Avatar Dec. 18th IMAX 3D Second Trailer

@Lightwizard,

But what did you think of it on screen? You have seen it I hope. You are in sothern cal?? Gotta do the IMAX.

0 Replies

@Lightwizard,

Quote:

I think Cameron is already celebrating.

The trilogy is a green light, you can be sure. I think that he is contractually obligated to another picture first though.

Word is that IMAX was a 99% sellout world wide, though my showing was mostly empty. It was up on Fandago, but Yahoo never put up the showtime. It must have been added Friday.

Cameron is going to go down as one of the greats now.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

He was already well respected even though he told many people in Hollywood privately that he was a still a little embarrassed blurting out "I'm the King of the World" accepting the Oscar for "Titanic" (it was probably appropriate but still a bit corny, while in the film it fit the character). There's a bit of envy in Hollywood over his Renaissance Man persona (he's as comfortable diving down to the Titanic as he is sitting in a director's chair). He's actually quite shy and has to pump up his confidence to even show up at talk show to promote his films. He's got one of those "secret egos" that you can't quite put your finger on -- something like Tesla. But this film could end up being the second biggest money-maker under "Titanic" and that would further insure his standing in Hollywood history. He was already lauded after the row of films, "Aliens," "Terminator II," and "True Lies" as the "King of the Action Flick," but taking so long between movies, we all forget how good he really is. He's a task master on the set but those that work under him still like him, cranky OCD and all. The DVD, I am banking on, will be an Extended Cut at about three hours, time for more of the quiet moments which, in "Avatar," were really some of the best scenes. Okay, the romance did get me searching for a Kleenex -- I confess. It was just very touching and I refuse to be embarrassed myself!

1 Reply

BTW, I saw "Ghosts of the Titanic" at an IMAX and I think it's one of his best efforts.

0 Replies

@Lightwizard,

Quote:

But this film could end up being the second biggest money-maker under "Titanic"

I expect it to do better, because it will sell better globally than Titanic, and because we are living through scary times so people need the escape (see depression history).

This movie has an anti western, anti capitalism message that resonates strongly and deeply in much of the global population now. A lot of people will eat up this movie for the message , and the geeky guys who spend a lot of money at movies will go again and again in a way they have not since star wars because you can not watch the same movie at home...it has to be 3D, and should be IMAX. Even the girl will like this flick, go a few times with the guys and at least once with her.

0 Replies

the internet says that 78% of American pre-sales are to men, which is too high for Titanic type numbers in the long run. However FOX is saying that globally the film did very well with women, and also much better with men in their 30's then action films normally do, so they have every confidence that this film has huge legs.

it is also pointed out that fox gets to pad the books with a 3D charge to the customer, and with IMAX rates which Titanic did not have. This movie is huge in IMAX, as has been pointed out. I paid $15 a pop.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

you also have to realize that there will be flux in numbers as prices of movies when Titanic came out.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

I think the artistic fantasy elements will really help the film also. It's like the Disney movie Disney never made (except for the message). This is, of course, what a film critics once stated about "ET." There was an anti-government (especially secret agencies) in that film also but it wasn't the purpose of the film. Appealing to what childlike sense of wonder we still have in our sub-conscious as adults, Cameron knows how to tap into it and he's just gotten better at it. Sequels? This is one film I'm wondering how he's going to top himself with a sequel -- more than one, even more of a challenge. If he had a story to base this on, like LOTR (which, at one time, Jackson had considered doing in one film and New Line Cinema nudged him into making three movies at basically the same time for annual release, the same as the books had come out), it's possible, but that's a lot of work! Is Cameron up to it?

2 Replies

@Seed,

"Titanic" actually began rather slowly, nothing like this film, but I'd like to see more comparisons corrected for inflation. It's hard to find the statistics on how many people actually see a film, not just the $$$.

0 Replies

@Lightwizard,

Preliminary Box Office Numbers:

Quote:

1 Avatar (2009) $73M $73M
2 The Princess and the Frog (2009) $12.2M $44.8M
3 The Blind Side (2009) $10M $165M
4 Did You Hear About the Morgans? (2009) $7M $7M
5 New Moon (2009) $4.37M $275M
6 Invictus (2009) $4.17M $15.8M
7 A Christmas Carol (2009) $3.42M $131M
8 Up in the Air (2009/I) $3.1M $8.11M
9 Brothers (2009/I) $2.63M $22.1M
10 Old Dogs (2009/I) $2.29M $43.6M

1 Reply

@Lightwizard,

Quote:

Sequels? This is one film I'm wondering how he's going to top himself with a sequel

the core cast is signed for all three movies. It is a sure thing based upon this week-end numbers.

Quote:

like LOTR (which, at one time, Jackson had considered doing in one film and New Line Cinema nudged him into making three movies at basically the same time for annual release, the same as the books had come out), it's possible, but that's a lot of work! Is Cameron up to it?

the bulk of the sets are virtual here, I dont think that there was any need to build much physically.

The main question would be who does the digital work...Industrial light and magic had to come in and save the day this time, and having two companies work on the same movie is a huge pain in the ass.

0 Replies

@tsarstepan,

It's the most successful 3-D IMAX opening of all time -- we only have three theaters in the OC. I went to a matinee and there was a line -- but, of course, that's across from Disneyland, so, duh, what would one expect?

0 Replies

Did they make this movie in a non-3D format? I was under the impression that they did not.

1 Reply

@Seed,

As far as I know, the release to theaters that are 2D occurred at the same time, December 18th. Go to www.fandango.com to find theaters that are not IMAX, and the 2D was not simultaneously shot but a process which fits the wider ratio screens which is a digitally merge of the left and right image required for 3D. I'd really have to to some research to find out if this is 100% true, but I did read it at one time -- however, several months ago.

The screen ratio of IMAX's huge screens is actually close to the aspect ratio 4.3 which is like a vintage movie or the standard TV screen that is not a new 16.9 wide screen HD. On the wide flat screens, I would have to think it would be Super Panavision 2.35:1 (in other words, over 2 1/3 times wider than the image is in height), although some of the larger theaters can project up to 2.65:1. Whether you're losing some image at the top and bottom or gaining image on the sides, I'm going to say that you loose the top and bottom of the IMAX image and it was shot to not have anything but peripheral image in those areas. So, more jungle, sky, outer space, interior space ship, or whatever is in the scene as a background.

4.3 is, of course, 4 units wide by 3 units in height, so about 25% wider.

1 Reply

@Lightwizard,

Hmm, interesting. Stupid question. If you watch a 3D movie without the glasses it is blurry right?

So as there is no confusion on my side of things. There was a version of the movie shot where you did not have to have 3d glasses to watch it? I was under the impression that it was not releases in 2d and only in 3d.

2 Replies

@Seed,

the way I understand it the contract states that in metro areas with 3D projection screens the movie MUST be shown only in 3D. About half of the world wide screens with the film are 3D, the rest are 2D. I assume the most of the DVD and otherwise digitized versions of the movie will also be in 2D.

2 Replies

@Seed,

The new glasses are pretty comfortable and yes, you will see a double image without them. The 3-D effect is not intrusive -- rather than using it as a gimmick, Cameron used it as if the film were a documentary.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

You're right -- that will be loosened up as the film reaches more screens. Exit polls and interviews with moviegoers showed what Cameron and the studio hoped for -- many people are going back to see it more than one time, even three or four times! It's like the first "Star Wars" phenomena where people would keep inviting other people to go with them to see the film again. I am going to go out on a limb and state that the film will be at more than 1 billion box office by the end of January. Cameron put everything he had into this film -- sequels, I'm not sure about, but this film maker has broken records and amazed the industry before.

1 Reply

@Lightwizard,

I am also hoping that there is some pent-up demand for doing something new....reward for the risk taker. As Cameron says here http://www.slate.com/id/2239171
all of the other major action movies are next generation of old franchises/story lines. Cameron in the only one who has done a new concept. That, plus his next generation of Computer created film should be enough to keep people interested and motivated to see it again, and again.

I am going in a few days again, when my eldest gets back from Europe. You can be damn sure that we will be seeing it in the IMAX form.

Quote:

Cameron: But they've also lost the courage to make, frankly, a movie like Avatar, which is a blockbuster-scaled movie not based on prior arc. All the blockbusters of the last four years, like Transformers, Harry Potter, Spider-Man"they're all films based on other films or part of a franchise. The idea of making a film of that scale that's a unique piece has been lost. In the meantime, we have all these increases in technology. And there's no clear way to pay for these blockbuster movies in the old traditional way. It's not clear that the technology will come down in price in the near future.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

I went on opening day and there was 1 IMAX showing 3D and 4 theaters showing 3D non-IMAX and probably 5 theaters showing the 2D version. It was released in both formats all at once. I saw it in 3D and didn't like it, though I rarely do. The movie was fine, but I'll have to watch it in 2D.

0 Replies

Avatar Dec. 18th IMAX 3D Second Trailer

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know