Avatar 3D worth the extra money?

[M'rk son of Mogh]

^^
What he said.

I LOVED every scene in the helicopter looking out the window. There was enough glare/dirt, whatever on the window that it just FELT natural and real. the window and what was behind it, I don't know how to explain it exactly, but I loved it!

 

[Klaus]

No, not particularly... I found it as much of a distraction as anything. I'm actually looking forward to it in 2D on DVD.

The alternately-fooling-your-eyes technique of modern 3D will always cause some degree of eyestrain... and we're a LONG ways away from true holography for movies.

 

[Brit]

I loved "Avatar" but the three d effect was lost on me, I have a cataract in my left eye and I couldn't see the three d at all, looked just like a flat movie. My daughter however could see it and got slightly sea sick at a couple of places.

Seeing the film was well worth the price of a ticket however.

Brit

 

[Piper]

Does 3D still cause some people headaches and irritation? Sure... But that is a tiny minority.

I had a headache for the first half, but then it wore off and by the end it was fine.

 

[Hyperspace05]

If you are concerned, just make sure you sit towards the rear of the theater (in the middle too, preferably)... That seems to strain eyes less.

 

[Sheep]

It uses 3d not as a specticle but as just another tool.

So instead of gimmicks like the axe or other thing thrown at you for a jump in a 3d horror, or similar joke moments in 3d kids or comedy movies, it treats it as a natural extension of the film.

The use of 3d depth of field is new, and a good example of this... But it's subtle enough that a lot of people didn't notice it.

Heh, I was going to reply to this thread with the "axe being thrown at you" example as what Avatar DOESN'T use 3D for (there's literally one instance I recall of things flying in your face in the entire movie). Guess the axe in your face is a worn-out 3D cliche already.

Avatar's 3D adds to the experience, but I'm still not entirely convinced it's vital to enjoy the movie. Go see the movie because you want to see it, not because of whether it's showing in 3D or not.

 

[davejames]

No, not particularly... I found it as much of a distraction as anything. I'm actually looking forward to it in 2D on DVD.

The alternately-fooling-your-eyes technique of modern 3D will always cause some degree of eyestrain... and we're a LONG ways away from true holography for movies.

No it never looked truly three-dimensional, but it was still impressive as hell-- and, most importantly, it helped a LOT with making the slightly cartoonish-looking Nav'i feel a bit more real and believable. At least for me.

 

[MeanJoePhaser]

All the 3D talk reminds me of this

http://www.videosift.com/video/Dr-Tongue-s-3D-House-of-Stewardesses-SCTV

 

[melancholymecha]

to me its like watching a giant pop up book thats moving...it just looks cool. Its not neccessary to enjoy the film though.

 

[Manticore]

to me its like watching a giant pop up book thats moving...it just looks cool. Its not neccessary to enjoy the film though.

To me it wasn't a "popup book" though. It was more "pop-in." James Cameron and co. managed to artfully avoid the temptation to stick things out at us for the most part, from what I remember at least, choosing instead to go for the more subtle depth effect that everyone is going on about.

I liked the fact that the 3d was very subtle for the most part. That really helped it avoid the gimmickiness of other 3d movies (or, for that matter, the 3d previews before it ).

 

[Klaus]

My biggest problem with the glasses is that they prevent me from ever forgetting that I'm sitting in the theater watching a movie. It's a very "artificial" experience, even for something as artificial as a movie lol.

Now I also wear glasses and thus the extra pair is even clunkier than usual, that may also be a factor...

 

[Luminus]

3D is great, however, it gives me the worse headache. I'll reserve my 3D viewing for really important movies from now on, like Marvel films or a really great Thundercats movie.

 

[Mark de Vries]

Reading all the comments, I can only conclude that my eyes are bad enough to miss the entire 3D experience. Overall, Avatar looked no different to me than a 2D movie with good quality visuals.

Mind you, I can't even catch things properly, so my 3D vision must be virtually absent anyway.

 

[notwendium]

Go see it in 3D.
The few times that things "jump out" at you aren't gimmicky, they'd look that way in 2D as well.
As others said, the 3D adds some serious depth of field to the film. The goal of simulating human sight is spot on, IMO. There are many "whoa" moments as the immersion takes hold. There are far more "Grab you and pull you in" moments then "Here have an arrow to your face" ones.

 

[Star Wolf]

It was my first 3D movie. We are taking about how much of a premium to watch it as the director intended? Just go for the ride and skip the theater's overpriced popcorn if its a burden.

 

[Keith1701]

Yes. It is worth it. Not only are you getting 3D, but it is also digital projection for sure.

I agree!!! The movie is doing so well and add to the fact that it's such a long movie, I had to go a early AM performance. It was first time that I have ever gone to major motion picture in the AM. I was to see Avatar at The Mall of Georgia Theater in Buford, Georgia. The IMAX was well worth the extra cost of the ticket.

 

[DontFeedPhil]

I was thinking of seeing Avatar and I see there is a "real d 3D" option to see the movie in 3-D and was wondering if it was worth it for the extra cost? There si a $3.50 difference in cost between the regular and 3-d movies. So far I've been unimpressed with any 3-d movies I have ever seen but this is supposedly new technological stuff that is way better than previous 3-d movies. Anyone seen the movie with this technology and can say that they were really impresse with the technology and worth the cost? This is not IMAX but a 3-d tech.

I saw it in real d 3d or whatever its called and I was blown away by the 3-d. Like others have mentioned its not just about shoving a super 3-d object in your face all movie long. Its more like a 3-d world...

 

[Myasishchev]

Absolutely not. It's distracting and as far as I'm concerned lessens the film.

 

[PhasersOnStun]

I agree with a lot of the points made here:

• Definitely a great spectacle in 3D, worth the extra money
• 3D is used as to extend the visual spectrum and add depth, not as a gimmick

I would also add that my wife wears glasses and gets headaches from traditional 3D glasses, but the new, more mature polarized lenses and 3D format didn't bother her at all.

More of my thoughts on Avatar on my blog:
http://www.mertonfolio.com/?p=107

 

[Gil T.Azell]

OK dumb question is the 3D option only availble in IMAX or everywere?