James Cameron's Avatar

This thread is weird. I'm glad Avatar exists only because this thread would not exist without it. It's entertaining to read.

I was reminded of two things that I thought were embarrassingly bad:

1) Sigourney Weaver avatar

2) Unobtanium. I thought that was a joke the first time he said it. Me and my friend that I saw it with (he loved it mind you) were making up other names for it... rareium, hardtogetium, notalotoftheserocksaboutium.... it's a game you can play for hours...

  On 12/29/2009 at 9:17 AM, Springymajig said:

This thread is weird. I'm glad Avatar exists only because this thread would not exist without it. It's entertaining to read.

 

I was reminded of two things that I thought were embarrassingly bad:

 

1) Sigourney Weaver avatar

 

2) Unobtanium. I thought that was a joke the first time he said it. Me and my friend that I saw it with (he loved it mind you) were making up other names for it... rareium, hardtogetium, notalotoftheserocksaboutium.... it's a game you can play for hours...

its a stupid name, that Cameron used cause its very straight forward and has been used before in sci-fi : "The term has been used in science fiction for materials that have incredibly strong properties." /wiki

Cameron has a weird way of writing with very broad strokes. He is quite literally a mainstream film-maker, who's goal is to make entertaining films for all audiences. I would love to see him direct / concept something but have someone else write the screenplay. He's basically a George Lucas that can actually direct really really well.

-

and lol at this

From the Activist Survival Guide:

Quote:

Uniltaron:

Na'vi ceremony in which a prospective warrior ingests psychoactive agents. Subsequent hallucinations are believed to be revelatory by Na'vi.

a kids movie, nice to watch tho. perfect example for my thesis that at some point all major movies will discard even the last hints of a story for cgi. if you think that movie is mindblowing - then the reason for this might be your "mind" and not the movie. that is all.

karmakramer: I never had any after effects about the reality experience of Avatar. I didn't dream it, I wasn't high and in days to follow I didn't really remember it differently than 2d movies. Are you sure it's not just the hype?

  On 12/29/2009 at 10:39 AM, gaarg said:

karmakramer: I never had any after effects about the reality experience of Avatar. I didn't dream it, I wasn't high and in days to follow I didn't really remember it differently than 2d movies. Are you sure it's not just the hype?

"Dr. Mario Mendez, a behavioural neurologist at the University of California, said it is entirely possible Cameron’s 3D technology could tap brain systems that are undisturbed by conventional 2D movies. An inner global-positioning system that orients a person to the surrounding world, was one example he gave.

“Three-D demonstrably creates a space that triggers this GPS; it’s really very stimulating”.

Cameron himself told Time Magazine that 3D viewing “is so close to a real experience that it actually triggers memory creation in a way that 2D viewing doesn’t.” Cameron also believes that stereoscopic (3D) viewing uses more neurons, which would further heighten the impact of 3D."

I love this thread, won't see the movie but this is a disgustingly addictive read.

Fuck a duck, Avatar made 20 mil on Monday that's a 17% increase from last week, 7th best Monday ever, and in 20 days it will do what ROTK did in 4 months! Highest grossing movie ever made... I think so!

  On 12/29/2009 at 6:29 PM, karmakramer said:

Fuck a duck, Avatar made 20 mil on Monday that's a 17% increase from last week, 7th best Monday ever, and in 20 days it will do what ROTK did in 4 months! Highest grossing movie ever made... I think so!

dont forget people pay almost twice as much to see it in 3D ;)

I've seen the movie 5 times I'm well aware haha.That doesn't really mean much though at least to the studios. Money is money... People are gladly paying more for it.

real 3d > Imax 3d . The large screen size is a bonus with Imax but it's a tradeoff because you get a lot more ghosting and typical analog film artifacts. with the digital projection it was super crisp and not once did i get any ghosting or distracting 3d effects.

I remember when i saw spiderman 3 in the imax theatre the sound was so loud it seemed like a rock concert, the last 2 times i saw Avatar (even on imax) the sound seemed a lot quieter than it could have been. I want to incur hearing damage at an avatar showing personally

what do you think karmakramer ? i'm assuming by now youve seen both

i've been to xpand where they have active shutter glasses and it was very cool.

  On 12/29/2009 at 6:01 AM, karmakramer said:

So now that a good amount has seen it... do you guys find yourself leaving the theater on a sort of "high"... then the following day, vaguely remembering the details of the world, but not completely... and then finding yourself yearning to return to it? My thoughts on this is : the 3D creates memory creation, so like with any awesome place you might visit or period of your life... you can never replicate it completely in your mind. But you know its real. In the case of Avatar your mind actually thinks its real, so as days pass, sub-consciously Pandora becomes a reality. I think the sales kind of prove this point. People are seeing this movie multiple times...

what on earth is up with you, it looked amazing, thats where my positive attitude ends. plot, acting, dialogue, characters, all utterly unconvincing and terrible. the 3d and the forest and the floating mountains were top~notch though, i have terrible vertigo and i was actually experiencing serious sweaty palms and queasiness watching the main guy walk over logs and jump onto ropes and shit. also the glow in the dark forest bits were also amazing.

themost interesting thing about this film is waiting to see an actual great movie made with the same 3d and effects.

  On 12/30/2009 at 1:40 AM, kokoon said:

i've been to xpand where they have active shutter glasses and it was very cool.

woah holy shit, i didn't know theaters were using shutter glasses. Did they give your eyes any kind of fatigue?

  On 12/30/2009 at 1:35 AM, Awepittance said:

real 3d > Imax 3d . The large screen size is a bonus with Imax but it's a tradeoff because you get a lot more ghosting and typical analog film artifacts. with the digital projection it was super crisp and not once did i get any ghosting or distracting 3d effects.

Thats interesting ... but some IMax theatres have digital projection dont they? so presumably you wont get the analog artifacts then ...

i haven't been to an imax screen yet that projects the film digitally. i'm sure they exist though

my comparison only applies to a traditional film Imax projection VS digital. Digital imax would probably be the best

DIgital IMAX > RealD > IMAX > Dolby 3D > Xpand

Saw it on IMAX 3D a few days ago, it was nice how big it was... but RealD was made the CG more impressive/colorful

are xpand glasses disposable?

haha probably not. i've been slowly collecting every pair of 3d glasses from every movie i've seen recently with the hopes of eventually doing my own 3d projection at a show.

i think i saw it with xpand the first time then.

ok thank you google, yes i saw it in xpand the first time.

Digital imax? lol those are only on fucking Fake imax screens. Please make sure to check the fake imax website at http://www.lfexaminer.com/ before going to see Avatar.

http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/05/11/why-you-probably-shouldnt-waste-5-more-for-digital-imax/

Analog imax on a 75' screen >>>>>> Digital imax

that's what i was thinking too, because doesn't IMAX basically own their own camera and film stock format? it would almost be bad for business to start doing digital showings because they seem to want people to sometimes still film actual movies using their technology. At least for Dark Knight and Transformers 2 i know that there was some association with the actual IMAX company to shoot scenes in 70mm.

well, now I'm really confused. So digital IMax isn't really IMax?

I dunno if I saw it on digital IMAX or normal IMAX but I'm 99% sure it was notmal IMAX, and I thought the picture quality was phenomenal, I didn't notice any artifacts or anything, it was all amazingly crisp and clear. And it wasn't defeaningly loud either. I dunno if that's a good thing or a bad thing but I think it's good. So does that mean that New Zealand did something right for once? :P