This is topic Avatar 2009 (plus lots of off-topic, non-review junk) in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001619

---

Posted by Steve Wilson (Member # 2411) on 12-10-2009, 11:12 PM:
 
The Scoop on Avatar! I got out of bed at 5 a.m. to make the 3 hour trip to Indianapolis and I had to be there by 8:45. So, this may be the reason that I almost dosed off a couple of times because of its slow start The 3D effects were not used in a dramatic fashion for some of the scenes as I was told by other theater owners that is was used with a soft touch in many places. I think the movie would have been just as good flat. 3D did ad good bit of excitement at times. The colors were much prettier with out those sun glasses. The end of the movie picked up a good bit of speed and punch. I am looking forward to seeing it again, to see what I might have missed being so sleepy at that early hour. Will it sell tickets. More than likely. Will the movie pay for itself, possibly. I guess with world wide sales it should pay itself a profit. Is it as good as the other movies by James Cameron? It looks as if we will see what the public thinks about it in a week or so. All in all its worth watching several times.

[ 12-19-2009, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: Adam Martin ]
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 12-10-2009, 11:43 PM:
 
So far, 8 reviews in at Rotten Tomatoes and they're all...

fresh.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-11-2009, 02:15 AM:
 
Any movie worth watching several times is a good movie. I have not seen it yet, but I plan to.
 

---

Posted by Jonathan M. Crist (Member # 413) on 12-11-2009, 03:46 PM:
 
The movie is essentially an updated reworking of "The Last Samuri" with blue smurfs and spaceships substituted for Japanese warriors and Samuri swords.
 

---

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 12-11-2009, 06:42 PM:
 
Avatar "Rotten Tomatoes" review update...

23 Fresh
4 Rotten

The Latest
 

---

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 12-14-2009, 04:43 PM:
 

quote: Jonathan M. Crist

---

The movie is essentially an updated reworking of "The Last Samuri" with blue smurfs and spaceships substituted for Japanese warriors and Samuri swords.

---

From the previews, this was my thought exactly. While I am a fan of "The Last Samurai", the fact that Mr. Cameron has been working on this for ten years and it's the same story line as another story, it makes it disappointing.
 

---

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 12-14-2009, 04:51 PM:
 
All I want to know is does it have some typically bad douche chill-inducing Cameron dialog?
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 12-14-2009, 06:11 PM:
 
I am already making plans to see AVATAR but not until after the holidays. I will see it at the Dole Cannery 18 on their digital IMAX 3-D screen. Unlike a fellow FT member who had predicted the movie will do shit at the boxoffice, I feel it will recover it's three hundred million production costs in a short period of time and make at least seven hundred million if not more. All it would take is for people to have the desire to see it more than once in a theatre. Roger Ebert said AVATAR was just as exciting as STAR WARS when he first saw the film so this is a good indication the film will do excellent business.

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-15-2009, 11:35 AM:
 
I do think it'll be big, but $700 million? I doubt that. I'd guess $400m.

(Claude - check out the "guess the opening week gross" for this movie in the Yak forum.)
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 12-15-2009, 01:32 PM:
 
If we're talking worldwide, and not just domestic, $700M might be possible. Not just domestically though, not even remotely close.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 12-15-2009, 01:43 PM:
 
If it doesn't do $700million worldwide I'll be VERY surprised, but domestically? Come on, Claude.
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 12-15-2009, 02:48 PM:
 
I did not say domestic, John

-Claude
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 12-15-2009, 03:03 PM:
 
I read your post incorrectly then. Apologies, Claude.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 12-15-2009, 03:04 PM:
 
Double post.

...and now, a massage from the Swedish Prime Minister.
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 12-15-2009, 06:48 PM:
 
As I had stated in my original post, the movie could make the amount I had predicted if it has the qualities that the first STAR WARS and TITANIC had that made people want to see it more than once in a theatre. The only stumbling block AVATAR has is it's ability to play a full unlimited run in 3-D.

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Althaus (Member # 5042) on 12-15-2009, 07:37 PM:
 
I believe the next 3D film is Alice, not until March 5th, so it should have a good 3D run.
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 12-15-2009, 08:04 PM:
 
I went to the Dolby Digital 3-D website a little while ago and had noticed there will be an additional four new 3-D screens in the Honolulu area and two more on Maui when AVATAR opens this weekend. Of the four screens, two will go into theatres that are not set up for 3-D yet and the other two will likely go into multiplexes that already have it. It seem there will now have many theatres with more than one 3-D set up allowing a movie like AVATAR to play in 3-D as long as it is profitable for the exhibitor.

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 12-15-2009, 09:52 PM:
 

quote: Jonathan Althaus

---

I believe the next 3D film is Alice, not until March 5th, so it should have a good 3D run.

---

Hoodwinked 2: Hood vs Evil is apparently 3D and coming out in January and as well there's going to be the 3D redone version of Beauty & the Beast.
 

---

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 12-15-2009, 10:57 PM:
 
BoxOffice.com 3D release calendar
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 12-16-2009, 06:13 AM:
 
Adam, you're wrong.

That release calendar is in 2D.


 

---

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 12-16-2009, 06:26 AM:
 
So, is it good?

Is it rubbish?

Is it 9' Smurfs fornicating in ferns???

Will Tron Legacy kick it's arse on opening weekend?

Tell us! We wanna know!
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 12-16-2009, 01:29 PM:
 
It was a mistake on Dolby's part when they listed Hawaii with a total of twelve Dolby 3-D installations yesterday instead of the existing six. I went back to the site this morning and they list six again.

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Althaus (Member # 5042) on 12-16-2009, 02:47 PM:
 
That calendar doesnt have anything until Alice 3D. I don't think Hoodwinked is being released in 3D anymore and they pushed Beast to 2011 for its 20th anniversary.
 

---

Posted by James Falloon (Member # 1933) on 12-17-2009, 04:23 AM:
 
Ok, here's a review.

(2D, 35mm, Dolby Digital)

Just got back from watching, and seldom have I ever made the effort to write a review (well one that wasn't solely bashing a film for humorous purposes) but I though this movie deserves a bit of my time in exchange for the wonderful time I had watching it.

Initially I thought this film was going to be another over-hyped turd that we've seen so much of lately, boy was I wrong.

This film is one of the best, probably the best film I have watched this year, star trek was good, harry potter was ok, night at the museum was enjoyable, but they all fade by comparison to avatar. And I've seen a lot of film this year.

I thoroughly enjoyed this film from start to finish, I'm not going to tell you what it's about or what happens, you'll just have to see for yourself. It's well paced, action from start to finish, and all the elements of the story unfold at just the right time and speed. you will not be disappointed. The visual effects are absolutely stunning, I've never seen anything like it, It felt and looked a lot like the epic T-rex vs Gorilla scene from king kong but for 2 and a half hours and much much better. Fantastic. The sound mix was awesome which is something I haven't said in a long time.

Sure if i thought long and hard I could invent some criticism, but I enjoyed it so mush I'm not going to bother, the pros simply outweighed any cons by an order of magnitude.

If you see only on film this year, make it this one. I know that sound like the same old crap marketers spew out, but you won't be let down by Avatar.

I believe this film has saved 2009, an otherwise pretty crappy year for films. I think we finally have a movie that will have "legs" I think we will be playing this for a long long time.

5/5

A+++ will watch again

EDIT: Oh I just though of one major critism, those blasted audio crap code dropouts in reel 2 , but apart from that, nothing.

Thanks for your time.
James
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 12-17-2009, 05:04 AM:
 
James, watch it again in 3D...it's VERY good.
 

---

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 12-17-2009, 06:19 AM:
 
I saw it in 3D and it is one of the most beautiful films ever made. The creativity and detail in the world of Pandora is something that will be difficult for any film to surpass. The 3D felt more 'real' than I expected, and was used excellently with only subtle extra-screen effects. I didn't want to leave the cinema, and when I did I felt exactly like the main character does when he steps out of his Avatar, our world looks dull and boring whereas Pandora is exciting, lush and vivd. The plot is very mainstream, pretty much Dances With Wolves with a bit of Fern Gully in there, but is full of action and quite watchable. I am going to book my IMAX tickets as soon as I can, and will probably catch it in 3D again.
 

---

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 12-17-2009, 12:47 PM:
 
11 out of 10 stars.

Great experience. I recommend it to all.

Beautiful colors.

While it absolutely is a borrowed storyline - it is a great movie.
 

---

Posted by Per Hauberg (Member # 529) on 12-17-2009, 04:29 PM:
 
Not worth that nights sleep, I spend on it.
And I honestly don't believe, I would have liked it better
with pair of annoying sunglasses on my nose for almost 3 hours. Counting stars ? - OK, Three out of six.
The Lord of the Rings goes to Space and meet A Man Called Horse.
This will definitely not be a new Titanic at the box-office. A short-lived sensation in the 3D houses over the holidays, and that's it !

Per
 

---

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 12-17-2009, 04:46 PM:
 
Don't know who this reviewer is but he describes the film that I am expecting...

Dances With Wolves In Space
 

---

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 12-17-2009, 05:08 PM:
 
Ouch!

Thats a pretty heavy duty review, but it's a refreshing take on a movie that others are praising for the effects alone.

It still doesn't float my boat, but I may be tempted to go and see it on a comp.

Please Mr. Fox, send complementary passes to the address at left.


Oh yeah, the forum quote about the "blue smurfcats" was an absolute cack.
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 12-17-2009, 05:17 PM:
 
It is very interesting to read about people who had negative opinion about AVATAR without seeing the film would agree with Carl Kozlowski's comments despite favorable reviews by a majority of film critics including Rojer Ebert and proudly boast they will not see the movie only because Kozlowsky said it was not good.

I must admit I was not too trilled about the film after I had learned it was going to be partially animated and the the very lame early trailers I saw but I now can hardly wait to see it after reading all of the positive reviews and the many favorable comments posted here.

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 12-17-2009, 05:39 PM:
 
I do plan to see the movie and decide for myself. I have always found Cameron films very stylish visually but his dialog frequently sways into b-movie drivel...the kind of chatter you hear in bad 80s slasher or teen sex movies. A couple of weeks ago I watched the first Terminator film and it's got it's share of awkward dialog and performances. (The complete lack of chemistry between Michael Biehn and Linda Hamilton didn't help.) The writer of the "Avatar" review reminds us how derivative Cameron's work is too. After seeing "Titanic" I was compelled to see "A Night To Remember" and was shocked how Cameron simply recreated scenes for his own film - some of them word-for-word and similarly composed. I haven't seen the Fox "Titanic" film from the 50s so I don't know if he "borrowed" from that.

I think we all tend to forgive and/or forget this where Cameron is concerned because he always blows us away with his visuals. I didn't expect to like Star Trek earlier this year and regardless of how I feel about plot choices they made the film was a great action movie and I appreciated it for that. I hope the political-correctness of Avatar won't grate on my brain while I am trying to enjoy the experience.
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 12-17-2009, 06:31 PM:
 
Joe,

There is a German version of TITANIC that was produced in 1943 during the height of World War 2 and for many years was unfinished. It was eventually completed but the unedited version was censored by the German high command. The film was eventually restored and released by Kino on VHS tape several years ago. It aired on TCM almost two weeks ago and I recorded it on my DVR and watched the the first half hour of it. It was odd watching a German film produced during the war about the disaster that had occurred in 1912 about the sinking of the Titanic, the pride of Great Britain at the same time Germany was at war with that country. James Cameron saw the film and I understood borrowed some story elements when he filmed his version. I had learned at least two scenes from the German version was used in the 1958 British version , A NIGHT TO REMEMBER.

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 12-17-2009, 07:32 PM:
 
By now I have seen about 45minutes of footage from this film. I honestly can't understand people that say this movie is a 10/10, but then again, Transformers 1 and 2 did kazillion $$$$ each and ....

Part of the "problem", I think, is that a lot of people seem super-happy with the visuals/music and thus allow a little forgiveness with the (cheese?) story/cliché characters etc. Also, they can step over the uncanny valley and they buy the blue-elfs as "ok" rather than weird animated stuff.

For some other people, like me, many CGI parts take me right out of whatever story there might be into another animated film hidden in there.

We can all tolerate a few minutes of (bad) CGI-Spiderman or CGI-Batman or CGI-lord of the rings as long as the rest of the film looks "real" and doesn't step too much outside the story. But when >50% of the film is that way, you either "buy it" or you don't.

Some people seem perfectly fine with it. I envy them and understand they give this film a 7-9.5 out of 10 rating.

I like Cameron in general (although indeed he is a "hack" that "borrows" EXTENSIVELY and throws tons of $$$$ waaayyyy-over budget $$$ and over-schedule into his films) and I like this type of Sci-fi films as well, but from all the footage I saw it's clear to me I'm not able to buy the suspension of disbelief needed to fully enjoy this film. For me, it will pbbly be anywhere from a 6 to an 8 out of 10. Maybe it will reach a 9 if indeed the other 100 minutes I haven't seen are "perfect". But never a 10/10 for sure.

Of course geeks and fans were the first in line to watch the film. So early reviews are pbbly possitive-biased. Also, I don't think the film will suck-big-time but rather be moderately-good to very good.

But NOT super-duper-ultra-dutter-maxi-puter-supra awesomely amazing like a lot of fanboys seem to be SHOUTING out everywhere. Me don't thinks. We'll see soon.

At this point the film was a 8.4 in imdb and 82% in rottentomatoes, but, as I said, fans-waiting-in-line are the first to speak up, so it's pbbly a little possitive-biased. The "plain real" public bulk pbbly not voting until monday or so after the film really opens wide etc. Most (but not all) reviews from professional critics though are certainly possitive. For most people this film certainly does NOT stink, so that's a good sign. Looking forward to the full (2D, 35mm in my case) experience soon.

PD: Anybody noticed the REALLY bad ratings of opening avatar-competitor "Did you hear about the Morgans?" OMG
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 12-17-2009, 08:08 PM:
 
Julio

I have not seen AVATAR yet and there is a possibility I also might not like it and wind up agreeing with you after I see it Enjoying a film or not is only based on our personal opinion. Just because you did not enjoy the film does not give you the right to even question the tastes of others who had enjoyed the film. To cite a personal example , I did not enjoy the first STAR WARS movie but eventually became very fond of the film. Although everyone I knew raved about the first MATRIX film, I did not enjoy it but eventually got to like that one too. When THE SOUND OF MUSIC was released, almost all of the critics hated it but it is film classic today.

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Jon P. Inghram (Member # 4125) on 12-17-2009, 08:26 PM:
 
I had to leave when they called the stuff they're mining "Unobtainium." James Cameron should know better than to put references to better films (in this case, The Core) in his movies.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-17-2009, 08:41 PM:
 

quote: Jon P. Inghram

---

Unobtainium.

---

quote: Claude S. Ayakawa

---

Just because you did not enjoy the film does not give you the right to even question the tastes of others who had enjoyed the film.

---

quote: Julio Roberto

---

I envy them and understand they give this film a 7-9.5 out of 10 rating

---

My problem is NOT with people giving this film a 9.5 out of 10 or even a 10 out of 10. My problem is with people giving this film an 11 out of 10. With people that say this film is the VERY VERY VERY greatest film ever-ever-ever without anything ever ever even remotely possibly close to its shoes.

That's the people which opinion I don't respect. That's all. And with this movie, there are quite a few of them. Not sure why. This movie has cliche characters, cliche dialog (You are not in Kansas anymore ... really? I thought I was in Dusseldof, but whatever), cliche names for minerals , cliche dragons, cliche T-rexs, blue elfs, cliche ewoks-vs-empire fights, cliche etc, OBVIOUS cgi (at times) pretending to be real (Matrix etc had it too, but does it qualify as a "perfect film"?), etc, etc, etc, etc.

An 11 out of 10? Really?
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 12-17-2009, 09:01 PM:
 
It is still their opinion and they are entitled to it.

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 12-17-2009, 09:07 PM:
 
Yeah, well.

I guess we all have different opinions of what "perfection" is.
 

---

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 12-17-2009, 09:17 PM:
 

quote: Julio Roberto

---

My problem is NOT with people giving this film a 9.5 out of 10 or even a 10 out of 10. My problem is with people giving this film an 11 out of 10. With people that say this film is the VERY VERY VERY greatest film ever-ever-ever without anything ever ever even remotely possibly close to its shoes.

---

James Cameron is not my favorite director.

This is not my favorite movie.

I gave the film an 11 out of 10 because, well, it deserves it. It has great visuals, great action, and beautiful scenery.

We are all entitled to our opinions *exactly*.

With all the trash that I have had to deal with for the past few years, this is by far one of the best films that have been released in a while.

I am not happy at all with the flat scope B.S. that was talked about on another thread. But the movie was BETTER than I thought it would be.


 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 12-17-2009, 09:21 PM:
 
Dennis

I wasn't pointing to your 11-out-of-10 rating specifically, of course

As I said. No problems with people thinking this film is "perfect" for them.

But "over perfect" in the history of cinema? Really a flawless film with no "defects" whatsoever to warrant an unobtanium 11-out-of-10 rating? Really so perfect?

Oh well. If you insist, then I guess we just have either different rating systems or different conceptions of the universe.

People are entitled to their opinions. Other people are entitled to not liking/respecting/sharing them. I respect an 10 out of 10 for this film, but don't share it. I don't respect an 11 out of 10, much less share it. Although I still haven't watched the whole film, but enough to know it's not "perfect" much less "over perfect".
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 12-17-2009, 09:23 PM:
 
The best movie - no, best film - of 2002 was "Kung Pow: Enter the Fist". I poo-poo anyone who says otherwise.

I'm looking forward to seeing Avatar.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 12-17-2009, 09:28 PM:
 
Kung Pow was the pits. It deserved the 13 out of 10 I gave it

It didn't play well dubbed ... ... ... to Spanish, though

Otherwise it would've gotten a 14 out of 10.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-17-2009, 10:27 PM:
 

quote: Caleb Johnstone-Cowan

---

The plot is very mainstream, pretty much Dances With Wolves with a bit of Fern Gully in there...

---

quote: Steve Wilson

---

I got out of bed at 5 a.m. to make the 3 hour trip to Indianapolis and I had to be there by 8:45. So, this may be the reason that I almost dosed off a couple of times because of its slow start

---

quote: Claude S. Ayakawa

---

When THE SOUND OF MUSIC was released, almost all of the critics hated it but it is film classic today.

---

quote: Joe Tommassello

---

I would have made a much better two hour film with half the songs removed.

---

I bet one could really have some fun with a DVD ripping/editing program with this movie - burn their own edited version of this movie and it would easily fit on a regular DVD..

..then, what would be your title with songs removed?

-Monte
 

---

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 12-18-2009, 01:14 PM:
 
The Sound Of Half The Music.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-18-2009, 02:43 PM:
 
There is to be no further discussion on Sound of Music in the Avatar review thread.
 

---

Posted by Dan Lyons (Member # 1454) on 12-18-2009, 03:22 PM:
 
I found myself counting the reels waiting for this to be over. Way too long, familiar story line, and very anti-American.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-18-2009, 03:40 PM:
 
Didn't I just say there was to be no further discussion about the Sound of Music here? (just kidding )
 

---

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 12-18-2009, 05:32 PM:
 
Story = Ferngully with real (10' blue) people

Effects = unprecedented

Should only be viewed in 3D. They shouldn't have released a 2D version.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-18-2009, 08:09 PM:
 
Critics kinda mentioned of the ending leading to a sequel:

1- Leave it alone - the sequel will destroy it.

2- If a sequel is in order, then make it completely without any human beings, no "good guy vs bad guy" typical mainstream situations, et.al. , just a concept that can return to an original form where it can easily outdo the original "AVATAR'

-Monte
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 12-18-2009, 08:25 PM:
 
Cameron might not be receptive to doing a sequel and I hope he does not because he has so many other things to do mainly prepping all of his films for Blu Ray release especially THE ABYSS and TRUE LIES which never got a proper 16X9 anamorphic release on DVD. I understand he is now working on a 3-D version of TITANIC.

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-18-2009, 08:51 PM:
 
Regal Colorado Mills 16 - Lakewood, CO
Screen #16 - 4:10pm
Audience: Maybe about 3/4 full or so.

Presentation:
No problems at all! Maybe a *touch* quiet during the movie itself, but nothing worth whining about. It was in scope 3D even though this theater uses top masking exclusively. I'm confused. Apparently Cameron's plan isn't working so well. I have no clue if the 3D is "Ghost busted" or not. I don't even know what that means despite asking on this forum before. Although I don't know why they would make an inferior 3D version of it and a Ghost Busters 3D version of it. What the fuck?

The Movie:
I probably liked it more than Brad did, but definitely not as much as the rest of you. It is absolutely 100% Dances With Wolves in Space: The Videogame. I will say right off the bat that this is the best 3D I have ever seen, bar none. Better than the IMAX 3D I saw at the shitty Luxor in Vegas, and that was better than any other 3D I've seen. While the 3D and all of the other graphics were awesome to look at, the story was kind of "eh". I was enjoying it for about 2/3rds of the movie. Then it became so cliched and preachy that I just lost interest. I was never really able to connect with the blue people's characters. I don't hate the movie, but it is definitely Cameron's weakest film.

Also, what the hell is it with Cameron and women who smoke? Does he think smoking makes women attractive? And why would someone who is so fond of nature smoke?
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-18-2009, 09:45 PM:
 
I still really want to see Avatar, but my expectations of the movie have really sank further than their previous "so so" position. "Smurfcats" and "Dances with Smurfwolves" has me worrying a bit.

quote: Claude S. Ayakawa

---

I understand he is now working on a 3-D version of TITANIC.

---

Oh good God what the fuck?


That's worth a face-palm. I guess we'll see that one when we see those Star Wars movies in 3D.

quote: Joe Redifer

---

I have no clue if the 3D is "Ghost busted" or not. I don't even know what that means despite asking on this forum before. Although I don't know why they would make an inferior 3D version of it and a Ghost Busters 3D version of it. What the fuck?

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

Also, what the hell is it with Cameron and women who smoke? Does he think smoking makes women attractive?

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

The "ghost busting" filtery stuff is supposed to leave a little more room for error so that stuff doesn't appear.

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

But I saw in the ASSpect ratio thread that there are "GB" files and "non-GB" files indicating the data on the drive is actually different. Why would this be?

---

Maybe some RealD installations are sort of screwed for gaining optimal alignment because the projector is aiming at the screen in some sort of cock-eyed angle. It could be because someone added a d-cinema projector next to a "legacy" 35mm projector in the proper position. Or it could be a stupidly horrible port glass position in one of the rear corners of the auditorium because the room is one half of a formerly larger, twinned auditorium. Or it might be because the movie theater architect or some retard on the happy camp creative committee decided to change and keep changing the theater plans over and over and over again until they realized "holy shit, we have no proper projector angle at the screen because this theater design is so unproperly scewed! Oh, no worries! We have keystone correction! Yay!!!" Cough (Cinemark) Ugh. Eggghhh! Gotta get out that phlegm.
 

---

Posted by Tom Mundell (Member # 4555) on 12-18-2009, 10:40 PM:
 
Saw this tonight at AMC Mazza Galerie 7 in auditorium #2 - THX/Real-D 3D. This auditorium has a common height screen and they were showing the scope version.

As for the movie, I loved it and give it 10/10! While the 3D was pretty impressive, I think I still would have preferred if they were showing it in 2D instead. Quite a bit of scenery looked to be straight from a Roger Dean painting. This is the first time I've been able to see one of the Sony 4K projectors and the image looked great; noticably a little dimmer with the glasses on, but not enough that it bothered me.
 

---

Posted by Joe Elliott (Member # 4006) on 12-18-2009, 10:42 PM:
 
Hollywood Theaters Pavilion Stadium 14, Port Orange, FL
Screen #7 - 7:30pm
Sold out

Equipment:
Sony 4k w/ RealD

Presentation:
Although they have silver screens, there was an odd color pattern on the screen. Almost like when you wipe down your TV with water, and get multicolor dots all over. Also, they were playing the non-ghostbusted version. Very annoying since Avatar has white subtitles. You would think with this being their opening weekend, and all the big-wigs being there, they would have noticed, and corrected the problem, there are 3 other theaters here in the area, all with RealD, that Deluxe could have sent them to and borrow a drive. I have not heard very promising things about their managers, so I doubt they've noticed.

The Movie:
Awesome. Very good use of 3D, you stop noticing it after a while, because it helps you maintain the suspension of belief. Mr. Cameron was right, he did plan this movie with 3D in mind, not as a gimmick, but to enhance the storytelling. Didn't seem like nearly 3 hours. 5 out of 5.

 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-18-2009, 10:50 PM:
 

quote: Joe Elliott

---

You would think with this being their opening weekend, and all the big-wigs being there, they would have noticed, and corrected the problem, there are 3 other theaters here in the area, all with RealD, that Deluxe could have sent them to and borrow a drive. I have not heard very promising things about their managers, so I doubt they've noticed.

---

quote: Chris Slycord

---

Real-D itself doesn't do the filtering. They do the filtering on the file itself to make the ghosting issue not be apparent.

---

Then why would ANY version not have this applied to the file itself? Someone in the know needs to explain this. Unless, of course, nobody on this site actually knows...
 

---

Posted by Sally Ann Burgess (Member # 4746) on 12-19-2009, 02:43 AM:
 
Caught this at the SkyCity Imax Theatre in Auckland. Was lucky to get a seat, it was sold out just after I got my ticket.
Unfortunately I was on the far left and has to tell these two women behind me to shut up THREE times....but I digress.
I loved this film in 3D although I did get a bit bored at times. The 3D was excellent, though due to where I was sitting, the picture at the bottom quarter of the screen didn't work for me that well.
And the picture didn't fit the whole screen at the top....a good 6 feet of blank screen. Is this normal for Imax? I've never seen an Imax movie before.
The score by James Horner was pretty bland compared to other works he has done.
But I really loved those battle sequences. I noticed little touches of Aliens here and there in some scenes. And hey it's always great to see Sigourney Weaver in anything.
Overall I give this 4/5 just for the visuals. Don't know if this will really change how films are made but I guess time will tell!
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 12-19-2009, 07:14 AM:
 
OK, finally finished watching this. Actually, I'm missing about 10 minutes of the film towards the middle, but I can pretty much guess what happened.

35mm (2D, of course, no choice there). Scope. The manager (in Spain) said FOX never called and, as far as he knows, only scope prints were handed out for 35mm in the country. SRD sound, DTS also available (but not in the auditorium I saw it). 11.5m wide screen. Nice print, nice colors, nice focus, nice lamp, rock steady (impressive for an old Prevost P70). Sound system is mostly JBL high end stuff. Presentation was fine. No scratches whatsoever. Didn't even noticed the splices, which is unusual.

Theatre was almost empty on the very first show (ever) in this area. This auditorium seats >600 people and is the largest in this 5-plex. There were maybe 100 patrons. There was a second screen from the same chain showing it at another nearby (15 minutes drive) location with a smaller screen (seats 300). Manager said the other location did slightly better. I stayed for the second showing since I had already seen the end of the movie but had missed part of the beginning. The second showing drew a crowd of around 200.

Just my rumbling thoughts. It is not 100% spoiler free, so be warned, although I'll try not to give away any major surprises (except to say that there are none ).

First thing that stroke me negatively: what the hell are native american indians doing in space painted in blue? I didn't expect the aliens to be so indian-like in so many aspects ... language, body painting, hunting, warriors, tribes, marriage, etc. I found myself going WTF too often.

The CGI: Much better than I thought it would be. Still, every 5 minutes some creature would walk "wrong" or be obviously composited against another object. We all tolerate "bad effects" if the happen spodarically, but this movie is so long and so much CGIed that once every 5 minutes becomes 30 times through the film. Still, more tolerable and better than I thought.

The story, acting, etc. I fell sleep for a couple of minutes twice during the movie. I could foresee the plot and even the dialog with no effort whatsoever. Boring, self-indulging, going-nowhere. Much (much!) worse than I expected. Even the beautiful music was obstrusive from so much over-the-top use.

The dubbing: I found funny that they made such a big deal of the actors learning the alien's language for months. I wonder if they made the dubbing (to spanish) actors do the same (answer: not). Something sounded fishy with the dubbing as soon as the native alien tongue was spoken. Overall, just confusing and not-that-cool.

I expected to give this film between a 6 and an 8 out of 10. After the incredibly good reviews, I thought maybe it could be a 9. I regret my heart tells me to give it a 6, but if I compare it with other films I consider a 6-out-of-10, which is barely a bit above passable, I guess I have to increase this to a 6.5 out of 10.

The movie was OBVIOUSLY made with lots of scenes which only intent was to place backgrounds at infinity in a 3D show. Those shots are cool. But I saw it in 2D and you can't judge a film by how many shots of full 6.5cm parallalax you can fit in a storyline. I understand people enjoying this film more in 3D as in 2D it's rather dull and in 3D at least you have the "empty space between objects" (AKA "depth") to look at (sort-of, as empty space is basically invisible )

So I agree with those that say this film is technically correct and well made, impressive at times, but cinematically weak, boring and cliché. And I strongly disagree with those that say this film is the best thing ever-ever-ever since Egg McMuffins by a long shot.

EDIT: kudos to fox for making the 3D on the posters in Spain unobstrusive. They only have a small sign on the bottom right corner that says (in Spanish): "Also available in Digital 3D"
 

---

Posted by Michael Barry (Member # 237) on 12-19-2009, 07:33 AM:
 
I saw this twice (so far!). I think it's fabulous!

The first screening I saw was in Real D, and the second was Dolby 3D. The Dolby system provided a FAR better 3D effect with no ghosting issues that I could detect at all, even for objects that were really close or right at the edges of the screen. Foreground objects that were simply out of focus in Real D were pin sharp in Dolby.

I've been to many Real D auditoriums now and only one provided what I consider to be a really successful presentation, and that installation was in a long and narrow room with a gentle sloping floorplan (ie. not stadium seating) making it impossible to sit off-axis and probably ensuring accurate alignment. I suspect that Real D really needs an auditorium of this kind to work well. All the stadium style places using Real D I've been to have not been able to reproduce close objects with precise sharpness the way that Dolby can. As a result, nothing gets really 'close' and my feeling of immersion is limited.

I think that Avatar is one of the best - if not the best - live action 3D movie yet! (especially in Dolby).
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 12-19-2009, 07:59 AM:
 

quote: Michael Barry

---

if not the best - live action 3D movie yet

---

Except that it's only some 30% live action and 70% CGI

I agree with your take on Dolby-vs-RealD. RealD works best as you described (long, narrow auditoriums with slope) for a number of technical reasons. Dolby is mostly inmune to most restrictions and problems with few drawbacks (needs even more light, glasses are expensive, colors are a bit limited). Between RealD and Dolby, I'm sure most of the time Dolby would produce better results (far less ghosting, more even illumination).
 

---

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 12-19-2009, 09:46 AM:
 

quote: Joe Redifer

---

Then why would ANY version not have this applied to the file itself?

---

quote: Monte L Fullmer

---

NAME-OF-MOVIE3D_FTR-2_S_EN-XX_US-GB_51-EN_2K_ST_2009XXXX_FAC-i3D-gb

---

WTF is this? Looks like a Stevie Wonder Twitter entry.
 

---

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 12-19-2009, 02:40 PM:
 

quote:

---

NAME-OF-MOVIE3D_FTR-2_S_EN-XX_US-GB_51-EN_2K_ST_2009XXXX_FAC_i3D-gb

---

quote: Joe Elliott

---

Equipment:
Sony 4k w/ RealD

---

quote: Matt Fields

---

Does anyone else think that they should move the 3D spec up in the order? Maybe next to the aspect ratio?

---

quote:

---

quote: Joe Elliott

---

Equipment:
Sony 4k w/ RealD

---

If it's a Sony setup for 3D, it is NOT 4k. Not even when running 2D.

---

Yes, but I was describing the equipment they are "Sony 4k projectors), not the presentation. You would describe a blue-ray player as a DVD only player, even if you only had DVD's in your movie library. I know even when 4k is available, their Real D presentations can only be 2k (2k X 2).
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 12-20-2009, 01:05 PM:
 
Can anybody tell me if Frank's experience in seeing a flawed presentation of AVATAR in IMAX Digital 3-D is a isolated incident in only the theatre he saw the film or is this a the problem at all other digital IMAX theatres? I am planning to see the movie at our digital IMAX theatre here in Honolulu but if the picture will be dark, I would be better off seeing it in Dolby Digital 3-D. I have already seen several film in both 2-D and 3-D at the Dole Cannery 16/IMAX and the presentation has alway been flawless and I was very impressed. Seeing a movie in IMAX will cost $2.00 more at the Dole compared to regular digital 3-D and if the AVATURE IMAX 3-D picture quality is dark, I will see it in Dolby 3-D.

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 12-20-2009, 03:25 PM:
 
Claude,

Just as with 35mm, it's impossible off-hand to know what theatres are going to provide a better presentation necessarily. We all know 3D "eats a lot of light" and that Imax theatres use "very large screens", so it's a challenge. On the other side, they use "two projectors" (two lamps, double the light) and they use an effective polarizing system (passive filters) and a reflective silver screen. So it's doable for them.

But as with all theatres, it would depend a lot on having the system well setup and the correct lamps installed and in good order. Not all theaters are going to do that.

And due to the reflective silver screen, those sitting at an angle off-center from the screen, specially the front corners of the auditorium, could get a picture that is as little as half as bright as those sitting in the exact center of the theater (if it's all well aligned). Specially if the screen is not curved to help distribute the light more evenly and help avoid the hotspot.

Dolby 3D theaters don't need a silver screen, so they usually don't install one. They DO nonetheless usually install a high-gain screen which would also display less light to those off-center, but instead of 50% (half) the light (i.e.) to those sitting in the front-corners this type of screen would usually only cut-off say around 30%. Also, Dolby theaters need a lot more light to begin with, since Dolby filters "eat more", so you also have to trust that the owners are employing the highest possible lamps available of even 6000W and above. Of course, not all of them are going to use fresh lamps all the time.

Imax has the potential of a better quality presentation, specially true 70mm Imaxs, but also, to a much lesser extend, the Digital Imaxs. Their sound systems are often of high quality as well. But if you are not seating in the sweetspot in their theater, you could have a less than stellar experience.

This could also happen on a Dolby presentation, although it would be somewhat more unusual.

Ultimately, it's going to have to be your choice. If I were you are you are up to it, you could try the Imax and, if you don't like it in the first few minutes, walk out the show, complain you don't see a clear picture and want your money back, and drive to the next show in the Dolby.
 

---

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 12-20-2009, 04:58 PM:
 
I am considering a 2 hour drive for a 15/70 Imax 3D show but will see it in Real D first since thats all we have in this city.
I will also see a flawless 35mm show at a theatre i know and trust since i work there.
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Althaus (Member # 5042) on 12-20-2009, 10:09 PM:
 
1st show: IMAX 15/70 3D. Didn't fill the screen side to side. Liked it, but the 3D was just off, too much ghosting I'm assuming (not enough 3d knowledge in my case). Just don't like the auditorium, lack of surround sound, too shallow of a theatre, damn uncomfortable seats, and not near enough leg room for a 3 hr film. 7/10

2nd show: Cinemark XD. Full screen flat, fixed height and width. Loved it. Had no issue with the 3D, digital picture looked perfect, especially on a huge screen. Sound was amazing, deep booming sounds when needed, crisp clear surrounds. Nice comfortable leather seats, plenty of leg room. 9.8/10

I know I didnt review the actual film, yall have done that plenty already.
 

---

Posted by Carol May (Member # 4068) on 12-20-2009, 10:49 PM:
 
I lasted 45 minutes in a 3D screening. There was too much movement and I felt really woozy. I think the same thing happened at UP, but at half the length, I could last 'til the end.

From what I did see: Why are people not shouting from the rooftops the inanity of Sigourney Weaver's smoking? It's unnecessary to the storyline and soooo outdated.

Since I didn't stay through the movie, I shouldn't speak to the whole story, but I wasn't feeling really comfortable with the blue people being "natives" and the humans were mostly white. Isn't that an outdated storyline, too?

I think 3D will be a gimmick now just like it was in the 1950s. It's expensive, and unless you have an interesting story to go along, you've just got 2 hours of special effects. Give me THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL with it's tin can spaceship any day!
 

---

Posted by Louis Belloisy (Member # 3836) on 12-25-2009, 01:23 PM:
 
Saw Avatar in 3-D and IMAX at the Regal Cinemas in Manchester, Connecticut.

Presentation was outstanding, picture did not go from edge to edge on the screen. Not sure what type of screen they had.

All in all, i throughly enjoyed the experience. the glasses bothered me for about 10 minutes before i forgot they were there.
Louis
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-25-2009, 07:23 PM:
 

quote: Carol May

---

Why are people not shouting from the rooftops the inanity of Sigourney Weaver's smoking? It's unnecessary to the storyline and soooo outdated.

---

James Cameron loves smokers and feels that everyone else must as well. Still, I don't think he himself smokes. Also, Sigourney has a very good plastic surgeon.
 

---

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 12-27-2009, 09:52 AM:
 
Cinemagnum Theatre Frankfurt/Germany
2K double projector setup
(Christie, I believe)

Good presentation, excellent sound (This is a former IMAX 15perf theatre).

Positive

- 3D done right, no eyestrain at all, very few "fancy show-off" effects.

- The film didn't feel like 160 minutes to me, would have guessed 135 if I hadn't known before.

- No shaky-cam shots (except for the POV shot of the marines running down the ramp at the beginning.)

- Excellent sound design and mixing.

- Excellent design and animation of landscapes and natural structures, although at IMAX screen size 2K doesn't seem to resolve enough detail.

Negative

- Most human characters are nothing but cardboard, director seems to be satisfied re-using clichés from his older films.

-Every military character is evil. Nothing but evil, not even a remote possibility that these people might believe in what they are doing. Bad military, good scientists, yeah, sure, that's fascinating. The Na'vi are good, like all Indians are perfect beings in absolute harmony with their planet.

- Bad, bad dialogue - enough has been quoted already. Me Tarzan, you Jane.

- The hero has no plan but simply proceeds to do something, don't worry, everything will be solved in the last 90 seconds.

- Voice over narration is completely unnecessary and does not help the story.

Everything in this film has been done with excellent craftsmanship, but the story and message (too much preaching) is so predictable and routine that sometimes I felt I was watching a "Best of James Cameron" rip-off where all technical and situative stuff from his former movies were recycled.

I was willing to accept the sheep-nosed blue creatures like animation characters, but when humans appeared with them, it didn't feel real although it was done very well technically. To me, it was more like a combination of cartoon and real characters like in WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT. Maybe it has to do with the Uncanny Valley.

All in all, decent entertainment and very nice to see in 3D, but I wouldn't watch it a second time. (Unless it is rereleased with a film score minus those "ethnic flutes" )
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-29-2009, 12:28 AM:
 
I'm still trying to figure out how jewelry bounced about on the men's chests freely but on the women's they were GLUED to their non-moving, non-nipple-showing naked breasts. It was mysterious on a whole other level.
 

---

Posted by Joe Elliott (Member # 4006) on 12-29-2009, 02:40 AM:
 
You weren't looking hard enough, they had nipples.
 

---

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 12-29-2009, 05:16 PM:
 
CINEMA: Warren Moore, Moore, OK
AUDITORIUM: 8
PRESENTATION: Dolby Digital 3-D
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: Scope letterboxed flat
RATING: Three stars (out of four)

Auditorium 8 is one of the "Grand" auditoriums with the massive screens. I sat in Row 5, and I didn't see nipples on the female aliens either. But I'm pretty sure I saw nipples on one of the guys. What the hell.

BTW: If you ever see a movie in 3-D here, sit up close for the Dolby Digital Cinema 3-D trailer. TRIPPY.

THE PLOT: A Marine wimps out. Wackiness ensues.

Well the nearly three hours flew by. It's an excellent visual and sonic treat with a pedestrian storyline, as noted.

I kept finding myself comparing this to Guillermo del Toro's work. He could probably have pulled this off for about a fifth of the budget AND provided a more interesting storyline, but it would not have done nearly the business. This is safe, simple, and mainstream enough to appeal to a broad younger audience who have never seen "Dances with Wolves" or other such material. They're eating this up right now.
 

---

Posted by Geena Phillips (Member # 3726) on 12-29-2009, 11:51 PM:
 

quote: Carol May

---

From what I did see: Why are people not shouting from the rooftops the inanity of Sigourney Weaver's smoking? It's unnecessary to the storyline and soooo outdated.

---

quote: David Stambaugh

---

I knew during the 2D previews the 3D would be dim. It was. EXTREMELY RIDICULOUSLY DIM. I've never noticed so much choppiness in 3D before either. Anything moving quickly looked bad.

Luckily the movie was good enough to overcome the crappy image quality because if it hadn't been, I'd have left. I may go see it again in 35mm 2D just to be able to fully enjoy the visuals.

---

I haven't noticed any choppiness in our 3D, nor when I saw it at a competitors. Must be an issue at that theater. Do you know what brand of projector they use?
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 01-03-2010, 02:04 AM:
 
I saw Avatar at the Cinerama Dome in Hollywood. They were using 2 projectors and XpanD LCD shutter glasses. While the projectors themselves were (assumably) non-filtered, the glasses dimmed the picture quite a bit, but it was still a lot brighter than what Ive seen with read-D (exept at the El Capitan, which I believe also uses twin projection, at least they did on Chicken Little). Depite the giant, deeply curved screen, things seemed perfectly aligned.

HOWEVER, the glasses were very problematic. No eyestrain or strobing effect, BUT they were damned uncomfortable. Wearing regular glasses was a major problem, since they kept slipping off ever few minutes, and that was after I tried hanging them on my regular glasses bridge. AFter seeing an entire movie like this, I will see it in 2-D. 3-D did give an enchancement, but those glasses were almost a deal-breaker (and my friend doesn't wear glasses. He was also having problems with the glasses slipping.

Im wondering with the huge popularity of this film if it could actually be the one to start the dying off of the latest 3-D craze. People may just wonder if its that big of a deal considering the glasses and the extra charge at the box office. I really liked the film, but am now questioning whether 3-D is worth it.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 01-03-2010, 07:28 AM:
 
3-D has been around us for 100 years.

*EXACTLY* the same stereoscopic 3D that has been in use ... forever is the one we are seeing at theaters today. It's two images, taken aprox. 6.5cm apart, being shown "simultaneously" (of fast enough to look that way) on a screen to be separated by glasses so each eye only sees one of them. Period. This is EXACTLY THE SAME that it has always been.

To obtain this, a variety of methods have been use through the years. Shutter "glasses" (a spinning half-disc, sort of like a shutter blade) was used before shutter LC glasses (like XpanD) existed, but the result is the same.

Dual projection with polarized light (like current digital Imax) was extensively done on the 50's. Whether they used circular or linear polarization to project both images to a silver screen doesn't make a real difference (BTW, circular polarization HAS been used in the past on public projections, just it wasn't as popular as linear).

Using a single projector combined with a silver screen was also done in the 80's, identically to today's Sony's digital 3D.

Even frame-sequential 3D, used in XpanD, RealD, MasterImage, Dolby was extensively done in the 80's in home 3D systems, like the VHD players in Japan or the Toshiba 3D camera. Even active polarizing rotating zscreens (by Stereograhpics Corp) were extensively used in 3D video projection before cinemas became ... video projectors and Stereographics Corp. became... RealD Corp.

Regardless, all of these systems try to do the SAME THING. Put two images on the screen to be separated by glasses. Whether they are from a single or dual projector, time-sequential or space-sequential (i.e. split frame), polarized or color separated (Dolby), etc, etc, etc is not that important. The results they try to achieve are EXACTLY the same, even if one systems obtains it 1% better or cheaper than another.

If in 100 years people hasn't been all that crazy about 3D to make it common place, what makes you think they really care about it now?

Sure, as a novelty or a "freebie" (i.e. your next TV is gonna be 3D whether you care or not for the same price), it will hold some interest. And a small part of the population REALLY diggs it and they think it's great, but they are a small part.

What a lot of people don't realize is that we ALL SEE THINGS DIFFERENTLY. Some people don't notice the "strobe effect" of Avatar, which partly has to do with the rapid camera movements used at 24fps, but partly has to do with some people being more sensitive to the TEMPORAL DISPARITIES that most current 3D systems produce (one eye is seeing a frame "in the future" compared to what the other eye remembers through persistence of vision). What some people see as a "fine presentation" is overly dark for another. Some people have excellent night vision while others can hardly drive at night because they don't see well enough in low light. We are all different.

And that's part of the problem. Some people have small heads with eyes very close together (specially children) and some are huge "giants" with eyes really far apart. We all see (slightly) different 3D, slightly different colors, slightly different day/night vision, slightly different 'speeds' (i.e. notice rainbows in DLP projection), etc, etc.

When a "3D-nut" (a person that loves 3D) tells you that the 3D/presentation was AWESOME and you see a blurry/strobery/dimm picture you wonder what the hell he was talking about and he thinks there must have been something wrong in your theater because he didn't notice any of those things.

We all know that ALL 3D theaters around project 3D at between 3.5 and 5.5fl illumination. This is 1/3 or less what is recommended for cinema viewing. We ALL should be complaining about illumination levels. But some people (most) cope fine with it, but a percentage of the population doesn't.

The problem comes when you are one of those people for which 3D is the very greatest thing (like Cameron) and think the rest of the world is like you. A few will love the 3D like you do. A few will totally hate it or not even see it. Most won't care enough either way. They can be lured through heavy marketing like with Avatar, and they'll go to see "what they are missing or what the fuzz is about", but once they've seen 20 or 30 3-D films, a lot of them won't care enough to even put up with passive glasses.

3D in cinemas and at home has died a few times before and it wasn't significantly different to what is being offered today. Sure after 100 years technology makes the active glasses at home lighter/cheaper or the TV screens larger and with faster refresh rates. But theaters keep showing 2K resolution which, with 35mm, has been around or surpassed for almost 100 years ... The first confirmed paid-audience show of a 3D film was a dual 35mm strip anaglyphic in 1922 (The Power of Love) and later the same year there was another show with "shutter glasses" (well, shutter "viewers" back then). And in the 30's they started to use dual-polarized projection ...

If 3D was so awesome it brings huge profits and you'll-be-an-idiot-to-not-use-it ... why is Ironman 2 not being done in 3D?
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 01-03-2010, 10:23 AM:
 
Projector is a Christie, don't know the exact model. I said "choppiness", should have referred to it as strobing.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-03-2010, 12:02 PM:
 
Excellent post Julio. For those who skipped over it due to its length, I recommend you scroll back up and spend the time.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-03-2010, 01:55 PM:
 
Location: Carmike 8, Lawton, OK
Auditorium: #4
Format: 2K DLP, RealD
Rating: 3 stars out of 4

I finally got around to watching Avatar yesterday at an early Saturday screening. My parents even saw the movie before I did (last week in IMAX 3D at a Cinemark theater in Colorado Springs). I'm just not getting out to the theater nearly as often as I did in the past. And I'm rarely there during opening weekend anymore either.

Was Avatar the movie "that would change filmmaking forever?" No. Was it a good movie? Yeah, I thought it was pretty good for the sum of its parts as a 3D movie going experience. But it's not nearly the best movie of the year. It isn't one of James Cameron's better movies for that matter. I'll may buy a copy of it when it arrives on Blu-ray for the visual spectacle and sound mix. Maybe. I'm not sure if this movie lends itself to a lot of repeat viewings.

I agree with a lot of the critical comments made throughout this thread.

Avatar looks and sounds fantastic. The visuals in it are pretty incredible. The movie has a few pretty cool action set pieces. The 3D effect was handled very well and arguably the best I've seen in a digital 3D show. I didn't really notice how long the movie was until it was finished. My eyes felt a bit irritated afterward so 2 1/2 hours of run time really seems a bit much for a 3D movie.

The negative points are pretty obvious. The story is pretty thin and very predictable, even the ending. While it is a point of style, the Na'vi seemed too much like American Indians dressed up in alien clothing.

What's with the use of the typeface Papyrus in the subtitles? Papyrus is a decent looking typeface, but since it has been so badly over-used in lots of ways, particularly in ways where the font's theme has no relevance to the document, the use of Papyrus has turned into a joke among people who know type. If you use Papyrus, you're going to draw laughs from professional graphics people. It would have been better if they had set the subtitles in a sans-serif typeface that didn't call so much attention to itself.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-03-2010, 09:51 PM:
 

 

---

Posted by Mike Croaro (Member # 3123) on 01-03-2010, 10:40 PM:
 
Joe: That was great. Gave me the laugh I needed.

Everyone: Saw "Avatar" today. Nothing that special. The set design in many scenes were stunning and claerly the best thing about the movie.

The story was shockingly predictable (we've seen it before) and many characters rubber-stamped.

I would have left mid way thru but I was with a friend. He enjoed the film more than I.

Mike
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-03-2010, 11:50 PM:
 

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

If you use Papyrus, you're going to draw laughs from professional graphics people.

---

They probably forgot to run the movie for a professional graphics people focus group.
 

---

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 01-04-2010, 12:02 AM:
 
FUCK! How could he forget to get the professional graphic peoples stamp of approval!
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-04-2010, 09:15 AM:
 
Cameron obviously had plenty of film school and art school graduates among the staff working on this project. But somebody higher up decided Papyrus was the way to go.

I'll bet James Cameron made the choice to use Papyrus. What BFA-toting staffer is going to tell James Cameron he shouldn't use that font? "Oh yeah, Mr. Cameron! That Papyrus font is perfect. It's the tits!" (staffer quietly excuses himself so he can run to the toilet and vomit).

Since I'm not on the Lightstorm Entertainment payroll, I'm free to laugh at that choice of type. It is tacky.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 01-04-2010, 10:00 AM:
 
FWIW, I'm not a professional graphics artist (but have played one on TV occasionally ) and found the subtitles font tacky, childish and kind-of distracting.

Maybe it's just me among non G.A.P.A. (Graphics Artists Professional Association)

Not a deal-breaker, but could've used better judgement when playing with a $400m and 3+ years of work movie.
 

---

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 01-04-2010, 02:51 PM:
 
Bowtie Cinemas MovieLand
Auditorium 14
DLP 3D
12:10pm Screening
About 15 in the audience
This was my first time watching a digital 3D presentation, incredibly superior to old linear polarized film, no crossed eyes, headaches, never had to look away to avoid nausea.

I'll give the presentation, and the look of the movie---effects, 3D, etc. a 9 out of 10. The story had been told hundreds of times so for that I'll give the well updated story a 6. Overall an 8.
 

---

Posted by Jim Bedford (Member # 4) on 01-05-2010, 10:04 AM:
 
Perfect Joe. And you could do the same with the synopsis for BATTLE FOR TERRA.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 01-05-2010, 10:32 AM:
 

quote: Jim Bedford

---

And you could do the same with the synopsis for BATTLE FOR TERRA.

---

Exactly. Not original at all.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-06-2010, 03:33 AM:
 
I am actually angry to see this turd is already sitting at 3rd highest grossing movie of all time, and most probably will become the 2nd highest grossing movie of all time. But what is even more pathetic than that is this:

quote: Phenomenal loser #1

---

Ways to cope with the depression of the dream of Pandora being intangible. I recently read on the Avatar TypePad Blog, that people are becoming depressed because of the movie. People are realizing that the dream can't actually come true. I was trying to start a thread where people gave ideas on how to cope with it, as in reading Avatar stuff, Writing ( about avatar of course), painting, or whatever. Just give me some ideas and I'll try and help them out. Maybe people reading might even get some good ideas that'll help.

---

quote: Phenomenal loser #2

---

After I watched Avatar at the first time, I trully felt depressed as I "wake" up in this world again.
So after few days, I went to cinema and watched it again for the second time to relieve the depression and hopeless feeling.
Now I listen to the soundtrack and share my views in this forum. It really helps.

---

quote: Phenomenal loser #3

---

The first time after I woke up the next day after watching it I "had" to see it again. I have seen it four times now, and soon to be a fifth. I think watching it takes away that depression, because when I am watching it, i dont know how to describe how I feel, but it feels good. I want to just forget about it all sometimes, take down my avatar wallpaper, stop reading about it and what not, but I just cant.
I have to use a quote from the movie sometimes I guess "Sooner or later though, you always have to wake up."
I heard writing a sequel helps, but I just cant compete with what has been laid out.

I dont know if theres any WoW addicts out there, but after seeign Avatar I have lost all desire to play (and trust me thats like being addicted to any drug)
I'm just hoping it will pass over time, but if anybody has any recommendations how to cope I would love to hear them.

---

quote: (skipping to page 54) Phenomenal loser #4

---

do you guys also get the thoughts of sucidal? i dont mean to sound creepy or emo but i kinda felt that humans are pathetic and my life don't mean anything anymore after checking out how good the Na'vi lives are.

---

It goes on and on for 52 pages like that (as of the time of this post.) Would it be rude to say "wake the fuck up people, it's just a shitty movie"?

Link to one of the most amazing collections of losers on the internet.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-06-2010, 03:59 AM:
 
Oh jeez. I don't understand any emotional attachment to this movie. Dances With Wolves made me far more sad because it was based on reality and you knew what would eventually come. Avatar has a happy ending. What exactly is depressing people? The fact that they paid an extra $2 or $3 to see it in 3D? The fact that the movie did not live up to expectations story-wise? They cope with that by seeing it again? Hey, I know! I'll go back to what CAUSED my depression and do it again. And again! Yeah, that'll work! That's the ticket!
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 01-06-2010, 06:55 AM:
 
Just recommend them to watch a good film, like Alvin and the Chipmunks, guaranteed to blow your blues away

quote: Joe Redifer

---

What exactly is depressing people? The fact that they paid an extra $2 or $3 to see it in 3D?

---

Probably more like mourning over $24 for an Imax ticket ...

We have to be gentle and realize that there are (young) people that haven't seen films like Casablanca, or even Star Wars/Aliens/etc before they "aged" (a little) and thus never experienced the emotions of a "great fun movie" in their lifes.

The junk that Hollywood has been putting out for the past 15 years since ... well, since Titanic, can hardly get anyone emotionally involved unless Hobbits are your thing or you don't mind Batman's treble-challenged voice.

But I must admit I also had suicidal tendencies after witnessing The Transformers ...
 

---

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 01-06-2010, 07:56 AM:
 

quote: Brad Miller

---

But what is even more pathetic than that is this:

---

quote: Julio Roberto

---

Not sure how an Avatar alien smells, though. Didn't see any showers there.

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

Pandora is a moon. So what happens when the main planet gets between you and the Sun? Why does nobody ever think of these things?

---

I guess because that's your job? They have 2 suns? Nobody cares about a CGI moon with blue elfs? They are not afraid of eclipses?

I don't know. Should we google it?

Nah!

quote: Bill Enos

---

...most of my coworkers, 3 men-ages 25, 44, and me 65. and 8 women all mid 20s

---

You lucky bast€rd. We want to know what happened at the org.. I mean party afterwards.
 

---

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 01-07-2010, 03:02 PM:
 
This is a very good place to work, especially for an old fart like myself
 

---

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 01-07-2010, 04:43 PM:
 
[Sorry..dupilcate post. Nothing to see here...move along]
 

---

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 01-07-2010, 05:07 PM:
 
If you really want to know Joe, just go pick up the Pandorapedia and get your answers.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 01-07-2010, 11:34 PM:
 
It's the all-time #1 in Australia now...here's the press release from Fox.

----------
JAMES CAMERON BREAKS HIS OWN RECORD AS AVATAR BECOMES NUMBER ONE MOVIE OF ALL TIME AT THE AUSTRALIAN BOX OFFICE!

Twentieth Century Fox is thrilled to announce today that AVATAR has smashed TITANIC’S long standing record at the Australian box office to become the number one film of all time. Taking just 22 days to break his own previous 12 year record for TITANIC which grossed a colossal A$57.65 million, James Cameron’s AVATAR will reach A$58.8 million when cinema doors close tonight.

Since the film’s release on 17th December, AVATAR has broken numerous records at the Australian box office including the following milestones: fastest film to reach A$ 30, A$ 40 & A$ 50 million milestones, the biggest Christmas Day, Boxing Day & New Years Day (for a film not opening on that day).



AVATAR is also the biggest 3D release in Australia with 78% of its total revenue generated from 3D cinemas.



Globally, AVATAR’s box office performance continues its phenomenal run. Breaking countless records round the world, AVATAR’s global cume to date is US$1.14 billion; this week overtaking The Lord of the Rings: THE Return of The King’s box office milestone of US $1.12 billion, to make AVATAR the 2nd highest grossing film in the world.



In the US, the film has grossed a total of US $374.4 million with Cameron today nominated by the Directors Guild Of America for Outstanding Directorial Achievement in a Feature Film, considered a forerunner for the Academy Awards. He has also been nominated for a Golden Globe Award for Best Director, alongside the film’s other nominations for Best Motion Picture (Drama), Best Original Score & Best Original Song.

AVATAR takes us to a spectacular world beyond imagination, where a reluctant hero embarks on an epic adventure, ultimately fighting to save the alien world he has learned to call home. James Cameron, the Oscar®-winning director of “Titanic,” first conceived the film 15 years ago, when the means to realize his vision did not exist yet. Now, after four years of production, AVATAR, a live action film with a new generation of special effects, delivers a fully immersive cinematic experience of a new kind, where the revolutionary technology invented to make the film disappears into the emotion of the characters and the sweep of the story.


 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-07-2010, 11:56 PM:
 
Hooray for ticket price inflation! Only losers count actual attendance numbers!
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-08-2010, 12:01 AM:
 

quote: John Wilson

---

AVATAR takes us to a spectacular world beyond imagination

---

quote: John Wilson

---

Breaking countless records round the world ...

---

Don't you just love marketing?

The few records it has "broken" are the ones involving 3-D films, which is not much to say.

It's the "highest grossing 3D film" and "highest grossing 3-D film weekend" etc, etc.

As to all kinds of films, 3-D or 2-D, so far, I think it has broken none or perhaps a few obscure ones somewhere in the world. In Spain, so far, is not the highest grossing film ever, nor was it the highest grossing "anything" (first weekend, fist week, opening day, first two weeks, highest 2009, etc). They were your usual combination of LOTR, Batman, Titanic and Twilight. It's doing very well, though, so we'll see how it ends (30% drop so far, predicted some €40m by end of January, which could mean 2º highest grossing in the country. Currently ranks 3rd).

I guess having the leading actor of Avatar be from Australia and the blue aliens from New Zealand helped push things down under. Besides, we know that in Australia, to break a GUINNESS record means something different and that 3D looks better with a couple of



Avatar as of "today"

All Time Domestic 12
All Time Adjusted 87
All Time Worldwide 2
Top Movies in the Past 365 Days 2
Yearly 2009 2
Yearly Opening Weekends 2009 5
Yearly PG-13 Rated 2009 2
Worldwide Openings 9
Foreign Opening Weekends 6
Opening Weeks 15
Opening Day Gross 35
Single Day Gross 76
Non-Opening Friday Gross 9
Non-Opening Thursday Gross 13
Non-Opening Tuesday Gross 2
Non-Opening Wednesday Gross 2
Single Day Friday Gross 32
Single Day Monday Gross 7
Single Day Saturday Gross 29
Single Day Sunday Gross 19
Single Day Thursday Gross 17
Single Day Tuesday Gross 3
Single Day Wednesday Gross 15
Non-Holiday Monday Gross 2
Theater Averages (Wide Releases) - All Time 29
Theater Averages (Wide Releases) - All Time 31
Theater Averages (Wide Releases) - All Time 46
Theater Averages - Wide Opening Weekends 29
New Years Days 1
Christmas Days 2
Sunday Share of Opening Weekends 119
Opening Weekends 28
Opening Weekends - December 2
Opening Weekends - Fall 28
Opening Weekends - Holiday 6
Top 10-Day Grosses 9
Top 3-Day Grosses 26
Top 4-Day Grosses 26
Top 6-Day Grosses 22
Top 7-Day Grosses 21
Top 8-Day Grosses 16
Top 9-Day Grosses 12
Top 5-Day Grosses 23
Most Weekends at #1 (non-consecutive) 76
Consecutive Weekends At #1 64
Second Weekends Domestic 1
Third Weekends Domestic 1
Smallest Drops, 3,000+ theaters (Super-Saturation) 10
Smallest Drops, 2,500+ theaters (Saturation) 20
Smallest Drops, 2,000+ theaters (Very Wide) 32
Smallest Drops, All Wide Releases 202
Rated PG-13 8
Rated PG-13, Opening Weekends 19
Widest Releases 160
Widest Opening Releases 147
Widest PG-13 Rated Openings 74
Widest PG-13 Rated Releases 84
Fastest to $100 million 24
Fastest to $150 million 18
Fastest to $200 million 10
Fastest to $250 million 6
Fastest to $300 million 3
Fastest to $350 million 2

Sure, very good performer, top 5 in many ways (let's not forget inflation, IMAX and 3-D surcharges), but not super-ultra-duper-total-record-ever-ever-SmAsHiNg. Except in Austraila
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-08-2010, 10:15 AM:
 

 

---

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 01-08-2010, 02:05 PM:
 
Joe Redifer wrote:

quote: Joe Redifer

---

Avatar has a happy ending.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

Maybe James Cameron is king of the world of people who have no lives.

---

You made my day...
 

---

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 01-08-2010, 04:01 PM:
 
Mike.

So true. No lives but lots of expendable $$$ and that is music to the exhibitors (and studios) ears. If only quality, interesting films could pull these kinds of figures then life would be indeed good.

Any ideas if "Avaturd" gets the gongs at the Oscars this year will cheapen the brand of the little gold man?
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Althaus (Member # 5042) on 01-08-2010, 06:02 PM:
 
Better Avatar than slumdawg
 

---

Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 01-09-2010, 01:59 PM:
 
I finally saw it today 3 o clock. Movie had very good scenery, backgrounds and quite some good effects. The 3D portion of the movie was dissapointing. Nothing worth the 3D hype it go! Train your dragon and Shrek had better 3d and those were trailers! It did have only some brief moments but nothing much. The story was so so so so cliche! Everything was predictable and the same story has been told over and over and over again. I did not get bored in the movie but it's not THE movie everyone is making it look like. Its actually Titanic over again, hype hype hype.
Demetris
 

---

Posted by Alex Edwards (Member # 5413) on 01-09-2010, 11:38 PM:
 
Just saw this in RealD 3D. Thought it was kind of weird. Story was ok. Animation was excellent. I just felt it too long, too many slow parts. Whenever I get bored during a movie random questions pop up in my head:

How do they go to the bathroom?

How do they wash themselves?

Why does the main character have freaky alien ? Was he actually sexually actracted to the alien?
 

---

Posted by Celine Negrete (Member # 5531) on 01-10-2010, 11:31 PM:
 
If I am going to go see a Hollywood movie, this is what I want to see. Entertainment. And I was most definitely entertained. And that is pretty rare these days.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 01-11-2010, 09:21 PM:
 
From Boxofficemojo.com -

BOM

Weekend Report: ‘Avatar’ Obtains More Records in Fourth Outing
by Brandon Gray

January 11, 2010

The holidays are over, but Avatar was relatively unphased, defying "the bigger they are, the harder they fall" adage. Over the weekend, Avatar generated $50.3 million, breaking the record for biggest fourth weekend gross previously held by Titanic's $28.7 million. It was down just 27 percent, giving it the best hold among nationwide releases. Its IMAX venues alone were down 14 percent, accounting for an estimated $7.5 million of the weekend.

Avatar raged past the $400 million mark in a mere 23 days, the second-fastest to the mark behind only The Dark Knight. Its $430.8 million tally by day 24 made it the top-grossing movie from 2009, beating Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, as well as the seventh-highest grossing picture of all time, surpassing Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest. On Monday, Avatar will top Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace and E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial, to claim fifth place. In terms of attendance, though, Avatar would likely barely make the Top 100, which is still sensational. That's due in part to the ticket price premium of the picture's 3D presentations. 3D has made up $335.4 million or 78 percent of the total.

Internationally, Avatar also shattered the fourth week record, pulling in $150.5 million from 110 countries (essentially everywhere but Italy, where it opens Jan. 15). That was a bit more than the previous week, bolstered by its debut in China, where it made $41.4 million since Monday, setting records for opening week and single day there. Its foreign total shot up to $910.8 million mark, led by France ($101.4 million), Russia ($78.4 million and the country's all time No. 1 gross), Germany ($73.4 million), the United Kingdom ($67.1 million), Spain ($60.1 million and another all time No. 1) and Australia ($57.9 million, yet another all time No. 1). 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.

-------

Won't be long now...
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-11-2010, 10:03 PM:
 

quote: John Wilson

---

unphased

---

I had to stop reading the article when I hit that word. Should be "unfazed." Even a crappy professional writer should know that!
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 01-11-2010, 10:10 PM:
 
And that made you stop?
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-11-2010, 11:03 PM:
 
Well...I knew where it was going so I just skimmed, I guess.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-11-2010, 11:20 PM:
 

quote: John Wilson

---

3D has made up $335.4 million or 78 percent of the total.

---

quote: John Wilson

---

In terms of attendance, though, Avatar would likely barely make the Top 100, which is still sensational.

---

What kind of crazy are you smokin'?

To use "likely barely" is bad enough, but to imply that the film "likely barely" made the Top 100 and that is "still sensational" smacks of a sucker who's OD'd on marketing detritus and is riding the wave of sensationalism.

Mate, take up writing the shipping report.
 

---

Posted by Tom Inglis (Member # 5181) on 01-12-2010, 03:14 AM:
 

quote:

---

I had to stop reading the article when I hit that word. Should be "unfazed." Even a crappy professional writer should know that!

---

I'm not sure about Australia (where Mike is from) but in England, we spell it 'unphased'.
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 01-12-2010, 03:21 AM:
 
You'd better let the Oxford dictionary know then!

Oxford
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 01-12-2010, 03:27 PM:
 
Ian and Bobby,

You see where it says 'quote=John Wilson' up the top of your post when you are writing it? Well, I'd appreciate it if I'm not actually saying it that you'd put in 'quote=Box Office Mojo' else some may think you're directing your (Ian) comment toward me for some reason.

Thanks.

quote: Ian Parfrey

---

but to imply that the film "likely barely" made the Top 100 and that is "still sensational"

---

quote: Tom Inglis

---

I'm not sure about Australia (where Mike is from)

---

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 6731
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

Mike, can I borrow a cup of sugar?
 

---

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 01-12-2010, 03:44 PM:
 
John.

I just re-read my post and I have to apologize because it does read as you say. Please know that this was definitely not the intention and I'll keep a closer eye on this in the future.

Thanks again for pointing this out.

Now, if Mike really was from Australia, he would be called "Moike"...as in "Owyagoin Moike, awlroight?"

Tune in next week for Lesson 2 of "How to talk Orstraylian"
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 01-12-2010, 03:48 PM:
 
Ian, no problem. I know it was not your intention.
 

---

Posted by Alex Edwards (Member # 5413) on 01-12-2010, 11:17 PM:
 
Going back to Brad's collection of phenomenal losers on page eight, here's an article on the AOL Health website regarding suicidal thoughts in Avatar fans:

---------------------------------------------------

Hundreds of fans of James Cameron's hit film "Avatar," which has raked in $1.4 billion, are reporting symptoms of depression as well as suicidal thoughts after seeing the movie. The film is set in the future when the Earth's resources have been depleted and a corporation is looking to mine the natural resources of a planet called, Pandora, which is portrayed as a world of beauty, with inhabitants that are close to nature and all creatures are connected. Many attribute their depression to the fact that the utopian world shown in the movie is unattainable here on earth and makes life seem meaningless.

One fan, who calls herself "Outsider," wrote on Avatar-Forums.com, after seeing the film for the third time, "I thought the third time would help. It did not. I have slipped deeper into the depression than ever before. Now I am back at home and I am going to die. This depression will kill me."

Crazy as it may sound at first, feeling blue after engaging in some form of escapism, whether it's an especially touching movie or a great book, isn't unusual. But if it's impacting your ability to function, you could be taking escapism to the extreme. Escapism on that level can be a symptom of all kinds of problems from anxiety disorder to clinical depression.

“If a person has such an inordinate attraction to fantasy material and is prevented access to it, frustration, stress, anxiety or depression might possibly result,” said Frank Farley, Ph.D., a professor of educational psychology at Temple University in Philadelphia. “Modeling or identifying with media depictions is not unknown,” he added. “Yet most people make the distinction of reality versus fantasy.”

"Virtual life is not real life and it never will be, but this is the pinnacle of what we can build in a virtual presentation so far," Dr. Stephan Quentzel, psychiatrist and Medical Director for the Louis Armstrong Center for Music and Medicine at Beth Israel Medical Center in New York told CNN. "It has taken the best of our technology to create this virtual world and real life will never be as utopian as it seems onscreen. It makes real life seem more imperfect," he said.

But even as some moviegoers despair over the human condition after seeing Cameron's film, not all of "Avatar's" fans are singing the blues. Many have seen the movie as inspirational. Another fan, "One of the People," commented last week, "Sometimes I get to thinking that it sucks that our planet can't be like Pandora, that we have to be so vain and greedy, but at the end of the day all I'm trying to do is feel better with myself and "Avatar" has helped me do that. I may have had the ‘depression' for a day, but all it did was make me want to improve myself."

The same fan later wrote:"I have also experienced a positive outcome. I feel inspired to do a great variety of things and make my life more meaningful. Whenever I need motivation, I just think about Pandora and Neytiri and Voila!"

Link

-------------------------------------------------

I personally love the guy who uses sci-fi as motivation to get himself through the day.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-12-2010, 11:35 PM:
 
So if one of these morons offs themselves, besides making the planet a better place to live, does this mean James Cameron will get put in prison for some sort of manslaughter charge? I mean after all, that would be par for the course with the way our legal system is these days.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-13-2010, 02:42 AM:
 
Not to mention the owners of the theatre where the dead person saw the film. (I remember how idiots tried to blame the music industry for the deaths of their kids who killed themselves after listening to heavy metal.)
 

---

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 01-13-2010, 11:47 AM:
 
I got a little depressed when I thought about how much I spent to see it.
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 01-14-2010, 12:57 AM:
 

quote: AOL article above

---

unattainable

---

just like Unobtainium?
 

---

Posted by Jim Bedford (Member # 4) on 01-14-2010, 09:24 AM:
 

quote:

---

The same fan later wrote:"I have also experienced a positive outcome. I feel inspired to do a great variety of things and make my life more meaningful. Whenever I need motivation, I just think about Pandora and Neytiri and Voila!"

---

Somehow I missed that character named "Voila!" in the film.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-14-2010, 10:28 AM:
 
I've never had suicidal thoughts after watching a movie.

However, some movies I've watched were so bad that I was plunged into despair during the screening, hoping and praying that it would end sometime soon.

 

---

Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 01-15-2010, 10:21 AM:
 

quote: Alex Edwards

---

Why does the main character have freaky alien [sex] ? Was he actually sexually actracted to the alien?

---

Never mind that, only a real man "interfaces" with his horse before "riding" it! What I thought was hilarious was the pterodactyls' eyes widening as he stuck his thing in it (rather violently and without consent I might add). Haha, I could barely contain myself! I can just imagine the thought going through the bird's mind at that moment. Something along the lines of, "well I expected him to jump me but bloody hell!"
 

---

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 01-15-2010, 04:09 PM:
 
My impression of Avatar:

Starship Troopers! Starship Troopers! Kill the bugs! No, they aren't bugs, they are intelligent creatures, like Gorillas In The Mist. Get in the box that looks like a coffin and go to another world (Total Recall). OH, Bad Monsters. Here comes blue lady. She hates me...no she doesn't. I'll go with her. Hey, lets look at some pretty scenery. Hey, lets look at some more scenery. Hey, lets look at some more scenery. Hey, lets look at some more scenery. Her folks don't like me. The guys don't like me. Reckon we'll break in some flying horsey things. Hey, I really like this one, and he is trying to eat me, so he really likes me. We'll get along fine as we look at more scenery. OOO...bad army guy. He doesn't like the blue people. Hey, there's the blue people's house...in that tree. Are they really the Keebler elves? Do my cookies come from there? Army guy wants to blow up the Keebler tree...doesn't he like cookies? ALIENS lady loves blue people. Crap, there's that flute guy from TITANIC...I thought we were rid of him. Oh, no, ALIENS gets hurt and dies (that will teach her to smoke!), or does she? Lets try what they did in THE ABYSS!! Oh, no..it doesn't work. Hey, lets win one for the gipper! Lets hear some CARMINA BURANA music, like OH FORTUNA. Let's fly around for awhile, just like in STAR WARS. Oh, no we're outnumbered. No we're not, here comes the hammerhead things. Army guys tries to drop a BIG bomb. Oh, lets pull the bomb back in. Oh, lets drop it. Oh, here comes the cavalry. Now, only Army guy left. Lets get him into a giant ALIENS suit. He wins, no he loses, no he wins...no he loses. But good guy hurt. Blue people gather around special tree and look for Moses. Oh, its just another blue guy. Hey, lets try the ABYSS trick again. Hey it works. Back to STARSHIP TROOPERS.

Cue sequel: AVATAR II: WE'LL BE BACK!!!

Rating: C
 

---

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 01-16-2010, 10:04 PM:
 
A good friend saw it last night and says Avatar is the absolute BEST MOVIE EVER MADE and that it's likely to never be surpassed! Is he easily impressed or what?
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Althaus (Member # 5042) on 01-16-2010, 10:44 PM:
 
Different people prefer different things and can see past certain inadequacies in films. Apparently your friend likes big blue 3D. Personally my favorite film of all time was The Two Towers, but Avatar is a close 2nd.
 

---

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 01-17-2010, 12:40 PM:
 
Bill what is your BEST MOVIE EVER MADE?
 

---

Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 01-17-2010, 08:41 PM:
 
No doubt Bill would say "Videodrome".
 

---

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 01-17-2010, 09:08 PM:
 
The African Queen is one of my most favorites, I don't believe it's a candidate for the best, there are so many that I've enjoyed it would be impossible to assign the absolute best to just one. And no, Avatar will not be among them, it's just too silly. I saw African Queen with my parents at the Richmond Drive-In when the movie was fairly new and I was 7 or 8 and liked it ever since.

We're playing Planet 51 and 2012, either is as good as Avatar.
 

---

Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 01-17-2010, 09:20 PM:
 
So not Videodrome then? Oh well, The African Queen is good too.
 

---

Posted by Alex Edwards (Member # 5413) on 01-17-2010, 10:03 PM:
 

quote: Bill Enos

---

We're playing Planet 51 and 2012, either is as good as Avatar.

---

 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 01-18-2010, 02:38 AM:
 
Avatar is now at $75,276,299 in Australia...almost $20 million more than the previous #1 of all-time, Titanic @ $57 million.

Pundits have set their eyes on it possibly breaking the $100 million mark here which was unthinkable just 6 short weeks ago.

Faaaarrrrkkk!
 

---

Posted by Jack Theakston (Member # 4484) on 01-18-2010, 03:29 AM:
 
Bit the bullet and saw it today at the Cinerama Dome in Hollywood.

Held my interest, mindless fun, very colorful, technically good 3D (but also nothing new). Bland story, misguided message, cardboard characters, uninspired score. Over all, fairly middle-of-the-road event film... not bad, but wouldn't want to sit through it again.

Not a game changer in any way, though. This is, in my opinion, the top of the curve for 3D. The expense of the film will work against the system, and the line-up of product coming up is very cheesy.

People who think Pandora is a perfect world and depressed not only need a grip, but didn't get the point (it's *not* a perfect world).

PS. The XpanD system sucked. Much more light loss than I've seen at most RealD installations, and still maintains the phasing issues.
 

---

Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 01-18-2010, 11:44 AM:
 
So, I have not seen this movie and don't plan on it (I dislike both hype, and excessive CGI, and I suspect this movie is composed entirely of those two things). That being said, I was looking at its gross on Box Office Mojo, and, in order to feel some small sense of validation for my potentially minority belief, I checked out its position on their all time box office adjusted for inflation page, where they rank it as 36th place.

Here's the thing, though. They list its actual gross as $491,767,000, and its adjusted gross as $498,482,300. How can inflationary trends have had a real impact in the last month or so? Has everybody been jacking up their ticket prices recently, or does the site simply use a lazy formula that bares little resemblance to actual reality?
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-18-2010, 12:40 PM:
 
I'm sure that chart is continually updated by some computer program, and we all know how accurate they are when it comes to things like this.
 

---

Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 01-18-2010, 03:56 PM:
 
Well, according to the sidenote on that site, the figures are arrived at by.......

quote:

---

Adjusted to the estimated 2010 average ticket price of $7.35. Inflation-adjustment is mostly done by multiplying estimated admissions by the latest average ticket price. Where admissions are unavailable, adjustment is based on the average ticket price for when each movie was released (taking in to account re-releases where applicable).

---

It's not inconceivable that the average ticket price could rise by 1.4% in that period.

As for the Golden Globes, Best Picture - Drama? WHAT THE FUCKING HELL!! Shouldn't that award be going to the best well-rounded film?
 

---

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 01-18-2010, 04:17 PM:
 
Stu

Do people even take the Globes as a serious award? It doesn't seem so according to this blog----> Live Snarking the Golden Globes

I like this, it puts an interesting perspective on the whole Globe self-importance thing.
 

---

Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 01-18-2010, 05:22 PM:
 
Do they? Yes. Should they? No. I guess it depends on who you mean by "they". Do the stars? Yep, they turn up for the ceremony. Does the press? Yep, they report on it. Does the movie-going public? Pretty much, they watch in on TV and read Woman's Day and follow it on the internet and chat about it online. I guess it's just cynical pricks like you and I that don't take it seriously.

That's a funny blog, BTW.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-18-2010, 05:51 PM:
 
Avatar was not the movie I enjoyed most over this past year. Up was the clear winner for me. YMMV.

Nevertheless, I was not too surprised to see Avatar getting the Golden Globe statue. That awards show is a little more geared to rewarding movies with the most popularity/box office earnings than rewarding artistic quality. Also, the field of nominees in the Best Picture/Drama category was not very impressive.

Critically speaking, Precious may really be the best movie out of the group, although The Hurt Locker has been getting a lot of praise lately. I rented The Hurt Locker on Blu-ray last week. I thought it was a pretty good, but NOT great and NOT very authentic in some instances. There was one particular sequence involving sniper versus sniper stuff that was pure Hollywood bullshit. It wouldn't surprise me if The Hurt Locker won the Best Picture Oscar though.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 01-19-2010, 02:20 PM:
 
Man dies after watching AVATAR

A 42-year-old Taiwanese man with a history of high blood pressure has died of a stroke likely triggered by over-excitement from watching the blockbuster Avatar in 3D, a doctor says.

The man, identified only by his surname Kuo, started to feel unwell during the screening earlier this month in the northern city of Hsinchu and was taken to hospital.

Mr Kuo, who suffered from hypertension, was unconscious when he arrived at the Nan Men General Hospital and a scan showed that his brain was haemorrhaging, emergency room doctor Peng Chin-chih said today.

"It's likely that the over-excitement from watching the movie triggered his symptoms,'' the doctor said.

Mr Kuo died 11 days later from the brain haemorrhage, and the China Times newspaper said it was the first death linked to watching James Cameron's science-fiction epic Avatar.

Film blogging sites have reported complaints of headaches, dizziness, nausea and blurry eyesight from viewers of Avatar and other movies rich in 3D imagery.
 

---

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 01-19-2010, 02:30 PM:
 
Likely this poor guy would have had the same event at the same time with or without the movie, he must have been a walking time bomb.

I get the symptoms mentioned in the last paragraph with old linear 3D, but experienced none of them during Avatar.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-19-2010, 04:01 PM:
 
No, it's just that Avatar is SOOOOO GOOOD that it kills you.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 01-19-2010, 04:06 PM:
 
AVATAR 2D to be pulled from Chinese screens

The most successful movie of all time in China is being pulled from the majority of theaters there much sooner than expected.

The communist nation’s state-run movie distributor China Film Group is unexpectedly yanking the James Cameron-directed blockbuster "Avatar" from 1,628 2-D screens this week in favor of a biography of the ancient philosopher Confucius starring Chow-Yun Fat.

Paul Hanneman, co-president of international distribution for the movie’s distributor 20th Century Fox, confirmed the news, which he and other executives at the studio learned Monday evening.

According to a report in the Hong Kong newspaper Apple Daily, the move was made at the urging of propaganda officials who are concerned that "Avatar" is taking too much market share from Chinese films and drawing unwanted attention to the sensitive issue of forced evictions.

Millions of Chinese have been uprooted to make way for high rises and government infrastructure projects. “Nail House” is a popular term given to homes of dwellers who refuse to leave though they are surrounded by demolished homes. In "Avatar," human colonists try to demolish the village of an alien race in order to obtain a precious resource buried below it.

However, David Wolf of Wolf Group Asia, a media consultancy based in Beijing, said the decision to pull "Avatar" had more to do with the upcoming Chinese New Year holiday.

"There's certain windows in the year that are held for domestic films," Wolf said. "We're coming up on Chinese New Year, so this can be expected."

The week-long national holiday, also known as the spring festival, begins the weekend of Feb. 13. China has only 4,000 screens, which places run times at a premium.

Wolf said that most foreign films get a 10-day run before being pulled. Executives at Fox had expected "Avatar" to play much longer, however, due to its massive popularity. It is already the most successful movie of all time in China, having grossed a record $76 million, according to the studio.

Losing the 2-D screens will be a blow to "Avatar," but not a fatal one, a studio executive said. The movie will remain on nearly 900 3-D screens, which have so far generated $49 million, or 64% of its total ticket sales, according to Fox.

It’s not uncommon for China Film Group to protect domestic pictures. In 2006, "The Da Vinci Code" was unexpectedly pulled from theaters there after racking up $13 million in sales.

Foreign movies were also removed from theaters in the run-up to last year’s 60th anniversary of the People’s Republic of China. The sweep was believed to help promote the nationalistic epic, “The Founding of A Republic.”

Only 20 foreign movies per year are allowed to be shown in China's theaters. "Avatar," which opened worldwide in mid-December, was held in Chinese theaters until January because the 2009 quota had already been filled.

Pirated copies of “Avatar” are already available in Beijing’s bootleg DVD stores.

Calls to the China Film Group were not returned.

--Ben Fritz, reporting from Los Angeles. David Pierson, reporting from Beijing.
 

---

Posted by Alex Edwards (Member # 5413) on 01-19-2010, 11:52 PM:
 

quote: John Wilson

---

Pirated copies of “Avatar” are already available in Beijing’s bootleg DVD stores.

---

quote: Mark Lensenmayer

---

Hey, lets look at some pretty scenery. Hey, lets look at some more scenery. Hey, lets look at some more scenery. Hey, lets look at some more scenery.

---

quote: Alex Edwards

---

quote: John Wilson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pirated copies of “Avatar” are already available in Beijing’s bootleg DVD stores.

---

Actually, I did not quote that...it was however text from a link in my post.

Alex, I'm getting worried about you.

quote: Alex Edwards

---

I have slipped deeper into the depression than ever before. Now I am back at home and I am going to die. This depression will kill me.

---

quote: Ben Fritz

---

Beijing’s bootleg DVD stores

---

quote: John Wilson

---

Actually, I did not quote that...it was however text from a link in my post.

---

That's my bad, I have no idea how your name popped up on the quote. I'm fairly certain that I knew that I was quoting the article, not you. I had actually found the same article online and was about to post it until I saw you already had so I was just trying to comment on yours. Oops
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 01-23-2010, 08:36 PM:
 
A little under $124m to go...
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Althaus (Member # 5042) on 01-23-2010, 08:44 PM:
 
So now the question is.......It took 12 years for Titanic's record to fall (most likely). How long before Avatar is knocked out of #1?
 

---

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 01-23-2010, 09:05 PM:
 

quote: Jonathan Althaus

---

So now the question is.......It took 12 years for Titanic's record to fall (most likely). How long before Avatar is knocked out of #1?

---

Depends on when Cameron gets around to making another movie.
 

---

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 01-23-2010, 09:27 PM:
 
...or the publicity machines get a second wind.
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 01-23-2010, 10:24 PM:
 
The 3D re-release of Titanic will grab its throne back!
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 01-25-2010, 01:14 AM:
 
Update: Huge weekend...
TITANIC Worldwide: $1,842,879,955
AVATAR Worldwide: $1,836,143,000

$6,736,966 to go so today's the day. Congratulations, Mr. Cameron.

BTW,

TITANIC Domestically: $600,788,188
AVATAR Domestically: $552,797,000

$47,991,188 to go...Next Sunday or Monday should see that record topple too.

As far as Australia goes, our TITANIC record was set at $57million. To date, AVATAR has now done $89million here. We are incredibly about to have our first $100million movie.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-25-2010, 02:01 AM:
 
I still don't get it. Why is everyone going apeshit over this movie which is average at best? What is drawing people to it? What are people seeing that I'm not?
 

---

Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 01-25-2010, 02:57 AM:
 
^ It has pretty colours and flashing lights. What more do you want for chrisakes?
 

---

Posted by Patrick de Groot (Member # 858) on 01-25-2010, 04:02 AM:
 
I did know little about Avatar and didn't have that much expectations, but Avatar 3D was a great experience. Some interesting concepts and ideas. Story is somewhat recycled, but in a decent way. Bad humans were one dimensional characters, do not think (but many don't in real life, so...). It's more Fantasy than SF. It definitely has more story to it than the TLOTR123. Emotionally involving. Also worth it in 2D.
Some fast scenes looked choppy.
 

---

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 01-25-2010, 08:08 AM:
 

quote: Joe Redifer

---

I still don't get it. Why is everyone going apeshit over this movie which is average at best? What is drawing people to it? What are people seeing that I'm not?

---

Transformers series
Crystal Skull
Spiderman 3
Transformers
Pirates series
Star Wars Prequels

Cameron had the idea for Avatar years ago, but he wisely sat decided to sit on it... to wait...

Until the BAR had been LOWERED enough that people would think Avatar was the greatest thing EVER.

The man's a genius!


 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-25-2010, 11:56 AM:
 
Ha ha that is awesome. It rings of truth as well.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-25-2010, 01:34 PM:
 

quote: Joe Redifer

---

Why is everyone going apeshit over this movie which is average at best?

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

I still don't get it. Why is everyone going apeshit over this movie which is average at best? What is drawing people to it? What are people seeing that I'm not?

---

Three reasons: marketing, marketing and marketing.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 01-26-2010, 02:12 PM:
 
Done.

Rank Title Studio Worldwide Domestic / % Overseas / % Year^
1 Avatar Fox $1,858.9 $555.0 29.9% $1,303.9 70.1% 2009
2 Titanic Par. $1,843.2 $600.8 32.6% $1,242.4 67.4% 1997
3 The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King NL $1,119.1 $377.0 33.7% $742.1 66.3% 2003
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-26-2010, 02:34 PM:
 
You really have a hard on for Avatar getting to the number one spot, don't ya, John.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 01-26-2010, 02:40 PM:
 
But now it's there...

It's amazing to me that a movie can make that much money in just under 7 weeks. I'm also enjoying the fact we finally have a real blockbuster...not something that comes out Thursday, makes $120m opening weekend and is all done by week three when the percentage starts going our way.

Finally, we can earn some blockbuster money too instead of just the distributor.
 

---

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 01-26-2010, 03:26 PM:
 
Dollars turned is one thing, how many tickets have been sold?
 

---

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 01-26-2010, 04:12 PM:
 
The answer is: A whole lot of tickets were sold. You have to give Cameron credit for putting in more effort than almost every other filmmaker and, for that, the audience has rewarded him. It's not just about marketing. The audience was told they'd be seeing something they'd never seen before. And, visually at least, this was absolutely true. They only reason other movies aren't making this kind of money is that the audience, deep down, knows that it's all the same crap they've already seen before.

Oh, wait. The second Transformers movie made a ton of money. Forget everything I just said.
 

---

Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 01-26-2010, 04:19 PM:
 
Avatar is the same crap we've seen before albeit with Moore's Law applied.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-26-2010, 06:50 PM:
 
Sorry, but the CGI in Avatar still looked very cartoony and CGI-ish. No leaps and bounds were really made in this area in my eyes.
 

---

Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 01-26-2010, 07:28 PM:
 
Except some of the close-ups which are actually people in make-up - they're quite real.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-26-2010, 08:26 PM:
 
According to the "inflation adjusted" numbers, Avatar's BO $ is at number 34. (I read this on www.boxofficeguru.com so it must be correct!)
 

---

Posted by Joe Elliott (Member # 4006) on 01-27-2010, 12:35 AM:
 
I think it is so popular because most people saw the previews, and were not impressed, thus very little hype. Once they saw it, they were surprised, and thus now the hype. Much like Titanic. How many of you saw the Titanic previews and said "I gotta see that movie!!". I know I didn't, and if my wife had not dragged me to see it, I would never have seen it. I do concede that it is a very good movie, but not all the hype that followed its release. I think Avatar falls in that same category.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-27-2010, 12:38 AM:
 

quote:

---

How many of you saw the Titanic previews and said "I gotta see that movie!!".

---

quote: Joe Elliot

---

How many of you saw the Titanic previews and said "I gotta see that movie!!".

---

quote: Brad Miller

---

I did.

---

Me too.

Fox distributed it here and were having a terrible time trying to get it booked (all 190+ minutes of it) in the middle of our summer. They sent out the 4.5 minute trailer and I set it up for the chain's management to watch. They were pretty positive they wouldn't take it and were really just appeasing Fox by watching it.

It took about 1 minute for them to say...we're in. By 4.5 minutes, they couldn't wait for December 18 to arrive...neither could I.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-27-2010, 12:20 PM:
 
On the contrary, the Avatar trailer I saw beforehand told me "this movie has some really strong suck potential".

I was right.

...yet it continues to sell. There is no hope for good movies anymore.
 

---

Posted by Patrick de Groot (Member # 858) on 01-27-2010, 12:57 PM:
 
There is nothing wrong with Avatar. It's an involving ride and it just works. Not for everyone sure, but it's really not a bad movie. Doesn't rely on 3D. Do you think the story of T2 was great? No, it's the execution. I at least cared for what was going on on screen. That's the key. I didn't have any expectations. It never said it had a deep complex story (I think?). It was meant for the masses (as it was EXPENSIVE to create). Yes it could do better in the character development area. However, there were some really nice concepts. And that is why I am glad I didn't have any knowledge about Avatar before seeing it. Those idease is what is part of Fantasy/SF.
 

---

Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 01-27-2010, 06:32 PM:
 
^ But it still ain't "Best Picture" material, though, is it?

The first trailer was crap; it looked like a video game cut-scene. The second one wasn't so bad but not mind-blowing.
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 01-28-2010, 07:48 PM:
 

quote: Stu Jamieson

---

But it still ain't "Best Picture" material, though, is it?

---

quote: Patrick de Groot

---

There is nothing wrong with Avatar. It's an involving ride and it just works. Not for everyone sure, but it's really not a bad movie. Doesn't rely on 3D.

---

quote: Jonathan Althaus

---

Yes it's an overused plot, but nowadays, what isn't?

---

quote: Joe Tommassello

---

the "facts" about "global climate change" (notice they dropped "warming") are all being unveiled as fraud.

---

quote: Joe Tommassello

---

For a start? Stories where the US military is heroic. Haven't seen that in while.

---

quote: Patrick de Groot

---

Mankind is a plague to this world.

---

Maybe you should move then. Set an example.
 

---

Posted by Patrick de Groot (Member # 858) on 02-05-2010, 04:38 PM:
 
I gonna catch the first star ship that comes near Earth. It's called Noah's Ark II.
 

---

Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 02-05-2010, 06:27 PM:
 
Isn't Noah dead? Maybe it should be called Noah II's Ark??
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-06-2010, 12:32 AM:
 
I remember back in the late 1990s when those folks in California dressed up in their jump suits and new sneakers to catch a ride on the Hale-Bopp comet to "go home."

They just had to eat the pudding to make it happen. On that trip you never wake up.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-06-2010, 09:29 AM:
 
We're playing this movie now. It's noisy, I'll say that for it.

I don't understand the whole concept of those clear computer screens that people are carrying around. It was obviously done "because it looks cool in the movie" and not because anyone would actually want such a silly device. I can't imagine anything more hard to use than a screen that you could see through. I'd tape a piece of black construction paper on the back of mine.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-06-2010, 09:33 AM:
 
At Winter CES one company (I don't remember which) was showing off a notebook computer with a fully transparent screen. It was pretty neat looking, but I agree the novelty would probably wear off after awhile. You're not going to get good black levels on image quality with such a screen. Color accuracy would likely be problematic too.
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 02-06-2010, 10:33 AM:
 
Avatar: good for the industry.

James Cameron: not really a writer, but a "borrower" of plot lines and characterizations. I feel that other film makers will want to sue. Louis
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-06-2010, 12:28 PM:
 
I can honestly say that a transparent screen would drive me nuts. It would drive me every bit as nuts as the computer making sci-fi noises every time a window opens, closes, zooms, moves or a character of text displays.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-06-2010, 12:47 PM:
 
Windows 7 has a setting (or maybe it is the default) where the windows themselves are transparent.

Supposedly there is a way to turn this off, but it is stupidly annoying.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-06-2010, 04:03 PM:
 
The entire window or just the menu bar/frame?

You can turn all of that nonsense off and make it look almost exactly like Windows 98.
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 02-06-2010, 06:31 PM:
 
Really??? How? I'd love to get my normal start button and hierarchical menus back.
 

---

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 02-06-2010, 08:26 PM:
 
Avatar is dead. Long live Avatar. This weekend Dear John has kicked some big blue ass. <-- So says MSNBC anyway.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-07-2010, 02:06 AM:
 
You have to find your way through the settings (which are grouped and very convoluted by default) and find appearance or whatever they call it in Windows land. Maybe theme? Anyway, set your theme to "Classic". Now, the bar on the bottom of the screen will be way too damn thick. Right click it and tell it to use small icons. I think there might even be a way to get the "tabs" back (that are created when you minimize a window) if that sort of thing appeals to you.

Chris Duvall could explain how to do it better if he was still around (Regal (unlawfully?) threatens employees who post here so we don't see much of their kind any more except Dennis).
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 02-07-2010, 02:14 PM:
 

quote: Paul Mayer

---

Avatar is dead. Long live Avatar. This weekend Dear John has kicked some big blue ass.

---

Well, I suppose it had to go sometime. An estimated 40.3% drop from last Sunday due to some football game ( ) but even without that it wouldn't have saved it from #2 spot. Chick flicks... But still only a 24.6% drop overall for an estimated tally of $630million.

I finally got to see it the other day and even though I'm pretty impressed that humans made this (!) I just don't get why it's done what it has done. I enjoyed the spectacle of the last hour but the first 2 dragged for me. I found myself saying: "I get it...they're connected to the damn trees...now stop bashing me over the head with it and get on with the movie already."

2/5
 

---

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 02-07-2010, 02:58 PM:
 
I never did get to see it (couldn't even finagle a pass at the IMAX I occasionally help out at). Will have to settle for seeing it on Blu-ray some day.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-09-2010, 03:06 AM:
 
Avatar review part 1

Avatar review part 2
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-09-2010, 01:47 PM:
 
I like that guy's reviews. He definitely hits the nail on the head.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 02-09-2010, 01:56 PM:
 
His 'New Star Wars' ones are far better than these.
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 02-14-2010, 07:25 PM:
 
Not sure where to post this so it'll go here.

Regal 15 in Eugene lost a packed 3D showing of Avatar today due to a projector or server malfunction, a little over 2 hours into the first show of the day. "The screen went haywire and the server dropped the show" is how an usher described it. They were handing out rainchecks to everyone. The scary thing is the next scheduled show was already sold out and had a long line of people waiting.

NEC 2K projector, no idea what server.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-14-2010, 07:38 PM:
 
If there is a screw up, full refunds (and a pass) should always be given, even if the movie is near the end.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 02-14-2010, 08:02 PM:
 
'AVATAR' hit the $100,000,000 mark here on Friday. For those not following the thread, it beat the previous record holder (TITANIC) a little while ago...that record was $57,000,000.

Yes, another $14m and it's doubled 'TITANIC'.
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 02-14-2010, 09:29 PM:
 
I had planned to see AVATAR in digital IMAX sometime during the past week but decided to hold off seeing it until this coming Wednesday when I will have to go to Honolulu to take care of some business matters and attend my local photographic society meeting in the evening. I should be done with my business stuff long before noon and in time to catch the first IMAX 3-D show at the Dole Cannery 18. My gut feeling tell me I will enjoy the movie very much based on what my friends have told me and all of the clips from the movie I had seen. Although I did watch the video clips Brad had posted, I did not pay any heed to them because the reviewer seem very sarcastic and not very credible in my humble opinion. This will be the first movie I will see in a theatre in a long time and I feel it will offer some relief from the sad event of last week my family and I had endured.

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 02-14-2010, 09:42 PM:
 

You took that review completely seriously? The guy does comedic reviews.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-14-2010, 10:44 PM:
 

quote: David Stambaugh

---

NEC 2K projector, no idea what server.

---

quote: Claude S. Ayakawa

---

Although I did watch the video clips Brad had posted, I did not pay any heed to them because the reviewer seem very sarcastic and not very credible in my humble opinion.

---

quote: Greg Anderson

---

His reviews are too long, contain poor acting and rely too much on special effects. They're also extremely derivative.

---

quote: Claude S. Ayakawa

---

I am praying for the eventual release of the movie in Blu Ray will be in 1.85:1

---

quote: Claude S. Ayakawa

---

I feel it will recover it's three hundred million production costs in a short period of time and make at least seven hundred million if not more.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

I do think it'll be big, but $700 million? I doubt that. I'd guess $400m.

---

quote: David Stambaugh

---

If we're talking worldwide, and not just domestic, $700M might be possible. Not just domestically though, not even remotely close.

---

quote: John Wilson

---

If it doesn't do $700million worldwide I'll be VERY surprised, but domestically? Come on, Claude.

---

Claude's the prophet amongst us all...

Domestic Total as of Feb. 28, 2010: $706,560,068

Well done, Claude. Even if you didn't REALLY say it, we all know it's what you really meant.

Avatar page at BOM
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 03-01-2010, 10:34 PM:
 

quote: Phil Blake

---

I must be the last person here to have watched it.

---

I haven't seen it.
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 03-01-2010, 11:46 PM:
 


-Claude
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-02-2010, 12:02 AM:
 
I think it is obvious at this point. Claude needs to be a booker.
 

---

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 03-02-2010, 11:55 AM:
 
Yeah good call Claude
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 03-05-2010, 03:45 AM:
 
On our 3D of AVATAR, I added the "TRON LEGACY" 3D trailer to this film..

In short, I think 3D is here to stay...that was an "effing" good trailer!
 

---

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 03-05-2010, 05:09 AM:
 
Ah, Tron Legacy.

$890,000,000 opening weekend- move over Avatar

Ok, maybe a little over exaggerated but I can't wait to see this film.
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 03-05-2010, 02:30 PM:
 
Now that ALICE IN WONDERLAND opened today in regular 3-D and IMAX, are there any theatres still playing AVATAR in 3-D? If it is still playing, I would assume it is running in multiplexes that have more than one 3-D screen. The Dole Cannery here in Honolulu have a Digital IMAX and a Real D house and they are both playing ALICE. What are the theatres going to do if AVATAR does win Best Picture and a whole lot of technical Oscars Sunday night and millions of people who have seen it before would want to see it again-in 3-D after it had won? Theatres here after a week, had set aside one performance a day for a previous 3-D film because there was still an audience that wanted to see it. My brother is a classic example because he has not seen it yet because he felt it was going to be around in 3-D for a very long time. I told him yesterday, if he and his wife does not see it by tonight, forget about seeing it 3-D.

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 03-05-2010, 04:02 PM:
 
Avatar seems to be down to 2-D showings in SLC.

I saw Avatar last night at the Megaplex 17 IMAX and the show...a 4:15pm start...did a bang-up business. Maybe because people knew it was their last chance to see it there.
 

---

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 03-05-2010, 04:51 PM:
 
If Avatar wins best picture, all the judges should be tied up and made to watch it 50 times. Give it all the technical, etc. etc. etc. awards but it isn't best pic by a loooooong shot
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 03-05-2010, 09:35 PM:
 
I just finished reading this mornings Honolulu Advertiser and after reading the reviews of new movies opening today, I checked the local theatre listings and AVATAR is now playing in 2-D at all of the theatres except the Regal Dole Cannery 18. They are still playing it in Real D 3-D when they had converted another one of their auditoriums to the format. They are now playing ALICE IN WONDERLAND in IMAX 3-D and in Real D 3-D and AVATAR in Real D 3-D. This is a smart move by Regal Theatres because ALICE is getting very favorable reviews and the public love it and it has staying power. CLASH OF THE TITANS was not suppose to be in 3-D but will be released in that format at the end of the month clashing with ALICE. At east, the Dole Cannery is ready to play them both in 3-D. Thanks to 3-D films like AVATAR and ALICE IN WONDERLAND, public acceptance of the format, indicates 3-D is here to stay but only if exhibitors will not have a shortage of venues to play them.

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 03-06-2010, 01:02 AM:
 
I am pissed about Avatar being taken out of all the RealD 3D and IMAX installations only because for some weird reason I chose this weekend to check out the movie in IMAX at AMC Barret Commons. I know I have myself to blame as it has been out for a long time, but I noticed it was still in the overall top 5 at the boxoffice, so I assumed the IMAX was doing better than the average if even the SD prints were still doing decently. This location has freaking Boondock 2 playing for such a long time, that I grew complacent. I should have read this thread to realize the Alice in Wondderland wide release in 3DRealD and IMAX.

I can live without the IMAX thing for now. But I would like to see it in 3D just to see what the fuss is about. In Atlanta, AMC Barrett Commons which was showing Avatar in all the formats until this week, is showing Avatar only in 3D now. But it doesnt seem to be the Digital 3D stuff as they use that moniker for the Alice in Wonderland showings now. Considering the print is old, I wonder what the quality would be like in analog due to multiplex handling. Anyone know the best theater to catch Avatar in at this late stage? I thought they would at least be one premium showing in a big city like Atlanta during Oscar week.

Is there a dropoff from the 3DRealD stuff to the analog 3D presentation(*keeping in mind practical realities of it being an old print).
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 03-06-2010, 01:56 AM:
 
I don't think Avatar is playing in 3D in 35mm ("analog") at all. I think Clash of the Titans is going to be the first film widely available (lately) in 35mm 3D.

But if it were, it wouldn't have any significant differences in quality. Probably a bit better in film in the color resolution and brightness departments compared to, say, RealD.

Of course if the print was all scratched and the projector was weaving like crazy etc, well, that is always distracting and in 3D it would be even more.
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 03-06-2010, 04:05 AM:
 
Julio,

Will the 35mm 3-D film version of CLASH OF THE TITANS use the old Over/Under system or are they using a new system? If it is the old system, I will pass and see it either in Real D or Dolby 3-D.

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Tom Mundell (Member # 4555) on 03-06-2010, 07:35 AM:
 
Still playing in some locations in 3D around here; as Claude noted these are larger multiplexes with several 3D screens. As much as I liked this movie, I agree it's definitely not best picture!
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 03-06-2010, 09:10 AM:
 
Claude:

It's using a "new" over/under system that is 99.99% the same as the "old" over/under system.

I encourage you to, at least as a test, you go and watch the film in a polarized digital system (such as RealD) first and then make the efford, at least this once, to also go and watch it soon afterwards again in 35mm 3D if it is available around your area to compare them.

You will see there is *very* little difference. Some things like brightness and colors will be better in the 35mm film (if the theater is doing what it's suppossed to be doing) and some things, like image steadiness could be better in the digital.

Also, if the movie is Scope 3D, it should be significantly "better" to watch in the 35mm 3D systems over any digital.

Give it a shot. If you don't like it, you don't have to go back. But it won't be because the system produces any different results on the same movie if the theater showing the film version doesn't screw up (i.e. scratched prints, splices, flickering lamp, etc). Some of those things can also be screwed in digital, but there is no argument digital is more difficult to screw up by a booth monkey than 35mm film.

A lot of the bad press with 3D films in the early 80's came from the fact that the movies were SHOT "wrong", as they had to be shot optically, often without even video feedback, with cumbersome and not-too-good lenses with little control and be people that didn't have a clue to what they were doing. But the "system" itself was capable of similar results as today's, slightly better in some aspects, slightly worse in others, but not too much difference either way.
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 03-06-2010, 02:16 PM:
 
Julio.

The thing that I did not like the most about the old Over/Under system was the extremely dark picture caused by two factors- single projection light source and the Polaroid glasses. I had even noticed this with earlier Real D and Dolby 3-D but they seem to have corrected the problem. Although Hawaii now has only one 15/70 IMAX screen, it does not show commercial Hollywood films but if they did, that is the best way to see 3-D films. Digital IMAX is also good too and Honolulu has one theatre that has it- Regal Dole Cannery 18 and that is where I recently saw AVATAR.

By the way, the old Over/Under system required a silver screen. Does the new improved system require it too? I think it does.

Even for a senior citizen like myself, watching films in 3-D is expensive. I can see a regular movie for $6.75 at any good theatre like the Ward Centre 16 or at the Dole Cannery 18 but it cost $10.00 to see Real D or Dolby 3-D movies. Digital IMAX is $2.00 more so I am very selective what I see in IMAX. Most of the 3-D movies I now see is either Real D or Dolby 3-D.

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 03-07-2010, 04:42 PM:
 
OK I finally saw it at AMC at Avenue Forsyth, Cumming, GA. It is an all digital multiplex opened recently. 160+ seats.

I guess I was mistaken when I thought there were no more 3D Real D showings. I was misled by the way AMC was using Digital 3D to promote the movie until last week, then changed the designation this week, limiting the Digital 3D real D thing for only the Alilce in Wonderland movie. Also the lady who answered the phone earlier didnt seemt to know either. A manager today confirmed it was real D 3D. After watching the movie, while the 3D was good, there were times when I wished for a well presented 2D instead because 3D seems to make the picture dimmer. The hidef clips I saw on TV seemed to have a more vivid color.

Also another problem I had with the 3D were "background" objects that appear in big closeup in the foreground that they distract from the main focus of the characters in the frame. You will see some plant that just seems obtrusive in the front of the frame because of the 3D effect. It's like you put a book too close to your face.

The theater was packed. If Alice in Wonderland was not opening, it probably would have had more 3D screens for a few more weeks.

I thought Zoe Saldana was very good for the CGI artists to model her character's expressions. The first half was just OK. Second half was better, but then I think Mel Gibson did hell of a better job with bringing emotions to battle scenes and uprisings or survival type deals in a pretty jungle in Apocalypto(in my personal opinion, one of the better made movies in the decade ).

And I think CCameron needed a writer if he wanted to bring subtle parallels to real life stuff instead of bludgeoning us over the head with overused terms used in our day to day news.

The movie aspect ratio seemed to be 2.35:1. I thought the Real D OAR was 1.85. Unless I am getting geometrically challenged, it looked pretty wide to me. I wonder if that lead to some cropping. The second line of the subtitles seemed to be partially cropped off at the bottom.
 

---

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 04-15-2010, 10:01 PM:
 
We're playing Avatar in 2D from film. Unlike the 3D I saw in 2 different theatres, it has bright vivid colors and detail that just disappears into the vast dimness in a 3D presentation.
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 04-15-2010, 10:55 PM:
 
After seeing and enjoying AVATAR in digital IMAX 3-D, I am now looking forward to enjoying it again in 2-D in the comfort of my home next Thursday when the movie is released in Blu-Ray & DVD. The 3-D image I saw in IMAX at the Dole Cannery was nice and bright because of dual projection

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Smith (Member # 5609) on 04-16-2010, 10:10 AM:
 
Bill: I said the same thing to the mother of some disappointed kids who had come to see "How To Train Your Dragon" but showed up at a 2D time. . .

"Well ma'am, it isn't in 3D, it's in 2D with higher resolution and better color depth on a $1500 35mm print. But you're not supposed to know about that."

[Scope movies actually do have higher resolution, even from digital files on film because of the anamorphic squeeze. Only flat movies are better on a DLP than a 2K DI]
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 04-16-2010, 12:19 PM:
 

quote: Claude S. Ayakawa

---

I am now looking forward to enjoying it again in 2-D in the comfort of my home next Thursday when the movie is released in Blu-Ray

---

Reminds me of when I saw the movie (15/70 IMAX 3D) I could hear the couple next to me talking before it started, the guy said to the gal, "this movie's going to be sick in Blu-Ray" as though the 70mm print(s) we were about to watch were... hmm, what's the opposite of sick? Healthy?
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 06-19-2010, 02:16 PM:
 
so I went to see Avatar ... again... two times before, first time though in IMAX 3D over at the Samuel L. Johnson theatre at the Natural History Museum down on the Mall. What struck me was that the image didn't extend to the sides of the screen but nestled in the center of the screen with large black borders surrounding the entire image area - hmmmm, so much for taking up all the 90 X 60 ft screen (drat). Secondly the image while sharp, lacked colour as if faded slightly, only at one point during a Navi scene did the colors suddently became vibrant and jump out - I'd assume the condition of the print was at fault here. However the real treat was the sound - loud, bombastic and completely immersive - the sound from the rear channels were creating a lot of phantom rear center sound that I had never picked up on before, (even when I had seen the film prior in REAL-D) - the destruction of the Tree - was so intense, nearly all the hair on my neck stood straight up. By far the IMAX experience was the best in terms of sound, the image though left me a bit unimpressed.
 

---

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 08-26-2010, 07:13 AM:
 
-The reason you get the centered image and not side to side is because of Cameron. He wanted to control the edges, didn't want his movie being cut off by poorly masked screens.

Well 22 hours later the AVATAR Special Edition: An IMAX Experience for Harkins Arizona Mills is done. It was a long process, a first as far as I know for an IMAX feature. 16 new reels for each eye were sent, to be added back into the feature and 17 reels to be taken out. This was a long process, but I think it was worth it.

I looked through all 19 pages and noticed that I never posted a review of this movie. Even after seeing it over 170 times. I screened it yesterday morning after finishing up the build. I have to say that I enjoyed all the added footage. There are a some shots that are there just to be there, but there are alot of scenes that after seeing this cut of the movie. These should of been in the original cut of the movie, they help flesh out a couple scenes that were a little strange and didn't have any resolution.

I have to say, not watching this for about 4 months. I enjoyed it and had a good time with it again. This will do killer business for the next two/three weeks. Enjoy the up tick in business that you wouldn't have otherwise. Would not be shocked if this is #1 with far fewer screens then Takers and everything else this weekend.

4/5
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 08-26-2010, 08:00 PM:
 
AVATA is playing in only two 3-D digital theatres in Honolulu, the Ward in their souped up 'Expend' house and the Mililani in central Oahu. Both of them had limited the film to only one showing a day starting at about noon. Regal is not showing it all all in any of their houses including their digital IMAX 3-D auditorium.

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-27-2010, 12:38 AM:
 
There is no reason to see this version with 8.5 extra minutes when a home version with 16+ extra minutes will be released soon (in 2D). You think I'm joking, but I'm not. After that will be the 3D home release. Cameron is almost as much of a whore as Lucas is. So unless you aren't very good at managing your money, don't see this re-release and get the DVD/Blu-ray re-release instead. Avatar is best viewed at home, anyway. It sure was for me, though I still thought the movie had amateur-level storytelling at best. Cameron has said that he wants to compete with Lucas and Tokien. Then write an original story, dildo!
 

---