Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
tips@gizmodo.com
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | Email | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
Email | AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor:
Jesus Diaz
Email | AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
Email | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
Email | Twitter
Sean Fallon
Email | Twitter
Jack Loftus
Email | Twitter
John Herrman
Email | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Email
Chris Mascari
Email
Danny Allen
Email | Twitter
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Email
Chris Jacob
Email
Comment Intern:
Nick Ellenoff | Email
Comment Account Questions:
Comments@gizmodo.com
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/12/09
11/12/09
11/12/09
11/12/09
11/09/09
So I can see that the technology might not be for everyone, but just because 3d is blurry and headache inducing to YOU, does not make it so to other people.
To me it looks like the second coming. For full disclosure I can also magic eyes without any effort and can also easily do the cross eyed two picture 3d thing easily.
What I can't do is the red/blue glasses because I am colorblind. THOSE just look blurry to me, but I know that is because of my eyes.
So don't crap on 3d because is it bad for YOU. I can understand you not wanting it to be the ONLY option. That would suck for you, like me playing a video game that does not have a color blind mode (most of them) #3d
11/09/09
11/09/09
Just seems weird to spend $250+ million on a movie only to have people wear $2 crap glasses and make it all fuzzy and blurry... #3d
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/12/09
Wow. #3d
11/12/09
11/09/09
3D really made everything stand out and seem more vibrant (the flora scene in particular). #3d
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/09/09
because in this article you seem like you hate avatar (you call avatar a folly), while in other Gawker articles the writers praise it for being awesome.
If you are saying just the 3d version is a POS, then perhaps the title should be,
"James Cameron's 500 million dollar foolish venture into the 3rd dimension"
instead of equating the movie overall to foolishness. #3d
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/09/09
Yes, I image it will be quite difficult for the movie to make it's money back in the theater. Luckily for Cameron he does not need to rely on theater showings to make his money back. This is more than just a movie, Avatar is also a tech demo. As long as the movie does amazingly well, then he will have studios lining up to purchase rights to use that tech in their own movies.
Honestly I don't know how anybody could say the movie looks like crap. You may not like the color of something, you may think it looks like a video game, you may thing its all just a re-interpretation of stuff that has already been done before.... but all of that does not make it look like crap. The animation is beyond superb, the color shouldn't matter as it's an alien race that never existed before and could be any color the imagination chooses, the modeling for the world and creatures look amazing, even the worse of it.
The complaint that it looks like CG? Well hello, it is CG... duh? Would you rather they used puppets and models so we could then say, "but it looks like puppets and models!" #3d
11/09/09
I'd rather they used CGI effectively so that it blended easily, allowing me to be captivated by the story. Of course we know creatures aren't real, but there are definitely shitty CGI effects that just ruin the final product. Then there are triumphs of effects, acting and direction that allow us to forget we're even watching a film.
I've seen puppet and model effects that make CGI look like shit, and vice versa. In the best cases smart directors and effects masters use all available techniques to a masterful conclusion. I submit: Peter Jackson and Richard Taylor. They used effects as a means to support a brilliantly directed story. On the opposite end of the spectrum you have Michael Bay, who relies on effects as a crutch for having no sense of storytelling or directorial acumen at all. (He is successful, however, because people like still like loud and flashy bang bang, even if devoid of any lasting merit.)
So... yes, to many people Avatar looks like crap. The CGI looks like crap. James Cameron is an extremely talented writer, director and artist... but even masters of their craft occasionally make a mistake. #3d
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/09/09
I see this going the same way Jennifer's Body did... Good game Fox. #3d
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/06/09
I'm gonna have to agree with Mark on this one - perhaps not in terms of them not having the tech, but more on how preposterous the idea of of them holding it back from a soldier. Does this presume that someone who can walk cannot link with the Avatar? Wouldn't they prefer to cure soldiers from spine injuries so they can be badass MOFOs carrying those huge (oh, but yet so light and practical) machine-gun-RGP-Gatling gun-axis of evil-eliminating things? (BTW, how come in the future weapons become bigger and not smaller and more efficient?).
Anyway, clearly this is one of those movies where you will do better not dwelling too deep in the plot. James Cameron cares more about hardware than about plausibility. Besides, this is just an action-packed CGI-fest with a minor allegory regarding man's greedy willingness to destroy the natural world for money.
I'll just set my brain to 25%, and accept being mesmerized by the blinking light, the gadgetry, the blue people, and flying polychromatic pterodactyls. All this in full IMAX 3D glory. #avatar
11/06/09
Because bigger guns are more awesome than tiny guns. Sheesh, how hard is that to figure out? The BFG in Doom does not stand for Babyish Feeble Gun #avatar
11/06/09
@Geisrud: You mean this is not awesome? #avatar
11/06/09
11/06/09
11/06/09
11/06/09
@Geisrud: Ah, the Magnum .44. Good times, good times indeed. #avatar
11/06/09
I think we have to suppose they do a lot more in a slightly larger package. While a failure, a real world, albeit rudimentary example would be the OICW. In Sci-Fi, think of "The Fifth Element" weapon compliments of Zorg Industries. It was huge, but it had all sorts of fun capabilities. #avatar
11/06/09
Who will be the victor?! #avatar