Originally posted by jaden_2.0never fought of comparing it to John Carter , but yeah you’re 100% spot as they do seem similar.
Let's face it. Avatar only made so much because of the hype around its new 3D technology. If it was a standard part animation part live action film it would've done about as well as John Carter.
Flys crying is both funny and pathetic at the same time. For someone who doesn’t have any interest in anything marvel related he sure spends all his life moaning about it.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Let's face it. Avatar only made so much because of the hype around its new 3D technology. If it was a standard part animation part live action film it would've done about as well as John Carter.
Avatar wasn't the ground breaker it was hyping itself to be, but it was a game upper and that was valuable enough. George Lucas complained for years about not enough theatres having digital projection systems to show films at their most pristine, and Avatar's monster haul made not just 3D but digital projection the industry standard, so by 2012 all theatres needed DLP to show films or they were out of business.
Avatar had lots of wow factor but not much else. I could guess the entire plotline from the first teaser trailer, and Cameron still writes dialogue like he's trapped in the 1980's action film mold. He can plot efficiently, but even George Lucas writes better dialogue - at least it doens't sound trapped in an old era.
Originally posted by roughrider
Avatar wasn't the ground breaker it was hyping itself to be, but it was a game upper and that was valuable enough. George Lucas complained for years about not enough theatres having digital projection systems to show films at their most pristine, and Avatar's monster haul made not just 3D but digital projection the industry standard, so by 2012 all theatres needed DLP to show films or they were out of business.
Never really thought of it in that context. It must piss Cameron off that the technology he helped pioneer has effectively been ruined by so many poorly executed uses of it since. There's very few examples of it being done so that it's unobtrusive. Even Avengers looked awful in 3D. The Hobbit was very distracting in the 3D high frame rate release. Then you had garbage like SAW 3D.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Never really thought of it in that context. It must piss Cameron off that the technology he helped pioneer has effectively been ruined by so many poorly executed uses of it since. There's very few examples of it being done so that it's unobtrusive. Even Avengers looked awful in 3D. The Hobbit was very distracting in the 3D high frame rate release. Then you had garbage like SAW 3D.
It wasn't just 3D either; Avatar's cgi in general is phenomenal, as good as almost anything else before or since then in terms of polish. As a technical achievement the film is amazing.
Originally posted by roughrider
Avatar wasn't the ground breaker it was hyping itself to be, but it was a game upper and that was valuable enough. George Lucas complained for years about not enough theatres having digital projection systems to show films at their most pristine, and Avatar's monster haul made not just 3D but digital projection the industry standard, so by 2012 all theatres needed DLP to show films or they were out of business.Avatar had lots of wow factor but not much else. I could guess the entire plotline from the first teaser trailer, and Cameron still writes dialogue like he's trapped in the 1980's action film mold. He can plot efficiently, but even George Lucas writes better dialogue - at least it doens't sound trapped in an old era.
He might not be great at dialogue, but calling him worse than George Lucas is plain hyperbole.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Never really thought of it in that context. It must piss Cameron off that the technology he helped pioneer has effectively been ruined by so many poorly executed uses of it since. There's very few examples of it being done so that it's unobtrusive. Even Avengers looked awful in 3D. The Hobbit was very distracting in the 3D high frame rate release. Then you had garbage like SAW 3D.
It was the films that rushed to get converted to 3D in 2010 that gave the format a bad rap for a while, like Clash Of The Titans and The Last Airbender. Since then, conversions have gotten better and better - the purists who complained the only true 3D movies were the ones shot like that on the soundstage have gone silent.
Marvel Studios was smarter than that, and didn't rush Iron Man 2 into a hasty 3D conversion that year. They waited until 2011 to do it with Thor and Captain America: The First Avenger. I've never had a technical problem with the Marvel 3D films. I'm someone who wants to notice the 3D; if I'm paying this extra money, then give me effects I don't get in 2D.