Avatar

OMG. You must be kidding. Titanic hasn't dated at all, the visual effects continue to impress, how the hell are you watching this film? Youtube?

Avatar or The Smurfs going to war

Oh.

And you're both chicks.










Now take that.

Agree with u here.

In fact models in Titanic still looks gorgeous, the dated FX from Titanic are CGI. I just wanted to mean Cameron could fix this dated CGI in a special aniversary edition. Because Titanic has dated faster than Abyss, Aliens or T2 wich still looks impressive.

Quoted for Bollocks... Whatever man

Titanic looking more dated than Aliens, OK now that's funny.

Maybe he means Titanic is dated because the ship, costumes, architecture and interior design is from 100 years ago, and Aliens is less dated because it's set in the future? That would make sense.

Jordi I loves ya man but boy you don't half talk some utter twonk at times.

I don't think he revolutionized anything in the technical level; the revolution is that it's Cameron's new film

AFAIK, the revolution is the way the 3D technology will be used in this movie. They developed certain new devices that allowed them to make the 3D environment a lot more natural and less "poke-you-in-the-eye" stuffy in a way that doesn´t distract you from the movie or its story, but helps you to really become a part of the environment. They perfectionized the whole process and tried to find the perfect spots to center the 3D in any given frame. That combined with the artificial environment seems to have an amazingly effect that the viewer´s brain interpretes as reality. I heard about test viewers who spent more than twenty minutes with Pandora scenes who developed a kind of addiction to return to this experience. Personally, I doubt that it really goes this far, but I don´t doubt that this will be the best 3D experience so far.

There you go.

As someone who has been slowly developing an understanding of filmmaking via trying it in recent years, I can't help but view the drive to 3D with some trepidation. It's a drive towards a kind of naturalistic impression that somehow seems to defy the outlandish situations it's usually used to depict. Comparing it to the language of 2D filmmaking (which was always 3D through its sound design), a certain representational abstraction is lost. (You could compare it to the difference between the anatomically-correct, yet hyper-real and cartoonish events of American animation vs spare aesthetics of anime. One is more real on a superficial level, and yet the other is the greater instrument of truth.)

What is sad is that it's not hard to imagine a generation around the corner that might be raised on 3D-based filmmaking that will find it as hard to buy into 2D filmmaking as so many children of today struggle with Black&White filmmaking. Classics of the 2D era will have to be re-interpreted as 3D work in fresh adaptations or in overhauls of the existing films in order to find traction with the new audiences.

So I do hope that the technology fails to take on. And for no other reason than this - if all it took to get people back to cinemas was more flashing lights, then there is no incentive for the present moribund state of high budget storytelling to get any better. For all they will need is more flashing lights.

I have to repeat what I said earlier - in many places, Oslo and Norway included, 3D-compatible theatres are almost non-existant (Oslo's only IMAX theatre was demolished years ago), so the film will be screened on regular 2D screens. If the whole film is geared towards 3D aesthetics - whether "gimmicky" or not - it MUST lost some of its power, right? I'm with Marselus here. This is more like an amusement park attraction than a revolutionary film experience. But I'll still watch it and see how it comes through (no pun intended).

Same here btw, very rare of an event to find a 3d cinema screen. And where they have them, they bring only 1-2 3d movies per year, they don't use it as much. It's going to be 2d for us too, but i sincerely wish this technology won't succeed. 2d cartoons is one thing (and they DO have their grace, truth to be told, in contrast to the shitload of 3d that gets out (with the exception of pixar) that has visuals 100% and story / meaning 0%) but 2d cinema IS cinema.

Guys, honestly, if everyone thought about advances in film technology the way you do, we would still watch b&w silent movies, because "a good story doesn´t need sound or colour", as they´ve probably said a hundred years ago. I agree, BTW, but, on the other hand, I´d rather watch a good story with great sound, great colours, digital projection, and in well-accomplished 3D, than in b&w and with a piano player.

I have nothing against nostalgia. The b&w silent Ben-Hur is a masterpiece that´s still worth watching, but also is its more modern counterpart. Nobody says anything against enjoying an old style once in a while. Schindler´s List springs to mind. And I´m all for Disney´s new attempt to bring back 2D animation. But to damn a new tech just because it´s a new toy is conservatism for its own sake.

That´s what I tried to say, Avatar´s revolution is the attempt to use 3D for enhancing what´s happening on screen, not as a toy that stands out all for itself. What exactly speaks against such an attempt, to enhance the way of storytelling, as it has been done from book to radio play, from radio to movies, from silence to sound, from b&w to colour?

This is the same kind of discussion that CGI is facing. How many great stories have already been enhanced by a natural use of CGI? Should we damn CGI because it´s used by many untalented guys out there as the attaction device for their movies? No. CGI, as 3D, is a technology. As is colour and sound. It all depends on how it gets used, and Cameron is trying to change that exactly. His specific goal was, as he´s said a million times right now, to revolutionize the use of 3D to make it feel more natural, to NOT stand out. Whether he succeeds or not is a different matter altogether, but I applaud him for trying this.

I see the invention of 3D as another step toward really becoming a part of the film experience. One other was surround sound, and the technology has really come from far and in this day and age sound design is pretty much perfect in immersing the audience in the action. So the next step is doing the same thing but for the visual side of the film. I've seen UP in 3D and it certainly added something, while it didn't make the movie better per se, 3D made it easier to transport myself in the world, and connect to the characters even more. But that doesn't mean I won't enjoy this movie less in 2 dimensions, as that's the only way to see it at home.

I think 3D is the way to get the audience even more involved in the movie experience and I for one can't wait to live the experience when Cameron's epic is released and I can put those goofy glasses on.