You may not have quite realised it yet, but humanity finds itself on the brink of a new form of cinematic entertainment. Quite simply, the act of going to the flicks and sitting down to watch a movie will never be the same again after December 17, when James Cameron's sci-fi adventure Avatar opens at UK cinemas.
Some ten years in the making, the self-confessed 'King of the World's latest $200million blockbuster will change the way that we perceive and enjoy bigscreen entertainment. With the filmmakers, 20th Century Fox's PR department and internet fanboys already calling it 'groundbreaking', 'revolutionary', 'game changing' and 'the future of cinema' there can be no doubt that we are all about to witness what must surely be the most important milestone in the history of film since the introduction of popcorn.
At least, that's what we're supposed to think. Having the trailers and featurettes that have sprung up on the 'net and having had the chance to attend the IMAX preview of 15 minutes of footage from Avatar a few months ago, I'm still struggling to see how it could possibly live up to any of those claims...
Battlefield Smurf
Only nothing I've seen so far, especially the extracts screened on the BFI's über-screen convinced me that Avatar was anything more than just another 3D film, and not a particularly exciting or original one at that. On the other hand, I will admit to being surprised that the next evolution in cinema is to arrive in the form of a sci-fi version of Dances with Wolves starring eight-foot-tall Smurfs.
Anyway, I'm not here to talk about the film itself - the hackneyed and unoriginal scenes shown were all taken out of context, and could possibly prove much less laughable when returned to their rightful slot in the narrative - I'm here to refute the claims that Avatar uses 3D in exciting new ways to create a new form of immersive entertainment. Because, going by the preview footage, there's nothing here that hasn't been done before. It's the same old story of increased depth to the image (despite the fact that the characters and props feel 2D within a 3D frame - kind of like the old parallax scrolling effect you'd get in Amiga computer games), and things poking out of the screen at you. The only difference here appears to be that Cameron continues shooting 3D material like he would 2D, resulting in fast cuts and quick camera movements that don't even give your eyes chance to focus on the extra-dimensional effects.
And while 3D technology has improved in leaps and bounds since Hollywood's first major push in the 1950s, the imagery still lacks sharpness. Avatar's footage is slightly blurred as it fools your eyes into believing it is three-dimensional. While I admit that the film has continued to go through post-production since the preview screening, it's hard to believe that any of this will solve the issues with the 3D presentation. And given the kind of sumptuous, pin-sharp HD visuals I regularly gorge myself on courtesy of my home cinema setup, this lack of definition isn't what I want when I pay big bucks to go to the movies.
To be blunt, there was nothing about the IMAX preview that made me think I have to catch Avatar in 3D when it opens at cinemas. Indeed, given the image softness, I'm more likely to see it as a regular 2D presentation.
So, while I'm willing to be proven wrong when the film itself finally debuts, everything currently points to the fact that - no matter what the hype machine might say - Avatar isn't a revolution; it's the same old tired 3D nonsense that Hollywood has been peddling for decades. Studios are desperate for 3D to succeed because it will combat piracy and make going to the cinema more of an event, allowing them to continue to hike ticket prices. None of that has anything to do with developing the art of film - no matter what the likes of James Cameron or Peter Jackson might say.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
In the latest Home Cinema Choice:
whoa! Bitter or what? LOL!
Alan Smithee (not verified) - 30 November 2009 - 11:08amwhoa! Bitter or what?
LOL!
monday articles
Alan Smithee (not verified) - 30 November 2009 - 11:09amAlways take Monday articles with a grain of salt ;)
I'll wait until I see this,
3rd Derrick (not verified) - 30 November 2009 - 11:32amI'll wait until I see this, but you can add all the effects and 3d in the world, but if the content (in terms of the story) isn't good then it doesn't matter.
I remember seeing Transformers 2 and enjoyed it as some noisy action, but after seeing District 9 with a decent story, Transformers 2 shows itself to be the pile of poorness it is.
103"
Ian S (not verified) - 30 November 2009 - 1:32pmI was fortunate enough to attend Panasonics 3D roadshow at the Trafford Centre, where a range of samples including the Avatar trailer were all displayed in 3D on a 103" screen. Of all the footage shown the 3D effect of Avatar was probably the weakest. It did not convey the same depth that the other dedicated samples demonstrated.
I too went to the Trafford
Kev M (not verified) - 30 November 2009 - 1:52pmI too went to the Trafford Centre Panasonic demo and agree that Avatar was the weakest of the demos, but that wasn't hard as I thought they were all weak. I've seen better 3D in the 80s!
It'll always be a gimmick!
Pile of poorness
Anton van Beek - 30 November 2009 - 1:59pm3rd Derrick - I'm amazed it took you until after watching District 9 to see Transformers 2 for the 'pile of poorness it is'. I would have thought that the combination of the nonsensical story, Decepticon slut-bot, questionable racial stereotypes, dogs shagging, robots farting, leg humping, giant metal testicles and the visit to 'robot heaven' would have made it obvious from the get-go.
Glad you enjoyed District 9 though - it is rather good, isn't it. I've just got my hands on a review copy of the Blu-ray, which I'll be delving into as soon as the latest issue of Home Cinema Choice goes to press - which should be any day now (fingers-crossed). So keep an eye on this site for a hands-on preview of the District 9 BD in the very near future.
Totally agree, but still
Alan Smithee (not verified) - 30 November 2009 - 4:59pmTotally agree, but still going to watch this. Like Matrix and Gladiator, this is one of those rare cinematic events that transcend the world of cinema. Too strongly put? Wait till it spawns many comedy sketches, and other artistic and cultural reference over the next couple of years.
My problem with the Avatar
John McElroy (not verified) - 30 November 2009 - 5:43pmMy problem with the Avatar footage I've seen is that it looks like a computer game. Fine if you like computer games I suppose, but to me it is a big step down in PQ from live action. Having heard about this film for so long, when I saw the actual trailer (first in 2-D and then 3-D) I was massively disappointed. I'll probably wait until I've read a few reviews before deciding if I want to see it.
you only just got a review copy?
Alan Smithee (not verified) - 30 November 2009 - 6:57pmYou only just got a review blu ray copy? where are you living, do you not have the internet. I've had the 1080p blu ray rip for two weeks now.It's amazing quality, and such a good film.
Anton is absolutely on the
Rob from Kent (not verified) - 30 November 2009 - 9:28pmAnton is absolutely on the money...speaking sense. In addition 3D is an unpleasant viewing experience. A recent 3D film resulted in us leaving the cinema with headaches and feeling nauseous. Will never go again.
Avatar
Alan Smithee's brother (not verified) - 30 November 2009 - 9:56pmThank God for this. I thought I was the only one completely underwhelmed by what I've seen so far, though I've only seen 2D footage.
It does look like a game-and games look OK because they're games. But for an "event" movie, I think not.
I'll wait until I've seen it to make my mind up fully, but I've seen nothing to make me think I must see it in 3D on a big screen.
I'd had a gap of a few
3rd Derrick (not verified) - 1 December 2009 - 12:40amI'd had a gap of a few months since going to the cinema, hence Transformers 2 was just some loud brainless stuff to fill an evening after days of work (that's my excuse anyway :) ).
I was discussing with a friend recently how our bluray purchases are conservative and won't be on the scale of dvd. I'm not so fussed about having many of the comedy films etc in hi-def. District 9 is one of the few that will be getting more priority (though I still refuse to pay the £15-18 charge) and will wait until it's closer to the £10 mark.
Having gone off topic a little - i'll just repeat that it's the content that matters. In the early days of me having surround sound etc a bad movie might have been purchased for eye candy purposes, but not so sure now - unless it's some sort of 5 quid job. I still look forward to seeing avatar (not so sure on the 3d front - worried about eye strain etc). Hope it won't be like what my friend's wife had at cloverfield - she had to leave the cinema after 10-20 mins (it was either that or throw up).
I assume your comment was tongue in cheek
3rd Derrick (not verified) - 1 December 2009 - 12:44amI assume your comment was tongue in cheek...
Incase it wasn't. The reason he doesn't have a rip is probably because he works for home cinema press and it doesn't exactly look good when your company is doing reviews based on an illegal copy.
I await the flames of the "we should be able to download what we want, why are my isp capping me for torrenting all the movies out there" masses.
Videogames in IMAX 3D? Where?
Loren in NYC (not verified) - 1 December 2009 - 12:26pmI disagree that the footage shown looks like a videogame - if you've got a videogame like that, please post the title. But you still can't play it in IMAX 3D. As with Beowulf, which I saw in IMAX 3D, Real-D, and several sizes of 2D, this movie was made for IMAX 3D and will ever only completely work visually there. The differences from Beowulf (and presumably A Christmas Carol, which I haven't seen) are the increased detail of a higher resolution render, an entirely new 3D camera designed to help remove the eye-fatigue/headache problem, and of course the extra level of attention paid to actor's faces and especially eyes in the mo-cap process.
Also be aware that even if Cameron ends up revealing 20 to 40 minutes of footage before the release, he's still got 110 to 130 minutes of footage to surprise us with, and even if we all think we've seen the plot before, everybody knew before release that Titanic was a love story set on a ship that sinks. Unless he's had a brain transplant in the last 12 years, I'm confident an IMAX 3D ticket will be quite worth the purchase price.
there is no reason why 3D in
russell (opt) (not verified) - 2 December 2009 - 5:31pmthere is no reason why 3D in its current form should look any less sharp than standard 2D cinema, but as the technology forces you to focus equally with both eyes, any difference in your eyesight is highlighted, in other words if you are very slightly more short sighter in one eye, which most of us are, you will notice it. in normal life or when we are watching the tv or a movie our brain 'prefers' the best image and shows us that, try covering one eye than the other you will probably see a difference in image qualtity. 3D cinema forces us to use both eyes at the same time, and thats why it can seem slightly blurred.
Also 3D is a funny thing and throws up all kinds of strange imagery even in real life, so it's always going to look strange in a situation when we are not used to it, try holding your hand just below the desk your PC is sitting on, now focus on your hand and see what happens to the desk in front.
does that make sense mr beek?
Your claim
James Robertson (not verified) - 17 December 2009 - 1:39pm15 Minutes is definitely not enough to base an opinion on. I watched it yesterday in 3D and i was amazing, sure there were parts where the 3d wasn't blatantly obvious, but i liked that it more it more subtle in the film unlike in your face. In all honesty i have never before seen a 3d film in which the 3d was this good! I would never watch this film in 2d because it would take away the magic of pandora