hasslein

Christmas week? Usually the 3D version of a film (at least in Van Nuys) is the version that lasts the longest.

Bandoman

Not a dumb question, and I would like to know as well.

Draven

I've pretty much decided to see a 2D showing tonight. I'm expecting a big action flick with great visuals and a somewhat lackluster story. I'll spend $10 on that, but no more than . The way I see it, if the movie can't stand on it's own without the 3D gimmick, then it must be a pretty crappy movie. I'm hoping I'm wrong.

islandclaws

I believe I had read somewhere that, yes, they will work just fine.

BJacks

Yes, they fit over normal glasses fine. I didn't have any problems.

maingon

I was blown away by the movie, it was amazing, the visuals are the best there are, tops any movie out there. the action was just AWESOME. The story was very good, slightly predicitable but it works. This movie is now one of my top 10 movies of all time. The world James cameron created was beautiful. Especially at Night that was breathtaking.

I wanted to see it in the IMAX, but it was sold out, I seen it in a full theater at 12:00 this afternoon.


9.75/10

CSA

The 3-D films in the fifties were not Crap. In fact, it was much better than today's Real D and Dolby 3-D systems which uses only one digital projector. The fifties 3-D used two 35mm film projectors with separate lamp heads and a silver screen providing a very bright picture when viewed with the same type of Polaroid glasses used today. This information is factual because I was was around at that time And saw almost all of the movies shown in 3-D including BWANA DEVIL, HOUSE OF WAX, IT CAME FROM OUT OF SPACE, THE CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON, KISS ME KATE, DIAL M FOR MURDER, INFERNO, SANGAREE, ARENA, THE MAZE, FORT TI, THOSE REDHEADS FROM SEATTLE and many others.

CSA

big whoppa

Haven't seen it and not interested but having seen a few 3D movies recently, I can help. The colors will not pop as much since you will be wearing polarized 3D glasses that have a greyish tint. You should see a great deal of depth which gives you the feeling you are actually there and not watching a flat movie picture. Yes, it's a neat experience but it can be a little distracting when you focus on the cool factor rather than the story itself (I'd find myself often looking at the movie with the glasses and then take them off to see the difference). In some cases, this might be a good thing.

Supermallet

Yes, this is correct, although RealD also uses a silver screen. It was when those films were re-released that they had the crappy red/blue glasses.

Draven

I'm eating my own words - I just pulled the trigger on the Digital 3D showing tonight at the theater down the street. It was only three bucks more, and I want to be able to say that I saw it the way Cameron wanted, even if I still think it's a dumb way to present a movie.

We'll see if tonight's showing changes my mind

maingon

3D then was more primitive though, Now the directors really have more control of 3D. the image is razor sharp, great colors, and they can have only certain things be 3D in the image and really control the depth etc much more then what was possible then.

dhmac

You're confusing "Home" 3D with "Theatrical" 3D. Theatrical 3D uses glasses with polarized lens oriented perpendicular to each other that seem more like slightly-tinted sunglasses. The infamous "red/blue" 3D glasses are for Home 3D because the polarized lens form of 3D doesn't work with TVs for whatever technical reasons.

Wolf359

Saw it and loved it, took off half a star for the anti-military jabs. (The previously mentioned "shock and awe" line and a couple others)
Didn't take me out of the story for long, but why do they have to be in there at all? I just wish you could enjoy a sci fi/action movie without politics being thrown in.

Brack

Considering the subject matter, how could you remove the politics?

Nausicaa

So, has anyone watched this yet while tripping on shrooms?? Something about the visuals combined with the 3D effects tells me this is one to see under the influence of psychedelics.

cartman

I have to preface this by saying that James Cameron has been my favorite filmmaker for about 18 years now (when I decided I had one after T2).

I somehow managed to shield myself from any and all info about Avatar until Seeing it today. I did catch a glimpse (read: a frame or two) when changing channels, but all that gave me was there were some blue people in the movie. Other than Sam Worthington, I didn't even know who was in it.

With that, I'm a little bit torn. The visuals were amazing in Imax 3D. The world he created, especially during the first night scene, made me go "wow" in amazement, which is something I rarely get to do at a movie any more (honestly, the last time I remember feeling that way was "The Matrix", preceded by "Titanic"). The end battle was fantastic, but even having avoided all Avatar info, I wasn't surprised by a thing in the story. The turns and especially what occurred in the last 5 minutes were all ridiculously predictable, and yet I still enjoyed it. It's not my favorite Cameron movie, and really I think I need to see it at least once more to place it among his others. If nothing else, it was certainly a feat in film making and I really hope he doesn't take any more twelve year breaks.

PS - I think Avatar did what Episode I tried (and failed) to do. Create a believable CG world and characters that people could feel for or relate to.

Steve Phillips

Not really. Having seen almost all of the 1950's 3-D films in recent years projected in the original dual 35mm/polarized light/clear glasses versions at the World 3-D Expos in Los Angeles, I'd say that the filmmakers back then understood 3-D much better than the people using it today. Most of those old movies had virtually flawless 3-D; no eyestrain at all to watch them; while some of today's movies have more than a few eye stretching moments. (This of course will change as more of them become familiar with the technology.) People who think that the older 3-D movies were junk just plain haven't seen many of them, because overall, even when seen flat, they hold up much better than the 3-D movies that came in later decades.

Only a very few of those old movies were ever re-issued in red/blue anaglyph; most widely Universal's B/W sci-fi entries, but some of them did play on TV that way.

I'm going to see AVATAR this weekend, and I hope Cameron learned a thing or two since GHOST OF THE ABYSS and ALIENS OF THE DEEP, since both of those had some flawed 3-D scenes, which ironically were not filmed underwater, so he had complete control.

CSA

WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! Fifties 3-D was not primitive! I became a 3-D fanatic ever since I saw the first 3-D film BWANA DEVIL in 1953 and have been comparing the wonderful 3-D of the fifties with every theatrical 3-D system after that and even the current single projection Real D and Dolby 3-D cannot match the quality of fifties 3-D. By the way, did you ever get to see any dual projection 3-D films from the fifties during special revival showings? There was a week long showing of a lot of 3-D films from the fifties at the Egyptian Theatre in Los Angeles many years ago and it was very well attended.

Osiris3657

Some more thoughts after seeing the midnight showing last night:
I won't defend the originality of the story, but the way it was told made the movie fun and entertaining. The movie wasn't perfect; there were moments I cringed at the story elements and I also think the natives were goofy looking, but plain and simple it was very imaginative. The 3D isn't gimmicky and cliched (ie, stuff comes out to make you duck), it was immersive, so it felt like you were there. The time flew by: felt like it was 90 min long instead of nearly 3 hrs. That tells me it was well paced and never boring. And the action scenes are as good as there have ever been, it's damn impressive.

Boba Fett

A visual masterpiece tacked onto a sci-fi's "greatest hits" story.

When Cameron knocks off Star Trek III, you know he isn't even trying.

In terms of the Na'vi being believable creations, I'd say they still lie in the shadow of Gollum, King Kong, and "Christopher Johnson"

Wolf359

Dealing within the movie's own politics is one thing, throwing lines in like "shock and awe" and "fight their terror with our own", etc are clearly designed to reflect our own current politics and that to me is different.

I would much rather be able to enjoy myself without ham handed political messages. Like most people, at least for a movie like Avatar, I go to ESCAPE from the world, not be reminded of it. It draws you out of the movie.

Bandoman

Not to take this thread off topic, but imo the best scifi tries to deal with/interpret current events and/or controversial political issues.

Troy Stiffler

If you're not saying something, you're saying nothing.

wm lopez

The media has learned their lesson and have kept the smart-ass, bad reviews and bad word of mouth this time to themselves. They didn't want to look like they did when TITANIC came out and the public loved it and made it the #1 movie of all time.

toddly6666

George Lucas just got banged up the ass without lube by Cameron. Lucas' ass is going to be bleeding for many years. I just saw Avatar in 3D and it is one of the best films of the year. This and District 9 were just amazing from the very first frame to the very last. I liked Star Trek too but that movie is just not as special as Avatar and District 9.

George Lucas, thats how you CGI characters, you bitch!

There was nothing gimmicky about the 3D, it would be a shame to skip out on that.

I really think Zoe Saldana should be Oscar nominated for supporting actress. I havent seen such good cgi acting since Gollum. I really hope she gets tons of roles now.