# Avatar (Just Saw It)



## dreadlk

Well me and Mrs. got an Invite to a early viewing of Avatar on Sunday 

Let me just say that there are now four movies that I have seen in my life that blew me away at the time.

Star Wars (when I was around 10)
Matrix
Lord Of The Rings
and now Avatar 

Absolute freaking best $400 million I have ever seen spent, the 3D stuff is way beyond anything I have seen before, the details and the graphics are incredible.

I won’t spoil anything for anybody, but I have a few tips.

1) Make sure you have good seats! Don’t sit in the first half of the theater, you will be spoiling one of the best visual treats you have ever seen. If the theater is packed, just leave and wait till another day when you can sit nearer to the back and dead center.

2) Don't get there late, there is a 3D demo before the movie, kind of like the THX sound demo of older movies, but you don’t want to miss this 10 second demo, it involves a Robot and gives you an idea of where this 3D stuff will be going in the future. Don’t expect Avatars 3D to look as good as this 3D Demo.

3) Carry your wife and kids! If they have a pulse they will enjoy this movie and your kids will Hug you to death. Theres nothing in the movie that a 8 year old could not see.


BTW
My wife is by no means a Scifi type person, she basically loves romance movies and real life shows, so she was not too excited about going, But for the whole 2 hours and 40 minutes she was glued to the Screen and she says she really really enjoyed it.

Don’t let this one miss you, it’s a fantastic movie.


----------



## Movieman

Im sure the bluray sales for this will be insane.


----------



## dreadlk

Yes, and they will be expensive for the buyer. The Glasses I had on looked different than any 3D glasses I have ever seen. The theater owner told me they cost $30 a piece and they are designed for this new kind of 3D. 

I imagine that each Bluray disk set will have to come with 3D glasses or be an optional purchase.


----------



## Herdfan

We took my daughter to the rerelease of the Toy Story movies this fall. It was the first 3D movie I had seen since Jaws 3D (mid 80's). I had a headache by the end of the first one. So not a big fan of 3D.

Is this 3D different enough to not give me a headache?


----------



## Hoxxx

Is this not done in Real3D?


----------



## djlong

Odd. The recent release of the 3-D Toy Story movies were the best 3-D experience I'd ever had. I have high hopes for "Avatar"


----------



## dreadlk

Herdfan said:


> We took my daughter to the rerelease of the Toy Story movies this fall. It was the first 3D movie I had seen since Jaws 3D (mid 80's). I had a headache by the end of the first one. So not a big fan of 3D.
> 
> Is this 3D different enough to not give me a headache?


Yes this 3D is totaly different, the Glasses are made from real Glass, they have very little color tone to them, just a hint of Blue and Red and they are Polarized. We actually got a 5 minute speech from some production guy connected with the movie before it was shown, he talked about the Glasses and the new 3D technology being used at length.

I have heard it said dozens of times that "This New 3D is Revolutionery".
Well I can honestly say that this time they have gotten it right. I must also be honest and say that while I did not get a headache like I did with other 3D movies, I did have a feeling of eye strain, my eyes started too tear up about half way through the movie. My wife had no problems. I think my eyes are already stressed from all the PC and TV use so I might be an exception.

Carry a Hanky just in case, BTW Not Mr. Hanky, just a Hanky :lol:


----------



## dreadlk

djlong said:


> Odd. The recent release of the 3-D Toy Story movies were the best 3-D experience I'd ever had. I have high hopes for "Avatar"


You won't be dissapointed, Trust me on this one


----------



## celticpride

will this movie only be released in 3D? god i hope not !


----------



## dreadlk

celticpride said:


> will this movie only be released in 3D? god i hope not !


The 3D is great, a lot better than anything before it.


----------



## pfp

What are the people who already wear glasses to do?


----------



## Herdfan

djlong said:


> Odd. The recent release of the 3-D Toy Story movies were the best 3-D experience I'd ever had.


The 3-D part aside, it was like I was watching a movie wearing sunglasses. The brighness and detail I had come to expect from Pixar movies was dulled by the dark glasses.


----------



## dreadlk

pfp said:


> What are the people who already wear glasses to do?


I wear glasses, the 3D glasses are bigger, they fit right over a normal pair of glasses. It was not a problem at all.


----------



## ncxcstud

Hoxxx said:


> Is this not done in Real3D?


I saw it today and thought it was pretty good.

The theater I went to used Real3D glasses.


----------



## lee635

I saw it today and it was very good. However, it was way too intense for my 10 year old son, he got sick... I certainly would not recommend it for an 8 year old. In the doghouse with the wife now too...

My daughter, 12, liked it much though.


----------



## elaclair

Herdfan said:


> The 3-D part aside, it was like I was watching a movie wearing sunglasses. The brighness and detail I had come to expect from Pixar movies was dulled by the dark glasses.


The theatre has to know what they're doing. The Real3D system requires changes to the projector setup to account for the glasses. When I saw "Up", without the glasses the picture was overly bright and washed out...put the glasses on and..perfect.

I talked to one of the projectionists about it and was told they have an extended check-list they have to follow for Real3D showings.


----------



## larryk

See it on a "XD 3d" or ""Imax 3d" screen, it is visually stunning...


----------



## Smthkd

WOW!!WOW!!WOW!!WOW!!WOW!!WOW!!WOW!!WOW!!

Saw it yesterday at the local Imax 3D theater with the wifey! Had great seats right smack in the middle row in the middlw of the theater. First off I have to say, this is nothing like those red/blue glasses in the old days. But the Real3D glasses made me a believer for more 3D movies. This movie is definately the best Ive seen in a while plus the Imax experience made it that much better. You really feel like your there and it was weird at first. By the time you get midway through the 2hrs 45min... you completely forget this is a movie and your not there..Hello come back to earth man...LOL! Im going back to see this again and that is definately a rarity for me. If you havent seen this you gotta be outta your mind to wait for it on Blu-Ray!! The Imax 3D experience is the only way to see this for the first time!...Note: I will be upgrading to a 3D capable HD set when more arrive!


----------



## pfp

Smthkd said:


> Note: I will be upgrading to a 3D capable HD set when more arrive!


Looking forward to the Travel3D avatar


----------



## Dave

They have hit the $ 232 million world wide today.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Unless you've been living under a rock, you've heard of James Cameron's _Avatar_. You've been primed with stories of how this risk-taking director stole the show with _Terminator 2_ and _Titanic_. You know the basic story, and you've probably heard how it's essentially a ripoff of _Dances with Wolves_ with a bit of John Varley's _Titan_ thrown in. You've heard people say the 3D is amazing, the world immersive, the effects seamless.

*Counterpoint*

I didn't care about this movie. I sat through it for two and a half hours and didn't care.

I didn't care about these grandly realized vistas because they weren't real. _Planet Earth_ is real. Go see that. I'll applaud the art directors for creating a consistent and fully-realized planet. But the planet takes on the role of a major character here, and as a character it's not very well written. It's beautiful but it doesn't really rise past that.

I didn't care that it was in 3D. I'll give Mr. Cameron credit for not clubbing us over the head with the 3D-ness of it, but the 3D-ness doesn't add much to the story, and in the very few cases where it doesn't work, it _really_ doesn't work. Any time you are supposed to be seeing through a window you see the window floating in front of you as its own 3D space. That's not realistic.

Why didn't I care? Because a movie is a story. If you want a documentary, see that. The plot was tired, the dialogue had more cardboard than a box factory, and the characters were a more pile of convenient clichés than a group of real people. This movie had a lot of wooden dialogue, and even with the accomplished Ms. Weaver and Ms. Saldana, both of whom I admire, there was very little to like. Mr. Worthington, who played Jake Sully, also seemed to lose his American accent at inconvenient times.

I think the CG was fantastic. Utterly flawless. As a frame upon which to hang a deep, warm storyline filled with rich characters, it was perfect. But where, I ask, were those characters? Where was the story?

Now, I'm critical of this film and the obvious retort would be, "This is mainstream eye candy. Why are you so rough on it?" Simply, I expected more. This man made us believe in a female action hero in _Aliens._ He made us care about a robot in _Terminator 2._ He even made being a spy fun again in _True Lies._ And _Titanic_... it's an easy film to make fun of now but it swept the world and made everyone fall in love. He set the bar very high for himself, and in my opinion he failed to reach it.

I suppose I would have said much the same about _Star Wars_ had I seen it for the first time as an adult, but I didn't. And for _Avatar_ I'll say that you'll probably love it if you've never seen any of the films that do a better job.

To be fair, it seemed like I was the only one in the theatre who didn't walk out saying it was the best film ever in the history of the world. Maybe I was the only one who had seen so many better ones.

Bottom Line: If you want to spend $15 a person, plus popcorn, for two hours of near-flawless 3D/CG, see _Avatar_. Just don't expect any writing for your $15; the writing budget went to ILM.


----------



## BubblePuppy

Stuart Sweet said:


> Unless you've been living under a rock, you've heard of James Cameron's _Avatar_. You've been primed with stories of how this risk-taking director stole the show with _Terminator 2_ and _Titanic_. You know the basic story, and you've probably heard how it's essentially a ripoff of _Dances with Wolves_ with a bit of John Varley's _Titan_ thrown in. You've heard people say the 3D is amazing, the world immersive, the effects seamless.
> 
> *Counterpoint*
> 
> I didn't care about this movie. I sat through it for two and a half hours and didn't care.
> 
> I didn't care about these grandly realized vistas because they weren't real. _Planet Earth_ is real. Go see that. I'll applaud the art directors for creating a consistent and fully-realized planet. But the planet takes on the role of a major character here, and as a character it's not very well written. It's beautiful but it doesn't really rise past that.
> 
> I didn't care that it was in 3D. I'll give Mr. Cameron credit for not clubbing us over the head with the 3D-ness of it, but the 3D-ness doesn't add much to the story, and in the very few cases where it doesn't work, it _really_ doesn't work. Any time you are supposed to be seeing through a window you see the window floating in front of you as its own 3D space. That's not realistic.
> 
> Why didn't I care? Because a movie is a story. If you want a documentary, see that. The plot was tired, the dialogue had more cardboard than a box factory, and the characters were a more pile of convenient clichés than a group of real people. This movie had a lot of wooden dialogue, and even with the accomplished Ms. Weaver and Ms. Saldana, both of whom I admire, there was very little to like. Mr. Worthington, who played Jake Sully, also seemed to lose his American accent at inconvenient times.
> 
> I think the CG was fantastic. Utterly flawless. As a frame upon which to hang a deep, warm storyline filled with rich characters, it was perfect. But where, I ask, were those characters? Where was the story?
> 
> Now, I'm critical of this film and the obvious retort would be, "This is mainstream eye candy. Why are you so rough on it?"* Simply, I expected more.*
> I suppose I would have said much the same about _Star Wars_ had I seen it for the first time as an adult, but I didn't. And for _Avatar_ I'll say that you'll probably love it if you've never seen any of the films that do a better job.
> 
> To be fair, it seemed like I was the only one in the theatre who didn't walk out saying it was the best film ever in the history of the world. Maybe I was the only one who had seen so many better ones.
> 
> Bottom Line: If you want to spend $15 a person, plus popcorn, for two hours of near-flawless 3D/CG, see _Avatar_. Just don't expect any writing for your $15; the writing budget went to ILM.


One could say the same thing about the Wright brothers first attempt at human controlled flight in 1903 at Kitty Hawk and covered 120 feet . Many poo poohed this, yet hundreds of thousands of people travel the world today because of these two bycycle repair shop brothers efforts. This film may just be the taste of things to come.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

If Mr. Cameron presented this as a proof-of-concept for the 3D/CG technology behind it, it succeeded spectacularly. I say again, as a movie it didn't hold my attention. Movies have been around since the days of Kitty Hawk and stories for tens of thousands of years more. Mr. Cameron didn't invent the movie or the story, and he could have done a better job with that part. He did take the lead in inventing the technology, which as I said was nearly flawless.


----------



## djlong

Stuart: A counterpoint.

I have "Planet Earth" on Blu-Ray. You're right. It's gorgeous. It's real.

And from your point of view, I think I'm in complete agreement with you.

HOWEVER

I don't go to the movies for "real". If I want "real", I'll watch the 6 o'clock news - that's even in HD now. If I'm paying $10.50 (what I paid on Saturday), I want what I can't get in the real world. I want escapism. I want heroics. I want the fantastic and incredible.

The worst I could say about "Avatar" is that it's a Cowboys and Indians movie - but it's also a lot more than that. It has allowed me to have to suspend by disbeliefs a LOT less by being SO complete of a realization of something that doesn't really exist.

If I get a FAIR story, I'm happy.

If I get a really good and inventive story, then I've hit the jackpot.

Avatar doesn't hit the jackpot, but I was very, very happy.


----------



## dreadlk

Stuart Sweet said:


> *Counterpoint*
> 
> I didn't care about this movie. I sat through it for two and a half hours and didn't care.


Wow a Negative Stuart Sweet :eek2::eek2:
You do know that something like 90% of people who have seen this movie are Raving pure positives about it, so you are in a very tiny Minority. Not that it matters, as everyones opinion is there opinion and its valid.



> I didn't care about these grandly realized vistas because they weren't real. _Planet Earth_ is real. Go see that.


I get enough real life everyday, I don't go to the movies to see real life.



> I'll applaud the art directors for creating a consistent and fully-realized planet. But the planet takes on the role of a major character here, and as a character it's not very well written. It's beautiful but it doesn't really rise past that.


Its the first Planet ever created in such detail that you are completely there, you don't even notice that it's a digital illusion. Thats what you call paying attention to detail at a level never done before.



> I didn't care that it was in 3D. I'll give Mr. Cameron credit for not clubbing us over the head with the 3D-ness of it, but the 3D-ness doesn't add much to the story, and in the very few cases where it doesn't work, it _really_ doesn't work. Any time you are supposed to be seeing through a window you see the window floating in front of you as its own 3D space. That's not realistic.


The 3D was not perfect, but what Mr. cameron did was establish a whole new way of doing 3D, a method that does not give people Headaches and only moderate eye strain. He has in fact launched the first practical 3D engine.



> Why didn't I care? Because a movie is a story. If you want a documentary, see that. The plot was tired, the dialogue had more cardboard than a box factory, and the characters were a more pile of convenient clichés than a group of real people. This movie had a lot of wooden dialogue, and even with the accomplished Ms. Weaver and Ms. Saldana, both of whom I admire, there was very little to like. Mr. Worthington, who played Jake Sully, also seemed to lose his American accent at inconvenient times.


I could not find a single thing that was wrong with the Dialog, except maybe for his over the top phrases when he first became an Avatar and started sounding like a Bronx fighter. That lasted the whole of two sentences.



> I think the CG was fantastic, utterly flawless. As a frame upon which to hang a deep, warm storyline filled with rich characters, it was perfect. But where, I ask, were those characters? Where was the story?


If you did not feel an emotional bond with the Female Navi warrior then you need to get your pulse checked  This Movie is the first movie I have ever seen where the Alien characters became so real that I could automatically transpose my own human emotions on them. IOW they no longer seemed Alien; it was as though I felt like I was a Navi.



> Now, I'm critical of this film and the obvious retort would be, "This is mainstream eye candy. Why are you so rough on it?" Simply, I expected more. This man made us believe in a female action hero in _Aliens._ He made us care about a robot in _Terminator 2._ He even made being a spy fun again in _True Lies._ And _Titanic_... it's an easy film to make fun of now but it swept the world and made everyone fall in love. He set the bar very high for himself, and in my opinion he failed to reach it.


You're kidding right!
This movie blows away everything else he has ever done. While I admit that Terminator and Titanic were fantastic movies, they where both only moderate leaps in Movie making. Avatar is more Like LOTR in that it creates a whole new standard.

Now I don't know about the rest of forum members, but I really cared about the Navi, I was rooting for them the whole time. I saw people in the theater crying during certain scenes; it was powerful movie making to see that Digital Characters could elicit such emotion.



> I suppose I would have said much the same about _Star Wars_ had I seen it for the first time as an adult, but I didn't. And for _Avatar_ I'll say that you'll probably love it if you've never seen any of the films that do a better job.


Like ?????????



> To be fair, it seemed like I was the only one in the theatre who didn't walk out saying it was the best film ever in the history of the world. Maybe I was the only one who had seen so many better ones.


Like ????????



> Bottom Line: If you want to spend $15 a person, plus popcorn, for two hours of near-flawless 3D/CG, see _Avatar_. Just don't expect any writing for your $15; the writing budget went to ILM.


Best money I spent all year. When the crowds die down I am going to see it again. In my over 40 years of watching movies I have never gone to see a movie twice, so Nuff Said..


----------



## Stuart Sweet

dreadlk,

I am genuinely glad that you enjoyed it. I acknowledged in my review, and will do so again, that I'm in the shrinking minority of those who didn't get my money's worth.

I think that we could trade barbs all day about how the film affected us or didn't affect us. I'm not certain it's necessary, because I'll never convince you out of your emotions and you'll never convince me out of mine.

As for the level of technological achievement, both _Terminator 2_ and _Titanic_ were masterpieces of the CG of their day and while I think the effects in _Titanic_ haven't aged well, those T1000 morphs could hardly be improved upon today. Comparing this film to other James Cameron films, I respect but disagree with your opinion. I think that other James Cameron films had a depth to the characters that I personally found more resonant.

It is interesting, though, that I almost included a list of movies I'd rather have seen again. It included almost every James Cameron film from the last 25 years, as well as _Dances with Wolves, Last of the Mohicans (1994),_ and several other films about the conquest of the Western Hemisphere. If you're interested in learning about the connectedness of living things, rent _Koyannisqatsi_ and _Baraka_. I'd also highly recommend the reader pick up _Titan_ by John Varley, _Ringworld_ by Larry Niven, and _Little Fuzzy_ by H.Beam Piper. They deal with the concept of otherworldly intelligence in a much deeper way. I'd also stick another plug in for _Planet Earth_ because if you haven't experienced the beauty of this very real planet then you are missing out just looking at images of fake planets.

If you were personally moved by _Avatar_ and it led you to think about the way we as a country treat other citizens of the world, or if it led you to think about the way our forefathers treated the benign sovereign nations of this hemisphere between 1500 and 1900, that's great. Enlightenment is always worthwhile.

If you thought it was a fun popcorn flick and that's all you wanted, that's great too.

I wanted something more than I got.


----------



## koji68

I've always loved Cameron's movies and this is no exception.

It was just stunning. This has to be seen in 3D. I'm going to see it again in IMAX to see if it can get any better.

The story is


Spoiler



your basic good vs evil with a twist. Nothing groundbreaking, just your basic feel good movie for the holidays.



One of my favorite TV series is The Universe in the History channel. They had episodes where they explored what life could look like on other planets similar to Earth. This movie was like that but 1000 times.

The movie is getting good reviews: 83 out of 100 in metacritic.com


----------



## space86

I have a question, remember the opening scene of Avatar
when they wake up out of Cryogenic sleep, the 3D was
really good in that scene, why couldn't all the 3D in
the movie look that good? Money per 3D minute maybe?


----------



## wilbur_the_goose

I'd rather see The Fantastic Mr. Fox again thank this dribble.


----------



## dreadlk

Stuart.

Don’t get me wrong, I know that the whole American Indian parallel in this movie was being pounded into peoples heads, but at the same time I could get over that because of what a huge leap this was in movie making technology, while many books convey a better Alien experience, I think Avatar is the first movie that has actually translated the written alien world into something that is visually just as compelling.

BTW I have seen Baraka, it had great visuals but got a little tire some after awhile, call me narrow minded but a collage of great scenes alone is not enough to keep me interested. On a more positive note, I have seen the Planet Earth BluRay edition, and I agree it is a fantastic documentary that captures the planet in a way that is absolutely stunning.


----------



## dreadlk

space86 said:


> I have a question, remember the opening scene of Avatar
> when they wake up out of Cryogenic sleep, the 3D was
> really good in that scene, why couldn't all the 3D in
> the movie look that good? Money per 3D minute maybe?


And the 3D used in the opening Robot 3D demo scene was better than anything in the movie. As you said, it all comes down to 3D per minute costs.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

I've thought about how to condense my feelings down, in the hope that they'll be better understood, so here goes:

It's absolutely a technological tour de force. I have agreed with that all along.

_Avatar_ has neither excellent writing nor excellent acting and I was disappointed by that. I wonder what the first movie will be that takes this 3-D technology and pairs it with excellent writing and acting.


----------



## Shardin

Stuart Sweet said:


> I've thought about how to condense my feelings down, in the hope that they'll be better understood, so here goes:
> 
> It's absolutely a technological tour de force. I have agreed with that all along.
> 
> _Avatar_ has neither excellent writing nor excellent acting and I was disappointed by that. I wonder what the first movie will be that takes this 3-D technology and pairs it with excellent writing and acting.


Stuart;

I have not seen the movie yet but plan to. I wonder if the motion capture "dumbed down" the acting and dialouge? I seems that the actors trying to convey emotion and action in the empty space that has been described in various articles would have a tremendous damping effect on the actors. Just a though and I hope I can add another 2 cents after I see the movie.


----------



## dreadlk

Shardin said:


> Stuart;
> 
> I have not seen the movie yet but plan to. I wonder if the motion capture "dumbed down" the acting and dialouge? I seems that the actors trying to convey emotion and action in the empty space that has been described in various articles would have a tremendous damping effect on the actors. Just a though and I hope I can add another 2 cents after I see the movie.


I think we could go at this all day, it's just a matter of opinion. Stuart thinks the acting and script where not all that good. I felt the acting was very good, especially since almost 2 hours of a 2:40 minute movie involved CG actors. IMO the ability to take CG to this level has never been reached by any movie, and I think the reason is not just the Graphics aspect but that the Characters actually felt real! So that's why I thought the Acting was very good. The script is debatable, if you don't like American Indian Stories you may not like Avatar.


----------



## DJSix

Was there anyone else who didn't see the opening robot demo? Not seeing it wasn't a dealbreaker, I'm just curious if I was in the minority.

Ryan


----------



## fryguy503

There is a point of overdoing the 3d, yea the preview looked great and the 3d was overly done imo. 3d should only add depth and the occasional "WOW" factor during specific scenes. I thought the 3d was done very well and tactful. It should be Fluid and seem realistic.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

DJSix said:


> Was there anyone else who didn't see the opening robot demo? Not seeing it wasn't a dealbreaker, I'm just curious if I was in the minority.
> 
> Ryan


There was no robot demo in my theatre. I wonder if Mr. Dreadlk will attribute my dislike of the film to that


----------



## dreadlk

Stuart Sweet said:


> There was no robot demo in my theatre. I wonder if Mr. Dreadlk will attribute my dislike of the film to that


LOL nope I understand your reasons.
I am not sure if the Robot Demo thing we saw had something to do with the fact that it was an Invitation screening. As I said in the first post they had some reps there from the production company who gave a speech about how the movie was made etc. before it even started. Then the demo came on for the 3D. The Robot in the Demo moves his hand out and it looks like it's right in front of you, then the head pops off and moves out till it looks like it's in front of you. That 3D demo had a lot more 3D Wow factor than Avatar, which IMO was only barely 3D. I kind of understand why Cameron might not have wanted to spend too much money perfecting the 3D in Avatar, as it might have made the movie look like a gigantic 3D demo and taken away from the story.


----------



## pfp

DJSix said:


> Was there anyone else who didn't see the opening robot demo? Not seeing it wasn't a dealbreaker, I'm just curious if I was in the minority.
> 
> Ryan


None for me


----------



## pfp

Well, I went to the theatre to see this flick (I think this was only the second trip to a movie theatre this year). I enjoyed the film but found the 3d to be ok at times but mostly weak and sometimes annoying Overall I don't get why people are making such a big deal over it. I definitely didn't think the 3D added much to the experience.


----------



## Shades228

Stuart I've been thinking a lot about what you said about finding it wanting. I personally thought the movie was great, however once they introduced the characters I really fealt that it was not going to be a character driven movie. Now each of us is going to take something different and have different feelings on things but I really think this movie is a setup for something more. Unfortunately I've found that lately characters are being pushed aside for CG in action movies. While CG and action are very important in action movies some character is still needed. I have a feeling that this will continue to go on and find myself lowering expectations for movies everytime a new one comes out. I no longer get excited about new movies because 90% of the time I do I leave disappointed.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Shades228, you're absolutely right. If I'd gone in with lower expectations I would have left happier. It's just that Mr. Cameron has done some films that I did truly enjoy and I had hoped for this to be his best film. Technically speaking, it certainly is. In other regards, it's not.


----------



## BubblePuppy

After reading all the posts in this thread and being inundated with the plethora of pr for this movie, Melissa and I decided to see it this weekend. I checked the ticket prices, $8.75 ea. $17.50..ok not too bad until I scrolled down the page..$3.00 3D upcharge for each ticket..WHAT!! Total $23.50.......no way in he$$.....We'll wait for the dvd.....I really don't care about the 3D. Why should we pay extra to see a movie the way it was intended to be seen? Avatar...see ya at BlockBuster.


----------



## WERA689

Miami mentioned that $3 charge to me, too! And he said they had a "recycle your 3D glasses" bin at the exit. For 3 bux, I'd keep em!


----------



## BubblePuppy

WERA689 said:


> Miami mentioned that $3 charge to me, too! And he said they had a "recycle your 3D glasses" bin at the exit. *For 3 bux, I'd keep em!*


Hmmm...might be worth it if the glasses made excellent polarized sunglasses and are fashionable. :grin:

NAH!!!! What with the cost of some popcorn and soda, I'm not going to spend over a quarter of a hundred bucks to see a movie.


----------



## jeffshoaf

WERA689 said:


> Miami mentioned that $3 charge to me, too! And he said they had a "recycle your 3D glasses" bin at the exit. For 3 bux, I'd keep em!


I wonder if you can avoid the 3D service fee if you save your glasses and use 'em at the next 3D flick?


----------



## dogs31

IMHO: The 3D was worth the extra $3.50. However, it sure beats paying $15 per person for IMAX ( I have one in my town right in the same plaza where the theater I go to is located across from it) since the matinee price for my theater is $7.00. So the total price was $10.50


----------



## Boston_bill

I liked the movie but it was way too long. This was my first experience with 3D. We saw it in a crowded theater so we were in the first five rows.
Amazing experience though.


----------



## HIPAR

I haven't seen it yet but if it's all about 3D, there's substance missing. If that's the case I'm immediately at a disadvantage because I cannot see in 3D.

--- CHAS


----------



## Chris Blount

I just saw this movie.

First, it works. The story is good. The effects are good. Definitely worth seeing.

The problem is that perhaps I have seen too many movies in my lifetime. I continue seeing the same thing recycled over and over again.

This movie is basically "Dances with Wolves" and "Ferngully: The Last Rainforest" all rolled into one.

Don't get me wrong. It's well executed. This is the best use of 3D I have ever seen. Very, very well done. This is THE 3D movie to see.

Can't wait for the sequels but I hope they follow a different path (story wise).


----------



## Chris Blount

HIPAR said:


> I haven't seen it yet but if it's all about 3D, there's substance missing. If that's the case I'm immediately at a disadvantage because I cannot see in 3D.
> 
> --- CHAS


Don't worry about it. While the 3D does help make it a more immersive experience, James Cameron is a good story teller. You will still enjoy it.


----------



## Smthkd

Agreed, Im looking forward to the Bluray release of this. Sorry no 3D release for me!


----------



## dogs31

Smthkd said:


> Agreed, Im looking forward to the Bluray release of this. Sorry no 3D release for me!


You gotta see it in 3D


----------



## pfp

Chris Blount said:


> I just saw this movie.
> 
> First, it works. The story is good. The effects are good. Definitely worth seeing.
> 
> The problem is that perhaps I have seen too many movies in my lifetime. I continue seeing the same thing recycled over and over again.
> 
> This movie is basically "Dances with Wolves" and "Ferngully: The Last Rainforest" all rolled into one.
> 
> Don't get me wrong. It's well executed. This is the best use of 3D I have ever seen. Very, very well done. This is THE 3D movie to see.
> 
> Can't wait for the sequels but I hope they follow a different path (story wise).


I enjoyed this movie and I definitley hear what you are saying. I came across this shortly after I saw the film and found it absolutely hilarious.


----------



## BubblePuppy

pfp said:


> I enjoyed this movie and I definitley hear what you are saying. I came across this shortly after I saw the film and found it absolutely hilarious.


:thats:
Maybe you should have put that in spoiler tags. :lol:


----------



## Stuart Sweet

I saw that same writeup and laughed as well. But then again, who's got the last laugh now... Mr. Cameron picked up several awards last night including best drama.


----------



## BubblePuppy

Stuart Sweet said:


> I saw that same writeup and laughed as well. But then again, who's got the last laugh now... *Mr. Cameron picked up several awards last night including best drama.[*/QUOTE]
> 
> Perhaps it should have been "Best Animated Drama"....... I don't think there is such category for these awards, however.


----------



## Smthkd

dogs31 said:


> You gotta see it in 3D


 Ive already seen it 2x in IMAX 3D.. Im talking about when its release on Bluray, I dont need to buy it in 3D!


----------



## dogs31

Smthkd said:


> Ive already seen it 2x in IMAX 3D.. Im talking about when its release on Bluray, I dont need to buy it in 3D!


Oh my bad


----------



## BubblePuppy

Melissa and I saw the movie yesterday. The 3D was good but we weren't all that impressed by it, We were more impressed with the preview's 3D. Left with a headache, and the glasses. We don't have any desire to see other 3D movies.
Melissa and I missed our pause button.


----------



## Doug Gorius

This movie looked good, but it wasn't a good movie.


----------



## Marlin Guy

I haven't been overly eager to see the movie for some reason, but Monday night TV is a bit slow for us, so we decided to give it a go.
I admit that I didn't realize it was so long, so I'm sure glad we started it at 8:30.

My wife usually dozes off if a movie goes much past 10, but she hung in there on this one. 

Visually, the movie is groundbreakingly stunning in every regard. I'm sure it will one day look as ridiculous as does Star Wars now, but for the time being, it has set the bar pretty darned high.

As far as the plot and the depth of the characters go..... 
Did I mention how awesome it was visually?


----------



## wilbur_the_goose

We really hated the movie. The technology was beyond wonderful, but the story was pretty dumb to us. To be blunt, it'd be a perfect film for the next iteration of Mystery Science Theater 3000.

To me, it shows that great technology can't rescue a bad script.

I give it 4 big stars for technology, 1.5 stars for the story/script/acting.


----------



## sigma1914

Marlin Guy said:


> I haven't been overly eager to see the movie for some reason, but Monday night TV is a bit slow for us, so we decided to give it a go.
> I admit that I didn't realize it was so long, so I'm sure glad we started it at 8:30.
> 
> My wife usually dozes off if a movie goes much past 10, but she hung in there on this one.
> 
> Visually, the movie is groundbreakingly stunning in every regard. I'm sure it will one day look as ridiculous as does Star Wars now, but for the time being, it has set the bar pretty darned high.
> 
> As far as the plot and the depth of the characters go.....
> Did I mention how awesome it was visually?





wilbur_the_goose said:


> We really hated the movie. The technology was beyond wonderful, but the story was pretty dumb to us. To be blunt, it'd be a perfect film for the next iteration of Mystery Science Theater 3000.
> 
> To me, it shows that great technology can't rescue a bad script.
> 
> I give it 4 big stars for technology, 1.5 stars for the story/script/acting.


:lol::lol: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2334427#post2334427


----------



## wilbur_the_goose

Sigma - yeah - I thought that was pretty funny too!


----------

