my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews   » Avatar 2009 (plus lots of off-topic, non-review junk) (Page 19)

This topic comprises 19 pages: 1  2  3  ...  16  17  18  19

Author Topic: Avatar 2009 (plus lots of off-topic, non-review junk) Pravin Ratnam Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 844 From: Atlanta, GA,USA Registered: Sep 2002 posted 03-06-2010 01:02 AM                     I am pissed about Avatar being taken out of all the RealD 3D and IMAX installations only because for some weird reason I chose this weekend to check out the movie in IMAX at AMC Barret Commons. I know I have myself to blame as it has been out for a long time, but I noticed it was still in the overall top 5 at the boxoffice, so I assumed the IMAX was doing better than the average if even the SD prints were still doing decently. This location has freaking Boondock 2 playing for such a long time, that I grew complacent. I should have read this thread to realize the Alice in Wondderland wide release in 3DRealD and IMAX. I can live without the IMAX thing for now. But I would like to see it in 3D just to see what the fuss is about. In Atlanta, AMC Barrett Commons which was showing Avatar in all the formats until this week, is showing Avatar only in 3D now. But it doesnt seem to be the Digital 3D stuff as they use that moniker for the Alice in Wonderland showings now. Considering the print is old, I wonder what the quality would be like in analog due to multiplex handling. Anyone know the best theater to catch Avatar in at this late stage? I thought they would at least be one premium showing in a big city like Atlanta during Oscar week. Is there a dropoff from the 3DRealD stuff to the analog 3D presentation(*keeping in mind practical realities of it being an old print).  |  IP: Logged Julio Roberto Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 938 From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain Registered: Oct 2008 posted 03-06-2010 01:56 AM                    I don't think Avatar is playing in 3D in 35mm ("analog") at all. I think Clash of the Titans is going to be the first film widely available (lately) in 35mm 3D. But if it were, it wouldn't have any significant differences in quality. Probably a bit better in film in the color resolution and brightness departments compared to, say, RealD. Of course if the print was all scratched and the projector was weaving like crazy etc, well, that is always distracting and in 3D it would be even more.  |  IP: Logged Claude S. Ayakawa Film God Posts: 2738 From: Waipahu, Hawaii, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 03-06-2010 04:05 AM                        Julio, Will the 35mm 3-D film version of CLASH OF THE TITANS use the old Over/Under system or are they using a new system? If it is the old system, I will pass and see it either in Real D or Dolby 3-D. -Claude  |  IP: Logged Tom Mundell Expert Film Handler Posts: 120 From: Silver Spring, MD, USA Registered: Nov 2007 posted 03-06-2010 07:35 AM                        Still playing in some locations in 3D around here; as Claude noted these are larger multiplexes with several 3D screens. As much as I liked this movie, I agree it's definitely not best picture!  |  IP: Logged Julio Roberto Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 938 From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain Registered: Oct 2008 posted 03-06-2010 09:10 AM                    Claude: It's using a "new" over/under system that is 99.99% the same as the "old" over/under system. I encourage you to, at least as a test, you go and watch the film in a polarized digital system (such as RealD) first and then make the efford, at least this once, to also go and watch it soon afterwards again in 35mm 3D if it is available around your area to compare them. You will see there is *very* little difference. Some things like brightness and colors will be better in the 35mm film (if the theater is doing what it's suppossed to be doing) and some things, like image steadiness could be better in the digital. Also, if the movie is Scope 3D, it should be significantly "better" to watch in the 35mm 3D systems over any digital. Give it a shot. If you don't like it, you don't have to go back. But it won't be because the system produces any different results on the same movie if the theater showing the film version doesn't screw up (i.e. scratched prints, splices, flickering lamp, etc). Some of those things can also be screwed in digital, but there is no argument digital is more difficult to screw up by a booth monkey than 35mm film. A lot of the bad press with 3D films in the early 80's came from the fact that the movies were SHOT "wrong", as they had to be shot optically, often without even video feedback, with cumbersome and not-too-good lenses with little control and be people that didn't have a clue to what they were doing. But the "system" itself was capable of similar results as today's, slightly better in some aspects, slightly worse in others, but not too much difference either way.  |  IP: Logged Claude S. Ayakawa Film God Posts: 2738 From: Waipahu, Hawaii, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 03-06-2010 02:16 PM                        Julio. The thing that I did not like the most about the old Over/Under system was the extremely dark picture caused by two factors- single projection light source and the Polaroid glasses. I had even noticed this with earlier Real D and Dolby 3-D but they seem to have corrected the problem. Although Hawaii now has only one 15/70 IMAX screen, it does not show commercial Hollywood films but if they did, that is the best way to see 3-D films. Digital IMAX is also good too and Honolulu has one theatre that has it- Regal Dole Cannery 18 and that is where I recently saw AVATAR. By the way, the old Over/Under system required a silver screen. Does the new improved system require it too? I think it does. Even for a senior citizen like myself, watching films in 3-D is expensive. I can see a regular movie for $6.75 at any good theatre like the Ward Centre 16 or at the Dole Cannery 18 but it cost $10.00 to see Real D or Dolby 3-D movies. Digital IMAX is $2.00 more so I am very selective what I see in IMAX. Most of the 3-D movies I now see is either Real D or Dolby 3-D. -Claude  |  IP: Logged Pravin Ratnam Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 844 From: Atlanta, GA,USA Registered: Sep 2002 posted 03-07-2010 04:42 PM                     OK I finally saw it at AMC at Avenue Forsyth, Cumming, GA. It is an all digital multiplex opened recently. 160+ seats. I guess I was mistaken when I thought there were no more 3D Real D showings. I was misled by the way AMC was using Digital 3D to promote the movie until last week, then changed the designation this week, limiting the Digital 3D real D thing for only the Alilce in Wonderland movie. Also the lady who answered the phone earlier didnt seemt to know either. A manager today confirmed it was real D 3D. After watching the movie, while the 3D was good, there were times when I wished for a well presented 2D instead because 3D seems to make the picture dimmer. The hidef clips I saw on TV seemed to have a more vivid color. Also another problem I had with the 3D were "background" objects that appear in big closeup in the foreground that they distract from the main focus of the characters in the frame. You will see some plant that just seems obtrusive in the front of the frame because of the 3D effect. It's like you put a book too close to your face. The theater was packed. If Alice in Wonderland was not opening, it probably would have had more 3D screens for a few more weeks. I thought Zoe Saldana was very good for the CGI artists to model her character's expressions. The first half was just OK. Second half was better, but then I think Mel Gibson did hell of a better job with bringing emotions to battle scenes and uprisings or survival type deals in a pretty jungle in Apocalypto(in my personal opinion, one of the better made movies in the decade ). And I think CCameron needed a writer if he wanted to bring subtle parallels to real life stuff instead of bludgeoning us over the head with overused terms used in our day to day news. The movie aspect ratio seemed to be 2.35:1. I thought the Real D OAR was 1.85. Unless I am getting geometrically challenged, it looked pretty wide to me. I wonder if that lead to some cropping. The second line of the subtitles seemed to be partially cropped off at the bottom.  |  IP: Logged Bill Enos Film God Posts: 2081 From: Richmond, Virginia, USA Registered: Apr 2000 posted 04-15-2010 10:01 PM                     We're playing Avatar in 2D from film. Unlike the 3D I saw in 2 different theatres, it has bright vivid colors and detail that just disappears into the vast dimness in a 3D presentation.  |  IP: Logged Claude S. Ayakawa Film God Posts: 2738 From: Waipahu, Hawaii, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 04-15-2010 10:55 PM                        After seeing and enjoying AVATAR in digital IMAX 3-D, I am now looking forward to enjoying it again in 2-D in the comfort of my home next Thursday when the movie is released in Blu-Ray & DVD. The 3-D image I saw in IMAX at the Dole Cannery was nice and bright because of dual projection -Claude  |  IP: Logged Jonathan Smith Expert Film Handler Posts: 201 From: Youngstown, OH Registered: Jan 2010 posted 04-16-2010 10:10 AM                     Bill: I said the same thing to the mother of some disappointed kids who had come to see "How To Train Your Dragon" but showed up at a 2D time. . . "Well ma'am, it isn't in 3D, it's in 2D with higher resolution and better color depth on a $1500 35mm print. But you're not supposed to know about that." [Scope movies actually do have higher resolution, even from digital files on film because of the anamorphic squeeze. Only flat movies are better on a DLP than a 2K DI]  |  IP: Logged Jeremy Jorgenson Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1002 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: Feb 2005 posted 04-16-2010 12:19 PM                        quote: Claude S. Ayakawa I am now looking forward to enjoying it again in 2-D in the comfort of my home next Thursday when the movie is released in Blu-Ray Reminds me of when I saw the movie (15/70 IMAX 3D) I could hear the couple next to me talking before it started, the guy said to the gal, "this movie's going to be sick in Blu-Ray" as though the 70mm print(s) we were about to watch were... hmm, what's the opposite of sick? Healthy?  |  IP: Logged Jonathan Goeldner Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1360 From: Washington, District of Columbia Registered: Jun 2008 posted 06-19-2010 02:16 PM                     so I went to see Avatar ... again... two times before, first time though in IMAX 3D over at the Samuel L. Johnson theatre at the Natural History Museum down on the Mall. What struck me was that the image didn't extend to the sides of the screen but nestled in the center of the screen with large black borders surrounding the entire image area - hmmmm, so much for taking up all the 90 X 60 ft screen (drat). Secondly the image while sharp, lacked colour as if faded slightly, only at one point during a Navi scene did the colors suddently became vibrant and jump out - I'd assume the condition of the print was at fault here. However the real treat was the sound - loud, bombastic and completely immersive - the sound from the rear channels were creating a lot of phantom rear center sound that I had never picked up on before, (even when I had seen the film prior in REAL-D) - the destruction of the Tree - was so intense, nearly all the hair on my neck stood straight up. By far the IMAX experience was the best in terms of sound, the image though left me a bit unimpressed.  |  IP: Logged Kurt Zupin Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 989 From: Maricopa, Arizona Registered: Oct 2004 posted 08-26-2010 07:13 AM                     -The reason you get the centered image and not side to side is because of Cameron. He wanted to control the edges, didn't want his movie being cut off by poorly masked screens. Well 22 hours later the AVATAR Special Edition: An IMAX Experience for Harkins Arizona Mills is done. It was a long process, a first as far as I know for an IMAX feature. 16 new reels for each eye were sent, to be added back into the feature and 17 reels to be taken out. This was a long process, but I think it was worth it. I looked through all 19 pages and noticed that I never posted a review of this movie. Even after seeing it over 170 times. I screened it yesterday morning after finishing up the build. I have to say that I enjoyed all the added footage. There are a some shots that are there just to be there, but there are alot of scenes that after seeing this cut of the movie. These should of been in the original cut of the movie, they help flesh out a couple scenes that were a little strange and didn't have any resolution. I have to say, not watching this for about 4 months. I enjoyed it and had a good time with it again. This will do killer business for the next two/three weeks. Enjoy the up tick in business that you wouldn't have otherwise. Would not be shocked if this is #1 with far fewer screens then Takers and everything else this weekend. 4/5  |  IP: Logged Claude S. Ayakawa Film God Posts: 2738 From: Waipahu, Hawaii, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 08-26-2010 08:00 PM                        AVATA is playing in only two 3-D digital theatres in Honolulu, the Ward in their souped up 'Expend' house and the Mililani in central Oahu. Both of them had limited the film to only one showing a day starting at about noon. Regal is not showing it all all in any of their houses including their digital IMAX 3-D auditorium. -Claude  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 08-27-2010 12:38 AM                        There is no reason to see this version with 8.5 extra minutes when a home version with 16+ extra minutes will be released soon (in 2D). You think I'm joking, but I'm not. After that will be the 3D home release. Cameron is almost as much of a whore as Lucas is. So unless you aren't very good at managing your money, don't see this re-release and get the DVD/Blu-ray re-release instead. Avatar is best viewed at home, anyway. It sure was for me, though I still thought the movie had amateur-level storytelling at best. Cameron has said that he wants to compete with Lucas and Tokien. Then write an original story, dildo!  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 19 pages: 1  2  3  ...  16  17  18  19

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.