Avatar - James Cameron Returns! (Spoilers in thread, obviously!)

redtrain said:
Are you serious? You have to see it in 3D in the theater. When it comes out on DVD you are going to miss the whole experience, it's not the same on DVD versus in 3D in the theater. Even if you get a 3D home TV, you won't get the same experience because your living room won't begin to compare to the theater space.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about the 3D aspect being make-or-break but it's definitely one of those films that's an entirely different (and superior) experience on a theater screen. When I see clips on consumer displays (even good ones) the colors make me cringe...
 
Sad Max said:
Well, Chamber, plus everyone that Chamber knows. He lives in this odd statistical bubble wherein everybody with whom he's acquainted hates the movie, big-time.
Click to expand...

It seems I live in a completely bizarro "statistical bubble" where everyone I know who has seen Avatar really enjoyed it. My theory is that since most people have friends who have similar likes and dislikes, that maybe it is not uncommon for specific groups of friends to all like or dislike certain films, bands, TV shows, etc.

Of course, either case is purely anecdotal.

ChipG said:
If it hits $2.7B I'll get off my ass and go see it. I guess. Maybe...
Click to expand...

I have a pretty good feeling that it will hit 2.7 billion, probably more. It is still in the theater, and went from 2.5 to 2.6 in a pretty short period of time (one to two weeks tops).
 
So now if Avatar gets re-released as a director's cut or something along those lines, I wonder if it will hit 3.5 billion. Let's face it, it will most definitely hit 3 billion. I just don't see it being pulled from theaters very soon, unless of course they want to let it go away for awhile to build more excitement for the longer cut's re-release.
 
If they re-release it; maybe I will have to find a way to get to an IMAX theater to see it.


- Mikko ... is 800 miles from the closest IMAX, and that's in another country.
 
mikkowilson said:
If they re-release it; maybe I will have to find a way to get to an IMAX theater to see it.


- Mikko ... is 800 miles from the closest IMAX, and that's in another country.
Click to expand...

I was underwhelmed by the Imax presentation. The image wasn't full frame and only filled about 75 percent of the screen, and the resolution wasn't really improved. If you've seen it well projected on a large regular screen in RealD then IMAX isn't much of an improvement.
 
I agree. The IMAX presentation didn't impress me as much as the good non-IMAX showings. I think IMAX blows the image up just a bit too much...
 
Sad Max said:
I agree. The IMAX presentation didn't impress me as much as the good non-IMAX showings. I think IMAX blows the image up just a bit too much...
Click to expand...

I wonder if you might know this since you worked on the film... the IMAX showings seemed to be in a 1.85:1 aspect ratio. Wasn't the film shot (or at least intended) to be 2.35:1? Which aspect ratio are the non-IMAX shows presented in?
 
You know, I have no idea what ratio the IMAX show was in; I really don't remember. I think it was 1.85:1 but I'm not sure.
 
Nektonic said:
I wonder if you might know this since you worked on the film... the IMAX showings seemed to be in a 1.85:1 aspect ratio. Wasn't the film shot (or at least intended) to be 2.35:1? Which aspect ratio are the non-IMAX shows presented in?
Click to expand...

Here's an article. The Imax was 1.78 but Cameron thought it was too overwhelming for the audience so he reduced the frame. 2D is 2.35:1
 
Last edited:
I've only seen it in 2D :(

And yeah, 1.78 (IMAX) is the "original" aspect ratio. The "regular" 2.35:1 theatrical release crops the top and bottom off the image.

- Mikko
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top