# Avatar : A Movie Revolution?



## LuxLuthor

A pretty convincing article on James Cameron's (Titanic) upcoming 3-D movie.


----------



## Patriot

I think he's a great director and this looks like it will be an amazing film. I'm excited about seeing it. 

I noticed that the trailer note reads, 

"PS: Sadly, without the polarised (*mispelled) *glasses, the trailer will only appear in 2D"

Well, I have polarized glasses left over from the 3D movie "Up" and it doesn't make any difference whether you have them or not for viewing the trailer. If it's not dual projected on a screen or you have a display capable of producing 3D images it's not going to work regardless. 


​


----------



## half-watt

The CGI/CGA looks a lot like some of the video games my adult son plays (e.g., one called "Crysis" (sic) - or something to that effect).

It must be close to 30 years ago that a movie with Albert Finney and Susan Dey was made, called "Looker" (i hope that i'm remembering the correct movie), based upon a Michael Creighton book or screen play (not sure which; i think Creighton also directed it, IIRC). Anyways, one small aspect of the movie was a device which also had application for eliminating the need for human actors in movies - though it was used for other purposes in the movie.

Anyways, it's quite impressive what can be done with CGI/CGA, especially when humans are filmed first going through the motions. However, one aspect that appears to still be lacking (maybe i have just missed it???) is the degree of pathos or emotion that can be seen in actual human faces. Now, maybe movies such as "Avatar" don't require such considering both the plot and the intended audience. At this point, this lack of minute detail may limit the application.

Finally, I think that there is at least one reason (probably more, but for the purposes of this post one will suffice) why live plays are still popular. Plays are closer to reality, as far as the story is concerned, than Movies/TV. You are there with the actors living, so to speak, the story - immersed, both in time and space, there with the actors and viewing the story as it unfolds in real-time. Movies and TV are at least one step removed, at least in space, from this aspect present in stage plays (hence, techniques such as surround sound, 3D, etc. in movies). CGI/CGA is yet [much] further removed - especially when alien worlds and creatures are involved. Sure, cameras can zoom in on actors in TV and movies, whereas we view actors from a greater distance when they are on a stage (probably wouldn't see that drop of sweat on forming and dripping down on Dr. Edgemare's face in that scene from "Total Recall" if it were a stage play), but overall, the "reality" effect is lessened when a screen is substituted for a stage, IMO.

As we remove ourselves further from "reality", we, naturally enough, find fewer and fewer points of similarity of experience, and so find it more difficult to relate to the story.

Anyways, 'nuff said. That's my two shekels on a pretty impressive movie trailer. Hope y'all enjoy it and that it is a successful endeavor for Cameron.


----------



## Flashanator

The jungles look absolutely stunning!!!

Looks like there was floating islands of rock, even saw water falls on them.


----------



## LuxLuthor

Patriot said:


> "PS: Sadly, without the polarised (*mispelled) *glasses, the trailer will only appear in 2D"
> 
> Well, I have polarized glasses left over from the 3D movie "Up" and it doesn't make any difference whether you have them or not for viewing the trailer. If it's not dual projected on a screen or you have a display capable of producing 3D images it's not going to work regardless.



That's all that "old English" way of spelling where they never seem to be able to use a "Z". They can't quite come to terms with having lost the Empire, so they hang onto their "S." 

The writeup I linked, and comments below underscore that this is a whole new technology, using unique polarizing lenses. I don't even think this is the same that was used for "Up," but I'm not 100% sure.

In any case, the trailer was not made in 3D. Maybe they should start selling glasses, and do trailers in 3D? You can read what movie theater owners have said after seeing an actual 20 min presentation. 

Comments at bottom of my thread do correctly claim that plot and other fundamentals will still always be the most important aspects of any movie, however it is dressed up in special/3D effects.

I don't think I would call this the movie revolution akin to B&W==>Color that they speculate.

For that level of a revolution, I'm waiting for a true holographic theater presentation system, which will require a new design with lasers, mirrors, and cameras. You wouldn't need any glasses, and they should give the audience seats that quietly swivel 360 degrees.


----------



## AbleArcher

LuxLuthor said:


> That's all that "old English" way of spelling where they never seem to be able to use a "Z". They can't quite come to terms with having lost the Empire, so they hang onto their "S."



Actually, American English is slightly closer to the Elizabethan 'spell as spoken' English, so technically you use "old English" whereas we use a more modern derivation. And being new here I don't want to annoy anyone but I find the notion that everyone in the UK is upset at having "lost the Empire" a little offensive. If it was meant in jest and I just didn't pick up on it then I apologise / apologize 

Back on topic, the trailer does look good - reminds me a lot of Halo. 3D films have obviously been around for a long time so it will be interesting to see if this one really does break any boundaries. The test will be if it stands up as a 2D film first, with the 3D just adding to the experience.


----------



## Icebreak

I don't know if it's different either. I've seen, I think, every 3D except 3D Harry Potter and this 3D X games that just came out. I couldn't believe what I was seeing the first time. It was so amazing to "see" (decipher) an object out over the crowd.

It was funny when we noticed little kids reaching out during Monsters and Aliens. The asteroids were cool. When they come from behind you that's really unusual. In G-Force some flying critter flew over my left shoulder and scared the shazam out of me and I said so. I don't think I actually said, "shazam!" outloud. Could have been something else.


----------



## blasterman

I recall seeing Polar Express in IMAX / 3D twice. The effect was stunning and seamless with CGI characters. The film sold out for months.

I was excited about Avatar, until I saw the trailer. Cheesy, big eyed aliens from Disney meant to draw empathy from the audience, and terran military units obviously borrowed from Peter Jackson's failed Halo project. 

Sorry to be so negative, but Cameron is obviously a bit stuck on himself. He gets a new GF with each flick he directs, so in that respect I'm willing to help. To bad we're not going to see something really cool brought to the big screen like 'Ringworld' or something. Instead we get 'Dances with Wolves' on Dagobah.


----------



## Crenshaw

a friend of mine won tickets to, erm, either the preview of the preview, or something, he was VERY excited about it.

Crenshaw


----------



## Mjolnir

It does seem sort of like Crysis as far as how the jungles look, but I would think that this movie was rendered using ray tracing, and not with traditional polygons like Crysis and all other current video games.


----------



## HoopleHead

I've been stoked for this for a while now! Can't wait.


----------



## blasterman

> not with traditional polygons like Crysis and all other current video games


 
Actually, it's all similiar technology. All CGI objects are constructed of basic primitives, but it's movement and texture that makes things look real.

Jurassic Park solved the problem with movement and 'bend and squish' of CGI rendered animals. Lord of the Rings / Gollum was the next revolution with the translucency algorithms used to make skin textures look real. Video games have to rely on pre-built engines, otherwise they crawl.


----------



## Icebreak

Saw the non-3D trailer in the Cinema Saturday night. We went to see the Tarantino flick. The Avatar looked interesting enough to go see. There seemed to be some broad use of fluorescent colors. This will be, for me, one of those deals where I don't know anything about it, won't make the effort to find out anything about it and just see how it goes.

I knew nothing about GI Joe except for that when I was a kid I had no desire to have one. 007 briefcase and gun and stuff heck yes. The movie was quite enjoyable. Cool vehicles and equipment plus...A GIRL FIGHT!

Avatar will be interesting.


----------



## Mjolnir

blasterman said:


> Actually, it's all similiar technology. All CGI objects are constructed of basic primitives, but it's movement and texture that makes things look real.
> 
> Jurassic Park solved the problem with movement and 'bend and squish' of CGI rendered animals. Lord of the Rings / Gollum was the next revolution with the translucency algorithms used to make skin textures look real. Video games have to rely on pre-built engines, otherwise they crawl.



No, ray tracing is different from how video games render objects. With ray tracing, the images are created by determining how light is scattered off of objects, which is how we see objects in everyday life. Apparently the movie "Cars" was done with Ray tracing, but I am unable to find what other movies were.


----------



## LuxLuthor

New, better looking trailer out that looks more interesting. 

Also showing giant 4 screen promo at NFL Cowboys/Seahawks game Sunday.


----------



## elgarak

Does anyone else feel both overwhelmed and disappointed by this new trailer?

From a technical viewpoint, the new trailer is stunning -- beautiful scenery, much better CGI.

But from what we can glean into the writing and the story, the movie appears abysmal. Humanoid, English-speaking aliens, close to nature, fighting for their home, with a love story between an alien/native and a human? Now, how often have we seen that story?

It would have been so much cooler and satisfying if the aliens would have been truly alien, no human-like body, no language, no common ground between aliens and humans.

There's of course the hope (mostly by the studios, I'm afraid) that the 3D presentation, not possible at home, will save theaters. I am pessimistic that this will work. In my experience, good movies (I mean really good ones -- the ones you call great) do not rely on such technological gimmicks. Sure, I prefer if movies are experienced with the real deal, big screens, loud surround sound, correct aspect ratio, uncut -- but there are a few movies, the ones I consider the best ever, which I can watch and enjoy even if all those things are not there. Movies with an engaging story, told in a way that you forget watching a movie, even if it's on TV, in fullscreen, mono, edited and with commercial breaks.

"Avatar" does not seem to belong in this category.


----------



## LuxLuthor

It seems to me you are making a lame comment for no good reason. :shakehead

It appears abysmal? Doesn't belong in [your judgemental] category? 

You have NEVER been able to judge any movie based on a trailer. Period! Trailers exist for the sole pupose of creating buzz, and increasing awareness of a movie.

Obviously, like any movie it will stand on the basics. 3D has never been done well, and he is using filming equipment that has never existed before, so it might also be a mind blowing effect. Also obviously, you did not bother to read the dismissive comments Cameron himself made about the 3D effect in my OP link.

Let's see...James Cameron....does he have any credibility that entitles us to give him the benefit of the doubt? 


Titanic
Terminator
Terminator 2
Terminator 3
Rambo First Blood
Aliens
The Abyss
True Lies
Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles
Dark Angel
I guess you are right. All his movies and everythihg about him sucks. :shakehead

As far as humanoid based aliens, almost every blockbuster sci-fi film I can think of humanizes the alien(s) to some degree--some more than others. With a story of a human remotely controlling an avatar alien body, it makes perfect sense to have one that is relateable to the human and the audience.

Maybe you prefer they remotely control a Jabba The Hutt sliming around? :shakehead Oh wait. He has humanoid eyes, nose, mouth and two arms. Scratch that idea.


----------



## DM51

Patriot said:


> ... polarised (*mispelled) *


 


LuxLuthor said:


> That's all that "old English" way of spelling


 


AbleArcher said:


> ... American English is slightly closer to the Elizabethan 'spell as spoken' English


I'm surprised nobody pointed out that while "polarised" can be spelled with a 's' or 'z' depending on English or US convention, "mispelled" was itself misspelled there, lol.


----------



## Icebreak

Hello. Post blown away.

Crap. Not inspired to redo it. I've seen the 3D version in theaters. Not spectacular to me but I'll go see the movie. It's definitely pleasing to the eye. I believe they are attempting to bring the spectacular effect of an animation like _Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs_ to a film based motion picture. Hopefully it will be available in 52' x 72' format. IMAX 3D is down right immersive and at times, atmospheric. In the trailer there was a hint that the humans were up to so no good beyond just manifest destiny.


----------



## PhantomPhoton

Not sure about the movie yet but I'll likely go see it. Thanks for the link Lux... 1080p goodness. mmmmmm.


----------



## Sgt. LED

I'll see it based on how it looks visually in the trailer. 
However, the good and nature loving alien VS evil military human thing is a bit worn and heavy. I must admit I hated Ewoks but liked ALL of Star Wars, almost, but that's TOO off topic.

It'll get my money so my opinon means nothing LOL!


----------



## ypsifly

We have an IMAX where I work and it will be here! 

There is no 3D like the IMAX format. We saw _Under the Sea_ last winter and it was amazing.


----------



## LuxLuthor

So far it seems to be exceeding the hype.

Groundbreaking

First Review

Sigourney Weaver Interview/report

I'm just upset I don't have an IMAX near me.


----------



## LuxLuthor

OK, I have just decided to travel 45 miles to the nearest IMAX theater just to see this movie. I would never have considered that with any movie.


----------



## csshih

report back quickly! :wave:


----------



## BVH

Nearest IMAX to me is about 165 miles :shakehead Sure would like to see it there but will probably just go to the local T here on opening day.


----------



## LEDninja

I only use one eye at a time so 3D is a problem for me. Hope the story is good enough to watch if I can find it in 2D.


----------



## Jay R

LuxLuthor said:


> where they never seem to be able to use a "Z". They can't quite come to terms with having lost the Empire, so they hang onto their "S."


 
 Not so much that we want to hang onto our ‘S’, more likely that we know how to speak a correctly spelled word and therefore don’t feel we need to simplify the spelling just so’s we can understand how to pronounce it.


----------



## HoopleHead

I can already say I'm going to see it a minimum twice on IMAX.


----------



## blasterman

> Hope the story is good enough to watch if I can find it in 2D.


 
Don't count on it - still wondering if Kevin Costner is going to make an appearance in the film with a heard of space buffalo.

While technically Cameron has always been on the ball, he's about as deep as Michael Bay.


----------



## LuxLuthor

blasterman said:


> I recall seeing Polar Express in IMAX / 3D twice. The effect was stunning and seamless with CGI characters. The film sold out for months.
> 
> I was excited about Avatar, until I saw the trailer. Cheesy, big eyed aliens from Disney meant to draw empathy from the audience, and terran military units obviously borrowed from Peter Jackson's failed Halo project.
> 
> Sorry to be so negative, but Cameron is obviously a bit stuck on himself. He gets a new GF with each flick he directs, so in that respect I'm willing to help. To bad we're not going to see something really cool brought to the big screen like 'Ringworld' or something. Instead we get 'Dances with Wolves' on Dagobah.





blasterman said:


> Don't count on it - still wondering if Kevin Costner is going to make an appearance in the film with a heard of space buffalo.
> 
> While technically Cameron has always been on the ball, he's about as deep as Michael Bay.



You are repeating yourself. We are already clear that you are absolutely certain based upon seeing trailers that it therefore totally sucks...never mind the ongoing positive reviews. The rest of us will somehow have to suffer through enjoying it despite the killjoy assessments. Thank you, drive through.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091211/REVIEWS/912119998
http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117941773.html?categoryid=31&cs=1
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/avatar/
http://www.cinemablend.com/dvds/Avatar-2043.html
http://screencrave.com/2009-12-11/avatar-movie-review/
http://www.flixster.com/movie/avatar
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/reviewsnews.php?id=61567
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.a...7941779&grpId=3659174697244816&nav=Groupspace
http://www.empiremovies.com/2009/12/10/avatar-movie-review/

OK, got my IMAX ticket for 3pm show next Friday. Big W00T

.


----------



## Seb71

At one point in the trailer it is explained to us that the reason the humans invade the alien planet is an anti-gravitational mineral (probably the floating islands seen in the trailer are made from that mineral) that sells for 20.000.000 a kilogram. But I have a question: how do you weight an anti-gravitational rock?


----------



## blasterman

> We are already clear that you are absolutely certain based upon seeing trailers that it therefore totally sucks...never mind the ongoing positive reviews.


 
I'll take critical skepticism over a yet to be released film over the *more annoying types* that stand in line before the they've seen a film proclaming how awesome it is. The later should be reserved for giggling teen girls going to see Vampire flicks, but perhaps I'm wrong.

The critics you've listed, including Ebert, are easily amazed types that have given films like Star Wars: Phantom Menace four stars as well.

Cameron will likely make his loot, and while I liked 'Titanic' and hauled around an xpensive set of CAV format laserdiscs of 'The Abyss' long before DVD's came out, I just don't get why Cameron gets this kind of hype. If he's 'King of the World' then Michael Bay is god emperor of the universe. At least use a story other than one I read in 'Heavy Metal' back in 1980.

Let me guess...the bad guys in this film will all be white, American, and many appearing in previous Cameron films. The aliens will have big eyes and be marketed at McDonalds. !Bing, bing bing, Bing!


----------



## Flashlight Aficionado

Seb71 said:


> But I have a question: how do you weight an anti-gravitational rock?



Turn the scale upside down. In other words attach the scale upside down to the underside of a table. Then place anti-gravitational rock under the table right below the scale.


----------



## Seb71

Based on the trailer, the reading will be zero by using the upside down scale. The rock in the trailer (and also the floating islands) is stationary (I mean that it is not gaining altitude - it just floats). And even if it did gain altitude, you would measure the ascensional force of the rock (anti-gravity force), not it's mass.

A better line would be: "this little gray rock sells for 20.000.000 a liter" (or some other price per unit of volume).

Or "20.000.000 for a piece of rock that can carry 1 kg of cargo in Earth's gravity" or something like that.

I am assuming that the mineral in question has anti-gravitational properties and it is not just a super light density mineral that floats in the air because of that (like a hot air balloon).


----------



## bstrickler

Seb71 said:


> Based on the trailer, the reading will be zero by using the upside down scale. The rock in the trailer (and also the floating islands) is stationary (I mean that it is not gaining altitude - it just floats). And even if it did gain altitude, you would measure the ascensional force of the rock (anti-gravity force), not it's mass.



Why would it be gaining altitude in a place with no gravity, when there's no gravity for it to push against? Or are you accounting for the gravity that objects themselves have? If that were the case, it would be rising EXTREMELY slow. The wind would affect it more than the gravity from the aliens & objects.

~Brian


----------



## Seb71

bstrickler said:


> Why would it be gaining altitude in a place with no gravity, when there's no gravity for it to push against?


That scene is supposed to take place on the alien planet (he says: "this is why we are here"). Or maybe he is on Earth; in any case, he does not seem to be in space, in a spaceship (or if he is on a spaceship at that moment, then this spaceship has artificial gravity). When we are shown the floating rock, the character played by Giovanni Ribisi is sitting on a chair, he is not floating around (also look at the various objects in the room - everything suggest an environment subjected to a gravitational force). The only thing that is floating around in that scene is the alien rock. There is the gravity of the planet. Also the floating islands are on the alien planet not somewhere in space (so they are subject to the gravity of the planet).


----------



## Benson

Seb71 said:


> At one point in the trailer it is explained to us that the reason the humans invade the alien planet is an anti-gravitational mineral (probably the floating islands seen in the trailer are made from that mineral) that sells for 20.000.000 a kilogram. But I have a question: how do you weight an anti-gravitational rock?



Kilograms don't measure weight, they measure mass. If it accelerates at 1 m/s^2 when hit with a 1 N force, it has a mass of one kg.

Of course, it's not at all clear how a rock with positive mass can be weightless in a normal gravitational field, but given that it does, the notion of selling it by the kg makes perfect sense.


----------



## Seb71

I know that kilogram is the unit for mass.

That was my initial question: How do you know that you have x kilograms of that mineral? How do you determine the mass of a rock with anti-gravitational properties?

I used the the term "weight" with the meaning of "determining/measuring the mass of one object" (founding how many kilograms it weights).


----------



## Mjolnir

Are you all really debating how to measure the mass of a purely fictional substance? This is a movie, not real life. You might as well be arguing about how long the average unicorn horn is...


----------



## Seb71

That is correct, if Avatar is a Fantasy movie. In that case they may say that the rock is magical and be done with it. But from the trailer it seems that Avatar intends to be a regarded as a Science Fiction movie, so I expect to at least try to make some sense.


----------



## Mjolnir

If Star Trek can get away with "Heisenberg Compensators" and the absurdly impossible transporter and still be called science fiction, then I'm pretty sure no one else will care about a lack of specificity in how the mass of an object that is not affected by gravity is measured.


----------



## Seb71

Heisenberg Compensators were introduced in Star Trek just because they cared about science and tried to came up with a plausible-sounding explanation.

In Avatar it looks that they could not afford some science advisers. All the money went to CGI guys.


----------



## Benson

Seb71 said:


> I know that kilogram is the unit for mass.
> 
> That was my initial question: How do you know that you have x kilograms of that mineral? How do you determine the mass of a rock with anti-gravitational properties?
> 
> I used the the term "weight" with the meaning of "determining/measuring the mass of one object" (founding how many kilograms it weights).


Aha, misunderstood your question. But the answer's essentially the same -- since mass is an inertial property, use an inertial balance. Apply a force and measure the acceleration, or apply an acceleration (e.g. with a centrifuge) and measure the force. Arrange your apparatus perpendicular to the local gravitation field, and weight/antiweight has no effect.


----------



## Mjolnir

Seb71 said:


> Heisenberg Compensators were introduced in Star Trek just because they cared about science and tried to came up with a plausible-sounding explanation.
> 
> In Avatar it looks that they could not afford some science advisers. All the money went to CGI guys.



Really? Are you saying that, because Star Trek had science advisers, Heisenberg compensators are any more possible than antigravity material? Something that negates a fundamental physics principle is far less possible than antigravity (which could very well be possible). I am positive that Star Trek has far more instances of impossible science than this movie will, just by virtue of how many hours of various star trek series there are. 
You can't get a science adviser to explain how antigravity works, since _we have not discovered it yet!_ Do you honestly expect them to adequately explain something that we currently have no working knowledge of? 
Science ficion is often simply fantasy with "sciency sounding" terms. Sometimes it is based on fact, but it is often extended beyond that into the realm of fantasy, and often contradicts what we know to be possible.


----------



## Seb71

@*Benson*
That may work, but i still find easier to just measure the volume of the rock.

With my initial comment, I intended to show that when they made the Avatar movie they didn't care about science.

@*Mjolnir*
Of course that a Science Fiction movie (or book) uses concepts that contradicts what we know today to be possible. It would not be Science Fiction if it didn't. It would be a science documentary. The viewer/reader has to accept some conventions (like interstelar starships, time travel), otherwise the story would not be possible. I didn't ask for an explanation of how the anti-gravity works. I accept that it just works (in the movie). I asked how do they measure the mass of that anti-gravity rock.


----------



## LuxLuthor

blasterman said:


> I'll take critical skepticism over a yet to be released film over the *more annoying types* that stand in line before the they've seen a film proclaming how awesome it is. The later should be reserved for giggling teen girls going to see Vampire flicks, but perhaps I'm wrong.
> 
> The critics you've listed, including Ebert, are easily amazed types that have given films like Star Wars: Phantom Menace four stars as well.



Why am I not surprised that you casually dismissed all of the reviews since they all present a uniformly positive experience by people who have actually seen the movie, vs. niggling trailer analysts. I have never met one intelligent reviewer who makes a judgement of an entire movie experience based upon a montage of selected promo clips. 

There are in fact discerning and critical reviews amidst the remarkably high Rotten Tomatoes collective 90% score, some with seemingly good reasoning, but at least they are based upon seeing the entire film. Here is a mediocre review just to make you feel right as rain.



blasterman said:


> Cameron will likely make his loot, and while I liked 'Titanic' and hauled around an xpensive set of CAV format laserdiscs of 'The Abyss' long before DVD's came out, I just don't get why Cameron gets this kind of hype. If he's 'King of the World' then Michael Bay is god emperor of the universe. At least use a story other than one I read in 'Heavy Metal' back in 1980.


 
Cameron's tongue-in-cheek "King of the World" proclamation after winning 11 Oscars is only taken seriously by insecure & bitter sycophants. As I said previously, but apparently 'we' are slow on the uptake...his attention is commensurate with a string of highly successful motion pictures that include Titanic, Aliens, Abyss, Terminator, Rambo, True Lies, Dark Angel, etc. 

If one takes the time to read about his uneducated, unsophistocated background, his personal insecurities, simple-minded approaches, and lack of intricate movie complexity makes perfect sense. The point is that there is plenty of room for a wide diversity of artistic expressions among movies...and most people only judge by whether or not they had an entertaining experience.



blasterman said:


> Let me guess...the bad guys in this film will all be white, American, and many appearing in previous Cameron films. The aliens will have big eyes and be marketed at McDonalds. !Bing, bing bing, Bing!


I'm not expecting to watch a Tarantino, Coen, Scorsese, Spielberg film. I'm expecting to have an overall experience of having been entertained and immersed into the Sci-Fi world. Personally, I thought Titanic was mediocre at best in comparison to my list of greatest films...yet I did leave feeling entertained and that I got my money's worth. Also despite what I think, there is that perplexing enigma of its total sales. 

What I give Cameron credit for is that he makes sure the person who buys a ticket will feel like they have been entertained and got their $12 worth. Without any doubt, the CGI & 3-D special effects are revolutionary and set a new standard for the future of the movie industry. That alone makes it worth watching and promoting. 

One last thing...does someone have a gun to your head, forcing you to go see this movie that you love to hate so much?


----------



## Daniel_sk

I am going to see the movie (in 3D) tomorrow, I am really looking forward to it. The ticket cost me about 10$ (here in Slovakia), how much did you guys pay?


----------



## LuxLuthor

$11 for a matinee afternoon showing in 3D IMAX


----------



## Seb71

Around 7 USD in my town in Romania for Avatar 3D (not IMAX) and around 5.50 USD for Avatar. Avatar IMAX 3D (not available in my town, only in Bucharest) - around 12 USD.

First run on December 17, 22:00 UTC (December 18, 00:00 EET).


----------



## Daniel_sk

Comparable prices. I forgot to add that the ticket is for IMAX 3D. I haven't seen a IMAX 3D movie yet.


----------



## flashy bazook

I think Cameron did spend effort and resources to support the behind-the-scenes "reality" of Avatar.

I read for example that he hired a linguistics professor to invent a proper language for the Avatar aliens.

He also waited for 15 years (or so) to film the movie because he was not satisfied with the state of technology available then.

There are good reasons for movies to want to move on technologically, now that houses have big screens at HiDef. The 3-D technology is (still) not widely available so it may be something to draw the crowds.

I have observed over the years that movies have lost much of their magic. It is often not a very popular suggestion to go out to see a movie; and if a movie is shown even in a house, it can be very difficult to get people to maintain focus (they start getting up, multitask, etc.). Basically if the movie is just a little-bit away from their main interests, they have trouble staying with it.

Personally, I am very much looking forward to getting to see the movie with the snazzy new technology. For example, the cameras were manufactured specially so they are lighter. Cameron had a nifty little hand-held gadget that would show him the movie background IN REAL TIME!! In other words, as the actors run through their scenes against a blue-screen background, computers would generate the appropriate background and render a rough approximation of it. This would allow Cameron to frame the shots better and quicker.

I have tried not to follow too much details about the movie itself, of course it is not possible to skip it entirely. I agree that the theme of colonialism and exploitation of the unspoiled wilderness is a bit old. But, it will allow for stunning landscape shots so...probably it can be appropriate for this movie.

Cameron kept complete control. When he first pitched the idea to Fox studio executives, their first question was a bit surprising: can we get rid of the aliens' tails? He said...NO. After that, they stopped asking questions and just let him get on with it.

Eventually, I suppose, 3-D will lose its magic, and seem more of an unnecessary novelty (or taken for granted). Not sure what movies will do at that point to keep audiences returning? Maybe that will be the end? (well, that AND the endless re-makes...).


----------



## Stillphoto

Cameron was interviewed on the local news this morning. Visit this site and look for the interview if interested.

http://www.ktla.com/entertainment/


----------



## LuxLuthor

Holy Crap! Read this review from James Cameron's arch-nemesis critic, Kenneth Turan, from the LA Times which developed into a vituperous conflict after Turan's repeated trashing of Titanic.

This is one of the most meaningful reviews from the most unlikely of sources. It describes the exact experience I was hoping for in going to see this movie tomorrow.

Now I really can't wait.


----------



## bstrickler

Mjolnir said:


> Are you all really debating how to measure the mass of a purely fictional substance? This is a movie, not real life. You might as well be arguing about how long the average unicorn horn is...



We debate because its mental stimulation! 

You gotta keep your mind healthy somehow!

Plus, its fun, hearing all the answers people come up with, and I find it amazing how much knowledge some people have.

~Brian


----------



## Mike Painter

half-watt said:


> However, one aspect that appears to still be lacking (maybe i have just missed it???) is the degree of pathos or emotion that can be seen in actual human faces.


That will come with time and processing power. It will require the ability to add chaotic action to all parts of the face and mimic the little tiny details that give rise to our understanding of a look. Chaos is why even the best rendition of trees blowing in the wind don't look quite real.
Just remember it's all pixels. Fake or "real"



> Finally, I think that there is at least one reason (probably more, but for the purposes of this post one will suffice) why live plays are still popular. Plays are closer to reality, as far as the story is concerned, than Movies/TV.



I believe my imagination is better than any CGI presentation and in a play I have to use my imagination to fill the gaps.


----------



## Stillphoto

IMAX 3D seats reserved for Tuesday! Preferred to wait till I could reserve seats for the center of the front row of the second tier, figured I was paying enough, might as well go for optimal placement.


----------



## LuxLuthor

bstrickler said:


> We debate because its mental stimulation!
> 
> You gotta keep your mind healthy somehow!
> 
> Plus, its fun, hearing all the answers people come up with, and I find it amazing how much knowledge some people have.
> 
> ~Brian
> 
> 
> Mjolnir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you all really debating how to measure the mass of a purely fictional substance? This is a movie, not real life. You might as well be arguing about how long the average unicorn horn is...
Click to expand...


Plus there is no question on the length of a unicorn. Everyone knows they are 20" long. However measuring the mass of a waiting to be discovered "unobtanium" sample is indeed worth exploring.

3:45pm today, baby. I'll be in another world.


----------



## LuxLuthor

3D Standards just finalized for BluRay.


----------



## Seb71

I just saw Avatar (in 3D). I would say it is a beautiful movie. Not really a Science Fiction movie, it's more a Fantasy movie, but a must see one.


----------



## get-lit

*Michael Moore is coming out with a whole new series of 3D movie I can't wait to see...*

*Rolling for Cannabine*
*Overweight 911*
*Fatso*
*Metabolism: A Love Story*


----------



## BVH

Seb71 said:


> I just saw Avatar (in 3D). I would say it is a beautiful movie. Not really a Science Fiction movie, it's more a Fantasy movie, but a must see one.



I have not been able to say "what a great movie" or that I loved a movie in literally decades. That's over now. This movie is FABULOUS! Both in the technical and story sense. We saw the 12:01 AM premier in an IMAX theater 125 miles from home. Got home at 5:30 AM. It was well worth the drive! HIGHLY recommended!!

I don't know if the movie is out in conventional 2-D but if it is, do NOT ruin it by seeing it in 2-D the first time. If you must, see it is 2-D the second time.


----------



## Alaric Darconville

There was a bit in a preview for it that really annoyed me. It seemed that the guy in his "avatar" form says "Let's take back what is ours" or something similar-- and I had to ask "what do you mean 'ours', whitey?"


----------



## Seb71

Alaric Darconville said:


> There was a bit in a preview for it that really annoyed me. It seemed that the guy in his "avatar" form says "Let's take back what is ours" or something similar-- and I had to ask "what do you mean 'ours', whitey?"





________________Spoiler alert!






























Select the text below to read it.
It is explained in the movie how Jake Sully (white guy) becomes a member of Na'vi people (blue guys).


----------



## get-lit

I can't wait to see it in 3D, but I'll have to get over how the blue people look kind of retarded. That's a little distracting.


----------



## Seb71

How do you know how a retarded alien looks like?


----------



## get-lit

They just took a person and widened the eyes and nose, and made them blue to counter the lack of creativity. They could at least have done some creative things with the golden ratio to mimic the rest of life's creatures so that it didn't just look like a kid's crayola creation.


----------



## Seb71

Maybe on Pandora (alien planet from Avatar movie) they have a different "golden" (esthetically pleasing) ratio than Earth's 1.618.


----------



## get-lit

The laws of physics aren't just limited to Earth. A snow flake is a snow flake no matter where it forms.


----------



## Seb71

I was referring to what is considered esthetically pleasing on Earth, not to laws of physics. Anyway, Avatar should be regarded as a Fantasy movie, not as a Science Fiction one. And in a fantastic world, laws of physics sometimes don't apply.


----------



## Stillphoto

So without spoiling it, I'd love to know: How was the 3D element of the film? Film companies are currently banking on Avatar bringing this "gimmick" into new territory. Less "Ooh this is something long pointing out into the audience" and more of a textural depth creating way.

At this year's cinegear expo (where all the latest film making toys are shown off and where there are a ton of big lights...weeee!) a lot of companies were showing off their 3D camera rigs and preview systems. 

This is a big deal in the film world, because right now many people skip seeing movies in theaters because they can find pirated versions on the interwebs or they just wait for the dvd to be released (not everyone, but a good number). The goal is to get people to actually go to theaters again like they used to by creating an experience they can't get at home, at least for now. There's a renewed "gotta see it in the theater" sense. Then the idea of seeing non 3D movies at the theaters will hopefully seem more reasonable to consumers again (especially at "non 3D" prices haha).


----------



## LuxLuthor

OH MY GOD! The last time I felt this way about any movie was the first time Star Wars played with its new special effects, and before that the first time I saw Wizard of Oz as a kid. 

This was a magical experience, and I really don't like going to a movie theater and dealing with all the distractions, but being in the theater became invisible. The 2 hrs 30 mins felt like 30 mins, and I'll probably go see it again within a few days with some family and friends. This was as powerful for me as seeing a quality live, Broadway show, or live Opera in New York City.

DO NOT SEE THIS IN 2D !!! After my 3D IMAX was over I went into a 2nd showing at the theater complex which also had a large digital 3D screen, and I was again immediately immersed in that showing almost to the same degree. I watched the last 45 minutes of it which felt like 5-10 mins went by. It was just as enjoyable of an experience.

The breakthrough miracle that this movie accomplishes is powerfully taking the audience into the alien world like you are actually in "Jake's skin" in the Avatar body. With the superb way the 3D was done in various views, you know you are experiencing something that you have not been exposed to before...and that contributes enormously to teleporting you into this alien but exquisitely beautiful, profoundly colored, and complex lush natural environments. 

These are the most beautiful & colorful nature scenes I have seen in a movie, even though it is CGI on the alien planet of James Cameron's mind. It is more beautiful than Crouching Tiger, Hero, LOTR Trilogy, 300, Bladerunner (final cut on BluRay), etc. One of the things Cameron did was make the world very alive with animals, plants, insects, characters. I almost felt like I was hallucinating how various Pandora scenes smelled and tasted, like my imagination was so engaged that it was inventing other sensory input. 

In the beginning of the movie, I and many people around me were saying "WOW" a lot because the quality of the 3D makes you much more a part of the movie, but you know you have not seen anything like this before. Then after that initial "being dazzled" by the miraculous 3D somehow becomes normal, you get pulled into the movie in a way that I have not experienced before. Unlike other 3D movies, your attention is not drawn to the technology as much as you are left with more powerful and immersive involvement with the movie. Personally, I don't think Cameron should have allowed this to be shown at 2D theaters, because it won't have the magical impact that he intended.

The plot and character interactions were actually much better than I was expecting after reading all the trashing by people like those in this thread. One aspect that suprised me the most was how the beauty and scenery became such an intoxicating element, you almost didn't notice whether people were being too predictable in their dialogue or whatever else blasterman was saying above. 

True the story did not evoke as profound of emotions as have other movies I have seen, nor was it as deeply thought provoking afterwards. But this was a magical experience none-the-less. It took you directly into a world, and once there, I didn't want to leave it...and for a 2 1/2 hour movie to feel like it was only 30 minutes tells you a lot. Even now, back home writing this....I wish I could go back into the Avatar world--it was that intoxicating.

The actual 3D glasses were very comfortable and slipped over my prescription glasses easily. I never noticed I had them on the entire time from a physical sensation. A couple times I lifted them up just to see what the movie would look like in 2-D, and I was horrified at how my experience of being immersed in the Avatar world was gone.

Without question, I will see this movie at least 4-5 more times, and ONLY in a 3D theater. It is not critical that it be seen in IMAX, but true, quality 3D theaters are not all that common for some reason. In southeast CT, out of about 15 movie theater complexes, only one has true digital 3D. There is only one 3D IMAX theater in the state. The impact of this movie and immersion into the magical world is a fulfillment of what 3D has been trying to accomplish. For that alone, Cameron deserves enormous credit.

I would buy a specially designed 3D television and necessary blu-ray if needed just to watch this movie again at home.

Some people will love this movie (in 3D) more than others, but do not let anyone's opinion about it--especially made by viewing preview trailers--keep you from seeing it for yourself. Even writing all these gushing accolades, I'm not even scratching the surface on how powerful and enjoyable of a movie experience I had from this.


----------



## RyanA

It looks cool. I haven't seen it, but the plot seems like Pocahontas with aliens.


----------



## LuxLuthor

RyanA said:


> It looks cool. I haven't seen it, but the plot seems like Pocahontas with aliens.



That's akin to saying The Godfather trilogy seems like a bunch of Sicilians that come to America, or Lord of the Rings seems like a bunch of wizards, elves, and dwarves wandering around in an enchanted forest, or Dances with Wolves seems like another American western that abuses Native Americans.


----------



## Patriot

I'm very impressed with the report of your movie experience Lux. I may have to go see what all the excitement is about but perhaps I'll let things settle a bit before heading down to my IMAX, which is typically busy all the time no matter what.


----------



## Mjolnir

Wow Lux, it seems like this movie is some sort of opiate if you are going to see it 4 or 5 times. It seems like it is a truly new experience from the way you are describing it. Did you feel like you were on a holodeck at any point?

All of the reviews and feedback that I have heard about the movie have been pretty much unanimously positive. I just saw an ad for the movie, and even on my 720P 50 inch plasma the realism was amazing. I can only imagine how amazing this would be in Imax with 3D.
The glasses were polarized 3D glasses, right? 

Also, is the Showcase Cinemas Imax theater in Buckland Hills the one that is showing it in 3D in CT? That theater is only 20 minutes away from where I live, so it seems like it would be pretty foolish to not see it.


----------



## LuxLuthor

Mjolnir said:


> Wow Lux, it seems like this movie is some sort of opiate if you are going to see it 4 or 5 times. It seems like it is a truly new experience from the way you are describing it. Did you feel like you were on a holodeck at any point?
> 
> All of the reviews and feedback that I have heard about the movie have been pretty much unanimously positive. I just saw an ad for the movie, and even on my 720P 50 inch plasma the realism was amazing. I can only imagine how amazing this would be in Imax with 3D.
> The glasses were polarized 3D glasses, right?
> 
> Also, is the Showcase Cinemas Imax theater in Buckland Hills the one that is showing it in 3D in CT? That theater is only 20 minutes away from where I live, so it seems like it would be pretty foolish to not see it.



For me, Opiate is a good way to describe the experience. I think I might have seen Lord of the Rings-III twice in a theater, but never have considered another movie to see repeatedly. 

Not like a holideck. A better comparison is to think of a good Broadway or Off-Broadway show/play where you can see everything in 3D, but you are looking out at the stage in front of you. The glasses look like Blues Brothers black frames with slight similarly looking gray tinged lenses. They give them to you in a sealed bag and they are called "RealD 3D" with their website www.reald.com

Eventually I expect movies to be an actual holodeck experience, kind of like the Disney Circle-Vision 360 which is moving to some kind of Sphere-Vision 360². I don't know how they will film scenes holographically without showing the cameras and mics.

Yes, Buckland Hills in Manchester is the only IMAX in CT, and it's not a "Real, Primo, Mega-Screen IMAX". Down in my neck of the woods, the only 3D is O'Neill theater complex in Lisbon, CT. You can use that link to check & purchase specific IMAX seats, with the best location being in the center. Saturday is sold out, but there are some showing times still open later in the week.


----------



## BVH

Lux, you describe perfectly, my feelings and thoughts of the movie. I was feeling just a little disappointed that the IMAX I was in was not the "surround" type that curves around at the front quite a bit. But you're saying that did not matter to you in the second partial you watched?

It's playing just down the street in Digital 3D but not IMAX so it would be so easy for my wife and I to see a few more times. Intoxicating is a good word to use. Also, how you describe being pulled into the movie and everything else around you disappears is so correct.

The luminescent colors in the forest when you first venture into them towards the beginning of the movie are indescribable. I was noticeably uneasy/agitated/let down - not quite sure how to describe it, when I had to leave the theater and couldn't see them any longer. Seeing them is, I imagine, like being on a Narcotic. MORE, MORE, MORE. I NEED to go back to the forest!! 

I wonder how long until great 3D tech will come to the big TV screens. I just heard something the other day about some type of finalization of the spec for 3D Blu Rays.


----------



## JB5

I saw it last night and and am just blown away. I haven't seen a movie that great in a long time. It is definatly a MUST to see it in 3D. I am going again to see it next week.



Stillphoto said:


> So without spoiling it, I'd love to know: How was the 3D element of the film? Film companies are currently banking on Avatar bringing this "gimmick" into new territory. Less "Ooh this is something long pointing out into the audience" and more of a textural depth creating way.


 
This is by far not the old "gimmick" kind of 3D. This has taken it to a whole new level. It's definatly about the textural depth and for me emmersed me into the movie like I never have been before (even compared to a couple of other recent 3D movies I have seen)


----------



## FrogmanM

I'll be seeing it @ the Spectrum tomorrow morning, looks promising. 

-Mayo


----------



## LuxLuthor

BVH said:


> Lux, you describe perfectly, my feelings and thoughts of the movie. I was feeling just a little disappointed that the IMAX I was in was not the "surround" type that curves around at the front quite a bit. But you're saying that did not matter to you in the second partial you watched?
> 
> It's playing just down the street in Digital 3D but not IMAX so it would be so easy for my wife and I to see a few more times. Intoxicating is a good word to use. Also, how you describe being pulled into the movie and everything else around you disappears is so correct.
> 
> The luminescent colors in the forest when you first venture into them towards the beginning of the movie are indescribable. I was noticeably uneasy/agitated/let down - not quite sure how to describe it, when I had to leave the theater and couldn't see them any longer. Seeing them is, I imagine, like being on a Narcotic. MORE, MORE, MORE. I NEED to go back to the forest!!
> 
> I wonder how long until great 3D tech will come to the big TV screens. *I just heard something the other day about some type of finalization of the spec for 3D Blu Rays.*



LOL! Post #59 above. 

Well said about the feeling of having to leave the theater. Think about the comment that makes....and although I snuck in the non-IMAX 3D showing, just to see how it compared to the IMAX, in reality I stayed the 40+ minutes until it ended because I wasn't ready to leave Pandora. After watching the additional 40+ minutes, I still wanted more. LOL! 

Those who think the Na’vis look bizarre like get-lit's freakish bugeye photo in post #65 above are in for a big surprise. You fall in love with their physical beauty and 'heart' on many levels.


----------



## Max_Power

I just watched Avatar in 3D "Imax" at a flat-screen theater (AMC Cupertino Square 16) - at 5 or 6 points in the movie I said "WOW!" out loud. This is an instant classic! Definitely worth seeing the 3D version.

I am glad I didn't see any long trailers or reviews before seeing the movie. Too much of the plot is given away by the big trailer at the official website, but fortunately I saw it for the first time AFTER seeing the movie. There was a recent "science of the movies" show on TV where I saw some of how it was made, like the banshee riders. I thought, "this looks like a good science fiction show!" 

I liked the sci-fi aspects that were not belabored, like the tall aliens (the Navi). On a low-gravity world, the animals and plants would tend to grow taller. Sure, the overall plot was pretty predictable, but that's just because mankind tends to operate that way, given the chance. The surprising thing was how well the Navi actors portrayed emotions. The breathtaking immersiveness was better than anything I've ever seen. When I walked into my house after the 2 mile drive home, I was still out of breath!

I'd like to see any naysayers try to come up with an alien landscape as original as this without losing the audience. It was just alien enough, with ideas borrowed from many life forms on earth but applied inventively.

I'll have to go to an IMAX dome theater to see this again. And I will definitely acquire the blu-ray version when it becomes available. I believe that the 3D glasses are circular polarizers. Left hand circular for one eye, right hand circular for the other. Brilliant! Very little eyestrain even after 2 or 3 hours. I hung onto a pair to experiment with at home. 

Two thumbs WAY up from my mom and me!


----------



## LuxLuthor

It's strange but I almost feel a bond among those who have seen it. LOL!


----------



## LEDninja

One bug eyed alien coming up.






Looks a lot prettier in the rest of the movie. I think she is also in Star Trek.





I only use one eye at a time. Can not see 3D.
There were no lineups at my local mallplex! Um it is only showing 2D.

I do not see anything wrong in the 2D version of the movie. Kudos to the lighting guy for making sure the movie does not look 'flat' while in 2D.
There is none of that 'see I'm in 3D' nonsense like throwing spears at the audience in Beowulf.
The scenery is beautiful. From the forests to the floating mountains.




The storyline is an updated version of poor rancher against the big bad robber baron in the cowboy movies to the Na’vis against the big bad corporation. At last there is a plot (2012 na-na).

Worthwhile watching on the big screen.


----------



## RyanA

LuxLuthor said:


> That's akin to saying The Godfather trilogy seems like a bunch of Sicilians that come to America, or Lord of the Rings seems like a bunch of wizards, elves, and dwarves wandering around in an enchanted forest, or Dances with Wolves seems like another American western that abuses Native Americans.



Well yeah, don't get me wrong. All cool movies, but deep movies? Not so much.


----------



## flashy bazook

Haven't seen it yet, and thanks to all for not shooting off with spoilers. Can't wait to see it, especially in 3-D.

Watched a long Cameron interview, he pretty much confirmed all that I had read elsewhere (and posted about here).

One item of interest: he mentioned a sequel!

He had to leave quite a lot of scenes on the cutting floor and something tells me they are not going to go to waste.


----------



## Lite_me

LEDninja said:


> One bug eyed alien coming up.
> 
> *I only use one eye at a time. Can not see 3D.*
> 
> There were no lineups at my local mallplex! Um it is only showing 2D.


This is what I'm wondering. I would really like to see this movie in 3D, but I have monovision also. One eye is focused for distance, the other for up close.. reading. They switch dominance depending on what I'm looking at. 

Does anyone have any insight as to whether or not for sure, that these glasses and this system will not work for us? I would hate to get there only to find out it looks terrible through the glasses. All blurry or something. And another question comes to mind, if it did, does it look... ok, in 2D without them at a 3D showing? I'm really undecided whether or not to try it in 3D.


----------



## BVH

Not sure on a bunch of your questions but i took the glasses off a couple times and there is no possible, enjoyable way to view the 3-D version without the glasses. There's two of everything side-by-side and a lot of blurriness.


----------



## BVH

LuxLuthor said:


> It's strange but I almost feel a bond among those who have seen it. LOL!



YEAH!!! Me and Lux got a bond, now! Man, can ya dig-it? Far-out, man.


----------



## Lightcrazycanuck

get-lit said:


> *Michael Moore is coming out with a whole new series of 3D movie I can't wait to see...*
> 
> *Rolling for Cannabine*
> *Overweight 911*
> *Fatso*
> *Metabolism: A Love Story*


----------



## QtrHorse

I watched the movie in 2D tonight and I don't see how 3D could have made it much better. As stated, there is not much movie action coming at you like I thought there would be. 

Now, if you don't want to know certain things about the movie, do not read what I wrote below.









































I honestly thought it was just good, not great. The graphics were really great except for the animated running of those 6 legged horse things. They looked like a 6 yo digitized those scenes. Can they not make them look like real horses running with the multi million dollar computer software they have available? One high note of the movie was that they thoroughly explain everything instead of just pcs of a story here and there.

I'm also tired of the commentaries on how the US forces their beliefs on everyone else which is what this movie was about.

I also got the feeling that Mr. Cameron was trying to say it was okay for the Al-Qaeda to kill us because we attacked their land (precious rock = oil?). The Marine/ alien makes the comment that "we will take the fight to them and kill them all if we have to".

I'm probably a little more judgemental than most because I watch just about every movie that comes out and I might be a little desensitized because of all the movies I watch.

It may win a oscar for best animated graphics but that's it. I don't think it lived up to all the hype but not many movies do.

Is it worth watching, yes. 
Would I recommend it to friends, yes.

It was a lot better than Ninja Assasins, that's for sure.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
.


----------



## vestureofblood

Its rare that I say this about a movie, but Avatar blew my mind. The attention to detail in this movie was so deep that I'm not sure a person can fully appreciate the scope of thought provoking images concepts and ideas after only one viewing. I recommend seeing it with someone who can appreciate subtlety and attention to detail. I took my girlfriend who is a nature/animal lover to the extreme, who appreciates Gods creation and all of nature on a level even I find hard to understand. Needless to say we were both consumed by this film. I found myself through the entire movie truly imagining what it would be like to encounter such places and creatures here on earth. I think it would be fair to ask a person rather than "have you seen the movie Avatar" to say "have you experienced the movie Avatar"?

Another think I liked about this movie was its semi realistic story line. By this I mean it wasn't all just HAPPY HAPPY its all good everything always works out no one dies or gets hurt type of a story.

Also the blend of what is animated and real was very smooth, of course I realize what is digital and whats not, but I mean it was not a stumbling block.

The only move that I can recall has ever impacted me more than what this movie did was when the first Matrix movie was released.. that was a true milestone.

Bottom line: Great move, best I think I have seen all year, take someone with you. The only serious negative for me was the use of the Lords name in vain. While this is not a problem for some, to me it was unnecessary.


----------



## LuxLuthor

QrtHorse, thanks for giving your impressions. I'm sure I would have been less gushing in my praise had I seen it in 2D. I'm truly sorry for those who are monocular, but there is no way I would ever see this in 2D. I wouldn't even purchase the DVD or Blu-Ray if not in 3D.

Part of why people describe this movie with comparisons to legendary epics like 1927's The Jazz Singer which first introduced sound, or the first Star Wars that exploded the limits of your imagination, or The Wizard of Oz when it first came out, or even a movie like Matrix-I -- is because with the revolutionary effect of the 3D, Avatar pulls you into the movie's world unlike anything has done. 

It actually has you "be in the movie," rather than watching a movie. When you are in the movie, you are enchanted and intoxicated by everything, and issues like you mentioned become insignificant. I noticed all the things you mentioned, but I was so in love with the revolutionary experience of this movie, none of that bothered me like it normally might have. 

IMHO, you missed experiencing the movie like the rest of us are talking about. I know when I took off my glasses several times (despite the double image issue), I was pulled back into watching a regular movie from a distance, as a spectator. Putting the glasses back on, I was teleported back into being in the world...no longer watching it. That is why it felt like the movie lasted only 30 minutes to me.

It's holding up pretty well with Yahoo Movies ratings here. Drifting down to 82% at Rotten Tomatoes. I would really like to see a separate ranking only from those seeing it in 3D. I have no doubt that it will do just fine, because there are enough people with experiences like me having seen it in 3D that we will see it 4-5 or more times.

Cameron has said he plans 2 sequels for Avatar.


----------



## LEDninja

LuxLuthor said:


> I wouldn't even purchase the DVD or Blu-Ray if not in 3D.
> 
> 
> Cameron has said he plans 2 sequels for Avatar.


Better start saving now. 3D TV & 3D Blu-Ray expected next year. They have already done demos for the media geeks. The next Winter Olympics and FIFA World Cup will be recorded in 3D.


The studios always sign up actors for 3 movies when they can get them cheap. Before the 1st one becomes a blockbuster and the actors want more money for the subsequent ones. X-men, Pirates of the Caribbean. The James Bonds are more lucky/unlucky to get up to 5 films at the low introductory price. If the movie bombs then its just 'an option'. Sharon Stone did manage to force the studios to make Basic Instinct 2 (the studios did not want to but the 1st one made enough money they were unable to use the 'if it bombs then it is just an option' escape clause).


----------



## QtrHorse

Well Geez, I may have to see it in 3D now. We have a fairly new Imax that I have been wanting to visit anyway. It sounds like I have been missing out on the new 3D type experience. The last 3D movie I watched was the type that has things coming at you.


----------



## LuxLuthor

QtrHorse said:


> Well Geez, I may have to see it in 3D now. We have a fairly new Imax that I have been wanting to visit anyway. It sounds like I have been missing out on the new 3D type experience. The last 3D movie I watched was the type that has things coming at you.



This isn't like that. Those type of 3D are throwing stuff at you to show you what they can do, but it is not natural or intuitive. That's what Cameron brought to Avatar by using the 3D to enhance what you see, not impress you with the technology of 3D. When you see it, you will understand the huge difference.


----------



## Sgt. LED

Just saw it, it was great!

I'd like to see it again.


----------



## BVH

Viewing #2 tomorrow!


----------



## Drywolf

I saw the movie in 3D not IMAX. I think 3D made a lot of scenes weaker. I noticed that when a scene had a lot of rapid movement or high contrast a lot of definition was lost; maybe on purpose? I liked the movie, but I like anything that takes an ancient story (Bible/Koran/Macedonian) and adds a high tech point of view. I think unless you get one of the 30 best seats at the IMAX (for the sound track) it’s a waste and 3D in general is a waste. I would say, see it in 2D while it is in the big theater or wait a couple of weeks and see it without someone right next to you except your loved ones. Just my two cents and they are not the copper ones.

Edit:
I thought I would add this foot note:
I bought a 240Hz 46” LED TV and a BluRay player for the bedroom a month ago and returned it the next week. I hated it with the exception of live sports. It turns movies into daytime soaps (video) and reveals all the flaws with older BW movies. It’s just too perfect for my taste.

I own a 1410-HD 61” Pioneer Elite plasma monitor and it is just right in my opinion (not counting any tuner and speakers). It does not support 1080P but it has a really great color picture and is a great display for line doubled DVD’s and 1080I cable/satellite programming.

I guess I’m just an old fart with my opinions. “Say”La.

Edit:
 60 40


----------



## strinq

Just watched it in 2D and everyone in the cinema was like WOW.
Now i know i just got to watch it in 3D. 
Stunning graphics. 
The story was pretty good too but it was the scenes that made the WOW.


----------



## StarHalo

(click image for original screencap)


----------



## Mike V

3-D in an IMAX cinema and in a regular cinema is quite different.

IMAX uses LCD shuttered glasses and a regular cinema uses polarised glasses.

There are literally hundreds of 3-D movies currently being made.

It's in fashion at the moment.

No sure if the current trend will last.
Personally I don't think it will.
It will just be a fad like every other time in history.

I've seen the latest demos of Sony 3-D televisions.
They are OK, but nothing you haven't really seen before if you've seen 3-D previously.


----------



## LuxLuthor

Opening weekend shatters records at $232 million worldwide without opening yet in China, Japan, Poland, Argentina, & Uraguay.  Half way there to covering expenses....so no problems on this being a mega blockbuster success....and highly likely to have sequels.


----------



## LEDninja

About 55% of expenses goes into the distribution of movies. Only 45% goes towards production. So Avatar needs over a billion to break even.

The pundits were not worried as there is a video game out. With video games costing ~$70 vs ~$14 for a movie ticket they should make a bundle there.

The movie works well in 2D so DVD/Blu-Ray sales should be good as well.

The studios will definitely be pushing for sequels.


----------



## Seb71

LEDninja said:


> About 55% of expenses goes into the distribution of movies. Only 45% goes towards production. *So Avatar needs over a billion to break even.*


Can you explain how you came up to this conclusion?

Are you saying that distribution costs are proportional to production costs of a movie? Are you saying that (distribution costs)=1.22x(production costs)?


----------



## LuxLuthor

We don't need to psychoanalyze details of profits in this thread. It's enough to know that everyone's fears about Cameron's high budget, and the movie being profitable are gone. They all took a big risk, and they deserve big rewards.


----------



## LEDninja

Seb71 said:


> Can you explain how you came up to this conclusion?
> 
> Are you saying that distribution costs are proportional to production costs of a movie? Are you saying that (distribution costs)=1.22x(production costs)?


Not every dollar in ticket prices go to the producer of the movie. A lot of the money goes to the cost of building the movie theaters, the electricity bill, the ushers, the ticket sellers, the advertising, the cost of the film copies. (The last one is less for this movie as the 3D copies are shipped out in reusable hard drives)
The studios have a nasty habit of signing multi-movie deals with the theaters covering the whole year. The distribution costs are calculated as a percentage of all the movies of the year. While a $500M movie has the same actual distribution costs as a $50M movie its percentage distribution costs are 10X the cheaper movie. One way the studios use the money from money making movies to pay for money losing movies through creative accounting.
A little movie called My Big Fat Greek Wedding was filmed in Toronto with no name actors, zero special effects. Probably cost $10M to make. After $500M in ticket and DVD sales, it still showed a loss.

A year or so ago I saw the 55% distribution 45% production number. A movie money analyst I saw on a news website said Avatar needs about 3X production costs to make money. Don't know which production cost he used. If the $260M number then its $780M. If $500M then its $1.5B.
Avatar is well on its way to top the $1B mark in ticket sales. Add the video game and DVD sales and there is no problem going over the $1.5B mark.


----------



## Seb71

I see. But it does not seems right to me to include losses of other movies when you compute Avatar's distribution costs. Those are losses of studios and/or theaters, not of Avatar movie (as a product, manufactured and then sold). But I am not an accountant.


----------



## DM51

As LEDninja says, only a few movies actually make a net profit. Gross, yes; but net... the studios bury the production costs of all their flops in the costs of their box-office successes.


----------



## LuxLuthor

DM51 said:


> As LEDninja says, only a few movies actually make a net profit. Gross, yes; but net... the studios bury the production costs of all their flops in the costs of their box-office successes.



That's just a well known sham "Hollywood Accounting" scheme. They take out bushel baskets of money for everyone and their mother without leaving enough to have "net profit." A movie being net profitable means nothing. Read that link for many examples.

A recent settlement with the Tolkein family finally resulted in The Hobbit being able to be made as a movie. Despite the $6 Billion LOTR income, the studios had refused to pay them anything.


----------



## StarHalo

No point in bickering about movie profits..







This game made $310 million dollars in its *first day*. It grossed more money in one week than the movie _Jaws_ made for the entirety of its theatrical run. 

Video games are the new blockbusters.


----------



## Lite_me

I loved that game. I think I played that one for 1 or 2 hrs almost every night for about 2 months. A lot of the time not playing the actual game, just driving around terrorizing the city. :devil: - On a Xbox 360 
Everyone who plays it can have a somewhat different experience.

It cost more than a ticket to the movies, but it can continue to entertain a for long time after the purchase.


----------



## Badbeams3

Saw it in I-Max 3D. I must say it seemed like a lot more than 30 minutes to me. Might be cause my somewhat worn out body does not like to sit upright for any lenght of time without complaining. Never the less...even at $13+ this is money well spent. Mr. Cameron has a better imagination than I do...thats for sure. It does seem that you enter another world...even the alien chicks start to look hot after a while ...:thinking:...or maybe there`s something wrong with me? 

Er...back on track...I like that the movie did not try to over do the 3 D effects. Simply eye candy from start to finish. Wish 3D could somehow be done without special glasses. Looking at my TV at home now...leaves me feeling flat.

Edit: Guess I should give it some sort of rating. The story line has more/less been done before..but it is done very well none the less. Has some extreme violents...probably to much for some children. Not much in the way of sex...but I can overlook that flaw. I`m sure many will pick it apart...find many faults. But for plain fun the show delivers big time. And the visual/sound quality of the show is far beyond anything I have seen before. 

I give it a A+ overall. Simply a MUST see. No way around it.


----------



## Stillphoto

I enjoy the fact that the intro scene pretty much puts you in the same sort of disoriented state that the characters are in.


----------



## Mike Painter

LEDninja said:


> The studios always sign up actors for 3 movies when they can get them cheap.


We don't need no stinkin' actors.
We talked about actors not being needed in teh future when I was at CSUC Chico in the late 1960's. Heinlein saw it when he wrote "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" a few years earlier.
Stunt men and women will almost certainly disappear in a few years as an actor can be replaced seamlessly with CGI in many places.
The difference between the most beautiful thing you have ever seen on a screen and a crudely drawn picture is only the arrangement of the pixels.
Tis film is evolutionary, not revolutionary.


----------



## LuxLuthor

The "revolution" is not about Avatar's evolution of CGI, which I would agree with you is an evolution.

The revolution is the magic this movie achieves vis-a-vis the viewer's immersion into the world of Avatar via the superb 3D. I don't know if this experience will extend to other 3D movies using Cameron's technology.

I generally hate going to see movies in theaters, and have only seen one movie twice in a theater before. The only other movies I have seen in a theater over the last 2 years were Star Trek & Dark Knight. 

I've already seen Avatar twice, and going tomorrow to see it a 3rd time--always in 3D. The 2nd viewing was as "intoxicating" as the first.


----------



## QtrHorse

LuxLuthor said:


> I've already seen Avatar twice, and going tomorrow to see it a 3rd time--always in 3D.


 
:wow:

I hope everyones Chrstmas was great!


----------



## LuxLuthor

Ditto. Had a wonderful and blessed Christmas.

Enjoyed Avatar the third time as much as the other two. Pretty amazing to see people give clapping ovation for a movie every time. Again, I would ONLY recommend that people see this in 3D.

After this weekend, worldwide has now reached $620 Million already.


----------



## QtrHorse

Did you read about the little temper tantrum Cameron had when a fan asked for his autograph?

To this day, I still vow to punch Mark Mcgrath in the ear if I ever meet him for the way he treated a fan one day. Cameron's was not that bad but still uncalled for.

Oh well, the pressure of being rich and famous.


----------



## Pellidon

DM51 said:


> As LEDninja says, only a few movies actually make a net profit. Gross, yes; but net... the studios bury the production costs of all their flops in the costs of their box-office successes.



In other words it takes one Avatar to pay the losses on 8 Ishtars? 

Some of the younger people here may need to google that.


----------



## LuxLuthor

QtrHorse said:


> Did you read about the little temper tantrum Cameron had when a fan asked for his autograph?
> 
> To this day, I still vow to punch Mark Mcgrath in the ear if I ever meet him for the way he treated a fan one day. Cameron's was not that bad but still uncalled for.
> 
> Oh well, the pressure of being rich and famous.



Cameron has ALWAYS been a **** on and off the set, and has the five (failed) marriages to prove it. I don't give a rat's arse about him on a personal level. What difference does it make? I'm only talking about the movie.

Not only have I never heard of Mark Mcgrath, but I could care less about following any celebrity close enough, or getting amped up enough about them to punch anyone not directly threatening me. 

I can't stand the vast majority of Hollywood directors, actors, or celebrities but I can compartmentalize their hypocrisy, disgusting ignorance, and amoral behavior from the art they produce. For example, I am actually able to see and enjoy *Braveheart *without being hampered by its anti-semitic director.


----------



## QtrHorse

LuxLuthor said:


> Cameron has ALWAYS been a **** on and off the set, and has the five (failed) marriages to prove it. I don't give a rat's arse about him on a personal level. What difference does it make? I'm only talking about the movie.
> 
> Not only have I never heard of Mark Mcgrath, but I could care less about following any celebrity close enough, or getting amped up enough about them to punch anyone not directly threatening me.
> 
> I can't stand the vast majority of Hollywood directors, actors, or celebrities but I can compartmentalize their hypocrisy, disgusting ignorance, and amoral behavior from the art they produce. For example, I am actually able to see and enjoy *Braveheart *without being hampered by its anti-semitic director.


 
I'm sure you would never listen to Mark Mcgraths music. I would bet all my lights that his type of music in not your genre, especially his older songs. You would have to see the video to understand why I feel the way I do about him.

I am on the bottom percentile for people who follow celebrities. The Mark Mcgrath deal is just one of those things I guess. I only heard about the Cameron incident because I was scanning current events on the internet and it came up.

That's where you and I differ lux and I'm sure many other ways, such as time managment. I tend to not support something if I do not like the manufacture, director and etc... The problem is that I sometimes like something and then find out that the source is something or someone that I do not like.

I don't want to hit Cameron in the ear because of what he said to the fan. I just find it funny that he would treat his target group so poorly and this one particular individual with such detestation because they are the group that handed him the number one spot at the box office.

I"m not here to bicker with you about how great this movie was. I thought it was okay and still might watch it in 3D just to see what all the fuss is about.


----------



## LuxLuthor

QtrHorse said:


> I'm sure you would never listen to Mark Mcgraths music. I would bet all my lights that his type of music in not your genre, especially his older songs. You would have to see the video to understand why I feel the way I do about him.


 
Never heard of him, and nothing personal, but I'm not interested in watching "trash the celeb" videos in any case. None of them are worth the bother....whoever he is. Life's too short.



QtrHorse said:


> I don't want to hit Cameron in the ear because of what he said to the fan. I just find it funny that he would treat his target group so poorly and this one particular individual with such detestation because they are the group that handed him the number one spot at the box office.



Also no idea of your Cameron incident, or whether he considered his private space was being invaded by some paparazzi/stalker. Let me guess, there just happened to be a video camera ready and willing to capture the whole thing, and you don't think it was a staged provocation. 

It also sounds like you think at all times, every celebrity should respond generously to every fan at any time they decide to invade their private space...despite the frightening history of stalking & physical attacks. A fan has a right to be entertained in the venue they paid for. They have no rights to seek or get any special individual attention from a celebrity unless they also paid for that service and it was agreed to.



QtrHorse said:


> I am on the bottom percentile for people who follow celebrities. The Mark Mcgrath deal is just one of those things I guess. I only heard about the Cameron incident because I was scanning current events on the internet and it came up.


Yeah, to me none of these celebrities are worth following on a personal/event level. Life's too short to worry about them. 



QtrHorse said:


> That's where you and I differ lux and I'm sure many other ways, such as time managment. I tend to not support something if I do not like the manufacture, director and etc... The problem is that I sometimes like something and then find out that the source is something or someone that I do not like.


 
Yeah, we differ. I can enjoy the product on its own merit, and recognize that most artist/celebrity types are not role models or deserving of personal fan attention...with rare exceptions. Most of them are complete spoiled idiots.



QtrHorse said:


> I"m not here to bicker with you about how great this movie was. I thought it was okay and still might watch it in 3D just to see what all the fuss is about.



IMHO, as I have said previously this movie is not worth seeing unless in 3D, and if you didn't see it in 3D you wasted your money. I would NEVER see it in 2D or recommend anyone else see it in 2D. All of the people being WOW'ed by the movie are talking about the 3D version only.

Bringing in all the petty vindictive personality crap about Cameron or some other dude is truly irrelevant to the movie's revolutionary impact when seen in 3D. That other personal stuff belongs on National Inquirer forums, and is designed to trash this topic.


----------



## strinq

Just watched it in 3D yesterday (after watching it in 2D earlier).

My thoughts: 

Wasn't up to what I expected (and no i wasn't expecting objects to come hurtling towards me). Thought it would be more 'immersive' but it wasn't, still it does seem to mark the beginning of 3D movies making the audience 'feel' like they're actually there.


----------



## Mjolnir

The idea that 3D movies are supposed to have things "flying out at the audience" is sort of stupid. Those types of effects are just gimmicks used to make sure that people notice a difference between 2D and 3D video, and often don't add any value to the movie. A true 3D movie will give you depth perception, and should make the movie seem different without the use of those sorts of effects.


----------



## Pellidon

I saw the 3D version last night. After a half hour, the 3D slipped into the background. A good thing since I feel it shouldn't be the focal point. If it were scene after scene of things flying out at me it would mean that the effect is the star, not the story. 

Now the story. YAWN. Seen it many times. 

Star Wars: Living force, large mechanical war machines vs a technologically inferior population. And getting their clocks cleaned. 
Star Trek: The Katra, the soul/consciousness of the departed deposited in some physic gestalt. 
Resident Evil: The Umbrella Corp. A mega powerful corporation that is evil personified. See Robocop, Blade Runner, and many B movies for this easy foil. 
There are also elements of Little Big Man and Dances With Wolves. 

I guess when you spend all the money on special effects and green screen stuff you have to cut and paste story from wherever. 

One question. If we let the earth get to the state that it is such a hell hole, how did this corporation ever get the money to fund such a huge expedition across millions of miles to mine a far off planet? For an element that the writers had no imagination in naming interestingly? Lamer than bad film school writers. 

I like Science Fiction and Fantasy work but there must be substantial story there. I like the attempt in the Star Wars series but There is maybe a 4 hour story in all that 12+ hours of cinema. I wasn't a fan of Aliens, spent the time in the theatre calling out the plot minutes before it happened. No surprises there. 

Not a movie I plan on buying. Or seeing a second time. YMMV. I should have seen Alvin 2 (the Squeakwel)


----------



## Max_Power

Yeah, even though I really enjoyed watching the show, Avatar felt like an advertisement for a video game.

Still, just like The Matrix, it is a milestone. Pretty soon we will be living like the Talosians in the pilot episode of Star Trek, spending our lives re-living other lives instead of furthering ourselves.

Which reminds me - I wanna go see Avatar at a real IMAX screen, before it is gone...

--Max_Power


----------



## Seb71

It turned out that the trailer was misleading regarding the floating mineral ("unobtanium"). The mineral does not have anti-gravitational properties. It is just a superconductor (which levitates in a magnetic field). This is not explained in the Avatar movie itself.

Pandora Discovered (min 2:12-2:40)


----------



## Sgt. LED

It's weird the mineral rock doesn't float on it's own but those islands with the birds do.

What made them float? Was it covered and I missed it?


----------



## Seb71

The "unobtanium" mineral is superconductive and because of that it floats in a magnetic field. The floating islands are made (at least partially) from the same mineral and the islands are floating only in that area because the magnetic field of Pandora is stronger there (that area is called "The Flux" or something like that by the humans).


----------



## Sgt. LED

:twothumbs


----------



## Light11

Just watched it late last night :wow:It's a classic.


----------



## flashy bazook

Finally, I got my chance to watch the movie in "real" (as advertised by the theater) 3-D. Not IMAX, though.

So one question is whether there is enough goodness in going from a regular sized 3-D projection to the IMAX size to justify paying again plus the effort to get to an IMAX theater. Any thoughts?

Amazing how spot-on the reviews plus prior info. were. The effects were mesmerizing, but the plot was predictable and kind of annoying toward the end.

Basically the only non-predictable plot element for me was how they were going to get around the problem of having their own marine fight against them when they (the corporate guys) had control over his physical body. In the end, they handled this pretty well, in a way that wasn't too implausible and in fact went in line with the rest of the plot.

Is the movie a "Revolution?" as asked in the OP?

In the end, I have to say...NO. The 3-D is over time going to become kind of a gimmick. It was best in scenes with a clear perspective view--for example, when you were looking into a rectangular room with the elongated size going away from you (like the craft the marines were flying in).

When you went to the jungle scenes, the 3-D effect was weaker. You kind of forgot about it because it wasn't that noticeable. Every now and then I would take the glasses off and check, and in the non-room scenes the 3-D effect was indeed pretty weak.

So, as far as the future of movies is concerned, I think that 3-D will not be the big saver theaters are hoping it will be.

There were previews of 3-D movies, like one of Alice in the Wonderland. Basically, it may be something for kids--but then kids and families go to movies if they are appropriate and good quality family movies. The 3-D aspect is not going to decide it for them either way, IMO.

I agree with other posters on the commercial aspects of the movie. I think it will be a big money maker, indeed as it will sell well abroad as well as here (in the US). I was kind of surprised as to how quickly the toy tie-ins showed up at McDonalds! On the plus side, the Avatar toys are generally decent quality (for McDonalds toys).

I got the 6-legged horse toy, and it produces a nice light effect--you never saw a bluer horse's *** for sure!!:laughing:

I agree also that the animation on the 6-leggers was kind of so so. I couldn't make out how many legs they had in fact, I think only 5 were easily visible. The toy made it clear that there are 6 legs.


----------



## LuxLuthor

They have to be pretty happy at how well it is still holding up on the numbers charts. You can scroll through the dates at Box Office MoJo and see daily and running totals since it started on 12/18.

In terms of it being a revolution, we shall see. The more money it makes, the more will consider using/building 3D capability. I'm trying to imagine how a movie like Iron Man, Star Trek, or Dark Knight would have looked in this quality of 3D. In the past, 3D was cartoonish. This movie made it a serious adjunct to audience immersion.

I have now seen it 4 times in 3D, and will probably see it at least a couple more times which is unbelievable to me, given how much I hate going to movie theaters. Every time in my theaters, there was spontaneous audience applause which is not common outside of serious audience venues like in NYC. That fact and its ticket sales cannot be denied.


----------



## KillingTime

I saw the movie today at a regular cinema in 3D.

Would definitely recommend it to other people, I liked the story however, I thought the 3D was a bit of a gimmick (although it was refreshing to see a movie in 3D again - last time I did that was for Jaws in the 80s).

I found you had to look at parts of the picture that the director wanted you to look at. Trying to look elsewhere on short field of view shots gave rise to 'split images' (like looking at the picture with the glasses off).

Fo me, the movie will be just as good in 2D, and for this reason I'll be buying the HD version when it comes out.

Worth a watch. I can see why some are comparing this to StarWars.


----------



## Light11

LuxLuthor said:


> They have to be pretty happy at how well it is still holding up on the numbers charts. You can scroll through the dates at Box Office MoJo and see daily and running totals since it started on 12/18.
> 
> In terms of it being a revolution, we shall see. The more money it makes, the more will consider using/building 3D capability. I'm trying to imagine how a movie like Iron Man, Star Trek, or Dark Knight would have looked in this quality of 3D. In the past, 3D was cartoonish. This movie made it a serious adjunct to audience immersion.
> 
> I have now seen it 4 times in 3D, and will probably see it at least a couple more times which is unbelievable to me, given how much I hate going to movie theaters. Every time in my theaters, there was spontaneous audience applause which is not common outside of serious audience venues like in NYC. That fact and its ticket sales cannot be denied.


 The upcoming Iron Man 2 would be great to watch in 3D.


----------



## LuxLuthor

Yeah, it would. Avatar world sales are up to $760 million now.


----------



## Kiessling

Saw it in 3D.
I was mesmerized and didn't want to quit, to leave the experience behind. It was fascinating, it drew me in. 

It sure wasn't the somewhat lame plot or CGI. I think it was the immense attention to detail and authentity of this world that draws you in until you loose the usual perspective somewhat. It makes you leave and arrive in a phantasy world more than any other film or game ever could. Which makes it addicting.

And which corresponds with the impression that the blue girls got more attractive with every minute of the film 

bernie


----------



## QtrHorse

Kiessling said:


> And which corresponds with the impression that the blue girls got more attractive with every minute of the film
> 
> bernie


 
I did not want to be the first to say that. The longer I watched the movie, the more oddly they became attractive to me.


----------



## Darell

I'm comfortable enough with my male humaness to admit that I wanted the blue babes too.  Plus, I like how they dress. Gotta love the tropical climates.

I saw it in 3D at an Imax. Maybe it was because I was pretty close to the screen, or off to the side a bit... but about half the time the 3-d stuff was jittery and blurry for me. The other half of the time it is rock solid and awesome. Maybe my eyes just don't want to go there?


----------



## Icebreak

I may have mentioned that when I saw the IMAX 3D previews they looked like a combination of 3 or more technologies pulled together in a close to seemless way. That's what I saw last night when I saw the film at an IMAX 3D. There was nothing I haven't seen before but the blending certainly was effective.

The experience will not be the same from individual to individual. All of our eyes are different and all of our processors are different. The crowd last night seemed to be transfixed on the film. For me it was immersive, which was expected. However, the transformative experience, the feeling I was in the adventure was not expected.

AWESOME.

Blue Babes? Sign me up for the next mission please.


----------



## LuxLuthor

It's hard for me to imagine that New Year's Day ticket sales had Avatar back again at one of its highest grossing days, set all time record for the holiday, and quietly crossed the $300 million domestic and almost $800 million worldwide in the 15 days it has been open. Making it look easy to reach $1 Billion.


----------



## usLEDsupply

Has anyone seen it in one of the new HD movie theaters?
i don't really want to go to an IMAX theater but there is a new HD one not too far away and i have always wanted to see if it is any better then watching movies on my 14' screen at home on my couch.


----------



## LuxLuthor

Yes. The O'Neil Theater in Southeast CT is one of the newer 3D HD Digital theaters. The only IMAX in (Manchester) CT is not a "real IMAX" with the ultra large wrap-around side screen. 

I enjoyed the new O'Neill theater more because it had wonderful, spacious, comfortable stadium high back, rocking seats which makes a difference in a 2hr 40min movie.

Don't see it at just a HD theater if you can find a 3D one within a reasonable driving distance.


----------



## usLEDsupply

i will have to check and see if i can find one around here


----------



## LuxLuthor

Holy Moly....it just hit $1 Billion in 17 days.


----------



## 65535

Pellidon said:


> I saw the 3D version last night. After a half hour, the 3D slipped into the background. A good thing since I feel it shouldn't be the focal point. If it were scene after scene of things flying out at me it would mean that the effect is the star, not the story.
> 
> Now the story. YAWN. Seen it many times.
> 
> Star Wars: Living force, large mechanical war machines vs a technologically inferior population. And getting their clocks cleaned.
> Star Trek: The Katra, the soul/consciousness of the departed deposited in some physic gestalt.
> Resident Evil: The Umbrella Corp. A mega powerful corporation that is evil personified. See Robocop, Blade Runner, and many B movies for this easy foil.
> There are also elements of Little Big Man and Dances With Wolves.
> 
> I guess when you spend all the money on special effects and green screen stuff you have to cut and paste story from wherever.
> 
> One question. If we let the earth get to the state that it is such a hell hole, how did this corporation ever get the money to fund such a huge expedition across millions of miles to mine a far off planet? For an element that the writers had no imagination in naming interestingly? Lamer than bad film school writers.
> 
> I like Science Fiction and Fantasy work but there must be substantial story there. I like the attempt in the Star Wars series but There is maybe a 4 hour story in all that 12+ hours of cinema. I wasn't a fan of Aliens, spent the time in the theatre calling out the plot minutes before it happened. No surprises there.
> 
> Not a movie I plan on buying. Or seeing a second time. YMMV. I should have seen Alvin 2 (the Squeakwel)




First off I agree, but have to say I actually disagree with the repeat story line.

I missed the Star Trek generation by a few years, never liked Star Wars much, didn't watch any of the "deeper" movies with similar storylines.

What I'm trying to get at here is, just because it's something similar to old stuff, doesn't mean it necessarily has to be a repeat for everyone, yeah you have been around longer and seen the old stuff, maybe enjoyed it. At 19 missed some of the old stuff, and really enjoyed Avatar.

I mean, at some point just about everything is a twist on a copy of something old. New ideas come, but not always, sometimes you have to tweak old ideas.

As for the other things, I don't think Earth in the story was a total hell hole, just that society is corrupted, the word is no longer "virgin." Humans as a whole are a pretty bad species.

As for being a smart *** in the theater, I guess that's what separates some people from others, just because you have foresight to the movie, I get the feeling you over think something that is supposed to be enjoyable.

Now I don't actually mean that disrespectfully, I to have a hard time sometimes just sitting back and enjoying something, but sometimes I think that's pretty important to do, rather than analyze everything, take a breather and just pretend.

Rant off.


----------



## Northern Lights

Thanks LL,
I was, wowed, saw the 3D at your insistance, just as if it had been a multi P7. Best effects I have seen for a long time. Glad they took the time to make it long enough to play out the plot line.

Much of the imagined technology is down lines I know are in developement. Great research then FX's to make the technology beliveable. 

I think I saw a social or political message. I just ignored that, it did unfortunately demonstrate our human nature.


----------



## blasterman

Saw the film the other night on IMAX. Got a pile of complimentary tickets for 'doing some technical favors' and gave them to my family, who in turn dragged me along. 

Plot wise the film was to be as expected. Cameron is about as deep as an oil slick and tends to use movie projects to find new girlfriends, so that wasn't a surprise. In his defense, the story was obviously kept in a fashion to make it appealing to a lot of age groups and in particular, foreign audiences. Nuances like this are what hollywood directors tend to lack as of late, and in that respect I give a kudos to the story for being universally appealing, but not *too* dulled down. 

Somebody in the audience yelled 'where are the Ewoks?' during the final battle, and I tend to agree.

Ah, Wes Studi was obviously doing the voice over for the Na'vi chief. Geee, that's original (not).

Frankly I found the CGI a bit over-rated, but for different reasons. The Na'vi and motion capture was superbly done, but I was't amazed by the Walt Disney jungle and fauna. Little diversity, and CGI's team use of heavy fog on short distance shots to keep rendering down got a bit worn. Also, every critter in the jungle having the same rubbery skin with no detail was another obvious ploy because rendering time was hurting the film's potential release. I'd like to see this fixed for the Blu-Ray release. Making eyes look authentic is by far the hardest part in making CGI humans and humanoids come off as real, and that's an A+, along with the Na'vi in general. I just wish the rest of the environment was given the same detail resources.

What surprised me was how well live action was handled with 3-D. Even though I found issues with 3-D, especially the loss of brightness and some color caused by the 3-D glasses, I liked the live action scenes in the 3-D universe just as well. 

Too bad 'Lord of the Rings' wasn't filmed this way - that I'd pay to see. Or for that matter '300' or Sin City


----------



## LuxLuthor

blasterman said:


> Cameron is about as deep as an oil slick and tends to use movie projects to find new girlfriends, so that wasn't a surprise.



That had to be one of the funniest things written here at CPF in a long while! 

Agree it would have been very cool to see those other movies in this technology, but part of why I posted the topic using the word "..._*Revolution*_?" is because of what he invented technologically for this movie. I don't think most studios (or the "boys with the bucks") took a 3D effect seriously enough before Avatar to think it would be anything more than another gimmick.

The ticket sales, sustained numbers, and seeing the net effect of his technology displayed on 3D screens has got to be getting all of their attention. I'm sure they have also noticed that there aren't any Avatar 3D torrents out there either. I was frankly shocked at the paucity of 3D capable theaters, and suspect that various chains will be rectifying that pronto.


----------



## Badbeams3

I order some two color 3d glasses for watching at home. I know it wont be the same, as good...never the less http://cgi.ebay.com/Magenta-Green-3D-GLASSES-1-Pair-Plastic-for-movie-game_W0QQitemZ270510694985QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUS_DVD_HD_DVD_Blu_ray?hash=item3efbb1a249 

Not sure which glasses will work with what movie...but lately this type has been in favor. I hate the way paper ones feel on my nose.


----------



## Northern Lights

Badbeams3 said:


> I order some two color 3d glasses for watching at home. I know it wont be the same, as good...never the less http://cgi.ebay.com/Magenta-Green-3D-GLASSES-1-Pair-Plastic-for-movie-game_W0QQitemZ270510694985QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUS_DVD_HD_DVD_Blu_ray?hash=item3efbb1a249
> 
> Not sure which glasses will work with what movie...but lately this type has been in favor. I hate the way paper ones feel on my nose.


 
The theater used not red/blue but polaroid divertification. Is the home version a color split 3d?

The two are not interchangeable.


----------



## Badbeams3

Northern Lights said:


> The theater used not red/blue but polaroid divertification. Is the home version a color split 3d?
> 
> The two are not interchangeable.



If it`s offered in 3d. I think it will be. Might use these red and blue type instead...not sure if one type is better than another http://cgi.ebay.com/Red-Blue-Cyan-A...QptZUS_DVD_HD_DVD_Blu_ray?hash=item3efbb1a22b


----------



## Badbeams3

Here is one that uses the red/blue type...might be good http://cgi.ebay.com/INFERNO-ANAGLPH...QptZUS_DVD_HD_DVD_Blu_ray?hash=item2a03d4b457


----------



## Badbeams3

Staring my neighbors dog... http://cgi.ebay.com/ROTTWEILLER-ANA...QptZUS_DVD_HD_DVD_Blu_ray?hash=item27ae536496


----------



## Badbeams3

Keep your flashlight handy http://cgi.ebay.com/CAMP-BLOOD-3D-D...QptZUS_DVD_HD_DVD_Blu_ray?hash=item45f046aceb


----------



## Icebreak

LuxLuthor, with a Billion in 17 days it can't be ignored. They are getting a lot of repeat viewers. Money talks so it could, indeed be a Revolution before our eyes. Kudo's to you for calling the ball at such a great distance. 

I really want to see it again. I know there were a couple times when I was looking at one part of the screen and missing things going on in other parts of the screen. Ideally, I would like to own my own IMAX...with a VTOL on top...and Na'vi babes as ushers.


----------



## Badbeams3

Honeymoon with my ex... http://cgi.ebay.com/NIGHT-OF-THE-LI...QptZUS_DVD_HD_DVD_Blu_ray?hash=item1e59de805e


----------



## Badbeams3

Discovery channel planning 3d programs...and some sports channels too. Got the movie "My bloody valentine"...paper glasses suck. Colors look off...but the 3d effect is right there...just needs a little improvement.

Bet Best Buy starts selling 2 color 3d glasses...maybe some good ones.


----------



## Badbeams3

Good info on polorizing ed glasses http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDzkRmOmwfA

Here is a bit on the realD projector http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQ9YkPKj_uY&feature=related


----------



## Pellidon

65535 said:


> First off I agree, but have to say I actually disagree with the repeat story line.
> ......
> 
> Rant off.



No worries. I was a smart *** back in my college days. Today I only spout off in a theater during Rocky Horror movies. 

They mentioned in the movie that earth was a dying hell hole. And the Unobtanium was to salvage them somehow. I don't recall why it was to work. 

I did give it the option of seeing it before comment. I agree the effects are good and not quite as in your face (with large areas of no plotline) as Star Wars, so They did a good thing with that. I just didn't care much for the story and my history watching movies is part of why it didn't click. 

And they can do a script that isn't quite so derivative. IMO. Of course they are remaking many movies now. I did like 310 to Yuma and the Star Trek reboot.


----------



## LuxLuthor

I kept my first pair of RealD 3D glasses in case I see some blue chicks, I want to be ready for them to be real.

I'm going back in the next few days for a 5th viewing.


----------



## Pellidon

LuxLuthor said:


> I kept my first pair of RealD 3D glasses in case I see some blue chicks, I want to be ready for them to be real.
> 
> I'm going back in the next few days for a 5th viewing.



I kept them too. Not certain if they send them out for a cleaning or just dump them in the trash so I kept them. That way I can use them again on some flick.


----------



## jch79

Finally saw the movie last night in 3D IMAX - it was really enjoyable. It was fun to get emotionally involved with the plight of "The People". And the 3D thing was really great, except for my dirty smudged glasses!

*[rant]*But, as a graphic designer, I gotta say... with a $500 million movie, did they HAVE to use one of the worse fonts known to mankind, in "Papyrus" for their subtitles???!?!?? :hairpull: :whoopin:  A custom-made font would have been much cooler. And even if it's not 100% the same as Papyrus, it's 99.9% the same, and is putrid!*[/rant]*

:thumbsup: john


----------



## Mjolnir

I will hopefully see it this weekend. The NBC nightly news had a short story about it tonight , but they didn't really say anything new. Even though the plot might not be the most original (of course, very few things are "original" these days), the effects seem like they make it worth it all by themselves. Hopefully I shall soon see...


----------



## LuxLuthor

Not only is ESPN doing a 3D channel, but now Sony-IMAX-Discovery have jumped onto the bandwagon.

Of course the real leader of almost all new multimedia technologies is porn...but I can't link the really good stories on the subject.


----------



## Pontiaker

Absolutely stunning awesome movie! I have watched it twice so far, once on IMAX 3D and once on the normal screen 3D, I actually liked the regular screen better than the IMAX, it just seemed clearer. My wife didnt really care to see it but once she did she loved it. This is going to be the new number 1 movie of all time, its that great. You have to go see it on the big screen at least once.


----------



## Remodeler

The fact that it's a 'James Cameron' movie made it so successful so fast, most of the people i know who went to see Avatar, did so because of all the media attantion the movie got. It's a nice movie, awsome visuals, typical hollywood story... nice movie, not great.


----------



## Dawg

LuxLuthor said:


> I'm sure they have also noticed that there aren't any Avatar 3D torrents out there either.



There are Torrents out there....just have to know where to look. I could be watching it at home right now, but it would be sacrilege to view it that way. 

This movie is a wonder to behold, and if kept in the proper context of entertainment, it will satisfy anyone. I saw it in 2D and I want to go back for the 3D and then maybe the IMAX as well.


----------



## LuxLuthor

Dawg said:


> There are Torrents out there....just have to know where to look. I could be watching it at home right now, but it would be sacrilege to view it that way.
> 
> This movie is a wonder to behold, and if kept in the proper context of entertainment, it will satisfy anyone. I saw it in 2D and I want to go back for the 3D and then maybe the IMAX as well.



They are not going to be the 3D torrents like you see in the theater, and I would never watch it in 2D. As I said earlier, this movie alone would make me buy a 3D television & BR disc player when available.

I also preferred the non-IMAX 3D theater. The tilt-back swivel seats with tilt-up arm rests in stadium style higher rows was much more comfortable and it had excellent THX surround sound & a larger screen than the IMAX in Manchester, CT.

It just moved into 2nd spot after Titanic in all time gross.


----------



## Icebreak

The 3D IMAX screen I saw it on was 72.6 ft x 52.8 ft. They advertise it as 5 stories tall but it looks like the height of a 4 story building. We were close to dead center at, I'm guessing about 55 ft. away. The glasses are much larger than a Real 3D theatre's. The audience looks like a bunch of Roy Orbison immitators. It's fun hear all the newbies react when they fire it up. You know you are in a big venue but it surprises people anyway. The funniest reaction was, I think it was Chance Of Meatballs and three teenage girls were a row down and ten seats away from us. The colorful intro screen came on with a boat load of sound then it went to the "Please put on your 3D glasses" instruction and she was all like "OMG" and started giggling and "OMG" again and got hesterical and I don't think she was a stoner but was really losing it LHAO then her friends started laughing at her then the audience started laughing at her and she finally calmed down soon after the first preview began. I guess you'd have to have been there. It was funny.

Anyway. We saw Transformers there too and when a helicopter flew by it looked like a helicopter flew by. Another thing I learned about a 70 by 50 foot screen when I saw Eagle Eye. When a movie sucks it sucks...real...big.


----------



## Kiessling

Just saw it a second time. Even more drawn in than the frist time. It sucked me right in again. 

I need to find an IMAX ...


----------



## LuxLuthor

Kiessling said:


> Just saw it a second time. Even more drawn in than the frist time. It sucked me right in again.
> 
> I need to find an IMAX ...



Honestly, unless it is a TRUE MEGA-GIANT IMAX, I wouldn't bother. I was much more comfortable and relaxed seeing it in the uber-comfortable rocking, well padded, removeable arm rest, stadium seats in this newer digital 3D theater. They even had a newer, cleaner screen than the IMAX.

I'm now betting this will overtake Titanic. It will likely reach $1.2 Billion by this weekend, which is only 3 weeks into its run.


----------



## Kiessling

Didn't find any IMAX near me anyway ... they're all closed. Guess that means another run for a standard 3D then ... 

Boy I am sick. I wanna ride the wind on one of those creatures, I wanna marry a blue girl.


----------



## LuxLuthor

Kiessling said:


> Didn't find any IMAX near me anyway ... they're all closed. Guess that means another run for a standard 3D then ...
> 
> Boy I am sick. I wanna ride the wind on one of those creatures, I wanna marry a blue girl.



I tell ya! If you are one that really gets bit by this Avatar bug, the hook gets deeply embedded.

I think I would be happy just to intertwine tails with a blue Pandoran woman. I thought that idea of having such a physical connection with various forms of nature and animals was a brilliant stroke of imagination. Much more enticing than a Vulcan Mind Meld.


----------



## HoopleHead

Have seen it twice in IMAX 3-D, need to go another time at least. Maybe twice, once in digital.

I saw it on a "real" large IMAX screen, but the movie itself does NOT take up the full IMAX screen. There is a border on the sides and top. I believe its shown in the same size on both real IMAX and LIEMAX (the smaller IMAX screens), both of which are bigger than the Real 3-D screens.


----------



## HoopleHead

p.s. Here's an "IMAX or LIEMAX?" Google map - http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=U...d=113621990356540393221.000469b6c5915161c3667


----------



## Kiessling

Yes, I think this connection, this link, is one of the key features why we like this film so much. It is, after all, nothing less than overcoming the borders of our eternal solitude (even when together with othes or in a relationship) and being together in the true sense of it. 
A romantic dream of defeating loneliness, the longing.
bernie


----------



## HoopleHead

Someone referred to the links as "USB ponytails" lol


----------



## LuxLuthor

Kiessling said:


> Yes, I think this connection, this link, is one of the key features why we like this film so much. It is, after all, nothing less than overcoming the borders of our eternal solitude (even when together with othes or in a relationship) and being together in the true sense of it.
> A romantic dream of defeating loneliness, the longing.
> bernie



Hey Bernie. I think you need to "get some." Quick! :devil: 

I was pretty amazed how well Cameron's team created the Pandorian genders, but not quite vivid enough to challenge the film sensors (darn it!).


HoopleHead said:


> p.s. Here's an "IMAX or LIEMAX?" Google map - http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=U...d=113621990356540393221.000469b6c5915161c3667



Unfortunately, his map is not accurate. Note the one in Manchester, CT is marked as REAL, and having been to a real IMAX in NYC, I guarantee it is not real. I am supported by two posts from others this last year in James's blog here.

You first want the 15/70 Format illustrated here. 

The best resource to check is the Large Format Examiner database here. It lists the Manchester CT IMAX as only being 23'x51'. Providence RI is 61'x81'. Lincoln Square (Lowes) in NYC is 75'x97'

None of those are Domed screens which are at the end of this list....but I'm not sure Avatar is showing at the domed screens.


----------



## LuxLuthor

IMAX CEO Gelfond answers questions about 3D-TV this week. Interesting reading. I'll be buying a setup. Samsung sign-up page.


----------



## TorchBoy

get-lit said:


> They just took a person ... and made them blue to counter the lack of creativity.


No, it was so they didn't look like Ewoks. AND they're really tall, AND they're smooth skinned. How much less like an Ewok could they look? :naughty:



Seb71 said:


> Avatar should be regarded as a Fantasy movie, not as a Science Fiction one.


Absolute rubbish. It was great science fiction.



blasterman said:


> Somebody in the audience yelled 'where are the Ewoks?' during the final battle, and I tend to agree.


See? They, and you, didn't recognise them.


----------



## HoopleHead

LuxLuthor said:


> Unfortunately, his map is not accurate. Note the one in Manchester, CT is marked as REAL, and having been to a real IMAX in NYC, I guarantee it is not real.


 

Yes you're right, it does say "***AAAND that's a wrap. I don't have the time to update this anymore. Check out LFExaminer.com for more up-to-date info.***" first thing at the top. Too bad, you would have been able to report it and get it updated!


----------



## LEDobsession

Well, I saw it in 2D tonight. I thoroughly enjoyed it even though I started to see the resemblance to something else. I couldn't come up with it other than "Halo" meets "Fern Gully"(or something of that sort), until reading this, I was more able to put my thumb on it as close to "Dances with Wolves", which I liked as a kid. 

The audience part of me that it was directed at really liked it, while the movie critic in me started to pick things apart. Overall, I must say I really did enjoy it and I hope to see it in 3D before its pulled out of theaters.

:thumbsup:


----------



## LEDninja

I was watching the news last night. The reporter was doing a (telephone) interview with the public relations official of Eureka, California. The reporter asked where the public relations official was when the quake hit.
"I was at home with the family getting ready to go see Avatar in Imax 3D. I had to cancel."
Poor guy had to go back to work instead.


----------



## Max_Power

On Friday evening I went to the relatively new Regal Hacienda IMAX in Dublin California hoping to see Avatar. I could not find a way to check ticket availability without going there. It took an hour to make a 30 minute drive because of Friday rush hour traffic. The parking lot for the entire mall was packed solid. At the ticket window I was informed that the 3D screen was sold out until Sunday evening!

I guess the word is out! Not only are people like me going back for a second ride, seeking out the best 3D IMAX screen available, I guess the buzz is attracting first-timers as well.

So I bought tickets for Sunday evening, and went to Fuddruckers next door for a buffalo burger. So the trip wasn't a complete loss. 

--Max_Power


----------



## Seb71

TorchBoy said:


> Absolute rubbish. It was great science fiction.


I could say that your comment is absolute rubbish, but I won't.

The word of Pandora, as presented in the Avatar movie, is clearly a Fantastic world. Maybe you are not familiar with the Fantasy genre.


----------



## TorchBoy

Come on Seb. Science fiction has had fantastic (incredible) worlds for decades, and almost centuries. Just because something is outside scientific reality or the realm of your scientific understanding (kilograms being mass with inertia and all  ) doesn't mean that it's automatically fantasy. Defining it that way would make all science fiction fantasy by default. (I mean the fantasy genre, not the present extant reality of it.)

Avatar can fit purely into science fiction without any recourse to fantasy.


----------



## LuxLuthor

Max_Power said:


> On Friday evening I went to the relatively new Regal Hacienda IMAX in Dublin California hoping to see Avatar. I could not find a way to check ticket availability without going there. It took an hour to make a 30 minute drive because of Friday rush hour traffic. The parking lot for the entire mall was packed solid. At the ticket window I was informed that the 3D screen was sold out until Sunday evening!
> 
> I guess the word is out! Not only are people like me going back for a second ride, seeking out the best 3D IMAX screen available, I guess the buzz is attracting first-timers as well.
> 
> So I bought tickets for Sunday evening, and went to Fuddruckers next door for a buffalo burger. So the trip wasn't a complete loss.
> 
> --Max_Power



Max, sorry you went through that. There are reliable ticketing websites for almost all theaters now. I can reserve a specific seat at IMAX, but your best bet at 3D theater is to get a weekday matinee ticket online, and then get there at least 30 mins early for Avatar.


----------



## Seb71

TorchBoy said:


> Come on Seb. Science fiction has had fantastic (incredible) worlds for decades, and almost centuries. Just because something is outside scientific reality or the realm of your scientific understanding (kilograms being mass with inertia and all  ) doesn't mean that it's automatically fantasy. Defining it that way would make all science fiction fantasy by default. (I mean the fantasy genre, not the present extant reality of it.)
> 
> Avatar can fit purely into science fiction without any recourse to fantasy.


Riding dragons, transferring minds from one body into another by praying, the elvish like forest with the magic tree, the spirits of the animal world and so on are hardly Science Fiction elements. Just because you see some space ships into a movie it does not necessarily mean that it is a Science Fiction one.


----------



## TorchBoy

Just because you see some flying animals that superficially resemble your own personal conceptions of dragons in a movie it does not necessarily mean that it is a Fantasy one. Cuts both ways, eh. Similarity does not mean same, and why does it matter what they look like? You didn't expect Pandora to be identically populated to Earth did you? _That_ might be fantasy.

Anyway, all of those elements you mention had "scientific" explanations, or at least hints that there were. How do you expect to accurately claim it's not science fiction when you don't know what science fiction is?


----------



## Icebreak

LuxLuthor -

I've spent a few hours trying to figure it out but the 3 different lists I've looked at show ****enson Chenal 9 IMAX as "D" but it's huge and slightly larger than 50 by 70. I thinks that's real 1570 IMAX. No strange pixelations or video anomolies. Doesn't that sound right? 50 ft tall should be 1570 IMAX right?

Apologies ifor the OT.


----------



## LuxLuthor

Icebreak said:


> LuxLuthor -
> 
> I've spent a few hours trying to figure it out but the 3 different lists I've looked at show ****enson Chenal 9 IMAX as "D" but it's huge and slightly larger than 50 by 70. I thinks that's real 1570 IMAX. No strange pixelations or video anomolies. Doesn't that sound right? 50 ft tall should be 1570 IMAX right?
> 
> Apologies ifor the OT.


What city is this one in?

The 15/70 refers to 70mm film with 15 perforation holes as shown on this link. That is the first aspect of the original IMAX specification. The "D" may hopefully be a designation for a Domed screen, vs. typical movie flat screen.

As far as size, 50x70' is likely adequate for a satisfying IMAX experience, but as you can see from my previous post #180, screen sizes seem to be all over the place, with the New York City (Lowes) @ Lincoln Square being the largest I have seen listed. A part of the ideal standard includes a kick-*** sound system. This article describes the main features, but IMAX is obviously not able to enforce a specific set of construction variables to have a single qualification.


----------



## TorchBoy

I've read the two images for 3D are placed next to each other on the 70 mm film. Does that mean they're being projected at the same time? And with full resolution or half?


----------



## Max_Power

LuxLuthor said:


> Max, sorry you went through that. There are reliable ticketing websites for almost all theaters now. I can reserve a specific seat at IMAX, but your best bet at 3D theater is to get a weekday matinee ticket online, and then get there at least 30 mins early for Avatar.



Aha, it was actually possible to buy online, but since the movie was sold out for the next day and a half, it prevented me from doing so. Checking online for Monday shows lots of tickets available. Strangely, the website marks sold out times with black or gray text, and available time slots with red text. Poor UI fooled me when I was in a hurry to hop in the car. 

Went there Sunday at 7pm and had another buffalo burger afterwards. Both seem to be habit-forming . The difference between IMAX 3D at the 50 foot tall IMAX screen at the Regal Hacienda, and Real3D at the AMC theaters in Cupertino Square was tough to call - I'd say that it was slightly more comfortable to my eyes to watch at the Real3D screen, but more detail was visible at the IMAX 3d theater. Both were kickass experiences.

--Max_Power


----------



## Icebreak

It's the 5th one from the top

I could just ask the manager to let me see the projector I suppose.


----------



## LEDninja

We had some speculation on what the profits of this movie will be a while back.

A financial update.
Avatar's outta this world in profits - Sci-fi epic bolsters News Corp.'s bottom line by $1.3b
http://thespec.com/News/Business/article/702623


article said:


> ... News Corp.'s stock started climbing since positive reviews came out of sneak peak showings Dec. 10, and it's now up about 12 per cent since then. ...
> 
> ... But Fox won't be getting all of the box office proceeds from Avatar, just as it doesn't from other movies. Fox shared some of the risks -- and thus the profits -- with investors, who bore an estimated 60 per cent of the approximately $250-million production budget for Avatar. And theatre owners get about half of the ticket sales, even before subtracting Fox's colossal marketing spending of around $150 million.
> Fox receives fees for distributing the movie to theatres, and factoring in all that, the studio has probably brought in a profit of more than $80 million already, estimates Cowen & Co. analyst Doug Creutz. ...
> ... Movie economics are murky, and Fox and Clayton declined to comment on the specifics of their deals. Factors affecting the ultimate bottom line include profit-sharing deals with the creative talent, including Lightstorm Entertainment, the production company owned by Cameron. ...
> 
> ... In fact, the movie's success may have done more for theatre companies than for News Corp. itself.
> It served as a reminder that theatre chains such as Regal Entertainment Group and Cinemark Holdings Inc. remain relevant, despite the rise in home entertainment, as living rooms still cannot match the theatrical experience in 3-D viewing.
> Since Avatar opened, both companies' shares have risen more than 5 per cent. ...


----------



## HarryN

Hi - I just read through this entire thread - thanks to all who posted for the info.

I tend to find that if a movie is over hyped - I don't care for it, and this movie definitely is over hyped. For that reason, I have no interest in seeing it - as a movie. Any movie that requires so much adv and promo to make it probably isn't that great of an actual "movie", at least historically. Movie reviewers are routinely bought off - so their opinions and reviews are not actually valuable.

As a junkie of technology, I might go just to see if 3D really has reached an interesting point of interactivity, but its not high on my to-do list.

Profits wise - my understanding is that "most theaters" get almost none of the ticket sales money - this all goes to the movie companies. Usually, the theaters make their money on concessions / popocorn / video games in the lobby. This was one of the great changes from the 1970s when it was more split, and the change resulted in the closure of many movie theaters.

Lastly, I have little interest in helping the entertainment industry continue its trampling of the rights of the individual to make legitimate, pre-DRM concept, personal use copies of songs + movies. 

The entire concept that the FBI and Interpool are enforcing one type of intellectual property (movies) but not of other types (patents / auto designs) is just a blatent example of how Hollywood buys off congress. If the FBI and Interpool protected the intellectual property of the auto and semicondutor makers in North America and Europe, then the merchandise trade deficit and unemployment picture today would be far different.


----------



## LuxLuthor

Icebreak said:


> It's the 5th one from the top
> 
> I could just ask the manager to let me see the projector I suppose.



Ahhh....now I see which it is. Unfortunately, that "D" refers to the Digital projection, not the ideal 15/70 format. There is a description of the categories on this link, and that one does not get good comments. If it were me, I would see if there is just a quality 3D theater with "stadium" type seating.

Remember earlier in the thread, I was talking about how Porno drives all multi-media leading technologies.....well this story is linked today on www.drudgereport.com, and most who were skeptical of 3D TV have been pushed dramatically over the edge. There are articles now of Samsung making a TV that can somehow upcode 2D movies into 3D, and other studios wanting to go back to leading titles and re-edit them for 3D Blu-Ray--all because of the effect of Avatar. I would call that a Revolution.

*LEDNinja*, I predict this will gross more than Titanic, worldwide....but not if you adjust ticket prices for inflation. Even still, easily having the top two grossing films of all time is an accomplishment that 99.99999% of directors would die to achieve. I remember when I started this thread, and how many were sure this was going to be a big flop, or minor blip at best.


----------



## TorchBoy

LuxLuthor said:


> *LEDNinja*, I predict this will gross more than Titanic, worldwide....but not if you adjust ticket prices for inflation.


From that link...


> Throw in the domestic gross and Avatar's worldwide tally stood at $1.34 billion, marching ever closer to Titanic's $1.84 billion all time benchmark.


Hm, "only" half a billion between them. Are those figures for box office takings only or does it include DVD sales? Has anyone made a graph for the rate at which their earnings have climbed?


----------



## LEDninja

TorchBoy said:


> Hm, "only" half a billion between them. Are those figures for box office takings only or does it include DVD sales? Has anyone made a graph for the rate at which their earnings have climbed?


Usually foreign gross takes a couple of weeks to come in. With Avatar the studio is collecting them daily so it is difficult to compare.

The North American numbers are available. I don't have a copy of Excel so I can't make the graph.
Titanic daily box office results:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=daily&id=titanic.htm
Avatar daily box office results:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=daily&id=avatar.htm

Titanic North American total gross:
$28,638,131 by Sunday 21 December 1997 (Day 3)
$88,425,009 by Sunday 28 December 1997 (Day 10)
$157,467,971 by Sunday 4 January 1998 (Day 17)
$197,881,813 by Sunday 11 January 1998 (Day 24)

Avatar North American total gross:
$77,025,481 by Sunday 20 December 2009 (Day 3)
$212,711,184 by Sunday 27 December 2009 (Day 10)
$352,114,898 by Sunday 3 January 2010 (Day 17)
$430,846,514 by Sunday 10 January 2010 (Day 24)

Avatar is making more than double the money of Titanic in the same time frame so may still beat Titanic even when allowing for inflation.


----------



## roguesw

Another Avatar convert here, the story was more than I was expecting and I went into the movies with zero expectation, it more than blew my mind away. I really like how it does have a Dances with wolves feel to it. 
I found the story good, well paced and just fun. 
Forget about bringing logic into the movie, just enjoy the movie for what it is. Good entertainment.


----------



## Icebreak

LuxLuthor -

Put in a call to the film/IT department of ****enson Theatres. The person I got didn't know what 1570 was. I know. I sent her two links to the database. She said she'd inquire about it but I'm going ask the manager at the theater. I'm beginning to think maybe these are a couple of Christies because Angel baby said their IMAX was Real3D which would make it a very large LieMax.

If I went to Dallas or New Orleans to see it I wonder if that would make me a super fan or a groupie or a BlueHead or something.


----------



## Onuris

I was so looking forward to seeing this since it was first advertised, but have not seen it yet! Was on vacation in Italy when it came out, no free time through the holidays, went on a cruise w/ my gf for a week, been busy w/ work since we got back.

We are going to see it on the big system at my friends place this weekend, in 2D 4K. Might go to the local IMAX and see it in 3D as well after that just to compare. I am somewhat hesitant to b/c in the past, every 3D movie has given me a headache, think it is the glasses, and the effect has never seemed very realistic to me, ruins the colors among other things, is gimmicky and more detracting from the experience imo. From the positive reviews I am hearing though, maybe this one is different, so I will give it a shot anyway.


----------



## TorchBoy

Wow, that really is quick. In one of the box office takings summaries I read yesterday I saw a comment that movies these days die more abruptly than when Titanic was released, but there's no sign of Avatar slowing down here yet.

The last time I saw a 3D film at IMAX I too got a headache, and also couldn't focus on closeup objects. I didn't have either of those problems with Avatar, and I noted that the 3D use wasn't gratuitous, with lots of stuff coming out of the screen at the viewer. The 3D is used to support the immersiveness/immersivity of the world, not as a gimmick.


----------



## LuxLuthor

Onuris said:


> I was so looking forward to seeing this since it was first advertised, but have not seen it yet! Was on vacation in Italy when it came out, no free time through the holidays, went on a cruise w/ my gf for a week, been busy w/ work since we got back.
> 
> We are going to see it on the big system at my friends place this weekend, in 2D 4K. Might go to the local IMAX and see it in 3D as well after that just to compare. I am somewhat hesitant to b/c in the past, every 3D movie has given me a headache, think it is the glasses, and the effect has never seemed very realistic to me, ruins the colors among other things, is gimmicky and more detracting from the experience imo. From the positive reviews I am hearing though, maybe this one is different, so I will give it a shot anyway.


If at all possible, don't see it the first time as 2D. A significant amount of the magical immersion is related to the well done 3D work by Cameron. There's nothing like the impact of the first viewing, so I would recommend seeing the 2D afterwords. 

I also had borderline irritation/headache watching some previous gratuitously 3D movie. This is in a class of its own. I'm already seriously looking at the 3D TV's that are being discussed because of this movie. Well you can read all my other posts in this thread if you are bored.


----------



## bstrickler

I finally got to see the movie last night, after having missed out 2 times before, due to a p**n convention in Vegas (was sold out the whole weekend, yet Fandango didn't list it as being sold out).

I LOVED IT! They were really creative with the LED light strands, for the tree, as well.

The only thing that bugged me was that I could see a good bit of frame stuttering, especially in faster scenes. I don't know if it was just because of so much motion, or if the projector just sucked.

The colors were so vivid, as well, it was insane!

If the colors are as flat as they look on my screen in 2d, I'm with Lux about wanting to get a high quality 3D TV for it.

I also loved how it didn't have poop popping out at you every 2 minutes.

If it weren't for the frame stuttering all the time, I would have been immersed into the movie more than any other movie I've watched. It's just one of those movies.

I wish I had money, and an IMAX 3D theatre nearby, I'd definitely see it many more times!

~Brian


----------



## LuxLuthor

Not sure about that frame stuttering you had to deal with, but there was none of that at the 3D theaters I have been at. Sounds like a defective or projector in need of maintenance?


----------



## TorchBoy

If the acid test of a good movie is getting people back into cinemas (instead of watching it with their own home theatre systems) then this is probably one of the best.

I did notice that the image in the local IMAX was shaking just a little.


----------



## bullfrog

I've been trying to get to see this movie for weeks now, but stuff always has popped up - I think tomorrow will finally be the day!

Now I just have to research with theater in Manhattan has the biggest screen


----------



## kelmo

I just experienced it at the IMAX in the Big Sac in 3D. A visually stunning movie. I kept wanting to shout "Tatonka!"


----------



## TorchBoy

Has anyone read the script yet? http://www.foxscreenings.com/media/pdf/JamesCameronAVATAR.pdf


----------



## LuxLuthor

bullfrog said:


> Now I just have to research with theater in Manhattan has the biggest screen


Read my previous post #180. It is the biggest screen I have seen to date. Here is their website, but I'm not sure I would rely on the open times as valid.

Yeah following ticketing links, most theaters remove clickable link when sold out, but Fandango is showing today's shows as sold out here, but can get more dates from drop down. Only other thing is like most broadway/musical shows IMAX reservations like this should let you reserve an actual seat number, and shows which are still left.


----------



## bullfrog

LuxLuthor said:


> Read my previous post #180. It is the biggest screen I have seen to date. Here is their website, but I'm not sure I would rely on the open times as valid.



Thanks - looks like Lincoln Square AMC it is! 

Now just to decide on Digital 3D vs. IMAX 3D as they offer both... :devil:

I guess that I'll kick myself if I dont do the IMAX while its in theaters...


----------



## worldedit

Did anyone mention jet that its the same story as pocahontas?

I liked it anyway. Made me pretty sad to go out into the grey rainy city afterwards.


----------



## LuxLuthor

bullfrog said:


> Thanks - looks like Lincoln Square AMC it is!
> 
> Now just to decide on Digital 3D vs. IMAX 3D as they offer both... :devil:
> 
> I guess that I'll kick myself if I dont do the IMAX while its in theaters...



With access to that particular IMAX size, I would do it just to have that size experience once, even if it wasn't Avatar. I have thought seriously about taking the train down to NYC where I used to live for a while (24th & 2nd) just to see Avatar at that particular theater.


----------



## Icebreak

Well, Angel baby came through and got some of her guys to answer the question. Also, she was able to get an IMAX executive to chime in as well. That theater I go to next to Chenal Mountain was 1570 film a while back. Sometime in 2009 they changed it to Real 3D Digital IMAX. They claim it is the same image only it is digital. I've seen both on that same screen and this Avatar Flick was at least as good as any of the others (Film 15/70) I've seen there.

I thanked Angel and the guys then further imparted that, "Avatar in this Theatre was more than immersive. It was transformative. After a while it was as if we were in the adventure ourselves. When the film was over some of us hitched rides on those flying mountain banshees to get back to the theater. I rode mine all the way home."

Now I want to go to New York.


----------



## Max_Power

Now that the movie has been out several weeks, the digital screens should be the best way to go. Film wears out after a few weeks of play, and causes the viewer get jarred out of the illusion by skips, jumpy spots, and sound dropouts.

My first viewing was at a digital Real3d screen and it was breathtaking. Second viewing at a film 3D IMAX screen was also amazing.


----------



## LEDobsession

TorchBoy said:


> Has anyone read the script yet? http://www.foxscreenings.com/media/pdf/JamesCameronAVATAR.pdf



Hey, thanks for that. From the looks of the start of it, it has a few parts left out, but Im excited to read it. 

On another note, I saw it again last night in Digital 3D. I have heard that the experience in IMAX 3D is still a little bit better. I may just have to see it again before its pulled out of theaters. Anyone know when that will be?

If you liked the music, check out the soundtrack. I just got it and I can't stop listening to it. Its awesome music.

:thumbsup:


----------



## LuxLuthor

LEDobsession said:


> Hey, thanks for that. From the looks of the start of it, it has a few parts left out, but Im excited to read it.
> 
> On another note, I saw it again last night in Digital 3D. I have heard that the experience in IMAX 3D is still a little bit better. I may just have to see it again before its pulled out of theaters. Anyone know when that will be?
> 
> If you liked the music, check out the soundtrack. I just got it and I can't stop listening to it. Its awesome music.
> 
> :thumbsup:



I don't know if they will even think of pulling it out of theaters while it is outselling all the other movies running, or even while in the top 4-5. Eventually it will drop, but the theaters & production companies want to sell tickets....and it is still selling tickets. You can always follow the active movie totals day-by-day at BoxOffice Mojo.

I never even thought about the soundtrack.....heading over to Amazon.com Thanks!

The CD is sold out at Amazon. LOL!


----------



## LEDobsession

LuxLuthor said:


> I don't know if they will even think of pulling it out of theaters while it is outselling all the other movies running, or even while in the top 4-5. Eventually it will drop, but the theaters & production companies want to sell tickets....and it is still selling tickets. You can always follow the active movie totals day-by-day at BoxOffice Mojo.
> 
> I never even thought about the soundtrack.....heading over to Amazon.com Thanks!
> 
> The CD is sold out at Amazon. LOL!



I'm glad its still going good. That means I can go see it again. Haha. Third times the charm. 

You can always get it off iTunes (unless you have something against Apple), but of course thats just the digital version.


----------



## blasterman

worldedit said:


> Did anyone mention jet that its the same story as pocahontas?


 
That and a combination of 'Dances with Wolves'. Doesn't matter - demographic raving about this film thinks Cameron is the greatest director that ever lived. Plus, I'm convinced the OP is so obsessed about it he's bought Avatar bed sheets 

Count the number of replies in this thread compared to the Haiti thread and it shows what our priorities are.


----------



## Lite_me

blasterman said:


> That and a combination of 'Dances with Wolves'. Doesn't matter - demographic raving about this film thinks Cameron is the greatest director that ever lived. Plus, I'm convinced the OP is so obsessed about it he's bought Avatar bed sheets
> 
> *Count the number of replies in this thread compared to the Haiti thread and it shows what our priorities are.*


Just to put this into some bit of perspective..

The Avatar thread has been open since 8/22 - some 130+ days.

The Haiti thread has only been open for 2 days.

Since the Haiti thread has been open, there has been 37 replies to it as this writing. 

In the same time period, the Avatar thread has only had 7 replies. 

Yes, the tragedy in Haiti is horrific. The pain and suffering is beyond words. My heart & prayers go out to them. But there's only so much you can say about a tragic state of affairs such as this. If you'll notice, even though I feel strongly about their situation, I have not replied to that thread. Post count doesn't mean everything. The two topics are very different. People have experienced Avatar and are sharing their experiences. No one ever wants to experience what the people of Haiti are dealing with, and can only even imagine what it's like. 

This is all I'm going to say about this, and apologize for jumping OT, but I found your comment a bit offensive. 


Now, back to the movie.... I still haven't seen it!!  :mecry:


----------



## LEDobsession

Lite_me said:


> Just to put this into some bit of perspective..
> 
> The Avatar thread has been open since 8/22 - some 130+ days.
> 
> The Haiti thread has only been open for 2 days.
> 
> Since the Haiti thread has been open, there has been 37 replies to it as this writing.
> 
> In the same time period, the Avatar thread has only had 7 replies.
> 
> Yes, the tragedy in Haiti is horrific. The pain and suffering is beyond words. My heart & prayers go out to them. But there's only so much you can say about a tragic state of affairs such as this. If you'll notice, even though I feel strongly about their situation, I have not replied to that thread. Post count doesn't mean everything. The two topics are very different. People have experienced Avatar and are sharing their experiences. No one ever wants to experience what the people of Haiti are dealing with, and can only even imagine what it's like.
> 
> This is all I'm going to say about this, and apologize for jumping OT, but I found your comment a bit offensive.
> 
> 
> Now, back to the movie.... I still haven't seen it!!  :mecry:



A big +1 to that. 


Cameron has plans for a sequel and possibly a Trilogy if Numero Uno does well, which it is doing. Could we have a new Star Wars like obsession here? I think we very well could.


----------



## bstrickler

LEDobsession said:


> A big +1 to that.
> 
> 
> Cameron has plans for a sequel and possibly a Trilogy if Numero Uno does well, which it is doing. Could we have a new Star Wars like obsession here? I think we very well could.



I'm just curious about how they'd do a #3. I could see a #2 (show more about the Na'vi after they defeated the Terran race), and would definitely see it if he released it.

~Brian


----------



## LuxLuthor

I could see a sequel about the history/origins of Pandora--previous conflicts among tribes...and as you said about other developments after sending earthling invaders on their way. 

Lite_me, thanks for your note. You can see who started both topics, and who first trashed this movie based upon a single trailer a day after thread started, continuing through to the present day in the same manner.

You can also notice his total lack of contribution to the more important thread on Haiti to which he refers. My wife and I have contributed $300 to three charities in the last few days, and are involved in other ways in our community. I'll just leave it at that, and as you said the topics are totally unrelated.


----------



## bullfrog

ARGH! This movie continues to elude me!!! 

This sunday... I swear... :huh:

Well, at the rate it keeps selling, I could probably still catch it in the theater this memorial day


----------



## LEDobsession

bstrickler said:


> I'm just curious about how they'd do a #3. I could see a #2 (show more about the Na'vi after they defeated the Terran race), and would definitely see it if he released it.
> 
> ~Brian





LuxLuthor said:


> I could see a sequel about the history/origins of Pandora--previous conflicts among tribes...and as you said about other developments after sending earthling invaders on their way.



It sounds like the sequel will follow Jake and Neytiri right after the end of the first. It also sounds like they won't be confined to Pandora, maybe exploring Polyphemus and/or some of the other moons. I guess its all up in the air now as Cameron hasn't got it all put together, but he says he might be taking ideas and opinions from cast members (don't quote me on that) and ubisoft (the video game maker he paired with) for the next. 

Theres a couple of sources that he was quoted from, this being one that I found, among others.


----------



## usLEDsupply

well i broke down and spent the extra $3 for the IMAX and the stupid $2 Fandango "convince fee" but when the closest IMAX theater is an hour away and on a Friday night i didn't want to get there and have it sold out. (it turned out to be an hour and a half away cause of traffic around an accident) and the movie had already started but my wife and i got the only 2 seats left next to each other as it was just about sold out.

as for the IMAX i liked it. The 3d was pretty cool i didn't have the best seats (back right) but it was still pretty neat and while i probably wont go back to a theater for another year or so (unless something looks really really good) 
i may have to get some 3d glasses if they release a 3d dvd of it and my projector supports it 

as for the movie i really liked it (there were no boring parts) it made the time pass quickly, when it was over i was defiantly glad i saw it.


----------



## TorchBoy

Titanic $1,842,900,000
Avatar $1,435,000,000

So in the last week Avatar closed the gap by $90-something million. Should just take a month and a bit more to equal Titanic.

BTW, there's really no call for judging the motives or unrelated actions of other CPFers.

Edit: Correction - the figures are now even closer.

Titanic $1,842,900,000
Avatar $1,602,200,000

For 5 of 8 Auckland theatres for one particular chain Avatar is still the first movie listed in the newspaper screening times. Tooth Fairy is the first listed for the other 3, with Avatar in second.


----------



## LuxLuthor

No question now that worldwide gross will overtake Titanic, not likely when adjusted for inflation. Easily won weekend #5, and Golden Globe wins for Best Director and Best Picture will give more support. Similar GG wins set stage for Titanic's 11 Oscars, but I will be surprised if Avatar scores that many.


----------



## was.lost.but.now.found

My wife currently works full time and is also going to nursing school full time in the evenings. I watch next to no TV because I just don't have the time when I'm a single dad from a practical sense and like to spend time playing with my 3 year old in the evenings.

My first exposure to Avatar was the toys my son got in his happy meal. My second exposure was the endurance of this thread in the recent activity view. I did not read the thread but rather decided to try and see the movie this weekend having absolutely no preconceived notions. I got the chance to see it Saturday and then read this entire thread this morning.


Some observations about the movie.

The graphics really do make the movie. Normally in movies like this, the viewer can see where the designers try to go too far and a movie goer might say "that was so fake" regarding the special effects. Never in the entire movie did I feel that way. A+ for the graphics.
Storyline was 'ok'. Yes it's been done, I'd call it above average. At times it seemed the story existed just to compliment the graphics (I hate it when they do that, but oh well, the graphics earned the right in this case). Story B-
3D was what I call an 'enhancement'. I don't think it 'made' the movie. Lux is right, it would be nice to have a broad scorecard of how people rate it with and without 3D during their first experience. I'll admit I was expecting more, but on the other hand it's nice that it was subdued to provide the 'accent'. 3D gets a B+
MPAA rating of PG13?? You're joking right? Someone was paid off to keep the 'audience' broad and away from an 'R' rating. The guy next to me had his 9 or 10 year old and they left the theatre during one of the battle scenes because she was scared. I don't blame him for bringing her given this rating found on IMDB:


IMDB said:


> Rated PG-13 for intense epic battle sequences and warfare, sensuality, language and some smoking.





MPAA said:


> There may be depictions of violence in a PG-13 movie, but generally not both realistic and extreme or persistent violence.


 I honestly don't believe this all jives very well, but then again this is just my opinion. It means nothing personally, other than the fact that toys which are meant to advertise this movie DO NOT belong in my 3 year old's happy meal. rating: D-
CGI 'acting': A-
Real actor 'acting': C+ (yeah Sigourney, you own this one).


----------



## LuxLuthor

Good review, Lost/Found. I can see all your points, especially the rating for young children. I have not seen many youngsters at the showings I have gone to, and have been glad about that.

On another interesting note, China is now censoring/banning Avatar from continued to be shown. You can read about why it threatens them, and makes you appreciate not living there.


----------



## TorchBoy

LuxLuthor said:


> On another interesting note, China is now censoring/banning Avatar from continued to be shown. You can read about why it threatens them, and makes you appreciate not living there.


In the picture in that link, how come their ears glow red when they've got blue skin? That seems a bit inconsistent.


----------



## thelightdude

I saw it in 2d the week it came out. I saw it today in 3d.

Just some observations:

1. Don't waste your time seeing the 2d version. The 3d version is fun to watch, and as others have pointed out -draws you into the movie.

2. If you wear prescription glasses you must wear them under the 3d glasses, especially if you have astigmatism. When I watched the movie with just the 3d glasses I got a headache and a serious loss of the 3d effect. With my prescription glasses under the 3d the movie was great.

3. After seeing it in 3d I could see many people going back to see it again. Perhaps this is one of the reasons for the box office numbers (repeat offenders). 


Near, far, wherever you are........


----------



## Juggernaut

Went to see it in IMAX 3D, sold out hours before it was set to play, got stuck watching 3D regular:mecry:.
 
Very foreseeable storyline, never was I like “Wow, didn’t see that coming!” It was quite foretelling. At least it explained it’s self, never will you be wondering what happened.
 
Incredible graphics, perhaps the future of high end special effects in movies, loved the heads up display of the holographic in the airships, made me drool.
 
In my option not as visibly incredible as such movies as the Matrix trilogy, but they are very different movies.
 
Liked how the 3D didn’t really pop out at you “yuck!” it just made it more in-depth, like a greater version of high definition. Takes like 10 minuets to get used to it, but I hardly noticed it was 3D for most of the movie, thumbs up.
 
I would give it a 5 stars out of 5, and a 8.5 out 10 for my favorite movies of all time. 
 
All I can say is WWI aerial dogfights:devil:, this kind of 3D and special affects would make a movie like that absolutely EPIC!


----------



## LuxLuthor

Continues blowing the doors off other movies in terms of records. 



> _*Avatar* hovered atop the box office for the fifth weekend in a row, the first time that's happened since *The Sixth Sense* back in 1999, and it racked up several other milestones in the process. Its total stands at a monumental $505.1 million in 32 days, making it the fastest picture to cross the $500 million mark. *The Dark Knight* did it in 45 days, while *Titanic* took 98 days (or 50 days adjusted for ticket price inflation). With a $42.8 million Friday-to-Sunday take, *Avatar* not only had the smallest decline of the weekend (15 percent), but it broke the record for highest-grossing fifth weekend, formerly held by *Titanic*'s $30 million (though it still retains the crown in terms of attendance).
> 
> At the foreign box office, *Avatar* continued to rage, blazing past the $1 billion mark in record time and delivering the biggest fifth week gross ever. From 111 markets, it generated $128.5 million, which was down 15 percent from last week, and its total climbed to $1.115 billion. That included a record-setting debut in its final market, Italy, where it made $15.2 million. China, though, was *Avatar*'s top market of the week at $17.9 million, and the movie is already the country's highest grosser ever with $75.6 million in the till. *Avatar* also took that honor in South Korea with a $70.7 million tally. France remains *Avatar*'s biggest market overall with $115.3 million._



I feel bad for people that don't like it, because it is gonna be sticking in their craw for quite some time to come. No Avatar bedsheets on Amazon yet. Hoping for Avatar pajamas with the footsies.


----------



## Mr.Penny

I didn't see Avatar, but I keep hearing that people are feeling depressed after seeing the movie...

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


----------



## fisk-king

LuxLuthor said:


> Continues blowing the doors off other movies in terms of records.
> 
> 
> 
> I feel bad for people that don't like it, because it is gonna be sticking in their craw for quite some time to come. No Avatar bedsheets on Amazon yet. Hoping for Avatar pajamas with the footsies.


 

wow, Dark Knight took only 45 days. It seems the level of excitement that I had ( & others) for the Dark Knight is equal to or even more for Avatar. I went to see Avatar (on a 3D screen) and it was a good flick, but the Dark Knight was something special, IMHO of course.:nana:


----------



## was.lost.but.now.found

I wonder if they include the 3D surcharge in the box office totals? In my area the surcharge is $3.00, which is over a 40% increase over a matinee ticket at $7.25.


----------



## LEDobsession

TorchBoy said:


> In the picture in that link, how come their ears glow red when they've got blue skin? That seems a bit inconsistent.



Well, they still did have red blood, and with our ears (and apparently theirs as well) being rather thin, this makes sense to show up red when light is displayed from behind. :thumbsup:


----------



## LuxLuthor

was.lost.but.now.found said:


> I wonder if they include the 3D surcharge in the box office totals? In my area the surcharge is $3.00, which is over a 40% increase over a matinee ticket at $7.25.



Yes they do include that, and has been a legitimate criticism of number of viewings vs. gross receipts in comparing. It is also a different movie experience seeing 2D vs. 3D, and probably one of the few times the 3D premium was worth paying.


----------



## flashy bazook

A few more thoughts.

Still the case that it is a "revolution" is far from proven. It is a blockbuster, no doubt. And deservedly so. But only time will tell if it is a revolution.

3-D developments in forthcoming TV's, and especially computers (Nvidia and ATI both have this available for 3xCompatible Monitor screen setups) will show how much demand there really is for 3-D.

There is little doubt that the 3-D aspect plus advanced photographic, computerized special effects, and related technologies, has helped propel Avatar to where it's got. But there is also a strong element of novelty in all this, which may or may not add up to a whole lot eventually.

My thinking? 3-D will remain a novelty item that will not spread around too much. I don't think people (outside of specialized computer gamers maybe) will as a matter of course expect or want to watch video in 3-D.

If anything, the trend is BACKWARDS! Think of all the video watching not even on large HiDef TVs, but in fact on tiny-by-comparison cell phone/smart-phone screens! THAT I never expected to catch on as much as it has, since I value high quality video. Apparently, many are quite content to watch video on small screens. Will they pay a lot of money to upgrade to 3-D TVs and computer monitors? Doubtful.

I thought the topic of young kids watching it was interesting. I know of young kids who watched it with no problems. Having watched a fair amount of "action" movies before probably is a good test for whether a kid will enjoy the movie or not.

I talked to relatives' kids that watched the movie, and it was interesting that most were not bowled over, with their regular favorites remaining so and not being displaced by Avatar. (Of course, they generally DID like the movie a lot) Clearly this has to do with the plot and also the characters. 

Avatar just didn't have the catchy characters that Star Wars and similar movies had. To put it another way, the romantic pair was strong. But the male friends/good buddies element was largely missing. And there were no kid heroes to draw in the kids.

The plot also is stirring a lot of controversy. A lot of this is quite unfair, it seems like viewers are projecting all sorts of hangups onto the movie.

Some complain it is too much like Dances with Wolves or taking elements from other movies and SciFi books. The Chinese don't like parallels with the razing of their own pristine country side to raise pollution spewing factories. Some (e.g., the Vatican) think the movie glorifies animistic/pagan religions too much.

Perhaps there is an element of culture entering here as well. People here (in the U.S.) tend not to over-think things and just to ride along the action. Foreigners like to err on the other side, sometimes (and maybe some countries but not others). I wonder how much of that also helps explain the differences in views expressed here (in this forum). Possibly quite a bit.


----------



## flashy bazook

One quick factoid - the projection is for $2 billion gross revenues, of which $400 million would be profit for the owning company.

Would be interesting to know how much Cameron will clear from this. His contract for the Titanic would in fact have given him almost nothing, in the end the studio paid him handsomely, but it seems it didn't actually have to do this from the legal point of view.


----------



## LuxLuthor

flashy bazook said:


> Still the case that it is a "revolution" is far from proven. It is a blockbuster, no doubt. And deservedly so. But only time will tell if it is a revolution.



A "revolution" is not a discreetly defined term. Last summer, there were serious concerns that the investors would not recover the $400-500 million in costs & promotion. It has produced a revolutionary success and profit and at least G.G. awards in the face of those doubts.

I meant the term "revolution" with regards to a new and effective use of Cameron's 3D technologies to immerse the audience in ways that has not been accomplished to date. I rule out all reviews or opinions by people who only saw it in 2D, because they did not have the magic worked on them. The sustaining and repeat viewing--audience breaking records make it pretty clear that something is unique about this movie when seen in 3D. I consider that "mission accomplished" immersion effect as a revolution.

You may not have read that as a direct result of Avatar's success, and from the direct experience from various entertainment industry artists, studio "suits," directors, etc. there is now a project underway to go back through their popular movie titles and somehow rejigger them to show 3D effects. It is already underway, and if you have Lucas and other big names interested--you have produced a revolution.

In addition to recent announcements of several TV channels to be offered in 3D, the porno industry is moving into 3D, and everyone knows that they drive most new multi-media technologies. Finally, the development of 3D televisions which were on a wait-and-see, back-shelf category are now being developed and brought out at accelerated paces. I read about a Toshiba Cell TV model due out this year which reportedly (? not sure if when combined with BR-3D) can upgrade existing 2D movies into some degree of 3D effects. Here is an announcement from Toshiba's website.

IMHO, there was not enough smackdown improvement with Blu-Ray to deliver the overall projected sales of entire TV entertainment systems as had been hoped. If they now have a 3D feature addd to high-def, coordinated with all the other above factors--and all as a result of the success (and seeing with their own eyes what can be achieved) of Avatar, I can now confidently predict it is a revolutionary turning point in this whole area of 3D.

People now have an experience of how their previous favorite movies could have looked if they had this technology, and they will be looking for this new immersion feature in future movies. Avatar set a new standard, and like George Lucas & Lucasfilms beforehand, Cameron invented, and more importantly--*proved the success of* a new technology.

The reason I have seen Avatar 5 times in 3D is because of the unique immersion quality--being drawn into the movie's world. The classic great movies like Star Wars, Dark Knight, Lord of the Rings, 300, Matrix, etc., didn't have the 3D immersion which is the revolutionary aspect of Avatar. Previous attempts at 3D were comical, unrealistic, and dislocating. They lived as a fad because they were like a stupid pet trick effect, rather than something that enhanced, and drew the audience into the movie.

I would predict yet another revolution if someone develops the technology to have an effective holographic movie experience that gives an even more immersive effect. 

Ultimately, it does depend on how someone wants to define "revolutionary." As examples, I would consider these developments as revolutionary, in no particular order of degree of revolution, and not covering everything:


Silent movie
"Talking movie"
Movie Theaters
Drive-In Theaters
Color movie
Television cathode ray tube
Surround Sound (including all the complexities and versions)
Videotape movie/tv show players/recorders/cam-corders
Laserdisc/DVD/digital cameras/DVD-HD & BluRay
Television-LED/Plasma/DLP--including HD and larger screen sizes.
TIVO/hard drive time shifting recorders
Internet streaming media
CGI/animation/Pixar/green screening
Immersion 3D


----------



## was.lost.but.now.found

I would personally add bullet time to your list but that's just my opinion.


----------



## Machine_head

I must be the only person left on the planet who hasnt seen this...Have I missed the boat for the 3d cinema version??


----------



## LEDobsession

LuxLuthor said:


> the porno industry is moving into 3D, and everyone knows that they drive most new multi-media technologies.



I only wish this wasn't true. :sigh:


----------



## TorchBoy

It's awfully close now, Lux. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/



Code:


1  Titanic  $1,842.9
2  Avatar   $1,836.1


----------



## LuxLuthor

I'm actually more stunned at another (5th) weekend dominance, especially with a few more good movies running against it. It's double the intake of the new Legion movie which also looked like a good one in promos.

It's going to knock off Titanic both in worldwide, and domestic gross, but won't come close to top ten when adjusted for inflation. But those were the days when movies were movies, and when people used to go to theaters at least 1-2 times/month. I think with DVD's, home entertainment systems, quality of movies, etc., people are more like me seeing 1-2 movies a year in theaters now.

I'll probably go see Avatar a 6th or 7th time before it leaves the 3D studios, but have not seen any other movie since Star Trek and Dark Knight that I would bother with at the theater.


----------



## TorchBoy

LuxLuthor said:


> I'm actually more stunned at another (5th) weekend dominance,


It's _still_ on "no free tickets" here.


----------



## LuxLuthor

Here's my new Avatar avatar, you can submit your own pix.


----------



## LuxLuthor

They announced the takeover of Titanic's gross just now.


----------



## TorchBoy

LuxLuthor said:


> Here's my new Avatar avatar, you can submit your own pix.


Hey, nothing personal, but you look drugged.


----------



## LuxLuthor

TorchBoy said:


> Hey, nothing personal, but you look drugged.



That was taken while I was watching the movie.


----------



## LuxLuthor

Besides Lucas redoing his Star Wars in 3D, the next two Harry Potters are going 3D.



> Conversion expenses have been coming down, so each film will cost just $5 million to change into 3D. Warners also will absorb an additional $5 million expense per pic to pay for 3D glasses for exhibitors handling the movies.
> 
> As for the impact on boxoffice prospects for the final two "Potter" sequels, consider the more imminent situation with "Titans." A remake of a 1981 film starring Laurence Olivier, "Titans" previously might have been expected to fetch no more than $200 million domestically, and even that was an aggressive projection. Released in 3D, Warners figures to reap well north of $200 million, with 2007's $211 million domestic grosser "300" considered a beatable benchmark.
> 
> 
> "Titans" in 3D also is considered a safe bet to best the $245 million in foreign coin that Warners fetched with "300." The "Titans" move is not without risk. The installed base of 3D movie screens has been growing rapidly, but it's not sufficient to release the film entirely in 3D. That should be less of a concern by the time the next "Potter" hits multiplexes. But execs also are quietly confident of getting enough 3D playdates for "Titans."


----------



## LEDobsession

I drove down to Salt Lake last night to see Avatar again, this time in the IMAX 3D format. I don't know how I'll ever watch anything again thats _not_ in that 3D. I have now seen all three formats; 2D, Digital 3D, and IMAX 3D. There is a pretty good deal of difference in the IMAX. It was awesome.


----------



## dano

I've seen it, but just don't get it. It wasn't that good. Sure, it used some whizz-bang new technology, but that can't make up for a lousy story and lousy performances.


----------



## LEDobsession

dano said:


> I've seen it, but just don't get it. It wasn't that good. Sure, it used some whizz-bang new technology, but that can't make up for a lousy story and lousy performances.



I tend to disagree, as may many others but everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I had a friend that didn't care for it either. :thinking:


----------



## LuxLuthor

LEDobsession said:


> I drove down to Salt Lake last night to see Avatar again, this time in the IMAX 3D format. I don't know how I'll ever watch anything again thats _not_ in that 3D. I have now seen all three formats; 2D, Digital 3D, and IMAX 3D. There is a pretty good deal of difference in the IMAX. It was awesome.



I wish I had a reasonably good 3D IMAX within an hour's drive, but not driving 2-3 hrs to Boston or NYC. How did you compare the 2D to 3D? I honestly feel bad for people who think they saw the movie when only watching 2D. Like I said before, I wouldn't buy or even rent the 2D version if it comes out on DVD or BR.


----------



## 276

I just saw this movie on Sunday in 3D & i still cant get it out of my head, Regular 3D really doesn't compare to an IMAX 3D.


----------



## dano

LEDobsession said:


> I tend to disagree, as may many others but everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I had a friend that didn't care for it either. :thinking:



If there wasn't all the pre-release hype about the new film making technology, and the constant year long push for drone like public anticipation, Avatar would be a B-movie, at best.


----------



## hk dave

Avatar was the single most incredible cinematic experience i ever had.

It is also the most disturbing... it always disturbs me when people with media power that live in the US... that are successful because of the US... basically attempt to destroy our credibility through media...

Shame shame....

Our troops are not rapers and pillagers... as shown in recent times with Haiti.. our troops are heroes... they went into Haiti to restore peace and make it possible to distribute aid... regardless what some of the idiotic media portrays... our troops are good.... not the devil.


----------



## LuxLuthor

dano said:


> If there wasn't all the pre-release hype about the new film making technology, and the constant year long push for drone like public anticipation, Avatar would be a B-movie, at best.



Not everyone will always like every movie, but there is no longer any question about it being a revolutionary movie when seen in 3D in all the ways it has rocked the movie world, studios, directors, and fans.

A true B- movie won't sell this many tickets, nor remain at #1 for this long, nor win best movie and director awards. Every big movie has pre-release hype, and is responsible for the first 1-2 weeks. If it is an exceptional movie, it then takes off on its own based upon reviews and word of mouth.

Some of the movies you think are the best A+, will also have a percentage of people not that impressed. In any case, everyone is entitled to their opinion even if they are in the minority.


----------



## Icebreak

hk dave, I could be wrong but I got the impression from the story line that the troops weren't regulars at all but were Blackwater types...heavily funded.

Lux -

Monday the evening news had a special on the movie. The digital photography of the actors' faces was cool. It looked like the opposite of and integrating sphere. Maybe 100 cameras and 100 lights in a spherical caged unit with the actor inside. Now that they have been captured they be rehired for dialog but not reshot for many scenes which keep costs down on sequels.

You probably already know that but it was a cool device to see.


----------



## Kiessling

dano said:


> If there wasn't all the pre-release hype about the new film making technology, and the constant year long push for drone like public anticipation, Avatar would be a B-movie, at best.




You need to learn to look behind the veil of the artificial hype and know the true qualities of the film.
The story sure wasn't the highlight, and the tech stuff is just a tool to accomplish something, it has no use of its own. The true power of the film is beyond that. 
But then again ... you did not want to look that far from the beginning, did you?
bernie


----------



## LEDobsession

LuxLuthor said:


> I wish I had a reasonably good 3D IMAX within an hour's drive, but not driving 2-3 hrs to Boston or NYC. How did you compare the 2D to 3D? I honestly feel bad for people who think they saw the movie when only watching 2D. Like I said before, I wouldn't buy or even rent the 2D version if it comes out on DVD or BR.



The IMAX 3D compared to two dimensional.....doesn't compare. Even when its compared to digital 3D is a rather big difference. I didn't think there would be much to differ between the 3D qualities, but its more than you would expect. Plus, its a lot bigger of a screen. I will try to make it to the IMAX again for that experience.


----------



## Ilikeshinythings

I thought it was one of the best movies I have seen. There have been 3D movies for a while now and CG has been advancing for years. I really liked it, but I don't think it's a movie revolution. Was it awesome? Absolutely. Would I pay money to see it again? Totally. Was it life changing? No.

As far as grossing the most of any movie of all time, it's easily twice as expensive as a ticket to titanic was. With that notion it will have to gross well over $3B to account for ticket price and monitary inflation before I consider it the highest grossing film. Considering you still have to buy your ticket a day in advance this long after the first showing, it very well may pass the $3B mark in the next month!

It's interesting how they plug into other life-forms like an electrical socket. I did kind of catch a "dances with wolves" ploy throughout the film, and it definitely played on corporate greed destroying natural beauty, but it's not the first, nor the last time that hollywood will take that route. I think it's funny how pissed off both sides of the spectrum have become over the movies messages. It's a movie! Does anybody remember blazing saddles!?


----------



## thelightdude

Ilikeshinythings said:


> Does anybody remember blazing saddles!?




Who can forget Slim Pickens in the campfire scene.

By the way, adjusting for inflation (1974), Blazing Saddles made almost as much as Spiderman ($518,356,200 vs. $471,677,300). Domestic gross.


----------



## dano

Kiessling said:


> You need to learn to look behind the veil of the artificial hype and know the true qualities of the film.
> The story sure wasn't the highlight, and the tech stuff is just a tool to accomplish something, it has no use of its own. The true power of the film is beyond that.
> But then again ... you did not want to look that far from the beginning, did you?
> bernie




What's the "true power" of this film? Is it the anti-American message? Is it Cameron's anti-American "War on terror" message? Is it the "Man is evil" message? Cameron has admitted to the political overtones:

When describing the death of the Big Tree, Cameron stated: "...he (Cameron) had been 'surprised at how much it did look like September 11. I didn’t think that was necessarily a bad thing' ”. --L.A. Times

"We don’t know what it feels like for them (bombs) to land on our home soil, not in America. I think there’s a moral responsibility to understand that. "

I have no need to look past any supposed message or theme. I can care less about a vast majority of Hollywood produced movies that have a political edge; I like to be entertained and Avatar was not entertaining.

A high quality work will tell a story through narrative and visuals, and capture the audience. 

Watching nine foot smurfs talk to birds, the evil generic baddies, "Unobtanium" (they couldn't even think of a name for the MacGuffin?), the predictable martyr, Saldana's disappearing/reappearing accent, etc...Makes for a bad movie.

Avatar is not a high quality, nor original story. It's been told numerous times before, in far better movies.


----------



## Kiessling

As I said, I don't think the story is the key element. Further more, I did not see any political message beyond the generic civilization vs. natives thing that was told a bazillion times before. 

Where the movie shines IMHO is the attention to detail, the perfection of the presentation. It is the natural manner in which the special effects and futuristic stuff are deployed, not to draw attention to them, but "naturally", as if they were daily routine stuff. 
The world and its inhabitants are so realistic in every aspect that - together with the new 3D tech stuff - the movie just draws you in, makes you be "in" it far more than every other movie I have seen. 

That's revolutionary. Not the tech stuff. Not the message. But the perfect presentation of a virtual world that makes you almost enter it. 

After that ... the story and characters you like or dislike which is true for every movie.

But I think that this new aspect of a movie is really a revolution or a big advancement that simply can't be denied, if you like the film or not. Which makes me think your post smashed the movie for one aspect you did not like and didn't take the rest into account, and is thus a flawed argument.


----------



## dano

Kiessling said:


> As I said, I don't think the story is the key element. Further more, I did not see any political message beyond the generic civilization vs. natives thing that was told a bazillion times before.
> 
> Where the movie shines IMHO is the attention to detail, the perfection of the presentation. It is the natural manner in which the special effects and futuristic stuff are deployed, not to draw attention to them, but "naturally", as if they were daily routine stuff.
> The world and its inhabitants are so realistic in every aspect that - together with the new 3D tech stuff - the movie just draws you in, makes you be "in" it far more than every other movie I have seen.
> 
> That's revolutionary. Not the tech stuff. Not the message. But the perfect presentation of a virtual world that makes you almost enter it.
> 
> After that ... the story and characters you like or dislike which is true for every movie.
> 
> But I think that this new aspect of a movie is really a revolution or a big advancement that simply can't be denied, if you like the film or not. Which makes me think your post smashed the movie for one aspect you did not like and didn't take the rest into account, and is thus a flawed argument.




Presentation doesn't make a good movie. If that's the case, then everything before Avatar was bad movie making? I think the movie was lousy because it was simplistic, juvenile and flawed (and borrowed) storytelling wrapped around some fancy technology. Strip away the 3D and the movie is not notable for anything, including the directing, story line, dialog, and performances. 

When compared to Cameron's other works, Avatar can't stand up at all to T2 or Aliens.


----------



## LuxLuthor

I can find hundreds of people that think Aliens, Terminator movies, Dark Knight, LOTR's, Fight Club, Matrix, Star Wars, Kill Bill, Pulp Fiction, Full Metal Jacket, Few Good Men, Indiana Jones, ET, UP are not good movies, and have their list of reasons why not. 

A work of art is in the eye of the beholder, and despite these negative opinions, they are proven irrelevant by the accomplishments, longevity, and success of Avatar since it came out. Arguing with someone like dano or blasterman who have decided that Avatar sucks is like arguing politics. They are not willing to see anything great about Avatar, nor its revolutionary impact on the movie industry. None of us are going to make them see beyond their opinions. 

They must feel they are contributing something really important to the rest of us, because they seem unable to just state their negative opinion in a thread praising Avatar, and move on. 

I'm just not sure what they think they are accomplishing here.


----------



## QtrHorse

I just wanted to stop back by and say hi.:wave:

This is a lot like the incan VS LED. Some just cannot see the revolutionary advances that one has over the other. 

DVD VS Blu-ray 
Cassette VS CD
Gas Engine VS Diesel Engine

We could all name many more examples. 

I don't know if I would call Avatar a Movie Revolution, it seems to have more of a cult following. Can they have the same meaning, possibly.

I finally watched it in 3D and I was still not that impressed but it did make the move a little better for me. I'm sure if I would have originally watched it in 3D, it would have been even more enjoyable. As already stated, everyone will have a opinion and that's what makes banter like this fun. I don't watch movies to feel like I'm in them, I'm after something else. If I want to feel like I'm doing something, I just go and do it. 



What I do predict is that in 10-15 years, people will have another medical condition that they can blame on someone/ something. I'm sure they will come out with a diagnosis that is similar to Carpal Tunnel Syndrome for the eye muscles from watching these new 3D movies and the new 3D TV's.


----------



## 65535

QtrHorse said:


> What I do predict is that in 10-15 years, people will have another medical condition that they can blame on someone/ something. I'm sure they will come out with a diagnosis that is similar to Carpal Tunnel Syndrome for the eye muscles from watching these new 3D movies and the new 3D TV's.



At the current rate even if completely harmless someone will be claiming it isn't. Can at least guarantee that.

Luckily I don't foresee too many problems from this, it uses your eye's and brains natural depth perception from your two eyes to form a relatively true to life depth in the image, and polarized light doesn't seem to have adverse effects on humans seeing as most quality sunglasses are polarized and polarized light is just half intensity (or less than natural unfiltered light)

At any rate, the burned by hot coffee lawsuit types will always find a way to screw the system and force money into their pockets.

Zero accountability on a personal level I tell you.

OT Rant OFF.


----------



## Kiessling

dano said:


> Presentation doesn't make a good movie. If that's the case, then everything before Avatar was bad movie making? I think the movie was lousy because it was simplistic, juvenile and flawed (and borrowed) storytelling wrapped around some fancy technology. Strip away the 3D and the movie is not notable for anything, including the directing, story line, dialog, and performances.
> 
> When compared to Cameron's other works, Avatar can't stand up at all to T2 or Aliens.




Not presentation. Content. Details. Perfection in presenting a world, in making it believable und then drawing you in with the new tech stuff. 
That is something never accomplished before. So yes, a milestone, even if one does not like the story, actors or whatnot. 
I think we need to be able to discuss a thing with all its facets and not just see it black or white. 


Examples would be the legs of the hero, the absolute realistic and ****ed up exrterior of the helicopters with their believable maneouvering and turbine systems, the spaceship that arrived not like the Enterprise but like somwthing totally imaginabel in the future, the flying of the animals in the air that was perfect and like life ... etc. ...
It was believable.

bernie


----------



## LuxLuthor

Japan's Sky Perfect JSAT is beginning 3D TV transmission this summer.



> 3D TV is being seen as revolutionary as TV switching from black and white to colors.


----------



## QtrHorse

Kiessling said:


> Examples would be the legs of the hero, the absolute realistic and ****ed up exrterior of the helicopters with their believable maneouvering and turbine systems, the spaceship that arrived not like the Enterprise but like somwthing totally imaginabel in the future, the flying of the animals in the air that was perfect and like life ... etc. ...
> It was believable.
> 
> bernie


 

bernie

Why couldn't they make the 6 legged horse things more realistic when they ran? It's things like this that ruin what should be a great movie. They do so well with human walk, human running and animal flying. They then skimp on the animation of the hourse things running.

As already stated, were not going to change your minds just like your not going to change ours.


----------



## LuxLuthor

More new movies thrown at it. Avatar remains on top for *7th weekend,* as it quietly crosses the *$2 Billion mark*. They have recently been serviing Pandoran Kool Aid free to keep those few cultist repeat members addicted and returning. Poor Mel Gibson.


----------



## QtrHorse

LuxLuthor said:


> They have recently been serviing Pandoran Kool Aid free to keep those few cultist repeat members addicted and returning.


 





> Poor Mel Gibson.


 
Who is Mel Gibson? I thought he died after all the Lethal Weapon movies.


----------



## QtrHorse

I hate to admit it Lux but you were correct. Avatar has officially started a new movie experience revolution. You had better reserve your tickets now, see below.




_*Tinto Brass*, a veteran erotic film director best known for Caligula, said yesterday he would __produce__ the world's first-ever 3D pornographic production. _

_The kinky Italian filmmaker thinks the time has come to use the technology in erotic film since it has become such a hit with theatrical releases like Avatar. The script and casting are underway and Tinto plans to start filming no later than May or June._​


----------



## dano

LuxLuthor said:


> I can find hundreds of people that think Aliens, Terminator movies, Dark Knight, LOTR's, Fight Club, Matrix, Star Wars, Kill Bill, Pulp Fiction, Full Metal Jacket, Few Good Men, Indiana Jones, ET, UP are not good movies, and have their list of reasons why not.
> 
> A work of art is in the eye of the beholder, and despite these negative opinions, they are proven irrelevant by the accomplishments, longevity, and success of Avatar since it came out. Arguing with someone like dano or blasterman who have decided that Avatar sucks is like arguing politics. They are not willing to see anything great about Avatar, nor its revolutionary impact on the movie industry. None of us are going to make them see beyond their opinions.
> 
> They must feel they are contributing something really important to the rest of us, because they seem unable to just state their negative opinion in a thread praising Avatar, and move on.
> 
> I'm just not sure what they think they are accomplishing here.



The title of the post is: "Avatar a movie revolution?" Thus, it's not a thread relishing praise, it's a thread asking a question. My opinion is my answer to the thread's question.

I'm not sorry that you don't agree, but I am sorry that you are unwilling to accept another opinion, and I'm not going to make you see beyond your positive opinion of this movie.


----------



## LuxLuthor

dano said:


> ...I am sorry that you are unwilling to accept another opinion, and I'm not going to make you see beyond your positive opinion of this movie.



No need to be sorry, as we are all very clear on your opinion, and I fully accept that you have your opinion. It is always useful to recognize there will be minority opinions on any subject. Now that you have again registered the same negative opinion, what else are you trying to accomplish here? Knock yourself out, dude.


----------



## TorchBoy

LuxLuthor said:


> Knock yourself out, dude.


No need to be so antagonistic. You did ask a question, he's discussing it.

FWIW you slow Americans are just about to catch up to the movie's international standing. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/domestic.htm :nana:


----------



## Badbeams3

Well, I have now seen this movie 5 times. 2 times in 3D...3 times in I-max 3D. 
Just a few notes:

The gasses for 3D do not work for I-max 3D. I find the I-max glasses uncomfortable...tilt to far forward on my nose. Find the regular 3d glasses are fine...comfort wise.

The fast motion shots are much smoother in I-max...the picture is sharper/ clearer in I-Max. I-max is easier on the eyes to watch...but glasses give me a nose ache.

The sound quality is better in I-Max. Very good.

The distant background images look 2D...could use some improvement.

The forest/jungle is just as fantastic/stunningly beautiful after 5 viewings as it was the first time. In my opinion it is the most interesting part of the film as far as visual effects.

The movie makes me experience a wide range of emotions even after repeated viewings.

The 3D table used in the control room looked real...I wonder if there is such a thing?

The helicopters seem like they should really be able to work in real life...and work well.

The note pad/computers seemed real...I wonder if they are.

The floating Islands are novel...a creative concept. But the waterfalls from some of them seemed...well, where could all that water come from unless its raining all the time?

I have no plans to replace my 5 year old 26 inch LCD TV any time soon. But for SURE, my next TV MUST be able to handle 3D programing...I am TOTALLY sold on the 3D concept for movies. But only for movies/sports...don`t think I want to wear glasses for general TV watching.

Had it not been for this movie, I would never have given 3D a second though...for me...with that in mind...the movie is indeed revolutionary.


----------



## Kiessling

> As already stated, were not going to change your minds just like your not going to change ours.



Why not? Aren't you ready to listen and open for a change of mind? And why do you think I am not capable of doing so?  :nana:




> The distant background images look 2D...could use some improvement.



The human visual system can't see in 3D in distances more than about 10 meters or so. Everything further away is flat. This is the way our physiology works. 
You can test this yourself by covering one eye while looking at various objects in different distances.




> The floating Islands are novel...a creative concept.



No, they are not. Things like those existed in fantasy worlds for a long time. But never on screen like this 


bernie


----------



## Hitthespot

dano said:


> Presentation doesn't make a good movie. If that's the case, then everything before Avatar was bad movie making? I think the movie was lousy because it was simplistic, juvenile and flawed (and borrowed) storytelling wrapped around some fancy technology. Strip away the 3D and the movie is not notable for anything, including the directing, story line, dialog, and performances.
> 
> When compared to Cameron's other works, Avatar can't stand up at all to T2 or Aliens.


 
I had the Fortunate or Unfortunate pleasure of seeing the movie without the 3D. I am a movie lover and can usually find a little good in every movie. However, I have to agree with Dano's opinion. I just could not find anything to convince me to see the movie in 3D. The story was un-entertaining, the jumping through the tree's hundreds of feet in the air was cartoon like, and the technology that allowed the story, did someone say juvenile. Definitely not Aliens or T2!

Sorry I couldn't find anything to like. My wife fell asleep twice and was not interested in trying a third time.

Bill


----------



## LuxLuthor

Overtook Titanic's domestic gross yesterday as the #1. Next up the Oscars.

I think I'll go see it again this weekend, but I'm already sure it will remain #1 for an 8th weekend in a row.


----------



## Fulgeo

I tend to be pragmatic in most things in life except entertainment especially film. This thread in places reminds me of the "it's over Anakin ... I have the high ground" scene in StarWars which caused my older brother to say to me that it "ruined the whole film for him". My snidely response was "yah ok but does that mean you buy the whole force thing?" And his response was a very cerebral "Shaddup!" If you have an older sibling you have probably run into this very well throughout suggestion. Anyway we fielded 15 of my friends and family and we went to see Avatar in 3D. Our ages ranged from 15 to 77. The general post movie consensus was positive. As a rule we were entertained. That is the real issue/question was it entertaining? I am sure that most people have seen a show that had a very weak plot sometimes badly acted but does well, sometimes extremely so. That's entertainment! I personally like it when the movie reviews on a film are bad in the newspaper then get changed to a positive review in the same paper over time. I know I am dating myself but I remember in my youth when Star Wars first came out how it got lambasted then over time when the box office numbers came in it mysteriously got positive reviews. I am rambling so wanted to wrap it up and say I give it three out of four :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:


----------



## Hitthespot

LuxLuthor said:


> Overtook Titanic's domestic gross yesterday as the #1. Next up the Oscars.


 
I must me be getting old Lux. :mecry:

Bill


----------



## LuxLuthor

Avatar gets a "Dear John" takedown. Pretty vicious Rotten Tomatoes score.

Still a respectable 8th weekend, but what a way to lose a streak. LOL!


----------



## bullfrog

Well after a month of trying to find some free time to see the movie, just got back in from seeing it in IMAX 3D on a really massive screen.

Initial impression was WOW! I was just blown away - my mouth was hanging open and a permanent smile was plastered on my face for the majority of the film. What a beautiful job!

Need to get to sleep, but i will sleep happy


----------



## LuxLuthor

More proof of the Avatar Revolution. HDMI Licensing has added the 3D display protocol which 1.4a will carry. They give Avatar the credit for adding it as public domain to HDMI.


----------



## xevious

LuxLuthor said:


> More proof of the Avatar Revolution. HDMI Licensing has added the 3D display protocol which 1.4a will carry. They give Avatar the credit for adding it as public domain to HDMI.


That's really good news! Thanks for posting this.

I do agree that Avatar has revolutionized the movie scene. This wasn't the 3D of yesteryear, by any stretch of the imagination. It was definitely clearer and more believable. I still found fault with the medium, with the kind of glasses we had to wear. Things weren't always in proper focus and so I found myself having to "compensate" from time to time.

But the real mastery was in the visualization of the animated characters. The special micro camera technology enabled actors to see their animated incarnations in real time and "manipulate" them live to get the expressions they wanted to see. THIS was probably the most monumental achievement that Avatar achieved. Couple this with the sophisticated CGI and the latest 3D imaging techniques, and you have an experience unparalleled by any other movie.

The story wasn't all that mind blowing... it was entertaining, on a number of levels, but I did find the exaggeration of military hostility/arrogance to be unpalatable, as well as the "white man saves the day" theme a tired repackaging. But the imagery achieved made up for a lot. :twothumbs


----------



## HarryN

My wife took the kids to see it, and at the advice of the crowd, decided to go for the full 3D, imax experience with supposedly "good seats":

Their impressions:
- The picture did not fill the screen, so it did not really provide a surrounding experience
- The 3D effect was usually more like "layers", not really 3 dimensional as far as the typical item appearing to really have depth most of the time.
- There were a few items that provided quality 3D rendering a majority of the movie.
- Much of the 3D effect was "into the screen", not out into the theater
- Story was fine, nothing all that spectacular nor poor.
- Sound quality seemed less than the typical THX movie
- It was not worth $ 50 for 3 tickets
- She has not interest in a 3D compatable TV, even though we are looking for a new one.

I didn't see it, these are their impressions, and trust me, my wife would not care what my impression of something is. 

My impression - not planning to see it, as I will spend the money on flashlights and be happier.


----------



## LuxLuthor

HarryN said:


> My wife took the kids to see it, and at the advice of the crowd, decided to go for the full 3D, imax experience with supposedly "good seats":
> 
> Their impressions:
> - The picture did not fill the screen, so it did not really provide a surrounding experience
> - The 3D effect was usually more like "layers", not really 3 dimensional as far as the typical item appearing to really have depth most of the time.
> - There were a few items that provided quality 3D rendering a majority of the movie.
> - Much of the 3D effect was "into the screen", not out into the theater
> - Story was fine, nothing all that spectacular nor poor.
> - Sound quality seemed less than the typical THX movie
> - It was not worth $ 50 for 3 tickets
> - She has not interest in a 3D compatable TV, even though we are looking for a new one.
> 
> I didn't see it, these are their impressions, and trust me, my wife would not care what my impression of something is.
> 
> My impression - not planning to see it, as I will spend the money on flashlights and be happier.



Sorry it didn't work out, but that sounds like one of those "fake" IMAX theaters we were discussing earlier, because that is not at all how it should have appeared on screen, and I would have demanded a refund if it looked like that. Something isn't right there.

Others who have seen it at legit IMAX can confirm a different experience. Even the one viewing I had at a "substandard IMAX" near Hartford was nothing like your description. The other 8 viewings I had at a modern, 3D, non-IMAX, larger screen, THX certified theater with stadium seating was actually an improved experience.

From what I can tell IMAX sold out on not enforcing exact construction details before granting their name certification....you guessed it...in the name of the almighty dollar.


----------



## Minimoog

I really want to see this film, but now that the cinemas don't stop the film for a comfort (and choc ice) break, I don't think I could take 3+ hours in the seat. Shame really - why did the cinemas stop that?


----------



## Flying Turtle

Loved the special effects, of course. Story line seemed a little thin. I guess there's only so much development you can do without getting boring. I'll bet James Cameron was a big Tarzan movie fan, like me, when he was a kid. Quite a bit kind of reminded me of those old flicks, especially when the beasts came to the rescue. I didn't appreciate the portrayal of the bad guys. At least they could have been Nazis.

Geoff


----------



## Icebreak

A Tarzan moment for sure and I liked it.


----------



## Badbeams3

Here is a pretty girl singing the theme song from the movie..."I see you" love her voice http://www.youtube.com/blawah2000#p/u/1/XjLLpq9aYnY

Here she is in a more playful song...FUN-TASTIC VOICE! Can`t believe she is not famous...Laura Broad. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjehxLjdlIY


----------



## LEDobsession

4 times now.

Anyways, I found an Avatar Forum today. Im not really sure if I should sign up there or not. I don't know if Im that obsessed. :thinking:


----------



## Mjolnir

I finally saw it in "imax" (the same one that Lux was talking about). Surprisingly it was completely full. The main thing that annoyed me was the brightness; with the polarized glasses on the screen was a little on the dark side. I also felt that that theater did not have enough bass or "rumble." I was very impressed by the effects on the windshields of the vehicles; the 3D effects made them seem strangely real. I also feel that the framerate was a little low, but of course there isn't really a practical way to make a higher framerate movie without drastically increasing the amount of film. I think that a higher framerate would have made it much more realistic; it seemed a little stuttery at certain points.


----------



## TorchBoy

It's interesting that the proportion of the box office take for the US market is relatively low - currently just 27.9%, compared to 53.2% for The Dark Knight. I wonder what that says about these two films.


----------



## LuxLuthor

TorchBoy said:


> It's interesting that the proportion of the box office take for the US market is relatively low - currently just 27.9%, compared to 53.2% for The Dark Knight. I wonder what that says about these two films.



That we are better Batman fans? Or that we enjoy "darker" themed films? Or that we grew up with comics and superheroes?

Just out of curiosity, I checked the rankings again going into this weekend, and am quite frankly stunned that Avatar continues to have such staying power. Looks like it is going to hit $2.5 Billion easily, and break the top 15 of all time domestically when adjusted for inflation.


----------



## TorchBoy

LuxLuthor said:


> Or that we grew up with comics and superheroes?


That's got to be it!

Avatar is still on "no free tickets" in this country.


----------



## LEDninja

I wonder how the new crop of movies will affect the availability of 3D theaters for Avatar. There is 3 of them in March, about 1 a month after.

From http://www.tribute.ca/movies/coming_soon

Friday March 5, 2010
Alice in Wonderland (In Disney Digital 3D)
Alice in Wonderland: An IMAX 3D Experience

Friday March 19, 2010
Hubble 3D

Friday March 26, 2010
How to Train Your Dragon: An IMAX 3D Experience

Friday April 16, 2010
Piranha 3-D

Friday May 21, 2010
Shrek Forever After: An IMAX 3D Experience

Friday June 18, 2010
Not listed but I believe Toy story 3 is available in 3D

Friday August 6, 2010
Step Up 3-D

Friday September 24, 2010
Guardians of Ga'Hoole 3D


----------



## luckybucket

Still haven't seen it(lol), but so far I've only heard good reviews.


----------



## Icebreak

Saw it for the second time last night at the IMAX and glad I did. Apparently I had missed a few things the first. Yet again the audience was unfigity and mesmirized. We were little more relaxed this time and just took the ride. Good fun. Good times. A memory maker.


----------



## TorchBoy

TorchBoy said:


> It's interesting that the proportion of the box office take for the US market is relatively low - currently just 27.9%, compared to 53.2% for The Dark Knight. I wonder what that says about these two films.


Picking up on that idea again, I decided to make a spreadsheet of the top 40 movies listed on the US inflation-adjusted chart, and convert the amounts to worldwide inflation adjusted figures using a simple scaling according to the worldwide gross and the percentage the US gross is of that. The results are probably not much use except for entertainment value because it assumes inflation in the rest of the world has been the same as in the US, and there are lots of old movies that don't have an international takings figure so I just assumed 50%.

Anyway, I find it interesting that _Avatar_ presently comes out in third place, behind _Gone With The Wind_ and _Titanic_. Avatar's figure is 82% of _Gone With The Wind_ and 85% of _Titanic_ - within  distance perhaps? It was the #1 movie in NZ _again_ last week, and complementary tickets _still_ aren't valid.

Ghostbusters placed 40th out the 40 because it apparently had a huge 81.8% of its takings from the US, so doesn't gain much at all by including its international takings.


----------



## LuxLuthor

Anyone gonna see Avatar again, do it soon. Lots of good 3D coming out now. It was funny to see a film Hurt Locker that had a $15M budget, and earned $14.7M domestic, and another $6.6M foreign, for a total take of $6M win Best Director and Best Picture.

Hollywood REALLY REALLY HATES Cameron. He showed how irrelevant they are.


----------



## LEDninja

The Oscars are irrelevant. They only vote for dramas. Never for any other genres - action, sci-fi, comedy, rom-coms etc.
At least the Golden Globes tried to broaden the field by having separate categories for drama and comedy/musical. Though even then a lot of genres fall through the crack in between.

EDIT
Missed it on the nominations. I was surprised when Ben Stiller showed up in blue face to announce the makeup category and mentioned Avatar was not nominated for makeup.


----------



## was.lost.but.now.found

LEDninja said:


> The Oscars are irrelevant. They only vote for dramas. Never for any other genres - action, sci-fi, comedy, rom-coms etc.
> At least the Golden Globes tried to broaden the field by having separate categories for drama and comedy/musical. Though even then a lot of genres fall through the crack in between.


 
Not true, sci-fi often does well in Best Costume Design:laughing:.


----------



## TorchBoy

A little New Zealand film called _The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King_ got all 11 of the Oscars it was nominated for. (Billy Crystal: "It's now official - there is no one left in New Zealand to thank.") Great drama, that movie was, and all sorts of other things too. I love a good conspiracy though - keep it up.

After the weekend my spreadsheet indicates Avatar is now sitting at 87% of Titanic's worldwide inflation-corrected takings. Less than 28% of its earnings are from the USA - a much lower than average figure - so the rest of the world likes it much more than Americans do. I wonder if the moral/ecological implications of Avatar put the Oscar voters off.

It's still on no free tickets here, so in this corner of the world there's no particular rush to go see it. I will, of course.


----------



## LuxLuthor

I read another summary of Avatar at the Oscars, linked on today's www.drudgereport.com and besides most of the Hollywood elite disliking Cameron, and the fact that they go for dramatic/political movies, the other issue is they have never given top honors (director/picture) to a CGI or Animated movie which is not overtly demonstrating the acting performances. I guess I can sort of understand that logic from a self-preservation viewpoint. Apparently the "Hollywood elites" don't mix with the common folk to see a movie like Avatar at a 3-D theater, so almost all of them saw it on some private 2D screen. Other interesting ideas in that linked article for those interested.


----------



## Badbeams3

Avatar is now showing at MOSI here in Tampa...it is one of the original domed IMAX theaters. Alice has taken over the regular IMAX theaters around here. I came across I little info that in Korea..Avatar was shown in IMAX 4D...yep...they got the way good stuff. Moving seats, water sprinkled, wind and the smell of stuff burning. Oh well.


----------



## StarHalo

Coming soon to a movie thread near you..


----------



## LuxLuthor

Beautiful photo, whoever did that.


----------



## LEDninja

reuters said:


> James Cameron and Fox are in discussions about rereleasing "Avatar," primarily in 3D theaters, in late summer -- and, tantalizingly, with additional scenes that had been left on the cutting-room floor in the rush to ready the epic for its December 18 release.


http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62A58E20100312?type=entertainmentNews
There is some discussion as to whether 40 minutes or 10 minutes (max that can be added to analog IMAX theaters) will be added.
Also some discussion of the potential scenes in the 'director's cut'.
2D DVD and 3D Blu-Ray release.


----------



## TorchBoy

LuxLuthor said:


> Beautiful photo, whoever did that.


Bet it was someone with the initials C.G.I. :thumbsup:


----------



## LuxLuthor

Extended Avatar with 40 more minutes coming this fall. I won't buy the DVD due out in May. Only will get the 3D Blu-Ray version. Sequel confirmed.


----------



## LuxLuthor

As people race to get 3D TV's, Panasonic sells out.


----------



## blasterman

> and besides most of the Hollywood elite disliking Cameron, and the fact that they go for dramatic/political movies


 
You still pushing the 'conspiracy' angle? _*'Dances with Na'vi'*_ was an empty-headed action flick designed to show off 3-D technology, and I don't get your obsession with this film. The Academy got it right, and Cameron is otherwise well respected in Hollywood. I've seen about a dozen indy films this year with budgets a fraction of 'Dances with Na'vi', and all of them much better and not requiring $20 IMAX tickets. 

The Academy of motion picture arts and sciences gives Oscars on the basis of a film's merit. *They do not give Oscars* on the basis of box office ticket sales, action sequences, and CGI. 'LOTR - Return of the King' won heavily at the Oscar's and was heavily effects laden. Andy Serkis was also denied an Oscar for motion capture CGI, so this is not a conspiracy against Cameron.

Funny that I don't know anybody over the age of 12 still talking about this film and they've already lost interest in their blue action figures.

Political mode on: Ironic that Hurt Locker was about saving American soldiers while Avatar glorified killing them.

Also, Sigourney Weaver is one of the most over-rated actresses in Hollywood. I could pick some random housewife off the street and they could do a more convincing job.


----------



## blasterman

TorchBoy said:


> so the rest of the world likes it much more than Americans do.


 
Been over this, and I called it earlier. One of the reasons for the rather bland plot of 'Avatar' and cliche' acting was it was intended for international audiences.

Had it been primarily intended for American audiences it would have been a lot darker.


----------



## LuxLuthor

blasterman said:


> You still pushing the 'conspiracy' angle? _*'Dances with Na'vi'*_ was an empty-headed action flick designed to show off 3-D technology, and I don't get your obsession with this film. The Academy got it right, and Cameron is otherwise well respected in Hollywood. I've seen about a dozen indy films this year with budgets a fraction of 'Dances with Na'vi', and all of them much better and not requiring $20 IMAX tickets.
> 
> The Academy of motion picture arts and sciences gives Oscars on the basis of a film's merit. *They do not give Oscars* on the basis of box office ticket sales, action sequences, and CGI. 'LOTR - Return of the King' won heavily at the Oscar's and was heavily effects laden. Andy Serkis was also denied an Oscar for motion capture CGI, so this is not a conspiracy against Cameron.
> 
> Funny that I don't know anybody over the age of 12 still talking about this film and they've already lost interest in their blue action figures.
> 
> Political mode on: Ironic that Hurt Locker was about saving American soldiers while Avatar glorified killing them.
> 
> Also, Sigourney Weaver is one of the most over-rated actresses in Hollywood. I could pick some random housewife off the street and they could do a more convincing job.



Ohhh Mister Bwasterson are you habing another badsie wadsie day again? Did mommie take your blankie again?


----------



## LuxLuthor

WOW...just passed $2.7 Billion. 

Now we have the DVD/BR release and sequels to talk about.

I may have to break down and buy the BR version, but what I'm really waiting for is the 3D version. Then I'll upgrade my TV & BR to 3D sets.


----------



## TorchBoy

I think it did that almost a week ago, because I last updated my spreadsheet on Monday NZ time (would have been Sunday US time) with $2.708 billion (which makes 90% of Titanic's worldwide inflation-adjusted takings). And it's _still_ on no free tickets here.

Do you think the extended version later this year is worth waiting for?


----------



## Badbeams3

Avatar is showing again at Imax theaters in 3D all around the US. Tonight (April 16) and the 17th. Special engagements "brought back by popular demand". Here in Tampa they are having the showings late...11:20.


----------



## LuxLuthor

TorchBoy said:


> I think it did that almost a week ago, because I last updated my spreadsheet on Monday NZ time (would have been Sunday US time) with $2.708 billion (which makes 90% of Titanic's worldwide inflation-adjusted takings). And it's _still_ on no free tickets here.
> 
> Do you think the extended version later this year is worth waiting for?



Depends on how much you loved it. I'll see what's in this one, but it won't be the first time I bought a DVD, then the Directors Cut again.


----------



## daimleramg

For those who wants to download this movie it can be found here...

The Blu-Ray version is about 45GB

http://tehparadox.com/forum/f89/avatar-2009-1080p-blu-ray-eur-avc-dts-hd-ma-5-1-a-987637/


----------



## Badbeams3

I bought the standard DVD at Walmart for around $16. I`ll probably wait for the 3D to be released...if it ever is, before spending any more money on the movie. Of course I need to spend $$$$$$ to get myself set up to see 3D...so...might be a lonnng time coming.


----------



## Max_Power

I stopped at Target on the way home from work yesterday and bought the Blueray + DVD combo for just under $20 (not counting the huge 9% California tax.) Watched it last night on a 50 inch plasma screen with 5.1 surround. It was still impossible to look away. Very well-done movie. Unlike most of my VHS/DVD/Blueray collection, I will be viewing this one multiple times.

I tried the DVD after watching the Blueray, and it looked like a pale imitation - did they intentionally degrade the DVD quality, or is that just a combination of the "fullscreen" bobbing of the sides and increased compression versus Blueray?

No extras! Man, they had to work to get this movie to fit on the media.


----------



## TorchBoy

What aspect ratio is the Blu-ray disk? I think IMAX shows it at the same 1.78:1 that HD TVs are.


----------



## StarHalo

daimleramg said:


> The Blu-Ray version is about 45GBhttp://tehparadox.com/forum/f89/avatar-2009-1080p-blu-ray-eur-avc-dts-hd-ma-5-1-a-987637/



Somebody's saving in the wrong format; the current BR edition of the disc doesn't feature any extras/3D/new footage and rings in at no more than 8GB..


----------



## daimleramg

StarHalo said:


> Somebody's saving in the wrong format; the current BR edition of the disc doesn't feature any extras/3D/new footage and rings in at no more than 8GB..


 
This is untouched, you must be thinking of the compressed version "MKV" which is usually 7.94GB.


----------



## ANDREAS FERRARI

I finally saw Avatar last night.What a terrific movie.Can't wait for the sequel.

Is it just me or was I the only one cheering for the humans at the end.


----------



## adirondackdestroyer

I just got done watching the Blu Ray at home on my 46" Samsung. I actually thought the picture looked even better without the 3D. Awesome movie!


----------



## LuxLuthor

OK, *almost *ordered the BR version. Thanks for the feedback.

I changed from "just" to "almost" after reading some of the reviews at Amazon, describing a version coming in November of this year with the extras that were described.

Re-edit. Oh screw it. What's $20. Ordered! 

Here's some news on Avatar-2 from Cameron. Not a prequel. 

We now know that Cameron is a big tree-hugger, but now it's some sort of Pandora Ocean setting. 

I hope they have the big blue people and complex plot so the "B-man" can have some more posting enjoyment! 

It looks like it finally stalled out at only $2.71 billion.


----------



## 276

I got my BR copy in the mail today even though i just learned about the add footage dvd that comes out later i just buy that one too.


----------



## TorchBoy

LuxLuthor said:


> I hope they have the big blue people and complex plot so the "B-man" can have some more posting enjoyment!


Please consider Rule 4 _before_ giving in to that sort of temptation.

It's very good that we'll get more Pandora. It was a shame to have to leave it at the end of the movie.


----------



## JohnR66

I'm not a big movie person, but I saw this on blue ray Friday night. It is visually impressive. The story is good, if not formulaic. The review in the paper gave it a B-. I would give it a solid B.

The human controlling a creature theme reminded me of a book I read as a kid called "The Winds of Altair" by Ben Bova. It has been over 25 years ago, but from memory, humans were entering the minds of animals on the planet "Altair" to use them to prepare the planet for human habitation.

Avatar was a relief from the last clunker I watched, "2012", which was one impossible situation after another and that blew that story for me. I gave it a D.


----------



## LuxLuthor

TorchBoy said:


> Please consider Rule 4 _before_ giving in to that sort of temptation.



You may wish to read each of the previous postings of the aforementioned member to see who has repeatedly started the trash in this thread. Please take specific note of the demeaning tone about the most successful movie of all time (and obviously enjoyed by almost everyone in this thread) before making your one-sided pseudo-moderator admonitions...the latest of which was post #322 which I once again clicked and reported as I did previous posts, but to no avail.

Now thank you, please drive through.


----------



## LEDninja

Does the Blu-Ray disc have a digital copy for your computer or iPod?


----------



## TorchBoy

I know you two have been niggling and abusing each other but there's no need to restart.


----------



## Badbeams3

I traded in my DVD copy at a used DVD store...got a $12 credit. Then I ran to walmart and bought the DVD/blue ray combo for $20. Even though I don`t have a blue ray...yet.

So #2 will be in the oceans of Pandora...hmm. Ok...lets guess.

The Sky People...the ones that will "come like a rain that never ends"...will have decided it would be simpler to mine ubutaniun from the deep, rather than confront the blue folks in the forests. But no sooner than they get every thing up and running... than they notice a repeating signal...coming from...an alien space ship...in the deepest part. After breaking into it they learn the big picture. The Blue People were unaware slaves, placed there to take care of the trees...and that obotaniun actually grows from the roots of the trees. The forest/network were planted by the aliens long ago. 

Turns out humans are not the only ones who value urbertanium.

The alien ship serves as central communications hub...a server. When enough unobtaniom is ready...in another 2037 years or so, the aliens will return and use the blue people/slaves to do the hard mining work and leave the planet a wreck.

But the alien ship is sending an alert back to it`s highly advanced home world...that there is a problem...pests in their obertanium garden...bug spray in hand...the Sky people are about to get their asses kicked again. 

But if the skypeople and blue people unite...fight together...they just might have a small chance...

At the end of the movie the blue people must be converted to human bodies and return with the Sky people to Earth as their planet is ruined in the battle...It`s the end of the tail :huh:   Jake and his mate end up on one of the new man made floating islands (thats what obertanium is good for) just south of Cuba and own a Banshee farm $$$$$$$


----------



## LuxLuthor

TorchBoy said:


> I know you two have been niggling and abusing each other but there's no need to restart.



No question about the validity of that point. The problem is who you selectively addressed your previous post to, but curiously, nothing said after post #322. So, if you are going to direct your pseudo-moderating ire onto someone, at least take the time to read through the history of the thread.


----------



## LuxLuthor

Avatar Blu-Ray sales have doubled the previous leader, The Dark Knight.

My new Droid Incredible for Verizon will arrive the day after this Blu-Ray. What a week. Now I have to figure out the best 3D home theater setup.


> _Avatar_! It's basically a big, blue, 3D money-printing machine. The previous record for Blu-ray sales was held by _The Dark Knight_, but Avatar has come along and _doubled_ it.
> 
> _The Dark Knight_ set the first-day Blu-ray sales record of 600,000 back in 2008. _Avatar_ sold 1.2 million copies on Tuesday. By Thursday that number had climbed to 2.7 million, surpassing _The Dark Knight_'s 18 month sales total of 2.5 million. And keep in mind that these are sales of the bare-bones edition. We still haven't seen the deluxe or 3D editions.
> 
> 
> That sound you just heard? It was James Cameron buying himself the country of Norway. Just a nice quiet vacation spot for him and his 82 supermodel girlfriends.


----------



## LuxLuthor

I can't believe I have not posted in this thread since April. What's wrong with me?

In any case, everyone will be thrilled to hear that Avatar is returning to the Imax and 3D theaters this Friday 8/27 with never before seen footage. 

Still not quite soup yet for 3D Televisions, but they will take off when Avatar releases in 3D, as well as other quality movies being remade in 3D to meet the demand. George Lucas doing all the Star Wars for example. 

Long live the Na'vi !


----------



## MojaveMoon07

I thought this was interesting



> http://www.collider.com/2010/07/08/fox-re-release-avatar-august-27-8-minutes-deleted-scenes/
> 
> ... Even though there was some debate as to how much footage would get put back into the film as James Cameron said he had over 30 minutes of deleted scenes to pick from, the final number is eight minutes.
> 
> What’s interesting about that number is…we all should have seen it coming. The original length of Avatar is 162 minutes, and the IMAX platter can only support a 170 minute film. What that means is, Cameron’s desire to play the film in IMAX theaters meant he could only add 8 minutes back in. I’ll bet if IMAX could’ve played a 180 film, he would have added 18 minutes back in.


----------



## StarHalo

For those who haven't seen Avatar yet, don't bother renting it, just go see it in IMAX; if you watch it at home, midway through the movie you'll wish you'd bought a bigger TV, and by the end of the movie you'll realize there is no TV big enough..


----------



## LuxLuthor

^ Sweet.

Let's see we are at $2 Billion, 740 Million as of today.

Not sure how long this new release is going to run, but I bet it goes over $3 Billion.

I had to put O'Neill Theaters back on the Firefox Toolbar to reserve tickets. LOL!


----------



## Max_Power

StarHalo said:


> For those who haven't seen Avatar yet, don't bother renting it, just go see it in IMAX; if you watch it at home, midway through the movie you'll wish you'd bought a bigger TV, and by the end of the movie you'll realize there is no TV big enough..



And it's hard to top the IMAX sound system.


----------



## DM51

StarHalo said:


>


 
Her ear ring looks as if it would take CR123A size cells only. I wonder if she considered boring it out to take 18650s, lol.


----------



## LuxLuthor

DM51 said:


> Her ear ring looks as if it would take CR123A size cells only. I wonder if she considered boring it out to take 18650s, lol.



^ Best post in the thread. I'm seriously ROTFLMAO


----------



## Roger Sully

I fully expected to read the recent post to see something about the re-release...DM51s comment was so much better!
My wife actually came into the room to ask what was so funny.
Of course, she didn't get it :shakehead


----------



## StarHalo

DM51 said:


> Her ear ring looks as if it would take CR123A size cells only. I wonder if she considered boring it out to take 18650s, lol.



Heheh, yes, Neytiri has a tunnel in her right ear; but you have to remember she's right around nine feet tall, it's probably closer to 26650 size..


----------



## LuxLuthor

^ See, now that's a perfect example of why you need a big 3D screen.


----------



## LuxLuthor

Touchable 3D TV.....OMG...I don't even want to think about the implications of how this could be used.


----------



## StarHalo

LuxLuthor said:


> Touchable 3D TV.....OMG...I don't even want to think about the implications of how this could be used.



:shakehead It's like the entire television manufacturer industry is in a race to find pointless new features now..


----------



## Flashlight Aficionado

StarHalo said:


> :shakehead It's like the entire television manufacturer industry is in a race to find pointless new features now..



Where's my smellovision?!


----------



## LuxLuthor

Flashlight Aficionado said:


> Where's my smellovision?!



I can't believe I even know about this, but the "iSmell" was one of PC World's Worst 25 Products of All Time. 

They still are keeping an optimistic blog going here.


----------



## Flashlight Aficionado

LuxLuthor said:


> They still are keeping an optimistic blog going here.



Linky not worky. Maybe they gave up after all.


----------



## LuxLuthor

It's working. Maybe they had an onslaught of traffic from my post that overwhelmed their server? LOL!

They have a multitude of other stories and links other sites to continue their fantasy like this one: http://aromajet.com that shows some dude wearing a "Pinoke" while gaming. ROFL!


----------



## MojaveMoon07

new interview with Cameron:



> http://www.wired.com/underwire/2010/08/james-cameron-talks-about-avatar-re-release-sequels/
> 
> Still, the definitive version will be released on Blu-ray in November with three cuts of the film — the original theatrical release, the nine minute extended version hitting theaters Friday, and a cut with 16 minutes of additional footage. “Before I go to make another Avatar movie, I don’t want to have to go back. When we close this box, it stays closed, which is why the one in November is the definitive version,” Cameron said.


----------



## LuxLuthor

This seems pretty silly to try filming Avatar-2 at 7 miles down in the Mariana Trench. 



> Cameron himself has had a passion for diving for years and if all goes well, he will be starting the mission into the deep sea this year. If they are successful in their mission, Cameron's team will be the second group to travel the Mariana Trench.
> 
> The last mission, led by a scientist and a navy lieutenant back in 1960, *took five hours to reach the ocean floor and only allowed for them to spend 20 minutes before resurfacing.*


----------



## TwinBlade

Breathing a little life into this thread here, I saw Avatar 4 times in 3D in the theaters. I didn't even see any of the Star Wars, Transformers or Lord of the Rings movies that many times in theaters.

I am still blown away at the attention to detail and imagination that brought that entire movie together. The musical score was one of the best I have heard in a movie as well.


----------



## LuxLuthor

I'm still waiting for a quality 3D Television before buying Avatar in 3D. The technology is still actively being developed, promoted, and sold--all as an outcome from this one movie. I have not gone to a 3D/IMAX theater since seeing Avatar so many times, and look forward to Avatar-2 projected to release in 2015.


----------



## StarHalo

And I'm still not buying a 3D TV, though I do look forward to seeing Avatar 2 in IMAX-3D-Dolby-Atmos and whatever other theater gimmicks they can throw in a couple years from now..

Speaking of TV gimmicks, the concave OLED screen is so much cooler to me than the 3D; that's the useless feature I can get behind..


----------



## cerbie

TV, you say? Is it behind the booth babe somewhere? :thinking:

Actually, that is pretty cool.


----------



## LuxLuthor

Yeah, the OLED screens are impressive. I wonder how far away holographic movies are--not just 360° like they have at Disneyworld, but a true 3D holographic movie experience. 

I would only be interested in 3D TV when that effect is as well done as it was in Avatar--enhancing immersion rather than being a distraction.


----------



## flashy bazook

LuxLuthor said:


> Yeah, the OLED screens are impressive. I wonder how far away holographic movies are--not just 360° like they have at Disneyworld, but a true 3D holographic movie experience.
> 
> I would only be interested in 3D TV when that effect is as well done as it was in Avatar--enhancing immersion rather than being a distraction.



The latest LED tech that at least I saw (in the U.S.) was the new 4K Hdef 3D from Sony. I read that 8K are also prototyped.

4K means twice the def of our (U.S.) current Hi Def, and 8K twice the def of the 4K.

It was impressive to see, but of course there is no content for it yet here. The demo was using an Avengers movie to showcase the 4K set. Also, it cost $5K or so.

All in all, you are wise to delay. I briefly considered 3D computer monitors, but in the end preferred a high end billion color and very high resolution monitor instead.


----------



## LuxLuthor

flashy bazook said:


> I briefly considered 3D computer monitors, but in the end preferred a high end billion color and very high resolution monitor instead.



Which make/model did you get?


----------



## BVH

I recently got the DELL ULTRASHARP U2713H,27INCH monitor. Using a Dual Link DVI card to drive it in full resolution. You gotta look close at the Dell 27's to be sure you are getting the billion colors, 10 bit (not 8 bit, IIRC) monitor. There are 3 models, I think. Very happy with it.


----------



## flashy bazook

The best computer monitor tech is usually reserved for the 30" models.

Above 30" it actually becomes a kind of TV (some users use what is in effect a TV as a computer monitor) and is no longer a high-res monitor. The TV's have larger sizes but maxed out resolutions at one of the Hi-Def resolutions. Exception is the 4K and 8K types I mentioned that will at some point come to our shores.

I got the HP 30" monitor, easy to track the actual model by checking the # colors in the specs.


----------



## LuxLuthor

flashy bazook said:


> The best computer monitor tech is usually reserved for the 30" models.
> 
> Above 30" it actually becomes a kind of TV (some users use what is in effect a TV as a computer monitor) and is no longer a high-res monitor. The TV's have larger sizes but maxed out resolutions at one of the Hi-Def resolutions. Exception is the 4K and 8K types I mentioned that will at some point come to our shores.
> 
> I got the HP 30" monitor, easy to track the actual model by checking the # colors in the specs.



I'm guessing the HP ZR30w model? Interesting to see in the current Maximum PC "Best of the Best" listing that after 2-3 years they now think the Dell Ultrasharp U3011 is giving it a run for the money. Amazing that HP came out in 2010.


----------



## flashy bazook

LuxLuthor said:


> I'm guessing the HP ZR30w model? Interesting to see in the current Maximum PC "Best of the Best" listing that after 2-3 years they now think the Dell Ultrasharp U3011 is giving it a run for the money. Amazing that HP came out in 2010.



Yes, that is the correct model designation.

It was expensive, but at least it falls under the HP "business" type of warranty, in theory if something goes wrong they promise to come on site to fix the problem, or replace the monitor if necessary.

At the time I researched this I don't remember Dell having an equivalent, the HP seemed the best choice among the few available then.

Actually, as I look around I tend (now, having learned from bitter experience!) to buy "best" brand names in monitors. I have in addition to the HP, a Dell, a Lenovo (a very hard to find HD-aspect ratio and max-HD-def at the time model), a Mitsubishi, and a Panasonic.

So far, knock on wood, these brands have kept working under tough conditions and have not missed a beat. Plus in a way the monitor is what you interact with the most, given a decent computer and internet connection speed, a monitor is what can make or break your computing experience, so that would be a bad place to try to save money by going cheap.

I have given up on the Viewsonics, Hanns-Gs, NECs, and BenQs, all of which have failed catastrophically earlier than I would have wanted or expected, and some more than once--including both fixed and new/second/different models.

I am guessing that at some point I will try out a Samsung, based on excellent performance of a set of speakers I got from them, plus their very successful recent performance in electronics sales and advanced cell phones in general. You've got to be good to be eating Apple's lunch, no?

One final word probably should be addressed to Sony, which is a historic brand with many achievements. I still have one of their flat screen cathod-ray tube type of monitors (a big technological improvement at the time) and it continues to work great, on and on. And around the house I can probably find a whole set of their products. But I think you have to be careful now with them, and make a model-by-model evaluation. They have mixed performance now both on products and as a company regarding the sales, management, and support of their products. They like to think of themselves as the big competitor to Apple, but Samsung has eaten their lunch, too. Maybe now with the yen weakening they will pick it up and again become a top world company.


----------



## LuxLuthor

Many wise words. As far as I can tell, the best bet is to look at objective reviews (i.e. the Maximum PC list), as the quality goes up and down within a brand's variety of models, and with the brands over time. I have been using the same 23" Samsung SyncMaster XL2370 every day, 12 hours a day, 7 days a week for almost 4 years. Works perfect.


----------



## StarHalo

Now we're getting somewhere: Sony 55" and 65" *4K* TVs *available for pre-order now*, $5,000 and $7,000 respectively. Dynamic edge LED backlighting, built-in wireless LAN, 65 watt speakers, wireless smartphone/tablet mirroring and control, four pairs 3D glasses included, SimulView (two glasses can view two different full-screen images at the same time, for previously split-screen two-player video games), and onboard manual (the entire manual is built into the TV menu system). A Sony 4K Media Player will be available at the same time, which comes pre-loaded with ten 4K movies, and a Sony 4K Network is forthcoming later in the year, with both movie and TV titles.


----------



## LuxLuthor

That is cool, but too many Benjamins for the "99%" !!! I was wondering how long before High Def BR was rendered as obsolete as VHS is now. On the other hand, I really don't need to see inside skin pores.


----------



## StarHalo

LuxLuthor said:


> That is cool, but too many Benjamins for the "99%" !!!



Too rich for my blood, but a nice price drop from the CES earlier in the year when the 84-inch model was $25,000..

I'd top out around $2,500 for a Sony XBR (paid that much for one ~15 years ago), so one that has twice as many lines costing twice as much is a reasonable compromise - for now. But then that begs the question, what will the price be for the Christmas season? With a new 4K media player and an entire network, Sony will have to start moving these TVs quickly..


----------



## StarHalo

SEIKI 50-inch *4K* TV, *$1,300*. I haven't heard of this brand either, but will the guests at your Super Bowl party care?


----------



## LuxLuthor

I would NEVER buy an unknown, unestablished reputation company for something like a HDTV. Even if it had quality reviews of performance from reputable review websites, I still wouldn't get it until a couple of years have gone by to get rid of the crappy "Asian" cloning companies using parts melted down from their local industrial scrapyards. Especially wouldn't buy the first year of a new (4K) technology until the "Big Boys" have had time to slug out and optimize their various manufacturing versions. Look what has happened to initial HDTV's and the HDMI cable versions/anti-piracy coding/chips and format changes that left first wave of buyers sucking wind.

Then there's all the various types and quality of 3D TV's, glasses, no glasses, , BR vs. Hi DVD, Betamax vs. VHS, etc.


----------



## StarHalo

Brief review of the Seiki 50" 4K; it's cheap because it's basically just a display, 3 HDMI inputs and not much else. But it is gorgeous actual 4K cheapness, and includes a 1 year warranty.


----------



## LuxLuthor

The Chinese Seiki will accomplish one very important thing for those brave guinea pigs willing to part with their $1500--it will bring down the cost of the new 4K tech. Essentially Seiki "Walmarted them," with an image of the Tokyo skyline to boot. Gotta give them props for pulling that off. It's pretty likely also a case of the Chinese government intentionally manipulating/subsidizing the true cost of this TV to take away market share while establishing the Seiki name in the pantheon of HD TV's.


----------



## StarHalo

ESPN is cancelling their 3D channel before the end of the year due to lack of interest. Meanwhile, one of my local TV places is constantly advertising their Seiki TVs on the radio during baseball games.

Goodbye 3D, hello 4K..


----------



## Chauncey Gardiner

LuxLuthor said:


> On the other hand, I really don't need to see inside skin pores.



True that! 

Soon after broadcast TV went High Def, all the news reporters were wearing so much makeup they looked like streetwalkers. 

~ Chance


----------



## StarHalo

Amazon currently has the Seiki *4K* TV for *$1081*; sweartagawd I'm not shilling for these people, but will any other TV manufacturer even try to compete?!


----------



## StarHalo

Now Seiki is releasing a 39" *4K* model for *$700*; preorders begin at Sears on June 27.


----------



## LuxLuthor

I'm not educated on 4K in terms of pro's, con's, track record, different ambient conditions, ghosting, etc. Never heard of Seiki, and would be initially reluctant to buy a TV that typically lasts +10 years without knowing the company will be around with a track record of quality, service, etc. I still have not bought a 3D TV, but there's still a lot of movies that are coming out with 3D for it to be still a "viable" technology since Avatar relaunched it. It's interesting to see the tech changes though.


----------



## StarHalo

The Sony 4K Media Player has arrived, $700, 2TB storage, rentals are $8 each, comes pre-loaded with ten 4K movies:

The Amazing Spider-Man
Bad Teacher, featuring Cameron Diaz
The Karate Kid, featuring Jackie Chan and Jaden Smith
The Other Guys, featuring Will Farrell
Battle: Los Angeles
That's My Boy, featuring Adam Sandler
Salt, featuring Angelina Jolie
Total Recall 2012, featuring Colin Farrell and Kate Beckinsale
Taxi Driver
The Bridge on the River Kwai

..I guess if I were to buy it, it'd be nice to see young Alec Guiness in 4K..


----------



## StarHalo

The aforementioned curved OLED screen is indeed going into production, with both Samsung and LG introducing models to the US and Korean market, starting at $15,000. Guess I'll have to make due with a 4K screen at less than 1/15th the price..


----------



## Badbeams3

I bought a inexpensive ($550) 3D tv to hold me over for a while. Figure it will be some time before theses new 4000k or 8000k...maybe 8000k Oled curved...maybe 3D glasses free too...drop down in price enough for me to consider one. I really am enjoying the current one...but can`t wait for the future models to really hit the mainstream....


----------



## StarHalo

Badbeams3 said:


> I bought a inexpensive ($550) 3D tv to hold me over for a while. Figure it will be some time before theses new 4000k



Nope - Sears has the Seiki 39" 4K for pre-order _right_ _now_; $699, deliver or pick up next week free.


----------



## Badbeams3

StarHalo said:


> Nope - Sears has the Seiki 39" 4K for pre-order _right_ _now_; $699, deliver or pick up next week free.



Nice. Saw this one too http://www.sears.com/shc/s/p_10153_12605_05771550000P?mv=rr But these do not say anything about 3D?


----------



## StarHalo

Badbeams3 said:


> But these do not say anything about 3D?



No 3D, both are basically just big monitors, no features or frills aside from a picture to die for. 3D is pretty much dead at this point anyway, ESPN3D and BBC3D have both been discontinued. 

If you want the features, there's the aforementioned Sony model starting at five grand; with the new competition and the upcoming holidays, it might not be the best time to invest that kind of dough in a TV..


----------



## Badbeams3

StarHalo said:


> No 3D, both are basically just big monitors, no features or frills aside from a picture to die for. 3D is pretty much dead at this point anyway, ESPN3D and BBC3D have both been discontinued.
> 
> If you want the features, there's the aforementioned Sony model starting at five grand; with the new competition and the upcoming holidays, it might not be the best time to invest that kind of dough in a TV..



Yea, I`ve heard many say 3D is dead. I hope it`s just a matter of improving things...be great to dump the glasses. Either way...no way I`m spending $5000 or more on a tv. Not on my income...lol.


----------



## StarHalo

This will be a long-lived thread: James Cameron has confirmed that Avatar 2 will release December 2016, Avatar 3 will be December 2017, and 4 will happen sometime in 2018.


----------



## Chauncey Gardiner

StarHalo said:


> This will be a long-lived thread: James Cameron has confirmed that Avatar 2 will release December 2016.



Until then it will be kept alive discussing televisions. :nana:

~ Chance


----------



## StarHalo

Chauncey Gardiner said:


> Until then it will be kept alive discussing televisions



But that's why everyone buys televisions, no one buys TVs for actual television programming anymore..


----------



## Chauncey Gardiner

StarHalo said:


> But that's why everyone buys televisions.....



:huh: Everyone is buying televisions for the James Cameron, Avatar movies?! :huh:

~ Chance


----------



## StarHalo

Chauncey Gardiner said:


> Everyone is buying televisions for the James Cameron, Avatar movies?!



They're not buying them for _2 Broke Girls_ or _Duck Dynasty_..


----------



## Chauncey Gardiner

:laughing::laughing::laughing:

~C.G.


----------



## EZO

Who is James Cameron and what the heck is Avatar? :thinking:


----------



## StarHalo

LG "Classic TV", 32" with wood trim, HD display, actual functional knobs and buttons; ~$750, South Korea only:


----------



## jtr1962

I totally don't understand the "retro" thing. Not just in electronics, but in other things like homes where they use fake window panes and styles dating from a century ago. Can't we just have a modern, unique 21st century look for things? Why are we fixated on staying in the 1950s forever? It's all the more ironic considering that in the 1950s a lot of people were actually looking forward to the future as shown by visionaries of the time. Now that we're in that future, it doesn't look much different from the world of my childhood.


----------



## EZO

I don't get this retro design either and I don't see these selling very well. I'm also curious to understand how that tuning knob works on a 21st century digital TV. (a heck of lot of twisting the dial considering how many channels there are now)


----------



## Chauncey Gardiner

I think that's one of the best looking TV's I've seen in a long time,, I'd definitely buy one for a small den. I'm wondering if it has a remote control in addition to the knobs. 

As far as the retro thing, why not? Different strokes for different folks. Perhaps it helps to have lived in the 50's to understand the allure. 

~ Chance


----------



## EZO

Chauncey Gardiner said:


> I think that's one of the best looking TV's I've seen in a long time,, I'd definitely buy one for a small den. I'm wondering if it has a remote control in addition to the knobs.
> 
> As far as the retro thing, why not? Different strokes for different folks. Perhaps it helps to have lived in the 50's to understand the allure.
> 
> ~ Chance



Well, if it's "really" a retro TV it wouldn't have a remote. You'd have to get up off the couch to change channels.


----------



## Chauncey Gardiner

No way! That's a deal breaker. My two sons are teenagers, so there's no chance of them hopping up to change the channel for me. I still remember how fun it was to change the channels for dad.

It wouldn't bother me if my retro TV came with a remote,, matter of fact, I'm betting it does.

~ Chance

Back to work. Later gents.


----------



## LuxLuthor

Speaking of Duck Dynasty...did you see the ratings of the new season premier? I must confess that I got hooked watching these good old boys...and Gold Rush too.

Thing about 3D is Cameron was the only one who really understood and demonstrated how to use it for the profound immersion effect. When I watch my copies of Avatar, they are pretty, but not immersive like the 3D theater which I watched 10-12 times, and I have never watched any movie more than 2-3 times, unless it shows up channel surfing like Pulp Fiction, Fargo, Memento--always superb.


----------



## EZO

I agree that Cameron has an understanding of how to use 3D projection in a way that other directors fail to grasp. I remember being so impressed with Cameron's use of restraint in how he used the 3D process in Avatar. While most directors try to startle audiences and have people ducking projectiles that appear to be coming at them in their seats, Cameron used 3D to draw the viewer into the environments he was portraying and therefore into the story. When he did have something hurdling out at the audience it was usually for dramatic effect to further the storytelling.


----------



## StarHalo

Well I can't always bat a thousand; I previously implied that the concave OLED was some sort of not-for-production concept that was just a pleasant gimmick - I was listening to The Tech Guy show with Leo Laporte earlier today, and the TV segment was "how to mount your curved OLED," "lots of curved OLEDs at the next CES," "curved OLED is the new plasma," etc..


----------



## LEDninja

Avatar alone does not justify a 3D TV. And most of the post conversion fake 3D are horrid.

There is another movie out now that may encourage people to buy a 3D TV.
Gravity.
The following extended trailer shows:
(1) The last 2 minutes of the opening shot when the space shuttle got hit by debris from an exploding satellite.
(2) Sandra lost in space, after that and before George found her.
(3) The hard landing on the ISS. (Their shuttle was destroyed and they had to space walk/fly over to the ISS.)
(4)There are various miscellaneous shots at the end after the credits.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPEdJ5IAFEU
If you do go find the biggest screen around. Its worth the extra cost.


----------



## StarHalo

Dell UltraSharp 28" *4K* monitor, under $700, January 23rd.


----------



## StarHalo

Sony can't be stopped: 65" *curved* LED Smart HD TV, three grand with free shipping in stock.


----------



## StarHalo

If your computer/display is above average, [link removed, unless somebody knows a place that will host a .webm file]


----------



## StarHalo

With the caveat that I'm an Amazon employee: The Amazon Fire TV completely lives up to the hype, makes the Roku look like a joke. Internet TV is finally ready for prime time..


----------



## StarHalo

_Breaking Bad_ is now streaming in *4K* on Netflix; 4K content is now the same nine bucks a month as everything else..


----------



## StarHalo

StarHalo said:


> Goodbye 3D, hello 4K..



The 2014 World Cup, which features constant advertising for Sony 4K throughout each match, is not being broadcast in 3D; that pretty much settles it.

Other news: Dolby Labs is preparing to bring their Dolby Atmos system to consumer home theater - that's up to 128 simultaneous speakers for your TV, good luck with those in-ceiling mounts..

One more bit: Dolby Labs is rolling out Dolby Vision, a new standard for 4K TVs that will ensure brightness/color/contrast as you see it on the movie screen is replicated on your TV set; TVs with this standard will have color and output that is not physically possible with current models.


----------



## StarHalo

Seiki 39" *4K* 120Hz, $299 at Walmart. 4K TVs are now Walmart end-shelf discount items..


----------



## StarHalo

The new Avatar, but whereas that movie broke new visual ground to be _pretty_, this one swings decidedly the other way.. 97% on Rotten Tomatoes for good reason, an instant classic for sure.


----------



## bullfrog

StarHalo said:


> The new Avatar, but whereas that movie broke new visual ground to be _pretty_, this one swings decidedly the other way.. 97% on Rotten Tomatoes for good reason, an instant classic for sure.


Such an amazing movie. Couldn't sleep and randomly decided to watch it and was just blown away.

Seems like it's been pretty under the radar.


----------



## StarHalo

*Dolby Vision* is here; if you're one of those people who were on the fence waiting to buy a new TV, for a model that has the actual features that will still matter in five years and not the gimmickry, LG has delivered. Four grand to enter, but it's a set that will give you many relevant years of bleeding-edge viewing. Read the first review for more in-depth details.


----------



## StarHalo

If you didn't already know: A new entry in the "my TV isn't big enough, no TV is big enough.." genre, available for rent now:


----------



## StarHalo

Avatar II, December 2020. Looks like Cameron is opting to just wait out the Star Wars sequels..


----------



## choppers

StarHalo said:


> Avatar II, December 2020. Looks like Cameron is opting to just wait out the Star Wars sequels..


I have watched avatar so many times. I do not have a 3D tv and it is still good. Looking forward to the sequels...star wars too!


----------



## StarHalo

Got a Samsung 65" Curved 4K UHD Smart TV at Costco for under a grand; the Smart part of the equation gives it so many features that it may be some time before I can figure out what it can really do. I'm used to using external Roku/Amazon Fire boxes, but only the newest versions of those can do 4K, so if I can work out loading apps on the TV itself, that might get me there. I've figured out that AT&T's UVerse has 4K content, but their main living room set-top box doesn't support 4K, only the side-room mini-boxes can do it. 

The TV's power rating notes that it averages 75 watts for normal use, but can use up to 250; amazing to think how much more efficient LEDs are versus CRT tubes, yet our screens are now so much larger that modern TVs need more power. The TV also includes a security scan feature to prevent malware from infecting it..


----------



## Lynx_Arc

StarHalo said:


> Got a Samsung 65" Curved 4K UHD Smart TV at Costco for under a grand; the Smart part of the equation gives it so many features that it may be some time before I can figure out what it can really do. I'm used to using external Roku/Amazon Fire boxes, but only the newest versions of those can do 4K, so if I can work out loading apps on the TV itself, that might get me there. I've figured out that AT&T's UVerse has 4K content, but their main living room set-top box doesn't support 4K, only the side-room mini-boxes can do it.
> 
> The TV's power rating notes that it averages 75 watts for normal use, but can use up to 250; amazing to think how much more efficient LEDs are versus CRT tubes, yet our screens are now so much larger that modern TVs need more power. The TV also includes a security scan feature to prevent malware from infecting it..


http://www.displaywars.com/65-inch-16x9-vs-26-inch-4x3


----------



## SCEMan

StarHalo said:


> Got a Samsung 65" Curved 4K UHD Smart TV at Costco for under a grand; the Smart part of the equation gives it so many features that it may be some time before I can figure out what it can really do.



You might want to check out avsforum.com and find the owner's thread for your model; it's a great source of setup and other info.
I picked up the Samsung 65" SUHD TV at Costco last year and the avsforum was a huge help in tweaking it for best performance.


----------



## StarHalo

Lynx_Arc said:


> http://www.displaywars.com/65-inch-16x9-vs-26-inch-4x3



Ha, that's clever; yeah, I guess this is a 13 square foot television..



SCEMan said:


> You might want to check out avsforum.com and find the owner's thread for your model; it's a great source of setup and other info.
> I picked up the Samsung 65" SUHD TV at Costco last year and the avsforum was a huge help in tweaking it for best performance.



That's definitely a good source for reviews/setups; very cool that this model is universally praised as being pretty much good to go right out of the box, and that it compares well to the videophile plasma screens of yore. Not sure what everyone's fascination with warmer display temps is, but I'm amazed at how well this TV handles nuance and accuracy, as opposed to just punching you in the face with light and color.


----------



## RedLED

Even though I have covered the motion picture and TV industries since 1992, I never go to the theater. 

The last movie I went to see was Titanic. I attended the after party with James Cameron, and he let me hold his Oscar, very nice guy.

We have some big mega screen HD deal the wife bought, but I don't like it at all, too contrasty and sharp. Never watch it. I watch may things on my tablet. Much more fun. Frankly, I miss the softness of the old CRT. 

Nevertheless, I will never go to the theaters again, dirty, sticky, smelly, overpriced and goofs I don't want to be around. And talk about over priced, I'll stay home any night! They are on the way out, so is TV. 

I read the Hollywood Reporter and Variety daily, to keep up, one the industry, as I need to know what is what. 

Sorry, I know people really like this, and that is fine, but once you have been behind the scenes, it is not all that.


Respectfully,

Rl


----------



## StarHalo

RedLED said:


> We have some big mega screen HD deal the wife bought, but I don't like it at all, too contrasty and sharp. Never watch it. I watch may things on my tablet. Much more fun. Frankly, I miss the softness of the old CRT.



I was going to say this TV does to some degree remind me of a CRT, how getting close to a CRT just meant you'd see the scan grid but there weren't really pixels that would differentiate one point from the next; when this TV is playing back 4K content in Movie mode (which defaults to 0 sharpness) that's exactly what it looks like up close, very pleasantly soft and easy on the eyes.



RedLED said:


> Nevertheless, I will never go to the theaters again, dirty, sticky, smelly, overpriced and goofs I don't want to be around. And talk about over priced, I'll stay home any night!



Gotta go to a first showing of the day at a reputable theater on a weekday, the price is only sometimes lower but the attendance is always down to maybe two people per row. As a younger guy, I was at the largest theater in the midwest on the opening night of _Rush Hour_, what a party (only one fist fight!), but I definitely prefer the private screening feel now..



RedLED said:


> They are on the way out, so is TV.



How so?


----------



## RedLED

Read the news! Let make it a little bit clearer, the industry news. Theater chains, quite a few owned be China, and the movie industry is having a tough time, they will be around, however, it may take a while to bounce back.

Last summer was awful for them. 

TV is is facing people cutting the cord of cable, and Sat. Dishes. There are a ton of channels people do. Not want look at ESPN! They are in huge trouble. And their problem is people live streaming events or streaming movies. I think broadcast and cable will become streaming in the not to distant future. 

These executives I meet are very concerned. 

Also so what was the name of tha TV with the raster lines vs. pixels? Some screens are just too sharp, and, while I can appreciate the technology, I still like the look of a CRT, and file, too. However it did it all can now be made to have that look some of us love about film, yet it is shot with a digital camera.

Video cameras are really amazing the cold opening to SNL is now shot with a top of the line Canon DSLR.

Thanks so much,

RL


----------



## StarHalo

Eh, 2016 was a lousy year for movies; Doctor Strange was good, Arrival was solid, s'bout it. Not every movie year can be 1999. And there's definitely a lot of streaming nowadays, but in some ways the theater will always be the theater. 

Our household was internet-only for many years, my wife got a satellite dish a few weeks ago I'm guessing just because she wanted to DVR everything as it aired. Had it been left to me, I would have added a subscription to Starz just for _American Gods_ and then continued happily streaming on Hulu/Netflix/Amazon indefinitely.


----------



## StarHalo

TV Update: So now that I've gotten most of this TV figured out, I'm finding that the whole 4K streaming ecosphere isn't quite ready for primetime yet - Youtube is by far the best source of streamed 4K content as long as you just want to see some awesome demo videos and not actual movies/programs, Hulu and Amazon Prime simply don't have much at this time, and Netflix charges more for access to their handful of 4K content. The other catch is that even with a 50 Mb fiber optic internet connection, if you have other sources that are doing any kind of basic streaming elsewhere in your household (wife's/kids' tablets) then it just won't manage a 4K stream; the content plays in HD and refuses to shift into 4K, until later at night when everyone's off their devices and more bandwidth is available. 

So even though I'm morally opposed to physical media as outmoded and unnecessary, in this particular case there's no way to reliably get the most out of the television without having a full copy of the data on hand; I will soon purchase a UHD/4K Blu-Ray player and a small number of movies, knowing full well that in 2-3 years when there's another advancement in internet bandwidth it will look like a silly investment and the then-outdated movie copies will be as obsolete as VHS tapes wasting space on shelves now. But man, that 4K picture..

Theater update: I saw _Dunkirk_ in the local Dolby Theater today; Dolby Vision screen, Dolby Atmos sound, power recliner seats, and a bar out front providing a craft beer for refreshment - I'll gladly continue paying for this experience even after I get the 4K player..


----------



## StarHalo

Production of _Avatar II_ started this week; projected release date is December 18, 2020. Fox Studios openly declares it will be the most expensive movie of all time. Aside from the return of the old cast, the new cast is pictured below, providing a large clue to the direction of the plot line; only the boy in blue is playing a human character, the rest will be Na'vi:


----------



## Chauncey Gardiner

StarHalo said:


> ....
> 
> Theater update: I saw _Dunkirk_ in the local Dolby Theater today; Dolby Vision screen, Dolby Atmos sound, power recliner seats, *and a bar out front providing a craft beer for refreshment* - I'll gladly continue paying for this experience even after I get the 4K player..


 
Were you in a theater in Amsterdam? Was the craft beer in a paper cup or a glass. It's the little differences. 

Don't worry about it [email protected]@King like a silly investment in a couple of years. Enjoy the fruit of your labor, now. :thumbsup:

~ Chance


----------



## StarHalo

Chauncey Gardiner said:


> Were you in a theater in Amsterdam? Was the craft beer in a paper cup or a glass. It's the little differences.



No, in the theater in the mall, Ontario CA; Stone Brewing Ruination, in a plastic cup like at the ballpark. The bar is out in the lobby across from the wall of Coke Freestyle machines:


----------



## Chauncey Gardiner

So, no Royale with cheese, either. 

~ CG


----------



## StarHalo

Dine-in with food brought to your seat, burgers are on the menu, but I was more interested in the beer. And hash is legal but it ain't hundred percent legal, I mean, you just can't walk into a restaurant, roll a joint and start puffin' away.. (why is this conversation on Google Music?)


----------



## StarHalo

Not sure what everybody had against sci-fi in 2017, but these are two of the most underrated movies of all time:


----------



## StarHalo

I remember seeing _Tron_ for the first time as a kid, how it was everything about computers we'd been hearing about and waiting for, and finally, there it all was on the big screen, so in-the-know and in-the-now that grown-ups didn't quite get it, but you knew from the moment it began that it was an instant classic your whole generation would remember forever..

If you'd like to have that feeling, go see this movie in theaters now:


----------



## KITROBASKIN

Saw Valerian Thousand Planets this weekend. Definitely worthy for science fiction fans. Elaborate production, good ending.


----------



## StarHalo

A Memorial Day sale at one of your local box stores includes a *75" 4K* barebones non-Smart/non-HDR TV for *$1,050*. C'mon 100"..

Update: And the same place has *49" 4K HDR* sets for *$220* - 4K is now under five dollars an inch..


----------



## StarHalo

That local box store has *65" 4K* barebones non-Smart TVs for *$500*


----------



## StarHalo

Samsung *8K* models, September.


----------



## StarHalo

Box store has *60"* *4K*+Smart+UHD+120hz, *$398*


----------



## AldoPar

8k already? I've not even switched to 4k yet. lol


----------



## StarHalo

AldoPar said:


> 8k already? I've not even switched to 4k yet. lol



Samsung just wants to be the first to have the 8K label on their screens, the technology is years away from being ready even for early adopter users. 

4K is amazing though, and cheaper than ever, highly recommended..


----------



## StarHalo

Box store:

*75" 4K* barebones for *$900*

The 70"+ echelon is now under a grand..

Also, same 4K barebones model; *65"* for *$420*, *55"* for *$260*


----------



## Minimoog

Just read all through this thread. Now just ordered Avatar DVD - I have not seen it yet. But I don't have a swanky TV just an standard shape tube TV from decades ago.


----------



## StarHalo

Minimoog said:


> Just read all through this thread. Now just ordered Avatar DVD - I have not seen it yet. But I don't have a swanky TV just an standard shape tube TV from decades ago.



Beware - you may be going down a costly road..

"I bet this would look amazing on a flatscreen. Like a big flatscreen. Maybe 4K. How inexpensive would a current good-enough TV be? Or a better than good-enough TV.."


----------



## Hoka Hey

StarHalo said:


> Beware - you may be going down a costly road..
> 
> "I bet this would look amazing on a flatscreen. Like a big flatscreen. Maybe 4K. How inexpensive would a current good-enough TV be? Or a better than good-enough TV.."



Then you gotta get the surround sound set up..........


----------



## tab665

Minimoog said:


> Just read all through this thread. Now just ordered Avatar DVD - I have not seen it yet. But I don't have a swanky TV just an standard shape tube TV from decades ago.


couldn't find it on VHS?


----------



## StarHalo

Box store:

*75" 4K* barebones for *$760*

The 70"+ echelon is now nudging $10-an-inch..

-

Other news: Here's a *16K* video, let us know if/how you can play it back anywhere near its native resolution..


----------



## Minimoog

Watched and quite enjoyed over the weekend, but I did note that it had a quite strong American Indian theme going on with the native people. Not that it was a bad thing but I do like completely fresh ideas if possible. 7 out of 10.


----------



## Minimoog

tab665 said:


> couldn't find it on VHS?



Unfortunately not. I do like my VHS tapes for sure.


----------



## StarHalo

Minimoog said:


> Not that it was a bad thing but I do like completely fresh ideas if possible.



Do look into the aforementioned _Mad Max Fury Road_ or _Ready Player One_, some ideas so fresh you may be startled..


----------



## Minimoog

StarHalo said:


> Do look into the aforementioned _Mad Max Fury Road_ or _Ready Player One_, some ideas so fresh you may be startled..



I really enjoyed Ready Player One, but not seen Mad Max. Saying that I have a few favorite films that I thought were completely fresh ideas only years later to see an older film with some of those elements in it.


----------



## fyrstormer

Dear lord. That movie came out 9 years ago? I'm too young to feel old.


----------



## StarHalo

fyrstormer said:


> Dear lord. That movie came out 9 years ago? I'm too young to feel old.



Obama became president, Sully landed the plane, Plasmas were the sharpest TVs, and Avatar came out. 

At least you didn't say Star Wars (which I saw in the theater..)


----------



## fyrstormer

2009 was a good year. Except for the almost complete collapse of the global economy. That part sucked. But the little details were nice.


----------



## StarHalo

Look to 1999 if you want good movies..


----------



## Lynx_Arc

KITROBASKIN said:


> Saw Valerian Thousand Planets this weekend. Definitely worthy for science fiction fans. Elaborate production, good ending.



I finally saw this movie.... pretty good movie, very beautiful in places but the one thing that sort of annoyed me is the male actor "felt" too much like Tom Cruise in his acting but just didn't have the pizazz plus it could have used a comedic supporting actor and the ending could have used a better setting. Worth watching on a nice set, since I don't have a large tv or 4K not sure what it would look like.


----------



## StarHalo

If you have a good theatre nearby, do check out _Roma_, which was filmed in 6K with Dolby Atmos sound; this film sets itself apart by showing off the tech in a very simple and subtle way - no explosions or CGI, just Ansel Adams-level composition along with a sparse plot that borders on short story, but the film is 2 hrs 15 mins long because it draws out the cinematography just letting the viewer soak up the setting. Definitely leaves an impression, it's a bit like a moving visit to the museum. It's also available to view for free on Netflix, however there are quite a few "no TV big enough" scenes..


----------



## StarHalo

HP Omen X Emperium 65 gaming computer monitor; 65", DisplayPort connection for *4K* @ *native/non-interpolated 144hz*, 120 watt 3.1 surround soundbar, Nvidia Shield, Google Chromecast built-in. $5,000.


----------



## StarHalo

Box store has refurbed *55" 4K Roku* TVs for *$250*


----------



## StarHalo

Online place has *32" *HD* Fire Edition* TVs for *$100*, your choice of two brands. If you have a Prime subscription and wifi, that means you can put this TV in any bed/spare room and have a full Smart TV + Alexa setup with only the AC plug coming from the back of the TV.


----------



## nbp

This thread is not a “Good Deals” thread. Keep to the topic of Avatar or posts will be deleted.


----------



## StarHalo

_Avatar_ has been bumped down to the second highest grossing movie worldwide of all time, surpassed by _Avengers Endgame_ as of mid-July of this year. Future Avatar sequels are now planned every other year starting in 2022, alternating with new Star Wars movies every odd-numbered year, and almost certainly competing directly with Marvel releases as they're releasing roughly two every year.


----------



## InvisibleFrodo

How many StarHalo posts are there in this thread? Why watch Avatar again when I can just sit back and watch StarHalo talk to himself/no one in particular about random unrelated stuff? And here I thought this thread was as dead as Sigourney Weaver’s character in Avatar...


----------



## StarHalo

InvisibleFrodo said:


> How many StarHalo posts are there in this thread? Why watch Avatar again when I can just sit back and watch StarHalo talk to himself/no one in particular about random unrelated stuff? And here I thought this thread was as dead as Sigourney Weaver’s character in Avatar...



There's some difficulty in having an ongoing thread on a movie series where the first two movies are 13 years apart; as this film introduced many viewers to IMAX, 3D, and related viewing technologies, the discussion naturally diverged into how to have that viewing experience at home, which brings up the issues of television technology and how prices have plummeted over time so that what was exclusive and inaccessible before is now common and easy to come by - a good 50" plasma set was $1,500 when _Avatar_ was released, which is not a realistic budget for many TV buyers, but today a 65" LCD set that can match or better long-discontinued plasma tech, with additional 4K resolution and Smart TV internet connectivity which didn't exist in 2009, is ~$500 at your local Wal-Mart. 

As the thread is about the revolutionary nature of the film, it's inevitable over such a long span of time that there will be other examples that rival or better it, so this would be the place to point out such examples. There are probably more than a few posters here who now prefer _Mad Max Fury Road_ over _Avatar_, and I still think that if they could give Oscars to CGI characters, it would have gone to Thanos for _Avengers Infinity War_. As we're entering the golden age of the pure CGI movie, the numbers of such examples will increase dramatically over the coming months.


----------



## KITROBASKIN

This thread is handy for possible updates on the future Avatar movies. Saves time from searching media outlets about it. Seems like post #470 could have been a PM instead of...


----------



## Chauncey Gardiner

Thanks for ALL the information, StarHalo. :thumbsup:


----------



## StarHalo

And now there's more competition: _The Matrix 4_ is confirmed to begin filming next year with Keanu Reeves and Carrie Anne Moss returning to their starring roles, and at least one of the Wachowskis writing and directing. Given how advanced the effects of original movies were 10-20 years ago, it'll be interesting to see what they can do with current computing and expectations..


----------



## KITROBASKIN

Yes indeed. If you come across anything related to The Matrix 4 regarding this revolution of moviemaking, please let us know.


----------



## StarHalo

Forgot to mention: _Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse_ is a dazzling hundred-minute celebration of animated art, basically the modern _Fantasia_ but with a contemporary what-is-a-hero storyline. Academy awarded for Best Animated Film, rated 97% on Rotten Tomatoes, 8.4 on IMDB, and rated PG so you can share it with the kids, a museum-quality high-def delight..


----------



## StarHalo

The producer behind _Mad Max Fury Road_ is preparing to film a sequel/another installment.


----------

