Avatar Dec. 18th IMAX 3D Second Trailer

This actually makes me pretty happy. My friend didn't really want to go see it. Mostly he didn't want to pay the extra money for IMAX or for 3d. So now I can get him to go see it in 2d with me. And I'll just go see it in 3d/IMAX on my own.

I am going to be making an hour and a half drive to see it in IMAX in the coming weeks. This was one of the better movies I have seen. Cameron definitely deserves the accolades for this movie.

I've repeated this so many times here an on other forums -- Cameron's imagination and inventiveness in creating an almost entirely new world, not just pulling ideas from sci-fi but also from fantasy. His imagination soared in this endeavor and it it doesn't do the same for the movie goers like Ed Koch, who saw fit to write an ill-written pan of the film in The Atlantic blog based on it "trying to make him feel guilty" about racism and, in particular, our treatment of the American Indians (once identified as "the ignoble savage"). What a prick -- he was likely one of the idiots who praised "Independence Day" for it's militaristic patriotism. Made me wonder if The Atlantic hasn't gone to the dogs as an intelligent journal. That's how it began!

There must be something wrong with me, the more I think about it, the less I like this movie. It's been a few days since I've seen it now and I find that it sticks in my mind like a cartoon and is fairly unmemorable.

I suppose I'll go see it again in 2D just to see if it's less distracting than the 3D. I hope the movie does well so that it boosts the likelihood of more sci-fi movies, but I don't think this movie deserves to be a "landmark" in any way other than its 3D production techniques.

I'm right there with you ros.

Someone asked me what the most memorable part of the movie was besides the visuals; and I didn't have an answer. The visuals were great, no doubt, but you need more to a movie than that.

It's not a "stick-to-your-ribs" story -- adds practically zero to anyone who is science oriented, except the animation computer science aspect. It's a huge leap forward in CGI and there are "how-the-did-that" short videos at the movie's own site www.avatar.com and all over the Internet. Yes, I can remember reading sci-fi in high school and college -- I joined the Sci-Fi book club and was a member for years, subscribed to Astounding (Analog) Science Fiction, Galaxy, The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, and would hound the bookstores on Hollywood Blvd. for the latest or back issues of science fiction magazines, second-hand books, et al. I was very involved with sci-fi fandom and the World Science Fiction Convention, the WesterCon, and many other functions. Have I read this story before? I think I already stated that -- it's nothing new for me. There are many who have a passing interest in sci-fi only because of movies and TV -- they've never read a word of it, least of all the classics. The exit interviews and what I've read online, most movie goers were moved in some way by the characters and story. However, it certainly wasn't a soap opera even it was a space opera (so are the "Star Wars" and "Star Trek" movies). This movie wasn't made for us, so going to see it is whether it provided about three hours of entertainment. Is it of the caliber of 2001, The Day the Earth Stood Still, Blade Runner, Dark City, and really only a handful of sci-fi films with some thematic depth -- no. But compare it to the action thriller genre of the past twenty or thirty years, it's one of the best. Trying to fit it into the history of films strictly as a sci-fi or fantasy film is like trying to put a square peg into a round hole.

It's a vast improvement over that dog, "Terminator IV."

Don't get me wrong LW, I enjoyed myself overall. I'll see the movie again in theaters (in 2D, maybe even a 3rd time in IMAX).

I just don't think this is something I'll pick up on Blu-Ray, unless I feel the need to show off a new TV or something.

Next year, the first 3-D capable HD TV's will become available in the U.S. (they are, of course, already available in Japan and some other countries). It's still with the glasses (which is what they've released in "3-D" versions of Blu-Ray DVD of films like "Journey to the Center of the Earth" and it's pretty lame "technology"), but I doubt a whole flock of consumers are not going to race out and replace their old HD TV's for the 3-D models.

The Cameron filmmaking philosophy of putting some element in the film to please young and old, male and female is really only wholly successful for Cameron. That's what made "Titanic" the highest grossing film of all time, but I think it now has some competition! It's almost like he's thinking "quality over substance," but then why would he evoke reactions out of such right-wingers as Lou Dobbs and others that the film is leftist patronizing of the idea that we should, basically, accept people who are alien to us. This includes xenophobia, racism, outright genocide, ethnic cleansing and the whole banana. My, my, the right-wing has become so touchy, they're like the Princess and the Pea. When "Independence Day" was release, they were all enthused at the message -- America will conquer all! Isn't this the kind of mentality that's put us where we are today? I applaud Cameron for shoving the left idealism in their face. They could stand some humanizing -- Dobbs was always about as exciting to watch as paint drying anyway.

Yeah, I'm not sure how I feel about this technology coming out. I'm in the market for a new 50in TV and was considering waiting to buy a 3-D TV and I just don't think it's something I'll even enjoy. I can watch a 3D movie at the theater because that is the activity I'm focused on at the time, but at home, watching TV, I'm usually doing several other things at the same time. TV and home movie viewing is much more passive than active (for me) and I don't think I'd enjoy the home 3D experience because of that.

I could use some advice on TV purchasing though, if you have any.

Yes, I admit to multi-tasking. I've got the laptop on a special table that rolls around in front of the sofa with the big-screen TV on in the background. If it's something I really want to watch, I save it for the evening when I get off the Internet. Or, I'm always hitting the replay button as most of the shows I watch during the day are recorded on the DVR. I always seem to be going back to catch something I missed on Jon Stewart!

My advice -- why invest in something there's not going to be any software or programming for until that TV is ready to be replaced? I held out on Blu-Ray until six months ago, but I will admit the upscaling of the 420p standard DVD works really well and on some movies or other videos, I might not appreciate the difference with a new Blu-Ray disc anyway (like old movies).

I just wonder how they process IMAX which is a different ratio from the home 16.9? The documentaries I have, I likely don't notice that a bit of the top and bottom of the picture are gone, as they don't put black bars on the right and left hand side to retain the full IMAX image.

Even with 16.9, you still see many movies on cable and DVD are letterboxed to give you and approximate Panavision ratio (only the DVD of "Titanic" gives me a full Super Panavision image, but at the sacrifice of the resolution). With Blu-Ray, it's no big deal if some resolution is lost on letterboxing. Blu-Ray discs and the players have dropped dramatically in the past three months (I presume to punch up DVD sales for the holidays which has been lagging while the box office has actually risen 6% this year).

I have some questions:

1. Is energy an issue? (it will be as the government puts more caps on how much energy is used up by all appliances).

2. Do you have a Blu-Ray player or plan to purchase one with the set?

3. Do you have a surround receiver and 5 speakers?

Oh, and what format (LCD, Plasma, rear-projection) and brand is your present big screen?

I thought it'd be a good idea for tagging if we made our own thread. I'll move your questions over there.


http://able2know.org/topic/139462-1

Sorry I lost track of that thread. Honestly, my meter wasn't running so this is totally free advice.

You probably already know your Hitachi is out dated and there are no manufacturers making a rear-projection CRT, although I had a Mitsubishi that was still as good as the best plasma (Panasonic would be my choice) except that despite being very careful and having the CRT guns replaced after 2-1/2 years because of side-bar burn-in (which should plainly have not happened in that short a time). CRT's start deteriorating after 10,000 hours and begin to turn an amber brown slowly, so that one doesn't really notice it as they are turning up the contrast and brightness to compensate. That overdrives the guns and increases the fading picture quality. My Mitsubishi finally had a major main board failure (no picture, no sound) and was too expensive to even consider repairing. So I shopped around and replaced it with the Sony W series LCD, which, for $ 999.00 from Amazon (they even beat out my own firm I was consulting for in audio/video design). The W series was being replaced (it was one level up from the V series marketed at Target, Walmart, etc.) It's a great LCD and uses a lot less energy than my old CRT.

The top-of-the-line Sony Bravia is 52" (it looks like Sony has dropped 50" screen size):

http://www.amazon.com/Sony-BRAVIA-KDL-52XBR9-52-Inch-1080p/dp/B001VFMA5Q/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1261522087&sr=1-1

Keep in mind that these XBR Sony TV's use almost as much energy as plasma, so I would go Panasonic plasma before I would go Sony as it's still the best picture on the market.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001UAEWUS/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_2?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=B000F4CTUK&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1JK91VC4RWW737G71QAC

The new Panasonic plasma would use less energy than your CRT, but not as much as an intermediate SONY LCD (not XBR).

I vacillated myself between the Panasonic and the SONY I purchased and it was the energy savings that tipped me over the line, including a lot less heat generated into the room. They've pretty much solved any burn-in from side bars or fixed images on plasma although I would still zoom or stretch any 4:3 images.
Almost every channel is now offering an HD transmission even to the last hold-outs like USA, AMC and others (I'm waiting with baited breathe for TCM).

Another $16.4 million in the pot from the US alone on a MONDAY!......this movie is going to do well.
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=61787

I guess one of the big disappointments for me is that every time I close my eyes and remember the film is just seems like a damn cartoon. It doesn't even remotely feel like I watched live actors or saw live animals or plants.

I thought the whole point of super-cgi was to produce something realistic, not something ultra-colorful and cartoon-like. I'm gonna have to watch this thing again in 2D to make sure it wasn't just the 3D that made it seem cartoonish.

You're stuck in Pixar which is several notches below the CGI motion capture of this film and there are "live" actor portions in the film. There are no real life forms as depicted in the film, although Cameron gave a nod to evolution by extrapolating what all this would look like with natural selection taking some major lefthand turns on Pandora -- you didn't really expect an essentially fantasy movie to look entirely credible (although he's come quite close). The aliens are only vaguely humanoid. Most of the critics stressed to see this film in 3-D as it was more realistic. The purpose of the world Cameron created was not to look "realistic," but totally alien. I thought the motion was fluid and although it had the look of stop motion photography (unavoidable, really), compared to the original "King Kong," a whole new technique in creating a real world (not realistic by the standard of anything on Earth, plant or animal). I thought that was the whole point. What "cartoon" does this look like -- Donald Duck, or the Road Runner, or possibly Sleeping Beauty?

Hey, I'm just tellin it the way I saw it. Just my opinion.

Maybe I just expected more. To me, "revolutionary" is when you can create an artificial world and make it look realistic. And no, I don't think it was close. It's probably the best that's ever been done, but it's still a long way off from being able to fool my senses into "feeling" like I'm looking at a real environment. When they can do that, then I'll be impressed.

I thought Beowulf came pretty close to fooling my senses at times. There was a Final Fantasy movie that looked more realistic, I think.

Those were the two that came to my mind as comparisons as well. To me, Avatar was distinctly better than those two for rendering and realistic movement. But if cartoons are a 1 and reality is a 10, then Final Fantasy was a 3 and Avatar was a 5. With all the hype, I guess I was hoping Avatar would be closer to a 9.

I couldn't discern much difference between the Na'vi and Gollum in Return of the King, as far as realism is concerned. And Return of the King had a much better story.

I haven't seen FF recently enough to remember how well it looked.

Beowulf though I thought looked extremely realisitic, the exception being the movement of the characters. If you had the motion capture of Avatar and the realistic CGI of Beowulf I think it would have been closer to an 8.