• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Rottenwatch: AVATAR (82%)

Status
Not open for further replies.
That flag thing brings something to mind.

Not matter how "fair and balanced" Fox News is, they can't take an official opposing position on ABUHDAH.

Jimmy sheilded himself from his biggest critics by doing business DIRECTLY WITH them.

Genius.
 
cakefoo said:
Dude, you're really getting annoying, you know that? You'd probably go postal if you saw the floor after a rock concert. Some guy getting $6 an hour is unfased by it. He and a buddy are cleaning out an entire screen in a fraction of the time it took to actually make the "mess." If, as you guys are saying, it takes not an iota of effort to clean up after yourself, it must not be much harder for someone for whom it's in their job description and has become routine.

It's not like I'm going to buy a blue XXL slushie just to dump all of it on the main front aisle next time I see this movie- I just think that, like maids make beds and replace the towels, and busboys clean up sit-down restaurant tables and wash dishes, and ballpark janitors sweep and pick up after 35,000 drunk people, the movie theater owners are unfased spending a few dollars to employ a couple kids to do what, as you or others have said requires not a single iota of effort anyway.


Then your theater needs to hire/fire their janitors who can't do their job. Theaters get $8 per person plus concession profits, and it should only take 3-4 seconds per used seat for an employee to clean up afterwards. That's about the same time it takes for you to get your ticket stub ripped.
Click to expand...
You are so ignorant! lol I actually worked at a movie theater and you couldn't be more wrong!!!

Do you even have a job?? Have you ever had a job? what is wrong with you?

FYI For the first few weeks theaters get 10% of ticket price then 50%.
 
I haven't got time to, but if somebody would photoshop Brody (We're gonna need a bigger boat.) looking out from the deck of Titanic and seeing Quaritch's gunship on the horizon....well I would appreciate it. Would go well with the next B.O thread.
 
So I read another chunk of the Cinefex article ("article" is not really descriptive of an 80-page story; it's a small book) tonight. Lots of new stuff I didn't know before - the way the facial imaging system and muscular-skeletal computer rig worked together just about made my brain melt out my ears - but it was the many pages on the virtual camera that floored me.

I kind of sort of understood what it was capable of, but not fully:
The controls enabled the camera operator to replicate any number of camera moves, such as zoom, dolly and Stedicam, and also allowed for scale variations. "Depending on how you set the scale," noted Cameron, "the camera could move through an environment in a one-to-one relationship, or it could move through it as if it were a tabletop miniature. I'd be holding the camera, and they could set the scale to that suddenly I was 60 feet tall, moving the camera round this miniature environment." Scaling enabled Cameron to simulate large crane moves on stage, merely by swooping his arms with the camera in hand. Or he could set the parameters of a crane move - starting at, say, 200 feet in height and ending in a closeup as a character said a specific line - and the computer would build that curve.

The virtual camera system also allowed for speed variables. If a creature was running through the jungle at high speed, for example, traveling hundreds of feet, the virtual camera operator could easily keep up with the CG creature through platforming. "We would platform to a path, and move through space is if on a dolly," said Cameron, "so all we had to do was follow the subject. We could platform to anything - a camera path, a character, an object, a vehicle. It was one of the really fundamental ideas. This was the kind of stuff the tech team came up with initially and presented back home - and I was dazzled by it."​
Just....wow.
 
Scullibundo said:
Pfft! I've seen it five. Come back when you've seen it six.
Click to expand...

I just saw it my
9th
time. I am officially hooked...most I've seen a movie in theaters before this was 3 times for Jurassic Park. I am seeing it on IMAX 3D finally Feb. 1st...plan on that being my final time (no more till then either), but I highly doubt I will hold to that.
 
Somnia said:
I just saw it my
9th
time. I am officially hooked...most I've seen a movie in theaters before this was 3 times for Jurassic Park. I am seeing it on IMAX 3D finally Feb. 1st...plan on that being my final time (no more till then either), but I highly doubt I will hold to that.
Click to expand...

Did you pay for it every time? Including or excluding sneak ins?
 
Somnia said:
I just saw it my
9th
time. I am officially hooked...most I've seen a movie in theaters before this was 3 times for Jurassic Park. I am seeing it on IMAX 3D finally Feb. 1st...plan on that being my final time (no more till then either), but I highly doubt I will hold to that.
Click to expand...
Let me know when you've seen it 17 times. :p
 
saiftk said:
Did you pay for it every time? Including or excluding sneak ins?
Click to expand...

I don't sneak in. Was paid for every time. I go to the theaters a lot...big movie guy. Also take into account I took my entire staff (7 employees) to see it also as a thanks for their hard work over the holiday season. So...ya I've spent a bit on it, but I can afford it so its whatever to me.
 
Somnia said:
I just saw it my
9th
time. I am officially hooked...most I've seen a movie in theaters before this was 3 times for Jurassic Park. I am seeing it on IMAX 3D finally Feb. 1st...plan on that being my final time (no more till then either), but I highly doubt I will hold to that.
Click to expand...


This is the first time I have seen a movie 3 times and I could easily see it again. :D
 
This pic made me think of Avatar

SNN0414VC-682_817956a.jpg
 
Honestly this is one of the few movies I would consider watching twice in theatres. I am really unsure of this movie getting a sequel with a decent story. I really appreciated the fact that AVATAR could have easily been released as a trilogy itself. In fact I counted 2 or 3 times where he could have cut it off and then released a sequel like man movies are doing.

FUCK YOU SHERLOCK HOLMES

But instead he went and did a complete story. Bravo sir, bravo.
 
ToxicAdam said:
This pic made me think of Avatar

SNN0414VC-682_817956a.jpg
Click to expand...
I really want to know where this came from and if it's real.

If real then thats the most badass bird ever. That scene was pretty cool but
I'm sad that he didn't go back to his first flying dino. :'(
 
Black-Wind said:
That scene was pretty cool but
I'm sad that he didn't go back to his first flying dino. :'(
Click to expand...
I imagine he did eventually, he let the big one go.
Also, was it just me or were mountain banshees hilariously cute?
They had the best shit-eating grin. :lol
 
Jtwo said:
I imagine he did eventually, he let the big one go.
Also, was it just me or were mountain banshees hilariously cute?
They had the best shit-eating grin. :lol
Click to expand...

Actually, I heard a rumour that he would ride on Neyitiri's one with Neytiri. She would bond through one ear lobe and he would bond through the other in some kind of aerial mind-meld beastial three-way.
 
That will make for super boring flying sequences in the sequel. :lol
 
Scullibundo said:
Actually, I heard a rumour that he would ride on Neyitiri's one with Neytiri. She would bond through one ear lobe and he would bond through the other in some kind of aerial mind-meld beastial three-way.
Click to expand...
:lol

3 billion sequel confirmed
 
Scullibundo said:
Actually, I heard a rumour that he would ride on Neyitiri's one with Neytiri. She would bond through one ear lobe and he would bond through the other in some kind of aerial mind-meld beastial three-way.
Click to expand...
I wonder who would be steering at that point.

"Let me drive!"

"No, let me drive you asshole!"

*crashes into floating mountain*
 
Well saw it for my second time. That may not sound like much compared to those of you seeing it for your hundredth time but this is big for me since I never, NEVER watch movies more than once. Let alone pay for it in the theaters more than once. Avatar was just that good.
 
Somnia said:
I don't sneak in. Was paid for every time. I go to the theaters a lot...big movie guy. Also take into account I took my entire staff (7 employees) to see it also as a thanks for their hard work over the holiday season. So...ya I've spent a bit on it, but I can afford it so its whatever to me.
Click to expand...
Same here. Saw it 9 times ;)
 
Kipz said:
Well saw it for my second time. That may not sound like much compared to those of you seeing it for your hundredth time but this is big for me since I never, NEVER watch movies more than once. Let alone pay for it in the theaters more than once. Avatar was just that good.
Click to expand...

I'm the same way. The only movie I ever saw in the theater more than once was Titanic, which I saw twice. I've seen Avatar 3 times and will see it 3 more I am thinking. The weird thing is that I consider it one of Cameron's lesser films in many ways; it's definitely not as good as Aliens, T2, or Titanic. But, for some reason I have this irresistable urge to see it again and again.
 
jett said:
118ja7d.jpg
Click to expand...
It's amazing how veteran movie makers do see the worth of the tech ( no one has ever used a camera in the way Cameron used it here ). But dipshits like Reitman are butthurt and want their bullshit adaptations to succeed above an industry achievement.

By the way. Sorceses. so fucking pimp.
 
universalmind said:
Is Up in the Air any good? I havn't seen it yet.
Click to expand...
It's lackluster. It isn't a "movie movie". Such as Star Trek,IB or Avatar. There isn't anything signifying a movie experience. And no real ambition is shown. It's like reading a book. But the book was probably better.
 
Almost got suckered into the 2d version of Avatar the other day. Drove all the way to the theater to meet my aunt and her kids and she had already bought the tickets for the 2D viewing. I was about to step out of the car when she called and told me, so I got right back in and drove home :lol. I guess it doesn't matter though, because the theater only has Dolby 3D, and I'll probably hit the theater in the next town over that has RealD setup. I did end up watching the new Star Trek with my family later that night, so that was cool. Oh, also, she had to buy tickets for a showtime an hour after she got there because the time she was going to get was sold out, :O.
 
I'm living in a city without an imax screen. Is it worth driving out of town to watch it on imax or will a normal screen do? Is the difference very apparent?
 
KillerAJD said:
Almost got suckered into the 2d version of Avatar the other day. Drove all the way to the theater to meet my aunt and her kids and she had already bought the tickets for the 2D viewing. I was about to step out of the car when she called and told me, so I got right back in and drove home :lol. I guess it doesn't matter though, because the theater only has Dolby 3D, and I'll probably hit the theater in the next town over that has RealD setup. I did end up watching the new Star Trek with my family later that night, so that was cool. Oh, also, she had to buy tickets for a showtime an hour after she got there because the time she was going to get was sold out, :O.
Click to expand...
You should have gone to Dolby 3D
Dolby 3D is the newest of the 3 and is apparently better than RealD
http://3dvision-blog.com/what-to-choose-imax-3d-versus-reald-versus-dolby-3d-for-3d-movies/
I guess that's why most European cinemas new to 3D adopt Digital 3D over Real D.
 
Scullibundo said:
Dolby is terrible, stop it.
Click to expand...
Enlighten me. I can't seem to find any negatives, except for the huge glasses. Which, are a spectacle wearing man's best friend.

So what exactly is the difference? Because I might go look for a real D screening of avatar.
 
Refer to OP.

Edit - Double checked OP and realise I didn't specify why Dolby is shitty. I have many times before though.

Glasses are cumbersome and NARROW in the frame. They block your peripheral vision which definitely does NOT benefit a screening meant to immerse you. Secondly, the glasses aren't polarised, but rather are tinted green/yellow like the oldschool red/blue lithographic lenses of 50s style 3D. This means colours are more prone to being the wrong tone or wrong altogether. No projection system ghosts as much as Dolby. It is the most prominent because it doesn't require a silver screen and thus is cheaper to upgrade any old cinema to - rather than a cinema having to invest a tonne in an entirely new screen.
Most prone to giving headaches. Fuck DOLBY.
 
Jibril said:
Enlighten me. I can't seem to find any negatives, except for the huge glasses. Which, are a spectacle wearing man's best friend.

So what exactly is the difference? Because I might go look for a real D screening of avatar.
Click to expand...

I've watched it on both. Seriously, Dolby 3d is that bad.
 
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/entertainment/view/1031671/1/.html

Taiwan man dies after watching 'Avatar'
Posted: 19 January 2010 1442 hrs


TAIPEI : A 42-year-old Taiwanese man with a history of high blood pressure has died of a stroke likely triggered by over-excitement from watching the blockbuster "Avatar" in 3D, a doctor said Tuesday.

The man, identified only by his surname Kuo, started to feel unwell during the screening earlier this month in the northern city of Hsinchu and was taken to hospital.

Kuo, who suffered from hypertension, was unconscious when he arrived at the Nan Men General Hospital and a scan showed that his brain was haemorrhaging, emergency room doctor Peng Chin-chih said.

"It's likely that the over-excitement from watching the movie triggered his symptoms," he told AFP.

Kuo died 11 days later from the brain haemorrhage, and the China Times newspaper said it was the first death linked to watching James Cameron's science-fiction epic "Avatar".

Film blogging sites have reported complaints of headaches, dizziness, nausea and blurry eyesight from viewers of "Avatar" and other movies rich in 3D imagery.

- AFP/il
Click to expand...


This has to stop. It's all fun and games until someone actually dies. Cameron and Fox needs to do the responsible thing, and end Avatar's run early. This will certainly disappoint all the fans who want to see it beat Titanic, but it would also be the right thing to do.
 
saw it for my second time today. however, i lost the tickets i bought originally, so really, i've paid for the movie 3 times :lol

amazed at how full it still is. the 7:15 imax showing was sold out over 5 hours ahead of time. still so good though
 
joey_z said:
I'm living in a city without an imax screen. Is it worth driving out of town to watch it on imax or will a normal screen do? Is the difference very apparent?
Click to expand...

First I want to answer your question: Yes IMAX 3D is immersive and very good. I saw it again on a regular Real D 3D screen and while it looked just a little crisper/tidyer than the IMAX screen, I think thats what made it a little too crisp/off if you know what I mean. Also the screen is so much smaller and you don't appreciate the IMAX screen til you try it. The screen and quality of the 3D will make you a believer. I looved the IMAX version, was happy with the Real D one.

Secondly, I am really torn. So I saw it a second time with my GF and her friends at a Real 3D today. I want to let you guys know I had already seen it on IMAX but didn't tell her cause I didn't want to piss her off (also I dont think her friends woulda driven to the IMAX). I absolutely loved the movie and the IMAX 3D was part of that.

When I saw it again I don't know if it was the friends chortling at inappropriate times or one of them spamming "But why are they so blue" at the beginning and end of watching the movie, but it just didn't feel the same. Zoe's more guttural noises I found grating but then again when she would make one of those roars/screeches the friends would laugh(is it funny?). Zoe, regardless of my friends, I found a little more grating. She played it a little too naive and over the top. Only real complaint about the movie.

I think overall I was just much more aware of how I had given myself over to taking the journey with the movie the first time and with the friends I felt more self conscious. They did question everything that I had just taken in as part of the package the first time around: Why are they blue, Cat like hissing/noises, Guttural noises, disappointment because of hype, 3D wasn't as inviting as they hoped (wanted more in the face shots, but I thought part of the charm was that those were used in important moments and the rest was subtle and used to create a World), and one said he started to nod off because the length of the movie got to him.

While I see some/all those points have merit I just am surprised how many complaints they had and I didn't feel like they gave it a real shot since they were obviously caught up with premise problems and that limited any or all enjoyment they could of had. HELP ME understand why I'm so torn to why my experiences were different. Or at least why I feel a little disappointed this time around.
 
Scullibundo said:
Refer to OP.

Edit - Double checked OP and realise I didn't specify why Dolby is shitty. I have many times before though.

Glasses are cumbersome and NARROW in the frame. They block your peripheral vision which definitely does NOT benefit a screening meant to immerse you. Secondly, the glasses aren't polarised, but rather are tinted green/yellow like the oldschool red/blue lithographic lenses of 50s style 3D. This means colours are more prone to being the wrong tone or wrong altogether. No projection system ghosts as much as Dolby. It is the most prominent because it doesn't require a silver screen and thus is cheaper to upgrade any old cinema to - rather than a cinema having to invest a tonne in an entirely new screen.
Most prone to giving headaches. Fuck DOLBY.
Click to expand...

holy shit. I feel like I haven't seen avatar at all. Since my3D experience was dolby. :(

I'm gonna have to IMAX this pretty soon then.
 
Hell yeah. I'd love to see what Marty would have done with it. It seems even he has conceded that he's too old to learn it. Which is a shame because I'd love to see what Scorsese would do when shooting in stereo.

Very fucking excited to see what Spielberg comes up with.
 
universalmind said:
Leave Star Wars alone and do something new for fuck's sake.
Click to expand...

As if. This way he can go back into the editing room and get rid of that awful Alec Guiness and replace him with Ewan McGregor. He can also change Greedo's gun to one of those toy guns that ejects the little 'BANG' sign.
 
Scullibundo said:
Secondly, the glasses aren't polarised, but rather are tinted green/yellow like the oldschool red/blue lithographic lenses of 50s style 3D.
Click to expand...
Ok, there is something seriously amiss here.

I saw My Bloody Valentine in Dolby3D, and the glasses were NOT tinted. It was just like the IMAX lenses, only smaller [which is a valid complaint.] I'm positive it was Dolby because the theater had just installed the new tech so they were pimping it out at the ticket stand. I'm also certain the glasses weren't tinted because I was wearing them before the show started while browsing GAF on my phone and there was no noticeable color difference, it was just like wearing shitty sunglasses.

Is there more than one type of Dolby 3D?
 
Jtwo said:
Ok, there is something seriously amiss here.

I saw My Bloody Valentine in Dolby3D, and the glasses were NOT tinted. It was just like the IMAX lenses, only smaller [which is a valid complaint.] I'm positive it was Dolby because the theater had just installed the new tech so they were pimping it out at the ticket stand. I'm also certain the glasses weren't tinted because I was wearing them before the show started while browsing GAF on my phone and there was no noticeable color difference, it was just like wearing shitty sunglasses.

Is there more than one type of Dolby 3D?
Click to expand...

If they are like the IMAX glasses they look normal but then if you look through them to the screen they appear to be old school anaglyph. It is all in how the light is filtered through the lens.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

RIP Cora (my avatar)
46
738
gamingforum1 replied
Funk musician Sly Stone, 82, has passed away
11
577
GeekyDad replied
What's the deal with your avatar.
2 3
131
1K
Sand Dan Glokta replied
Brian Wilson Legendary founder of the Beach boys dies at 82
28
890
LiquidMetal14 replied
Avatar Error?
7
491
Nocty replied
Top Bottom