Avatar

January 14, 2010 on 11:38 am | In Film | 5 Comments

Wow. Prepare for a nauseating splurge of positivity.

Words fail me, really. That was the most beautiful, mesmerising, thunderously awesome piece of cinema I’ve seen for years. Yes, the film is merely ‘good’ but as an experience I think it is fantastic. I don’t know whether it’s an artefact of 3D providing increased immersion or whether it was just well thought out characters, but I really found myself rooting for the Na’vi, and actually caring whether they lived or died. At one point I even caught myself think ‘please don’t die.’, which is probably a first for me.*

Did I mention that it was actually beautiful? As in heartstoppingly beautiful? Everything in it has been lovingly rendered, and it shows. ‘Polished’ is inadequate. The Na’vi are brilliantly done, and at times it’s hard to believe there is are any humans behind them at all and that the whole thing isn’t just CGI. In fact, the whole world has been incredibly well thought out; the animals and plants are all believable and ‘fit’ in a way which very much implies that they are of the same ecosystem.

It’s a long film, but it doesn’t feel like one. Even those of you who aren’t fussed should go and take a look, because I truly believe that this is a game-changer for cinema. The world of film is notably different now, which sounds dramatic but having watched the flagship of 3D I think that the end of 2D cinema is in sight, and I’d imagine you’ll be hard-pressed to find a 2D cinema screen near you inside of the next 5 years.

*Although, I do generally find it quite easy to get very involved in films, so take that at face value.

5 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

  1. I reckon not. Firstly I reckon 3D is probably more expensive to make. And do you think classic films like Apocalypse Now, or The Shining, or The Godfather would’ve be that much better in 3D? I reckon (and hope) it’s just a gimmick, used in the big-blockbuster action films. The ones that anyone with any sense avoid :-p

    Comment by Dickie — January 14, 2010 #

  2. THere are some great films that would not be improved by being in 3D – any film in which the drama is centred on dialogue and human interaction rather than big set pieces and overwhelming explosions and such. But there are some great films to be made in 3D and it is very impressive. For myself, I hope that the two can coexist in our cinemas – that there will be more films in 3D, equally impressive if not more so – but that 2D films will continue to be made, and well-made, and not become an esoteric point of interest, or a budget option, among film-makers. Think of any good romcom – When Harry Met Sally, say, or CLoser (dubious on the ‘com’ there) – how on earth would they be improved by increased depth perception? What would be the point?

    Comment by Jenny — January 14, 2010 #

  3. Lord of the Rings in 3D. Discuss.

    Comment by Fiona — January 14, 2010 #

  4. Ah but Dickie, are you doing that thing where you haven’t actually seen evidence for something but you believe it to be true? And yes, 3D is much more expensive to make (although I’m not sure how true that is for animated films) but I think that will change as the technology is adopted. And it is very much being adopted at the moment judging by the number of cinemas nationwide which have invested in the not-very-cheap-at-all 3D projectors. We shall see.
     
    @ Jenny: I think that 3D does add something to interaction by making it less like watching something on a pane of glass and more involving. I obviously have nothing much to draw on here bar my own experience of Avatar, which I found more involving in it’s interactions than I think I would have done in 2D. But hey, that’s just guesswork, and we’ll never know what the classics would be like 3D.
     
    @ Fiona: Yes, it would be amazing. No, it’s never going to happen unless they want to re-film the whole lot or they develop some very clever CGI and devote some very hefty sums of money!

    Comment by Callan — January 14, 2010 #

  5. “Lord of the Rings in 3D. Discuss.”
    Boring boring boring boring boring films :-p But I’m aware that I’m in the minority here…
     
    I’m not sure what you’re suggesting, Callan? I’ve seen enough 3D films to form the opinion that they’re maybe good for action films. I don’t think they’d add anything to most films. For instance, 12 Angry Men is an absolute gem of a movie, it’s mostly set in one room and it’s all dialogue-based – no whizzy action sequences here. Do you really think it would be improved, or help tell the story in any way, if Henry Fonda appeared to walk around a 3D table? Really?
     
    I think Jenny’s right – the two should co-exist, because they’re essentially different mediums suitable for different things.
     
    The cost isn’t just for the cinema, either. What I guess is a bigger cost is that of actually making the film. Another perspective to film, another camera required (or twice as much rendering to do, for 3D films), more editing to do.
     
    A film shouldn’t be seen as being good because it employs a particular gimmicky effect. A film should be seen as good just because it’s good; because the story it tells is involving, because the characters are well thought out, because the acting and the way the film is made involves the viewer.

    Comment by Dickie — January 14, 2010 #

Leave a comment

XHTML: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Entries and comments feeds. Valid XHTML and CSS. ^Top^
38 queries. 0.628 seconds.
Powered by WordPress with jd-nebula theme design by John Doe.