It wasn't bad but I echo some of the critiques: it defnitely had some bloat and some of the action could have been trimmed. Honestly while the beginning connected the end of the first tailing into the other I don't think it was terrible though it could have been trimmed a bit. I don't want to get into the plot much except Jake now has a family and it really gets into that dynamic.
The 3D was nice though I disagree with some of the comments on the water...oh the surface was pretty good but when they splashed it at times that was a mixed bag. I do appreciate Cameron pushing the bar further since other Hollywood directors will be fairly Conservative and cowards with how far they're willing to push effects. That being said I will most definitely critique him on whether it looks good, that is to say, real, and will judge accordingly. I'm not sure if I can critique the Holographic screens completely as we don't have a baseline for that though I suppose it could kinda look crisper.
One of the best effects of the first Avatar was in 3D how real the plastic looked for the pilot's cockpits and so on. It looked like something I would see in real life in that situation. Another great use of 3D in the first was at the beginning in it's depth of field shots I think it might be called.
Now back to the plastic cockpits, this was hit or miss BUT the shots for craft submerged in water were quite good for the 3D effects. I think the problem suffered for these effects, some looking good or better then the first and some looking the same or worse, was quantity. It seemed Cameron splashed a lot more on the screen here to show off and some of it suffered. I also wish when doing CGI you would shoot colors in all aspects of the spectrum at at LEAST full color 4K and have those as your standard.
Let me explain, to me the live action "Lion King" should look like REAL Lions talking period, go real or go home. That means shooting real Lions to the benchmarking I've listed above, possibly even feeding enough of this into a computer Algorithm that will create a model that will modify the color and HAVE the colors available to make it look real.
I realize Pandora is a fantasy so there is a bit more leeway but I would say take whatever animals and possibly colors and benchmark those to help combat the SHINE that had been so much of a problem for CGI for the longest time.
Lastly speaking of this dragging as Cameron showing off, the end definitely has this. It needed to be tightened up and Cameron has paced well with long movies but this isn't "Titanic" and so doesn't work as well.
edit: Oh and to the resource bit that is laid out in this movie it's totally believable despite what some might think. I could truly see it happening if x was the case.
Comments
Not in a Theater
Getting another sickness from someone in a Theater is not acceptable to me. So many won't wear a mask, how selfish.
I have a large screen computer so will wait until I can view it there. I just watched a fake version and ??? I hope the one I can find will be better.
Gwen
Practicality
There is probably not enough people that would sit in a cinema with a face mask on for the cinema to actually make money.
I know of one cinema that's gone out of business trying to enforce this.
Over in the UK face masks are a rarity and I'm not used properly anyway. Shrugged
I am a male lolita.
So what is lolita fashion http://lolita-tips.tumblr.com/faq
Concession sales.
It also seems absurd to have face masks when people are allowed to eat Popcorn and the rest. It's also not practical to say no to these sales since Concessions keep theaters in business.
At least one great theater chain closed down and was taken over by a Venture Capital firm that is quite dumb. Sadly this one theater chain imo, had the only truly sustainable theater business model nowadays. A shame none of their competitors would take a hint. Before anyone asks they were a class act in how they had treated their employees in the Pan and the others doors stayed open because they were Public and had at least enough of a warchest they could bear it out a bit.
You may be wondering...what model? Reparatory screenings and homemade concessions. Speaking of Reparatory screenings, you wouldn't believe what a PITA I heard Disney has been in these regards, especially after getting the FOX properties.
I can even tell you it seemed like they tried sabotaging "Brahmastra" from success outside of India, the competition to the MCU. Even now on Disney+ outside of at least India it is English dubbed instead of having a Hindi option with subtitles...venting.
People forget
Another planet has a different sun. Things may not appear as they would on earth at all times.
That said, James Cameron is also one of the few directors at the moment that still uses real models for filming. Some of what you see may be real world stuff, miniaturized, but still real.
Just saying.
Strangely enough.
When I saw the first Avatar in 3D I didn't understand the bragging about the CGI for some of the animal models and so on the CGI of the Na'vi, some definite shine. This being said when I saw it in 2D I was quite impressed thinking WETA had competed with Japanese studios accordingly.
I understand Tels, when I brought the animal point up in the latter half I meant specific animals and plants they might have been inspired by. I tend to be incredibly critical of any perceivable Shine, I have hated it for the longest time. I mean if can do a practical effect instead of puppets to get the shot do it, as I also think that ends up being cheaper for the man hours on the CGI. However if some of the shots don't make this possible then fine. That being said I don't mind Shine if it's an utter fantasy and grounded in no real world, especially live action aspect.
Shine?
What is this "Shine" you keep talking about? I might add that as I'm a bit colorblind I'm not a big fan of 3-D, it just doesn't really impress me.
“When a clown moves into a palace, he doesn’t become a king. The palace becomes a circus.” - Turkish Proverb
Shine...
It's my term for the glow of CGI characters and such that it looks too polished, glows too much and screams "FAKE", that it's a computer model/render. Etc., etc.
This is fine if it has no ties into real life stuff, especially live action, but it sticks out like a sore thumb to me when it's done even slightly poorly. Take for instance the first "Spider-Man" when he's flying around, it didn't look as bad back in the day but looking at it in BR or 4K it sticks out like a sore thumb. Granted we see other types flaws more in "Star Trek"(the original TV show) and others but when they spent good money on real models, well done shots they still stand up more. I know some of the wires show up but they can always just erase them out if they want. A good other example I will give is "Farscape", imagine how fake the puppets used would look if they were CGI models now.
I don't doubt some of these barriers can be overcome on the CGI end but I think it's simply cheaper in the long run to just use quality practical effects whenever possible. I suspect that whatever takes you an 1 hour to look convincing in practical effects may take at least double if not more to achieve the same result in CGI and I'm being generous here.
It's kind of ironic that in this sense computer work may actually cost more and require you to hire more people then plain old practical effects work. To Cameron's credit "Avatar" doesn't have NEARLY as long a credit screen as you'd think where I want to say Endgame or another seemed to go on forever.