Avatar in IMAX
A few months ago I was in Atlantic City. Jeff and I went to IMAX and the film broke (or the projector broke). They gave each of us a refund, a free pass to another IMAX movie, and another voucher for a small popcorn/soda combo. The vouchers expired at the end of December.
At that point December looked like Christmas movies and other family fare. So we were hanging onto them for a while and I finally got around to offering them to a friend in the A.C. area along with a restaurant.com gift certificate. We shipped them out 3 days ago.
Yesterday I found out Avatar will be playing at the Tropicana IMAX Dec 17-31. :banghead::banghead::banghead:
I'm checking to see if it extends into January, but I am off on vacation on Dec 30th and I am halfway considering an overnight trip to A.C. just to see the movie.
Is anyone planning on seeing Avatar in IMAX. Has anyone seen it in IMAX?
Is it even out yet? I've seen the ads, but hadn't seen any reviews in the paper.
If it gets good reviews, I'll probably walk down to the National Mall and see it on one of the Imax screens there. Assuming they are showing it. Natural History sometimes shows commercial movies on Imax.
If it doesn't get good reviews, I won't see it. Special effects are neat, but are not reason enough for me to see a movie.
It's playing in 'digital 3D' in King of Prussia. Looks like a road trip is called for.
We have the option of 3d or regular in my theater. Should I see the 3d one? Do I need special glasses? will it give me a headache?
We saw Avatar 3D. I had not read any information about it and so I had no expectations. I don't usually love many movies but to me this was like one of those dreams you don't want to wake from.
It was visually appealing and not just because of the 3d which I thought was only ok.
We saw Avatar 3D. I had not read any information about it and so I had no expectations. I don't usually love many movies but to me this was like one of those dreams you don't want to wake from.
It was visually appealing and not just because of the 3d which I thought was only ok.
Was it IMAX and 3D? I'm confused about how many different ways there are to see this movie.
Mrs. Levy saw 'Polar Express' in IMAX 3D with Jeff last year and had to close her eyes during some of the scenes because she was getting motion sickness. I wasn't there but it sounded cool. I was hoping 3D combined with IMAX would give someone a sense of flying along with the characters.
No it was not IMAX. IMAX is nothing like viewing on a regular theater screen and using 3D glasses. I can't do IMAX. * sigh * I have ear problems and so I get motion sick too but I had no problem with the 3D glasses. :D
I am sure it is the difference of type of screen? I don't know maybe someone else has more knowledge than I which is nil.
Tester-San and I are looking forward to seeing Avatar, rich, hopefully we'll be able to work out the scheduling, but not this weekend because of the mall traffic insanity (for the Brits, what you call Boxing Day for Americans is "Re-Boxing Day" ... the day you return all the gifts that you didn't want or didn't work, or you broke and are trying to blame on a manufacturing error. We don't really call it that, BTW, I just made that up on the fly).
Also, I think that this weekend we have to go see a romantic comedy of some kind to appease momma-san and cousin-chan.
Tester-San and I are looking forward to seeing Avatar, rich, hopefully we'll be able to work out the scheduling, but not this weekend because of the mall traffic insanity (for the Brits, what you call Boxing Day for Americans is "Re-Boxing Day" ... the day you return all the gifts that you didn't want or didn't work, or you broke and are trying to blame on a manufacturing error. We don't really call it that, BTW, I just made that up on the fly).
Also, I think that this weekend we have to go see a romantic comedy of some kind to appease momma-san and cousin-chan.
We're thinking next Saturday or Sunday at the KofP IMAX.
I've just passed up an invite to go and see Avator in favour of sitting on the couch and watching Scrubs and the original Brideshead Revisited. I'm not having any feelings of regret at all. Should I be?
Well I went in with an expectation level of zero.
I think that helped a lot :)
Well, let me start by saying that we have a moderate sized (27"-30") LCD TV downstairs. For about $7, I can get a used copy of almost any movie about 3-4 months after it has appeared in a movie theater and make my own popcorn.
At current prices, tickets for the 3 of us to a regular movie is about $36. I don't usually buy snacks, but we end up with 1 or 2 sodas and a popcorn for something like $12.
So it's $48 versus $7. In order to make up the difference, the movie theater has to add a better experience. The room is darker and the sound system is better. As far as screen size goes, with the smaller movie theater screens, I'm seeing only a slightly large picture sitting 30 feet from the screen as in my living room sitting 8 feet from the screen.
So in order to get me to justify getting myself into a theater, the 'experience' has to be significantly better. IMO, now that all movies cost $12 and more and more theaters are still pleading poverty in justifying outrageous snack prices, ALL movies should be in IMAX.
Considering the plot and action, Avatar screams for IMAX 3D and surround sound. Since I don't have a home movie theater, and I have at one point entertained the idea, I can convince myself that there is an added value worth the cost and travel.
That we will be going with friends is even better.
So Avatar, like a lot of big action films, justifies going to a theater to get the full effect.
I have netflix so I don't usually like to spend money on theaters
( even when I have money )but this was a special trip and worth every penny!
Yes the snack prices are outrageous and taste horrible but I guess it's part of the theater experience too. :)
Some of the STL family and I saw it today in digital but not 3d. The story is good. The CGI is excellent. It really is a whole new level for movie graphics.
I predict a whole flock of bad CGI movies in a year or so. Hollywood will forget to include a story in with the amazing new computer techniques.
We're thinking next Saturday or Sunday at the KofP IMAX.
We are too. I sent you an email.
I saw it in 3D, but not IMAX. Wow. I can't imagine what it would be like in IMAX.
I anticipate seeing it this week sometime in the full glory of IMAX 3D. I have, at this point, seen several films in that format, and it is really quite substantially different and better than your standard viewing experience, even considering the higher price.
We tried to go see it on the 26th of December...it was completely sold out through the last showing. Today, we went online to get tickets in advance, tried to do the 4:20 show, but ended up having to buy for the 8:00. It is *still* selling out in IMAX 3D.
We're shooting for next Saturday Jan 9th at 3:40. I'm hoping Wolf and Greg can come with us. Wolf suggested extending an invitation to the whole Cellar. Jan 9th is still not listed on Fandango as of this moment. As soon as it is I'm booking the tickets.
Jan 9 is my birthday, and it looks like I am being kidnapped by my girlfriends, as it's the first time in years that I've been OFF on my birthday.
Holy shit. Wow. Just...wow. Just got home from seeing Avatar.
I am extremely comfortable in saying that this film is indeed, a whole new realm of amazement. The CGI, especially the characters, is the best I've ever seen by a substantial margin. The world that has been created is jaw-dropping, magical, and entirely immersive and believable. The only technical complaint I can even begin to register (and trust me, it isn't a big deal) is that the 3D in the live action portions of the film is substantially "deeper" than are the CGI portions, which make up the major bulk of the film.
Most other complaints that I've heard about the film are more about the relatively lightweight story (I've seen it compared to "Dances with Wolves", and yeah, there's something to that, but it doesn't stick out like a sore thumb or anything), but I've got to say that the story was just about perfect in depth and presentation given the enormity of the visual and aural experience. The film does not seem overlong in any way, and in fact, you scarcely want to leave the world and it's inhabitants when the film ends.
I give this movie a solid 9 out of 10. It is one of the most engaging, astounding, satifsying movies I've ever seen, and may well be the paradigm-changing effort that all the hype said it would be.
A friend of mine is rather obsessed with the movie. He's seen the movie in regular theater and in IMAX. Now, he's planning on watching it in digital 3D too. :rolleyes: He's been bugging me to go see it.
I'm a lifelong movie buff, and not easily impressed by gee-whiz stuff. I'm *entertained* by it, but a movie has to have more than eye candy to leave me with this kind of impression.
I heartily recommend this film to *anyone* who enjoys sci-fi and discovering new worlds in their minds. It is truly spectacular.
My one problem: the floating mountains did not have enough rain-catching surface area to maintain constant waterfalls.
Hrmph.
Roger Dean said to tell you "don't worry about that, just enjoy the view."
My one problem: the floating mountains did not have enough rain-catching surface area to maintain constant waterfalls.
Hrmph.
Hmmm... if that's the biggest problem you have with
floating mountains I'd say it isn't a problem, maybe the anti-gravity has a cooling effect increasing condensation.
I don't like unobtainium, everything else is cool cool.
absolutely beautiful and engaging world. entirely predictable story.
I saw it in 3d on a big (not IMAX) screen and really enjoyed it in spite of myself. After a little while they stop belting you around the head with the headache inducing "ooh-look-this-is-in-3d" thing, and it just becomes a great part of the movie.
Even though it's still just a whole bunch of tired cliches repackaged, but it's still well worth seeing. I'm genuinely hoping for a sequel...
If you want a good laugh, read
An Open Letter to James Cameron from Papyrus and the 60 odd comments below, deriding Cameron for using Papyrus font on the advertising and subtitles. These people are rabid... crazy and rabid. :rolleyes:
Having worked with fonts a lot, this choice is like building an awesome 12 room mansion and then choosing that shitty 1/8" wood paneling to put up in every room. Sure, most people will not notice... I'm worried it will take me out of the movie.
It's like Die Hard 2 where every other plot detail was ludicrous if you had any flight training. Sure, most people are not pilots or prospective pilots...
Yep, I commented to my husband on the following:
1. Unobtanium. Mostly to laugh, because it was a Professor's favorite example element in college.
2. Papyrus. I am not a font snob [SIZE=1][COLOR=Silver](okay perhaps a very small one)[/COLOR][/SIZE] but that was waaay jarring.
3. Ai'Wa is just too close to Gaia. Quit clobbering me over the head, already.
4. Isn't it cool that the whole planet standardized on a single interface definition. :lol:
I just don't see the problem. The font is supposed to look rustic. How is that jarring?
Chris Costello, who designed the font in 1983:
"I have mixed feelings. At first it was cool to see it in a few spots, especially CD cover designs and movie credits… then television, billboards etc. It started cropping up in the late '80s in National Geographic articles and a few magazine ads. My parents came back from Europe one year and showed me all of the brochures they found using Papyrus. But then I started seeing it in homespun newsletters, local bulletin boards, everybody's business cards, real estate and mortgage ads...basically everywhere. It had become diluted and lost its original appeal. I see design blogs trash it all the time, but it's not a design issue. I think after she was released with OSX system fonts, her design career was finished… she became the font for the masses.
"Today, it is so overused, I would not use it unless there was some very unique application that called for it."
For the movie title, it doesn't bother me so much. But for the subtitles, which (I am told) are used liberally throughout the movie? That was a terrible idea. Subtitles are supposed to be unobtrusive, not artsy.
didn't notice the font at all. With so much other stuff to look at, the font used is very minor. Besides, I think it matches the spirit of the other visuals. As far as the designer of the font goes, can you say, sour grapes?
Was talking to others who have seen the movie a few times today at lunch. They pointed out that the avatars (the humans) actually looked different that the native Na'vi; e.g., the number of fingers and eyebrows, etc. I'll have to watch for that the next time I see it.
I just don't see the problem. The font is supposed to look rustic. How is that jarring?
It's
not that its rusticity is out of place.... The problem is that it is very easily recognizable AND very stylized. If they had picked say, helvetica or TNR no one would have noticed.
It's precisely
because it's so 'rustic'
and so readily available that every third-grader has used it on their history project on King Tut and thought how cool it looked. It seems... amateur-ish, and popped some folks who have worked in graphic arts out of 'the moment' every time the words were on the screen. [/rant]
Just call me Mr. Oblivious. I don't remember seeing it before. :blush:
I didn't know Papyrus was "uncool" until Undertoad alpha-geeked me over my
home birthday invitations. At that time I had honestly just scrolled through the fonts until I saw one that fit what I was going for.
That being said, I sympathize completely with anything which takes the viewer out of the moment. To fail to take this into account (in a major production, no less) is inexcusable so far as it somewhat ruins the experience for at least that one viewer (or group of specialized viewers).
I think it is hysterical that hundreds of design geeks are going to sit around and bash an element choice in a film that has already made over a billion dollars. Geez, Mr Cameron, what were you thinking?
As with all art, it's in the eye of the beholder. To my eye, Avatar was a hell of an accomplishment, and the fact that it is *still* selling out IMAX 3D theater showings is a pretty strong testimony to the fact that a large number of other folks think so, too.
99% of the people posting in that blog aren't going to earn 1/10000 of 1% of what this film will earn in their entire lifetimes as professional designers, instead realizing most of their incomes from jobs wherein the words "would you like to see our specials tonight" are required. Their artistic opinions are as valid as, say, mine, but I think Mr Cameron's earnings acumen has them all beat by a considerable margin.
Incidentally, I plan to never see this film. I will not have it crammed down my throat by media hype. They convinced me not to see it. Ever.
I felt the same way about Titanic, but enjoyed the movie very much when I allowed myself to relax.
I feel the same way about Netflix everytime I see one of those goddamn popups. Fuck off and die, Netflix.
But Avatar is worth it.
I think you should just go to prove us bleating sheep wrong.
Incidentally, I plan to never see this film. I will not have it crammed down my throat by media hype. They convinced me not to see it. Ever.
So the advertising is affecting you. Negatively, but you're still letting it affect you.
I think it is hysterical that hundreds of design geeks are going to sit around and bash an element choice in a film that has already made over a billion dollars. Geez, Mr Cameron, what were you thinking?
Well yeah, Spiderman saved the city, but he had a run in his tights... how plebecian.
[FONT="Comic Sans MS"]Function, writing is supposed to be read, convey information.[/FONT]:p
Having worked with fonts a lot, this choice is like building an awesome 12 room mansion and then choosing that shitty 1/8" wood paneling to put up in every room. Sure, most people will not notice... I'm worried it will take me out of the movie.
It's like Die Hard 2 where every other plot detail was ludicrous if you had any flight training. Sure, most people are not pilots or prospective pilots...
I don't think you need to be a pilot to realize that the chances of a lit trail of jet fuel overtaking a jet taking off and traveling 50 feet off the ground to ignite a fuel tank is implausible.:right:
So the advertising is affecting you. Negatively, but you're still letting it affect you.
I agree with Dar, Flint. I like taking the path less traveled too, but sometimes following the sheep does lead to greener pastures.
If it will help any, I absolutely forbid you, under any circumstances, from going to see Avatar.;)
I don't think you need to be a pilot to realize that the chances of a lit trail of jet fuel overtaking a jet taking off and traveling 50 feet off the ground to ignite a fuel tank is implausible.
But Mythbusters did that one, just in case. :)
I think it is hysterical that hundreds of design geeks are going to sit around and bash an element choice in a film that has already made over a billion dollars. Geez, Mr Cameron, what were you thinking?
Still, that's not the point. Every other aspect of the visual production was scrubbed and polished and gleaming and perfect. Then they throw in, oh, I dunno... Clumpy mascara on a vamped-up supermodel? Artisan salumi with wonderbread? A pine-scented air freshener hanging from the mirror of a Lamborghini?
Still tacky.
And I don't care how much goddamn money Mr. Cameron is worth. He put out a work of art to be judged by the public. I have made my judgment, and in a few
small, specific areas, found his creation to be ...wanting.
I’m not trying to be non-conformist, I simply don’t think I can enjoy the movie when the act of watching it has been forced to be an analysis of what I am seeing on the screen versus the expectations created by an unrelenting, overly specific media campaign. The entire movie will be an out-of-the-moment experience. A meta-movie, about itself.
That, and when I actually saw a preview of the movie, it looked dumb. The recently-reformed, reluctant hero fights against impossible odds to save the idyllic utopian society from being destroyed by the military-industrial, shoot-em-up bad guys? Wow. My life won’t be complete until I see how that turns out.
I’m not trying to be non-conformist, I simply don’t think I can enjoy the movie when the act of watching it has been forced to be an analysis of what I am seeing on the screen versus the expectations created by an unrelenting, overly specific media campaign. The entire movie will be an out-of-the-moment experience. A meta-movie, about itself.
That, and when I actually saw a preview of the movie, it looked dumb. The recently-reformed, reluctant hero fights against impossible odds to save the idyllic utopian society from being destroyed by the military-industrial, shoot-em-up bad guys? Wow. My life won’t be complete until I see how that turns out. I MUST SEE IT.
OH gawd, what he said.
Someone said something about "neat effects, predictable storyline." ORLY? I never would have thunk.
Oh, and I thought Titanic was formulaic drivel, too. :bolt:
Wow. My life won’t be complete until I see how that turns out.
And you went to Titanic to see how it would end?
As Ebert says, what makes a movie great is not what it says but how it says it.
And you went to Titanic to see how it would end?
No, I didn't see it.
As Ebert says, what makes a movie great is not what it says but how it says it.
I disagree 100%. What makes a classic (a classic anything) is substance.
On further reflection, I think you are mis-applying the intent of that quote. There IS a transcendant art to any field of craft, wherein the mind of the artist is evident in the creation, and the finished work is simply a conduit for the creative will of the artist. In that regard, "how" he says something is the important part.
Oh agreed. How does one get there? I didn't find the story behind the story in Titanic to be the block-busting romantic heartbreaking climax most others found it to be.
If the only way a story can say it is through great graphics, well, then, it's not a story to me, just eye candy for the masses.
I'm sure Avatar has its points, and I'm sure it's visually stunning. It's just not for me. But most here would hate the movies I like, so we're even.
I like good movies, so...
You're not most others...;)
I hate "dramas" and movies with "substance." Give me a visually entertaining, action-packed, rollicking romp any day over deep meaning and intricate storytelling.
If I wanted a "good" movie . . . I'd read a book.
If I wanted a good movie . . . I'd read a book.
:notworthy
Substance doesn't preclude rollicking romp.
Oh, you mean like Fan Fiction? ;)
The movies I like the best (and YMMV, I realize that) are visual and visceral, not cerebral. With that critera, Avatar is a fantastic movie, and "totally awesome" in the original sense of awesome.
And y'all are just sourpusses who neglect their inner child. AND there's nothing wrong with the damn font.
;)
If I wanted a "good" movie . . . I'd read a book.
What do you do when you want to hear a good song, look at an oil painting?
a good story, then, if you don't like my metaphor.
I don't necessarily go to the movies for the storyline; I go for a visual, and sometimes auditory experience. Movies which do not provide that get relegated to second tier, at-home, small screen.
I, too, was reluctant to see Avatar because even though I love most animated films, something about this one didn't sit right with me...something to do with the faces with those big eyes. I didn't look into the movie at all and when my husband wanted to use free tickets on the movie, even then, I declined (we saw Sherlock Holmes instead). He finally put his foot down and it was the next movie we saw and I ended up really enjoying it. I thought the effects would bother me, but I became totally immersed in them and the story. Yes, it was predictable and the ending was simply too fairy tale, but it did entertain me. At one point though, I was sitting there wondering if the audience in my theater was actually getting the message that they are part of this military/industrial complex that destroys whatever gets in its way? And always wins, unlike in this movie.
I like good movies, so...
Now you're just sounding snooty.
Of all the things I've said, one off-the-cuff comment made in jest (in reply to the immediately preceeding post) is what you're getting from this?
I get that sometimes I sounds snooty in my critiques. However, does a piano player keep playing Mary Had a Little Lamb, once he's learned Mozart? ;)
RE: papyrus
Usually the Cellar is about 2-4 weeks ahead of the curve when it comes to current events. The real typeface nerds have been moaning about how crappy papyrus is for a long long time now. (like 20 dolla long time)
Anyway, Dar, put "Helvetica" on your queue and you will be entertained and gain an insight into the world of typographers and how passionate they are about something 99% of the population are/is blissfully unaware of.
sometimes it's the little things that get ya
I recently saw the movie, Shorts (Adventures of the Wishing Rock), and was amused by the typographer nerdiness. One of the kids was named, "Helvetica" -- last name Black. Thank you, Robert Rodriguez!
(also, the main character in that movie was the same kid who played young James T. Kirk in ST:AOS--the only casting misstep I could see in that movie)
It seems like, among the typeface nerds, font quality is based on how few of the wrong sort of people use it, rather than any attribute of the font itself. I think Papyrus is a fine looking font, and appropriate for Avatar, and the fact that National Geographic and newsletter writers like it too doesn't diminish that for me.
It's unfortunate for anybody if something they bring in affects their enjoyment of a film, but it's not James Cameron's fault if the Na'vi are the same color as your mother-in-law's bathroom.
It seems like, among the typeface nerds, font quality is based on how few of the wrong sort of people use it, rather than any attribute of the font itself. I think Papyrus is a fine looking font, and appropriate for Avatar, and the fact that National Geographic and newsletter writers like it too doesn't diminish that for me.
It's unfortunate for anybody if something they bring in affects their enjoyment of a film, but it's not James Cameron's fault if the Na'vi are the same color as your mother-in-law's bathroom.
Audibly laughed in a muttley knid of way.
the wrong sort of people . . .
ummm. regarding
fonts? You guys have anything against Times New Roman?
Anyway, Dar, put "Helvetica" on your queue and you will be entertained and gain an insight into the world of typographers and how passionate they are about something 99% of the population are/is blissfully unaware of.
I'll do that, squirell. But I am not ignorant of typography. I worked at Aldus for 7 years. But I still think criticizing a movie for the font it uses is over the top. It seems to me like people congratulating each other on being the
in crowd. I have yet to hear a meaningful argument against it.
It's overused? Times-Roman has been around since 1931.
It's not unreadable, it's not ugly. It may be cutesy, but it fits the movie.
ooh ooh font-battle! :corn:
[FONT=Comic Sans MS][SIZE=5]COMIC SANS FOREVER!!![/SIZE][/FONT]
I'll do that, squirell. But I am not ignorant of typography. I worked at Aldus for 7 years. But I still think criticizing a movie for the font it uses is over the top. It seems to me like people congratulating each other on being the in crowd. I have yet to hear a meaningful argument against it.
It's overused? Times-Roman has been around since 1931.
It's not unreadable, it's not ugly. It may be cutesy, but it fits the movie.
Never said you were ignorant, but you are in the 1%. I haven't seen the movie, but if it's lost for someone because of the font, they probably weren't going to be fair minded about it anyway.
And yeah, it is jumping on the "We're so typographically sophisticated blah blah crowd." I wonder how well they'd do with this quiz?
http://fontgame.ilovetypography.com/
my best so far is 23
(Talk about ubiquitous, Garamond goes back to 1530)
To all of the font nerds...this is you:
Helvetica doesn't seem to be an option in Word. I hear death bells.
Of all the things I've said, one off-the-cuff comment made in jest (in reply to the immediately preceeding post) is what you're getting from this?
Ok. Here's hos it seemed to me:
Flint: I'm not going to see Avatar because it's been advertised too much.
Dar: So you realize that means you are still being affected by the advertising
Flint: Well, I wouldn't like it anyway because I can guess how the story will come out.
So what you're saying is that a work of art is guaranteed to be no good if you can tell where the story will go? Novelty is the only attribute that matters to you in a movie?
What I said was that the overly-specific framing of the movies attributes would make viewing the movie itself into an excercise in comparative analysis, thus a completely out-of-the-moment experience for me. It wasn't my decision to be bombarded by a rigid preconception of this movie, I am placing blame where it belongs--the decision to execute an unrelenting media blitz.
The fact that seeing a preview of the plot was such a shocking disappointment was fueled by this same level of over-hyped expectations.
I'm saying that the quality and quantity of media attention created conditions which preclude me being able to give an honest, fair chance to this movie. Again, this wasn't my decision. I am not claiming immunity to the advertsing campaign, I am saying it had consequences they did not intend.
I’m not trying to be non-conformist, I simply don’t think I can enjoy the movie when the act of watching it has been forced to be an analysis of what I am seeing on the screen versus the expectations created by an unrelenting, overly specific media campaign.
FWIW, not only did the media hype *not* influence me (I would have gone to see a movie by Cameron with this subject matter in any event - I like his work), I would go so far as to say that the trailers, in particular, did not even remotely convey the depth and immersive character of the world that was created.
I had no high expectations for this film, and as a result, became more and more awed and appreciative as the film wore on.
Flint, the media hype is there whether you see the film or not. As with many things, the only way to truly know how you will end up feeling about something is to experience it as it was meant to be experienced. I'm very, very cynical about film in particular as an art form, and for me, this was very nearly the best pure movie entertainment experience I've had.
...to experience it as it was meant to be experienced...
Too late for that. They've framed how it should be experienced, thus I only have the option to agree or disagree (or get amnesia). I am choosing the third option: neither. Please note that this is not a decision to opt out of a default position, simply a decision not to execute a discretionary action.
We too went to see a 'James Cameron' movie and I for one was not following any preconceived notion or hype. I had no idea what it was about. I don't watch TV much and only listen to music on the PC so I didn't know what to expect and my expectations were not high. I did not find the blue people all that appealing or interesting when I would see advertisements online and would not even bother to look at them. It was a treat for someone who wanted to see it and I am so glad I took the plunge.
:D
{about hype}
I always taught my son to give me a logical reason for wanting something. When he was a kid that is what he did. I don't appreciate doing something just because everyone its the 'in' thing and I do appreciate learning something.
I don't think that happened now as an adult he is pretty smart and savy and told me a little history about James Cameron's work so we went.
Like Elsp. said it is an art form and I had never seen anything like it. I felt like I was at Disney Land. hehe :p
I can see how people might criticize this or that but really it was a marvelous fantasy for me and as well as most everyone else it seems.
I *totally* understand the various negative points being made about "Avatar". Hype. Simplicity of story. Following like sheep into the theater...whatever.
All I can say is that I am not a sheep, I actively avoid hype, and I am a fan of complex storytelling...and this is *still* one of the top two or three big screen entertainments I've ever seen. I didn't want to end up feeling that way, really. I couldn't avoid it. About halfway through, I turned to Selene, pulled her to my face and whispered "This is a kick ass movie!". She just smiled at me and nodded, and we went back to watching. This film isn't about a single thing - story, 3D, CGI, media hype. It is a truly virtual, different, immersive experience.
You may like, or dislike, the movie for any one of a million reasons. But you won't know until you see it.;)
I find it ironic that prejudice is one of the movie's themes, in light of this conversation.
Yes it was a very immersive film!
I barely noticed the time passing.
I didn't think I was going to like the 3d at all. Then you barely noticed it because it became a part of the whole and like you said it wasn't about one little part. Oh and it had a happy ending. I'm a sucker for a happy ending.:)
gimmie the cheese
@ cloud true.
oh and I didn't HAVE to go. He could have gone on his own. I am sooo glad I did go.
Flint is taking a position based on aesthetic/intellectually moral reasons, and I can respect that. The reason I'm arguing the point is because I understand where he's coming from, but this movie is so ridiculously kickass, I feel like, if he saw it, he'd leave feeling dirty, but entertained...kind of like I feel when I watch "True Blood".
I didn't know what that True Blood was. I had to look it up. It's still loading slowly. I do know it is an HBO show/movie.
I guess that is where the good shows are these days. I have com cast but no premium channels. I hate paying for the tv and not watching it.
Oh so it's a vampire show. I don't know. I am kind of a Buffy Kinda girl. Oh and the lost boys that was a great one.
I am into the vampire books occasionally. I was looking up the book Hunger by Whitney Striber. I wonder if it is any good?
Flint
I understand his reasons. I do at times feel I want to do the exact opposite of what the establishment wants me to think/do.
What I said was that the overly-specific framing of the movies attributes would make viewing the movie itself into an excercise in comparative analysis, thus a completely out-of-the-moment experience for me. It wasn't my decision to be bombarded by a rigid preconception of this movie, I am placing blame where it belongs--the decision to execute an unrelenting media blitz.
The fact that seeing a preview of the plot was such a shocking disappointment was fueled by this same level of over-hyped expectations.
I'm saying that the quality and quantity of media attention created conditions which preclude me being able to give an honest, fair chance to this movie. Again, this wasn't my decision. I am not claiming immunity to the advertsing campaign, I am saying it had consequences they did not intend.
Ok. I'm glad you explained that again, 'cause that's not how I read this:
That, and when I actually saw a preview of the movie, it looked dumb. The recently-reformed, reluctant hero fights against impossible odds to save the idyllic utopian society from being destroyed by the military-industrial, shoot-em-up bad guys? Wow. My life won’t be complete until I see how that turns out.
Tomorrow, I will go see it for a second time. First time was 3D version. Second time will be IMAX version. SonofV saw it once before I did so this will be his third tour of duty on Pandora.
The movie is a great piece of filmmaking. Like all movies, it requires a certain suspension of disbelief to enjoy. If this topic/color/method/font presents an obstacle to that suspension, you're enjoyment will be obstructed proportionally. As for the story, as for the character development, as for the realism, please. I expected to be entertained, and it exceeded my expectations. What expectations to do you have when you go to the movies?
Ok. I'm glad you explained that again, 'cause that's not how I read this:
Oh, that's an easy fix. Read the full post, not just the second part. Here:
I’m not trying to be non-conformist, I simply don’t think I can enjoy the movie when the act of watching it has been forced to be an analysis of what I am seeing on the screen versus the expectations created by an unrelenting, overly specific media campaign. The entire movie will be an out-of-the-moment experience. A meta-movie, about itself.
That, and when I actually saw a preview of the movie, it looked dumb. The recently-reformed, reluctant hero fights against impossible odds to save the idyllic utopian society from being destroyed by the military-industrial, shoot-em-up bad guys? Wow. My life won’t be complete until I see how that turns out.
See? Two different points. You are correct in noticing that if you chop the post in half, half of it will be missing.
"they" force fed you an unrelenting media campaign, Flint? maybe it's time to turn off the tv/radio/MSM for a bit. you pride yourself on your ability to think for yourself. Good. Simple negation is not thinking though. It's just the "no game". Surely, as the father of a couple toddlers you recognize it. Getting back in touch with your inner toddler Flint?
I guess I'm not explaining this very well. But anyone else that feels like preaching at me can fuck right off.
[SIZE="1"]voice from on high[/SIZE] Flint....FLINT.... Thou shall stand thy ground and not be swayed by scifi geeks! /[SIZE="1"]end voice from on high[/SIZE] :haha:
For the record I only saw/heard a handful media pieces/interviews etc. regarding this movie, but considering the extremely little exposure to media outlets I have, I thought this was an outrageous result from such a small sample size. Of note was that everything I heard was harping on the same, very specific message about what was so great about this movie. As I said, it would make watching the movie an exercise in comparing "the message" to what is happening on the screen. Constantly, as every event unfolds in the story I am supposed to be immersed in, I would be thinking "Did they execute that as described? Did they achieve the results they promised they would?" I can't un-do that, I can't un-know the things I have heard. AND, once all of this was irreversibly set in place, I actually saw a preview of the film, and... IT LOOKS DUMB AS HELL AND COMPLETELY UNAPPEALING IN ANY CONCEIVABE WAY. Now you tell me: why in God's name would I think I HAVE TO watch this movie? This is ludicrous and you can all fuck off.
:idea: Peer pressure.
No, wait, I've got it... a large breasted housemate insists. :blush:
We are going to see it in 2 hours. In 3D not IMAX. I have reservations, but I have not been to the theater in over 6 months so we will see. I would rather see Invictus.
No, wait, I've got it... a large breasted housemate insists. :blush:
Where has the large breasted housemate been lately?
Oh, that's an easy fix. Read the full post, not just the second part. Here: See? Two different points. You are correct in noticing that if you chop the post in half, half of it will be missing.
Yabbut it was the second point I had a problem with. Knowing-the-story = movie bad. I don't buy it. But I respect your right to miss a kickass scifi movie. ;)
The world needs curmudgeons too.
Hey! You kids get offa his lawn.
But I respect your right to miss a kickass scifi movie. ;)
nerdiness/It's "SF" -- NEVER "scifi"/nerdiness
Knowing-the-story = movie bad.
It wasn't so much that the story looked predictable (that's any movie, pretty much) but that the story looked
dumb.
The world needs curmudgeons too.
Hey! You kids get offa his lawn.
When I first announced "I will never see this movie." my wife said I was like a grumpy old man. But after we saw the preview, she agreed with me.
nerdiness/It's "SF" -- NEVER "scifi"/nerdiness
Don't you mean [SIZE="5"]Syfy[/SIZE]
??? :stickpoke
nerdiness/It's "SF" -- NEVER "scifi"/nerdiness
I'll see your nerdiness and raise you one geekiness. I grew up reading asimov, clarke, and heinlein. I've continued to read scifi and watch scifi throughout my life. In all my conversations with other geeks, sf and scifi have been interchangeable.
syfy is, however, completely hokey.
absolutely not to Flint. and Dar, sorry, but you've been talking to the wrong people. "Scifi" may be semi acceptable now, but it never was in the past to true fans. I believe we've talked about this before.
We may as well use the original term, scientifiction.
and Dar, sorry, but you've been talking to the wrong people.
Let's see, I hung out with the chess club & science geeks in high school. I took a semester course on science fiction when I was getting my Education degree. I went back to get a computer science degree and now work with reams of computer science geeks. And
just now you're getting around to telling me I've been hanging out with the wrong people? :D
We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't know who your people are, but my people are not as picky about nomenclature.
Forrest J Ackerman used the term "sci-fi" at UCLA in 1954.[12] As science fiction entered popular culture, writers and fans active in the field came to associate the term with low-budget, low-tech "B-movies" and with low-quality pulp science fiction.[13][14][15] By the 1970s, critics within the field such as Terry Carr and Damon Knight were using "sci-fi" to distinguish hack-work from serious science fiction,[16] and around 1978, Susan Wood and others introduced the pronunciation "skiffy". Peter Nicholls writes that "SF" (or "sf") is "the preferred abbreviation within the community of sf writers and readers".[17] David Langford's monthly fanzine Ansible includes a regular section "As Others See Us" which offers numerous examples of "sci-fi" being used in a pejorative sense by people outside the genre.[18]
from WikiP:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fiction
Maybe I'm older than you? When I was involved in organizing conventions a decade or two ago, this was the feeling.
Edit: Ha! I just looked at your profile, and not only are you older than me (by a smidgeon) but you're a male and for some reason I thought you were a female. You certainly have more geek/nerd credentials than I do, but I was always taught not to use "scifi" when I was actively involved in fandom.
You are both incredibly geeky because you are actually having a discussion about this...:D
Edit: Ha! I just looked at your profile, and not only are you older than me (by a smidgeon) but you're a male and for some reason I thought you were a female.
Well damn. (Not directed at you Cloud). This is not the first time that mistake has been made.
The difference might be that I've never been to a convention. The convention types might be more avid.
Some are here for the wine, some for the bottle.
I'm here for the fisticuffs.
avid. maybe "rabid" would be a better description!
<whistles nonchalantly>
You're not fooling anybody, missy. :D
avid. maybe "rabid" would be a better description!
Awesome movie, but Horror, not SF nor SciFi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RabidWOW! What a movie. One of the best in Special Effects I have enjoyed since LOTR. A must see for anyone. You have to see this in 3d or IMAX to really appreciate it. Don't miss this one.
Never! And I shall picket out in front of the theater!
so much negativity. :headshake you're going to be reborn as a guinea pig. in South America.
Well, I'm locked in to IMAX King of Prussia
http://www.fandango.com/uakingofprussiastadium1626imax_aaoqp/theaterpage?date=1/16/2010
on Sat Jan 16th for the 2:50 show. We'll be there with friends. If anyone from the Cellar wants to show up, buy your tickets early.
WOW! What a movie. One of the best in Special Effects I have enjoyed since LOTR. A must see for anyone. You have to see this in 3d or IMAX to really appreciate it. Don't miss this one.
Dude, I'm going to see it in 3D
and IMAX. If I don't get sick to my stomach during the flight scenes, I'm going to ask for my money back.;):sick:
I grew up reading asimov, clarke, and heinlein.
Wrong, those people never grow up. :headshake
btw,
here's what the theaters look like after they showed avatar.
Wrong, those people never grow up. :headshake
True enough. Ketchup bottles making farty noises can make me laugh until I cry. Darlet #2 comments, "Daddy, you're such a
boy".
Shouldn't they be "Petelet" #1 and #2 now? Or Ziclets? :)
Shouldn't they be "Petelet" #1 and #2 now? Or Ziclets? :)
True enough. I don't really care for Petelet. I kind of liked darlet 'cause it sounded a little like starlet. Does Ziclet sound enough like Chick-let? I'll have to give it some thought.
Well if you shorten pizzicato, but end it with an a so their gender is clear, you get... pizzas! :)
Either sausage or anchovy. ;)
Dude, I'm going to see it in 3D and IMAX. If I don't get sick to my stomach during the flight scenes, I'm going to ask for my money back.;):sick:
Is that even possible? The only IMAX I have seen was Flight at the museum.
I enjoyed Dances with Flying Lizards.
Visually, I think it was one of the most amazing movies I have ever seen.
t-s and I went to IMAX 3-D.
Storywise, meh.
And I have some science problems.
But, it's so pretty I am absolutely willing to see it again.
Even if it is rated PG-13 for smoking.
Tickets are already sold out for IMAX 3-D this weekend, however, t-s and I may end up going to the regular 3-D show that runs around the same time so that we can join the Levys (darn, how do you make a plural of that?? Levies doesn't look right either) for dinner.
Oh, and you won't puke from the flying, rich. They shot it in such a way that it's not 1st person perspective, and the swoops are done with sufficient point of reference to require special cleanup in the theaters. There IS a scene very near the beginning where you'll feel lightheaded, but it passes quickly.
I loved the tree pods floating everywhere. It was a great visual.
I agree on the story line. Funny how so many groups are now making political whoo-ha out of it. Relax people. It's just a frigging movie with a mild message.
I finally saw it last night. Regular theater in 3D.
I had heard how unoriginal the story was, and it's true. But it kept my interest and was exciting. Formulaic stories are formulaic for a reason. They work.
The experience of watching this movie was amazing. Absolutely stunning.
I had no problems with the 3D and motion sickness or anything like that. They did a very good job with the 3D. I felt like I was on the planet with them. Watching the movie was like being in a really cool and really vivid dream.
My recommendation, if you haven't seen it, is to go see this movie in 3D in a theater, but keep your expectations low. Because it sucks. (See what I did there? I'm trying to lower your expectations. It's actually good.)
I am soooo looking forward to seeing it in IMAX 3D. Yes, my expectations are pretty high. Nice try Glatt, but I'm too psyched up for this.:D
With the Fandango fee, it comes to $18 a ticket. The theater reserves the right to deny you service if they refund the 'full ticket price'. If, heaven forbid, they do that to me they had better make it $18 and not $15. Since they know how many Fandango tickets were sold, I'm assuming they can't overbook.
It was pretty good. We got there just before the movie started and the only seats were up front. On the bad side this meant I missed some action on the sides. On the good side it filled my peripheral vision so it was a pretty immersive experience.
I did not get motion sickness, but Mrs. Levy did. She had to leave the movie after about an hour.
Wolf already saw Avatar, but we met for dinner. It was great to see her again in real time.
Tester and I went to see Book of Eli since we couldn't get tickets for Avatar IMAX 3D. We would have happily seen it again otherwise.
It was awesome to spend time with the Levy family!!
Thinking of going this weekend to the IMAX 3D. However, my brother is advising against it. I get motion sickness easily so I'm thinking of not taking the risk of getting dizzy. Avatar in regular theater screen should be good too, right? Anyone seen it NOT in 3D?
I saw a 3D movie at an amusement park years ago, and almost threw up, it made me so sick. So I was a little nervous when I went to see Avatar in 3D. I had absolutely no problems at all. They do a good job with the 3D.
Thinking of going this weekend to the IMAX 3D. However, my brother is advising against it. I get motion sickness easily so I'm thinking of not taking the risk of getting dizzy. Avatar in regular theater screen should be good too, right? Anyone seen it NOT in 3D?
I did. I enjoyed it.
Just eat lots of anchovies and Limburger before you go. ;)
Just eat lots of anchovies and Limburger before you go. ;)
I almost asked if they're supposed to help reduce motion sickness. :o
They sure take movie statistics to a new level these days.
Check out some of the stats they have on Avatar. Looks like they need an entire staff of people to keep track of these things.
http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=avatar.htmSaw the movie in digital 3D today. Very nice! I ate lunch before going to the movies but didn't eat any anchovies or Limburger. :p I was very surprised how nice the 3D was and was glad that I choose to watch the movie in 3D although I'm sure the regular view would've been nice too.
What the hell kind of stupid evolution causes everything to have two of everything? Was that the most "different" thing they could think of? Giving everything two of everything?
You're not usin' your brains! I had some other complaints but I forgot what they were. The font didn't bother me once.
two of everything? like . . . arms, ears, eyes, legs, sexes?
Everything had multiple PAIRS of eyes, front legs, wings, if I recall correctly. I imagine that they would like to explain this as coming from a common ancestor, but it occurred in so many different types of species that this stupid and pointless feature would have had to survive simultaneously in every type of animal in the world during all the millions of years that they differentiated from some common ancestor that had a useless feature, for some reason, in the first place. Oh, and all the competing lifeforms that didn't waste valuable resources on redundant parts (that add no functionality) would've been more successful and beat out all of the useless, extra-legged animals easily, or at least a majority of the time. There couldn't be a "planet-wide" reason for poor design, it doesn't work that way. Nature doesn't get "cool ideas" the way a graphic designer does.
Also, the flying things had fins on their heads that would've broken their neck if they turned their heads while flying.
All Earth vertebrates come from an animal with four limbs. The only group that I can think of that doesn't have them anymore is snakes. What bugged me evolution-wise is that the Na'vi didn't have any of the features that the other creatures had (except the brain-tentacles). I guess they're Pandora's version of snakes, except in addition to missing limbs, they lost eyes and breathing-holes too.
I thought at one point they showed the Na'vi breathing holes. But I admittedly wasn't paying much attention.
There were a LOT of vertebrate body plans on scenic Pandora. Hexapodal and tetrapodal all over the place.
I suppose the reason the antigravity metal didn't get called Cavorite in that universe went something like this at the boardroom:
It's an antigravity mineral that makes useful alloys. It's cavorite!
Nah, the Burroughs estate's legal people object -- and they've got it pretty well sewn up.
Well, shit... what'll we call it then? Unobtainium?
Um... you know that's a materials-science joke, right?
Yeah, yeah. But. Any better ideas?
And on that note, the meeting breaks up.