The NEW Build Your Own Arcade Controls

Main => Everything Else => Topic started by: ammitz on December 14, 2009, 03:28:32 am

Title: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: ammitz on December 14, 2009, 03:28:32 am
Gor tickets to see it on thursday the 17th. I'm very exicited, and can hardly wait.

It's going to be so cool ;)
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: protokatie on December 14, 2009, 04:43:47 am

It's going to be so cool ;)

Well, thanx for Jinxing it. Now it is going to suck. I'll prolly watch it on the 16th, and complain about it now.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: ammitz on December 14, 2009, 05:48:49 am
You'll just do that  ;D

In the mean time i'm just waiting and  :applaud:

(http://images.rottentomatoes.com/images/movie/gallery/1194501/photo_36_hires.jpg)

Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Ginsu Victim on December 14, 2009, 08:37:04 am
Well, thanx for Jinxing it. Now it is going to suck.

I thought the trailers did a good enough job of making me think it will suck. Hopefully I'm wrong (Cameron hasn't let me down yet, other than Titanic, which was still a visual effects achievement).
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: AtomSmasher on December 14, 2009, 11:04:45 am
I thought the trailers did a good enough job of making me think it will suck. Hopefully I'm wrong (Cameron hasn't let me down yet, other than Titanic, which was still a visual effects achievement).
Thats what a lot of the reviews said, they expected it to suck because of the trailers, but it was actually a good movie.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: shmokes on December 14, 2009, 11:13:52 am
So far I can say that the trailers have me expecting it to suck.  Bad.  It could hardly be worse than his last effort, though. 
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: shardian on December 14, 2009, 11:36:21 am
I have no desire to see it. Having said that, I have a birthday gift card for the local digital cinema. We'll probably go see it...

I'm curious to see if his "revolutionary camera's" fix the fatal flaw of shooting live action in 3D. Journey to the Center of the Earth 3D failed horribly. Any 3D previews for live action since have cause instant eye strain. If it sucks and/or it hurts my eyes, I would make sure to have a print out of all starting times at the theater and go see something else.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: drventure on December 14, 2009, 11:44:37 am
Yeah, My biggest concern is that it looks an awful like like a "Big budget video game movie", which is never a good thing.

But, if the CGI is decent, it might work. Here's hoping the 3d isn't a ridiculous gimmick.

I liked Cameron's quote in the latest Wired.

<paraphrased> "Then I realized "I'm making a vastly expensive chick flick where everyone knows what happens in the end and everybody dies" and I thought "What the f*&^ am I doing"

But I guess it worked out for him
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: shmokes on December 14, 2009, 08:52:10 pm
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.   ;D

Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Dartful Dodger on December 16, 2009, 10:27:24 pm
I thought it was a M. Night Shyamalan movie.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: shmokes on December 16, 2009, 11:05:38 pm
Oh . . . I don't have high expectations, but my expectations aren't THAT low!
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: HaRuMaN on December 17, 2009, 11:12:43 am
I thought it was a M. Night Shyamalan movie.

You're thinking of The Last Airbender
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: ammitz on December 17, 2009, 11:19:25 am
Well I'll be in the movies in 2 hours an 45 min watching the movie.

Judging from the local reviews I'm not expecting a lot from the story, should be "Dancing with wolfes" on another planet :angry:.

But I'm looking forward to all the 3D effects and computer animations.

Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: shardian on December 17, 2009, 11:51:08 am

You're thinking of The Last Airbender

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I thought the trailer made that look pretty darn cool.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: RayB on December 17, 2009, 11:53:19 am
Judging from the local reviews I'm not expecting a lot from the story, should be "Dancing with wolfes" on another planet :angry:.
Really? I thought it looks like Smurfs + Pocahontas.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: shmokes on December 17, 2009, 12:13:22 pm

You're thinking of The Last Airbender

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I thought the trailer made that look pretty darn cool.

Trailers for M. Knight Shamayalan's movies always make them look cool because he's really good with creating atmospheric films.  Unfortunately (with the exception of his first two movies) he gets every other aspect of his movies horribly horribly wrong.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: HaRuMaN on December 17, 2009, 12:16:28 pm
Trailers for M. Knight Shamayalan's movies always make them look cool because he's really good with creating atmospheric films.  Unfortunately (with the exception of his first two movies) he gets every other aspect of his movies horribly horribly wrong.

I've never seen Praying with Anger and Wide Awake... are they good?   ::)
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Ginsu Victim on December 17, 2009, 12:17:07 pm
I'm in the minority, I guess, because I really liked Lady in the Water. I also thought The Village was decent. Signs was good for one viewing, and I haven't watched The Happening (haven't been in a hurry to, either).

Sixth Sense was great and Unbreakable is my favorite of his. Stuart Little is pretty good, too. :lol
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: drventure on December 17, 2009, 12:40:00 pm
Quote
I think you can rest rather assured that the CGI will be "decent.

Well, by decent, I mean "won't look like a dang video game."

For instance, there was plenty of CGI in 300, but given the way the film was done, to me anyway, it didn't come off as obviously CGI.

I'm planning on a fri afternoon excursion to see it, so I guess I'll have to wait to see.

According to Sigourney Weaver on The Daily Show a few days back, it redefines the genre  ::)

Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Ginsu Victim on December 17, 2009, 12:49:04 pm
Anyone seen Rec?

Blew my mind to find out the thing at the end wasn't CGI.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: shmokes on December 17, 2009, 01:47:57 pm
Quote
I think you can rest rather assured that the CGI will be "decent.

Well, by decent, I mean "won't look like a dang video game."


Right . . . but my point is . . . well . . . did you see any of those movies I mentioned?  Did you see the sinking of the Titanic???  Did you see liquid metal in Terminator 2?  Did you see the water effects in The Abyss?  It just seems that there is very little reason to be concerned with how the effects will turn out.  They will be unparalleled.  Of course they will.  Worrying about the quality of the special effects in an upcoming James Cameron movie is like anticipated a Michael Bay movie and wondering if there will be enough explosions in it.   ;D
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Loafmeister on December 17, 2009, 01:57:41 pm
I thought Titanic did not suck but I was more engrossed in the recreation of all facets of the ship itself, than of Jack and Rose (which IMHO wasn't that bad, it's a romance, what does anyone expect?!?). It's not to everyone's taste but I can see why it broke all records, it's not meant for "hardcore elite film experts" like you guys ;)

Avatar:  Seeing it in IMAX (fakeMAX) 3d tomorrow night, looking forward to checking it out, see if it can now meet my expectations, which with all the reviewers crowning the visual look of the movie and 3d as "amazing", are pretty inflated.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: shmokes on December 17, 2009, 01:58:57 pm
Oh . . . and The Village was ---smurfing--- horrible.  Just totally unwatchable.  Signs approached it with the ham-fisted god is great message being shoved down the audience's throat, but that movie at least had some fun moments.  Overall, it was retarded, though.  "Swing away!"   ::)  So stupid.  By the way, if you're ever unfortunate enough to see Signs again, pay attention to the news reporters talking on the TV in the background while characters are having conversations.  It's hilarious.  It's the most polite broadcast ever.  The reporters on TV wait to deliver their stories for breaks in the conversations between Joaquin and Mel.  It's kind of difficult to describe, but more or less the news anchors apparently don't want to be rude and talk over the people in the house, so they politely wait their turn in the conversation before delivering each snippet of news.

I haven't seen Lady in the Water, but if reviews are any indication it is among the worst movies ever made and substantially (and somewhat unbelievably) worse than The Village.  I haven't The Happening either, but it also garnered almost exclusively awful reviews.  
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: shardian on December 17, 2009, 02:10:31 pm
6th Sense = excellent
Unbreakable = boring
The Village = good for a part, but ended up sucking.
Signs = A great movie on first watch. 'Swing away' was still retarded though.
Lady in the Water = HORRIBLE!!!!!!!
The Happening = entertaining movie
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: shmokes on December 17, 2009, 02:13:40 pm

it's a romance, what does anyone expect?!?


I never understand when people excuse bad films by pretending it's impossible to make a good film in that genre.  MANY of the greatest films of all time are romances.  

Edward Scissorhands
Pride and Prejudice (the new one starring Kiera Knightly is great, btw)
Harold and Maud
The Princess Bride
As Good as it Gets
Dangerous Liaisons
The Piano
500 Days of Summer
Romeo+Juliet
Amelie
Dr. Zhivago
Forest Gump
Beauty and the Beast
The English Patient
Shakespeare in Love
Cyrano de Bergerac (and Roxanne for a modern take)
Before Sunrise
Before Sunset
Secretary
Gone with the Wind
An Officer and a Gentleman
When Harry Met Sally
Like Water for Chocolate
Notting Hill
Cassablanca

I could go on . . . .  
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Loafmeister on December 17, 2009, 02:59:15 pm
Where the heck do I say it's impossible to make a good film in "that" genre?!?  Why do you have to assume someone backing up a movie you don't like are "excusing" the film?  Anyway, we defer on the genre; for me, Titanic was not a romance with the setting being on the Titanic, it was a story of the Titanic with a fictional romantic subplot.  IE: for me, the ship Titanic was the star of the movie, not Leo or Kate.

In no way am I saying success = a great movie but I'm willing to admit although I might think a movie is crap, it doesn't make it a bad movie and when I see a movie makes 1.8 billion, I'll concede my taste isn't above others, it's obviously entertaining in some ways to many, so I'll give it its due, just not my "type".

I like most movies, I appreciate popcorn movies, classics, adventure, sci-fi, whatever.  Sometimes I like movies that entertain my senses, not just my brain; and sometimes I like my mind entertained, not my eyes/ears.  Titanic fit 2/3'rds senses and 1/3's brain entertainment for me (the recreation of the era/ship triggers some brain action :) ).  Not all movies are created with the same end result in mind.

That's a fine list of movies you have there shmokes, though I wouldn't classify Forest Gump as a romance. On second thought, it IS kind of hard to classify that one.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: dafelandry on December 17, 2009, 03:15:21 pm
Anyone else think the "avatar" race or whatvever they are look like zoras from OOT?

(http://www.zeldadungeon.net/Zelda05/Characters/OfficialArt/Ruto2.jpg)

(http://ugc.dhingana.com/uploads/news/6394216044b028b478463d9.75520690.jpg)
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Ginsu Victim on December 17, 2009, 03:26:06 pm
I guess what I liked about Lady in the Water was that it stayed at the apartment location for pretty much the whole movie. I have a thing for movies that stay in one location for the entire duration, like Rear Window and Death and the Maiden.

Also like how the film stuck with just the residents of the apartments as the cast, overall. It doesn't hurt that I'm a fan of several of the cast members.

Like I said, I know I'm in the minority, but my wife and I really dug it when we saw it, and could see why a lot of people wouldn't like it.

Back on the subject of Avatar, definitely want to see it once the crowds die down.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: ammitz on December 17, 2009, 05:37:58 pm
Hi again

I'm back from the cinema, with my very subjective and super short review.

Storyline (=It was dancing with wolfes on another planet) = 1 out of 6 stars
3D effects = 6 out of 6 stars
Special effects and computer animations = 6 out of 6 stars

In total I would give it 4 stars of 6, but only because the filming and the pictures are very beautiful, and he has created a planet "Pandora" with plants and animals that are somewhat believing.

I would definately recommend people seeing it if they went to a 3D theater, if it was in 2D I would say maybe.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: shmokes on December 17, 2009, 09:00:55 pm
Where the heck do I say it's impossible to make a good film in "that" genre?!?

Maybe I misinterpreted when you asked asked rhetorically what one could expect from a romance.  At any rate, I don't really consider myself a movie snob.  Notting Hill is on my list and that's just a shallow Hugh Grant/Julia Roberts vehicle.  But it's cute and has clever, genuinely funny dialogue.  It's just a fun movie.  And it's not too unbelievable, and where it is unbelievable it is in forgivable ways because it's just having a bit of fun.  

Same goes for action movies.  I loved X-men.  I loved X-men 2.  I have no problem with absurdity, as long as it's well done.  Thus, X-men 3 made me want to throw up in tin foil and eat it.  It's not the concept of a goofy comic book movie that gets my goat.  It's lame, insipid, formulaic, lazy film making that bothers me.  It's two-dimensional characters that bother me.  I'm perfectly capable of suspension of disbelief, but the characters still have to behave and speak in believable ways under the circumstances.

And so on.  When I watch Transformers and am not entertained at all and then I have someone excuse it as a popcorn movie I just think that person has brain damage.  Iron Man is not literature.  Iron Man is a popcorn movie.  Transformers is a movie that you should not eat popcorn at because you should not be watching it.  It is the difference between good and bad filmmaking and non-stop explosions simply does not put Transformers into the same category as Iron Man.

Oh yeah . . . and Titanic sucks.   ;D
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: SNAAKE on December 17, 2009, 11:00:20 pm

The Happening = entertaining movie

is it now ??? I heard nothing happens..ever..
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Loafmeister on December 18, 2009, 12:21:08 am
Shmokes: I liked Transformers. The movie was based on a toy line so maybe I had lowered expectations but imho it's probably Bay's best work. If anything, he was able to keep the camera steady for a few shots and man, that was quite an accomplishment!

Bah, from your list we agree on about 90% of the movies out there, so I forgive you for your lack of taste for a couple of movies :) :) :)
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: shardian on December 18, 2009, 08:19:16 am

The Happening = entertaining movie

is it now ??? I heard nothing happens..ever..

Maybe you should just see it for yourself. Me and my wife both really enjoyed it. People are killing themselves left and right in the movie.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: HaRuMaN on December 18, 2009, 08:27:55 am

The Happening = entertaining movie

is it now ??? I heard nothing happens..ever..

Maybe you should just see it for yourself. Me and my wife both really enjoyed it. People are killing themselves left and right in the movie.
My wife and I really liked it, too.  Good flick.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Ginsu Victim on December 18, 2009, 10:43:43 am
Me and my wife both really enjoyed it.
My wife and I really liked it, too.  Good flick.

Subtle grammar correction. :lol
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: HaRuMaN on December 18, 2009, 10:45:58 am
Me and my wife both really enjoyed it.
My wife and I really liked it, too.  Good flick.

Subtle grammar correction. :lol

Unintentional... but funny.    ;D  My wife is an English teacher, btw, so I hear it if I have screwed up grammar. 
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Ginsu Victim on December 18, 2009, 11:09:14 am
Boy, you done got your grammar corrected by a high dollar country bumpkin from Oklahoma.


 :dizzy:


???
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: HaRuMaN on December 18, 2009, 11:10:27 am
Boy, you done got your grammar corrected by a high dollar country bumpkin from Oklahoma.


 :dizzy:


???
??? ???
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Ginsu Victim on December 18, 2009, 11:13:18 am
Haruman did the grammar correction, and I'm no country bumpkin, so I don't know what he's on about...
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: shardian on December 18, 2009, 11:25:38 am
Haruman did the grammar correction, and I'm no country bumpkin, so I don't know what he's on about...

Yes for the record everyone, it was subtle because Haruman merely echoed my sentiments...but in a grammatically correct way. I have a few grammar and spelling quirks, but for the most part I pride myself on my spelling and grammar.

My highlights I am always aware of:
-Overuse of commas
- Always spell tomorrow with 2 m's (thanks spell check!)
-Always put myself first (like in the case of this thread). I can't help it, I'm apparently subconsciously a selffish ---tallywhacker---.  ;D
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Ginsu Victim on December 18, 2009, 11:30:57 am
I use ... too much. It's just how I roll. :lol
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Ginsu Victim on December 18, 2009, 11:43:27 am
Like how I used "how I roll" to confuse people. I don't talk like that....I'm a country bumpkin. :lol

Speaking of confusion, we drove past a Napa Auto Parts store yesterday and they had a sign that said:

WE NOW HAVE
FLYING MONKEYS
AND
CHICKENS
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: CCM on December 18, 2009, 04:24:36 pm
I like posting confusing nonsense, it's how I troll.


 :cheers:

fixed!
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Ginsu Victim on December 18, 2009, 04:37:08 pm
I like posting confusing nonsense, it's how I troll.


 :cheers:

fixed!

 :notworthy:
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: drventure on December 18, 2009, 06:13:26 pm
Saw it. Fantastic!

The 3d is definitely worth it. Esp with some of the fire and smoke.

And it's not headache inducing in the least. Felt very natural.

The story was a bit allegorical (right word?) but was pretty good as far as I'm concerned.

I'd expect to be seeing a lot more real3d movies from now on.



Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: RayB on December 18, 2009, 09:36:29 pm
Just saw it too today. In 3D but not Imax size. I'd say it delivered the entertainment. The blue people are very well rendered (excellent facial expressions etc...). The movie is very much "Pocahontas" but still worth seeing. 4/5

Only real gripe I have is that the 3D depth appeared greater in interior shots (those that included real people) and then the big wide shots of stuff like copters flying over scenery, where you'd expect real deep 3D "spacing" didn't have enough.  

PS: The problem I have with M Night Shamalamadingdong's movies is that once you've seen a couple, they are pretty much all the same. It's always some weird thing going on, and then he directs everyone to "act real scared... so scared you freeze in place, and can't talk, or only talk in whispers". Seriously, that's like all anyone ever does in his movies "to build tension" but it comes off a little fakey.

Anyone who liked the general premise of "The Happening" should watch"The Trigger Effect" (1996). Some similarities, but the focus of the movie is on the people, and how society breaks down in the face of a serious event and no communications / structured government there to keep the peace


Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: HaRuMaN on December 19, 2009, 09:05:04 am
We went to see the Princess and the Frog instead.  No regrets.

 :cheers:

You want to know how I know your teh ghey?
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: hypernova on December 19, 2009, 01:16:58 pm
Signs was alright until the climax.  Aliens were much more fear-inducing until we saw how frail they were.

Village was alright as well.

The Happening was just bad.  Who in God's name directed that?  I know Wahlberg's a better actor than that.  The only positive note came from watching that was realizing where SNL came up with that skit with him and the animals.  The acting was funny when he was a teacher, (which really wasn't even believable,) but after that, it just didn't work.  At all.  And he acted that way the entire movie.  Plus Ramalamadingdong's movies are supposed to have a twist at the end.  There was no twist.  They discussed that possibility early in the movie, and that's what it was, yet it only lasted for a certain duration???  Weak.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: shmokes on December 19, 2009, 03:22:44 pm

Signs was alright. . .


No.



Village was alright as well.


God no.


The Happening was just bad.  Who in God's name directed that?


The same guy who directed Signs and The village.

Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Xiaou2 on December 20, 2009, 03:44:54 am
 I gota Agree.

 Village was alright.


 There really are not many movies made today that I find worth watching at all.
Many of them are beyond pointless.

 The village let your imagination run wild, and then yanked the carpet out from
under you.  At first, I will admit I was a little disappointed at the ending.  However, when
thinking back upon it, I feel the movie really was able to tell a good story...
and have that story really draw you into it.

 Id watch the Village 10x over the remake of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.
Talk about smurf poo.

 I also really liked Unbreakable.  Great story. Great ride.  What a shocker of an
ending.  Loved it.


( I couldnt get into Signs however... )
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: danny_galaga on December 20, 2009, 06:21:42 am

Well, saw it today. All i care about is how entertained i was. That's how i rate. This was a 5/5 for me (",) The CGI is so convincing. It's the first animation i've seen where i could remain immersed throughout the movie. Definitely a must see...

Oh, we saw the 3D version, but it would have been just as entertaining for me in 2D

Quote
my score for recent movies you may have seen:

  5/5 - Michael Clayton, In Bruges, Gran Torino, Mary and Max

4.5/5 - Taken, Iron Man, Reign Over Me

  4/5 - Traitor, Bedtime Stories, Sunshine, pineapple express

3.5/5 - 300, Max Payne, You dont mess with the Zohan, Yes Man

  3/5 - That new Indiana Jones flick, Disturbia, That new TMNT flick,

2.5/5 - Angels and Demons

  2/5 - The Love Guru. Note: My 2 is probably someone elses 1. Just leaving room for worse!

Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Loafmeister on December 20, 2009, 12:22:02 pm
Ok, here goes, spoiler free review of Avatar and in point form:

- The 3d is incredible; Cameron really does use it to convey a sense of depth to most scenes, a job well done.  Contrary to one of the posters above, I thought there were many jungle scenes where you see leaves/branches in the foreground and background, giving those scenes incredible depth.
- The CGI: at first, you can certainly see the CGI for what it is, artificial, but for whatever reason I just did not notice it at all after a while
- The motion capture:  the facial expression really does convey an incredible sense that a human is acting out the CGI, as opposed to just CGI artists moving the lips, cheeks, etc. Well done.
- A few reviews have complained the story is pretty soso, or that it is formulaic. That may be true, but it didn’t bother any of us and although yes, we’ve seen this type of story before I’ll say: It was more than good enough and it did put together enough originality that it holds its own just fine.
- We were six, , we all said the same thing: amazing 3d, amazing movie, amazing experience.

Cameron is right, this is one movie that won’t be the same watching it at home, either because it’s a great movie and you just want to see it on a big screen, or because although some might feel it’s lacking in story, it has the best wow factor for the 3d alone (which may not work as well at home on current TV’s). Whatever the reason, I’ll leave that debate for others.

Box Office wise, I don’t think this movie can touch Titanic (not enough “romance” for the repeat girly viewers). However because of bozo’s like me saying “but you really have to see this in 3d Imax”, leading to people seeing it, then with them coming back with their friends, should lead to HUGE box office success. And rest assured, I WILL see it again. I’m not saying this movie beats any of your old favorites, but I will say its part of a select few as the best reason to see a movie in the theatre I can recall.  When I got out of theatre, I had a similar feeling when I saw Star Wars for the first time:  and we all know although that’s considered a classic, it’s not because it’s the best acted movie, with the best plot, or the best script or even the best direction.  Rather, it’s because it brought something unique to the movie experience (believable fX), was spectacular and above all, was one of the most fun times one can have at the movies.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: bishmasterb on December 20, 2009, 12:25:46 pm
I saw it in Imax 3D last night and was very impressed. I went in with somewhat low expectations because to me, the CGI (especially the Na'vi) just didn't come off that well in the trailers; but in the context of the movie, it was amazing. My doubts disappeared; the Na'vi were rendered very convincingly. The 3D was very well done as well; I forgot about it after just a few minutes and became immersed in the movie.

It's not perfect (maybe not even great), but it's definitely solid. A couple gripes:

* the initial acceptance of Sully by the Na'vi leadership (in the base of the tree) seemed way too forced and quick; the movie is 160 minutes long for Christ's sake, why not spend a little bit more time on this critical part of the storyline?
* the cultural transformation from human to Na'vi of Sully over the course of the middle part of the film seemed unnatural and a bit forced (this was accomplished much better in Dances With Wolves where it was much more gradual and believable)
* Giovanni Ribisi (who I like, and think of as a very good actor) seemed hopelessly miscast; too young, and not believable in the leadership role; should've been 20 years older and 20 pounds heavier
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: wp34 on December 20, 2009, 08:44:21 pm
I agree that this is much better than the trailer.  Even the 3D was better than I expected.  The 3D trailers they showed before Avatar were horrible --- especially Alice in Wonderland.  I was really nervous that the whole movie was going to look like one of those Kellogs 3D Baseball cards from the 70's.  No worries though.  I'm not sure it was required but the 3D definitely did not detract from the movie.

The effects were amazing.  I didn't once think "Jar Jar Binks" as some reviewers have mentioned. 


Seriously, I'm getting borderline "until movie theaters jam cell phone signals, I'm avoiding them".


A couple of cell phones went off during the movie.  Very irritating.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Loafmeister on December 20, 2009, 08:47:43 pm
Never have that problem for two reasons:

1 - For the big titles, I usually go the first weekend and there's typically less inconsiderates attending. Probably means those who brave the large crowds are REAL movie fans who want to the see the movie badly, not text.

2 - In the rare case some texts or talks during the movie, I use something neat called "my mouth" and politely ask them to refrain from doing whatever annoying thing they're doing during the movie. Surprisingly, they stop.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Ginsu Victim on December 20, 2009, 08:57:44 pm
1 - For the big titles, I usually go the first weekend and there's typically less inconsiderates attending. Probably means those who brave the large crowds are REAL movie fans who want to the see the movie badly, not text.

Usually opening weekend it's the "Hey, what's new? We'll go see that" crowd. That means teenagers on dates with their phones out the whole time or laughing like twats at the wrong parts. Maybe it's not that way in your area, but I know that's the reason I avoid opening weekend on most movies anymore.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: wp34 on December 20, 2009, 09:53:37 pm
1 - For the big titles, I usually go the first weekend and there's typically less inconsiderates attending. Probably means those who brave the large crowds are REAL movie fans who want to the see the movie badly, not text.

Usually opening weekend it's the "Hey, what's new? We'll go see that" crowd. That means teenagers on dates with their phones out the whole time or laughing like twats at the wrong parts. Maybe it's not that way in your area, but I know that's the reason I avoid opening weekend on most movies anymore.

I think it depends on the movie.  I prefer to see comedies opening weekend when the theater is more likely to be full.  We saw "40 Year-old Virgin" in a full theater and the laughter was contagious.  We thought it was one of the funnier movies we had seen.  But when we saw it at home it was very flat making us wonder why we ever liked it.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Loafmeister on December 20, 2009, 11:43:37 pm
Agreed 100%, people love laughing with other people. I still find movies funny at home, but it's not the same thing.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: danny_galaga on December 21, 2009, 03:24:46 am

* Giovanni Ribisi (who I like, and think of as a very good actor) seemed hopelessly miscast; too young, and not believable in the leadership role; should've been 20 years older and 20 pounds heavier

Actually, i thought he was perfect for the role. remember, he's not the CEO of this big corporation, he's more of a regional manager. From this point on, when 20 years and 20 pounds are added, he will be CEO (",)
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: koolmoecraig on December 21, 2009, 04:13:44 am
It looks like James Cameron lifted a pretty sizable chunk of Avatar from a 1957 Sci-Fi story by Poul Anderson called "Call Me Joe" without giving credit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_Me_Joe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_Me_Joe)

http://io9.com/5390226/did-james-cameron-rip-off-poul-andersons-novella (http://io9.com/5390226/did-james-cameron-rip-off-poul-andersons-novella)

http://filmdrunk.uproxx.com/2009/10/james-cameron-stole-avatar-question-mark (http://filmdrunk.uproxx.com/2009/10/james-cameron-stole-avatar-question-mark)
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Ginsu Victim on December 21, 2009, 09:43:21 am
He stole from Harlan Ellison TWICE to make Terminator, so I wouldn't be surprised.

We saw "40 Year-old Virgin" in a full theater and the laughter was contagious.  We thought it was one of the funnier movies we had seen.  But when we saw it at home it was very flat making us wonder why we ever liked it.

We walked out on that movie.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: shardian on December 21, 2009, 09:58:59 am
Cameron is right, this is one movie that won’t be the same watching it at home

Because at home there isn't some teenager sitting next to me texting the entire movie? 

Seriously, I'm getting borderline "until movie theaters jam cell phone signals, I'm avoiding them".

Especially given I can buy the DVD for $10 in 6 months.   :P



FYI, you can buy and/or build a short range cel phone jammer.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: HaRuMaN on December 21, 2009, 10:02:33 am
Cameron is right, this is one movie that won’t be the same watching it at home

Because at home there isn't some teenager sitting next to me texting the entire movie? 

Seriously, I'm getting borderline "until movie theaters jam cell phone signals, I'm avoiding them".

Especially given I can buy the DVD for $10 in 6 months.   :P



FYI, you can buy and/or build a short range cel phone jammer.

Which may or may not be very illegal, depending on your location...
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: massive88 on December 21, 2009, 10:11:49 am
Saw it in 3d last night, and I thought it was excellent.

The plot was extremely derivative, but it was well done, so it was a wash for me.  The CGI/3D was ridiculous.  This is the kind of movie you have to see in a theater.

Great entertainment value in this movie.  Is it one of the best movies Ive ever seen?  Far from it, the plot is far too redundant for that, but its well worth seeing without question.  And if you don't see it in 3D you are cheating yourself.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: shardian on December 21, 2009, 10:35:16 am

Which may or may not be very illegal, depending on your location...

It is probably very illegal wherever you are! One to block a 50 foot radius or so is about the size of a cigarette pack, and no one would ever be the wiser. It's not like black Apache helicopters carrying men in black will convene on your location and nuke it...or will they?
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: shardian on December 21, 2009, 11:02:09 am
Honestly, I would be very wary of having one of those imported.

Here is an open source, internal antenna version developed at MIT.
http://ladyada.net/make/wavebubble/index.html (http://ladyada.net/make/wavebubble/index.html)

If you are diy circuit savvy, it is do-able. They even give you the printouts to make the boards.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: BobA on December 21, 2009, 11:50:27 pm
Just got home from the theater.   I saw an early show and it was quite easy to get in.   The show was excellent.  CGI was believable and the 3D did not give me a headache like it has in some previous movies.  The plot was probably the weakest part but it still was not too bad.

I did not hear a single cell phone ring and people did not talk thru the movie.   I think the people who were there really wanted to see the movie just like I did.

Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: wp34 on December 22, 2009, 12:15:03 am

* Giovanni Ribisi (who I like, and think of as a very good actor) seemed hopelessly miscast; too young, and not believable in the leadership role; should've been 20 years older and 20 pounds heavier

Actually, i thought he was perfect for the role. remember, he's not the CEO of this big corporation, he's more of a regional manager. From this point on, when 20 years and 20 pounds are added, he will be CEO (",)

I agree.  I think the point of the character was that he was a little young and easily manipulated by the Colonel.  Also reminded me a little of Paul Reiser's character in Aliens.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: danny_galaga on December 23, 2009, 05:15:40 am

Which may or may not be very illegal, depending on your location...

It is probably very illegal wherever you are! One to block a 50 foot radius or so is about the size of a cigarette pack, and no one would ever be the wiser. It's not like black Apache helicopters carrying men in black will convene on your location and nuke it...or will they?

*strokes chin*

I heard once that they were installing jammers in cinemas in Ireland...
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: AcidArmitage on December 24, 2009, 11:24:20 am
just wait til someone dies because you can't call 911, text messaging wont seem that bad  ;D
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Ginsu Victim on December 24, 2009, 11:29:29 am
Man, I finally watched District 9 last night. I don't even care about Avatar now. D9 was awesome!
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: danny_galaga on December 24, 2009, 08:55:59 pm
just wait til someone dies because you can't call 911, text messaging wont seem that bad  ;D

Yeah, that's what everyone says when I gripe about the cell phones....

Except that, you know, people didn't tend to die in movie theaters 10 years ago, did they?

Aren't we still used to the idea of not necessarily getting good reception inside buildings?



Funny how having to have a phone RIGHT THERE ON YOUR PERSON seems a matter of life and death nowadays. If someone is taken ill, how hard would it be to go get help in the lobby, where I'm sure they can call 911 using the ancient technology of the  'land line'?

Besides, what would all the young punks do with their phones if someone actually got sick? Take photos and upload them to facebook. I doubt they would actually know to call 911
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: AcidArmitage on December 25, 2009, 11:05:32 am
Im saying that the problem isnt with the cell phones, its idiots who don't know when its appropriate to use them. Instead of phone jammers they need devices that smack their parents for not teaching them not to be ---Deutsche Frankfurters--- in a theater
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: danny_galaga on December 25, 2009, 08:02:32 pm
Im saying that the problem isnt with the cell phones, its idiots who don't know when its appropriate to use them. Instead of phone jammers they need devices that smack their parents for not teaching them not to be ---Deutsche Frankfurters--- in a theater

Well, that's never going to happen. I'm all for jammers or Faraday cages in cinemas. Just needs a sign warning all those millions of brain surgeons who go to the movies that they wont be able to facebook while in the cinema.

That brings me back on topic. When we went to see Avatar, not ONE gumby felt the need to shine their little spotlights AKA phones. That's a testement to how engrossing the movie was (",)
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: AcidArmitage on December 26, 2009, 11:01:13 am
not here. i saw a couple heheh  ::)
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Xiaou2 on December 28, 2009, 03:31:20 am

   I finally was able to see this movie... and Im Still trying to snap back into reality...

 How do you classify so much Awesome?  Can it even be possible to put it into
words... ??!!!!


 Firstly, almost eveyone knows Im a harsh Critic.  More so about Video games, easier
on films... but still a very tough one to fully please.

  I went in expecting to be underwhelmed with very poor CGI, only a handful of
photo-graphic 3D scenes,  "B"-movie level (or much worse)  that had poor character,
poor plot, little to no emotional content at all.  Merely a special effects movie...

 In fact, the previews Id seen didnt grab me at all.

 
 I can firstly say, that the CGI is Breathtaking.  The "Nubari"?  looks so much better
than what is seen on the 2d trailers.  Maybe its because when you see these in true
Stereoscopic 3D... you see so much more detail and life in them.
 
 Their animations are Smooth, and realistic.  As are the countless other creatures...
and everything else 3D.

 Im generally a CGI Hater... and yet, I was blown away by how amazing the CGI was.
I was having a Very hard time believing that certain things were not CGI... but instead,
real hand built 'physical' models.

 The Creatures were all lifelike and highly detailed.  Many having very vibrant colors,
and artistic patterns.  The land itself was beautiful beyond belief.  Much of it having
a glowing luminescent effect, all so rich in texture, colors, incredible composition,
and so much more.  When you walk out of the theatre, you feel like you just want
to run and dive back into that beautiful place instead of the dirty drab
concrete-jungle of this reality.

 The Story was good, and realistic.   The characters were believable, and they
are carried in such a masterful way as that you actually feel emotions for them.

 The 3D effect on the true Imax 3D screen is jaw dropping.   Ive seen some good
3D stuff before... but this takes the cake.   Nearly Every moment, you are engrossed
with the thought "OMG! That is SO DAMN AWESOME!!!".  Scene after scene, the
3D gives you crystal clear details that no 2D film can ever capture.  It grips and
engrosses you, and draws you that much deeper into the simulated reality.  At times
your pulse rises, as a character falls from a great height... or
there is a narrow miss...

 
 I was also surprised at how much real photographical 3D was in the movie.  It wasnt
a simple 5 minutes clip.  There were countless "long duration" photo-3D scenes, and they
are interwoven all through the movie.   Photo-3D always looks the most "3D", and
so its such a great treat to finally see high quality long duration clips of true stereo
movie scenes.

 I think the movie could stand on its own without the 3d.  Its actually quite good.
However, the 3D really turns it into an "Epic"  experience.   Not since my childhood
viewing of  "Return of the Jedi"    have I felt so excited, wow'ed, and engrossed
by a film.


 There are only a few gripes here and there... about the choice of words used by
the characters.  A few curse words that I didnt feel were needed at that time...
The fact that Sigorney Weaver smoked sucked too  (why do they keep promoting that
crap?!)  And a few other corny word choices...  but..  overall, they did a very good job.

 Most all of the 3D worked really well.  There were only a few times when it seemed too
many things moved too fast, and things got a little blurry.

 I Highly recommend seeing this on a True Imax 3D screen.. and not the 'Real 3D' screens.
The Imax screens are 3 times the size, and you sit 3x closer to the screen.  This
results in a 3D effect 50x greater.   Objects are crisper, clearer, more detailed.. and more
importantly, the objects can come out of the screen further. (as close as an arms reach)


 After leaving the movie theater, I felt like one of the humans coming out from their
host bodies.  I wanted to dive back into their beautiful  3d world.


 This film is a Must see.

Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Ginsu Victim on December 28, 2009, 09:40:44 am
Quote
The fact that Sigorney Weaver smoked sucked too  (why do they keep promoting that
crap?!)

Because people smoke in real life. It's not promoting it, it's just what the character does.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: saint on December 28, 2009, 09:41:53 am
And in 10 years I bet it looks dated.



Sorry this movie just looks horrid to me and the reviews aren't making me want to see it.



Then you're missing out. Everything Xiaou2 said is true. Breathtaking movie. Plot was average and has been done before, everything else is groundbreaking. This movie has truly set the bar for both 3d and SF movies to come. Amazing flick.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: saint on December 28, 2009, 11:06:15 am
Then you're missing out.

On spending $40 to have an elbow jammed into my stomach by a kid texting the entire movie?

If it's anything like Titanic, it'll be in theaters for 6 months... I'm sure I'll get talked into it.



Don't bother. I'd hate to ruin your preconceived notions. Not worth your time.

For everyone else in the world, go see it.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: shardian on December 28, 2009, 11:27:09 am
We might be going to Columbus for a short vacation this weekend. They have an IMAX there, and if I'm going to pay a premium price to see this movie, it might as well be my first IMAX and IMAX 3D experience.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: RayB on December 28, 2009, 12:06:19 pm
I'm probably going to see it again tomorrow, at an IMAX 3D. Hopefully it's higher res for that showing. Avatar is not really a "gotta see it again" movie for me, but since that's what the friends wanna see and I have free passes, why not.

I have a couple more "nerd gripes" I forgot to mention:

How can you have water falls coming off of small floating land masses? Wouldn't the water run out after a few days and there would be little to no vegetation? And how do these land masses stay upright? And why does the "vortex" effect keep the land masses up, but there's still gravity to walk on them? Hmmm...

I also thought the use of 6 legs on everything was rather stupid. I think James Cameron reviewed the concept art and said "MORE LEGS ON EVERYTHING!" The reason creatures tend to have 4 is 2 in front for "pulling" and 2 in back for "pushing". A middle set of legs just wouldn't happen (evolutionarily speaking)


PS: Don't they have "turn off your cel phones" notices in American cinemas?

Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Xiaou2 on December 28, 2009, 01:51:51 pm

 I Highly doubt anyone in an Imax 3D theater with bulky 3D glasses on, and a movie
this engrossing, will warrant people texting during the showing.

 And think about it PBJ, if you see it... you might have more ammunition to complain.   
Or maybe your worried that you will walk away with nothing to complain
about?!    :laugh2:

Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: DaOld Man on December 28, 2009, 08:09:09 pm
Ok, I went to see this flick today, and I have avoided this thread like the plaque until I saw the movie (due to possible spoilers).
I saw it in a 2d theater, they were showing it in 3d, but I was afraid the quality might not be that great in a regular 2d theater.
OK, that aside, I liked this movie, even though it did have a very foreseeable plot, the graphics and shear beauty of it was great.
I would like to see it again in 3D, but if I do, I will go to Nashville, Tn, to the IMAX to see it.
I agree with RayB's comments about the floating islands, I caught that the first second I saw them.
All in all, good movie, go see it!
PS, while I was in town, I stopped by Best Buy and got a copy of Terminator Salvation with a gift card.
Gotta fire up the big screen TV here in a bit.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: danny_galaga on December 29, 2009, 12:15:42 am
Quote
The fact that Sigorney Weaver smoked sucked too  (why do they keep promoting that
crap?!)

Because people smoke in real life. It's not promoting it, it's just what the character does.

Also, for me at least, it harkens back to the scene in Alien when everyone is coming out from their sleep. I thought it might be an ode...
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Xiaou2 on December 29, 2009, 05:45:52 am
As far as I understood it... the floating islands were laced with the
rock they were going to mine.  The special rock possessing anti-gravitational
abilities... hence its very high dollar value.

 One could say that the mounds floated off the planet, vegetation intact,
and found a certain level of balance and limitation of weight to anti-gravity lift.

 A place as Lush as that planet surely must get rain frequently... even though
I never recall it raining.   Its possible the island vegetation would thrive...
however... waterfalls are a real stretch, unless you are talking really massive
sized islands, containing huge leaking reservoirs. heh


 Actually, I was too spellbound by everything,  to even really notice the waterfalls
theoretical reasoning's.

 I will say..  if given the chance to see it either  2d, or  real-3d,  then
choose real 3d.  Real 3d is still 3d.  Its good... its just not "spectacular" like a
true Imax theater.

 Its well worth the extra drive and trouble to see it on a true Imax 3D .
Luckily I live close to one... but I would have driven quite some miles if not... and
would not have been disappointed one bit.





Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Xiaou2 on December 29, 2009, 06:03:35 am
To spare myself the typing, here are some good replies from other posters:

"And having spent some time in the tobacco industry I am very confident it was sponsored product placement. The tobacco marketers are getting it from all sides - they basically can not advertise at all. It's gone from TV ads and Billboards, to sponsorship of sporting events and fashion shows, to shop signage and currently rests with in-store placement (you'll find cigarettes in sponsored lockable cabinets at eye level behind the cashier - you can tell who sponsored it by which company's brands have the most facings) and product placement (i.e. in movies). Now that they've had to take their big ads off the cabinets and cashier mats etc., the primary strategy these days is create 'pull' from the potential customer base by associating smoking with admirable characters or hero's/heroines. That they would pay extraordinary dollars to place product in a high grossing movie like this, particularly as they're legislated against spending advertising money almost anywhere else is not too hard a concept to grasp. It is naive to believe anything else. Guys as clever as James Cameron could easily create and edgy, authoritative character without the use of cigarettes. No one here is saying it was a bad movie because of the smoking (and simply counting to two doesn't fairly represent the overt focus on it at the start of the movie) they are simply saying it was a shameful sell-out to promote carcinogenics in front of young audiences who are, highly influenced by these tactics. Believe me, we have the statistics to prove it. "



"But what creates the biggest stink in Avatar is the fact that Sigourney Weaver's character smokes. The very first thing we see Weaver do in the movie is come out of hypersleep and demand a cigarette from her lab-lackeys. She smokes liberally in the movie (much as she does in real life, which is no-one's business but her own).

Let me declare outright that I am a smoker. I smoke plenty, and I live in a country (Great Britain) in which the relentless drive to marginalise and ultimately cease the habit of tobacco consumption brings a new and major impediment to us nicotine-lovers on a yearly basis. If you smoke, this is getting to be a very hard country in which to indulge your filthy habit.

That doesn't mean I want anybody else to smoke, and most particularly it doesn't mean that I want smoking represented at all in a teen-oriented movie whose SF scenario makes it not only unnecessary but almost certainly unrealistic. If nothing else, Avatar treats of a futuristic environment where air supply is manufactured in controlled envoronments in an ecosphere that's deadly to humans. I can't recall any SF TV output that has been shortsighted enough to put smoking into space-scenarios since the rugged denizens of UFO used to light up regularly on Moonbase, or any pressurised smoking in SF movies since Alien and Outland.

And I can therefore only come to the conclusion that Hollywood's powerful keep-smoking-in-movies lobbyists have won a major Christmas bonus in getting this unlikely practise into Cameron's vision of the 22nd century."

Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: saint on December 29, 2009, 08:23:02 am
Bingo - that's what bothered me the most.

Never mind the smoking, which I'd rather have not had but don't get particularly upset about. It was that she was smoking in an enclosed atmospheric environment. Boggle.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Xiaou2 on December 29, 2009, 04:35:48 pm

 Brilliant Insight?!   Man, you are a few shorts shy of a meltdown.

 A) I did not Retype.  I used Copy / Paste.

 B) There is nothing insightful about it.  Its merely various collections of opinions and
facts that I happen to agree with.

 
 I pretty much care less if someone decides to destroy their own lives and bodies.
But Smoking is different.  It infringes on MY / Others  Health and Comfort.

 Its pretty much like someone jabbing you with a stick.  Is it fair that they like to
jab you with a stick, so you just let them do it to you?   Eff - that.   Or how about
someone forcing you to swallow a pill laced with chemicals and drugs?

 Not only does the smoke get inhaled, (with over 300 various Nasty chemicals / drugs
on top of nicotine...) but you have to deal with the god awful stench that sticks to
your body and clothing.    Just the smell of that crap gives me a near instant headache,
as well as makes me slightly nauseous to boot.

 I had to deal with that Crap as a child, where parents had no problem polluting the
enclosed car / house with us kids having no way to breath unbothered.  I cant wait
for them to get a lung problem / cancer... for all the Intentional suffering they caused me.
Its great just to see how battered their faces are, and how much like  Cave Trolls
they sound like cause they have burned out their skin and vocal cords.


 Smoking is for the Weak.  Its a bunch of druggies who cant handle life and emotions without a constant "Fix".

 Its also for the arrogant / selfish, who dont mind destroying others in the process of their own self chosen degradation.

 Smoking Will become Illegal one day..  and it will be a joyous day...
Much like the day when it became illegal to smoke in public bars / restaurants here.

Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: DaOld Man on December 29, 2009, 05:05:06 pm

 I had to deal with that Crap as a child, where parents had no problem polluting the
enclosed car / house with us kids having no way to breath unbothered.  I cant wait
for them to get a lung problem / cancer... for all the Intentional suffering they caused me.
Its great just to see how battered their faces are, and how much like  Cave Trolls
they sound like cause they have burned out their skin and vocal cords.


I grew up in a family where everyone smoked except me, so I know where you are coming from.
But I am taking the above comment as done in anger and not serious.
I watched a brother die with throat cancer, a sister die with lymphatic cancer, and my mother died of lung problems, she basically drowned with fluid on her lungs.
They all suffered terribly for a long time before passing on.
I dont know if smoking had anything to do with it, but Im sure it did.
But I would not wish that kind of death on anyone, especially a loved family member.
Not meaning to beat you up here, but I guess I just want you to realize what you are saying.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Xiaou2 on December 29, 2009, 09:09:11 pm

 Actually I do know what you are coming from... and I still feel the same way.

 Why?

 My mother didnt give two ratts tails about me.  Treated me like dirt.  Always putting
me down and telling me how rotten I was.  Trying to use guilt tactics on me as well.

 My Step father was the same.  Real father didnt smoke, but he is psychotic:
physically and mentally abusive / violent.  He was on the edge of going Postal most
of the time.  Threats of killings, pipe bombs, cutting his kids into pieces...etc.
Selfish, careless, and a compulsive gambler... luckily he was kicked out before I was 6,
as he gambled every dollar the family had away.

 I had no "love" in my family life, besides my distant relatives that we only saw
on holidays.

 My mother was cold as an ice cube, and so that is exactly what see will get
back from me.

 To be honest, Im not so much as angry.. as I dont give two cares in the world
about them.   But hey, I cant help it if Karma makes one feel even a little satisfied.

 Its one thing to Try to quit... and to be respectful of others around you... such as
going outside to smoke... or not smoking in the moving car.   But its quite another
to be so mean and careless as to intentionally poison and hurt your children,
even as they are choking and fighting to simply breath.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: shardian on December 30, 2009, 08:38:12 am
...so I'm hoping to go see Avatar in IMAX 3D on Friday...

You know, that movie we were talking about?
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: DaOld Man on December 30, 2009, 09:48:13 am
Errrr, oh yeah.

I am thinking of going about 60 miles to Nashville Tn to watch it on IMAX there.
But I may wait another week, maybe the crowd will be died down more.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: danny_galaga on December 30, 2009, 10:31:34 am

It's funny. The cinema i went to see it at USED to be an Imax before they went broke. New owners that bought it didn't bother about Imax. So i saw it on a regular screen in 3D even though right next door is the big screen!
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Xiaou2 on December 30, 2009, 01:27:59 pm

 Man... thats way sad.

 Its too bad that the movie people didnt recognize the impact of good 3D sooner,
and made Good 3D movie content.

 I had seen a few of their short films before, Great 3D, but terrible flix.

 If they had released something like Aliens or T2... I think they would have
had packed houses for some time.   Hopefully we will see more live action
films in 3D soon... and not just cgi cartoons / cartoon mix's.

 I think the only way some of these Imax theaters survived was to show
typical films on its much larger screen.   You get a lot more detail...  but not
everyone wants to spend the extra money for it.

Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Loafmeister on December 30, 2009, 02:45:08 pm
The science behind avatar (link contains nice speculation from a scientist, interesting hints within the movie suggest plausibility for the floating mountains).

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/43440 (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/43440)

Smoking:  why do we have to assume it's the same detrimental nicotine crap we have here on earth? 
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: RayB on December 31, 2009, 02:20:48 pm
If the smoking was product placement they failed miserably as I didn't notice a brand.

Xiau also failed the brevity test.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Xiaou2 on December 31, 2009, 03:33:57 pm

 I had become hooked on the show  "House"  in the last few years...

 Close to xmas, there was an episode where one of the doctors is standing next to
a computer, talking to someone.   The cameraman pans around the pc ever so
elegantly that you can tell its Blatant what they are doing.
 
 The PC's monitor was a Dell, as its black embossed design stood out loud and clear.
Then the funniest thing happened... the nurse said to the doctor... "Your next patient
is Dell ******".  I cant recall the patients last name, But it was a double face palm moment.


 Not all product placement has to be so Blatant.   Im not saying for 100% that there
Was in fact motives from the smoking industry... but I surely would not put it past them.


 Imagine of Pizza was on the verge of being banned.  There were laws in place to
keep you eating it in only designated areas.   The Pizza manufacturers were not able
to advertise in any magazines, papers, etc.    Do you not think that all the Pizza
producers would not be meeting about this?  Would not join forces so to speak?

  Did you ever see the movie  "Tucker"  ?   Its a portrayal of what happened to
Mr Tucker when he made a revolutionary car.  The car was so good... that the
big 3 car manufacturers would have had to spend millions to re-tool just to try to
catch up.   So.. they all got together, along with govt and newspapers,
and sabotaged him / it .


 It does not matter What brand they put onto the screen.  So long as they put
Someone popular smoking on the screen...to try to influence a new generation of
lifetime addicted smokers.  Such a play is well worth the "shared investment" or
should I say "Forced?"  placement within the media.

 If you think an industry which rakes in trillion of dollars in profits from peoples
deaths is going to play Nice... you are really Naive.  Remember... these are the
same people who were intentionally targeting Children at one point in their
advertising...
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: RayB on December 31, 2009, 06:09:20 pm
You fail again. You could have made your point in two sentences. (Actually one, but I'm giving you space to make the point and complete it with a summation.  :P )
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: danny_galaga on December 31, 2009, 06:31:27 pm

 Man... thats way sad.


Yes and no. The new owners bought the whole complex after it sat empty for a year or two. Then they figured its better to charge $5 a seat and have a hundred people in a cinema than to charge $10 and have 20. Prices have gone up since then, they are now between $6.50 and $8.50 depending on time of day. So sometimes you get to see a movie for $6.50 on that huge Imax screen  :cheers:  Avatar 3D was $12 on Sunday morning.

 Their leading competitor by the way is normally about $15, except on Tuesday when it's $9 i think.

So not so sad for me. I think I only ever saw one Imax movie. Might have been some crappy 'planetarium' type spectacle...
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: DaOld Man on December 31, 2009, 06:52:17 pm
I agree with Xiaou2, subliminal messaging really does exist, and the tobacco companies are a steaming pile of dog droppings. I could never figure out why tobacco was legal but not pot, until I found out the big money involved in tobacco. But please let's dont run this thread into P&R, cause the original topic is very interesting.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: danny_galaga on January 01, 2010, 09:07:12 am
Alright, $90 later I've seen it.


 ???

Quote
The bootleg protection was freaking annoying, too.  Black dots that appeared periodically on different parts of the screen and remained for ~30 seconds on / 30 seconds off.

 ???

Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: DaOld Man on January 01, 2010, 10:28:31 am

Quote
The bootleg protection was freaking annoying, too.  Black dots that appeared periodically on different parts of the screen and remained for ~30 seconds on / 30 seconds off.

 ???



 ??? +1. Ive never heard of that. And the movie theater wouldnt see me again after pulling something like that.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Loafmeister on January 01, 2010, 11:47:50 am
Alright, $90 later I've seen it.

 ???

Quote
The bootleg protection was freaking annoying, too.  Black dots that appeared periodically on different parts of the screen and remained for ~30 seconds on / 30 seconds off.

 ???

I think he either has retinal damage that makes an image stay “on” longer than it should OR what he saw was something that is supposed to be cropped at the camera, but wasn’t.

Pinballjim:  were these dots on the edges of the frame?

BTW, she does smoke later in the film.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Xiaou2 on January 01, 2010, 03:27:14 pm

 Your theater must have had issues.  Im usually pretty observant, and I didnt recall
any dots.  Stuff like that would annoy the heck out of me.

 IMOP, it wouldnt make much sense to protect a 3D movie.  If anyone tried to capture it,
it would probably be a really messy / blurry 2d.   I suppose if one used the glasses lenses
you could use 2 camera to get both frames... but hell, that would be very hard to get
away with.

 You should call or email the theater and complain.  I did that about the sound levels
and they sent me some free tickets.  Of course, I emailed them back and complained
some more... as  Why in the world would I want to blow my eardrums some more
for Free?!   They have since been better about volumes at Imax.  (lawsuit threats
do help...)
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Xiaou2 on January 01, 2010, 05:46:30 pm
If the blue people are at peace with one another for so many generations, why do they maintain fierce warrior cultures?

- You need to be fierce to be able to survive that environment.   They were not so
much as fierce to each other, as they were very close and friendly... but only
fierce as a  'hunting' mentality.


 If they're so against killing animals unless necessary, why do they have beasts of burden to aid in their hunting? 

 - More than likely out of necessity / survival.   However, remember that they bond
with the creatures they ride.  They share feelings / emotions with them (using that
connection thingy on their tail).  These become more like Pets than anything else.
Or at very least, like us and horses.


If the evil corporation is just gonna bulldoze the whole mess down anyway, why bother with diplomacy? 

 - The main deposit was at the central location under their home-tree.  They wanted
to try to persuade them to move to another section of the world which was free of
such material... or not worth mining due to low quantities.  Obviously, war is also
expensive, in weapons  (A single missile can cost several thousand dollars, let
alone the cost of an entire copter thingy getting trashed), lives..etc.
...and also highly frowned upon politically.


Why did arrows bounce off windows in one scene and then penetrate them and impale pilots 20 minutes later? 

 - The first arrows seen were the ones they generally use.  However, they used thicker
and longer arrow / spears during the final battle.   They also had the aid of the speed
gained from the dive-bomb of the creatures they were riding... as well as the fighters
flying Into the path of them too. 


If instruments don't work in blue people city, how are the humans able to obtain such accurate measures of where they're gathering?  How does a 'neurotoxin' stop your heat?  (that one had my wife groaning)

 - The instruments worked fine until you got too close to the anti-gravity rock.  The
ones which were floating  (as far as I understood.   The stuff underground wasnt
too much of a problem, because it was buried deep enough).   

 - Also, The type of instruments required for navigation may be more susceptible to
this than the kind that used for scanning for the material itself. 

 - Im not expert on toxins... so I dont know.  I can only say that there are plenty of
creatures here that can inject venom that will shut you down really quickly.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: danny_galaga on January 02, 2010, 03:28:34 am


For some reason at this theater they always have piracy patrol.  If they see a cell phone lit up, they'll run over and tell you to shut it off. 


 :applaud:

I wish they would do that here, and not for piracy...
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: shardian on January 02, 2010, 10:26:03 pm
Saw it today in 3D. Hehe, Dances with Wolves redone in blue makeup and 3D is about right!

The 3D was well done. I noticed that the 3D was almost exclusively limited to the background stuff - the people remained neutral (you could look at the people with your glasses off and they'd look normal). It also tended to pick 3-4 layers and just leave stuff on that layer, rather than try and make stuff truly 3D. It worked quite well with live-action. Overall, the 3D was quite subtle. I barely even noticed the movie was 3d after about half-way. I would have been just as happy seeing a 2D version of the film.

The CGI = mission accomplished. After the initial 'meet n greet' session of 30 minutes or so, I was totally absorbed into the world. My mind fully believed everything I saw was real for the next 2 hours and change. That was pretty neat!

The 'white guilt' aspect of the story was in full tilt, and yes it pissed me off. Maybe that was Cameron's plan to better evoke an emotional response in the viewer, which would better attach you to the na'vi. If so, then mission accomplished Cameron. This was EARTH folk vs. Pandora, not selfish, evil white man vs. Pandora. In reality, white people will be a minority by 2150 something. It truly did irritate me that every single person of authority was a smart assed knowitall white man. If they're gonna steal the zoom/focus camera work from Firefly/Serenity, they might as well steal the aspect that eastern and western cultures will fuse.
It's a moot point though, because this irritation faded from memory and I enjoyed the last 2 hours of the film. It would have made a better film if he would have conveyed Earth's urgency and necessity for the unobtanium. It would have been the classic desperate culture vs. desperate culture story. If the RDA would have went home empty handed, human civilization would die...yeah, that would have made it a much better movie. It would have added a whole new emotional layer to the film, while allowing all of the human characters to act EXACTLY the same, word for word. They would simply be seen as tragic rather than selfish, arrogant ---punks---.

Final summary: It's a highly enjoyable, yet highly forgettable film. 4 out of 5 stars

Random thoughts:

-Is it wrong that I found Sully's Na'vi love interested oddly attractive?
-My wife was impressed with Sigourney Weavers 'nude scene'. She wondered if they used CG to touch her up...
- I found 3 glaring editing mistakes that bothered me: I'll switch to spoiler mode though.
1. Jake's woman had her hair un-braided for their love making scene. It was still down when they ran to home tree, and jake spilled the beans and collapsed. When he came back a short time later, her hair was perfectly braided again.
2. The Na'vi shot a boat load of arrows at the Colonels ship and scratched the hell out of the glass. When Colonel mobilized for the final battle, the glass was minty fresh again. My wife says it wasn't scratches, but just the poison from their arrow tips. I call BS on that - they were scratches. It's also the same ship both times, so that is out.
3. At the very end, the nerdy avatar controller dude had his avatar killed. He is shown standing next to the doc with a mask and gun while shipping the humans off. Immediately after this scene, there is an avatar that looks exactly like nerdy guys avatar also herding humans out. Sure, maybe it was another of the Avatars doing this, but I tend to think it is an editing mistake.My wife and I both noticed this, and she never EVER catches these things. If only I noticed it, I wouldn't have said anything.

I simply can't stand it when I notice things like this in a movie. Surely things like this shouldn't happen when a movie is in production for 12 years and they spend that kind of money...

Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: DaOld Man on January 03, 2010, 12:05:38 am


For some reason at this theater they always have piracy patrol.  If they see a cell phone lit up, they'll run over and tell you to shut it off. 


 :applaud:

I wish they would do that here, and not for piracy...


Agreed... Ive been in movies where kids would even carry on conversations on their cell phones. Very rude and stupid to waste your money on a movie and talk on the phone during the movie, unless it's mom dads money I guess.
Cell phones should be banned from movie houses. Period.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: DaOld Man on January 03, 2010, 12:07:45 am
Good review Shardian. I didnt notice those bloopers you mentioned. I will be watching for them, if I see the movie again before it leaves the theaters.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Xiaou2 on January 03, 2010, 06:10:10 am

 Did you see it in Imax3D  or Real 3D,  because nothing about Imax 3D was subtle at all.
Including the people / live scenes.

Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: shardian on January 03, 2010, 03:11:15 pm
Imax3D did the same thing with the layers and the people generally being non-3D.

As for blooper #3, maybe they were able to resuscitate his avatar?  But I noticed it, too.



I saw it in Sony RealD

Even if they did save the Avatar, noone else could use it.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: RayB on January 03, 2010, 03:55:24 pm
Sony bought RealD ? I didn't know that.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Xiaou2 on January 03, 2010, 05:05:55 pm

 I saw Coraline on a RealD screen.   While it was still good...  I immediately regretted it.
The 3D effect was nowhere near as intense.   RealD = Meh..   Imax = Hell Yeah!

 The larger the screen, the more the 3d depth separation. 
(Even subtle differences are magnified and enhanced to the viewer.)
 
 The close you sit to the screen,  the closer the effect will appear to be.
(With Imax, objects can appear to be within an arms reach away)


 The Sega Master system had a 3D shutter glasses setup.  The maximum 3d effect
came from a missile in the game  'Missile Defense 3D'.   On my 27" tv, that effect
is only about 4".  (small objs can be separated very far for max depth)   The
main objs were only an 1" above the screen... while most everything else in depth
inside the screen.

 If you were to move 10ft away from that 27" screen,  you would barely see any
depth at all.  Move 2ft  or closer... and that effect was maximized.
 
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Xiaou2 on January 03, 2010, 05:41:21 pm

 My glasses were a little uncomfortable, until I bent the arms for a few minutes.
They certainly could have designed them to be more comfy.


 There are 2  'Good'  3D technologies:

1) Polorized Glasses :  (Imax / RealD)   These use directional polorized light,
and 2 projectors.   Unless you have a Big budget, this isnt going to be in your home.

2) LCD Shutter Glasses :  2 LCDs are mounted in the glasses.  Each eye turns off and
on, becoming opaque, then transparent.   This is timed so that the display shows the
correct image for the correct eye. 

  The monitor has to have a very high refresh rate, else you notice 'flicker'.  This
is why they are trying to produce higher HZ LCD tvs.  (120hz would be like 60hz
each eye)   LCD glasses have come a long way.  They can be lightweight, wireless,
and take little power to operate.  Its the best practical 3D technology out there.
 

 There is no Holographic technology that Looks like the 3D you saw in Imax.
The only device I heard of that was a 'Rumor'... turned the air in the room to superheated
plasma in order to make an illusion.   If you placed your hand in that room, you would
immediately get a 3rd degree burn.

 
 Lasers are still being perfected to be used as a full color display system.   However,
just because something uses lasers, does not mean Hologram.   A 3d Hologram,
would need some way to Stop a beam of light at a certain spot in space.  I believe
only scientist using million dollar machines & sub zero temperatures can actually
Slow or stop light.


 The Last technology is  LCD displays which act like those holographic pictures.  The kind
where you turn them, and they animate.   However, this technology is CRAP.
Its severely  limited in viewing angles and distances away from the screen...
else you get artifacts and non-3d.   The picture quality (resolution) is reduced too... because it takes a lot of the resolution up for the 2ndary angled output.
(every other line)

 You see how crappy this tech is by looking at those cheesy pictures...
but Ive personally seen a non-glasses 3d lcd in person, and it was horrific.


 Trust me when I tell you that LCD Shutter glasses  are going to be the cheapest
way to display 3d in the home.   With Polarized glasses and a projection system
being the best... but most expensive.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Xiaou2 on January 04, 2010, 02:29:15 am
But what would you put in the air?

 If you put a screen - then its simply 2D.

 If you put anything else, it needs to be perfectly translucent on all its layers..
and even then... how thick it is determines how much depth you get.

 And finally, there is a huge difference between:

 1) A  2D hologram projection in mid air  (pointless)
 2) A  complete  3D  Hologram : All sides Visible from all angles  (Overkill)
 3) A typical 3d scene limited in perspective (as seen today)

 They do not even use holographic cameras yet,  and the amount of bandwidth and
data storage for that would be insane as well.  We probably wont see holographic
display tech like that in our lifetime.

 The only full holographic displays use a spinning discs that they shoot a projection,
or laser at.   However, they are usually pretty small in size, expensive, and probably
wont ever scare to necessary sizes needed.  (imagine a 15ft sphere needed for
display heh)


 Also as said, lenticular display is garbage.  Heres some fun quotes:


 "Another problem with lenticular displays is that it depends upon the audience being in a sweet spot to get the 3-D effect. If you were to move to the left or right from one of these sweet spots, the image on the screen would begin to blur. Once you moved from one sweet spot to another, the image would return to a cohesive picture. Future televisions may include a camera that tracks your position. The television will be able to adjust the image so that you're always in a sweet spot. Whether this will work for multiple viewers of the same screen remains to be seen.

Some people experience a feeling similar to motion sickness after watching a lenticular display for more than a few minutes. That's probably because your eyes have to do extra work as they deal with the discrepancy between focus and convergence"

 
 So, its glasses... or HMD Goggles for many years to come, IMOP.   
Sadly, HMDs still are fairly low res... and are way too expensive.  Ugg.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: RayB on January 04, 2010, 11:30:37 am
Jim, I had that problem when watching Coraline, but not when watching Avatar.

By the way, how the heck are the glasses uncomfortable? They're pretty much designed in standard ray-ban knock-off sunglasses style. (RealD)


Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: saint on January 04, 2010, 12:10:00 pm
They need to come up with some mechanism for those of us who wear glasses. Stacking the 3d glasses on top is uncomfortable and they tend to slip around.

That said, I had no ill effects from the 3d in this movie, and I *always* have ill effects from 3d movies. I can't play first person shooters because I get motion sick.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: RayB on January 04, 2010, 07:34:43 pm
Finally, proof Jim has a big head.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Xiaou2 on January 04, 2010, 10:52:04 pm

 Ive not had the blur issue with polarized glasses... unless the glasses were
dirty / oily  or seriously scratched.   Before the film starts, hold them up to the light
and make sure they are crystal clear.   If scratched too much, try to trade for another
pair.

 Polarized glasses should not produce any blur unless they are dirty,  OR,  if the
film itself has issues.   (Which was the case with the older 3d filming technology)


 With polarization, you see the images fine anywhere in the 60+ feet wide
seating.   That would never be possible with lenticular display.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: protokatie on January 05, 2010, 02:31:24 am
Tigger, you missed the point. The poster said that if you don't keep you head straight you get a blur effect. This is due to both eyes seeing what was intended for each eye individualy. This happens with any polarizing filter set if you tilt your head, hell this will even happen to a different extent if using LCD or even red/cyan lenses.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Xiaou2 on January 05, 2010, 04:01:50 am

 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.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: RayB on January 05, 2010, 03:11:31 pm

 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".
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Ginsu Victim on January 05, 2010, 03:57:00 pm
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.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: danny_galaga on January 06, 2010, 05:57:02 am

So, how about that movie, eh?
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: saint on January 06, 2010, 08:35:04 am
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)?

Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Blanka on January 06, 2010, 09:55:18 am
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.   ;D
The best Cameron I know is the one without any CGI (at least not visible to me): True Lies. By far his best.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Ginsu Victim on January 06, 2010, 10:41:31 am
I love True Lies. It's my second favorite Cameron film (just behind T2).
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: saint on January 06, 2010, 10:51:26 am
I watched the original Stepford Wives and The Others last night.  Enjoyed them quite a bit.

 :dunno

What movies would you consider to be groundbreaking in terms of technology/cgi/animation techniques used (not story line)?
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: RayB on January 06, 2010, 01:13:25 pm
I watched the original Stepford Wives and The Others last night.  Enjoyed them quite a bit.

 :dunno
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!
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Ginsu Victim on January 06, 2010, 02:27:43 pm
I watched the original Stepford Wives and The Others last night.  Enjoyed them quite a bit.

 :dunno
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.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: ark_ader on January 06, 2010, 06:30:52 pm
 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.  :cheers:   
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: protokatie on January 07, 2010, 04:36:27 am
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.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Blanka on January 07, 2010, 05:10:43 am
I enjoyed it, even though it cost nearly 7 pounds (sterling) to see it even with my student discount.  :cheers:   
That's better than 12 euros. :D
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: ammitz on January 07, 2010, 06:17:37 am
I enjoyed it, even though it cost nearly 7 pounds (sterling) to see it even with my student discount.  :cheers:   
That's better than 12 euros. :D
Or 105 danish kroner -> 14 euros
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: shmokes on January 07, 2010, 10:16:51 am
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. 
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: ark_ader on January 07, 2010, 12:50:10 pm
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... :banghead:
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: RayB on January 07, 2010, 02:30:43 pm
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"
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Ginsu Victim on January 07, 2010, 03:09:23 pm
elusivium :lol
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Loafmeister on January 07, 2010, 04:54:19 pm
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.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: danny_galaga on January 08, 2010, 12:27:38 am

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 ;) ).


 :applaud:

Quote

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...
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Cakemeister on January 08, 2010, 10:03:24 am
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.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: shmokes on January 08, 2010, 10:58:55 am

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.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: drventure on January 08, 2010, 11:42:23 am
Quote
elusivium

From the Wiki, I liked "wishalloy"  :)
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: AtomSmasher on January 08, 2010, 01:38:05 pm
@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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upsidaisium)
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Loafmeister on January 08, 2010, 01:43:45 pm

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?
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: saint on January 08, 2010, 03:40:25 pm
It's the #2 grossing movie of all time and on target to reach #1 maybe. *someone* likes it. :)
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Ginsu Victim on January 08, 2010, 03:43:46 pm
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. :lol
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Ginsu Victim on January 08, 2010, 04:10:21 pm
Don't forget that the prices are also higher per ticket because of 3D
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: shmokes on January 08, 2010, 04:55:58 pm
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
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Ginsu Victim on January 08, 2010, 05:01:26 pm
Your examples you just used are the same examples I use. I agree completely.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Loafmeister on January 10, 2010, 01:41:58 am
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.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Loafmeister on January 10, 2010, 01:46:46 am
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.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: shmokes on January 10, 2010, 03:09:27 am
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.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Loafmeister on January 10, 2010, 09:17:50 am
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.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: shmokes on January 10, 2010, 11:55:55 am
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.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Loafmeister on January 10, 2010, 01:12:53 pm
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. :)
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: shmokes on January 10, 2010, 05:11:26 pm
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.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Loafmeister on January 10, 2010, 06:18:09 pm
I'm sure for you it would be friend :).
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: RayB on January 11, 2010, 01:23:13 am
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!
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: saint on January 11, 2010, 09:18:55 am
http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/11/avatar.movie.blues/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/11/avatar.movie.blues/index.html)

Boggle.

Quote
(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.

...
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Ginsu Victim on January 11, 2010, 09:45:50 am
^What a load of...
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Xiaou2 on January 11, 2010, 09:51:00 am
Ray, thats impossible.  Imax has 4times the resolution and your sitting
closer.

 Your Imax theater must have some issues.  Maybe the thing was out
of focus.   Ask for your money back, and demand they fix the problem.

 The Imax here, is crystal clear, and blows the reald screen next to it
away in detail and depth. (The 2 theaters here are owned by the same
company, and sit side by side)


Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Ginsu Victim on January 11, 2010, 11:12:19 am
So, you said it was impossible, then went on to explain how it would be possible.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: SirPeale on January 11, 2010, 01:04:56 pm
LMAO . . . Apparently S-a-ndra Bu-ll-ock is so bad that her name has to be autocensored.

I've got the censor turned off...what does it say otherwise?
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Ginsu Victim on January 11, 2010, 01:06:34 pm
---Smurfette---
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: RayB on January 11, 2010, 01:12:40 pm
Ray, thats impossible.  Imax has 4times the resolution and your sitting
closer.

 Your Imax theater must have some issues.  Maybe the thing was out
of focus.   Ask for your money back, and demand they fix the problem.

 The Imax here, is crystal clear, and blows the reald screen next to it
away in detail and depth. (The 2 theaters here are owned by the same
company, and sit side by side)
It still has a grainy film look, cuz... its film.

And it's stretched to fit a larger screen.

If the movie wasn't rendered to Imax resolution, then guess what?

Also, Imax "HD" runs at 48 fps, which halved to display alternating frames (one for each eye) makes it 24 fps like a standard film. RealD runs at a much higher frame rate.

Last point, RealD via digital projection uses highly reflective screens (much more reflective than standard movie screens). Imax's screen is transparent to allow the sound through from speakers behind the screen (you can see this when they run the little Imax tech demo before every screening). The result was a darker picture than when I saw it in RealD.


Unless you've watched the same movie in both formats, you have no point of reference to be defending one over the other. I don't know why you feel inclined to automatically defend 17+ year old technology. (Hit up the Wiki, and read the part called "Digital Backlash")

Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: shardian on January 11, 2010, 03:39:55 pm
Ray, thats impossible.  Imax has 4times the resolution and your sitting
closer.

 Your Imax theater must have some issues.  Maybe the thing was out
of focus.   Ask for your money back, and demand they fix the problem.

 The Imax here, is crystal clear, and blows the reald screen next to it
away in detail and depth. (The 2 theaters here are owned by the same
company, and sit side by side)
It still has a grainy film look, cuz... its film.

And it's stretched to fit a larger screen.

If the movie wasn't rendered to Imax resolution, then guess what?

Also, Imax "HD" runs at 48 fps, which halved to display alternating frames (one for each eye) makes it 24 fps like a standard film. RealD runs at a much higher frame rate.

Last point, RealD via digital projection uses highly reflective screens (much more reflective than standard movie screens). Imax's screen is transparent to allow the sound through from speakers behind the screen (you can see this when they run the little Imax tech demo before every screening). The result was a darker picture than when I saw it in RealD.


Unless you've watched the same movie in both formats, you have no point of reference to be defending one over the other. I don't know why you feel inclined to automatically defend 17+ year old technology. (Hit up the Wiki, and read the part called "Digital Backlash")



All of the RealD screens in my area are acoustically transparent too. If you can, go up and look closely at the screen material next time you are there. I almost guarantee it will be full of tiny holes just like the IMAX material.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Xiaou2 on January 11, 2010, 06:07:11 pm
Quote
It still has a grainy film look, cuz... its film.

 I did not see any grain at all. Everything was razor sharp.

Quote
And it's stretched to fit a larger screen.

  I believe this film was dumped to imax film in full resolution.
No stretching.  This means, the typical 2d release has Less detail, as
its being compressed.  (or details left out by dumping a digitally zoomed version)

Quote
If the movie wasn't rendered to Imax resolution, then guess what?

 If this was some ow budget hack job movie, then maybe so.  But Id be pretty certain that a movie on this scale wouldnt cut corners like that.

Quote
Also, Imax "HD" runs at 48 fps, which halved to display alternating frames (one for each eye) makes it 24 fps like a standard film. RealD runs at a much higher frame rate.

 As far as Wiki states, the HD version was limited to non-existant.
Imax for almost any theater is running at 24fps.  However, I believe
they use 2 cameras running at once, thus both eyes are getting
24fps.

 RealD may show at higher frame rates... BUT,  they simply repeat the
same frames multiple times.  This is meant to try to help reduce flicker.
The movie itself is no different.  No additional frames of animation frames.


Quote
Unless you've watched the same movie in both formats, you have no point of reference to be defending one over the other. I don't know why you feel inclined to automatically defend 17+ year old technology. (Hit up the Wiki, and read the part called "Digital Backlash")


 Im not so sure you real and fully understood all the details of the
Backlash.

 1) Analog Imax film is over 4x the resolution of typical film.   Im not
sure how that compares to digital... but if its not the same, it might even
be greater.

 2) Digital Imax projectors, are what people are objecting too:  Because
the digital projection is done with lower resolution than by what is seen
with true Imax FILM.

 
 I guess its possible that I saw a True film Imax showing, rather than
a digital version.  Ill have to check to see what they are doing over there
out of curiosity.

 I will repeat, that I Have seen a RealD movie.  "Coraline 3D", and while
it was good... it did not compare to the Imax that is next door to it.
Not by miles.  In fact, I think the realD was darker than the Imax picture.

 Anyways, It would be interesting to see whats happening here,
and how the experience is so vastly different.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: RayB on January 12, 2010, 02:22:35 pm
Coraline was hand-animated you meecrob! Can you imagine hand-animating something at 60 fps? It would take decades. So they did it at traditional animation frame rates. It's gonna look a bit choppy no matter what the projector is capable of.

I saw AVATAR in RealD. And AVATAR in Imax 3D.  RealD looked better. 'nuff said.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: shmokes on January 12, 2010, 02:32:10 pm
It's worth noting (again) that clarity issues aside, the 3D effects in Coraline put Avatar's to shame.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Ginsu Victim on January 12, 2010, 03:31:20 pm
The depth in Coraline was the best I've seen so far. It's a minor thing, but the kitchen window always blew my mind.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: shardian on January 12, 2010, 04:06:26 pm
Another vote for Coraline. It was a totally immersive! I still love the movie and we have watched it many times on DVD (Yes, I own the actual DVD). It is not the same movie at all in 2D though. Nightmare before Christmas has been in 3D the last 2 years at Halloween, and I have missed it both times unfortunately. I wonder at how good the 3D work is on it.

Avatar's 3d was more like a 2D movie with occasional stereoscopic accents. When it was over, I felt like I had watched a 2D film.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: knave on January 12, 2010, 05:50:19 pm
I watched Avatar in real3D or whatever it is at my local theater and it was great. two days later I drove down and saw it at the nearest Imax theater.

Pro's for the Imax was the bigger screen better 3d glasses, and the 3d effects seem to stand out a little more. The movie itself was just as enjoyable.

I think that my perception of the imax showing was that the aspect ratio was not as wide but that could easilt be because of the curvature of the screen and that the screen was closer.

Both were enjoyable, and it was worth an hour drive to see the Imax showing...I'm not sure if I would go much further though if I had any sort of decent theater close to home.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: HaRuMaN on January 13, 2010, 09:42:12 am
Coraline is creepy as hell and I've always turned it off halfway through.

Wot?
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Malenko on January 13, 2010, 10:18:22 am
PBJ is a wuss if he cant finish Coraline.

(http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/epic-fail-avatar-plot-fail.jpg)
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: shardian on January 13, 2010, 10:35:48 am

(http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/epic-fail-avatar-plot-fail.jpg)

Wow. That really puts it in perspective huh?
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: shardian on January 13, 2010, 10:40:02 am
Coraline is creepy as hell and I've always turned it off halfway through.

I think it'd disturb most kids, but maybe not.

Coraline is creepy as hell! Ironically enough though, my nearly 3 year old daughter LOVES Coraline and Nightmare Before Christmas. Yes Jim, you are a bigger wuss than a 2 year old.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: shardian on January 13, 2010, 12:00:29 pm
Your two year old daughter loves a movie about a girl that hates her parents so much so fantasizes about escaping to a set of new parents?


Yes, my 2 year obviously understands the script well enough to pick out the subtle plot nuances. Anyways, she didn't hate her parents. She loved them deeply but was hurt because they didn't pay attention to her because of their work. I think many of us latch key kids can sympathize with that character.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: shmokes on January 14, 2010, 02:36:12 am
Latch key is two words?  I think I've never seen it written.

My 3 year old loves Coraline and often insists that I call her Coraline.  She also sometimes calls my wife her other mother.  It's hilarious.  There are parts that scare her, though, but not very badly.  For what it's worth, it IS creepy.  But it's brilliantly creepy.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: shmokes on February 02, 2010, 01:32:10 am
LOL . . . good review

Avatar Review (Part 1 of 2) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJarz7BYnHA&feature=player_embedded#)
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Zero_Hour on February 02, 2010, 11:05:36 am
I recommend most of the RedLetterMedia reviews. The 70 min. review evisceration of Phantom Menace is one of the more entertaining things I've seen on youtube.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: dafelandry on February 02, 2010, 11:13:45 am
I seen this movie for the first time in 3d on mushrooms....  :laugh:
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: SNAAKE on February 02, 2010, 12:26:50 pm
does "mushroom" make it even more 3d?? did that make any sense??

I gotta try some of this..ANYTHING..I am too old to never get into something..I never even smoked weed before  :dunno
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: SNAAKE on February 02, 2010, 12:44:48 pm
Aren't you already grown and living with your parents?  I can't believe you don't have a drug habit already.



no I moved out 3 years ago. are you still homosexual and trollling?

I dont even know where to get drugs. is it like in the movies?? walk up to random people in "da hood" and be like "you holdin bro?"
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: shmokes on February 02, 2010, 02:56:35 pm
Yeah . . . it's funny.  I once walked a girl home I was dating and then I cut through a park across the street from he place to get back to the metro stop.  It was about 10:30 pm.  On my way through the park I was offered drugs 3 times.  Weed twice, hash once.  I told her the next day and she was so offended.  She was like, "I've lived there six months and nobody has ever offered me drugs!"  It was so funny, cos it's not so much that she wanted drugs, but that she thought it was sexist, or classist or something.

Anyway, yeah.  Drugs are really easy to find.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: shmokes on February 02, 2010, 04:06:05 pm
I haven't seen the nominations, but I can speak to a few of those movies.

.

Edit: Since writing this post I got around to taking a look at the list of nominees.  I mentioned Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs as competition for Up, but I totally forgot that Coraline and Fantastic Mr. Fox came out in 2009 (hilarious, since I went on and on about Coraline just a few posts up :) ).  I would be perfectly happy to see either of those films win over Up.  
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Ginsu Victim on February 02, 2010, 04:34:34 pm
That's "Death Proof" not "Death Trap," which is still good, it's just Quentin's worst.

A Serious Man is out next week on DVD / Blu-ray. I'll be doing a blind buy. I own and love all of the Coen Bros movies (except The Ladykillers, which I don't count), and I know this will be great as well.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: SNAAKE on February 02, 2010, 04:47:50 pm
serious man is fkn hilarious lol. dont think anyone would regreat buying it.


black dynamite is hilarious too.

cloudy with a chance of meatball >>> UP any day of the week and twice on sundays!

Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: shardian on February 02, 2010, 11:49:06 pm
I seriously hope Coraline beats Up. Up was 'okay', but it wasn't near as good as folks have made it out to be. Movie had a great setup and I cried like a damn baby because of the intro thing. Then it was as if they outsourced the rest of the movie to Dreamworks or something...it was not up to Pixar standards.

I really, really need to see Hurt Locker. Is it on DVD yet?
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: shmokes on February 03, 2010, 01:03:07 am

I really, really need to see Hurt Locker. Is it on DVD yet?


Yes.  And I also edited my earlier post to include thoughts on Coraline.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: bernacj21 on May 24, 2010, 10:14:50 pm
I haven't seen the nominations, but I can speak to a few of those movies.

  • I've said plenty about Avatar.
  • The Blind Side - Haven't seen it, but my brother said Bullock was retarded in it.  He also said that the black guy scored poorly on standardized tests, but he was off the charts on protective instincts.  This should be straight to DVD.
  • District 9 - Liked it a lot, but it was heavy handed in areas (seriously . . . Johanesburg?  like we can't figure out the apartheid references unless you beat us over the head?).  Also, they totally had these complex characters and so on, but then made the villain this ridiculous group right out of a comic book
  • The Hurt Locker - Just a legitimately good movie.  See it.
  • Inglourious Basterds - Worth seeing for many reasons, but not great.  Not Tarantino's worst (that honor goes to Death Trap), but not even remotely thinking about approaching his best.
  • Up - Very good.  Not Pixar's best.  Not nearly their worst.  Probably deserves best Animation, though Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs was very good.  Cloudy doesn't come close to Pixar's movie in terms of technical achievement.
  • A Serioius Man - This damned thing never opened in Miami.  I want to see it and I have no doubt that it will be amazing.  It's made by the best filmmakers of our time, and from what I've read I have the impression that this may be one of their best.  I will probably see it this weekend.  My friend has a screener.
  • Up in the Air - Very good.  I don't know about metaphore, but the dialog was great, the story was great, the characters were complex, the issues people were struggling with felt real and relevant.  The whole film seemed really honest, not to mention timely (with the economy the way it is).  And it was funny.  And it didn't rip us off with a syrupy Hollywood ending.  It was a good show, IMO.
.

Edit: Since writing this post I got around to taking a look at the list of nominees.  I mentioned Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs as competition for Up, but I totally forgot that Coraline and Fantastic Mr. Fox came out in 2009 (hilarious, since I went on and on about Coraline just a few posts up :) ).  I would be perfectly happy to see either of those films win over Up.  


Those movies are very excellent especially the avatar. It was really an amazing movie and also with all artists. I like the story plot of this film and I am sure this will mark another great impact to the history of entertainment.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: HaRuMaN on May 25, 2010, 09:51:20 am
Somebody set up us the bomb.
Title: Re: Avatar - The Movie
Post by: Q*Bert_OP on May 25, 2010, 10:34:29 pm
We get signal!  :afro: