Avatar vs the Hurt Locker

[Xavier_Onassis]

I just got around to renting Avatar. I rented The Hurt Locker earlier, and it was a really good film about bomb disarming in Iraq. But Avatar was far and away the better picture. Every element of Avatar was created: the actors, the scenery, a language that the tall blue critters spoke, a culture, which was sort of a mix of sci-fi, American Indian and Hawaiian tribal society, and of course the whole film was one huge long and extremely well done visual effect.

I suppose the main reasons it did not get the Best Picture Award was because (1) actors feel threatened by a film where many of the main characters are not played by actors at all, and (2) the women voted for Cameron's ex-wife rather than for Cameron out of solidarity for ex-wives.

Sci Fi films as a rule have considerably more simplistic plots than sci fi novels. But Avatar was comparable with really well written science fiction. The plot makes sense and seems very coherent.

Of course, the Hurt Locker did a fine job of what it did as well. But for innovation and sheer creativity, Avatar was better than any film I have ever seen. Really.

[kimba1]

I liked avatar, but decided from that picture to not see anymore 3d movies. those glasses bug the living hell out of me.

until I get contacts,I`ll be getting saving alot of money not seeing movies next year. alot of 3d is coming out next year. It`ll be interesting if 3d will last past that.

XO does avatar dvd require glasses? I hope not

[Kramer]

I liked avatar, but decided from that picture to not see anymore 3d movies. those glasses bug the living hell out of me.

until I get contacts,I`ll be getting saving alot of money not seeing movies next year. alot of 3d is coming out next year. It`ll be interesting if 3d will last past that.

XO does avatar dvd require glasses? I hope not

you could have seen it in the theater on the regular screen.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The Avatar DVD comes in Blue Ray, regular DVD and perhaps 3-D.

I do not have an HDTV, so I rented the regular DVD, and it was entirely adequate, with no glasses required.
There are none of those stupid scenes where it looks like something is about to poke you in the eye. All in all, the special effects were the best I have seen in any film, anywhere. It might be nice to see it in 3-D someday, and I would not buy it just yet, as they have not released to DVD with all the extra stuff on it.

It is a great film in pretty much every way. Somewhat predictable, perhaps.

I think 3-D is going to be the next big thing. I don't really appreciate it enough to pay much extra for it, but I am not most people. They are already selling 3-D TV and it will take off bigtime in three or four years.

I tend not to be an early adapter for things that have no obvious benefits. I have a 36" Mexican made JVC TV that I bought used for $125 with the table. It took two of us about an hour to get it into the house and set up, because it weighs a ton. But it does have a great picture, for a non-HDTV. A friend of mine paid $2600 for a 42" Samsun plasma screen that lasted less than a year. This was several years ago, when $2600 was a bargain price.They replaced it under warranty after three months of pestering, and by the time they did, the regular price for a set with the same size screen was down to $1500.

I do have a 22" Acer LCD monitor, but I did not buy it until my old 20" HP monitor died.

[kimba1]

the 2D was not available when I showed up.

I tend to pick movies that starts when I arrives,unless I plan to see a specific flick. But that rarely happens.

good to know about the dvd,thanks

[Xavier_Onassis]

Listings in the Miami Herald do not indicate whether the film will be 3-D or 2-D. If you are familiar with the theatres, you can probably guess.

[kimba1]

actually I was at the theatre this week and I don`t think i found any 2d version of any 3d movie.

i think they made them scarce in my area to push 3d.

I didn`t see any 2d megamind yet.

I`ll probly check the listing this x-mas. I like the story

[Amianthus]

I liked avatar, but decided from that picture to not see anymore 3d movies. those glasses bug the living hell out of me.

I'm the opposite; I won't go to the theater anymore *except* to see a 3D movie. With a big screen HDTV at home, I have no need to go somewhere to see a 2D movie.

Went to both Tron 3D and Voyage of the Dawn Treader 3D this weekend. Liked both (and was surprised that the new Tron was not as cheesy as I expected it to be), but Voyage was the better of the two movies.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The original Tron was pretty cheesy. The revues seem to describe the second one as cheesy as well. But I will decide if and when I see it.

Since theatres charge more for 3-D, it is likely that in a large city, there will be no 2-D versions of 3-D films.There is no law requiring this, of course.

The 3-D films I have seen to date were all pretty cheesy: infantile plots and dumb shots where they try to make you flinch by legs, arms, fingers and debris rushing out of the screen at you. I don't think they have to be cheesy. Cinerama (remember that?) was a great idea, but the films made in Cinerama were all pretty stupid. The best as I recall was "Around the World in 80 Days." It was somewhat silly, but not too cheesy.

[kimba1]

I heard the 1st tron was made too early for the technology to make it worth it. I did find the fuzzy lights annoying. the MCP wasn`t very scarey.

but it`s offspring "automan"  was totally cool

[bsb]

Battle of the Bulge and  2001 A Space Odyssey weren't stupid movies and were essentially made in cinerama.

bsb

[Xavier_Onassis]

I didn't see either of them in Cinerama. There were never very many theatres that had the special screens.

I don't recall seeing the Battle of the Bulge at all.

I agree, 2001 was not at all dumb.

[bsb]

I wouldn't bother with "Battle of the Bulge" in a regular format. I saw it on TV a few weeks ago after seeing it in cinerama 45 years ago. The armored battle and in particular the ariel reconnaissance scenes were made for cinerama.


bsb

[Xavier_Onassis]

The technology and artistry of film making has improved so much over the past forty years or so that I have noticed that films that were amazing when they were made are pretty run-of-the mill and unexciting today. I recall being astonished and amazed by the first Star Wars film in 1980 when it came out.

It is nowhere near as impressive today.

The monster at the end of Howard the Duck would have astonished anyone in the 1950's, but by the time Howard came out, it was merely somewhat impressive.

[kimba1]

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RobotMonster

I think 3d movies in the 50`s are a match to todays flick