The Avatar Blu-ray Release Thread

[Marcus Wright]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

Actually it as change cinema but for the worst.

I noted in another thread how everything is now in 3D in most theaters in my neck of the wood. I was not able to go see Toy Story 3 or Last Airbender because all theaters are showing them in 3D.

Actually it as change cinema but for the good.

I noted in another thread how everything is now in 3D in most theaters in my neck of the wood. I was not able to go see Iron Man or Inception because all theaters are showing them in 2D.

P/S. This is how much sense your comment made and how easy it was to argue the opposite.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by Marcus Wright

Actually it as change cinema but for the good.

I noted in another thread how everything is now in 3D in most theaters in my neck of the wood. I was not able to go see Iron Man or Inception because all theaters are showing them in 2D.

P/S. This is how much sense your comment made and how easy it was to argue the opposite.

It's not about sense, it's about being able to see a movie the way I would like to see it, not in 3D. I am not forcing you to stop watching 3D, gee you fanboys are so rude. I only wish to have the option to see the movie in 2D, is that alright with you? You can see it in 3D if you want. The trouble is that it's no longer an option for me, they are taking away the way I like to watch them. In find the glasses uncomfortable over my own, most of the movies are being done in post production and they look like crap and they are charging me extra for it. Unless you are telling me that seeing Clash Of The Titans in 3D was so worth it? So for me it's all for the worst because I cannot see the movies the way I would like to see them. Go see them in 3D I am not stopping you, have fun, it's great that you are enjoying it. I just wish that the fans of 3D had the same polite sense then I do in respecting them for the way they wish to see their movies. God forbid I would like to see a movie in 2D, how dare me!!

[Marcus Wright]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

It's not about sense, it's about being able to see a movie the way I would like to see it, not in 3D. I am not forcing you to stop watching 3D, gee you fanboys are so rude. I only wish to have the option to see the movie in 2D, is that alright with you? You can see it in 3D if you want. The trouble is that it's no longer an option for me, they are taking away the way I like to watch them. In find the glasses uncomfortable over my own, most of the movies are being done in post production and they look like crap and they are charging me extra for it. Unless you are telling me that seeing Clash Of The Titans in 3D was so worth it? So for me it's all for the worst because I cannot see the movies the way I would like to see them. Go see them in 3D I am not stopping you, have fun, it's great that you are enjoying it. I just wish that the fans of 3D had the same polite sense then I do in respecting them for the way they wish to see their movies. God forbid I would like to see a movie in 2D, how dare me!!

Why do you blame Avatar for that.
Was at least Avatar good in 3d?

If yes, so you are saying it shouldnt have been made in 3d (good 3d) because bad things would happen next?
It doesnt make sense.

[Beta Man]

I made the comment just today to someone about how I watched TS3 in 2D because 3D wouldn't have been easy to do with my young son (for wearing the glasses etc) and we had an entire "3D" conversation, and he mentioned how he was excited about the potential of it, but stated he was "not impressed" with the current 3D available.... and he used Avatar as an example..... and said he went to see the movie 2 more times (he loved the film) both of which he saw in 2D.....

This is obviously a polarizing issue.... as sales indicate many people flocked to the theaters to see it in 3D.... and people praise it in regards to the 3D presentation........ and yet there are people who are obviously not bashing it based on the film itself, who found the 3D presentation to be poor.....

I don't know.... it's good to have varying opinions, as long as everyone respects each others' opinion....

[odvan]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

Actually it as change cinema but for the worst.

I noted in another thread how everything is now in 3D in most theaters in my neck of the wood. I was not able to go see Toy Story 3 or Last Airbender because all theaters are showing them in 3D.

Probably you should change place of habitant.

And that's doesn't change the fact that Avatar has changed cinema. More movies with proper 3D are coming. Not to mention 3D HDTV, games, home video.

I hope at least you don't complain that every movie nowadays is in color and has stereo.

[STARSCREAM]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

Actually it as change cinema but for the worst.

I noted in another thread how everything is now in 3D in most theaters in my neck of the wood. I was not able to go see Toy Story 3 or Last Airbender because all theaters are showing them in 3D.

That's too bad they don't offer an alternative 2D showing. At the theater we go to the most they always also have 2D showings available.

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by STARSCREAM

That's too bad they don't offer an alternative 2D showing. At the theater we go to the most they always also have 2D showings available.

When I looked at the "Nice" theater to take my son to see TS3, after the initial run, it was 3D ONLY for most of the show-times.... because they didn't show it in multiple theaters after it had been out for awhile...... I ended up having to go to a theater that was far from nice...... but at least it was very close to our house (Very...VERY close actually) and we had a good time, and I look forward to going to the movies a lot more often now!

The theater is obviously going to show what films they feel will bring in the best ticket sales.... and the 2D and 3D versions are pretty much viewed as separate films.

[phansson]

We all know the reasons why 3D is being pushed. The theaters get to charge more for the glasses, the electronics companies want to sell new 3d capable sets/blu ray players/glasses, and the studios see it as a fresh alternative for movie goers.

I am torn, some of the 3D I have seen has been spectacular, some haven't. My wife absolutely hates it. I made her watch Avatar in 3D and she was happy with that presentation but griped the entire time for Toy Story 3. She hates wearing the glasses.

3D is all about the $$$$$$$

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by odvan

You have incorrect data. Avatar beat GWTW on every level if we compare only first theatrical run.

You may be right. I did a search and found articles on both sides, but a couple of them said it depends on how long you consider the first run to be. For GWTW, 1939 for sure, but the movie kept popping up in neighborhood theaters, drive-ins, and rural venues after it was out of the downtown houses, then was re-released far sooner than the typical 7 or so years, in 1941 and '42. One article pointed out that if that were to be considered one long release, then GWTW sold more tickets, comparing domestic figures only. BUT, I presume after that article was written, it was revealed that Avatar would be released again soon (with 8 additional minutes), so we would need to count whatever number of tickets Avatar sells in the near future as being part of "one long release."

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

... we had an entire "3D" conversation, and he mentioned how he was excited about the potential of it, but stated he was "not impressed" with the current 3D available.... and he used Avatar as an example..... and said he went to see the movie 2 more times (he loved the film) both of which he saw in 2D.....
.

• IMO there is a tendency for 3D to break the spell of the movie by calling attention to itself. Some scenes / shots seem to have much more depth than others, and the difference can be jolting in a way that too often takes me out of the story. In a way it is like loud music which can enhance the emotional response OR degrade it, depending on the artfulness of the filmmakers, composer, and mixers.
• It has been said that the virtual centers of the lenses need to be closer together, which might be simulated with hi tech fiber optics.
• The trouble is, 3D movie tech has had since about 1953 to solve these problems, and hasn't. Hopefully people devoted to both art and science will work on it ...

[odvan]

Originally Posted by garyrc

You may be right. I did a search and found articles on both sides, but a couple of them said it depends on how long you consider the first run to be. For GWTW, 1939 for sure, but the movie kept popping up in neighborhood theaters, drive-ins, and rural venues after it was out of the downtown houses, then was re-released far sooner than the typical 7 or so years, in 1941 and '42. One article pointed out that if that were to be considered one long release, then GWTW sold more tickets, comparing domestic figures only. BUT, I presume after that article was written, it was revealed that Avatar would be released again soon (with 8 additional minutes), so we would need to count whatever number of tickets Avatar sells in the near future as being part of "one long release."

You could also add numbers of dvd/bd units sold with multiple home screenings. In 40th people couldn't do this in other way but visiting cinema.

I think GWTW was a great success in it time, but nowadays it wouldn't be that big. I rate SW and Titanic much higher.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by phansson

We all know the reasons why 3D is being pushed. The theaters get to charge more for the glasses, the electronics companies want to sell new 3d capable sets/blu ray players/glasses, and the studios see it as a fresh alternative for movie goers.

I am torn, some of the 3D I have seen has been spectacular, some haven't. My wife absolutely hates it. I made her watch Avatar in 3D and she was happy with that presentation but griped the entire time for Toy Story 3. She hates wearing the glasses.

3D is all about the $$$$$$$

The very reason films are made is money. So what is your point.

[Marcus Wright]

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

The very reason films are made is money. So what is your point.

Nailed it.

[Daredevil666]

Big time

how can people be so opposed to evolution in cinema. I mean talkies did change movies for the worst too, for a while, all of them were badly filmed, because filmmakers got lazy and relied on the sound rather than the images to convey things.

Did it make the passage from silent to talkies bad, in the long run ?

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by Marcus Wright

Why do you blame Avatar for that.
Was at least Avatar good in 3d?

If yes, so you are saying it shouldnt have been made in 3d (good 3d) because bad things would happen next?
It doesnt make sense.

Because Avatar was succesful and in a very typical stupid Hollywood fashion they want to run the lemon dry and make everything 3D now because "Avatar made so much money, 3D is the way to go". Most of what as been release in 3D the last 7 months after Avatar is pure crap but theaters and Hollywood will force you to see it in 3D since they can make more money even if what they are offering is a lesser product. So yes Avatar change cinema for the worst. The blame is not on Avatar and Cameron, far from it. He did what he had to do the right way. The question was "did Avatar change cinema" and I said yes and for the worst. Now because of this I am force to see movies in 3D that were not made for 3D, look horrible and expected to pay the extra money for it and be glad about it. Why should I be glad to pay extra money for something that was not made for 3D and look's horrible. My only option, stay away from theaters if this will be their way of operation. Like I said, me staying away will not hurt them but it's my money and I will spend it the way I want it and not the way Hollywood want's me to. If it mean's buying less Blu-ray on release becasue I have no seen the movies and I never blind buy, so be it as well. There is plenty of movies for me to watch in any case that are not made in this 3D craze of Hollywood.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by dvdvision

Big time

how can people be so opposed to evolution in cinema. I mean talkies did change movies for the worst too, for a while, all of them were badly filmed, because filmmakers got lazy and relied on the sound rather than the images to convey things.

Did it make the passage from silent to talkies bad, in the long run ?

People if you read what they are saying are not against 3D, they are against bad 3D that Hollywood is forcing down on us. Avatar was something else in 3D, Clash Of The Titans was pure garbage in 3D but I was still expected to pay the extra price for it cause they only want to show it in 3D. There is a huge difference between evolution of cinema and charging extra money for something that was not made with the new technology but created rush fashion in post production in order to make more money. That is what people are not happy about, there is a difference.

[Marcus Wright]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

People if you read what they are saying are not against 3D, they are against bad 3D that Hollywood is forcing down on us. Avatar was something else in 3D, Clash Of The Titans was pure garbage in 3D but I was still expected to pay the extra price for it cause they only want to show it in 3D. There is a huge difference between evolution of cinema and charging extra money for something that was not made with the new technology but created rush fashion in post production in order to make more money. That is what people are not happy about, there is a difference.

The transformation from bad 3d to good 3d will not happen instantly.
It will take some time, and we will have to take some of the costs of it if we want movie to make any progress at all. they need investments from 3d to invest in 3d.

Its just like saying when audio was first invented in mono way, you said no, I am not paying for unrealistic sound design as in real life it should sound better (surround sound).

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by Marcus Wright

The transformation from bad 3d to good 3d will not happen instantly.
It will take some time, and we will have to take some of the costs of it if we want movie to make any progress at all. they need investments from 3d to invest in 3d.

Its just like saying when audio was first invented in mono way, you said no, I am not paying for unrealistic sound design as in real life it should sound better (surround sound).

Yes but in the mean time, I am force to pay extra money for an inferior product by theaters and Hollywood. It's not my problem that they decided to rush into something that is not ready and now want me to pay more money for something of less quality. They are losing a client and they might lose some more. Sure you can say that we won't be making a huge break into their profit but I refuse to pay more money for their product when they could still offer me the chance to see it in 2D. I am not asking for all theaters to show the movie in 2D but that now none will show the movie in 2D let's me know exactly how they feel about the customer, pay for an inferior product and shut up. Too bad I refuse to pay for it.

[Daredevil666]

No one force you to pay anything . Plus Clash of the Titans clearly was looking bad, either in 2D or 3D. It's just bad cinema.

If you read James Cameron interviews, he slams bad 3D like Clash of the Titans too. I follow the man's instinct and sensibility, and more often than not, he is always right.

I'm prepping a short film, and guess what, I will shoot it in 3D. To film it in 2D HD just doesn't seem to make sense now.

There's no good or bad technology in cinema, just good or bad talent using it.

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

The very reason films are made is money.

It's sad if the only reason an individual is making films is to make money. I believe and hope that most would eschew some of the profit to make better films, if necessary. Many filmmakers (including Cameron) have cited the passion they have for filmmaking, and a few have said they would make films even if they were not paid (cliche though that is). Some have donated some or all of their profits to various charities and causes, from Ted Turner to Jack Lemmon, to C.B DeMille -- I'm sure the list is very long. If there are any in it merely for the money, they bring to mind very successful prostitutes.