Avatar

[Republibot 3.0]

My kids really want to see this one, and would love to see it in 3D ... problem is, I have a damaged left eye and lack stereoscopic vision. I assume that there is therefore little point in me taking them to a 3D showing? Or has the 3D technology moved on to the extent that I can happily watch sans glasses and not need to clean my eyeballs out afterwards.

First time I saw it was in 2D, since I wasn't thinking and wore my glasses to the theater. The 3d glasses they use were rigid plastic, and not the normal paper dealies, so they wouldn't fit over my normal specs. Second time I wore contacts.

It works perfectly well in 2D.

 

[Galahad]

Clearly not a breeding population, no threat to the locals.

I think you are looking at it too rationally. I don't think they would have taken issue if they were sharing the land with a breeding population who had respect for the land and a healthier attitude towards other beings and cultures.

The majority of human beings in their experience were just expansionist resource plunderers with no thought or concern for the rights of those around them.

A good question to ask yourself (and in fact I found myself asking it at the end), is whether or not you'd be numbered as one of the people allowed to stay?

 

[KoshFan]

If the Na'vi are truly supposed to be an analogue of the Native Americans (and it's painfully obvious they are, I'm not going to see the movie because of the "noble savage" connotations), then they'd be fine with humans living among them if the humans adopted their ways. The Native Americans frequently adopted white people (especially orphaned kids, as I recall) who were willing to join the tribe and live by the tribe's rules.

 

[Galahad]

I take your point about primitivism KF. Technology and civilization are not the problem... but neither are they the whole answer.

In my opinion it's the same as faith and science... they are different shoes, you can do better by appreciate both. The tree that forgets it's roots is the tree that dies. the tree that never stretches for the sun, never grows.

You know, the Celts and the Saxons really knew how to live... there's passion and a connection to something deeper in their surviving writings. The Normans brought along a mindset of innovation and advancement... but they repressed some really good stuff in the process.

Somewhere along the line, the vast majority of British people (more so the English than our brothers and sisters across the borders), got hoodwinked into the lie that the Victorian, Georgian and Edwardian periods ultimately define our characters. Perhaps this stems from a sentimental love of Empire... but whatever the cause, it's not a good thing.

Every so often a hunger for those roots resurfaces in some kind of resurgence... Tolkien and Lewis shared a love of the ancient (I read once that Tolkien in part wrote LotR to plug a gap in mythology that is present in English culture).

My own hunger was first stirred as a teenager when I read the books of The Pendragon Cycle, Stephen Lawhead's interpretation of Arthurian legend. That's when I first began to understand an inkling of Celtic culture and how it related to my own Christian culture.

In hindsight, I think it would probably be appropriate if someone could branch this post of into a New, Politics and Rants topic on Cultural Heritage or something... because while it explores a key them in Avatar... it is wondering a bit off topic.

 

[Jade Jaguar]

I saw the film in IMax 3D. We used glasses with one purple, and one orange lens. The 3D was good, but I didn't find it as good as the system that used polarized lenses. With the lenses off, there was a strong double image, and the film was unwatchable. Did anyone see it in non-IMax 3D? If so, what were the lenses like?

I am not a James Cameron fan, and not a computer game fan. So, I went mainly to see the technical effects. Even though I thought the 3D was a bit sub-par for today, with shallow planes of focus, and often a haziness, I still liked the film quite a bit. It was very political, and not just an allusion to the way Native Americans were treated, but to Iraq, and our whole military mind-set. I liked that aspect of it, but this is not a political forum, so I will go no further here, about that. Yes, the plot was very predictable, and even cartoonish, but it looked very good, and I liked it.

 

[Kara Baxter]

My kids really want to see this one, and would love to see it in 3D ... problem is, I have a damaged left eye and lack stereoscopic vision. I assume that there is therefore little point in me taking them to a 3D showing? Or has the 3D technology moved on to the extent that I can happily watch sans glasses and not need to clean my eyeballs out afterwards.

who cares if you can't see 3D, your kids can, and you are doing this for THEM.

Enjoy being with them and spending time with them.

your condition - will always be your condition, if you take them or not...

I have major food allergies, and can't eat most restaurant menu foods. does that stop me from taking the kids? NO!

I enjoy the fact that THEY can enjoy the foods i can't.

and yea, the 3d will be fuzzy for you without the whole 3d glasses thing..

can you just use the one eye?

 

[Kara Baxter]

I saw the film in IMax 3D. We used glasses with one purple, and one orange lens. The 3D was good, but I didn't find it as good as the system that used polarized lenses. With the lenses off, there was a strong double image, and the film was unwatchable. Did anyone see it in non-IMax 3D? If so, what were the lenses like?

I am not a James Cameron fan, and not a computer game fan. So, I went mainly to see the technical effects. Even though I thought the 3D was a bit sub-par for today, with shallow planes of focus, and often a haziness, I still liked the film quite a bit. It was very political, and not just an allusion to the way Native Americans were treated, but to Iraq, and our whole military mind-set. I liked that aspect of it, but this is not a political forum, so I will go no further here, about that. Yes, the plot was very predictable, and even cartoonish, but it looked very good, and I liked it.

my glasses were real glasses, not the colored ones...nice ones..you called them polarized?? i dunno what to call them..but they were real plastic lenses the theater had and they recycle them for other patrons, which i didn't like the idea someone wore those before me..maybe they sanitized them?

as for the politicalness of it...yea...but you you can't limit your examples to just NA's or iraqis. THE US does this to all countries.

 

[Jade Jaguar]

who cares if you can't see 3D, your kids can, and you are doing this for THEM.

Enjoy being with them and spending time with them.

your condition - will always be your condition, if you take them or not...

Well said. I meant to say something similar, but forgot.

my glasses were real glasses, not the colored ones...nice ones..you called them polarized?? i dunno what to call them..but they were real plastic lenses the theater had and they recycle them for other patrons,.

Well, I was given real, reusable glasses, looked kind of like sun glasses. But, one lens was purple, and one orange. Are you saying your lenses were clear, or maybe tinted gray? If so, they used a different 3D system from the IMax 3D I saw.

Polarized lenses are one method of 3D. Perhaps you have heard of polarized sun glass lenses, or polarized filters for camera lenses? A polarized lens is sort of like a shutter with very tiny slits, so it only admits light coming from one angle. If you make a set of glasses with polarized lenses, turned at 90 degrees to each other, and then have the two elements of the 3D picture polarized to match, each eye sees a different picture, and you get 3D.

The other 3D system uses glasses with electronic shutters that open and close under the direction of a radio signal synched to the two elements of the picture on the screen.

 

[Galahad]

I had tinted grey ones and have retained them for future use.

 

[Jade Jaguar]

Sounds like polarized. Were you in an IMax theater, or a standard theater? I just might want to go back and see it in non-IMax 3D. I like the polarized effect much better. The other question is, since IMax and WS films have different aspect ratios, which format showed more image?

 

[Galahad]

I've never been to an Imax... nearest one is in Brum.

 

[B5_Obsessed]

Well, I'd comment on this friggin movie if I could get in. Two days in a row I tried to go to the IMAX matinee and it was sold out. It's been out 11 days now.

 

[Jade Jaguar]

I'm beginning to think the wikipedia knows everything... found out this info:

Standard aspect ratio of IMAX is 1.44:1 (I knew that)

Avatar in IMAX 3D is 1.78:1, a big surprise to me, since when I saw it, it looked like the normal aspect ratio.

Avatar in regular 3D, and 2D, is 2.35:1, cut down from 1.78:1

Avatar in regular 3D is in a 3D format called "RealD Cinema," which uses circular polarization, which maintains 3D no matter what angle you hold your head at, unlike the IMAX 3D version, which turns into a double image, if you tilt your head.

Just a guess, but I wouldn't be surprised but that it would be watchable for Garibaldi's Hair, even with the eye trouble, in STANDARD 3D, but IMAX 3D might be a problem.

 

[Alluveal]

I'm late coming into this thread. I just saw it in 3D. WOW. Just wow.

I'm not gonna buy into the whole notion that it was lefty, "whitey is bad" type stuff. I'd rather just enjoy the living shit out of it and leave all the politics to people who have way too much time on their hands.

A perfect movie, imho.

 

[Jade Jaguar]

Well, I definitely wouldn't characterize it as "whitey is bad," but Cameron has stated that he was thinking of films such as At Play in the Fields of the Lord, The Emerald Forest, and Dances With Wolves, so he definitely had such political content in mind. But of course, it is not necessary for you to understand that, to enjoy the film.

 

[Alluveal]

I think most people "get" the imperialism in the film. But, if you're honestly going to let a fictional story upset you because it takes a stance for the sake of the story, then I'm really not interested. (Speaking to the "general" you.)

I think it's a genuine waste of brain cells to jump on the partisan nitpick bandwagon when you have a movie as monumental as this.

As Eleanor Rosevelt said . . .

No one can make you inferior without your consent.

I think the same can be said for insult and offense if people really are that offended over something like this. I've read a few sensational rants online that honestly make me wonder if they are truly that twitterpated or if they're just trying to drum up attention.

 

[Jade Jaguar]

Well, I wasn't trying to partisan nit-pick. I like the political message. It is part of what made the film for me.

Modern 3D certainly is stunning, isn't it? That's a large part of why I went in the first place. Having seen it in IMAX 3D, I would recommend that anyone who wants the best 3D effect watch it in the standard 3D, not the IMAX. The polarized lens format is a lot better. Still, if you haven't seen modern 3D, the IMAX version will be stunning.

It is to Cameron's credit that they didn't get outrageous with the effect, like the films of the 50s did, with things always looking like they were going to hit the viewer. The 3D was used to create a more life-like appearance. To me, that is what it is all about. We went from silent to sound, and from B&W to color, because those were more real. To me, 3D is a natural evolution, along the same lines.

 

[Alluveal]

Well, I wasn't trying to partisan nit-pick. I like the political message. It is part of what made the film for me.

Haha! I didn't think you were. But I know a few peeps in my online world who are being super-annoying about it.

Modern 3D certainly is stunning, isn't it? That's a large part of why I went in the first place. Having seen it in IMAX 3D, I would recommend that anyone who wants the best 3D effect watch it in the standard 3D, not the IMAX. The polarized lens format is a lot better. Still, if you haven't seen modern 3D, the IMAX version will be stunning.

It is to Cameron's credit that they didn't get outrageous with the effect, like the films of the 50s did, with things always looking like they were going to hit the viewer. The 3D was used to create a more life-like appearance. To me, that is what it is all about. We went from silent to sound, and from B&W to color, because those were more real. To me, 3D is a natural evolution, along the same lines.

I am still sitting here in awe. The 3D was so absolutely amazing. In the forest, you'd see these flying insects on the screen (and little floaty things) that felt like they were in the theater. I think what I enjoyed the most was that I felt like I was sitting there with the characters. I was on that transport ship with the other grunts. I was jumping off the cliff. Ahh!

Will this be available for our homes? Is it possible now?

 

[Jade Jaguar]

3D TV is in its infancy. Some HDTV sets, mostly of the DLP variety, have been "3D ready" for years. A TV needs a really fast refresh rate to provide 3D, and DLP has that, where as most systems don't. 3D TV works using shuttered glasses, controlled by a computer transmission, synched to the picture. The problem is that there are no 3D discs, although BluRay is capable of providing a 3D source. Look for this to be the next big thing, as BluRay players become more common.


Changed "response time" to "refresh rate."

 

[Galahad]

The 3D was used to create a more life-like appearance. To me, that is what it is all about. We went from silent to sound, and from B&W to color, because those were more real. To me, 3D is a natural evolution, along the same lines.

Bring on the holodeck!:vulcan::thumbsup: