makes me wnat to see the appalingly bad Steven Segal "enviromental action films".

Oooooh, thats a slam!!

Posted by Joe Caruso (Member # 11) on December 29, 2009, 10:20 AM:

Heard this is about Hindu-ism, re-incarnation...anyone enlighten?

Posted by Douglas Meltzer (Member # 28) on December 29, 2009, 11:49 AM:

I think "Avatar" is a brilliant bit of filmmaking. Unlike many of today's blockbusters it uses CGI and 3-D to enhance the story rather than being the sole reason to see the film. "Avatar" seems much shorter than it's running time, a sure sign of success in my book. I kept looking at my watch during "Sherlock Holmes" and afterwards thought that it should be cut by close to an hour. How many fight scenes does that movie need?

Doug

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on December 29, 2009, 02:02 PM:

I agree Doug, I just used Sherlock as a comparison. Blockbuster really doesn't have the same meaning as it used to.

It seems like every other film seems to be the next "record Breaking" film.

Though I thought it was a nearly total waste of time, lets talk about the true record breaker ...

"The Blair Witch Project"

I know, it sounds silly, but they made that film for two or three million dollars. It netted well over 100 million, (and more, once the video and DVD sales are tallied), yet it didn't take long for people to realize just how much of it was hoopla compared to good film-making.

Yet, you have to admire a profit margin of over 100 million dollars over an investment of only a few million. I bet Hollywood would like a return on they're investment like that!

One of the figures that really staggered me, was that, in the 1980's one tenth of all theatrical dollars were made by films that either Steven Speilberg directed, produced or was involved with. One tenth! That is amazing.

I miss the halycon days of trues blockbusters ...

STAR WARS
JAWS
RIADERS OF THE LOST ARK

By the way, though it was mentioned in this series of posts, I was highly impressed as to just how well represented the story was in the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, especially in the box sets, which brings the running time to just about 11 and a half hours. It couldn't have been made as successfully as it was without CGI.

Now, if only Peter Jackson would be at the helm of an epic version of "The Hobbit"!

Posted by Jean-Marc Toussaint (Member # 270) on December 30, 2009, 09:06 AM:

Jackson is producing The Hobbit and Guillermo del Toro is directing. So it should be interesting.

Posted by Joe Caruso (Member # 11) on December 30, 2009, 09:09 AM:

With the going rate of film releases and accompanying hype, Hollywood has to have a blockbuster with EVERY one just to recoup cost. And it ain't happening because of the trash they call cinema. Sales on tape will eventually help, but to truly be called a great film, it must meet the criteria of good theatre; appeal, story and care - I watched AVATAR, this is successful should spawn a follow-up, and I agree that the films back when; STAR WARS, etc guilded the lilly. Only seldom does a film really move mountains, so to speak. First the rating system has to be eliminated, once it's branded PG or R, it's restricting alot of people automatically, well that's another debate - In answer to the above, yes, top-film

Posted by Alan Rik (Member # 73) on December 30, 2009, 10:53 AM:

Saw "Avatar" and loved it. Really stunning looking film and as Doug said the film just flew by. I loved "Dances with the Wolves" too. Saw it in the theatre in its original run and also saw it when it was re-released in its 4 hour version.
With Dances, you see America untainted...it really makes you long for the old west. I'm sure if "Pandora" really existed we would long for that place as well.

Posted by John Davis (Member # 1184) on January 03, 2010, 11:36 AM:

I'm coming late to the discussion, having just got back in from seeing Avatar.
Prior to the film there were trailers for about five 3D films (all curiously cropped all round - I saw this at Dunfermline Odeon). I have to say not all the trailers worked, the up coming Toy Story did not look absolutely sharp and in fact most of the trailers looked on the dark side (probably not helped by the dark 3D glasses).
But it also struck me that where the action was fast flowing 24fps did not seem fast enough to let the action appear fluid - will we see cinemas showing 50fps prints in the future?
One of the other trailers was a British dance film and at one point a dancer threw his hat directly at the camera - I'm embarrassed to admit I ducked (something I've never done before).
So what about Avatar? well I enjoyed it very much, I think films of this calibre will mean this time 3D will stick rather than fall out of fashion again. There are similarities with Dances with wolves, as everyone else pointed out, but also Cameron borrowed from his own past efforts, Aliens and The Abyss.
We all paid extra for our 3D glasses but very disappointingly if we go to the Odeon tomorrow we would have to pay again the extra surcharge even if we had glasses already - hardly green.
Will Avatar - 3D make it onto super8?

[ January 03, 2010, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: John Davis ]

Posted by Keith Ashfield (Member # 741) on January 28, 2010, 04:46 AM:

Went to see this last night, with an "open mind" (if such a thing is possible) bearing in mind, how much hype the film has had.

I have to say that I really enjoyed it (even the wife enjoyed it!). The 3D effects were superb, the story flowed well.

Whenever I leave a cinema, having seen a "new release", I always apply the criteria "Would I like to see that again?" and I have to say with "Avatar" the answer was definately "Yes".

By the way John, don't be ashamed at "ducking" at the 3D effects, we did exactly the same thing. It just proves how well the process has progressed since the 1950's.

With regards to your comment about paying "forever" for the glasses - we went to our local Cineworld complex and didn't have to pay for the glasses, if you had your own, and this is how it should be, in my opinion.

Posted by Kevan Ellis (Member # 1232) on February 07, 2010, 06:27 PM:

Hi All
It's been a while, hope this reply finds everyone in fine spirts and good health.
I loved Avatar, I felt like I was part of the movie, surrounded by it. It reached out to me and sometimes passed my face into the row behind.
Can't wait for Alice in Wonderland 3D. Saw the preview at the same time and it looks goon although an old story line but in 3D it should fill my need for eye candy.

Kevan from Canada.

Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on February 07, 2010, 10:30 PM:

It's a credit to this forum that discussion of 'Avatar' has not resulted in open warfare - which resulted on a 35mm forum I checked out! There's something about it which clearly inspires an extreme range of responses. I suspect that some of the negativity results from the 'hype' around the film, causing some to be far more critical than they would be of the average film. It was discussed on a UK arts TV show last week after the Oscar nominations and (to me) it appeared that some of those criticising it were essentially saying: "countless millions have been manipulated into seeing this, but that doesn't mean it's a good film - we know better". All very cynical. Like Keith, I went with an open mind and found it an engrossing film that does does have a story and is quite moving at times. I agree with Doug that the time passed surprisingly quickly. I share the reservations that many have about CGI, but this is a film that would be be virtually impossible to make without it. One thing I admire about Cameron is that (as with his Termainator films) he takes the time and money needed to ensure that the CGI is so good that it doesn't have tell-tale 'CGI-look' that's characteristic of most films. I thought the realisation of Pandora is more or less perfect. The aliens looked slightly 'animated' to me, but that's a minor point considering that a man-in-a-suit approach was out of the question! As for similarities with 'Dances With Wolves' (or 'Pocahontas', which frequently gets mentioned), I haven't seen either of those so I can't comment, but couldn't similar things could be said about countless other films? I don't recall people saying that 'Pocahontas' had similarities with 'Dances With Wolves'!

I saw it at the Barbican in 3D but I'd like to experience it at the London Imax cinema. All the initial schedule of screenings have sold out so I bought a ticket for an 00.20 (a.m.) screening on a Tuesday morning!

If John (Clancy) hasn't seen it yet, I'd say give it a try - as an admirer of 'Aliens' you'll find that the two films have similarities which might appeal to you.

I'd love to see one or two (2D) scope extracts on Super 8. I don't suppose this will happen but I'd welcome any support from collectors for a trailer. In view of the visual appeal of this film, if we can't find 20 people to justify such a release, I fear that we will never see a trailer for a new film on 8 again.

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2