Exhibtion

One of the biggest aspects of Avatar which has made it currently so popular and highly successful is the talk of it's spectacular graphics and the extensive use of 3D graphics.

"The Oscar-winning director is famous for pushing the boundaries of technology in film and has long been an enthusiastic proponent of 3D technology. "Avatar" is the fruition of his long-held ambition to combine digital 3D with epic big screen storytelling."

It's no secret that Cameron conceived Avatar before he made Titanic, but waited a decade for technology to catch-up with his vision.

Every aspect of the alien world Pandora - the plants, insects, mountains and clouds - is computer-generated, but looks photo-realistic.

Some geeky facts: The creation of Pandora required over a petabyte (1m gigabytes) of digital storage.

By comparison, it took 2,000 gigabytes to create and sink the Titanic - about 1/500th of the amount used for Avatar.

James Cameron had waited a long time for the release of Avatar but when 3D soon become popular and more readily accessible in cinemas, he released his film to sold-out audiences.

"In the UK, the UK Film Council reports that around 320 out of 3,600 screens are digitally equipped, while in the U.S. the ratio is even worse. These figures are predicted to improve rapidly over the next few years."

This meant that for the film Avatar to reach a wider audience across the country, this film was also realised in 2D screens. However, they predicted that the takings from the 2D screens would be significantly less, FOX believed that it would still grab an audience whether it be people who weren't convinced that there would be much difference between the 3D and 2D versions and hence not worth paying extra, or for people who didn't have access to a 3D screen.

Cameron argues vociferously that movies have to play well in both 2D and 3D; that a narrative should work whether it's shot as a black and white silent or as a 3D color epic.

But, says Cohen, there's more to the issue than Cameron is letting on. Films are made differently for 3D -- different lenses, different depth of field, different pace of editing.

For example, action sequences which traditionally have fast cutting are edited more slowly because the eye and the brain cannot process stereoscopic cinema as fast as 2D.

This is an interesting argument as even though the film itself attracted an audience of film buffs and technology fanatics, it may have been less appealing to an audience who were only watching because of all the action, violence and guns. Therefore, I believe that James Cameron was able to make a comprise without realising the needs of the various target audience and that he was successful in creating a mix of 3D graphics and decent-paced editing. Personally, when I watched the film, I thought the action scenes were spectacular and I'm a huge fan of action and war films and this film seemed to reach my expectations.