Avatar--3D

Went with the wife to see it Saturday night. Here are my thoughts:



1--I'm not sure I can do many 3D movies. I have a very dominant right eye, so it took me about half an hour for my eyes to acclimate to the need for stereo vision, and I got a nice headache towards the end from it.



2--If I had watched this movie in non-3D, I would have been disappointed. Not 2012, Bangkok Dangerous, Ninja Assassin, or In the Name of the King disappointed, but just a ho-hum movie.



3--The movie was a great experience in 3D. You have to understand that this movie is all about one thing--the planet (moon?) Pandora. The plot is pretty generic (think Dances with Wolves meets Fern Gully), but the setting makes you forget about it. The movie is not a drama, it is an experience. We read enough reviews before going to see it that we went in with that expectation, and we were more than satisfied.



4--I don't know exactly how revolutionary the film is going to be in the end. I only noticed one or two things done with the 3D that I hadn't seen before. Then again, my understanding is that a lot of the expense of the film was in developing technology that will make 3D easier and cheaper in the future (smaller cameras, real-time rendering on greenscreen monitors, etc.) so much of the "revolution" is more in the way of one time R+D outlays than in revolutionary film technique.



So, in short, I recommend the movie for people who can enjoy an "experience" type-film. If you are someone who likes drama and intrigue, this might not push your buttons, but if you are looking to just have a visual experience that you haven't had before or if you want to visit a funky fantasy planet, it's a worthy investment. If you go see Avatar in 2D, you might as well just give that money to the bell-ringer at Walmart instead.

Sounds like it wont work for me then, I lost a portion of my vision in my right eye during a surgery, so now I'm extremely dominate left eye and I don't do well adjusting to stereo vision. I guess I'll let this one pass by.

Interesting observation about the right eye. I know I'm right eye dominant, so maybe that's why I have a problem with 3-D. Which is disappointing because I remember going to see 3-D stuff at Disney World as a teenager and it worked great. Shortly after starting law school I had to get glasses. NOW I have an insight into why 3-D not the way I remembered it as a kid.



As for that movie, I have no interest in it to begin with so... probably won't go.

Metal Bubba wrote:
Interesting observation about the right eye. I know I'm right eye dominant, so maybe that's why I have a problem with 3-D. Which is disappointing because I remember going to see 3-D stuff at Disney World as a teenager and it worked great. Shortly after starting law school I had to get glasses. NOW I have an insight into why 3-D not the way I remembered it as a kid.



As for that movie, I have no interest in it to begin with so... probably won't go.

FWIW With me it's not a question of dominance, but my left eye is really bad and has a much stronger prescription than my right eye does. If I fail to wear my glasses underneath the 3d glasses, then the 3d glasses do nothing for me. If I DO wear my glasses then the 3d experience does work for me.



PS I also could not care less about this movie, although a coworker reccomended that I go see it.

When I was a young boy, I saw Smurfs 3D. This movie seems to be just a rehash of that one, so I think I'll save my money.

A lot of people who I have talked to about the movie say, "Well, then I'll just wait for a 3D movie to come out that has a better plot."



I think that's absurd. When I opine that the plot isn't the strongest, I mention it not because it is bad, but rather to temper the expectations. The reason Avatar is getting so much attention is because of the immersive experience, not because of the storyline. What is laughable is that some of these people are my "movie buddies" from my single days who still shell out change for any Jason Statham or Adam Sandler movie. There is more to movies than plot lines--otherwise people would only see one or two movies a year because everything else is pretty much something else reworked. But for some reason, people are refusing to see this movie on some plot principle that has never stopped them before.



I just don't get the sudden snobbery.

snoscythe wrote:
A lot of people who I have talked to about the movie say, "Well, then I'll just wait for a 3D movie to come out that has a better plot."



I think that's absurd. When I opine that the plot isn't the strongest, I mention it not because it is bad, but rather to temper the expectations. The reason Avatar is getting so much attention is because of the immersive experience, not because of the storyline. What is laughable is that some of these people are my "movie buddies" from my single days who still shell out change for any Jason Statham or Adam Sandler movie. There is more to movies than plot lines--otherwise people would only see one or two movies a year because everything else is pretty much something else reworked. But for some reason, people are refusing to see this movie on some plot principle that has never stopped them before.



I just don't get the sudden snobbery.

I agree - go see it for the amazing visual effects. But don't expect anything from the plot. And if you get super annoyed by liberal propaganda you might want to stay away too. But if you can overlook that, the movie is stunning in 3D (especially on the IMAX screen).

I saw it in 2D as well. Going tonight after the BYU game to see it in 3D. It was simply a stunning movie. It really is an experience movie. I agree sno, that while the plot isn't the strongest, it isn't weak either. It can and does hold the movie together and held my attention. It's a 2 1/2 hour movie that doesn't feel overly long like Cameron's previous epic - Titanic. It was a tad preachy, but not overbearing. I would like to hope that 200 years from now if we're colonizing/exploiting other worlds the human race would be a bit less uncouth, and treat other aliens with a bit more respect. But the move was great. I really think it is a "must-see."

I saw it in 2D. It is an incredibly made movie. The graphics are outstanding. The best I've seen in a movie. Better than the LOTR or Star Wars series. The animated characters are better than those in Beowulf or The Polar Express. What makes it so incredible is you really cannot separate the animated action from the live action.



I recall when Who Framed Roger Rabbit came out and how ground breaking that was in finally making animate and live action look real together. This is where movie making is heading and all those fantasy and sci fi stories you loved reading can now be made with realism never before possible in cinema.



That said, the story sucked. It really was Dances With Klingon Smurfs Living In Fern Gully. I did enjoy Signoury Weaver's entrance, classic spoof of Riply from the Alien series. I laughed good and hard at the homage. Those sitting near me obviously hadn't seen her in the Alien movies and didn't get the connection.



I also felt Cameron borrowed from Lucas in morphing the Ewoks into basketball playing blue smurfs on stilts. Using simple bows and arrows, they are able to bring down the equivalent of Apache helicopters with ease. Another scene that made me laugh out loud was when it looks like the smurfs are going to go down in defeat and then a miracle happens, which I won't describe as it would spoil the movie, to save the day and Fern Gully.



What was most gauling was that humans will have no regard for life 150 years in the future. Considerin how far society has advanced just in the past 150 years, that was the most difficult condemnation by Cameron to stomach. If our generation goes to extraordinary lengths to save the habitat of a mouse or bug, it would obviously do even more to preserve a sentient species once discovered.



If our society condemns the killing of dolphins while tuna fishing, we would never tolerate the wholesale slaughter of peaceful human like beings on another planet for any reason. So, the whole premise of the movie was incredulous to me.



That being said, it was worth seeing just to see what the future holds for movies.

CougarPeasant wrote:
I saw it in 2D. It is an incredibly made movie. The graphics are outstanding. The best I've seen in a movie. Better than the LOTR or Star Wars series.

LIES NEVER, IT'S NOT TRUE, THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE!!

Search your feelings. You KNOW it to be true. George Lucas never told you what really happened to your special effects, story telling and acting acumen.

kitic77 wrote:
Search your feelings. You KNOW it to be true. George Lucas never told you what really happened to your special effects, story telling and acting acumen.

He told me enough, he told me YOU KILLED THEM!

Why would Avatar kill younglings?

CougarPeasant wrote:
This is where movie making is heading and all those fantasy and sci fi stories you loved reading can now be made with realism never before possible in cinema.

And THIS is what makes me most excited about it. There is so much great fantasy material to work with.

Wow, just got back from seeing it with my sons. The 3D version. Maybe it's that I didn't have any real expectations, but that was a great flick. Epic. Best movie I've seen in the theater since The Dark Knight. Highly recommended.

The Clift Notes version of Avatar:



http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/files/2010/01/avatar.jpg" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Well played, Peasant. Well played. :lol:

So I watched it in the theater (wife begged me to see it)



Basically the moral of the story is: Terrorists have the right to murder Americans because we attacked their holy land.



This was as blunt of an anti-american movie as I have ever seen. Try to cover it up all you want, that's what it is.



Cool graphics, though.