[sek929]

What is the appeal of 3D? Other than it being kinda neat what does it actually add to the movie experience? I'll tell you, NOTHING.

Also, here in the stix, the closest (and only) 3D theater is 45 minutes away, and it sucks.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by sek929 

What is the appeal of 3D? Other than it being kinda neat what does it actually add to the movie experience? I'll tell you, NOTHING.

Also, here in the stix, the closest (and only) 3D theater is 45 minutes away, and it sucks.

No, no, you haven't been doing the math!!1 There's only one theater in starman's area playing it in 2D. Tons others in 3D.

[sek929]

Makes sense, I was always bad at math.

However, I can safely say that 2D is one less D than 3D.

[The Final Dakar]

I'm interested in 36D.

[downinflames68]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I'm interested in 36D.

Heh. I see my gf in 34D all the time.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

You mean a space western?

Nah, that'd never work.

Damn those bastards at FOX.

[downinflames68]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Damn those bastards at FOX.

Firefly, right? I just started watching that show because the SO is like super crazy about it. It is pretty hilarious. I dig it.

[sek929]

It's an amazing show that was on the most unfortunate of networks.

[starman]

Yes, it's one review, but it's someone who generally sh*ts on movies that screw it all up.

Avatar :: rogerebert.com :: Reviews

[downinflames68]

Neat. Too bad the main characters still look like bad sketches on Deviantart.

[Chuckit]

Sketches with that level of detail would hardly be "bad."

[reader50]

Encouraging - Ebert is no pushover for the studios. I don't always agree with him on movies, but his opinions are worth reading. Beware spoilers.

[Rev-O]

Originally Posted by reader50 

Encouraging - Ebert is no pushover for the studios. I don't always agree with him on movies, but his opinions are worth reading. Beware spoilers.

Ebert had the best review of Transformers 2. The first paragraph makes me laugh.

Aside from being another luddite fantasy, Avatar looks to me to be a very interesting movie. For no other reason than I am a sucker for epic sci-fi, fantasy, and horror stuff.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by starman 

Yes, it's one review, but it's someone who generally sh*ts on movies that screw it all up.

Avatar :: rogerebert.com :: Reviews

Originally Posted by Roger Ebert

It has a flat-out Green and anti-war message.

Yeah I'll wait for DVD.

[Hawkeye_a]

I didn't like it.

<some spoilers ahead>

As far as special effects with humanoid characters, the uncanny valley was too obvious. (Golum from Lotr was better imo).The foliage and other creatures, on the other hand were, great. Only one scene in the entire movie made an impression on me, the one where the chick rescues the dude from those alien-wolves (when they first meet). The emotions, animations, subtlety and attention to detail in that scene wsere great.

The story seemed........ all too familiar and cliche. It totally reminded me of Disney's Atlantis(animated) (and to a lesser extent Dances With Wolves). The "acting", script, etc.....were too contemporary-casual imo, and i found that annoying.

What bugged me the most about the movie were the stereotypes and/or racial divide. Somehow, from the beginning, i got the distinct vibe that the aliens were based off native american/african tribes; not just clothes and appearance, but even the way they talked and moved, and lo and behold...the entire cast for the aliens are "non-white" (except for the hero..... of course). I've never been one for political correctness n all that, but that divide through the movie just made me uncomfortable. And then there's the typical scientist/hippie vs the gung-ho "red neck" military type..... that sort of stuff bugs the heck out of me.

In the end, i wished i could get those 3 hours back. This movie is to sci-fi what Titanic was to dramas.... and i don't mean that in a good way.

The special effects were good, maybe even great.... but the very familiar story, poor script and use of racial stereotypes/mannerisms (believe me, jarJar seemed PC when compared to this movie, imo) made this a must miss for me. It's almost like the same formula that was used to make Titanic was used here........ same calibre acting and script, same composer(James Horner, whose work i do like), big/huge production, predictable romance, etc....annoying.

[The Final Dakar]

Did you see it in 3D?

[Hawkeye_a]

Yeah i did. The only other movie i've seen in 3D is Up, and it's still the best example of the format/technology imo.

This movie was "entertaining" in the same way Titanic was entertaining. It's just not my kind of movie, too predictable, too cliche', too average in the "stuff" that matters in movies(to me).

[Eug]

Hmm... I saw Titanic and was pleasantly surprised... in that I didn't hate it. I thought I would hate it, but in the end thought it was OK, nothing more... which is why I'm still flabbergasted it made so much frickin' money.

I hope you're wrong about Avatar, because I'm actually looking forward to it. If it is just OK, that would be a major let down.

[torsoboy]

What I hate about "3D" is that I have to wear their stupid glasses over top of my existing glasses. And they charge more for watching it. And it really isn't much different from the 2D versions of the same movie.

If the 3D was an effect that came built into the screen, I would probably like it more.

Oh, and the math around here is about 1 3D screen for every 7 non 3D.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

What I hate about "3D" is that I have to wear their stupid glasses over top of my existing glasses.

That, and the existing implementations give me headaches. Not severe ones, but I don't go to movies to get headaches.

That's why I'm still debating whether or not I should bother with Avatar in 3D.

P.S. I saw Up in 3D, and really didn't appreciate the 3D-ness of it. I would have been much happier with the 2D version, since I would have avoided the mild headache I got from watching Up in 3D. In fact, the reason I didn't go see Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs at all was because the friends I would have gone with wanted to see the 3D version.

[Chuckit]

I saw Avatar in 3D on the crap Comic-Con overhead screens, and it looked OK even there. And I say this as someone who usually finds 3D movies headachy and annoying. So I think people who have been put off by 3D before might be more comfortable with this one.

[mdc]

I watched this at the IMAX in 3D last night and I really enjoyed it.

I liked that the 3D wasn't used in a cheap way to throw objects at your face but rather to give the movie depth. I'd like to watch it again and, if I can convince the person I'm going with, I'd like to watch the 2D version to see what that's like.

[Eug]

The 3D IMAX version was sold out so I'm just gonna see the 3D non-IMAX version instead. I'm in the theatre now.

PS These guys at Scotia downtown Toronto are not very organized. We stood outside for 20 minutes only to be told that Avatar was sold out even before the doors opened. So we bought tix for tomorrow only to find out later that actually the non-IMAX versions had lots of tix avail so we had to go back and get a tix exchange. And half the customers didn't even know it was 3D because there was nobody distributing the glasses. People has to go out again to find a service desk to get the glasses.

[Wiskedjak]

I'd be interested to see if the 3D version adds any entertainment value over the 2D version. So far, I haven't seen a movie where 3D was worth the inflated ticket price.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by Eug 

The 3D IMAX version was sold out so I'm just gonna see the 3D non-IMAX version instead. I'm in the theatre now.

PS These guys at Scotia downtown Toronto are not very organized. We stood outside for 20 minutes only to be told that Avatar was sold out even before the doors opened. So we bought tix for tomorrow only to find out later that actually the non-IMAX versions had lots of tix avail so we had to go back and get a tix exchange. And half the customers didn't even know it was 3D because there was nobody distributing the glasses. People has to go out again to find a service desk to get the glasses.

While you're doing that I'm the organized guy who bought his tickets online yesterday for that 3D show tomorrow you mentioned has lots of tickets left.

[Eug]

Yeah the guy we were going with said he was getting tix but didn't.

A lot of the initial human dialogue was very one dimensional ironically but the blue world imagery was quite spectacular. The war was better action than most too. 3D not necessary and at the beginning esp. was like watching a CRT at too low a refresh rate.

EDIT:

Now that I'm home I can give a bit more of a review. (No real spoilers.)

Overall I enjoyed the movie and fact I think it's one the better ones I've seen this year. That said, I went in without high expectations in terms of plot.

It was an extremely well crafted movie, with a gorgeous and fantastical other world, but there were really very few storytelling surprises. The story was very, very mainstream, and several spots in the movie I thought "I wonder if they'll use this as a plot device later on" and yep, they did. My comment on one dimensional characters was such that at the beginning of the movie I was quite disappointed. The acting by human military guys and scientists seemed quite shallow and wooden, and it actually reminded me of Starship Troopers in tone. Furthermore, I've just read Hawkeye's review now about the racial stereotypes, and that stood out to me too. I felt like I was watching blue versions of native North American Indian-Africans. In fact, some of them even sorta of spoke like that... in English though. Oh and, they bang you over the head repeatedly with the green-gooey-goodness morality too and it does grate a bit.

So, like I said, I did really enjoy this movie, but probably did because I didn't expect much depth to the plot. If you see it, you should go in with the attitude like you're seeing a Disney movie, and enjoy it for its well done very mainstream storytelling, and even more so on its other merits such as the beautifully created fantasy world.

Oh and if you have the least bit of annoyance with 3D-ified movies, then you may as well skip the 3D version of it. If you like 3D, then see it in 3D.

[11011001]

It was what it was, ridonkulously great. It had a green message. However, I didn't get the anti-war message that everyone else got.

 

For instance, the Na'vi were bent on going to war, while Jake is begging them not to fight. If anything it promotes violence for the sake of environmentalism. Yeah, not much of a spoiler.

I hope there is a documentary on the making of the movie. I'd also love to read any of the papers associated with the tech.

[Eug]

By the way, the Cameron style of depiction of fantasy war battles is way better than the Bay style. With Cameron's Avatar, the cinematography is grand and wide, so you can actually follow what's happening.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

So this movie was shot ALL in IMAX right? So technically this is the first feature length film that is? Not to mention IMAX 3D on top of it.

What will the resolution be when it comes out on BR? 1:85?

[starman]

IMDB puts the ratio at 2.35:1 for the printed version, 1.78:1 for the IMAX version. I'm guessing 2.35:1 for BR.

[mdc]

Originally Posted by 11011001 

I hope there is a documentary on the making of the movie. I'd also love to read any of the papers associated with the tech.

There is a ten minute video on hulu which talks about the making of it. I must warn that there are spoilers in this video.

Making a Scene: Avatar. < Spoilers.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by me

3D not necessary and at the beginning esp. was like watching a CRT at too low a refresh rate.

I just read that Cameron thinks 24 fps is too slow for 3D since strobing is too obvious. However, Avatar was shot at 24 fps anyway, presumably because of cost issues and practicality.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by starman 

IMDB puts the ratio at 2.35:1 for the printed version, 1.78:1 for the IMAX version. I'm guessing 2.35:1 for BR.

I remember the IMAX scenes in Dark Knight were in 1:85 and I liked it like that so I hope it's the same for Avatar.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by MacinTommy 

Does anyone else think this movie looks Halo-ish?

sure it does, b/c Halo takes a lot from Aliens, and this does too. Lots of current future-war references borrow from Cameron on either Aliens or the Terminator series, just as he borrowed from sources such as Starship Troopers (the book).

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Eug 

I've just read Hawkeye's review now about the racial stereotypes, and that stood out to me too. I felt like I was watching blue versions of native North American Indian-Africans.

Have I arrived in a parallel universe where American Indians and Africans are the same thing or even remotely related? (I mean, unless you were going for "human.")

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Have I arrived in a parallel universe where American Indians and Africans are the same thing or even remotely related? (I mean, unless you were going for "human.")

No I mean the movie creates a people who act sort of like North American Indians, and talk like Africans and wear the same jewellery.

[chabig]

Originally Posted by Eug 

I just read that Cameron thinks 24 fps is too slow for 3D since strobing is too obvious. However, Avatar was shot at 24 fps anyway, presumably because of cost issues and practicality.

According to Wikipedia, Real D projects 144 fps (72 fps for each eye), so I can't believe you'd see any strobing. I certainly didn't notice any.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by chabig 

According to Wikipedia, Real D projects 144 fps (72 fps for each eye), so I can't believe you'd see any strobing. I certainly didn't notice any.

Trust me he was paying closer attention to finding flaws than the actual plot so if there was one strobe he found it somehow

Just like if there is one word out of sync in a dvd or br movie it goes back to the store and a stern report on the boards to warn everyone else of the "uselessness" of the disk.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by chabig 

According to Wikipedia, Real D projects 144 fps (72 fps for each eye), so I can't believe you'd see any strobing. I certainly didn't notice any.

It was quite obvious to me at the beginning of the movie, in those scenes on the base with the silver grey colour palette. I wasn't even looking for it. My GF didn't notice it though. I didn't really notice it on Pandora either.

And remember, it was Cameron himself who said that 24 fps shooting is too slow to prevent strobing for 3D movies. I didn't even know Cameron said this until after I saw the movie... and yet I noticed the strobing. If you project the same frame 3 times at 72 fps, it's still going to give you much of the same effect as 24 fps, unless there is interpolation. I don't think there is any such interpolation with RealD, but you can correct me if I'm wrong.

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

Just like if there is one word out of sync in a dvd or br movie it goes back to the store and a stern report on the boards to warn everyone else of the "uselessness" of the disk.

And you're one to talk... considering you bitched at a store over and over again until they refunded your money long after the return window was up, because your Samsung TV suffered a bit of video delay in certain modes, causing... you guessed it... out-of-sync audio, which BTW can be corrected with certain AV receiver audio delay circuits.

P.S. Discs don't have "one word out of sync". If it's out-of sync it's out-of-sync. However, it may be less noticeable in certain scenes for example if the face and lips are not easy to see.

[besson3c]

I think this movie was absolutely groundbreaking in terms of how real actors are immersed in virtual worlds. Watch the Weaver interview on the Daily Show to learn more about that funky helmet camera technique that Cameron used (she raved about it). This actually paid off, this movie has the best artwork and most human-like CGI characters ever by quite a large margin, in my opinion.

[Chuckit]

I heard an interesting comment about this movie recently. Most good movies have very good characters in a fairly dead world; this movie has somewhat cardboard characters in an extremely intricate, well-drawn world.

[besson3c]

I don't think the characters were cardboard at all. I think the story was not all that imaginative, pretty much Dances with Wolves and so many other stories like it, but from a purely technical standpoint Avatar was truly groundbreaking. I felt completely immersed in this environment and moved by the characters.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I heard an interesting comment about this movie recently. Most good movies have very good characters in a fairly dead world; this movie has somewhat cardboard characters in an extremely intricate, well-drawn world.

Actually I would disagree with this. The CGI faces need to go a long way of course, but they were way, way better than The Polar Express for example. I actually found The Polar Express quite creepy, because of the hollowness of the eyes and facial expressions in that movie.

If anything, it was the human actors in the human scenes that were cardboard cutouts, from Ribisi's corporate dude, to Weaver's cliched scientist, to the military leader.

[Chuckit]

Comparing these characters to a lousy uncanny valley cartoon like The Polar Express is really unfair. If you want a basis for comparison, I'd use Gollum from Lord of the Rings or Davy Jones from Pirates of the Caribbean. Those were well-done, realistic CGI characters. Davy Jones' eyes in particular were so convincing that I thought they'd actually used Bill Nighy's face and just CG'd all the tentacles over it.

[Eug]

I didn't like Gollum. Stood out like a sore thumb IMO. In fact, I wasn't really a big fan of the CG in LOTR in general.

Davy Jones was good though.

[besson3c]

As good as those characters were, don't forget that in Avatar these characters were in almost every scene for the entire movie...

[Eug]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

As good as those characters were, don't forget that in Avatar these characters were in almost every scene for the entire movie...

Indeed. It's quite a different story to have a filmed movie with human actors and a couple of CGI overlays in a few scenes. In contrast, the bulk of Avatar was almost entirely CG. That's why it makes sense to compare it to movies like The Polar Express (or the more recent Beowulf).

I haven't seen the 3D Christmas Carol, but I'm told the creepiness factor of Polar Express is also present there, albeit less so. It certainly seemed that way from the trailers anyway.

[Chuckit]

You were talking about the believability of the CGI characters. How much of the world is 3D is totally irrelevant to that, isn't it?

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

You were talking about the believability of the CGI characters. How much of the world is 3D is totally irrelevant to that, isn't it?

Not really.

In Pirates, the whole movie was real-life, so any slight deficiency in CG replicating that real world would stand out. That's why I thought Gollum wasn't very convincing.

OTOH, the entire Na'vi world was similar, including the blue people themselves. OTOH, if they had made the Na'vi basically humans, that would have been problematic for the reasons you cite. The Na'vi were more human than The Polar Express' characters and in a completely foreign world, it worked. The Polar Express' characters were human in a CG human world, and it didn't really work IMO.

[ghporter]

I always thought that the Polar Express world was supposed to be story-bookish and not 100% "realistic." On that level, it worked for me.

And I thought Gollum was quite convincing, but I was caught up in the performance (still am, every time I watch the films) and not looking for flaws.