When you see it next (I've seen it 3 times now), you will like the first night in the forest scene even more. It gets better every time. When he's standing on the tree with the chick and the 'life seeds' or whatever are floating down and surrounding him... it's just one of the greatest things ever.

I saw it for the second time this week, and enjoyed it again, but since I was kind of used to the visual effect, I was able to spend more time watching the mythology of it. For instance, the representation of the Colonel as a machine --he was almost literally mechanical. He wore that huge robotic exoskeleton (this was effectively his avatar out on Pandora -- your avatar is not just an empty fantasy, its really a representation of the inner you), and barely had need to breathe air. The first thing out of his mouth is "These are the rules...". He represents the anti-creative force..The Machine. I like how he tries to leverage Jake by promising him his legs back -- when it was actually The Machine that took his legs from him in the first place (figuratively his freedom to move), and is as always only interested in using him for its purposes. Ultimately he can only get his literal and figurative legs back from the creative force.

Anyways, I think it says a lot about the movie that I appreciated it more after seeing it the second time. I don't disagree at all about the cheesiness of the acting and the characters, but I think the symbology is solid enough for the story to have some depth despite the ostensible shallowness of it. If that makes any sense.

I believe those are domed IMAX's. I saw one at the museum of science and industry in chicago ages ago. . I dunno, I thought it looked great on an imax.

For me, the greatest 3D moment of the movie is also (maybe, I forget) the first true 3D moment...when the doctors/attendants are floating around the ship, waking up the soldiers. It's an amazing example of how the 3D was crafted to create inner depth, as opposed to the gimick of having things pop out of the screen.

I was going to mention that too... that was the first of many times I went "whoa" or something to that effect. IT was actually a little disorienting at first, getting used to the glasses, I don't know if I mentioned this either, but not only was I at an IMAX, but i also got there late, so I was in the very front row, and the screen filled vision completely, and then some.. I Did spend a lot of time turning my head back and forth, looking at things on one sideo f the screen or the other, but I really didn't mind it, it felt like I was right ontop of the movie.

I was going to mention that too... that was the first of many times I went "whoa" or something to that effect. IT was actually a little disorienting at first, getting used to the glasses, I don't know if I mentioned this either, but not only was I at an IMAX, but i also got there late, so I was in the very front row, and the screen filled vision completely, and then some.. I Did spend a lot of time turning my head back and forth, looking at things on one sideo f the screen or the other, but I really didn't mind it, it felt like I was right ontop of the movie.

I'm glad you still liked it, but I would have walked right out and gotten a refund. No front row for me, even in a regular theater. I can't even imagine front row IMax.

I'm glad you still liked it, but I would have walked right out and gotten a refund. No front row for me, even in a regular theater. I can't even imagine front row IMax.

The only thing I don't like about the front row is it kills my neck. I wasn't about to get a refund, I'd driven like 70 miles to see it, I wasn't going to turn around and go home. But when I was a kid, I always liked sitting up close, I've always liked it better than most of my friends, I always encourage use to sit as close as they will bare.. it makes me feel like I'm at a movie, it's hard to explain.

I sit as close as reasonable, where reasonable is determined by the angle of the seats, the size of the screen, etc. My ideal distance is so that the screen fills my vision without turning my head, and maybe a little bit extra screen on each side just outside my vision. I've never understood sitting so far back that the screen has a smaller viewing angle than watching TV at home. I want to be immersed visually.

I'm glad you still liked it, but I would have walked right out and gotten a refund. No front row for me, even in a regular theater. I can't even imagine front row IMax.

They give refunds for things like "I came too late to get to a good seat"?

They give refunds for things like "I came too late to get to a good seat"?

I have a crap-ton of annoying kids.

It's an amazing example of how the 3D was crafted to create inner depth, as opposed to the gimick of having things pop out of the screen.

I want to be immersed visually.

But I was thinking the next step in movies would be 180 degree screens; the screens would extend above you and beside you. Of course, that would require an entirely different way of filming and a lot of other probably unnecessary complexities, but this movie more than any other made me want to be totally immersed in it.

Has there even been a movie before where most of the reviews are something like, "The story and acting might be kind of awful, but you absolutely must go see this movie"?

The first one that comes to my mind is "What Dreams May Come", which was a visual experiment attached to a story that really didn't work, mostly because the movie couldn't carry the heavy load it took on.

So let me get this straight?


No Country for Old Men = absolutely no story, terribly written.

Avatar = Amazingly crafted and subtle story that has great depth.


Oh.

This is quite funny.

Yeah, even with the symbolism, I didn't care for the Ewoks either.

But I was thinking the next step in movies would be 180 degree screens; the screens would extend above you and beside you. Of course, that would require an entirely different way of filming and a lot of other probably unnecessary complexities, but this movie more than any other made me want to be totally immersed in it.

Has there even been a movie before where most of the reviews are something like, "The story and acting might be kind of awful, but you absolutely must go see this movie"?

Yeah, that's exactly how I feel about it. I think it's horrible in many ways, but you ahve to see it. I think star wars was just like that, really. I think star war's writing is a little better than avatar, but really not THAT Much better, and the acting is probably worse (if possible) part. But it was visually and conceptually spectacular, at that time. I remember my dad describing the goose bumps he got the first time he saw the Star Destroyer fly across the screen, and knew he was watching something completely new and revolutionary. That's how I felt watching this movie.

Being the first true 3D blockbuster will make Avatar go down as a legend...I'd be shocked if in the future it wasn't considered a top 10, or 5, or #1 movie of this decade for that very reason alone...it's the first extreme advance in picture making since the wizard of oz. It may not be as good of a movie as synecdoche, but it's much more important.

I may be exaggerating, I'm not sure.

Depends what you mean by important, I suppose. IN terms of story telling, I think synec is just as innovative and important, if not more so. Avatar, while brilliant, was also inevitable. If Cameron didn't make the first 3D blockbuster, SOMEONE else would have. We could have movies for 10,000 years, and not have made a movie like Synec.

I see your point...though Avatar was only inevitable because someone was eventually going to have the foresight and balls to get it done, and you can't take anything away from the guy who actually did step up and do it. Someone would have eventually made a color film, but we still remember Oz for it over a half century later.

"Look, at this point I'm less interested in making money for the movie and more interested in saving the world that my children are going to inhabit. How about that? I mean, look, I didn't make this movie with these strong environmental anti-war themes in it to make friends on the right, you know.

This actually has the ability to be one of the rare occasions that the sequels are better than the first.

Yeah, now everyone knows it's possible to make a movie that looks like that, but how likely are imitators?

The movie I saw (with the benefit of the making-of) showed me a great, control freak director, with a huge check book.

Related: was this movie a big deal with kids? Are they going to look back on this soon to be trilogy of movies the way adults look back on Star Wars?

Related: was this movie a big deal with kids? Are they going to look back on this soon to be trilogy of movies the way adults look back on Star Wars?

Part of the reason why the Star Wars trilogy was such a big deal was the fact that it was one story, told in three parts. Avatar doesn't have that going for it.

These movies are the biggest cash-grab since the Star Wars prequels. Disgusting.

I bet the Avatar trilogy will more closely mirror the Matrix trilogy than Star Wars though.

I think the first Matrix was a bigger jump than Avatar was, but I might need to see Avatar again in the theater.

In that the 2nd and 3rd movie will be collosal letdowns compared to the original?

In that the 2nd and 3rd movie will be collosal letdowns compared to the original?

I think SJ was speaking about cultural relevancy, for what it's worth.

In that the 2nd and 3rd movie will be collosal letdowns compared to the original?



Are you talking about just technologically or otherwise?

I think SJ was speaking about cultural relevancy, for what it's worth.