I’ve seen a number of the recent 3D films. I wear glasses to watch movies, and I put the 3D glasses over my Rx stuff. Three decades ago I would watch 3D and get sick. To avoid getting sick, I sit in the center fairly far back toward the projector and away from the screen. In the center. I like to sit in the center in all films I watch, so I have to get there early. In 2D I sit toward the front of the theater, usually 7 or 8 rows from the very front.
As for Avatar, clearly the auteur put a lot of thought and care in to how 3D was to be used, and it was quite beautiful on the IMAX screen where I saw it. They beauty of the shots and depth of field were the high points of the film and I have never seen anything like it. The story was nothing new, Pocahontas and Dances With Wolves cover it.
I saw Avatar on a Classic Imax screen. As far as I’m concerned, if you haven’t seen Avatar on classic Imax, you haven’t seen Avatar. I think the immersive effect of a huge screen is more important than 3D.
It is pretty easy to predict the next step from gaming technology. Create a movie that is 3D-360, where you control your viewpoint during the movie. This of course eliminates the movie as a shared experience, since no two people experience the same movie or even the same movie twice. The whole movie is performance captured and every set is digital.
The first generation, every one has their own screen to control and the 2nd generation has immersive helmets to wear.
I don’t think the 3D was especially unique. It did have ‘real 3D’ cameras for the live parts and of course CGI always has natural 3D. Some other movies have used 2D cameras and then turned it into 3D in post processing, which always looks like crap. But Avatar isn’t the only movie to have real 3D.
The real innovations were in the advanced motion capture system, which included super detailed recording of facial expressions, and the live-CGI director’s camera, which let him see the CGI environment with the actor’s live performances.
I’m guessing Cameron will patent and market this technology to the film industry, such that other filmmakers will be able to achieve a similar effect.
I thought Avatar was pretty amazingly lifelike in a lot of scenes, but it depended a lot on lighting. The daytime scenes worked really well, but the nighttime scenes looked a little cartoonish.
The next two Avatars will probably be even more visually spectacular, and the technology will slowly make it’s way to other filmmakers, so this probably isn’t a once-in-a-lifetime experience in any way other than it being a ‘first’.
Avatar is todays Titanic.
In 1997, EVERYONE saw Titanic, cos of the hype. Now, we all saw Avatar.
Sure both movies kinda had a “man vs nature” aspect to them, and sure in both of those films nature won.
Ironically, these films were only made due to technological advancements.
I think the point that’s missing from this discussion isn’t “CAN filmmakers make more impressive use of 3D technology”, it’s “do they WANT to?” I think right now, the clear answer is “no.” Not the filmmakers who have actually been releasing 3D movies since Avatar’s release, anyway.
Whatever you might think of Avatar as an achievement (or not) in filmmaking, it’s hard to mistake Cameron’s passion for the project. He’s a savvy businessman, and he certainly made sure that he got paid, but this movie was his baby. He passionately believes that he’s making art, and he’s deeply invested in it.
THAT is what’s lacking from the 3D releases since Avatar. So far, the post-Avatar rush to release 3D movies have been about duplicating Avatar’s success in the box office, not in duplicating Avatar’s success in the actual use of 3D technology.
Can it be done again? Certainly. And probably better. But how long before someone comes along, besides Cameron himself, who wants to invest the time and money into doing it? Who knows.
Personally, Avatar ruined 3D for me. I already wasn’t a fan of the “OOOOH! It’s POKING OUT AT YOU! OMG!” shtick that’s been the basis of most 3D movies since the 50s. Now that Cameron showed how the technology can be used to just give depth to the overall image, mostly avoiding the “LOOK, IT’S RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU!! WTF!!” crap, I find I REALLY don’t have patience for it.
I’ve always hated 3D movies, but I did see Avatar in 3D and thought it was “fun.” I mainly went to see it because the last time a movie came out that set the record for “most money made all time” (not-inflation adjusted) I never saw it (Titanic.) I’ve since seen the film on video and while it’s not really one of my favorite movies, I regret I didn’t get to “experience” the frenzy that a huge portion of the country was all involved in at once.
For that experience alone I was glad to go to Avatar, as a life long fan of science fiction and action movies I was disappointed; and considering I’ve enjoyed movies like The Expendables and Commando (possibly for different reasons than the creators intended–although The Expendables seemed self-aware) that’s saying a lot. I’ve seen Avatar once out of theaters and take away the total experience of the theater and it went from being a “fun experience” to “unwatchable.”
Avatar was a technological show piece that was effects driven to show the tech, with a weak story overlaid. People will always go see movies like Fantasia or Avatar, to give them a sense of wonder and so forth, but for the most part movies are story driven with effects overlaid.
I think if it had not been Cameron that made the movie, but the usual studio driven titles, then the effects would have probably been more muted and the story more balanced.
We probably will see more titles like Avatar, but perhaps maybe it will be a decade type experience.
Was it really that good? I saw Avatar only once, and that was on a transcontinental airline flight, on the little seatback monitor in front of me. It didn’t seem to be anything all that special.
I didn’t see it in the theater, and only half-watched it in the background at home a time or two.
Without all the three-D effects, all I could think was ‘This would be a decent sci-fi book’.
I enjoyed seeing Avatar, but I’ve had more memorable moviegoing experiences, 3D and otherwise. It was a once-in-a-lifetime experience in the sense that *everything *is a once-in-a-lifetime experience. (you never step into the same river twice and all that)
It was a good movie, and it pushed the technology a lot (I have the special extended edition where Cameron talks about writing Avatar years ago, but the tech just wasn’t there to make it until recently, and even then it had to be custom built just for the movie), but it wasn’t a ‘once-in-a-lifetime experience’. Personally, I think that it has merely pushed the envelope, and that it’s going to start to filter down to better, more realistic and immersive films in the future as the tech continues to get pushed. Wait until they figure out how to do holographic films that really put you right in the action as if you were a character in the film or something. My guess is that even old geezers like me will live to see some pretty freaking amazing stuff in film.
Maybe someone will even remake Star Wars the right way.
