Fortunately, the Na'vi had a plot device natural phenomenon that negated the technological advantage and made direct engagement necessary.

1/25/2010 7:49:04 PM

Why the hell would a mining company have a cruise missile?

They didn't even have a real bomb.

1/25/2010 11:32:33 PM

1/26/2010 5:19:01 AM

If the tree of souls was directly under those floating mountains, I think it would have been at least a little difficult to bomb from orbit. That and where are they getting bombs?

1/26/2010 9:16:27 AM

Finally saw this last night at IMAX. I haven't read the whole thread, but it seems like there are a lot of haters here. That's par for the course on TWW, though.

Obviously, it looked amazing. I can't really comment too much because I think I'd need to see it again to take in all the visuals.

The plot was, as others have said, predictable. I don't find that particularly troubling. It was very similar to Pocahontas, lol. Plenty of what I would consider "plot holes," or at least things that don't make much sense. For instance, wouldn't the humans have just come back with more ships and guns? It still would have been worth their time, given how much the ore sells for. I also feel like we only got a small snapshot of the world there. It's like we were focusing on one area of the globe, and the rest was ignored entirely. We have no idea what other life existed there or if the Na'vi were a global species.

One thought I had during the movie is that humans have essentially killed off evolution. There's no telling how much forms of life that we've caused to go extinct, or how many more will go extinct. I suppose you could say that we are a product of evolution, so it's still happening, but in an entirely different way. We shut down the evolution of many species by destroying their environment, or destroying them.

Also, why are aliens always just slightly modified versions of humans? That's probably not how it would be. 5 fingers, nose, eyes, hair, boobs, and the same muscle groups?

[Edited on January 26, 2010 at 10:37 AM. Reason : ]

1/26/2010 10:32:37 AM

Quote :

"Plenty of what I would consider "plot holes," or at least things that don't make much sense. For instance, wouldn't the humans have just come back with more ships and guns? It still would have been worth their time, given how much the ore sells for."

That would only be a "plot hole" if they weren't making a sequel.

1/26/2010 10:36:10 AM

Quote :

"Also, why are aliens always just slightly modified versions of humans? That's probably not how it would be. 5 fingers, nose, eyes, hair, boobs, and the same muscle groups?"

This always bugged me with Star Trek. The answer back then was "easier to put face makeup on an actor".

I think the answer for this one is hard to sell a story where you're supposed to sympathize with the indigenous species if they don't look somewhat bwnable.

1/26/2010 11:10:29 AM

Yeah, I understand that too. I'm just looking for something...out there. If a highly advanced alien species landed on Earth, and they didn't have some kind of "cloaking device" that made them invisible or human in appearance, I'm certain that they would look and sound so unlike anything we had ever encountered that it would be absolutely terrifying.

[Edited on January 26, 2010 at 11:21 AM. Reason : ]

1/26/2010 11:19:13 AM

I think one could argue that certain physiological traits are a prerequisite for the evolution of higher brain function, and the sum of these traits amounts to a humanoid creature.

1/26/2010 11:23:23 AM

Quote :

"Plenty of what I would consider "plot holes," or at least things that don't make much sense. For instance, wouldn't the humans have just come back with more ships and guns? It still would have been worth their time, given how much the ore sells for."

Let's say it is worth the time/money for that company to come back - OK, so what? What difference would that make in the plot? We saw up until just after the humans left. Are you suggesting that it wouldn't have been worth it or doesn't make sense for the Navi to fight since it may be safe to assume the humans are going to return eventually?

Quote :

"I also feel like we only got a small snapshot of the world there. It's like we were focusing on one area of the globe, and the rest was ignored entirely. We have no idea what other life existed there or if the Na'vi were a global species."

Well, it wasn't Planet Pandora (as opposed to Planet Earth). It was a story about the Navi and miners in a particular region of Pandora. The thing the miners wanted was in that general area, so it was that particular tribe that the scientists had the chance to interact with (via an avatar) and in turn that tribe/group was the focus. They did show that there were other groups of that species spread out fairly far though.

Quote :

"Also, why are aliens always just slightly modified versions of humans? That's probably not how it would be. 5 fingers, nose, eyes, hair, boobs, and the same muscle groups?["

District 9 made a decent departure from the norm in regard to that.

[Edited on January 26, 2010 at 11:49 AM. Reason : district 9]

1/26/2010 11:47:43 AM

Quote :

"Also, why are aliens always just slightly modified versions of humans? That's probably not how it would be. 5 fingers, nose, eyes, hair, boobs, and the same muscle groups?"

I feel like there are lots of movies where aliens are pretty different from humans. But as far as the similarities...you were the one that brought up evolution. Humans have evolved fingers (opposable thumbs for example) to better climb/grip things, etc.

I would think that the highest form of species from other planets would have similar, but not identical, evolutionary paths and results. Maybe a finger or two less, an extra eye, etc...but still pretty similar.

1/26/2010 12:05:06 PM

The key to gaining empathy from the audience is the face. Any alien that the creators want perceived as a "good" alien has to have a face that can express emotions. Eyes and mouth are essential, nose and ears are optional. We as humans are trained to look at the face for emotional queues, so any alien without clearly identified eyes and mouth(s) are almost always going to be portrayed as evil.

1/26/2010 12:16:16 PM

when does this come out at the $1.50 IMAX?

2/8/2010 1:37:55 PM

Thought i'd bump this thread. I finally caved and saw this in the IMAX last night. I thought it was a hell of a movie. Just from the experience of the 3D IMAX movie itself. Really pretty. Fun plot and very captivating. I'm not sure if anyone has ever seen Princess Mononoke (Schmit's REL class watches it), but it is extremely similar. It's obviously not extremely original in plot, but, meh.

Good movie, will/should win best picture.

2/21/2010 11:14:10 PM

Quote :

"Good movie, will/should win best picture."

wat.

2/21/2010 11:18:47 PM

http://oscar.go.com/nominations/nominees#category_best-picture

what the hell else should take it? 2009 was a weak year overall.

2/21/2010 11:23:29 PM

Basterds, Up or District 9 should get it before Avatar (haven't seen the others). Avatar was fun to watch, but wasn't all that great of a movie outside of special effects. I mean the plot was really pretty tame and it didn't wow with amazing performances or dialog.

2/22/2010 1:27:37 AM

Hurt Locker and Basterds are definitely better than Avatar. Haven't seen An Education or Precious. I probably preferred Up In The Air and A Serious Man and Up as well, but I don't see them winning.

2/22/2010 2:17:15 AM

Finally saw this last night at the IMAX.
Great visuals, cheesy story, violent enough at the end to make it enjoyable.

The 3-d was great in all of the rendered scenes, but any scene with live action was blurry and had focus issues. (like the entire depth of the scene is in focus instead of the foreground or background).

Overall I enjoyed it. Even if it was Pocahontas in Space.

Also, 'unobtanium'? Seriously? Was that like penciled in the script until they thought of a real name for the mineral and then forgot to remove it by copy? It's a commonly used phrase, but the whole point is that it doesn't exist.

[Edited on February 22, 2010 at 8:52 AM. Reason : .]

2/22/2010 8:37:49 AM

Moon, Star Trek, and D9 were much better sci-fi movies than avatar

[Edited on February 22, 2010 at 8:51 AM. Reason : ]

2/22/2010 8:48:50 AM

^^ pretty much spot on.

despite the fact that it was fun and had great visuals, it was definitely not a "best picture" quality movie imo.

2/22/2010 8:58:52 AM

^^^ At least in The Core we knew what unobtainium could do.

2/22/2010 9:48:45 AM

I highly doubt Avatar would win Best Picture.

That said, I do not think writing and/or acting necessarily trumps special effects when deciding what defines a "good" movie.

2/22/2010 1:16:41 PM

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=4502

Quote :

"20th Century Fox Home Entertainment has announced that the Blu-ray edition of James Cameron's Avatar had sold 2.7 million units by Sunday afternoon, thus surpassing in four days the lifetime sales of the previous top-selling Blu-ray, The Dark Knight, which took over a year to sell 2.5 million units. Overall, Avatar has sold 6.7 million copies on packaged media. "

So with one movie James Cameron managed to bring 3D and Blu-ray into the mainstream. They should just declare this guy king of Hollywood.

The movie does look phenomenal on Blu-ray by the way. As far as detail and clarity goes, the 2D Blu-ray presentation blows away the 3D version I saw in IMAX. I never saw it in 2D at the theaters.

4/26/2010 9:27:43 AM

I was going to buy it this weekend, but it doesnt have a digital copy. Im sure the later releases will have that. So Ill wait.

4/26/2010 9:35:47 AM

are they not going to sell a 3d version of the movie? i am probably talking out of my ass, but i was under the impression that the 3d version was just regular film with the offset, so that you only had the use the glasses to see it in 3d...meaning you could easily put it on blu-ray for people to watch the 3d at home if they buy the glasses (or have their glasses leftover from the movie)

4/26/2010 9:35:59 AM

You have to have a 3d tv, a 3d blueray, and a 3d blueray player. All of which are very new and expensive.

There is only one 3d movie (I believe) and thats Monsters vs Aliens 3D

4/26/2010 10:02:54 AM

maybe this is just the theater i have seen 3d movies in, but does anyone else notice a horrible reduction in color w/ the 3d glasses? avatar is such a colorful movie but it was like 1 step from black and white w/ the glasses on. the ones we had were tinted-looking, just like sunglasses.

i haven't heard anyone else complain of this, so maybe it's just our shitty theater. i will avoid the 3d push like the plague if it's like this everywhere.

4/26/2010 10:11:04 AM

Quote :

"You have to have a 3d tv, a 3d blueray, and a 3d blueray player."

really? i did not know that...i ignorantly assumed that it was a trick of optics in the way the film was displayed (if you take off your glasses, it looks blurry) that the glasses corrected in 3d form

so i assume that each theater that offered avatar in 3d had special film, a special player, and a special screen?

4/26/2010 10:59:10 AM

probably not, but you really actually do have to have a 3d tv, 3d bluray, 3d player.

4/26/2010 11:08:29 AM

i'm guessing 3-d TV's are ones that dont need glasses, and im also assuming the 3-d could be done with regular TV's and glasses
but i dont think you need a 3-d blu-ray player but you'll need the 3-d version of the blu-ray disc

4/26/2010 11:08:55 AM

^^ yeah i agree, definitely the worst part of 3d. i have no understanding of the optics behind it, but i don't know why they make those glasses tinted.

4/26/2010 11:09:19 AM

Quote :

"m also assuming the 3-d could be done with regular TV's and glasses"

Quote :

"you'll need the 3-d version of the blu-ray disc"

these were my thoughts, as well

i mean...if the 3d version was just regular film with the specialized composition, and they already have the glasses for (fairly) cheap, that means they already have a 3d version they could market...i suppose they figured it wasn't worth the hassle (and who wants to pay for some extra glasses...let alone wearing them...that will just get lost or broken, anyway?)

4/26/2010 11:16:05 AM

these ain't yo daddy's 3d glasses (as in, not the polarized or 2 color types)...

Quote :

"3D-ready TV sets are those that can operate in 3D mode (in addition to regular 2D mode), in conjunction with LCD shutter glasses, where the TV tells the glasses which eye should see the image being exhibited at the moment, creating a stereoscopic image. Glass containing liquid crystal and a polarizing filter has the property that it becomes dark when voltage is applied, but otherwise is transparent. The glasses are controlled by an infrared, radio frequency, DLP-Link or Bluetooth transmitter that sends a timing signal. The glasses alternately darken over one eye, and then the other, in synchronization with the refresh rate of the screen, while the display alternately displays different perspectives for each eye, using a technique called Alternate-frame sequencing. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_television#Technologies

[Edited on April 26, 2010 at 11:29 AM. Reason : lemme edit this 3297346 times]

4/26/2010 11:26:24 AM

Most 3DTVs will still require glasses, due to viewing angle limitations. However, these won't be the shitty polarized glasses we get in theaters and theme parks. They'll use LC Shutter Glasses that are electronically controlled by the TV to create the 3D effect. The displays themselves are more or less standard 120HZ digital TVs. Autostereoscopic displays (3D without glasses) do exist, but it'll be a while before they become the norm.

As for the 3D Blu-ray, it's a standard that basically calls for a version of the movie that has 2 separate video streams on the disc, one for each eye. Compatible Blu-ray players will be able extrapolate either a 2D or 3D image from that video data. The nice thing about it is that it'll use the same codec that all Blu-ray players already support (H264) for the individual streams, meaning most existing Blu-ray players will only need a firmware update to support the 3D Blu-ray standard.

The downside is that the additional video stream results in a 50% increase in video data on the disc, meaning that for a film like Avatar which is already using all of Blu-ray's capacity, you're going to have to reduce the bit rate. That's why this release was 2D only. They wanted it to have the highest possible video and audio quality, which means no extras like 3D.

4/26/2010 11:31:26 AM

yeah, um, i just explained the glasses...

4/26/2010 11:32:48 AM

Polarization or red-cyan 3-d look like garbage on tv so they have to use alternate frame sequencing where the glasses open and shut in rhythm with the image.

It's also why it looks darker (your lenses are closed half the time).

It still looks like garbage. I can't see 3-d actually taking off even with Avatar. This technology isn't new and it didn't work when it was new.

[Edited on April 26, 2010 at 11:33 AM. Reason : late to the party]

4/26/2010 11:32:49 AM

Quote :

"They should just declare this guy king of Hollywood. "

He already is

Quote :

" I was going to buy it this weekend, but it doesnt have a digital copy. Im sure the later releases will have that. So Ill wait."

You'd be wasting your time. They provide digital copies in the first release as another means to attract people to buy it when its released. If you will notice all Blu-rays you buy that come with digital copy will expire if not activated before X date.

On the plus side, the blu ray comes with a 'means for digital copy' in way of providing the DVD + Bluray. Any dvd ripper software can extract that for you without violating any copyright laws.

[Edited on April 26, 2010 at 11:45 AM. Reason : .]

4/26/2010 11:45:32 AM

^Ah, thanks. I wasnt aware that a DVD was included. I appreciate it.

btw, what ripper do you use?

4/26/2010 12:05:35 PM

I'm on a Mac so I use RipIt!

Its by far the easiest ripper I've ever used. Pop in a disc, click compress, and it compresses it into a format 'optimized' for the iDevice of your choosing...or Apple TV. It will also separate out episodes if you are ripping TV shows and multiple episodes are on each disc.

in case you are a Mac user... http://thelittleappfactory.com/ripit/

also, not sure if the sale is still going on but Wal-Mart had it for $19.99 for the Bluray+DVD combo pack and $15.99 for just the DVD.

[Edited on April 26, 2010 at 12:09 PM. Reason : .]

4/26/2010 12:08:14 PM

No comments on the alleged sex scene yet?

Fuck you guys.

4/26/2010 12:08:57 PM

^huh?

4/26/2010 12:10:11 PM

^

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/05/avatar-sex-scene-deleted_n_411642.html

http://io9.com/5439885/deleted-avatar-sex-scene-opens-up-some-serious-bestiality-issues

[Edited on April 26, 2010 at 2:22 PM. Reason : links]

4/26/2010 2:22:17 PM

Quote :

"I was going to buy it this weekend, but it doesnt have a digital copy. Im sure the later releases will have that. So Ill wait."

I don't buy blu-rays, so maybe i'm missing something.... but DVDs are digital. Just rip it.

Edit: read the rest of the posts in the thread, I guess they're having a tough time filling up the blu-rays and are now providing mp4's or something? Anyhow, I use the slysoft packages (anydvd and clone dvd, they have a clone DVD HD package or something as well).

Quote :

"so i assume that each theater that offered avatar in 3d had special film, a special player, and a special screen?"

Yes. There are 3 or 4 types of 3d technology. I think all of them were used to display Avatar, just depended on what theater you saw it in. I don't think there is anything special about the screen, though I may be wrong. It's the projectors and glasses. And each needs it's own specific type of glasses.

[Edited on April 27, 2010 at 3:28 AM. Reason : .]

4/27/2010 3:06:54 AM

Quote :

"Edit: read the rest of the posts in the thread, I guess they're having a tough time filling up the blu-rays and are now providing mp4's or something?"

Wrong. Digital copies don't come on the bluray disc for obvious reasons. Most people don't have bluray on their PC. It comes with a authorization key and 2nd 'blank' dvd that allows you to download it from the iTunes store or microsofts version of digital downloads.

4/27/2010 10:36:32 AM

i haven't even seen avatar nor read all of this thread, but i attended a panel discussion about the science behind the setting/story with james cameron and some work colleagues last night

i was pretty impressed at cameron's scientific knowledge and particularly the backstory behind the movie, he had certainly thought about every detail from a scientific perspective

he also apparently believes in evolution and global warming

4/28/2010 11:45:25 AM

too bad he doesn't believe in good plotlines.

4/28/2010 1:29:55 PM

this movie looks amazing in 1080p

4/28/2010 1:40:09 PM

Quote :

"too bad he doesn't believe in good plotlines."

it wasnt that bad, geez. You guys are overly critical.

I mean its not like we just watched Titanic or anything....

4/28/2010 1:43:17 PM

It was pretty close though. Its not that its absolute trash, its just the same played out shit we've seen before.

4/28/2010 1:53:47 PM