Avatar

[Dan Warburton]

No, not a thread moaning about pseudonyms, but in fact the James Cameron movie. Just got back half an hour ago, and still can't see straight. God knows how much this sophomore fairytale cost to make, but was it really worth it? Nice to see Sigourney Weaver smoking merrily away though.



"Hey Jake, can you see all those guys out there with those silly glasses on?"

[frozen reeds]

No, not a thread moaning about pseudonyms, but in fact the James Cameron movie. Just got back half an hour ago, and still can't see straight. God knows how much this sophomore fairytale cost to make, but was it really worth it? Nice to see Sigourney Weaver smoking merrily away though.

What in God's name did you expect?

[Dohol]

[bryan]

I'm more interested in Avatar for the historical value rather than the actual movie. It's supposed to change cinema. My better half has not been impressed by my appeals to history, hence we have not seen it. Maybe when Jackass 3D comes out she will have a change of heart and wear the glasses in the theater with me, I dunno...

Did the effects blow your mind or what?

[Dan Warburton]

After about ten minutes you get used to them, and life goes on as it did before. Once you've seen one dragon fly into your nose, you've seen 'em all. Before the movie there were trailers for Shrek 4 and Tim Burton's Alice In Wonderland, both due out next year and both in 3D, backed by Disney $$, so I guess we'll see more of this stuff. But as far as revolutionise cinema goes, don't believe the hype (yet). It's going to be some time before all cinemas switch over to digital, and the 3D glasses need improvement: not only were they pretty uncomfortable, the batteries ran out of mine during the final battle scene. In any case, I've never seen the attraction of 3D cinema in the first place. People have been rapping on about it since the 50s (wasn't Hitchcock's Dial M For Murder originally shot with 3D in mind?) and we're now in 2010 (hooray! Happy New Year!).

[Alastair]

You had batteries in your 3D glasses? Ours didn't need them.

[Dan Warburton]

That's what the bloke at the cinema said when I went out to change them after the image went suddenly all green and fuzzy. Ah, maybe ze French aff not ze.. ow you say.. technologee yet?
Whatever, it was the perfect film for the modern world: glitzy, trite, shallow, all surface and no depth (ironically for a 3D film). I'm glad I saw it, and will now happily return to my collection of Fassbinders, Sirks and Fellinis.

[bryan]

Thanks for the lowdown, Dan. We might see it yet. There are no other movies available locally that justify seeing them in the theater other than this one. After all, the grandparents already took the kid to see the Squeakquel - we're off the hook on that one at least.

[michael]

early estimates i heard the movie was $300mil but ive heard 1/2 billion being thrown around which is mind boggling

[michael]

After about ten minutes you get used to them, and life goes on as it did before. Once you've seen one dragon fly into your nose, you've seen 'em all. Before the movie there were trailers for Shrek 4 and Tim Burton's Alice In Wonderland, both due out next year and both in 3D, backed by Disney $$, so I guess we'll see more of this stuff. But as far as revolutionise cinema goes, don't believe the hype (yet). It's going to be some time before all cinemas switch over to digital, and the 3D glasses need improvement: not only were they pretty uncomfortable, the batteries ran out of mine during the final battle scene. In any case, I've never seen the attraction of 3D cinema in the first place. People have been rapping on about it since the 50s (wasn't Hitchcock's Dial M For Murder originally shot with 3D in mind?) and we're now in 2010 (hooray! Happy New Year!).

i guess you werent as impressed w/ the 3-d effects as i was, but fwiw, ill throw in my 2 cents & say the graphics are pretty damn incredible. i saw the movie in 3-d imax, so i dunno if that makes a difference, but i cant think of any movie that even remotely compares. ive seen a # of 3-d movies varying from imax nature specials to nightmare before xmas to harry potter & the problem w/ them all is that 1 or 2 things pops out in 3-d & thats the gimmick.

there are scenes in avatar that use the 3-d effect so well that the entire *scene* is textured w/ 3-d. it seems less of a gimmicky effect & more a realization of what 3-d can & should be. im not saying its perfect by any means or truly is revolutionary. but after a while, you dont notice the 3-d effect. but thats the thing. its as youre actually there in the alien rainforest (suspending belief for still non-completely-realistic cgi)

& yeah, the movie is garbage otherwise

[moesgaard]

Dan,

Saw it in Paris this week end, i confirm: no batteries in my 3d glasses...I had a great time, it's a pretty good disney fairy tale imo, a pity that they didn't put the same energy to write us a more original scenario that they put in the special effects and 3d.

For me though, as far as christmas movies are concerned, the real deal was "Where the wild things are".

[Dan Warburton]

Dan,Saw it in Paris this week end, i confirm: no batteries in my 3d glasses...

Gee well, that's what the bloke at Max Linder Panorama told me when I went out to change them. I don't know how the damn things work anyway, and from the sound of it neither did he!

a pity that they didn't put the same energy to write us a more original scenario that they put in the special effects and 3d.

Well, I guess he had to save money somewhere

"Where the wild things are".

I wanted to go and see that with Marie and my son Max, esp since the French title of the book is Max et les Maximonstres. Maybe that's why he said he wasn't interested (he's 11). So we went to Avatar instead. It was that or The Road (hahaha)..

[Dan Warburton]

Just heard on the radio that Avatar has already grossed $1 billion. Crikey.

[moesgaard]

"Where the wild things are".

I wanted to go and see that with Marie and my son Max, esp since the French title of the book is Max et les Maximonstres. Maybe that's why he said he wasn't interested (he's 11). So we went to Avatar instead. It was that or The Road (hahaha)..

It's a shame, you should try to convice him. As far as age is concerned, it's definitely not for the younger ones imo, most likely, from 7 to...whatever! (excluding of course teenagers, who have crappy tastes until 20 or so).
If he really doesn't want to go, go alone then, it's really worth it, all the more if you read the book when you were a kid.

[RFKorp]

[Gaendaal]

In any case, I've never seen the attraction of 3D cinema in the first place.

I've heard that one of the reasons for film studios really wanting to get into 3D is anti-piracy; you can't take a camcorder into a 3D film and come out with something watchable. So I've heard.