Movie Avatar 2: The Way of Water (2022)

I watched it on friday. i never saw the first in the theater, but heard about how great it looked in imax. so i went and saw it in imax 3d. it takes a bit to get used to the 3d and at times i feel the times it looks best is when it's not really in the 3d so to speak. they had a preview for guardians of the galaxy and antman where they had you put on the glasses. holy shit that that guardians trailer had me worried about how shit the movie was going to look.

it was better than that, but i still don't get the need for 3d. i should probably check out the imax non 3d as a comparison (not that i'm going to give up another 3 hours for this movie), but the 3d aspect worked at times, but for the most part, it just makes your head hurt and not in focus.
 
Bender said:
I watched it on friday. i never saw the first in the theater, but heard about how great it looked in imax. so i went and saw it in imax 3d. it takes a bit to get used to the 3d and at times i feel the times it looks best is when it's not really in the 3d so to speak. they had a preview for guardians of the galaxy and antman where they had you put on the glasses. holy shit that that guardians trailer had me worried about how shit the movie was going to look.

it was better than that, but i still don't get the need for 3d. i should probably check out the imax non 3d as a comparison (not that i'm going to give up another 3 hours for this movie), but the 3d aspect worked at times, but for the most part, it just makes your head hurt and not in focus.
Click to expand...
The original was a pretty terrible plot with insane visuals. I can't imagine this will turn a profit.
 
SU Nittany Tide said:
The original was a pretty terrible plot with insane visuals. I can't imagine this will turn a profit.
Click to expand...
i don't care about the profit it makes. as i can't compare it to the original, i was mainly thinking about the 3d imax aspect of it. at times i feel it looks good, but i also feel like it's the times when it's not using the 3d, but maybe just the imax cameras? that's what i'm curious about. the first movie had a terrible plot and obviously this one, well, it was better than the first, but it had some convoluted stuff where it brings other thoughts to, what does it matter then, etc...
 
Bender said:
i don't care about the profit it makes. as i can't compare it to the original, i was mainly thinking about the 3d imax aspect of it. at times i feel it looks good, but i also feel like it's the times when it's not using the 3d, but maybe just the imax cameras? that's what i'm curious about. the first movie had a terrible plot and obviously this one, well, it was better than the first, but it had some convoluted stuff where it brings other thoughts to, what does it matter then, etc...
Click to expand...
Worst review ever.
 
Wild Turkey said:
Worst review ever.
Click to expand...
clearer head, i never saw the original on the 3d Imax (which i heard is how you had to watch it to be amazed with it).

i'm sure the post you quoted may have already mentioned this or what i'm about to say. I just don't get the 3d? I think the parts I liked best are when it was just shot as is, no glasses needed. maybe the tech has changed so much in the last decade, but i don't get what my friend (singular) was saying how great the visuals were. maybe they were back then.

as i'm sure i said before, i'll say again when they said put on the 3d glasses, guardians looked like shit with the 3d. antman had some moments where it looked like it could work. either way, James Cam, who always is the next wave of graphics, didn't see it here.
 
Form over substance.
 
Bender said:
I watched it on friday. i never saw the first in the theater, but heard about how great it looked in imax. so i went and saw it in imax 3d. it takes a bit to get used to the 3d and at times i feel the times it looks best is when it's not really in the 3d so to speak. they had a preview for guardians of the galaxy and antman where they had you put on the glasses. holy shit that that guardians trailer had me worried about how shit the movie was going to look.

it was better than that, but i still don't get the need for 3d. i should probably check out the imax non 3d as a comparison (not that i'm going to give up another 3 hours for this movie), but the 3d aspect worked at times, but for the most part, it just makes your head hurt and not in focus.
Click to expand...
Years ago, when I had to replace one of my smart TV's, I bought a 3D unit along with a 3D DVD player. Must admit, it was pretty cool for awhile but then they stopped releasing 3D movies for the most part and I haven't watched one since.
 
Wild Turkey said:
Oh I could pay you to not only watch but to love it and have you sing praises.

You act like you aren’t a little whore but we all know.
Click to expand...
haha, but fer real...the first one was the most overrated steaming turd ever.
 
beardown07 said:
haha, but fer real...the first one was the most overrated steaming turd ever.
Click to expand...

You're a fag so what do you know.

Avatar was the best movie of 2009, the most vivid and persuasive creation of a fantasy world ever seen in the history of film, as Richard Corliss stated. While the good guys vs bad guys theme was familiar, the movie successfully transported viewers to another world, Pandora, inhabited by tall, blue, human-like creatures, the Na'vi, along with genetically engineered hybrids of human and Na'vi DNA, or avatars. These unique achievements made it worthy of the 2010 Best Picture Oscar.

Of course, the Academy gave the Oscar to The Hurt Locker, a war drama set in Iraq and directed by Kathryn Bigelow, the first female director to win for best picture, one reason why it won, plus to pay tribute to our military. The Hurt Locker was one of worst Best Picture winners of all time.
 
jvett77 said:
You're a fag so what do you know.

Avatar was the best movie of 2009, the most vivid and persuasive creation of a fantasy world ever seen in the history of film, as Richard Corliss stated. While the good guys vs bad guys theme was familiar, the movie successfully transported viewers to another world, Pandora, inhabited by tall, blue, human-like creatures, the Na'vi, along with genetically engineered hybrids of human and Na'vi DNA, or avatars. These unique achievements made it worthy of the 2010 Best Picture Oscar.

Of course, the Academy gave the Oscar to The Hurt Locker, a war drama set in Iraq and directed by Kathryn Bigelow, the first female director to win for best picture, one reason why it won, plus to pay tribute to our military. The Hurt Locker was one of worst Best Picture winners of all time.
Click to expand...
It's dancing with smurfs.

It's visually cool, but so is a kaleidoscope.


Fucktons of money into cgi, and none to any writers.



And seriously...what the fuck are you? You read like an IDMB page?? It's retarded. You don't sound smart, you sound contrived. Knock it off. This is an anonymous internet site, not a job application.
 
beardown07 said:
It's dancing with smurfs.

It's visually cool, but so is a kaleidoscope.


Fucktons of money into cgi, and none to any writers.



And seriously...what the fuck are you? You read like an IDMB page?? It's retarded. You don't sound smart, you sound contrived. Knock it off. This is an anonymous internet site, not a job application.
Click to expand...

You are retarded. Except for the Corliss quote, the rest is my own as I experienced it. You prefer tiny, shitloads of nonsense rather than comments with any depth.
 
Didn’t see the first one in theater, so this was fun in 3D. For the first 2:55. Shit dragged on with the Titanic on Pandora stretch.

First time going to the movies in like four years. Big fan of the serve yourself popcorn and pop. Not a fan of it costing more than an NBA game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top