With the busy-ness of life, I haven't been able to find time to see "Avatar" yet. (I've heard it's around 3 hours long? Yikes!) I assume from all I've read that it's only worth seeing in 3-D on the big screen. Is that correct? I assume this means it's not worth seeing when it comes out on DVD (and I don't have or plan to have Blu-ray) later this month. If so, I guess I'll never see it. If so, too bad. But please let me know what y'all know & think about the various ways of seeing it and how it should be seen. Thanks!
There's no point in seeing "Avatar" unless it's 3-D, right?
- Thread starter Sgt. Sacrament
- Start date
I haven't seen the movie yet myself, but if there is absolutely no point in watching a 2D version, then logically the movie itself must not have anything going for it all. In which case, all 3D would do is make it a 3D movie that's not worth watching, as opposed to a 2D movie that's not worth watching. Basically, if the 2D version is crap, than a 3D version will just be crap in 3D.
Lots of people have seen Avatar in 2D and enjoyed it greatly.
Cameron filmed it to work as a 2D and 3D film. He edited the film in 2D.
Many also claim that the color detail is better in the 2D version.
Cameron filmed it to work as a 2D and 3D film. He edited the film in 2D.
Many also claim that the color detail is better in the 2D version.
I much prefer the 2-D version of Avatar. It looks better, there's better detail, I'm not having to take the glasses off every 5 minutes to rest my eyes. The colors better.
If there was some plot-related reason for the film to be seen in 3-D I'd say yeah, no point. But it's just a gimmick to sell tickets and 3-D TVs (which Cameron probably has a piece of the action on - seeing as he hosted the launch of one such line).
Alex
If there was some plot-related reason for the film to be seen in 3-D I'd say yeah, no point. But it's just a gimmick to sell tickets and 3-D TVs (which Cameron probably has a piece of the action on - seeing as he hosted the launch of one such line).
Alex
I think it's being re-released in theaters sometime in a different version. I'd wait and see it then. However, there's no reason not to see it now and check it out in 3d later if you like it.
Exactly.
A movie is a movie. See it on its own merits - plot, characters, tits, etc.
The day that it becomes an issue of whether a movie is WORTH SEEING if it's not in bloodydamned 3D, is the day that the marketing geniuses have won. Don't let 'em!
I liked it better in 2D. I don't like having rims all around the edges of my vision while I'm watching a movie. Maybe people who regularly where glasses are used to it but I'm not.
The only movies that are good in 3D are the ones where lots of stuff flies out of the screen and attacks you in the face. Especially when it's augmented by the occasional splash of real water or puff of smoke.
The only movies that are good in 3D are the ones where lots of stuff flies out of the screen and attacks you in the face. Especially when it's augmented by the occasional splash of real water or puff of smoke.
I dunno who's told you that was no point in the movie except in 3D, but they must have seen a different movie than the rest of us. It is surely no Kubrick, but it is a gorgeous movie with a simple yet compelling story.
It's worth seeing in 3D or 2D. In my opinion, however, it's not worth a second viewing in 2D. I definitely wouldn't buy it, I don't think the movie is that special. It's an amusement ride with a serviceable plot, taking the 3D away is like removing the loops from a good coaster.
Let's face it people, if Avatar had been released in 2D only and at 2D movie prices, it would have been profitable (along with cheaper to make) but no where near the current 2 billion worldwide total. Then again, if 3D technology hadn't been available, Cameron wouldn't have made the movie in the first place. The point of the movie was to immerse audiences in an alien world. I think that was Cameron's dream, just like it was Lucas' dream to make an nearly all-CG movie with the SW prequels. Cameron definitely made a better movie, but the movie services the technology and without it I think it's a bit of a hollow experience.
Objectively, the CGI in the movie isn't even that good... let me re-phrase that. It's quite excellent, but I don't feel like it couldn't have been made five years ago. It's the 3D capturing and rendering technology and the visual direction of the picture that really takes advantage of it to the fullest that made the movie special, and I think watching it in 2D is like listening to the symphony through one speaker on AM radio.
Let's face it people, if Avatar had been released in 2D only and at 2D movie prices, it would have been profitable (along with cheaper to make) but no where near the current 2 billion worldwide total. Then again, if 3D technology hadn't been available, Cameron wouldn't have made the movie in the first place. The point of the movie was to immerse audiences in an alien world. I think that was Cameron's dream, just like it was Lucas' dream to make an nearly all-CG movie with the SW prequels. Cameron definitely made a better movie, but the movie services the technology and without it I think it's a bit of a hollow experience.
Objectively, the CGI in the movie isn't even that good... let me re-phrase that. It's quite excellent, but I don't feel like it couldn't have been made five years ago. It's the 3D capturing and rendering technology and the visual direction of the picture that really takes advantage of it to the fullest that made the movie special, and I think watching it in 2D is like listening to the symphony through one speaker on AM radio.
Basically. Avatar is visually stunning in 3D or 2D, judged simply as eye candy there aren't many better experiences you can see on your TV.
As a movie it ain't bad either.
I'd say, if you're going to see it, it's worth spending the extra money to see the 3-D simply because it's used in a very interesting and unique way. In 2-D, I'm sure it's still visually stunning.
In either version, the story and characters are pretty lame. I'd say it's worth seeing at least once, though, because it really is quite beautiful.
In either version, the story and characters are pretty lame. I'd say it's worth seeing at least once, though, because it really is quite beautiful.
You can still enjoy the movie, but I made sure to see it in 3-D right before it was about to go away. It was down to 1 theatre at the local cinema with 18 screens.
It will still be colorful and you can still enjoy the story. Infact when I took my 3-D glasses off a couple times I thought it looked more colorful. My 3-D glasses seemed to give it a slight haze.
BlackestPanther
Lieutenant Commander
Already saw it when it was called "Dances With Wolves"
Pretty close to my thoughts as well. I'd never say its crap and not worth seeing, it just is so average and underwhelming from a story perspective. All the hype and focus by Cameron and the media was the visuals and for a reason. Shame they didn't try to do more than just cookie cutter old ideas. See it in 3-D and be done with it, cause in 2-D you don't have the eye popping effects as a crutch to limp you past the long drawn out story points that don't captivate.
Now if all you want are "pretty colors" as some say the 2-D version has then just go to an art gallery. Lots of pretty colors there and the lights are on.
I'm finally going to see it today. I suspect I'll end up saying basically the same as you - cliched plot and characters rendered worthwhile by sheer visual spectacle, best appreciated in 3D. Be back soon with my report!
Truth be told, I wasn't even disappointed by the story. I was more amused as just how blatant the rip-offs were. There's one scene in particular with a giant evil bulldozer that I'm pretty sure was cut right out of "FernGully" and inserted into "Avatar."
I'm finally going to see it today. I suspect I'll end up saying basically the same as you - cliched plot and characters rendered worthwhile by sheer visual spectacle, best appreciated in 3D. Be back soon with my report!
Similar threads
