Avatar

Keverian FireCry · Post by **Keverian FireCry** » August 22, 2009, 3:24 am

First trailer for James Cameron's new sci-fi epic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXF2nH4Z9sc

I'm definitely seeing this one in IMAX 3-D.

Gonzoie - Luclin · Post by **Gonzoie - Luclin** » August 22, 2009, 8:34 am

The first time i saw that trailer i kept thinking.. StarCraft Marines vs Warcraft Night Elves!

On a serious note, i really hope this movie doesn't become overhyped. I believe they have been working on this for about 10 years now, so i am hoping for a good movie.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » August 22, 2009, 12:37 pm

It's so... Dances with Wolves and Last Samuri. I'm just kind of sick of that whole concept. It also doesn't look like the techniques used to film this are from the future or anything. Parts of the trailer reminded me of FF: The Spirits Within. Some of the shots were breathtaking while others had a lot to be desired.

I think it will be good. I just don't think it will be great, simply because the main story lacks originality. Who knows though.

Sartori · Post by **Sartori** » August 22, 2009, 12:51 pm

Last night I saw a sneak preview at a local IMAX of about 15 minutes of 3D footage from the film. They showed about 6 or 7 different scenes from the movie. Visually, it's gonna blow anything else away. Easily. It was stunning. Not so sure about the story side of it, but what I did see was entertaining and I cannot wait to see the whole thing - on IMAX of course.

Oh yeh, I agree on the last samurai/dances with wolves comparison, even if it has a (possibly) more interesting twist.

Keverian FireCry · Post by **Keverian FireCry** » December 11, 2009, 4:42 am

I've been pretty skeptical about this film(still am), but this making-of clip was very impressive. Like all of Cameron's films it is as much about the technical advances made during film-making than it is about the finished film itself.

Watch this whole thing! It starts out as a trailer, but gets more into the technical stuff which is really exciting.

It's really amazing to see what they've been able to do with motion capture and virtual spaces. Seeing what they've done with this film makes me hopeful about all of the other fantastical worlds and stories that will soon be brought to life with these new techniques and similar advancements.

The first 3 minutes deals mostly with story, but after that it goes deeper and deeper into the technical aspects.

http://vodpod.com/watch/2592839-avatar- ... ng-a-scene

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » December 11, 2009, 5:27 am

I stopped watching that extended trailer. That gives away too much. Don't want to know that much before watching it.

I don't hold out much expectations for this movie except for the visual experience. The actual story seems bland. This is a movie to be seen in a theater or in HD at home. No Cam/los res copies will do it justice.

PS: The Avatar game sucks. I hope that's not an indication of how the movie will be.

Keverian FireCry · Post by **Keverian FireCry** » December 11, 2009, 7:18 am

I didn't think of it as an 'extended trailer' at all. I thought of it more like a 'making of' video and enjoyed seeing the many technical developments that they show...

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » December 11, 2009, 12:21 pm

The initial reviews have been pretty mind blowing. I want to see this now.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » December 11, 2009, 2:21 pm

Keverian FireCry wrote:I didn't think of it as an 'extended trailer' at all. I thought of it more like a 'making of' video and enjoyed seeing the many technical developments that they show...

TMI I don't want to see that much of the movie is all. : )

Nick · Post by **Nick** » December 13, 2009, 3:09 am

This film = visually impressive Americentric wankfest with a shit script. It'll rely entirely on its effects.

It's starship troopers for 2009. Except shitter.

(I hope I'm wrong - bet I'm not though)

Keverian FireCry · Post by **Keverian FireCry** » December 13, 2009, 3:56 am

A James Cameron film that relies on special effects!? Sounds terrible!!

Trek · Post by **Trek** » December 13, 2009, 2:56 pm

Nick wrote:This film = visually impressive Americentric wankfest with a shit script. It'll rely entirely on its effects.

It's starship troopers for 2009. Except shitter.

(I hope I'm wrong - bet I'm not though)

The rest of the world seems to love our crappy movies with shitty scripts, I think that alone is a great reason to keep making them

Hesten · Post by **Hesten** » December 13, 2009, 5:34 pm

Nick wrote:This film = visually impressive Americentric wankfest with a shit script. It'll rely entirely on its effects.

It's starship troopers for 2009. Except shitter.

(I hope I'm wrong - bet I'm not though)

Sounds good to me, Starship Troopers rocked...as long as its not like Starship Troopers 2, or Starship Troopers 3

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » December 14, 2009, 3:48 pm

At least Starship Troopers 2 had some boobies.

Sartori · Post by **Sartori** » December 15, 2009, 5:23 am

Nick wrote:This film = visually impressive Americentric wankfest with a shit script. It'll rely entirely on its effects.

It's starship troopers for 2009. Except shitter.

(I hope I'm wrong - bet I'm not though)

Woops, thought I was in the `2012' thread for a sec. I don't expect much from the story, but I felt the same about most of his movies until I saw them so I guess we'll see how it goes this time around. I already know the visuals are unprecedented and I will be seeing this at the IMAX, but what I'm even more interested in seeing is what this technology might bring us after Avatar.

Gonzoie - Luclin · Post by **Gonzoie - Luclin** » December 15, 2009, 4:19 pm

According to Mrs. Weaver, the story is what really drove this movie and the special effects take a back seat. I won't take that at face value, but I do expect this to have a good story. James Cameron has been working on this film since he was 14, in a matter of speaking. He deems this his baby, so I think we are in for a treat personally.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » December 16, 2009, 3:22 am

Gonzoie - Luclin wrote:According to Mrs. Weaver, the story is what really drove this movie and the special effects take a back seat. I won't take that at face value, but I do expect this to have a good story. James Cameron has been working on this film since he was 14, in a matter of speaking. He deems this his baby, so I think we are in for a treat personally.

I think every movie he has ever made has been "his baby" (with the exception of Piranha 2!), and that is why he makes such great movies. He gives great attention to detail, which I appreciate. I've heard that he is a real bitch to work with though. Some of his previous cast members have vowed never to work with him again.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » December 16, 2009, 9:34 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote:Some of his previous cast members have vowed never to work with him again.

...while cashing their huge paychecks.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » December 17, 2009, 2:11 am

Not really relevant what paychecks they have gotten. Unless they have said they wouldn't work with him and then did. When you sign those contracts you probably don't know how a particular person is to work with or for.

Ransure · Post by **Ransure** » December 18, 2009, 12:17 pm

Saw it in Real3d last night in a Digital DLP theater (IMAX was sold out in the next theater).. and I have to say I loved it.. But the 3d was annoying. I see what he was going for, but the 3d just made close up objects blurry, it didnt pull you in as intended in OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS of scenes... but there were a few that were freaking amazing... this is an epic story and Cameron does a great job with it.

But I hope to god that they dont release this on DVD/Blu-Ray in 3d and just give us a kickass 2d movie experiance.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » December 18, 2009, 1:54 pm

Here;s a positive review for Avatar:

http://gizmodo.com/5429424/avatar-revie ... -after-all

Sartori · Post by **Sartori** » December 19, 2009, 6:28 am

IMAX is the only way to see this the first time IMO.

Leonaerd · Post by **Leonaerd** » December 19, 2009, 10:01 am

I saw this in 3d dlp. While the 3d wasn't breathtaking, it did add to the movie overall.

What Avatar taught me is that everybody should play WoW. Most of the movie was so MMO-like that it's hard to imagine Blizzard wasn't funneling money to Cameron.

Exciting, pornographic, fun movie. It shows what a billion dollars can do.

Keverian FireCry · Post by **Keverian FireCry** » December 20, 2009, 2:23 am

IMAX is the only way to see this the first time IMO.

Did you see it in 3d or just on a big IMAX screen? I've heard plenty of friends say that 3d was a bit too much for them and took away from the overall experience?

I've actually never seen a film on 3d. Last time I ever saw anything in 3d was the Terminator "ride" at Universal Studios, which was at least 12 years ago...

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » December 20, 2009, 2:29 am

Is this movie 3D in all theaters?

I've got the TS version of Avatar but know this is one movie that should be seen in the theaters. Even the pirate boards are awash with people saying the movie must be seen in theaters in 3D.

I probably can't go see it until next weekend. Wondering if theaters will run out of glasses, etc or how that works.

Leonaerd · Post by **Leonaerd** » December 20, 2009, 2:33 am

Is this movie 3D in all theaters?

No.

This movie demands a big screen or 3d (or both) for full immersion.

Trek · Post by **Trek** » December 20, 2009, 3:45 am

I think 3d is a must for this movie, I am sure I would have enjoyed it without but am totally glad I saw it 3d

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » December 20, 2009, 1:42 pm

I watched this movie and kept thinking James Cameron must have been thinking "Dances with Wolves in Space!" when he was originally thinking of it back in 1995 or whenever he first thought of it.

The story is VERY average if not below average. If this story took place on earth in some historical setting, it would have flopped big time due to the lack of story. The movie relies completely on the visuals which, thankfully, make the movie worth seeing.

Story: C- (D if you've seen Dances with Wolves)
Visuals: A
Audio: A

Overall: B

It's Dances with Wolves with a little Dragon Riders of Pern thrown in (Maybe even a touch of Braveheart if it was made with Disney music playing in the background), that takes place on a jungle planet. Very watchable for the visual experience but it's by no means a masterpiece. Feels like a tech demo. Some of the biggest parts of the movie were off camera and just "assumed". I thought Sigorney Weaver, while limited, had a nice part.

Post by **Sylvus** » December 20, 2009, 8:53 pm

I thought this was a great movie. I saw it in IMAX 3D, and I'm torn on whether I'd recommend 3D or not. I thought the 3D was really cool, but at some points I felt like it distracted from what was a beautiful world that Cameron created.

This should win a lot of awards, though probably not for acting (not saying any actors were bad, just nothing too noteworthy).

Sartori · Post by **Sartori** » December 20, 2009, 10:36 pm

I've scrapped the Dances with Wolves comparison. It's Dune with a jungle instead of a desert. Plain and simple.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » December 21, 2009, 12:08 am

Sartori wrote:I've scrapped the Dances with Wolves comparison. It's Dune with a jungle instead of a desert. Plain and simple.

which movie is this for?

Imagine the story of a soldier sent to fight native tribes for their land, but finds that once he actually meets and gets to know them, he respects them too much to follow through with his mission. Gradually he becomes one of the tribe, leaving his old way of life behind to embrace their nature-loving culture.

But it doesn't stop there. Other parts of the story that are similar or cliche.

[Show]: The hostile indian from Dances is replicated that finally becomes his friend.

The warnings about the much higher tech "people" that are coming

His own people treating him badly after he goes "native"...same.

leading fight against his own people. same

The lady who saves him happens to be the daughter of the chieftain. (close to same, and she even speaks English already)

The line, "you're not in Kansas any more" is horrifically bad and cliche.

It also sure seems like they cut out the whole part about how he managed to tame that nasty dragon beast. Convenient.

The movie is still entertaining despite that but it sure doesn't help things. They could have put at least a tad bit of effort into the story and acting. When a movie is so similar to another one that it's distracting, it's an issue.

Keverian FireCry · Post by **Keverian FireCry** » December 21, 2009, 1:03 am

It's a lot more like Ferngully actually!!

Kaldaur · Post by **Kaldaur** » December 21, 2009, 2:38 am

The Last Samurai was basically Dances with Swords. Just because an idea has been done doesn't take away from the movie's success or enjoyability.

Keverian FireCry · Post by **Keverian FireCry** » December 21, 2009, 4:54 am

Exactly. Even District 9 had similar elements.

Anyhow, the story follows a heroic archetype that has roots a lot further back than Dances w/ Wolves.

Kwonryu DragonFist · December 21, 2009, 5:05 am

Colonel Miles Quaritch was the coolest character in this movie!

Keverian FireCry · Post by **Keverian FireCry** » December 21, 2009, 5:26 am

That's because Stephen Lang is simply one of the most badass actors ever. He generally plays antagonists, but I love this quote about Colonel Miles Quaritch:

"I didn’t play a villain; I played a man who is doing his job the best way that he can. He makes choices. Quaritch has cauterized some aspects of his own soul. Dirty wars have numbed his psyche and spirit. But I did not go at him as a villain."

Fun factoid: Stephan Lang beat out Michael Biehn for this role in Avatar. Stephen had also auditioned 16 years ago for the role of Corporal Hicks in a little James Cameron film called "Aliens" which he lost to... Michael Biehn.

Kwonryu DragonFist · December 21, 2009, 6:32 am

So it's 1-1 between Lang and Biehn now then!

Couldnt see anyone doing the Colonel better than Lang.

Keverian FireCry · Post by **Keverian FireCry** » December 21, 2009, 8:39 am

Haha. Maybe both will be in Cameron's next film, Battle Angel, based off a manga comic.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » December 21, 2009, 12:55 pm

Kaldaur wrote:The Last Samurai was basically Dances with Swords. Just because an idea has been done doesn't take away from the movie's success or enjoyability.

District 9 (Kev reference) and Last Samurai both weren't that great of movies IMO. However, while there were some similarities to other movies, they weren't as close as Avatar is to Dances with Wolves. I'm not bagging on movies that use a formula but this one seemed a little too close for me.

There was quite a bit lacking in the story department is all I'm saying. There have been movies (Star Wars) that also followed parts of previous books or movies that are known for their visuals that also were able to entertain via their stories a bit more.

Gonzoie - Luclin · Post by **Gonzoie - Luclin** » December 21, 2009, 8:01 pm

Winnow, you cannot expect every movie made to have a completely original template that the story follows. Boy meets girl, girl teaches boy, boy falls in love with girl, girls home is threatened, boy wants to save it.

That is a template that works very well with viewers and makes a great movie most of the time, barring other aspects that make a movie great. This movie was amazing in every way. Yes, the acting wasn't the best I have seen, but it was solid enough to not pull me out of the immersion that Cameron puts you in. The story was great for what it was, plain and simple. So maybe it was a bit like Dances with Wolves, Dune, Ferngully, Pocahontas, or any other movie that follows the template I showed you. If you cauterize a story just because it is a similar template to a previous movie you saw then that is your own fault for expecting something that just isn't possible.

The 3d made this movie even better in my opinion, however I did not see this in IMAX and think that IMAX could dampen the experience. You really need to be able to see everything at all times to fully see how damn amazing Pandora is.

Edit: Saw your post in the Dollhouse thread, and I can assume you didn't hate the Colonel because you don't see a problem with privatizing the military or the undertone of the movie in general. I loved the actor that played the Colonel, and I also hated him by the end of the movie.

Also I would like to know how you saw this movie. Telesync or theater.

Drolgin Steingrinder · December 22, 2009, 5:05 am

Gonzoie - Luclin wrote:Winnow, you cannot expect every movie made to have a completely original template that the story follows. Boy meets girl, girl teaches boy, boy falls in love with girl, girls home is threatened, boy wants to save it.

That is a template that works very well with viewers and makes a great movie most of the time, barring other aspects that make a movie great. This movie was amazing in every way. Yes, the acting wasn't the best I have seen, but it was solid enough to not pull me out of the immersion that Cameron puts you in. The story was great for what it was, plain and simple. So maybe it was a bit like Dances with Wolves, Dune, Ferngully, Pocahontas, or any other movie that follows the template I showed you. If you cauterize a story just because it is a similar template to a previous movie you saw then that is your own fault for expecting something that just isn't possible.

The 3d made this movie even better in my opinion, however I did not see this in IMAX and think that IMAX could dampen the experience. You really need to be able to see everything at all times to fully see how damn amazing Pandora is.

Edit: Saw your post in the Dollhouse thread, and I can assume you didn't hate the Colonel because you don't see a problem with privatizing the military or the undertone of the movie in general. I loved the actor that played the Colonel, and I also hated him by the end of the movie.

Also I would like to know how you saw this movie. Telesync or theater.

It's not just a bit DWW, it's ALL. There's zero attempt at originality in the script in this thing. I was thoroughly entertained and had the moviebuffs' thrill when I sat there, to a level I haven't had since the first LOTR. And even the searchlight logo at first made me go woah! But it doesn't change the fact that

THE STORY IS ABSOLUTE SHIT. I MEAN, SHIT. I MEAN, JESUS FUCKBALLS GET A WRITER IN, YOU FUCKING HACK. SOMEONE WITH AN AMBITION BEYOND SHOWING PEOPLE PERTY PITCHERS.

The whole thing is so predictable that anyone who's seen ... hell, 40 random Hollywood productions from the last 20 years (or has seen 3 Cameron movies) will be able to plot the entire story to within 5 minutes. It's a flowchart of every single hollywood cliche. The dramaturgy is so perfect that it's just too much. The plot twists are seen from ninety billion miles away because we've seen them before.

That said: The 3d (and yeah I saw it in 3d wearing silly glasses) is absolutely fantastic, and I think Spielberg was right when he stated that this was a leap forward in making movies. I just can't help feel cheated that Cameron was so fucking unambitious in his storytelling. He had this wonderful, wonderful opportunity and he regurgitated things we've seen and heard ten, a hundred, a thousand times before while showing us, admittedly, some very very pretty pictures. Did I enjoy myself? Immensely. But it was a bit like junkfood. Once I left the theatre and my brain started working again, I had a very empty feeling.

So:

Before seeing this flick, tell yourself: "I will ignore the pathetic attempts at making a point, I will disregard the ridiculously naive and twodimensional portrayals of indigenous populations (hi noble savage!) and just enjoy that it looks awesome. And afterwards, I'll go have a huge manly steak to fill me up."

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » December 22, 2009, 12:36 pm

Drolgin gets it!

Since you're the resident music expert Drolgin, what is your opinion of the music in Avatar? That also felt canned as well but really wasn't paying much attention to it beyond thinking it wasn't very original.

Post by **Sylvus** » December 22, 2009, 12:59 pm

THIS MESSAGE HAS SPOILERS!!!!!! Though since everyone is already talking about Dances With Wolves, you could probably extrapolate the spoilers within.

Filmdrunk wrote:It’s hard to review a James Cameron movie, because whether you like it is sort of irrelevant. It becomes part of pop culture, like a song. People will talk about it, children will think of it nostalgically in 10 years, and you’ll probably find yourself humming it on the subway, even if you hate it. Call Avatar brilliant trash. It’s a lot like Titanic — grandiose and impressive on an epic scale, and riddled with clichés throughout. But James Cameron is a smart guy. You figure he knows a cliché when he’s writing one. He likes them and he doesn’t care what you think, much the way your mom likes bikers.

Sam Worthington, who’s a pretty solid leading man even if he can’t get rid of his Aussie accent, plays Jake Sully, a paraplegic marine (they have the technology to fix his spine, but he can’t afford it). When Sully’s identical twin brother, a scientist on Pandora, gets murdered, they need Sully to take his brother’s place on a research expedition. Since he shares his brother’s DNA, he’s the only one who can operate his Avatar, a cloned being made from the DNA of his brother mixed with that of the 12-foot, blue cat-monkeys that live there. Sigourney Weaver, who runs the research expedition on a grant from the corporation mining Pandora, isn’t happy that she has to take on a Marine with no science training. Meanwhile, corporate guy Giovanni Ribisi, who wants the scientists to figure out how to get the Na’avi to move out of the giant tree they live in so he can mine for the ‘Unobtainium’ underneath (yes, they call it that unironically. it’s retarded), hopes Sully will be the non-tree-hugging pussy he needs for intel on the ground. Ditto Stephen Lang, a scarred Marine leading the force of ex-military mercenaries providing security on Pandora. Michelle Rodriguez is there too, and she’s a hardcore Latina.

You can pretty much predict what’s going to happen from there, and the only reason you don’t totally expect everything that happens is that you’re thinking, “Wait, no, he couldn’t possibly have made it this simplistic…. could he?” He did. But the story is really just a skeleton for the visuals, which are pretty mind blowing. I’m not ready to say that it wouldn’t have been just as good in 2D, but the 3D here is easily the best that’s been done. It doesn’t hurt your eyes or make the picture dim like in Up. It’s still a gimmick, but Cameron uses it better than anyone has before. A few of the scenes of climbing and pterodactyl riding in the beginning actually had my ass puckering because the threat of falling seemed so real.

Right, the story. It’s so cheesey in so many ways that you’ll find yourself actually rooting against it at times. We know Jake’s going to fall for one of the native broads, fine — you can’t blame him, lanky topless chicks with sensual tails and ears that move like a cat? Hawt. — but then all you’re thinking is “Oh God, just don’t let his girl be the Chief’s daughter.” Sorry. Not only is she the chief’s daughter, the chief is that guy who played Geronimo.

I’m not into the whole assuming-every-character-and-plot-point-is-a-philosophical-metaphor-and-reflection-of-political-ideology thing, and I kind of despise anyone who is, but the Na’avi couldn’t fit the description of the “noble savage” more perfectly. In fact, considering he called the mineral “unobtanium”, it’s a wonder he didn’t just call them Noble Savages. The Na’avi are perfectly good and the corporate guys are perfectly evil. The Na’avi are basically American Indians and the plot is basically Dances with Wolves. While I’m sure there’ve been plenty of times in U.S. history when the white man was perfectly evil and killed a bunch of innocent Indians for no better reason than because they were squatting on some gold, anyone who went to school between the 70s and the present gets a little sick of hearing that story. At some point you wonder what the purpose of retelling it is, especially as simplistically as it’s delivered here, other than trying to make us feel like crap. I get it, I suck because of my soulless lifestyle and technology. Is there an iPhone app for white guilt?

In this case, the purpose of retelling that story is mainly to take us to a vivid new world and show off some technological toys. Which Avatar does incredibly well. Exploring a new world is always welcome. But that’s no excuse for making such a bonehead parable. And I’d love to enjoy it completely on its own merits without considering the political parallels, but when you call the mercenaries’ plan to blow up the Na’avi’s Tree of Memories (…don’t ask) “a shock and awe campaign”, and the natives fight back with suicide missions while ululating, you sort of force us to. You have to cut the references to contemporary political realities if you don’t want us to see it as a parable. And if it is meant as a parable, it’s a pretty bad one, one which largely boils down to “Your way of life is wrong. Grow dreadlocks, strip off your clothes, and live in the f-cking forest.”

The good guys fight the bad guys. The hero leads his army and gets the girl. Someone dies and gets revived (because of love, and miracles!). The main bad guy dies last, and he gets the best death, courtesy of the main good guy. I could’ve done without any or all of these things (come on, at least one???), but like I said, it’s well-done trash. Well done because despite the faithfulness to a tried-and-true narrative, James Cameron takes the time to make you believe it. It’s not like in Terminator Salvation when Christian Bale jumps out the back of a cargo plane into an ocean heaving with 30-foot swells and then just shows up on looking wet on the bridge of a submarine with no explanation as to how he got there. James Cameron is a nerd. You know he’d have thought of an explanation for that. It might not be a great or totally plausible explanation, but it’d be more than just “uh, because jump cut?”

Is it a great movie? No. But it’s an incredibly watchable bad one.

Grade: B+ (I guess? Like I said, it doesn’t really matter because you’re going to see it anyway)

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » December 28, 2009, 3:33 pm

Ransure wrote:Saw it in Real3d last night in a Digital DLP theater (IMAX was sold out in the next theater).. and I have to say I loved it.. But the 3d was annoying. I see what he was going for, but the 3d just made close up objects blurry, it didnt pull you in as intended in OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS of scenes... but there were a few that were freaking amazing... this is an epic story and Cameron does a great job with it.

But I hope to god that they dont release this on DVD/Blu-Ray in 3d and just give us a kickass 2d movie experiance.

I had a headache all afternoon from the damned 3d glasses too

Psyloche · Post by **Psyloche** » December 30, 2009, 9:10 am

I'm still not sure what I think about this movie, I guess it was entertaining. I think seeing it in 3D bothered the hell out of me along with where I was sitting (close to the front, but not extremely bad seats). I didn't get a headache, but the picture was slightly blurry even with the second set of glasses I walked out to pick up.

The visuals were neat, but I just wasn't awed, I think this had a lot to do with me having to hear all the hype of HOW AWESOME THIS MOVIE IS, IT'S LIKE BACON WRAPPED IN BACON FOR MOVIES. Also, as many people said, the story is pretty predictable, some of the lines pretty cheesy (not Michael Bay level, but cheese is present). I have seen, but don't remember at all, Dances with Wolves so I can't really comment about the similarities, but what story hasn't been retold at this point?

I really liked Giovanni Ribisi and Sigourney Weaver in this, I thought they did a good job. I think I've seen Giovanni use the same voice/characteristics in another movie, but it felt like it fit pretty well.

I thought it was pretty fucking funny when my wife leaned in to me and said, "Is this movie taking stuff from WoW? There are blue people, they start with a ground mount, then get a flying mount."

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » December 30, 2009, 11:29 am

I more or less agree with Drolgin and Winnow. This was one of the stupidest movies that I've ever seen; the plot makes no sense even by the standards of typical crappy action movies. That said, it was also one of the coolest things I've ever seen. I loved the 3D and thought it made a huge difference, and regardless of how stupid it was, I already want to see it again.

I disagree with those who wish that Cameron had just made a kickass 2D movie-- this would make a totally retarded 2D movie. The visual innovation is the only reason to see this; I can't imagine watching it at home.

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » December 30, 2009, 10:10 pm

Saw it in 2D yesterday. I liked it and I think it is a movie that really must be seen in the theatre to enjoy the most. I agree with the comparrisons that were made and that it is very formulmatic. Still cool to see. Normally I rebel against the hyped up movies but this was alright. $7.00 well spent.

Kluden · Post by **Kluden** » December 31, 2009, 11:21 am

saw it imax 3d tuesday. I think it was money well spent for the visual/audio portion. Cameran did good on the character intros and definitions, but as was already pointed out, this movie is "front heavy" on effort, and the back end has zero effort whatsoever.

If it was 2D, i probably would have asked for my money back.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » December 31, 2009, 1:05 pm

Sueven wrote: I disagree with those who wish that Cameron had just made a kickass 2D movie-- this would make a totally retarded 2D movie. The visual innovation is the only reason to see this; I can't imagine watching it at home.

Blu Ray 3D format has been officially approved and the (PoS) Playstation 3 will be updated with firmware allowing owners to view 3D Blu Ray Movies. The single saving grace of the Playstation 3 is that it's Blu Ray player is firmware upgradable and has managed to stay up to date with the latest Blu Ray developments.

I'll probably purchase Avatar on Blu Ray sometime next year to view it in 3D.

Hollywood has been so enthralled with the recent renaissance of 3D in the theater that the Blu-ray Disc Association has finalized a specification for delivering full 1080p high definition stereoscopic video on Blu-ray discs. The format relies on an extension to the H.264 encoding standard, and provides for a fallback to 2D output on players that can't decode the separate stereoscopic images. It's been a long time coming, but along with a recent update to the HDMI spec and a coming wave of 3D-capable displays, the technology is now in place to deliver the full 3D experience at home.

The specification, which will be published shortly for device manufacturers and content producers, specifies encoding two separate 1080p frames together using the Multiview Video Coding (MVC) extension to the H.264 Advanced Video Coding (AVC) codec—one of the codecs already supported for creating Blu-ray discs. This method allows the two separate views, one for each eye, to be compressed together in such a way that common elements from both views are melded together. The result is that a 3D-encoded movie should typically only take up about 50 percent more space on disc compared to a 2D version, and players that aren't 3D-capable will be able to play back a 2D version instead, for backward compatibility.

Additionally, the specification is technology-agnostic when it comes to how to create the 3D effect. It will deliver two 1080p frames to the display, and the display will then use whatever method it can to create a 3D effect—whether it's passive filtered glasses, active filtered switching glasses, anaglyph, etc.

"Throughout this year, movie goers have shown an overwhelming preference for 3D when presented with the option to see a theatrical release in either 3D or 2D," said Victor Matsuda, BDA Global Promotions Committee chairman, in a statement. "We believe this demand for 3D content will carry over into the home now that we have, in Blu-ray Disc, a medium that can deliver a quality Full HD 3D experience to the living room."

Of course, taking advantage of that full 3D experience will still require an additional investment in compatible displays, Blu-ray players, and other necessary hardware like specialized (and often expensive) glasses. The HDMI 1.4 spec enables transfer of two full 1080p signals from players to displays, and a number of current 120 Hz 2D displays can be used for 3D viewing with special glasses. Also, suppliers like LG and Sony plan to launch 3D-capable displays in the coming months. New 3D-capable Blu-ray players will have to be manufactured, but PS3 owners will be delighted to know that the specification should be compatible with work Sony has already done to enable 3D gaming on its console.

Still, 3D discs will still play just fine on 2D players, which should mitigate a storm of customer indignation which would follow if backwards compatibility had not been addressed. "We think the broad and rapid acceptance Blu-ray Disc already enjoys with consumers will be a factor in accelerating the uptake of 3D in the home," Matsuda said. "In the meantime, existing players and libraries can continue to be fully enjoyed as consumers consider extending into 3D home entertainment."

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » December 31, 2009, 1:13 pm

oh cool