Movie Talk (New Films, Old Films... doesn't matter) (58 Viewers)

Osman

Koul Khara!
Aug 30, 2002
61,507
FYI, should differentiate between 3D and VERY innovating and masterful CGI, the later is what makes Avatar so amazing, and what Cameron worked on for 12 years. The 3D is an added bonus to the experience, but happend to few times (it has to be an occasion for it), when it happend it was neat though, but it didnt make the movie.
 

Buy on AliExpress.com

X Æ A-12

Senior Member
Contributor
Sep 4, 2006
87,993
Instead of saying however Swag, say instead "And" I would agree with that post ;) I dont think the plot is a drawback even if completely unoriginal (and reminds you of other things, but so what?), and its not merely however, because the visuals and the very living world is what makes the movie sucha fucking amazing experience.
:tup:
 

swag

L'autista
Administrator
Sep 23, 2003
84,795
Instead of saying however Swag, say instead "And" I would agree with that post ;) I dont think the plot is a drawback even if completely unoriginal (and reminds you of other things, but so what?), and its not merely however, because the visuals and the very living world is what makes the movie sucha fucking amazing experience.
The downside is I saw a live play this week, and all the 3-D gimmickry in the world could not overcome the force of a live play. So in that respect, I don't think the recorded experience has yet to breach the genuine value of a live one.

Perhaps much in the same way that Facebook will never replace the ability to get drink with friends in a bar in real life. ;) Too often, we still fawn all over ourselves for recorded facsimiles -- forgetting that the real deal still beats the pants off of any canned mockery.
 

X Æ A-12

Senior Member
Contributor
Sep 4, 2006
87,993
It is horrible, did you watch that link?

3D is a con, it was bought it because you cannot pirate a 3D film and then they pass the expense of their incompetence onto the consumers, its a farse.
I don't usually see movies in 3D, Avatar was an exception because the visuals were the main reason I went to see the movie. I have only seen a few other movies in 3D and the only one I am looking at now that I know I have to see in 3D is the new Alice in wonderland. I think its gonna blow my mind
 

X Æ A-12

Senior Member
Contributor
Sep 4, 2006
87,993
The downside is I saw a live play this week, and all the 3-D gimmickry in the world could not overcome the force of a live play. So in that respect, I don't think the recorded experience has yet to breach the genuine value of a live one.
Honestly I prefer movies over plays. I hate going to plays and I only ever do when I am getting dragged by a girl I hope to see naked.
Perhaps much in the same way that Facebook will never replace the ability to get drink with friends in a bar in real life. ;) Too often, we still fawn all over ourselves for recorded facsimiles -- forgetting that the real deal still beats the pants off of any canned mockery.
I agree with this part about facebook
 

swag

L'autista
Administrator
Sep 23, 2003
84,795
What do you mean live play? Are you comparing Avatar to just plays in general out of the blue? :p
No. I'm saying that a lot of people don't see live plays anymore. And it's easy to become enamored with the 3-D effects of technological cinema, but then when you compare them to the live experience of a stage play in the flesh -- they're just not the same.

I saw Avatar in 3-D and a great stage play in the same week, and it just reminded me about how much we stumble over ourselves to laud the technological exploits of cinematic reality when a live play -- which few of us see anymore -- still blows it out of the water.
 

Osman

Koul Khara!
Aug 30, 2002
61,507
Facebook part agreed (boycotted it since launch), but hugely prefer being immersed in movies then frigging plays (though I seen plays, and like some, it justs not comparable at all). You upped the masterpiece that is Lawrence of Arabia earlier, would you prefered to see it as a play? FUCK NO :D
 

Ford Prefect

Senior Member
May 28, 2009
10,557
I don't usually see movies in 3D, Avatar was an exception because the visuals were the main reason I went to see the movie. I have only seen a few other movies in 3D and the only one I am looking at now that I know I have to see in 3D is the new Alice in wonderland. I think its gonna blow my mind
Did you watch the link was my question.
 

Osman

Koul Khara!
Aug 30, 2002
61,507
No. I'm saying that a lot of people don't see live plays anymore. And it's easy to become enamored with the 3-D effects of technological cinema, but then when you compare them to the live experience of a stage play in the flesh -- they're just not the same.

I saw Avatar in 3-D and a great stage play in the same week, and it just reminded me about how much we stumble over ourselves to laud the technological exploits of cinematic reality when a live play -- which few of us see anymore -- still blows it out of the water.
Well I missunderstood you then. If you are talking specifically (if a real great play) instead of in general, I getcha (not like Avatar is the best thing around, but for what it is, its a very nice experience). But in overall, technical CGI movies or not, I dont think they are comparable and the media of movies are way better experience.
 

Ford Prefect

Senior Member
May 28, 2009
10,557
I did, and I get his point of 3D in general (they are used in cartoons in general as a gimmick), but it has little to do with Avatar.

But its still bit ridicolous saying one hates 3D.
No it isnt, its going to make it impossible for any good films to come through the system, its also the failings of the industry to deal with piracy properly that is why they are FORCING it on consumers.
 

X Æ A-12

Senior Member
Contributor
Sep 4, 2006
87,993
Did you watch the link was my question.
Yes, I did.

I really couldn't have cared less for what that guy had to say, I'm not going to suddenly never see a 3D movie ever again because he personally does not appreciate 3D.

And that also had very little to do with avatar. It was more about his dislike of 3D in general that could have been applied to any 3D movie.

And I don't get why you are insisting they are forcing 3D on us. You can go see avatar with or without 3D if it bothers you so much.
 

swag

L'autista
Administrator
Sep 23, 2003
84,795
Facebook part agreed (boycotted it since launch), but hugely prefer being immersed in movies then frigging plays (though I seen plays, and like some, it justs not comparable at all). You upped the masterpiece that is Lawrence of Arabia earlier, would you prefered to see it as a play? FUCK NO :D
The cinematography was too great in that to recreate on a stage. Lawrence of Arabia just wouldn't make a good stage play.

But if you see something on a stage with flesh-and-blood actors who are good at their craft -- in a piece of work that delivers in that format -- there's no recorded movie in the world that can come close to emulating that reality of an experience.

I'm probably comparing apples to oranges between Avatar and the play I saw, which was a dialogue-driven vehicle in more of the sharp-tongued Quentin Tarrantino vein. While Avatar provided plenty of eye candy, the play experience was visceral -- something that Avatar could never achieve.
 

Ford Prefect

Senior Member
May 28, 2009
10,557
Yes, I did.

I really couldn't have cared less for what that guy had to say, I'm not going to suddenly never see a 3D movie ever again because he personally does not appreciate 3D.

And that also had very little to do with avatar. It was more about his dislike of 3D in general that could have been applied to any 3D movie.

And I don't get why you are insisting they are forcing 3D on us. You can go see avatar with or without 3D if it bothers you so much.
Ok, you dont like the guy. But he is one of the foremost and highly respected film critics and academics in the world. If you want to know about why 3D is being forced on cinema go'ers then you are going to have to watch more of his videos.


 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 46)