nitekrawler1285 said:
ctalkeb said:
nitekrawler1285 said:
SvennoJ said:
nitekrawler1285 said:
ctalkeb said:
They went out in droves to watch Avatar though, based solely on the supposition that they were going to see the latest and greatest in technology.
Cinema now competing with numerous other entertainement forms, including games, does not indicate anything about audiences ability to percieve large differences.
As for the last bit, I'm not talking about 720p/1080p differences, but major advancements in physics and animation. Currently games look like someone playing with slightly advanced action figures in a world where nothing has any weight and all objects exist in seemingly separate realities.
|
Avatar has way more going for it than it's FX and you are frankly the first person in recent memory to suppose that is the reason why people went to go watch it let alone the sole reason. Avatar was a great Christmas experience for the entire family and that is what lead so many people out to see it. Much like Toy Story 3 which more peole went out to see that year. The graphics aren't even the draw in those cases. It's amazing experiences you can share with your whole family. You have larger market potential when you do that instead of segregating the audience. You are trying really hard to not see the forest for the trees.
|
http://scifi.about.com/od/scififantasymovieguide/a/KingAvatar.htm
Even a great film doesn't automatically do business, and the debates are not engaging mainstream America. What's really impressive about Avatar, ultimately, is the fact that it's drawing in scads of people around the world, without setting the world on fire. It's the ultimate eye candy, "a sumptuous feast for the eyes" in the words of Christopher Goodwin, a journey that wraps us up and takes us somewhere. It's the most profound of dreams. James Cameron has created a film in which moviegoers share the same desire as the characters: to live a different life. And through his craft, that dream is fulfilled.
Not the sole reason, but without the eye candy the other reasons wouldn't work. Many people went to see it multiple times for the experience indeed, graphics had everything to do with that.
|
I hear things like "a sumptuous feast for the eyes" being said of films that don't cost nearly so much to boot. You can say the same with all of the other things Mr. Goodwin says as well.
I think when people are discussing the film there are a few things that never really get called to attention because it's socially inappropriate to discuss. This is going to sound very racist but this is why I believe Avatar is "drawing in scads of people around the world, without setting the world on fire" I feel that Avatar has more appeal world wide than any other film because it appeals to non caucasion on a cultural level so well. If you like I can go into more detail if you desire I just hesitate because as I said earlier it will sound REALLY Racist.
Films can hit 3-500 million without that kind of graphics height. I don't think graphics so much as subject matter of the film caused that extra appeal.
|
But now we're over on your feelings, together with anecdotes about people with 20/20 vision who can't tell the difference between PS2 and broadcast TV.
(Based on my own anecdotal evidence) Even PS360 looks stiff and clumsy to casuals - and Avatar's hype was based entirely on how it looked, most people agreed that the writing was pretty horrible.
|
The writing of any blockbuster film is often horrible. Luckily with movies in particular there are far more and better ways of expressing your intent. As you'll see in my above post there are reasons for the film to resonate with international audiences outside of how it looked.
Those are your reasons, however. In hindsight, and indeed at the time, the visuals of the movie were what constituted its "watercooler" power. Your claim above this about women going to see Bullock/Clooney no matter the rest of the movie is also more than just slightly sexist, and also probably not true.
If you can show me some data showing the number of households whom even have a 1080 p television of the right size(I believe 42'' or larger) to percieve the difference between 720 and 1080 and I will stop hollering diminishing returns. You just can't. HD TV penetration is supposed to be 50% by 2016 last I heard. Though those do not make a distinction in HD level.
1: as you've kindly pointed out below, screen size doesn not matter, but rather how close you are to the screen realtive to its size. The market penetration number you quote is worldwide - including BRIC countries. The number for the U.S. was 75% at the end of 2012. Where I live, I'd guess the number is higher.
Generally speaking, if you sit more than 10 feet away from your TV, and your display isn’t bigger than 50 inches diagonally, you won’t be able to tell the difference between 720 and 1080.
This rate is caculated for film/TV content that benefits from almost infinite antialiasing. It cannot be compared to native resolution rendering.
Most customers don't have the equipment needed so they can even notice the difference. It's where technology is in consumer homes that clearly state most people can't precieve the difference. Irrespective of my or your own anecdotal evidence.
|
