Pandora: The World of Avatar Announcement, Construction, & Preview Discussion | Page 21 | Inside Universal Forums
Toggle sidebar

Pandora: The World of Avatar Announcement, Construction, & Preview Discussion

  • Signing up for a Premium Membership is a donation to help Inside Universal maintain costs and offers an ad-free experience on the forum. Learn more about it here.
Status
Not open for further replies.
AcidPop said:
Noooo. Not surprised, but...noooo.

I really, really hope this 3D craze dies a painful death one day. Oh, I know, everyone SWEARS it's the future of TV, movies, games...media in general...

BUT I FREAKING HATE IT.
Click to expand...

I'd honestly prefer a themed environment of Pandora than a 3D film of Pandora. I think we all would, no? I just think they'll probably go with the least expensive... A CGI film could cost quite a bit to make I guess, but I bet theming and AAs are much more expensive, plus AA require more maintenance = more $$. I hope it is at least a dark ride with a combination of both.
 
Felipe said:
I also agree that this ride will surely be 3D because, if I am not mistaken, Cameron has professed a love of 3D.
Click to expand...

See:

Titanic3Dposter.jpg


Just... Wow... Completely unnecessary...
 
Last edited:
Teebin, I agree with you wholeheartedly about 3-D. I also think that a themed alien forest is hard to pull off. When this was first announced, I thought it could be great. But then I started to really think about what I was thinking about, and I realized I just kept having this vision of a nature trail at night themed to Pandora, with the incandescent plants lit up. I wasn't thinking about any sort of ride, and now that I begin to see that Cameron is going to insist upon 3-D, my hopes have been dimmed.

Felipe said:
Fixed it!

BTW I mean the 3D is unnecessary. I think the movie is great and it's fine that it gets re-released for the 100th anniversary of the tragic events... but seriously... in 3D?
Click to expand...

It actually points to the idea that Cameron is not above exploiting the tragedy to show-off his technical wizardry. That argument had been made back in '97, but it didn't really get much credence until Cameron decided to show everyone "the proper way to post-convert a film in 3-D."
 
Last edited:
Jymmymack said:
It actually points to the idea that Cameron is not above exploiting the tragedy to show-off his technical wizardry. That argument had been made back in '97, but it didn't really get much credence until Cameron decided to show everyone "the proper way to post-convert a film in 3-D."
Click to expand...

These conversions are really nothing but separating foreground elements from background right? It is like the multiplane (is that term even used anymore?) camera for animation. Everything remains as flat cutouts floating above the background.
 
Teebin said:
These conversions are really nothing but separating foreground elements from background right? It is like the multiplane (is that term even used anymore?) camera for animation. Everything remains as flat cutouts floating above the background.
Click to expand...

That's what bad conversions are for the most part. A good conversion would be able to "bend" those flat cut-outs to give the perception of depth as well. Also, it's much easier to render computer generated objects (like the entire ship) because you have a 3-D model already built in the computer, which allows you access to depth that is there, but that we just can't see. That's why animated films look good in 3-D without even trying. It's relatively easy to turn a CGI animated film into a 3-D CGI animated film. Which is another reason why Avatar looked so good in 3-D, over 60% of it was created inside a computer.
 
AcidPop said:
Noooo. Not surprised, but...noooo.

I really, really hope this 3D craze dies a painful death one day. Oh, I know, everyone SWEARS it's the future of TV, movies, games...media in general...

BUT I FREAKING HATE IT.
Click to expand...


Sorry. It's here to stay. Thousands of cinemas around the world are not installing and investing into this technology for nothing.
 
Jymmymack said:
That's what bad conversions are for the most part. A good conversion would be able to "bend" those flat cut-outs to give the perception of depth as well. Also, it's much easier to render computer generated objects (like the entire ship) because you have a 3-D model already built in the computer, which allows you access to depth that is there, but that we just can't see. That's why animated films look good in 3-D without even trying. It's relatively easy to turn a CGI animated film into a 3-D CGI animated film. Which is another reason why Avatar looked so good in 3-D, over 60% of it was created inside a computer.
Click to expand...

Very true on the cgi. Not sure how those old cgi software codes and file-types are maintained. Would be cool to see the ship 2D or 3D cruising through cgi water. The algorithms for cgi water weren't developed until the late 90's and saw vast improvements in the early 2000's.
 
Teebin said:
Very true on the cgi. Not sure how those old cgi software codes and file-types are maintained. Would be cool to see the ship 2D or 3D cruising through cgi water. The algorithms for cgi water weren't developed until the late 90's and saw vast improvements in the early 2000's.
Click to expand...

I think Titanic took so long to convert (over two years) because they had to really go back into the software and fiddle with it until they got something they could work with.
 
Fallow said:
ET period, not just the queue. Hello alien plant life! That initial scene in the Green Planet gives me goosebumps every single time.
Click to expand...

That's open to debate. When I ride E.T., I'm riding for the first half in the forest, and I'm forced to to stick around for the ending. But I do think E.T. the forest setting of E.T. works really well.
 
Jymmymack said:
That's open to debate. When I ride E.T., I'm riding for the first half in the forest, and I'm forced to to stick around for the ending. But I do think E.T. the forest setting of E.T. works really well.
Click to expand...

ET's forest looks great, but 1) It's really not all that big. The tree portion of the queue is fairly small. I'm sure if it was a super large area, the novelty would wear off. And 2) Their making a non-natural occurring area. Sure, they have a movie to work off of, but it's still all fake, and will automatically look fake.
 
JungleSkip said:
ET's forest looks great, but 1) It's really not all that big. The tree portion of the queue is fairly small. I'm sure if it was a super large area, the novelty would wear off. And 2) Their making a non-natural occurring area. Sure, they have a movie to work off of, but it's still all fake, and will automatically look fake.
Click to expand...

I think my message got confused there. I was saying that the Green World is terrible and hokey. E.T.'s queue and beginning are the only natural environment that are "fun" that I can think of, so I was agreeing with Teebin that is rarely, if ever truly, accomplished.
 
Jymmymack said:
I think my message got confused there. I was saying that the Green World is terrible and hokey. E.T.'s queue and beginning are the only natural environment that are "fun" that I can think of, so I was agreeing with Teebin that is rarely, if ever truly, accomplished.
Click to expand...

Yea, I was agreeing with you, just expanding upon your point.
 
I'm a little confused as to why creating an artificial environment would be so difficult. I mean, lets just take my local museum for example. They do INCREDIBLE displays in the animal and dinosaur sections with fake plants and animatronic creatures. There's a rainforest section there that is just awesome - sure everything is fake, but they do it so well that it really feels authentic. Why, then, would it be so hard for a theme park to do something similar?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Book with our Travel Partners

MEI Travel

Latest posts

Share this page

Top Bottom
Back