Avatar - The Movie

[Xiaou2]

 Unless you are turning your head to the point where
one of your eyes sees thru the opposite lens,  you should not see the other eyes
view.

 AFAIK, It should be physically impossible for you to see both spectums of light while using the glasses... no matter how you turn your head.


 If you are seeing a blur on a 3d image  with Red/Blue glasses,  you
are again turning so far that you are looking thru the opposite lens.

 The only way you are getting image blur, would be if your glasses are cheap,
scratched, distorted in some way.   Even then, you will not see both L & R images.
You would only see the same kind of physical blur that comes from wearing dirty
or scratched glasses.

 
 As for LCD tech:  Impossible.  When the LCD is energized, its completely
OPAQUE PITCH BLACK.  Meaning, you can not see thru that lens at ALL, at that moment
in time. (Its the equivalent to covering your hand over the eye when that eyes image is
shown)

 The only way you see double-images (Ghosting)  in LCD glasses, is if there is a
timing issue.. where the LCD glasses are not perfectly syncing with the screens
displayed alternations.

[RayB]

 Unless you are turning your head to the point where
one of your eyes sees thru the opposite lens,  you should not see the other eyes
view.

THe image SEPERATION for the 3D effect is done horizontally, so if you TILT your head (he's not talking about looking away), eventually the angle is too much for the two seperated images to "merge", so you see both, AKA a sort of "blur".

[Ginsu Victim]

Anyone look at the time on a Indiglo watch while wearing RealD glasses? My watch is impossible to read though one of the lenses. I have to close one eye.

[danny_galaga]

So, how about that movie, eh?

[saint]

You get a blur with a very minor tilt of the head.  It's very annoying.

Granted, I was yawning and looking at the time a lot.

Heh. You have to be the most contrary person I've met in a long time.

So I'm curious - what movies *do* you like? What movies would you consider to be groundbreaking in terms of technology/cgi/animation techniques used (not story line)?

[Blanka]

Well . . . it's James Cameron.  He made Terminator 2, The Abyss and the abysmal Titanic.  I think you can rest rather assured that the CGI will be "decent.   

The best Cameron I know is the one without any CGI (at least not visible to me): True Lies. By far his best.

[Ginsu Victim]

I love True Lies. It's my second favorite Cameron film (just behind T2).

[saint]

I watched the original Stepford Wives and The Others last night.  Enjoyed them quite a bit.

 

What movies would you consider to be groundbreaking in terms of technology/cgi/animation techniques used (not story line)?

[RayB]

I watched the original Stepford Wives and The Others last night.  Enjoyed them quite a bit.

 

Makes sense now. It's not about story, film-making techniques, acting or anything like that. It's just got to have Nicole Kidman in it!

[Ginsu Victim]

I watched the original Stepford Wives and The Others last night.  Enjoyed them quite a bit.

 

Makes sense now. It's not about story, film-making techniques, acting or anything like that. It's just got to have Nicole Kidman in it!

He said the ORIGINAL Stepford Wives, though.

[ark_ader]

 Saw it today, and like Saint said about using the glasses with existing glasses is very true - 30 mins into the film and the bridge of my nose was complaining.  I totally agree with the Dances with Wolves similarities.  The Navi were big blue American Indians in my book. 

They could have shortened it a bit.

I enjoyed it, even though it cost nearly 7 pounds (sterling) to see it even with my student discount.     

[protokatie]

Tigger STILL missed the point... *sighs*



As per anyone trying to look at an LCD watch using polarizing 3D glasses, it doesnt matter what kind of lighting it is, one of the filters will block it (unless you tild your head 45 degrees, then each filter will only block part of it). When I was a kid I had an LCD pocket calculator that had a removable front polarizing filter (after you took the calc apart) that I would flip over and reinstall. Kinda cool to see the digits as white on a black background.

[Blanka]

I enjoyed it, even though it cost nearly 7 pounds (sterling) to see it even with my student discount.     

That's better than 12 euros.

[ammitz]

I enjoyed it, even though it cost nearly 7 pounds (sterling) to see it even with my student discount.     

That's better than 12 euros.

Or 105 danish kroner -> 14 euros

[shmokes]

I saw it a week or so ago while visiting family.  3D Imax.  It sucked for the most part.

The CGI is amazing.  I didn't even notice it for the most part.  The film may just as well have been filmed on sets, or on the planet Pandora.  The 3D was totally underwhelming.  I've seen three or four 3D movies over the last couple years and I was expecting this to be some kind of revolution.  It was just 3D effects, and the 3D effects in Coraline were WAY better.  In Coraline things were extending way out of the screen over the audience.  And it wasn't just gimmicky.  It really added to the experience.  So while the CGI was great, I just don't care.  I've seen great CGI a billion times already.  Lord of the Rings, The Matrix, 300 . . .

The plot, characters, dialog, etc. range from formulaic to idiotic, trending more often toward idiotic.  And the bad guy at the end who climbs in a mech and jumps out of the air ship that's falling out of the sky.  OMG.  Did a 10-year-old write this movie?  I used to think that if I was in a plane or an elevator that was falling I'd just jump out a few feet before I hit the ground so that I would only fall a few feet and I'd be fine.  I was maybe 8 at the time.  I could go on and on and on and on about one stupid thing after another, one stupid character after another, one stupid cliche after another, one stupid nonsensical plotpoint after another.

For anyone who hasn't seen it, let me give you an idea of just how utterly ham fisted James Cameron is anymore when it comes to telling a story.  The extremely rare and valuable rock that the evil humans want to mine on the alien planet is called . . . wait for it . . . . wait . . . . for . . . it . . . . . . . . unobtanium.  I'm not joking.  

FWIW, I am not one of those people who hate on any movie requiring a suspension of disbelief or any move that can't be characterized as "arthouse".  I loved the first two X-men movies, the first two Spiderman movies, the first two Terminator movies (James Cameron was once capable of making great film, apparently), Lord of the Rings, the first 3 Star Wars, many of the Star Treks, the first Matrix, Hellboy, etc., etc., etc.  I can go on and on.  I got nothing against sci/fi, fantasy, event films, action, special effects, etc..  I love that stuff.  Avatar just sucked.

Edit: the blue chick was hot, btw. 

[ark_ader]

One of the trailers for the movie was Piranha 3D. 

I thought it was a joke considering the last Piranha 2:The spawning (was that in 3d?) and it sucked so much it was more like a comedy.  And guess who directed that mess: James Cameron.

It has been told in the inter-webs he was fired after 8 days of principle photography.

But nope its true coming out soon Piranha 3D....

Considering the 1000s of books out there which have gripping storytelling we have to make do with a remake from a flop...

[RayB]

As per anyone trying to look at an LCD watch using polarizing 3D glasses, it doesnt matter what kind of lighting it is, one of the filters will block it (unless you tild your head 45 degrees, then each filter will only block part of it). When I was a kid I had an LCD pocket calculator that had a removable front polarizing filter (after you took the calc apart) that I would flip over and reinstall. Kinda cool to see the digits as white on a black background.

Yeah! Cool, I did that too! Ever play with two filters? You overlay them so they show clear, then rotate one slowly 90'. It gets darker. I used to want to use that technique to make round windows where you can make them darken by rotating one layer. (but who wants round windows). Might make a neat pair of steam punk sunglasses though...

@Shmokes: Agree with ya on the mineral name. I thought Wolverine's "admantium" was dumb, but this was dumber. One step away from calling it "rare-ium", or "hard-to-getium"

[Ginsu Victim]

elusivium

[Loafmeister]

Unobtainium is a stupid name, but it was picked as a nod to engineers who've been using it in the 50's or 60's to describe a perfect "item/rock/whatever" that solves all issues.  It was weird for Cameron to use it, but If I understand correctly, he's also an engineer so I'm understanding his nod and I moved on.  The item is a mcguffin anyway, the movie Avatar isn't about unobtainium after all.  If he's called the Navi a stupid name like "Bluedians", then I'd have had more of a beef with his naming convention .

Dances with Wolves was a great movie, but Cameron was trying to make a movie that's more of a spectacle, not just great intellectual cinema.  As I mentioned somewhere else before, Star Wars is a ripoff or another story done before and it's script can be pretty hokey at times.  That didn't stop me from enjoying the purpose of SW: To take me to another world in a galaxy far far away.  For this reason, I think Cameron hit a homerun with this movie, and the box office is proving that this is what a good chunk of the people want.  Yeah, sometimes I do believe Boxoffice can indicate there's a certain level of quality achieved (just don't look at the New Moon numbers ).

Obviously, not everyone want this type of movie, or there taste or expectations is different and that's cool.  My favorite movie of all time is Shawshank Redemption, a perfect movie IMHO. Yet even though I find it's perfect, it's not the type of movie to draw the masses to the theatres, as it's not a spectacle, which is what Cameron targetted for Avatar.

Don't get me wrong, although I didn't thinkt the script was THAT bad, it would be nice to get a lift in that area for the upcoming sequel but I'll admit if he offers more of the same, I'll probably be pretty happy.

[danny_galaga]

Dances with Wolves was a great movie, but Cameron was trying to make a movie that's more of a spectacle, not just great intellectual cinema.  As I mentioned somewhere else before, Star Wars is a ripoff or another story done before and it's script can be pretty hokey at times.  That didn't stop me from enjoying the purpose of SW: To take me to another world in a galaxy far far away.  For this reason, I think Cameron hit a homerun with this movie, and the box office is proving that this is what a good chunk of the people want.  Yeah, sometimes I do believe Boxoffice can indicate there's a certain level of quality achieved (just don't look at the New Moon numbers ).

 

Obviously, not everyone want this type of movie, or there taste or expectations is different and that's cool.  My favorite movie of all time is Shawshank Redemption, a perfect movie IMHO. Yet even though I find it's perfect, it's not the type of movie to draw the masses to the theatres, as it's not a spectacle, which is what Cameron targetted for Avatar.

Same here. Shawshank is right up there in my favourites. Which doesn't mean i can't find other types of movie just as entertaining...

[Cakemeister]

You can explain unobtainium as an alloy of rare earth elements that superconducts at room temperatures. You could do a lot with that. Lossless transmission lines, cheap magnetic levitation, and so on. Existing high temperature superconductors are such alloys. Not too much of a stretch there. It's easier to call something unobtainium than "yttrium-praesodymium-niobium" or some such.

But I agree with most of what Shmokes said regarding characters and plot.

[shmokes]

Cameron was trying to make a movie that's more of a spectacle, not just great intellectual cinema. 

I just don't see how bad storytelling can be simply dismissed as, "That's not what the director was going for."  I would hardly call Iron Man great intellectual cinema.  The difference between Iron Man and Avatar is that one is good and the other isn't. 

Take Wedding Crashers vs. Little Nicky.  You could watch either one of them and say, "The director was trying to make a screwball movie to make people laugh, not just great intellectual cinema."  And you would be right in either case.  But that isn't what makes a movie good.  There are good screwball comedies and there are bad screwball comedies.  There are good spectacle movies and there are bad spectacle movies.  There is good intellectual cinema and there is bad intellectual cinema.  My complaint with Avatar has nothing to do with how you want to categorize it.  I don't care whether it's a spectacle movie or intellectual cinema.  I just wanted it to be good.  It wasn't.

[drventure]

elusivium

From the Wiki, I liked "wishalloy" 

[AtomSmasher]

@Shmokes: Agree with ya on the mineral name. I thought Wolverine's "admantium" was dumb, but this was dumber. One step away from calling it "rare-ium", or "hard-to-getium"

I assumed they were trying to get the name to sound similar to, but not quite the same as, Upsidasium, which is seems to be where the minerals properties was copied from.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upsidaisium

[Loafmeister]

Cameron was trying to make a movie that's more of a spectacle, not just great intellectual cinema.  

I just don't see how bad storytelling can be simply dismissed as, "That's not what the director was going for."  I would hardly call Iron Man great intellectual cinema.  The difference between Iron Man and Avatar is that one is good and the other isn't.  

Because for many people, it obviously isn't bad storytelling.  That's ok, though I'm not sure why you seem to be assuming that I am or anyone who enjoys the movie, is forgiving bad storytelling.  I liked the story and with the exception of one or two lines, I liked most of the script.  Sometimes, there are no explanation beyond taste in movies and expectations.  Not one movie gets 100% approval, right?

[saint]

It's the #2 grossing movie of all time and on target to reach #1 maybe. *someone* likes it.

[Ginsu Victim]

Funny how it's only NOW that they decide to pay attention to the worldwide totals. Normally, they only look at domestic.

That's why people that thought Dark Knight was number two are currently scratching their heads.

[Ginsu Victim]

Don't forget that the prices are also higher per ticket because of 3D

[shmokes]

It's the #2 grossing movie of all time and on target to reach #1 maybe. *someone* likes it.

Your point stands

Even taken at face value the point stands, but not for especially much.  I didn't say nobody likes it.  I said it isn't good.  The Backstreet Boys have one of the top ten highest selling albums of all time.  What does that stand for?  Certainly that *someone* likes it.  But I think few of us truly equate sales to quality except when it suits the argument. 

If you want to stick closer to topic, 3 of the top 10 highest grossing films are Harry Potter films, none of which have been great, two of which were mediocre at best.  The awful Spiderman 3 outgrossed the excellent Spidermans 1 & 2.  Star Wars I: Phantom Menace utterly eclipsed the first three Star Wars movies that were released.  The crappy Shrek 2 & 3 films are in the top 50, but the actually good original is nowhere to be seen.  Independence Day is in the list.  Wanna know which Indiana Jones film got high placement in the top 50?  Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.  Wanna know which of the other Indiana Jones films didn't make it into the top 50?  All of them.

Gross Sales != Quality

[Ginsu Victim]

Your examples you just used are the same examples I use. I agree completely.

[Loafmeister]

Kingdom of the Crystal Skull: a mediocre movie for sure (with some entertaining scenes).  Using that as an example opens up another door.  Did people see it because they believe it was high quality entertainment?  Or did they go to the theatre with the hope it would be?  Aside from the critics, most people felt it was underwhelming.  Can you say the same for the average person who's seen Avatar?  One look at the top 10 (heck top 20) does show that most of these movies belong to a franchise of some sort, giving credence to KOTCS's success.

It doesn't matter anyway, I don't think anyone here is trying to change another's opinion. My only gripe at times is that I find people put their opinion above everyone else's. For you shmokes, if you find a movie is bad, then it must be bad and you find it pretty odd why people like a movie that's bad.  For me, if I find a movie is bad, then it's a movie I didn't like; I really don't care why others might like it. Different strokes for different folks.  Just a different perspective I guess.

BTW, GWTW:  Great movie, but it's attendance figures benefitted on a couple of imporant things:

- color movies in general release were still something fairly new.
- it was the pre-cursor to what we call "hollywood blockbuster"
- It was re-released something like 6 more times

It's a great flick, but I wonder at times if people flocked to it more because it brought something new to the theatre experience, as it was quite a different spectacle from the other movies of its time.  On that note, maybe not. Wizard of Oz did that, and it's nowhere in the listing. is that even possible?  I find that amazing myself.

[Loafmeister]

Don't forget that the prices are also higher per ticket because of 3D

True, but let's not forget some are comparing a movie's total haul to another movie that's been out for 3 weeks and a day... I think both examples are inadequate; probably ticket sales would be the only way to state a movie as "the most popular".  There really is no way to tell what constitutes the best movie ever except for our own personal taste that only applies to one-self.

[shmokes]

It's not just about personal taste.  I mean, it is when it comes down to what you personally want to see.  But there are reasonably objective criteria by which you can criticize a movie.  You might say that people behaving in absurdly unrealistic ways is your cup of tea.  You might say that you really like contrived dialog and cardboard characters.  Maybe what you really want in a movie is contradictions and unresolved plot threads.  But generally speaking these things can be pretty much universally considered bad things.  

And don't confuse what I'm saying with an inability to suspend my disbelief.  I'm fine with changing the rules.  If the filmmakers establish a rule that the laws of gravity do not apply like they normally would, I'm perfectly fine with characters defying the laws of gravity.  But when the filmmakers have not established this, and gravity appears to be working in full force, and a character randomly and inexplicably defies the laws of gravity it's stupid.  If the filmmakers have not established a reason for people to talk like retards, but every character inexplicably converses like he is retarded, it's stupid.

I know that there are different strokes for different folks and all that rot.  But some people like to have sex with consenting adults while others molest small boys.  Not all tastes are created equal, I'm afraid.  Uwe Boll makes horrible movies, and if 100 million people showed up for Far Cry it wouldn't make the movie any better.  The movie is objectively bad.

[Loafmeister]

Right, and as you can see, no one goes to see Mr. Boll's movies either. I don't think my point came across but that's cool.

[shmokes]

No but people go and see Adam Sandler movies, ---Smurfette--- movies, Michael Bay movies, and movies written by Nicholas Sparks by the tens upon tens of millions.  I used Ewe Boll to make my point more obvious.  If you want to substitute Don't Mess with the Zohan or Miss Congeniality or Pearl Harbor or A Long Walk to Remember be my guest.

[Loafmeister]

Some of the movies you listed aren't classics for sure, but there is entertainment there (what's wrong with Miss Congeniality?  A fun time at the movies ).  In fact, I wouldn’t use bad at all for all of them, maybe flawed would for me best describe them.  With Miss Congeniality, it’s possible the moment I saw ---Smurfette--- as a tough cop, I left the realm of plausible and entered “just go for the fun” and I enjoyed it immensely because of this, I don’t know, but I did enjoy it and for me, it’s not a bad film at all!  What is “bad” anyway?  As far as plot, Monty Python’s Holy Grail could probably be argued it’s a stupid, silly badly plotted movie. As a movie on its own, it’s one of the most entertaining 90 minutes you can spend in front of the screen.

Movies are pretty complex; they are a result of many factors which can all impact on our enjoyment, some consciously, some subconsciously. There is style, directing, acting, chemistry between actors (a subjective thing!), pace, script, plot, lighting, our own mood, expectations, etc.; that can affect our particular enjoyment of whatever we are watching; and some movies because maybe they aren't hitting a 10 in each category, can lead some to a loss in interest along the way.

Typically, I'm a consistent movie goer; what I liked 20 years ago, I still like as much now.  There are some movies which age differently; for example, I don't see Romancing the Stone at the same level of high-quality entertainment as when I saw it in the theatres on original release.  Aside from aging, one's own mood can also impact our enjoyment, our current thinking process, mood, RL issues can alter our perception/enjoyment of any flick.  When I saw "Body Heat" in the theatre, I felt it was one of the most predictable movies and for whatever reason, it just wasn't working for me that day and I walked out, which has only happened twice for me, not bad considering I see about 25 movies in the theatres per year!.  Anyway, saw it about 1 year later and for whatever reason, it worked a lot better.  That's usually the exception instead of the norm, but still point is, enjoyment of a movie relies on so many things that it’s not always because a movie is bad that we don't enjoy it as much.

I'm not singling you out; I think we all tend to do that, just at different levels. For example you mentioned Boll's Far Cry.  I haven't seen it but after 15 minutes of "in the name of the king" (one of his better ones), which is considered one of his better efforts, I'll admit if someone tells me they love his movies, I'd instinctively think this dude has bad taste in flicks, but I think my doing that is wrong. This same person could be the biggest fan ever of Army of Darkness, just a fun horror comedy and therefore I couldn’t say his movie taste is THAT bad.

[shmokes]

LMAO . . . Apparently S-a-ndra Bu-ll-ock is so bad that her name has to be autocensored.

FWIW, I have never seen Miss Congeniality.  But I have seen a lot of ---Smurfette--- movies and they are almost always horrible.  And Miss Congeniality looks absolutely wretched.  I doubt I'm wrong, but I might be.

[Loafmeister]

I'm sure for you it would be friend .

[RayB]

Sorry to get back on topic, but I went and saw Avatar again, but this time at an Imax 3D. I think the RealD digital projection version was a bit better. The Imax one made my eyes hurt, and it didn't look as crisp.

And for what it's worth, it was enjoyable a 2nd time!

[saint]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/11/avatar.movie.blues/index.html

Boggle.

(CNN) -- James Cameron's completely immersive spectacle "Avatar" may have been a little too real for some fans who say they have experienced depression and suicidal thoughts after seeing the film because they long to enjoy the beauty of the alien world Pandora.

On the fan forum site "Avatar Forums," a topic thread entitled "Ways to cope with the depression of the dream of Pandora being intangible," has received more than 1,000 posts from people experiencing depression and fans trying to help them cope. The topic became so popular last month that forum administrator Philippe Baghdassarian had to create a second thread so people could continue to post their confused feelings about the movie.

...