🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Sat, 17 Dec 2022 14:25:01 UTC No. 930003
"Critics" are saying that Avatar 2's 3d HFR versioin (48fps, stereostopic) is the most realistic 3d imagery ever made and that the water tech in HFR 3d stereo is better than anything they have ever seen before.
Your response?
Anonymous at Sat, 17 Dec 2022 14:29:32 UTC No. 930004
>>930003
I mean, they are correct on this one. That was the best water physics I've ever seen
Anonymous at Sat, 17 Dec 2022 15:56:34 UTC No. 930010
>>930003
I don't watch American movies. Sorry.
Anonymous at Sat, 17 Dec 2022 16:02:09 UTC No. 930012
>>930010
You dont watch the sequel to the largest grossing movie in the history of the world and one that is said to have the best 3d imagery ever created?
ngmi
Anonymous at Sat, 17 Dec 2022 16:51:26 UTC No. 930015
>>930012
the only movie I watched during the last 10 years is american psycho
Anonymous at Sat, 17 Dec 2022 17:06:02 UTC No. 930016
>>930015
Why are you derailing this thread?
Anonymous at Sat, 17 Dec 2022 18:13:19 UTC No. 930022
>>930012
Perfect example of why I don't partake in American media. It's only mindless hype with no substance.
>>930016
Awwww is the wittle fatbaby murrican gonna cry now?
Anonymous at Sat, 17 Dec 2022 18:50:38 UTC No. 930028
>>930012
it is technically impressive. i hate to see such talent put toward stupid projects.
Anonymous at Sun, 18 Dec 2022 04:40:46 UTC No. 930076
>>930003
>Your response?
I'm not paying to watch a bad movie
Anonymous at Sun, 18 Dec 2022 16:29:42 UTC No. 930120
>>930003
>Your response?
watching james cameron garbage automatically lowers your IQ and i don't care.
Anonymous at Mon, 19 Dec 2022 01:11:48 UTC No. 930164
>>930003
>2022
>still watches hollywood movies
LMAO
Anonymous at Tue, 20 Dec 2022 20:49:45 UTC No. 930398
>>930003
It looked like shit desu (the 48fps and 3d).
It went from (what looked like), slow 24fps dialogue scenes to double framerate 48fps scenes, and the motion looked like it was on fast forward. It was awful.
And I usually watch my movies with high interpolated framerates since I kinda like the smooth look, but Avatar 2 looked awful when those action scenes happened. Everything looked like it was sped up.
3d looked nice from time to time, but it was really hard to focus on anything and details were pretty muddy.
Everything else looked nice though, which is to be expected, but the movie kinda was meh, which is to be expected. I never really was into Avatar, but my grandma wanted to see it so I took her, and you gotta be nice to your grandmas.
Nothing happens at all in the movie, and apparently there's like 2 or 3 more coming out. I mean I'm happy for Cameron in that he's able to make exactly what he wants to make and not compromise his artistic vision, but I'm just not into it.
Movie started out good enough, where all the blue niggas were doing guerilla warfare and raiding shit with guns on the creatures, which could have made for a decent movie. But then the main dude was like "nope, we're leaving" and they fuck off to the water dudes who despite being aliens who evolved completely separately from humans have an exact replica of like Samoan and Pac-Islander culture. Then it's just more tree hugger shit but in water for 80% of the movie with long drawn out scenes to show off the CG.
I didn't expect much more than what I got, but still, I figured Cameron would do more than just retread old ground.
Anonymous at Tue, 20 Dec 2022 20:52:23 UTC No. 930399
>>930398
I'm talking about the stereo 3d when I mention 3d by the way. In case that wasn't obvious. We are on a 3d board after all so the terms can get a little mixed up. CGI looked nice enough for what it was, but like mentioned I couldn't really focus well on it because the stereo 3d wasn't great.
Anonymous at Tue, 20 Dec 2022 21:05:16 UTC No. 930402
>>930399
doubt.
Academy critics are saying its the best cgi ever and you're just some anon
Anonymous at Tue, 20 Dec 2022 22:01:10 UTC No. 930409
Personally I found Transformers more impressive than Avatar back in the day, but maybe it's because the GIANT 3D ROBOTS were really shoved into your face in an otherwise pretty down to earth setting, while Avatar was le epic wonderland stuff from start to finish and at some point it just burns out your perception.
Anonymous at Tue, 20 Dec 2022 23:47:35 UTC No. 930436
>>930028
>avatar
>stupid projects
Yet you'll never do more than animate some grubhub commercials, curious
Anonymous at Wed, 21 Dec 2022 06:15:43 UTC No. 930462
>>930402
>Academy critics are saying its the best cgi ever and you're just some anon
I never said it was bad.
>Everything else looked nice though
>CGI looked nice enough for what it was
The stereo 3d was bad, and the 48fps during action was bad. The stereo 3d was pretty hit and miss so I couldn't focus well enough on the CGI to really comment on whether or not it was great or bad. From what I could see, it was alright. If I ever bother to watch the movie again in like 5-8 years in 2d, then I'll come back to this thread to give you a more solid answer. The board's so slow it'll probably still be here :^)
Anonymous at Thu, 22 Dec 2022 01:15:35 UTC No. 930563
Everyone is saying that the stereo 3d version is the one to see