Avatar in IMAX
 

A few months ago I was in Atlantic City. Jeff and I went to IMAX and the film broke (or the projector broke). They gave each of us a refund, a free pass to another IMAX movie, and another voucher for a small popcorn/soda combo. The vouchers expired at the end of December.

At that point December looked like Christmas movies and other family fare. So we were hanging onto them for a while and I finally got around to offering them to a friend in the A.C. area along with a restaurant.com gift certificate. We shipped them out 3 days ago.

Yesterday I found out Avatar will be playing at the Tropicana IMAX Dec 17-31. :banghead::banghead::banghead:

I'm checking to see if it extends into January, but I am off on vacation on Dec 30th and I am halfway considering an overnight trip to A.C. just to see the movie.

Is anyone planning on seeing Avatar in IMAX. Has anyone seen it in IMAX?

Is it even out yet? I've seen the ads, but hadn't seen any reviews in the paper.

If it gets good reviews, I'll probably walk down to the National Mall and see it on one of the Imax screens there. Assuming they are showing it. Natural History sometimes shows commercial movies on Imax.

If it doesn't get good reviews, I won't see it. Special effects are neat, but are not reason enough for me to see a movie.

Ebert liked it.

It's playing in 'digital 3D' in King of Prussia. Looks like a road trip is called for.

We have the option of 3d or regular in my theater. Should I see the 3d one? Do I need special glasses? will it give me a headache?

We saw Avatar 3D. I had not read any information about it and so I had no expectations. I don't usually love many movies but to me this was like one of those dreams you don't want to wake from.

It was visually appealing and not just because of the 3d which I thought was only ok.

Was it IMAX and 3D? I'm confused about how many different ways there are to see this movie.

Mrs. Levy saw 'Polar Express' in IMAX 3D with Jeff last year and had to close her eyes during some of the scenes because she was getting motion sickness. I wasn't there but it sounded cool. I was hoping 3D combined with IMAX would give someone a sense of flying along with the characters.

No it was not IMAX. IMAX is nothing like viewing on a regular theater screen and using 3D glasses. I can't do IMAX. * sigh * I have ear problems and so I get motion sick too but I had no problem with the 3D glasses. :D

I am sure it is the difference of type of screen? I don't know maybe someone else has more knowledge than I which is nil.

Tester-San and I are looking forward to seeing Avatar, rich, hopefully we'll be able to work out the scheduling, but not this weekend because of the mall traffic insanity (for the Brits, what you call Boxing Day for Americans is "Re-Boxing Day" ... the day you return all the gifts that you didn't want or didn't work, or you broke and are trying to blame on a manufacturing error. We don't really call it that, BTW, I just made that up on the fly).

Also, I think that this weekend we have to go see a romantic comedy of some kind to appease momma-san and cousin-chan.

We're thinking next Saturday or Sunday at the KofP IMAX.

I've just passed up an invite to go and see Avator in favour of sitting on the couch and watching Scrubs and the original Brideshead Revisited. I'm not having any feelings of regret at all. Should I be?

Well I went in with an expectation level of zero.

I think that helped a lot :)

Well, let me start by saying that we have a moderate sized (27"-30") LCD TV downstairs. For about $7, I can get a used copy of almost any movie about 3-4 months after it has appeared in a movie theater and make my own popcorn.

At current prices, tickets for the 3 of us to a regular movie is about $36. I don't usually buy snacks, but we end up with 1 or 2 sodas and a popcorn for something like $12.

So it's $48 versus $7. In order to make up the difference, the movie theater has to add a better experience. The room is darker and the sound system is better. As far as screen size goes, with the smaller movie theater screens, I'm seeing only a slightly large picture sitting 30 feet from the screen as in my living room sitting 8 feet from the screen.

So in order to get me to justify getting myself into a theater, the 'experience' has to be significantly better. IMO, now that all movies cost $12 and more and more theaters are still pleading poverty in justifying outrageous snack prices, ALL movies should be in IMAX.

Considering the plot and action, Avatar screams for IMAX 3D and surround sound. Since I don't have a home movie theater, and I have at one point entertained the idea, I can convince myself that there is an added value worth the cost and travel.

That we will be going with friends is even better.

So Avatar, like a lot of big action films, justifies going to a theater to get the full effect.

I have netflix so I don't usually like to spend money on theaters
( even when I have money )but this was a special trip and worth every penny!

Yes the snack prices are outrageous and taste horrible but I guess it's part of the theater experience too. :)

Some of the STL family and I saw it today in digital but not 3d. The story is good. The CGI is excellent. It really is a whole new level for movie graphics.

I predict a whole flock of bad CGI movies in a year or so. Hollywood will forget to include a story in with the amazing new computer techniques.

We are too. I sent you an email.

I saw it in 3D, but not IMAX. Wow. I can't imagine what it would be like in IMAX.

I anticipate seeing it this week sometime in the full glory of IMAX 3D. I have, at this point, seen several films in that format, and it is really quite substantially different and better than your standard viewing experience, even considering the higher price.

We tried to go see it on the 26th of December...it was completely sold out through the last showing. Today, we went online to get tickets in advance, tried to do the 4:20 show, but ended up having to buy for the 8:00. It is *still* selling out in IMAX 3D.

We're shooting for next Saturday Jan 9th at 3:40. I'm hoping Wolf and Greg can come with us. Wolf suggested extending an invitation to the whole Cellar. Jan 9th is still not listed on Fandango as of this moment. As soon as it is I'm booking the tickets.

Jan 9 is my birthday, and it looks like I am being kidnapped by my girlfriends, as it's the first time in years that I've been OFF on my birthday.

Holy shit. Wow. Just...wow. Just got home from seeing Avatar.

I am extremely comfortable in saying that this film is indeed, a whole new realm of amazement. The CGI, especially the characters, is the best I've ever seen by a substantial margin. The world that has been created is jaw-dropping, magical, and entirely immersive and believable. The only technical complaint I can even begin to register (and trust me, it isn't a big deal) is that the 3D in the live action portions of the film is substantially "deeper" than are the CGI portions, which make up the major bulk of the film.

Most other complaints that I've heard about the film are more about the relatively lightweight story (I've seen it compared to "Dances with Wolves", and yeah, there's something to that, but it doesn't stick out like a sore thumb or anything), but I've got to say that the story was just about perfect in depth and presentation given the enormity of the visual and aural experience. The film does not seem overlong in any way, and in fact, you scarcely want to leave the world and it's inhabitants when the film ends.

I give this movie a solid 9 out of 10. It is one of the most engaging, astounding, satifsying movies I've ever seen, and may well be the paradigm-changing effort that all the hype said it would be.

A friend of mine is rather obsessed with the movie. He's seen the movie in regular theater and in IMAX. Now, he's planning on watching it in digital 3D too. :rolleyes: He's been bugging me to go see it.

I'm a lifelong movie buff, and not easily impressed by gee-whiz stuff. I'm *entertained* by it, but a movie has to have more than eye candy to leave me with this kind of impression.

I heartily recommend this film to *anyone* who enjoys sci-fi and discovering new worlds in their minds. It is truly spectacular.

My one problem: the floating mountains did not have enough rain-catching surface area to maintain constant waterfalls.

Hrmph.

Roger Dean said to tell you "don't worry about that, just enjoy the view."

Hmmm... if that's the biggest problem you have with floating mountains I'd say it isn't a problem, maybe the anti-gravity has a cooling effect increasing condensation.

I don't like unobtainium, everything else is cool cool.

absolutely beautiful and engaging world. entirely predictable story.

I saw it in 3d on a big (not IMAX) screen and really enjoyed it in spite of myself. After a little while they stop belting you around the head with the headache inducing "ooh-look-this-is-in-3d" thing, and it just becomes a great part of the movie.

Even though it's still just a whole bunch of tired cliches repackaged, but it's still well worth seeing. I'm genuinely hoping for a sequel...

If you want a good laugh, read An Open Letter to James Cameron from Papyrus and the 60 odd comments below, deriding Cameron for using Papyrus font on the advertising and subtitles. These people are rabid... crazy and rabid. :rolleyes:

Having worked with fonts a lot, this choice is like building an awesome 12 room mansion and then choosing that shitty 1/8" wood paneling to put up in every room. Sure, most people will not notice... I'm worried it will take me out of the movie.

It's like Die Hard 2 where every other plot detail was ludicrous if you had any flight training. Sure, most people are not pilots or prospective pilots...

Yep, I commented to my husband on the following:

1. Unobtanium. Mostly to laugh, because it was a Professor's favorite example element in college.
2. Papyrus. I am not a font snob (okay perhaps a very small one) but that was waaay jarring.
3. Ai'Wa is just too close to Gaia. Quit clobbering me over the head, already.
4. Isn't it cool that the whole planet standardized on a single interface definition. :lol:

I just don't see the problem. The font is supposed to look rustic. How is that jarring?

Chris Costello, who designed the font in 1983:

"I have mixed feelings. At first it was cool to see it in a few spots, especially CD cover designs and movie credits… then television, billboards etc. It started cropping up in the late '80s in National Geographic articles and a few magazine ads. My parents came back from Europe one year and showed me all of the brochures they found using Papyrus. But then I started seeing it in homespun newsletters, local bulletin boards, everybody's business cards, real estate and mortgage ads...basically everywhere. It had become diluted and lost its original appeal. I see design blogs trash it all the time, but it's not a design issue. I think after she was released with OSX system fonts, her design career was finished… she became the font for the masses.

"Today, it is so overused, I would not use it unless there was some very unique application that called for it."

For the movie title, it doesn't bother me so much. But for the subtitles, which (I am told) are used liberally throughout the movie? That was a terrible idea. Subtitles are supposed to be unobtrusive, not artsy.

didn't notice the font at all. With so much other stuff to look at, the font used is very minor. Besides, I think it matches the spirit of the other visuals. As far as the designer of the font goes, can you say, sour grapes?

Was talking to others who have seen the movie a few times today at lunch. They pointed out that the avatars (the humans) actually looked different that the native Na'vi; e.g., the number of fingers and eyebrows, etc. I'll have to watch for that the next time I see it.

It's not that its rusticity is out of place.... The problem is that it is very easily recognizable AND very stylized. If they had picked say, helvetica or TNR no one would have noticed.

It's precisely because it's so 'rustic' and so readily available that every third-grader has used it on their history project on King Tut and thought how cool it looked. It seems... amateur-ish, and popped some folks who have worked in graphic arts out of 'the moment' every time the words were on the screen. [/rant]

Just call me Mr. Oblivious. I don't remember seeing it before. :blush:

I didn't know Papyrus was "uncool" until Undertoad alpha-geeked me over my home birthday invitations. At that time I had honestly just scrolled through the fonts until I saw one that fit what I was going for.

That being said, I sympathize completely with anything which takes the viewer out of the moment. To fail to take this into account (in a major production, no less) is inexcusable so far as it somewhat ruins the experience for at least that one viewer (or group of specialized viewers).

I think it is hysterical that hundreds of design geeks are going to sit around and bash an element choice in a film that has already made over a billion dollars. Geez, Mr Cameron, what were you thinking?

As with all art, it's in the eye of the beholder. To my eye, Avatar was a hell of an accomplishment, and the fact that it is *still* selling out IMAX 3D theater showings is a pretty strong testimony to the fact that a large number of other folks think so, too.

99% of the people posting in that blog aren't going to earn 1/10000 of 1% of what this film will earn in their entire lifetimes as professional designers, instead realizing most of their incomes from jobs wherein the words "would you like to see our specials tonight" are required. Their artistic opinions are as valid as, say, mine, but I think Mr Cameron's earnings acumen has them all beat by a considerable margin.

Incidentally, I plan to never see this film. I will not have it crammed down my throat by media hype. They convinced me not to see it. Ever.

I felt the same way about Titanic, but enjoyed the movie very much when I allowed myself to relax.

I feel the same way about Netflix everytime I see one of those goddamn popups. Fuck off and die, Netflix.

But Avatar is worth it.

I think you should just go to prove us bleating sheep wrong.

So the advertising is affecting you. Negatively, but you're still letting it affect you.

Well yeah, Spiderman saved the city, but he had a run in his tights... how plebecian.

Function, writing is supposed to be read, convey information.:p

good point dar

I don't think you need to be a pilot to realize that the chances of a lit trail of jet fuel overtaking a jet taking off and traveling 50 feet off the ground to ignite a fuel tank is implausible.:right:

I agree with Dar, Flint. I like taking the path less traveled too, but sometimes following the sheep does lead to greener pastures.

If it will help any, I absolutely forbid you, under any circumstances, from going to see Avatar.;)

But Mythbusters did that one, just in case. :)

Still, that's not the point. Every other aspect of the visual production was scrubbed and polished and gleaming and perfect. Then they throw in, oh, I dunno... Clumpy mascara on a vamped-up supermodel? Artisan salumi with wonderbread? A pine-scented air freshener hanging from the mirror of a Lamborghini?

Still tacky.

And I don't care how much goddamn money Mr. Cameron is worth. He put out a work of art to be judged by the public. I have made my judgment, and in a few small, specific areas, found his creation to be ...wanting.

I’m not trying to be non-conformist, I simply don’t think I can enjoy the movie when the act of watching it has been forced to be an analysis of what I am seeing on the screen versus the expectations created by an unrelenting, overly specific media campaign. The entire movie will be an out-of-the-moment experience. A meta-movie, about itself.

That, and when I actually saw a preview of the movie, it looked dumb. The recently-reformed, reluctant hero fights against impossible odds to save the idyllic utopian society from being destroyed by the military-industrial, shoot-em-up bad guys? Wow. My life won’t be complete until I see how that turns out.

OH gawd, what he said.

Someone said something about "neat effects, predictable storyline." ORLY? I never would have thunk.

Oh, and I thought Titanic was formulaic drivel, too. :bolt:

And you went to Titanic to see how it would end?

As Ebert says, what makes a movie great is not what it says but how it says it.

No, I didn't see it.

I disagree 100%. What makes a classic (a classic anything) is substance.

On further reflection, I think you are mis-applying the intent of that quote. There IS a transcendant art to any field of craft, wherein the mind of the artist is evident in the creation, and the finished work is simply a conduit for the creative will of the artist. In that regard, "how" he says something is the important part.

Oh agreed. How does one get there? I didn't find the story behind the story in Titanic to be the block-busting romantic heartbreaking climax most others found it to be.

If the only way a story can say it is through great graphics, well, then, it's not a story to me, just eye candy for the masses.

I'm sure Avatar has its points, and I'm sure it's visually stunning. It's just not for me. But most here would hate the movies I like, so we're even.

I like good movies, so...

You're not most others...;)

I hate "dramas" and movies with "substance." Give me a visually entertaining, action-packed, rollicking romp any day over deep meaning and intricate storytelling.

If I wanted a "good" movie . . . I'd read a book.

:notworthy
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3130/...3ea75381_o.gif

Substance doesn't preclude rollicking romp.

Oh, you mean like Fan Fiction? ;)