Avatar

[Paul Cascio]

Just saw a sneak preview. Spectacular! Not great, but spectacular. Think the Jetsons meet Jurassic Park, meets Doctor Doolittle, meets Rambo.
The 3-D was amazing. Very realistic, not that in-your-face 3-D.

[Nick Hiltgen]

Argh, Just had to walk out of the theater because the 3d was screwed up. (there was a double image in the right eye) I had heard so much aout how awesome the 3d was that I couldn't sit through 2.5 hours of miscalibrated so I became "that guy." The theater management thought I was insane and kept asking if it was in focus, it's not their fault the whole concept is foreign to them. After leaving the theater I called real D 3d (yeah I'm that big of a dork) and reported the problem (which I'm told was a real issue that does happen) and hopefully that theater will get fixed before the next show. The thing that killed me is my party was the only people that left, the rest of the people will sit through that movie and think that the 3d is just really bad having no idea they aren't seeing it the way it's supposed to be seen.

If you're at a theater watching 3d and you see a noticeable difference when you close one of your eyes and then the other, something is screwed up and you should complain (especially if you have to pay a surcharge of 3 bucks like I did for the glasses) this movie is supposed to be an amazingly gentle 3d movie so if you've got a headache watching it or suffer from eye strain something isn't right!

(stepping off soap box looking forward to seeing the movie in its entirity at another theater.)

[Bill Thesken]

Maybe someday there will be integrated layered separate screens to convey the 3D effect .
Or a liquid plasma screen layered with the 3D effect.
Imagine that.

[Nick Hiltgen]

Paul, yeah that was the worst part, I had worked with a couple of different screens all summer that did just that (if I understand the technology correctly it's pretty impressive, and makes me ready for in home 3dHD) so maybe I hold the movies to higher standards. I don't know. I can't wait to see the movie though and I hope that it will show people how non gimmicky 3d can be.

[Paul Cascio]

First time I ever watched a 3-D movie and forgot I had the glasses on.

[Benjamin Hill]

I went to see the 2D version first because I've never been interested in 3D and wanted to evaluate the content. I walked away really impressed with the story and visuals details and am ready to experience the 3D version.

[David Knaggs]

It really was an excellent movie and worked so well on many levels. It made me realize the true value of 3D (unlike an earlier 3D movie I saw where I felt it was used mainly as a gimmick for a quick shock or thrill), which is that it makes the whole movie experience "immersive". The thing which struck me a few hours after the movie finished was how immersed I'd been in the whole thing.

Perhaps that's where the true value of 3D filmmaking lies - immersion of the audience.

It also made me think that unless a filmmaker is really on his or her game plus fully expert in 3D (such as James Cameron), then audiences could be turned off by the use of 3D with live-action movies. It needs these two factors working together:

a) ability to immerse the audience, and
b) stand up as a really good movie in "2D", i.e. regular viewing.

If the movie can't really do a), and only uses 3D as a gimmick - such as the hand with the knife leaping out of the screen towards the audience - then audiences might quickly get sick of 3D with live action and consider it a "fad".

If the movie can't really do b), but does a) really well, this could kill off live-action 3D quicker than anything. I mean, who wants to be totally immersed in a movie which is lousy? That would make the whole experience doubly painful.

So, in my opinion, each 3D live-action filmmaker has to totally nail both a) and b) or live-action 3D could quickly go the same way as in the 1950s.

Animated 3D movies (put out by Disney, Dreamworks, etc.) should keep going from strength to strength, I reckon. (And it should probably be noted that Avatar had a very large number of purely CGI scenes in addition to the ones with live-action actors. It was a stunning technical achievement.)

As a final, technical note, viewing this movie really hurt my eyes. Every 5 or 10 minutes I found myself having to take off my RealD glasses and have a quick look around my actual surroundings, re-focus my eyes and then go back to viewing the movie. Another guy on my row complained to his companions of a mounting headache and he eventually abandoned the movie and walked out of the cinema.

I noticed during the pre-show viewing (advertisements and trailers), before the audience was asked to put on the glasses, how out-of-focus the projector was. I remember thinking, "Don't they even bother to teach the basics to these multiplex projectionists?" I was hoping that they would switch to a different projector for the 3D movie, but now I kind of doubt it. An earlier 3D movie I saw (which was well-focussed) had a look of extremely high resolution (due to the higher frame rates required for RealD 3D) but this one didn't have that. So maybe my eye soreness or eye-strain was purely due to projectionist error with the 3D material.

All of the above are purely my opinions and speculations, nothing more.

[Stelios Christofides]

Hi Guys, I have seen Avatar in 3D with my son the other night and I am still recovering from the emotions I felt. What a fantastic movie and what an experience it was to "feel" Pandora. Does anyone know what kind of cameras did Cameron used for this movie?

Stelios

[Noa Put]

I have only seen the trailer but am really exited to go to the cinema. I also noticed that there is a 3d version available, did you see it in 3D?

[David W. Jones]

They used modified Sony F950, HDC-1500, F23 cameras.

[Stelios Christofides]

Originally Posted by Noa Put

I have only seen the trailer but am really exited to go to the cinema. I also noticed that there is a 3d version available, did you see it in 3D?

Noa I saw it in 3D and I must tell you that it's the first time that I watch the new digital 3D and it's really amazing. I can tell you that you it's like when we had black and white movies ands then came colour! The same sensation! The movies will never be the same again.

Stelios

[Jeff Dillon]

I have to agree, what an incredible experience. I've never seen anything like it. Absolutely jaw dropping.

Jeff

[Noa Put]

My first 3d experience was with jaws back in '83 and actually I don't remember much from it anymore but I can imagine that the 3d experience must have taken quite a step forward since then.

[Andy Tejral]

Just saw it this afternoon. The 3D was really well done--that is to say not overdone. Hopefully, this will be a new trend: to use it as an element of production rather than a gimmick.

There were a couple of 3D trailers before the show--a couple of animated flicks that looked OK but there was a live action "Piranha 3D" which was the traditional 3D explotation movie. You can be sure I'll run out and miss that!

No, Mr. Cameron was quite restrained with the 3D--to the point that a lot of the big exterior vistas were actually flat--no 3d at all. I didn't notice any eye strain at all.

[Scott Nelson]

Really loved it... This was the first 3D movie I have ever seen with the new digital technology.

I saw it in the Imax 3D and holy sh*t.... I was blown away... I really felt like I was there... Add some D-Box seats, and I would have forgotten where I was...

I give it a 5 star rating and a 5 star for the 3D... I thought I was right in the guy's face when he was being talked to by those 2 men... I thought he was right there.... Amazing!