Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Avatar 2

1568101114

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 17,838 ✭✭✭✭silverharp



    2 stars lol




    Avatar: The Way of Water review – a soggy, twee, trillion-dollar screensaver



    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,951 ✭✭✭McFly85


    It seems to be generally considered okay, great to look at with a thin story(as most expected).

    But 3 hours is a lot if there’s not much apart from visuals to keep me interested. Maybe if there’s a quiet day over Christmas but not really that pushed.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 35,941 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Sounds like exactly what the 2009 film was: an overwhelming visual experience, as long as one sees it in the cinema. No more than my own experience: a dud story but it'd be disingenuous of me to pretend the sensory experience in the cinema wasn't something else.

    The moment this appears on digital and the High Seas you'll see the drop-off of praise by those watching this on their smart-phone wondering what all the fuss was about.



  • Registered Users Posts: 32,951 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN


    The storyline is still the same whether it's on a mobile phone or in the cinema.

    Got to think some reviews are paid for by the studio.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 35,941 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Why? Cos some viewers might put a film's visual experience higher than the ostensible story? It's not unheard of: plenty of films seem positively underwhelming if you focus on the story. Mad Max Fury Road is about a bunch of people driving in one direction, turning around then going back. But the journey was the meat.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,080 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    So saw this earlier. For the first 45 mins or so, it’s Avatar… again. Yes the tech has been improved, and now the frame rate is variable from shot to shot (I’ll have a lot more to say about that 😅)… but it’s more Avatar. It’s spectacular, goofy, over-earnest and very expensive. The story is rather silly - resurrecting dead characters in questionable ways, and basically just saying ‘so everything was fine, but the humans just came back again and war happened’. It introduces a half dozen new central characters in a two minute exposition dump montage, and since Na’vi all look pretty darn similar it can take a while to get your bearings.

    But then the plot moves along and we get to the water bits and I was pretty in awe of what Cameron is doing here. The water stuff is **** amazing, to be honest. Whether it’s the relaxed, vibe-filled middle hour or the thrillingly action-packed final act, it all has a clarity and fidelity oh so rare in modern blockbusters. Yes there’s still a bunch of spiritual mumbo jumbo and the writing’s pretty naff, but this is a blockbuster spectacle where you have no doubt whatsoever where that $350 million budget went. To borrow a video game term, it’s a generational leap over its predecessor. The film is not as light on plot as some reviews suggest, but nor is the story particularly weighty, and the stakes can’t help but all feel like something of a lengthy skirmish setting the stage for three (?) more films to come. I did appreciate how much time it spent just exploring the ocean and wildlife, but equally there’s no doubt it’s a (pretty long!) middle chapter in a story with all that entails.

    The secret sauce is the high frame rate (HFR), which I have to explain in more depth because it’s totally fascinating in execution. So the film (presuming you see it in Cameron’s intended format - not a given as this is being released in countless different formats) has a variable frame rate - some scenes are in normal 24 FPS, and others are 48. Actually, it varies from shot to shot, and even occasionally within shots (one element in HFR and others in standard). We’ve seen HFR before, most notably - and disastrously - in The Hobbit films, but variable frame rate is pretty new (well, in film at least).

    Just to be clear, I despised high frame rate in The Hobbit. I think it looked awful, and ruined the film with its horrid soap opera effect. This is very different. It’s distracting at first, kinda like an IMAX aspect ratio shift when you’re watching The Dark Knight on Blu-Ray. It’s mostly used for fast action or fast camera moves (compensating for the focus issues with 3D cinematography), with dialogue usually at a slower pace. It’s a bit jarring to see it jump back and forth - I’m hypersensitive to it so can’t help but notice the switch when it happens.

    But for the underwater scenes and final action sequences, it’s virtually all high frame rate, and it’s a hell of an achievement. I may have uttered a quiet ‘wow’ during the first dive sequence - it immediately justifies HFR. It looks uniquely, unbelievably beautiful - a level of ultra clarity that we haven’t seen in any film before, and hyper-real and immersive in a way that really blows past any concerns about soap opera effect. It helps of course that Cameron and his vast team fill almost every shot with colour and have very keen eyes for clear, legible, fluid action (traits also very beneficial for the 3D, making its not-at-all-anticipated but actually-pretty-cool-thanks-to-HFR comeback). It’s a feast of technology, really, and used to further Cameron’s very specific aesthetic and storytelling goals rather than just show off. Dude really loves the ocean, and you can see why 😅

    All of this is to say: see this thing in high frame rate in a cinema (or at very least wait for a good 4K version in HFR). Yes, it doesn’t fix some of the fundamental problems with Avatar: the central conceits and indeed Na’vi design still leave me pretty cold, though this does have a clearer and more engaging emotional backbone even if it’s top-heavy with characters. But it’s rare to go into a cinema and feel like you’ve seen something new, but this certainly offered that with it’s almost alarmingly clear and rich presentation. It’s a flawed film, but when the ride is this spectacular it’s better to just go along with it. Just make sure you see it in 3D HFR if you can!

    Post edited by johnny_ultimate on


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,350 ✭✭✭StevenToast


    Ya....ill be giving this a miss.....

    "Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining." - Fletcher



  • Registered Users Posts: 540 ✭✭✭Apothic_Red


    I look forward to watching a cam copy on my phone, thanks



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,927 ✭✭✭✭titan18


    The different versions are a bit confusing. I've seen Omniplex has a 2d (Maxx and normal screen), and then there's 3D in normal screen too.

    Is this needed to be seen in 3D again, and are any of their versions HFR?



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,080 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    It’s a mess of formats - there’s apparently 2D HFR in the wild too, but most places I’ve seen aren’t really advertising the details beyond ‘2D’ and ‘3D’.

    I would absolutely recommend 3D anyway. Decent chance any decent modern screen will have HFR too.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 317 ✭✭SheepsClothing


    Where did you see it?

    Movies@Cinemas confirm in their website that they have HFR 3D and Google seems to suggest that omniplex are also, but their own website leaves it ambiguous.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,080 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    Not in Ireland so can’t be much help in terms of local screens unfortunately! Good to know Movies@ is showing it in HFR, and I’d imagine the Cineworld IMAX is as well based on past experience.



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,306 ✭✭✭✭Drumpot


    I was going to ask, normal or 3D. I’ve felt motion sickness sometimes with that but if it’s worth it I will give it a go.


    Also, does iMax make much of a difference ? I can get to Parnell screen but it’s a fair trek for me. Considering it’s a visual feast (I don’t expect Oscar winning dialogue/story) it seems like it might be better to make the effort?!



  • Registered Users Posts: 89 ✭✭walkonby


    Is it just me or is there noticeable pixelation in that Cineworld imax? Not seen Avatar yet, but I saw both Dune and Maverick there.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,080 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    HFR might go some way towards alleviating the motion sickness. It means your eyes don’t need to do as much work to focus on motion as they do in 24 FPS 3D.

    Cineworld IMAX is grand. You don’t want to be near the front as you’ll see the pixelation mentioned above, but it’s a decent digital screen for blockbusters. I’m not sold on the likes of MAXX etc, but this is a rare film that visibly benefits from a more modern projector.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,927 ✭✭✭✭titan18


    Omniplex only had 3d in normal screens so you've to go with a smaller screen there if you want to see in 3d.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,774 ✭✭✭speedboatchase


    Warning: Kermode has done one of his interminable 'comedy' reviews on this.



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,838 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,774 ✭✭✭speedboatchase


    Was a fan a long time ago but found him becoming more self-indulgent as time went on. Had second-hand embarrassment watching the latest example of that.



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,838 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    my response was badly worded, I meant kermode was not a fan of the movie then. I think he can analyse a film fairly well but I wouldnt take his opinion to watch or not watch a film and he is a bit pompus for his own good. he is ok in small doses. If he reviews an Irish movie I might be curious to get his take

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 442 ✭✭RickBlaine


    I really like the first one even on the small screen. I watched it at home for the first time in ages, and even though I remembered the main plot beats, I was still drawn into the story and adventure. I think Saldana's excellent performance as Neytiri is the key to the first film. She is probably the only character that feels properly fleshed out rather than a mere trope, such as Ribisi's "evil corporate asshole" or Lang's "evil military asshole" (although I did enjoy Lang's scenery chewing performance).

    This sequel looks spectacular. Aside from the scenery and underwater stuff, there are some close-ups of Neytiri that look astonishingly real. The new teenage characters walk a very fine line between being tolerable and annoying, and it doesn't help that they refer to each other as "bro" in practically every scene they are in. That might work for LA surfer dudes but it doesn't quite work when the people who are saying it look like the Na'vi.

    I still prefer the first one, and I think I'd enjoy the sequel more if it wasn't three hours. There is loads in it to enjoy but there is also a lot of padding.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,821 ✭✭✭Gusser09


    Got a cam copy of it. Fairly rough though. Its the kinda movie you need in 4k.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,563 ✭✭✭✭peteeeed




  • Registered Users Posts: 3,041 ✭✭✭ThePott


    Omniplex in Cork at the very least had it in HFR, albeit I wasn't aware it was HFR until I checked the ticket on the way in as was just advertised as 3D when I booked it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,838 ✭✭✭✭silverharp



    A musing on the numbers from Thur and Fri, its tracking lower than a lot of marvel movies, might be the time of year, slower start but picks up over xmas?



    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,927 ✭✭✭✭titan18


    Ya, I'm in Cork too. Only thing throwing me off on the 3D is it's not in the Maxx screens. Surely want to see this on the largest screen available



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,774 ✭✭✭speedboatchase


    Way too early to call and MCU movies are not comparable. The key to the first movie's success was word of mouth after the first weekend - Cameron himself has said they won't know until the third weekend if they can go ahead with plans for Avatar 4-5.



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,339 ✭✭✭Homelander


    It's only been out two days and already at $180m, I would say that's a fairly powerful opening.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,505 ✭✭✭✭Mad_maxx


    I’m unlikely to see at cinema but is it only being shown in 3 D ?, I hate 3D



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 31,816 ✭✭✭✭gmisk


    Nope there are screenings in 2D.

    I thought the first film was one of the very very few films that actually worked better in 3D.



Advertisement