(Close Window)
Topic: Avatar!!!
Message: Posted by: Gilgamesh_The_Librarian (Dec 19, 2009 04:45PM)
Well I've seen it.

Spectacular piece of work by James Cameron, and the visuals and use of 3D does make your jaw drop at times.

Creating a world and all its indigenous lifeforms and making you believe in it is some achievement and I think this is definitely one to see at the movies in 3D...don't wait for the DVD.

I'd give the whole experience an 8/10 but the story itself less so. In fact there are times when it is incredibly slow and there are times when it is so trite and blase in its well trod "outsider becomes one with a people and ends up being better at being one of them than they are" story that you feel like puking. So any nausea people tell you about is probably around the story not the visuals.

Really glad I went to see this though...it is an experience I wouldn't have missed.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Dec 19, 2009 06:02PM)
Those blue guys look like a blue version of my nephew
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Dec 19, 2009 06:07PM)
When going to a movie to be entertained I truly don't want to care about the technology that made the movie happen. That's like hearing about the trap doors and wires and lighting that make the tricks work.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Dec 19, 2009 06:30PM)
But them exit doors are easy.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Dec 19, 2009 06:41PM)
Is it only playing in 3D or did they release a 2D version of it as well?
Message: Posted by: cardone (Dec 19, 2009 06:46PM)
I saw it 12 midnight at the IMAX in NYC .... Wow great movie ... simple story and beautiful scenery .... go see it . I think its only in 3d. Me and my friend forgot it was in 3d half way though...its that good !
Message: Posted by: balducci (Dec 19, 2009 07:23PM)
I like that both the ultra-conservative fringe and the ultra-liberal fringe are both protesting (*) against Avatar (at least in America, apparently).

Hopefully that means that the majority of the rest of us will find it to be an entertaining movie.

Yes, Payne, there is a 2D version. In my little burg, 5 of 12 theaters are showing the 2D version.

(*) It's possible that the ultra-liberal protest is meant to be ironic; I can't quite tell for sure.
Message: Posted by: Dave Scribner (Dec 19, 2009 08:19PM)
Avatar has been released in 3 versions. Normal or 2D, 3D and 3D IMAX. In my area, IMAX is a little more expensive but woth it for what you see.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Dec 19, 2009 08:25PM)
[quote]
On 2009-12-19 20:23, balducci wrote:

Yes, Payne, there is a 2D version.
[/quote]
Lol. Just realised that my comment has a Christmassy ring to it. Guess I'm starting to subconsciously feel the spirit of the season.
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Dec 19, 2009 09:20PM)
What ultra conservative/ultra liberal fringe thing?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Dec 19, 2009 09:32PM)
On one side looks very "white man's guilt" and on other looks very "you should feel good reverting to feudalism".

but visually just amazing - go see it in 3d and enjoy.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Dec 19, 2009 10:17PM)
[quote]
On 2009-12-19 22:20, kcg5 wrote:
What ultra conservative/ultra liberal fringe thing?
[/quote]
Just a few quick links. You can Google search for others on either side.

The ultra-conservative point of view:

"James Cameron’s ‘Avatar’ Slams America"

[url]http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/bighollywood/2009/07/24/james-camerons-avatar-takes-critical-view-of-america/[/url]

Also too preachy an environmental message for some:

[url]http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:WkH_9qe4Zg4J:blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/lucyjones/100005572/avatars-preachy-message-about-the-environment-is-a-turn-off/+lucy+jones+avatar&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk[/url]

Then we have the ultra-liberal point of view:

"On Friday, December 18, 2009 thousands of people will be protesting the release of the James Cameron movie, Avatar. The purpose of the protest is as follows:

1) To make all people aware that heterosexual arrogance, assumptions or exclusions of alternative sexualities in movies is no longer acceptable. Diversity and tolerance are human rights.

2) To speak out for all gay, bi-sexual, genderless and transgender people who are not represented by any character in Avatar.

3) To educate people about Evolution and humanity's transition to transgenderism.

All protests will be peaceful and non-confrontational."

[url]http://stopavatarmovie.blogspot.com/[/url]
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Dec 19, 2009 10:22PM)
The ultra-liberals are being a bit obtuse; why pick Avatar? They could have done this exact same protest for almost any movie released in the last decade.
Message: Posted by: Chessmann (Dec 19, 2009 10:44PM)
The review in my local paper was pretty bad. Said the story was inane.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Dec 19, 2009 10:51PM)
So what if it's a remake of dances with wolves and battle for terra by way of the puppeteers, the smurfs and thundercats. It's supposed to be about a visual treat and fun to watch scifi film. IMHO it succeeds.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Dec 20, 2009 01:41AM)
[quote]
On 2009-12-19 22:32, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
On one side looks very "white man's guilt" and on other looks very "you should feel good reverting to feudalism".

but visually just amazing - go see it in 3d and enjoy.
[/quote]

Just finished reading the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. Most of them agree with you and that it should be seen in 3D

So I guess I'll wait til the DVD comes out since I can't see 3D
Message: Posted by: Gilgamesh_The_Librarian (Dec 20, 2009 05:19AM)
[quote]
On 2009-12-19 23:51, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
So what if it's a remake of dances with wolves and battle for terra by way of the puppeteers, the smurfs and thundercats. It's supposed to be about a visual treat and fun to watch scifi film. IMHO it succeeds.
[/quote]

Jon,

In the most part I'd agree with you but there are bits (semi spoiler) like the Jake and the big Red Dragon bit that really made me hate the film for a few seconds for how easy and trite some of the plot resolutions were achieved.
Message: Posted by: Dennis Michael (Dec 20, 2009 05:20AM)
Actually, it is in four forms 2-D (Standard), 3-D, Real 3-D, and IMAX. I don't think IMAX is in 3-D. I saw it in Real 3D with Real polarized hard frame glasses. My son saw it in 2-d with his wife. They loved it too.

Our local paper rated it 3.5 stars out of four, from a person who for the 1st time we agree. Generally her ratings are opposite mine. (She dislikes Sci-Fi)

There are quite a few similarities of "Dancing with Wolfs" and "Avatar".
War mongers mistreating the locals, not understanding the locals culture, slaughtering the "tribes", falling in love with a local, killing of wolves, being "one with nature" etc.

If you liked "Dancing with Wolves", then you will like "Avatar". I will see it a couple more times because there are parts that move so fast, I missed them the first time. I also look at the 10 second frame shots to see how the movie flows. (Understanding Storyline flow for cameramen.)

I rate this the Number 1 Movie in 2009... mainly because I like Sci-fi movies, especially one that has a message, even though we've heard that message before.

It is clear to say, CGI in movies is here to stay, and will be a major part in movie making in the future.

[quote]So what if it's a remake of dances with wolves and battle for terra by way of the puppeteers, the smurfs and thundercats. It's supposed to be about a visual treat and fun to watch scifi film. IMHO it succeeds.[/quote]

I enjoyed Jonathan's point of view, well said. It's like watching the new CGI version of King Kong, in 3D.

Dennis
Message: Posted by: critter (Dec 20, 2009 10:37AM)
I thought this movie was going to be a crapfest about a planet full of Jar Jar's when I saw the preview.
But I watched it anyway and it was frickin' awesome. And I didn't really think about the technology at all once I got into the characters and fun-ness. Which is pretty cool because usually when I watch a CGI character all I can think is how CGI it looks.
Let me point out that the new 3D is NOT the same as the old 3D. I never got old 3D either but the new stuff is pretty cool as long as you don't already have a migraine.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Dec 20, 2009 10:51AM)
[quote]
On 2009-12-20 06:20, Dennis Michael wrote:

If you liked "Dancing with Wolves", then you will like "Avatar".

[/quote]

Wow it's that bad :)

Since I loathed Dances with Wolves (one of the worst movies I've seen. Ccomparable to the first two Lord of the Rings snooze fests. And I have never seen a Cameron movie I thought was watchable. I guess I will wait for this to come out on cable.
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Dec 20, 2009 11:24AM)
Every time I see the trailer, I expect to see, "Now on X-Box."
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Dec 20, 2009 11:45AM)
I wonder how Avatar compares with Sleep Dealers (the scifi film in Spanish about remote labor)
Message: Posted by: Dennis Michael (Dec 20, 2009 12:02PM)
Payne,

The thing I learned a long time ago, is there is a significant portion of people who so not like Sci-fi or Comedy equal to those that do. There are a few rated if they rate it good, I hate it and if they rate it bad, I usually love it.

I laughed very hard at "Old Dogs" and so did the audience, but the raters gave it an "F". Since I liked all of Cameron movies, I should naturally like this one, which I do.

Since you are not a fan of Cameron movies, it would be expected you wouldn't like this one either. That is an excellent criteria. If one does not the other Cameron movies, they will not like this one either.

History with me, shows that if Roger Ebert likes it, I would mostly like it to.
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091211/REVIEWS/912119998/1023
He rates it 4 stars out of 5 Stars. I go 5 Stars, Movie of the year for me.
Message: Posted by: Doug Higley (Dec 20, 2009 02:58PM)
Imax IS in 3-D.

But which Imax? There are different theatrical experiences. There is the BIG Imax have the real Imax experience. And lately the smaller mutilplex Imax screens that do not give the real Imax experience. There is also a terrible version (Balboa Park San Diego Science museum) that is a Dome (like a planetarium) and cranks your neck, as well as the screen is made up of visible panels. Sucks.
Avatar is a 1/2 BILLION dollar 'Ferngully' or 'Battle For Terra'. starring leggy Smurfs. yawn...I'll take 'Alvin & The Chipmunks 2 The Squeakual' ;-)
Message: Posted by: Dan Bernier (Dec 20, 2009 03:18PM)
I love sci-fi, but I love good a story plot as well. Avatar scores big with special effects and computer animation, but scores very low for having a good story line. I'm guessing that all the money was spent on special effects while a true effort on the story was ignored. I watched it in 3D, which is a very cool piece of tecnology. But, I've seen a few 3D animated movies with my little boy, so I wasn't overly surprised by it.

The plot takes a lot of short cuts in telling a story, and I found parts of the movie dragged on more for filler than character developement. After watching the movie I thought about comparing it to a beautiful woman on the outside, but on the inside she is as dumb as an mule. The movie looks great special effects wise, but is very lame and weak when it comes to the story.
Message: Posted by: Gilgamesh_The_Librarian (Dec 20, 2009 03:20PM)
[quote]
On 2009-12-20 15:58, Doug Higley wrote:
Imax IS in 3-D.

But which Imax? There are different theatrical experiences. There is the BIG Imax have the real Imax experience. And lately the smaller mutilplex Imax screens that do not give the real Imax experience. There is also a terrible version (Balboa Park San Diego Science museum) that is a Dome (like a planetarium) and cranks your neck, as well as the screen is made up of visible panels. Sucks.
Avatar is a 1/2 BILLION dollar 'Ferngully' or 'Battle For Terra'. starring leggy Smurfs. yawn...I'll take 'Alvin & The Chipmunks 2 The Squeakual' ;-)
[/quote]

Not so much Smurfs as Battle-Smurfs with 3 foot long arrows that make a satisfying thunk when they hit a bad guy.

I'd have paid the admission fee to see the folk flying their dragons in 3-D. The perspectives were just superb in that you get a real sense of height (scary) and movement and I couldn't help sitting there with a big grin on my face for big sections of the film.

And I'm pretty certain that most folks experience of 3D won't have prepared them for this...unfortunately there's no way of passing that on except by experiencing it yourself.

Slightly geeky story here. I laughed towards the end of the film and my wife looked oddly at me because nobody else was laughing. I explained afterwards that, as one of the army guys was talking to his men he was effectively standing about 4 foot in front of me above the centre aisle of the cinema just as a woman came back from the toilets with her small child. For a second or two my brain couldn't seperate the film from the reality (my honest to god first thought was "oh get out the way you daft woman, this guy's talking") and the sheer magic of it made me laugh out loud.
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Dec 20, 2009 03:20PM)
The IMAX near me, is a real good old IMAX-number one!!! And it is playing on IMAX, 3d.
Message: Posted by: Dennis Michael (Dec 20, 2009 05:07PM)
Well then I will see it again at an IMAX in 3D.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Dec 20, 2009 05:40PM)
[quote]
On 2009-12-20 16:18, Gospel Dan wrote:
I love sci-fi, but I love good a story plot as well. Avatar scores big with special effects and computer animation, but scores very low for having a good story line. I'm guessing that all the money was spent on special effects while a true effort on the story was ignored. I watched it in 3D, which is a very cool piece of tecnology. But, I've seen a few 3D animated movies with my little boy, so I wasn't overly surprised by it.

The plot takes a lot of short cuts in telling a story, and I found parts of the movie dragged on more for filler than character developement. After watching the movie I thought about comparing it to a beautiful woman on the outside, but on the inside she is as dumb as an mule. The movie looks great special effects wise, but is very lame and weak when it comes to the story.
[/quote]

So basically it's Jar-Jar Binks - The Motion Picture
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Dec 20, 2009 06:33PM)
Um... well it could spawn some really strange looking videos for the old Village People song "In the Na'Vi".
Message: Posted by: tommy (Dec 20, 2009 07:34PM)
It reeled in $73m on opening weekend! How much does a movie ticket cost these days?
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Dec 20, 2009 09:09PM)
Hmm, my local theater, adult evening tickets are going for $10.75 each.

But the darn thing's 2 hours and 40 minutes! What ever happened to editing? Or the ol' 90-120 minute standard? I don't have the stamina to sit through something that long...
Message: Posted by: Dennis Michael (Dec 21, 2009 03:28AM)
$27.50 in 3D for two or $10 for Two Senior Citizens

It would have reeled in more but here on the east cost where over half the population lives is snowed in this past weekend.
Message: Posted by: Clock (Dec 21, 2009 08:46AM)
[quote]
And I have never seen a Cameron movie I thought was watchable.
[/quote]

Have you actually seen Terminator 2? It's of the greatest films EVER made on EVERY level. And that's not just my opinion...

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/terminator_2_judgment_day/

Payne, if you have seen T2 and call it unwatchable, I have to ask what movies DO you like? :P
Message: Posted by: Payne (Dec 21, 2009 10:42AM)
[quote]
On 2009-12-21 09:46, Clock wrote:
[quote]
And I have never seen a Cameron movie I thought was watchable.
[/quote]

Have you actually seen Terminator 2? It's of the greatest films EVER made on EVERY level. And that's not just my opinion...

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/terminator_2_judgment_day/

Payne, if you have seen T2 and call it unwatchable, I have to ask what movies DO you like? :P
[/quote]

Yes, I saw T2. Dreadful film with plot holes so big you could drive a truck through them sideways. And they did!

Probably not entirely his fault though as the Terminator franchise is as flawed as the Predator one is.

As for movies I like

The Shawshank Redemption
Princess Bride
Wilder Napalm
The original Star Wars Trilogy 4,5,6
The first Indiana Jones Movie
Any Pixar film
Any M Night Shyamalan Film
Most Cohen Brothers movies
Forbidden Plant
Day the Earth Stood Still (the original not the dreadful remake)
The Usual suspects
Dark City
Alien (only the first not the horrible sequels that turnd a great gothic horror franchise into a mindless action one)
Message: Posted by: critter (Dec 21, 2009 12:03PM)
I don't like M Night Shamalan's movies. It seems like every one gets worse.
As for Pixar, the latest Ice Age movie was awful.
The Princess Bride is a good movie though.
Message: Posted by: rnaviaux (Dec 21, 2009 12:19PM)
Amazing movie - I pretty much end up agreeing with Ebert's reviews as well. I felt much like I did when I saw the original Star Wars when I was 12. Cameron has significantly raised the standard for movie making in general. Come to think of it he has done that several times.

If you love movies then you have to see this in the theaters.

If your a criminal who steals movies off of the internet then your really going to cheat yourself out of a once in a lifetime experience.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Dec 21, 2009 01:21PM)
[quote]
On 2009-12-21 13:03, critter wrote:

As for Pixar, the latest Ice Age movie was awful.

[/quote]

Yes, the last two Ice Age movies were unwatchable. however PIXAR didn't make any of the Ice Age films. They were made by Sky Blue Studios for 20th Century Fox
Message: Posted by: Clock (Dec 21, 2009 01:25PM)
[quote]

Yes, I saw T2. Dreadful film with plot holes so big you could drive a truck through them sideways. And they did!

[/quote]

Haha... I was just having some fun, Payne. At least you like good films! :)

As with T2's plots holes, I think time travel can be a tough nut to crack. I think the biggest one was...

"How was Sky Net/Terminators, inspired and created from the T-800 Chip; isn't that a paradox?"

Didn't bother me. The idea is so ridiculous in the first place. The performances, directing, and dialogue sold me. Such a powerful film... please give it another chance!

Now T3 and T4... CRAP!!!
Message: Posted by: Clock (Dec 21, 2009 01:27PM)
As for Avatar, I pretty much have the same view as everyone else. Going to see it again in IMAX 3D tomorrow... maybe I'll get a different perspective.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Dec 21, 2009 01:45PM)
[quote]
On 2009-12-21 14:27, Clock wrote:
As for Avatar, I pretty much have the same view as everyone else. Going to see it again in IMAX 3D tomorrow... maybe I'll get a different perspective.
[/quote]

But for me it would be the exact same experience except for the fact that I'd have to sit inside a theatre wearing sunglasses.

I heard they keyed all the colours up to compensate for the fact that you have to wear the polarized glasses to see it in 3D. Did they correct for this in the 2D version or is it in real intense cartooney looking colours?
Message: Posted by: Payne (Dec 21, 2009 01:46PM)
[quote]
On 2009-12-21 14:25, Clock wrote:

Didn't bother me. The idea is so ridiculous in the first place. The performances, directing, and dialogue sold me. Such a powerful film... please give it another chance!

[/quote]

What did I ever do to you that you'd make me sit through T2 again? :)
Message: Posted by: critter (Dec 21, 2009 02:24PM)
Well I am glad I gave Avatar a chance. I wouldn't have gone based on the previews but I trusted some opinions of people who tend to share my tastes and it turned out to be a good decision.
Can't convince everybody though.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Dec 21, 2009 03:15PM)
[quote]
On 2009-12-21 14:45, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2009-12-21 14:27, Clock wrote:
As for Avatar, I pretty much have the same view as everyone else. Going to see it again in IMAX 3D tomorrow... maybe I'll get a different perspective.
[/quote]

But for me it would be the exact same experience except for the fact that I'd have to sit inside a theatre wearing sunglasses.

I heard they keyed all the colours up to compensate for the fact that you have to wear the polarized glasses to see it in 3D. Did they correct for this in the 2D version or is it in real intense cartooney looking colours?
[/quote]
Okay, you've confused me. Is movie theater 3D still the old green and red glasses? Or have they shifted to the more color-accurate polarized (Captain EO style, I guess)? I'd hate to see a movie ruined by muddied colors.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Dec 21, 2009 03:30PM)
Polarized so you get color.
Message: Posted by: critter (Dec 21, 2009 03:38PM)
Yeah, new 3D is awesome. I had seen some terrible 3D before and when my buddy took me to "Bloody Valentine" I thought it was going to be irritating because I hated 3D, but it was the new 3D which surprised me by not being simply horrible and blurry.
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Dec 21, 2009 04:58PM)
Going tonight. Payne, watch out-clock knows his movies... Grant, I always had an issue with the whole time travel thing in the first one, but then I did some reading on causality and stuff... you never know, I guess.

...Still-send back arnold to kill sarah. the rebels send back someone to protect sara, who gets her pregnant-with John Connor.. So, no terminator... no john connor?
Message: Posted by: Payne (Dec 21, 2009 05:27PM)
[quote]
On 2009-12-21 17:58, kcg5 wrote:
Going tonight. Payne, watch out-clock knows his movies... Grant, I always had an issue with the whole time travel thing in the first one, but then I did some reading on causality and stuff... you never know, I guess.

...Still-send back arnold to kill sarah. the rebels send back someone to protect sara, who gets her pregnant-with John Connor.. So, no terminator... no john connor?
[/quote]

Wasn't the whole causality thing I had issue with. It was the "can't send inorganic material back unless it's coated in flesh" also clothes don't seem to make it back either. Has no one heard of natural fibers?

It was only a weak plot device because their special effects budget wasn't sufficient to allow them more screen time for the killer robot shots and if they did have enough budget to give the robot more screen time they wouldn't have needed Arnold. Without Arnold the movie wouldn't have made much as there would have been no reason for most people to go and see it.

The first one was a fun and forgettable little action pick. The second was just the same movie all over again with a ginormous budget and very little new to add to the overall story line.
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Dec 22, 2009 01:35PM)
Saw it. Very good. VERY long. story lagged at parts, but made up for it in other ways. IMAX,3d.

in terms of changing movies, I think the "matrix" did more. You don't see a fight scene now with out seeing it affected by the matrix
Message: Posted by: Dennis Michael (Dec 22, 2009 05:57PM)
I read some where where this is a 230 million Cartoon. An interesting perspective.
Message: Posted by: Scott Cram (Dec 23, 2009 04:22AM)
I like how the war was fought over "unobtanium". I can't wait for the sequel, where the existence of the Na'vi will no doubt be threatened by a spill of deadly Pandemonium Chloride.

(They made the scenery in 3-D. Why couldn't they do the same for the plot and the characters?)
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Dec 23, 2009 05:06AM)
Omg, from the all the replies here and all the over-analyizing of story and plot etc.. I just have to say..

:wow:

WTF?! Really, it's just a freaking Movie people!
Message: Posted by: Doug Higley (Dec 23, 2009 07:55AM)
ESNREDSHIRT: 3-D in theater was NEVER really anaglyph red and green glasses except in a FEW rare cases like the Canadian mess called The Mask. In 1953 when the 3-D craze was in forefront it was ALWAYS the Poloroid type using two projectors. The Red and green glasses were for PRINT media like Comic books etc. (and a couple of obscure films like Mask etc.) 3-D was first used in 1922 and the anaglyph was used back then. Red and Green was also used on TELEVISION prints of 3-D theatricals like Creature From the Black Lagoon (Poloroid in theaters).

2009: The current REAL 3-D system (polorization) works on TV as well as it does in theaters. (The demo was awesome!) and has eliminated the headaches and eye strain of the former theatrical system. There is a competing system for television using 'shutter' glasses that a couple of companies have adopted but this is unwieldy and pointless since the REAL 3-D works so well without the extra equipt. There is a NEW system a couple of years down the road that will not need glasses at all. This has already successfully tested and is workable though hugely expensive at present. You do get the depth but not the extension beyond the screen into YOUR space. This uses a form of lenticular screen.

My book Museum: Mysteria features the anaglyph red/green (or blue...actually Cyan) and I shot those photos using a normal single lens SLR. 3-D is fun no matter the delivery system.

by the way...back in the day the theatrical prints using Poloroid and two projectors were sometimes combined into ONE print for use in areas that did not have a 2 projector set up...these were in 16mm (and used on TV) and needed the anaglyph. As red and Blue print were combined on a single color film stock. ALL of these prints have gone to crap since the film used was Eastman and the colors have shifted to RED. (Blue is not present thhuis no 3-D).
Message: Posted by: Mehtas (Dec 23, 2009 03:15PM)
Just watched it today.

Wonderful movie and fantastic CGI effects.

I enjoyed it through and through.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Dec 23, 2009 04:20PM)
[quote]
On 2009-12-23 06:06, Pakar Ilusi wrote:
Omg, from the all the replies here and all the over-analyizing of story and plot etc.. I just have to say..

:wow:

WTF?! Really, it's just a freaking Movie people!
[/quote]

So movies don't have to have plot, character development and motivation?

I guess every time I perform from now on I'll get to say Really, it's just a freaking magic show people.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Dec 23, 2009 05:18PM)
Since when can you use polarized light style 3d on television?
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Dec 23, 2009 06:26PM)
Doug- thank you for a very enlightening post. I just may have to check it out sometime, by going to the movies! (Not always an easy thing with a 9-month old baby crawling around your home. Of course, by the time he's old enough to enjoy the movies, those 3D TV systems will be commonplace, I'm sure. Maybe we'll cheat time by hiring a baby-sitter :) )
Message: Posted by: Doug Higley (Dec 23, 2009 07:00PM)
Jonathan, since REAL 3-D engineered it. We watched it using the SAME glasses as the theatrical show (at D23 Expo)...the 3-D on the TV was PERFECT. Just beautiful.
Disney will be releasing it on Blu-Ray.

Don't forgety...the theatrical 3-D 'Films' are now DIGITAL to begin with and projected digital on the BIG Sreen. (Except Imax which is digital transferred to film. Unless they did a changeover recently.)
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Dec 23, 2009 07:06PM)
Doug, our televisions don't currently support polarized light separation of images. At least mine don't. So those glasses aren't much use. What TV do you have which works?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Dec 23, 2009 08:19PM)
It will when the Polls take over.
Message: Posted by: Gilgamesh_The_Librarian (Dec 24, 2009 05:15AM)
[quote]
On 2009-12-23 20:06, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Doug, our televisions don't currently support polarized light separation of images. At least mine don't. So those glasses aren't much use. What TV do you have which works?
[/quote]

Yep I had heard that the processing power of current TV's isn't up to it but a couple of major players were bringing out 3D TV in the New Year. I'd assumed Dough has seen a TV at a demo which showed this which wouldn't surprise me at all.
Message: Posted by: Doug Higley (Dec 24, 2009 06:05AM)
Come on Jonathan!!!!! OF course it is new tech. Last years stuff HAS to be made obsolete!

TV's by one or two mfgs are already on the market. Toshiba? Samsung will be a big player but I think they are going for the Shutter type. (yuk. Here we go again with the Betamax-VHS wars).

I forget which brand we were watching demoed but it was Poloroid based and OUTSTANDING playing 3-D Disney product(Pixar Toy Story 3 etc). Very exciting to watch.
Message: Posted by: Gilgamesh_The_Librarian (Dec 26, 2009 06:14AM)
Is it me though or does selling TV's which are 3D enabled not feel like a desperate gimmick too far.

I like gizmos as much as the next person but already feel slightly stung by HDTV because no matter how much people tell me different I think the difference in viewing experience is wafer thin. Same thing with Blu-Ray and normal DVD's ( except for the cost obviously).

If manufacturers want to promote the next great technological advance I think 3D isn't the way to go--I'd go for bigger, flatter, lighter TV's.
Message: Posted by: Dennis Michael (Dec 26, 2009 08:58AM)
The demand and money for 3D TV is not there yet. It will come probable in 2013.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Dec 26, 2009 01:31PM)
Gilgamesh- yeah, it's probably in some ways similar to "audiophiles".
[url=http://www.amazon.com/AudioQuest-K2-terminated-speaker-cable/dp/B000J36XR2/ref=cm_cr_pr_sims_t]Anyone want an 8' speaker cable, on sale for only $6,800.00?[/url]
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 26, 2009 03:53PM)
One word: [url=http://www.unplggd.com/unplggd/tvs-video-screens/smellit-smellovision-gets-one-step-closer-to-reality-076541]Smell-O-Vision[/url]. For DVD players!
Message: Posted by: Tom Bartlett (Dec 26, 2009 08:40PM)
I just returned from seeing “Avatar” with my wife daughter and son. My 19 year old daughter was most vocal about how great the movie was but I think we all liked it very much. Even being completely predictable it was very entertaining and the special effects were spectacular.

I can also see the “Dances with Wolfs” similarities but with a happy ending. This time the indigenous people over come their adversaries, with help of the invaders, turned patriots through their Avatars.

Although the most heroic act was not physical, but was rather asking the great spirit of the planet for deliverance from their foe, which it did.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Dec 26, 2009 08:47PM)
And now we know the back story for "invasion of the body snatchers" where the plant intelligence sends some help to fix our world.
Message: Posted by: Doug Higley (Dec 27, 2009 07:34AM)
Gilgamesh...your 'wafer thin' comment is dead on.

Consider this... a 27" led flat screen 720 at 8 1/2 feet using an enhanced DVD player is exactly like a 1080 with Blue Ray. No difference to be noted or appreciable gain to upgrade. (Forget where the testing was done.) So since our seats are exactly 8 1/2 feet...I got the 27" 720 on sale and an enhanced player and my reg DVDs knock our socks off. TV=$349. Samsung DVD Player $49.

The desperate gimmick is on the theater side as they do everything they can to lure folks away from the living rooms. 3-D TV once you see it is no more a slaes gimmick than sound over silent. It's really stunning. Also normal 2-D films can be easily altered to play 3-D with a few computer tricks. Well, maybe not easy but very doable.

Exciting stuff really for us 3-D fans. :)

Smell is also an older tech updated. There was a process called Odor-Ama (I saw one in New York City back in the day.) And Waters used scratch'n'sniff cards for one of his gross out flicks and called it smell-o-vision.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Dec 27, 2009 11:16AM)
http://www.reald.com/Content/Monitor-ZScreen.aspx

so what do you think of the backstory to invasion?

btw if you want immersive - look at the research for when the frame rate goes to over 60fps.
Message: Posted by: critter (Dec 28, 2009 12:48PM)
There was this thing I remember reading about where smells were pumped into theatres during movies. But it was expensive to make those modifications to the theatre for something so goofy so it never caught on.
Message: Posted by: Dennis Michael (Jan 4, 2010 07:54AM)
In just 3 weeks Avatar grossed over 1 billion dollars!

http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/03/boxoffice.avatar.ew/index.html

"in just 17 days, "Avatar" has surpassed $1 billion in the global box office. To put that in perspective, it took "The Dark Knight" pretty much its entire theatrical run just to make it to that milestone."

I just saw it again in IMAX 3D to a sold out theater ($16.50 per ticket), the only way to see this movie.... 12,000 watts of sound power! Visually stunning action scenes.

BTW, 3D TV is the new wave of TV for 2010, $200 extra!
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Jan 4, 2010 08:33AM)
So much for a bad economy.
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Jan 4, 2010 11:16AM)
He stole from "the new world", and "last of the mochicans".

sony will have 3-d tv's out by the end of the year, but you have to buy the glasses for around 200...
Message: Posted by: sourcerer (Jan 4, 2010 11:58PM)
Yeah, seems that the 3d tv's will need shutter glasses as there's no real way to deal with it yet - polarized TV's would not allow that much of a viewing angle. I guess the best bet would be a very high res television with lenticular display (like some 3d bookcovers - there are laptops supporting this) but then you'd be limited in viewing distance.

The viewing angle is a problem with polarized 3d. Front rows and theatre side seats have much more problems seeing the 3d properly.

It will be interesting to see where it goes though, because they sure are hoping for something that would force us to buy new TV's, and it seems 3D is what they're hoping for - not sure it'll take off though as continued 3d viewing will get very headachy for many. The problem is that you can't focus on anything except what was in focus when filming. On a regular TV you can (it'll be out of focus but with 3D it's also 'out of depth'. Some people tend to let their eyes wander to see what's going on in the background - in 3D movies this is sure to confuse the brain.

Then again - we got used to 2D TV, it's probably just a trained skill.

Kaj
Message: Posted by: Flyswatter (Jan 5, 2010 11:51PM)
I loved the movie personally. So much imagination, but like people said, predictable plot lines, and yet very very enjoyable.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 13, 2010 10:41PM)
[quote]
On 2009-12-23 05:22, Scott Cram wrote:

(They made the scenery in 3-D. Why couldn't they do the same for the plot and the characters?)
[/quote]
Finally saw it and I've got to agree. By the 2nd hour my wife and I were yawning. Kind of depressing to think this is the biggest money maker ever.
Message: Posted by: Scott Cram (Feb 13, 2010 11:58PM)
The 3-D scenery in Avatar was so well received that, in the sequel, they're thinking of trying out 3-D personalities for the characters, for the first time in the series.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Feb 14, 2010 12:29AM)
[quote]
On 2009-12-26 14:31, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Gilgamesh- yeah, it's probably in some ways similar to "audiophiles".
[url=http://www.amazon.com/AudioQuest-K2-terminated-speaker-cable/dp/B000J36XR2/ref=cm_cr_pr_sims_t]Anyone want an 8' speaker cable, on sale for only $6,800.00?[/url]
[/quote]
Are they really serious?

Anyway, Lol. I like some of the comments.

"If there is one cable I would whole-heartedly trust to my Chimera-hunting needs, this would be the cable. No other cable has the tensile strength to properly and efficiently garrote a lycanthrope, asphyxiate an Esquilax or even gag a mermaid. Last week, using my trusty AudioQuest K2 (retrofitted with lead weights, bright orange latex paint and a generous coating of crushed glass stolen from the window of an abandoned church at midnight), I managed to snuff 3 golden unicorns in swift succession!"

"At first I thought what I could spend almost 7,000 on. There were the usual options, Vacation in Bermuda, a weekend with two high priced call-girls, a bender in Vegas, but then I came across these speakers, and knew (JUST KNEW!!!!) what I have been looking for all my life was finally within arms reach. So after calling a few elderly people and claiming I could cure all their money problems because I was a Nigerian Prince who just needed a little hlep getting my millions out of my bank which is now under government seizure if they just sent me thousands of dollars, it took me just three calls to "Shady Acres" retirement community before I had the cash to buy these. Now granted I didn't just hook these up to just any system but a high end Radio Shack Optimus reciever and super high end speakers I bought out of the back of a white van in a Home Depot parking lot (man I scored on that deal, the guy told me they were worth thousands) So after hooking these wires up, I realized all my problems were solved. I could finally hear that mouse in Ratattoiue fart at a distance of 1,000 meters."
Message: Posted by: Gilgamesh_The_Librarian (Feb 14, 2010 04:50AM)
Balducci,

Thanks for the heads up - the reviews for this product are very funny.

Mike

NB : You set me on the path of looking for funny reviews:

Not sure if this is funny because the product is an abomination but hey, it takes all sorts:

http://brandsonsale.amazonwebstore.com/Kids-Pimp-Suit-Costume-SizeLarge-1012/M/B000QDTSSG.htm
Message: Posted by: doktorp (Feb 23, 2010 06:49AM)
I'm going to the cinema tonight.

Patrick
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Feb 23, 2010 05:35PM)
Is it just me or does that young girl who won the silver medal in the dance skating competition at the olympics look like the alien girl from Avatar?
Message: Posted by: balducci (Feb 23, 2010 06:20PM)
I finally saw this movie over the weekend. In 3D, but not at an IMAX.

I was far more impressed than I expected to be, though I did go in with low expectations. I thought it was a fine movie, and I was really impressed with the 3D effects.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Feb 23, 2010 07:29PM)
Perhaps it is just me.