[Peter]

Bryan and Jamie discuss James Cameron's latest (and greatest?) film. (45:24)

Listen here.

[Marty Devine]

----------------
Now playing: Comic Geek Speak - timebubble05
via FoxyTunes

[Peter]

Wow that was fast Marty!

[Marty Devine]

Wow that was fast Marty!

I've been sitting on that image for weeks! [insert sodomy joke here]

----------------
Now playing: Comic Geek Speak - 763 - Avatar Movie Review
via FoxyTunes

[Marty Devine]

Jamie, there's a Star Wars "Star Tours" ride at Hollywood Studios in DisneyWorld.

----------------
Now playing: Comic Geek Speak - 763 - Avatar Movie Review
via FoxyTunes

[mguy1977]

I have a soul but I also have a bladder. I see only out one eye w/ bifocials so 3D doesnt cut it (for me at least). I will enjoy watching T1 & T2. Also I will be eagerly awaiting NOES (remake) & Iron Man 2 in 2010.

Matthew

This post has been edited by mguy1977: 06 January 2010 - 09:31 PM

[Ziggo]

----------------
Now playing: Comic Geek Speak - timebubble05
via FoxyTunes

GENIUS!

[matchkitjohn]

Got to listen to this now if it got Bryan into the theater!

[nweathington]

For the most part I agree with you guys. Technically, the movie is incredible. It's beautiful, the 3-D effects immersed you in the world rather than slapped you in the face... all of that. I'm glad I saw it in 3-D, and if the story had been a little more complex, if the characters didn't all have the depth of tissue paper, I would go back and see it again. For me, the movie didn't get interesting until he goes into the forest/jungle. I loved that setting and the creatures that inhabited it and how they connected with the Na'vi. But once he becomes initiated, the movie stopped being interesting again and the ham-fisted storytelling became too distracting. Again, I'm glad I saw it, but once is enough, and I certainly won't need to watch it on a television screen when it comes out on DVD.

The point you made, Bryan, about most movies not needing to be filmed this way is spot on. I'm sure the success of Avatar is going to create a spate of 3-D movies and that very few of them will really benefit from the format. But there will also be some amazing films that will result from this new technology.

And I, too, am really looking forward to Burton's Alice in Wonderland.

[Brack]

3D is a fad designed to raise ticket prices and will be dead in 7 years max. Unlike Bryan, 3D has kept me out of the cinema as I can't rationalise paying the extra they want for me to get motion sickness and throw up in their cinema.

In fact it may be dead in 3-4 years. The 3D fad started properly in 2006 when you started to get wide release 3D films rather than just IMAX. Given that fads usually peak 3-4 years in, Avatar may be the best you'll get with 3Ds third go-around. Particularly as no one else is going to be able to follow it straight away with a film that's had a similar investment of time and money. And because it's so popular, the films like Piranha 3D are going to be a disappointment rather than the gimmicky comedy it was intended as. As much money as Avatar's made, it may be the worst thing to happen to 3D cinema in the long run.

This post has been edited by Brack: 06 January 2010 - 07:26 PM

[matchkitjohn]

3D is a fad designed to raise ticket prices and will be dead in 7 years max. Unlike Bryan, 3D has kept me out of the cinema as I can't rationalise paying the extra they want for me to get motion sickness and throw up in their cinema.

In fact it may be dead in 3-4 years. The 3D fad started properly in 2006 when you started to get wide release 3D films rather than just IMAX. Given that fads usually peak 3-4 years in, Avatar may be the best you'll get with 3Ds third go-around. Particularly as no one else is going to be able to follow it straight away with a film that's had a similar investment of time and money. And because it's so popular, the films like Piranha 3D are going to be a disappointment rather than the gimmicky comedy it was intended as. As much money as Avatar's made, it may be the worst thing to happen to 3D cinema in the long run.

Have you seen the movie yet? I have to ask because you seen to have an aversion to seeing the movie because its 3D. I saw it in 3D for $7 only $2 more than matinee. This is not your grandpa's 3D.

[benjamin74]

It's great 3-d, not the House of Wax variety where every few minutes a sword or a hand will come out from the screen. It's almost constant, but not noticeable at the same time. I really really recommend even skeptics see this in the 3D Imax. I also think this movie will be like Star Wars, where in the future it will be re-released so more generations can get the true experience of it in theater 3-D.

[rgapfrost]

3D is a fad designed to raise ticket prices and will be dead in 7 years max. Unlike Bryan, 3D has kept me out of the cinema as I can't rationalise paying the extra they want for me to get motion sickness and throw up in their cinema.

In fact it may be dead in 3-4 years. The 3D fad started properly in 2006 when you started to get wide release 3D films rather than just IMAX. Given that fads usually peak 3-4 years in, Avatar may be the best you'll get with 3Ds third go-around. Particularly as no one else is going to be able to follow it straight away with a film that's had a similar investment of time and money. And because it's so popular, the films like Piranha 3D are going to be a disappointment rather than the gimmicky comedy it was intended as. As much money as Avatar's made, it may be the worst thing to happen to 3D cinema in the long run.

Your understanding of the current state of 3D appears to be lacking.

1) The new polarized glasses do not cause motion sickness like the old colored ones did. Nor do they cause eye fatigue.
2) Price is variable and linked to the time of day. I saw Avatar in 3D in the morning for a dollar less than the evening 2D price.
3) There have been several recent films that have used 3D properly and not as a gimmick:
a. Beowulf
b. Monster House
c. Up
d. Disney’s A Christmas Carol
4) The number of 3D movies in development is quite extensive
5) At CES, today, the big story is that 3D televisions are rolling out and networks like ESPN are planning to broadcast content in 3D

If the internet had existed in 1939, when The Wizard of Oz came out, there probably would have been posts like yours, decrying the Technicolor as a gimmick and predicting that B&W would reclaim the throne in a few years.

3D, as demonstrated well in Avatar, adds a layer of immersion for the viewer that makes the viewing experience more special – especially on a large screen.

This post has been edited by rgapfrost: 06 January 2010 - 07:49 PM

[Brack]

Have you seen the movie yet? I have to ask because you seen to have an aversion to seeing the movie because its 3D. I saw it in 3D for $7 only $2 more than matinee. This is not your grandpa's 3D.

Ignoring the fact 3D makes me sick, if those were the prices in the UK I'd probably go. But they aren't.

Here it's £7.20 + an extra £1.30 for 3D films + 80p for the glasses. So that's about $15 on current conversion rates. And that's on a local town screen, you'd be paying more in London and more again on an IMAX screen.

[matchkitjohn]

Ignoring the fact 3D makes me sick, if those were the prices in the UK I'd probably go. But they aren't.

Here it's £7.20 + an extra £1.30 for 3D films + 80p for the glasses. So that's about $15 on current conversion rates. And that's on a local town screen, you'd be paying more in London and more again on an IMAX screen.

Yeah $15 is steep for one show. My wife has the same movie-sickness issue. Shaky-cam movies like District 9 are not good for her. She takes Dramamine to help her with. They charge you for the glasses? Geez. Well I hope you can swing it down the road.

[Magneto_Guevara]

1) The new polarized glasses do not cause motion sickness like the old colored ones did. Nor do they cause eye fatigue.

I've heard of people getting motion sickness with the new glasses. I'm not an expert on what sort of viewing experience causes what sort of problems with what portion of the population, but I don't think the new 3D is perfect, or nearly perfect, yet. I've never had any problems viewing any sorts of movies, video games, monitors, etc, so it isn't a personal thing for me. But I have heard several complaints about the 3D of Avatar hurting people's heads.

If the internet had existed in 1939, when The Wizard of Oz came out, there probably would have been posts like yours, decrying the Technicolor as a gimmick and predicting that B&W would reclaim the throne in a few years.

Apples and oranges. This isn't the first time I've heard someone compare the 3D of Avatar to the development of color in movies, but I think it's a rotten comparison. You know how some horror movies in the '60s had a fake creepy monster coming through the theater? Or how about how certain disaster movies in the '70s had special chairs in the theaters that would rock when there was an earthquake on film? I could just turn around and say that I'm sure if the internet existed in those times, then there would have been posts like yours exclaiming that these developments were the equivalent of color in the Wizard of Oz. Not every innovation is necessarily trend-setting. What Avatar does is ostensibly a lot classier and more artistic than "smell-o-vision"-type developments, but IT AIN'T AS BIG A DEAL AS COLOR (or as big a deal as the development of SOUND, which I've also heard some overly excited/defensive Cameron fans exclaim).

I think the real breakthrough 3D innovation is still waiting to be made. I mean REAL 3D, where the viewer of a (non-linear, probably) movie would actually be able to independently look around and view the story as it proceeds. With Avatar you're still looking at the uni-directional screen from your fixed position in the theatre. Real 3D would mean actually being more "inside" the movie or whatever. Sort of like the "virtual reality" craze of the early '90s, but it would have to be combined with a new approach to storytelling for film (probably something non-linear).

Don't get me wrong, though, Avatar looks cool (going to see it myself this weekend) and quite well-done for what it is. Definitely not a gimmick. Probably not one of the greatest films of all-time, but still a very noteworthy film in its own way. The Wizard of Oz, though...it ain't.

Besides, many of the best films of all time are still those that were made in black and white. Doesn't mean most movies should still be made in black and white (of course), but it doesn't mean that you're easily going make superior, deeper art that better stands the test of time just because you use more advanced technology to create the picture.

This post has been edited by Magneto_Guevara: 07 January 2010 - 12:40 AM

[zcotty]

Haven't listened to the show yet, but wanted to jump in the discussion because this movie brings up something that a lot of people bring up about a lot of movies. And that is that the story was VERY basic. Had NO surprises etc etc.

I agree.

But I liked the movie just the same. Yes we like new stories in our films and comics, but sometimes the same basic story is done very well and is extremely entertaining to watch.

Someone actually said: "Well, they'll never win an Oscar with that story..."

Well duh! It was cool anyways.

[rgapfrost]

Apples and oranges. This isn't the first time I've heard someone compare the 3D of Avatar to the development of color in movies, but I think it's a rotten comparison. You know how some horror movies in the '60s had a fake creepy monster coming through the theater? Or how about how certain disaster movies in the '70s had special chairs in the theaters that would rock when there was an earthquake on film? I could just turn around and say that I'm sure if the internet existed in those times, then there would have been posts like yours exclaiming that these developments were the equivalent of color in the Wizard of Oz. Not every innovation is necessarily trend-setting. What Avatar does is ostensibly a lot classier and more artistic than "smell-o-vision"-type developments, but IT AIN'T AS BIG A DEAL AS COLOR (or as big a deal as the development of SOUND, which I've also heard some overly excited/defensive Cameron fans exclaim).

If it's apples and oranges, then why are 1/4 of the articles, this week, about CES about 3D technology? ESPN is going to it, DirecTV has announced they'll have 3 3D-HD channels, every manufacturer is revealing their 3D TVs and 3D Blu-ray players. The entertainment and technology industries are investing huge amounts of money in 3D. It ain't no creepy monster coming through the theater. When a theater spends hundreds of thousands of dollars to upgrade their projectors to support 3D, they're expecting that they will get a lot of 3D content to show, to make that money back.

Besides, many of the best films of all time are still those that were made in black and white. Doesn't mean most movies should still be made in black and white (of course), but it doesn't mean that you're easily going make superior, deeper art that better stands the test of time just because you use more advanced technology to create the picture.

Going to the cinema isn't about art - it's about the visual experience. Cinemas/studios have to make the experience more impressive to keep the audience, especially when they are competing with things like Brian Deemer's home theater setup. For that reason - 3D, IMAX, and Buttkickers are very important to the future of cinema - just like going to color was and going from 4:3 to 2.33:1 widescreen ratios was.

[Nathan P. Mahney]

Avatar is killer, but I didn't enjoy the 3D as much as some others. For the most part it was unobtrusive, but in other parts I found it distracting, to the point where it stopped my immersion in the film. But it's a big step forward, that's for sure.

As for the story, yeah it's predictable. So is Star Wars. So is Indiana Jones. So is just about every other rad movie from the 80s. But it was well told, which is far more important than originality. Even aside from the technological achievements, this is one of the best movies I've seen in recent memory. It's right up there with The Dark Knight.