Slashdot Mirror
Avatar Soars Into $1-Billion Territory
Suki I writes " Avatar soars into $1-billion territory. 'Strong foreign ticket sales help make the science-fiction movie the fifth in history to pass the watermark. ... One of the riskiest movies of all times is now officially one of the most successful at the box office. When Avatar opened, its solid but far from stellar results left 20th Century Fox uncertain about whether the $430 million that it and two financing partners had invested to produce and market the 3-D film would pay off.'" Given that the big alternatives were Sherlock Holmes or Alvin & the Chipmunks, I think the winner was clear.
I just saw it last weekend, and I gotta say.. Science Fiction? Not much. Science Fantasy is more like it.
.. died?
Just a few things threw me off. I loved most of the movie. And for a while I believed the blue people were spiritual in the same way humans were.. in ritual and what not...
But instead it turned out to be a magical spiritual world, and a collective thought borg of trees and animals.. and those that
A fantastic adventure, but really just lost me as a caring viewer. I prefer things to be more rational.
Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
Am I the only one?
And yet Sherlock Holmes and the Chipmunks are both more original than Avatar. Its just a very old story with a few pretty visuals.
Instead of spending $430million making one bloated FX crap-test they could have made 10 regular films. Even if only one of those was
really good it would beat a poor film that has been hidden by obscene overspending on visuals.
If this movie is doing that good it must be worthwhile seeing. Sherlock Holmes has been nominated for a Golden Globe and Alvin does suck.
To err is to be human, to really screw up takes a computer and a human.
While it may be innovative in the technology, I cannot imagine anyone wanting to keep this movie as something you'd want to go back to because it's such a great movie. You'd think if they were going to spend that kind of money on production they'd have at least gotten a script that took your breath away. But then again, it is Cameron and Jackson...
Hey, at least Cameron didn't make a Titanic sequel.
"Titanic II: Revenge of the Sunken," perhaps.
Liberal? Conservative? Compare perspectives at Left-Right
Or use Nickleback.
rewriting history since 2109
I'd like to see a director's cut when this goes to DVD. I know Cameron had an extremely rich back story, and most of it didn't make the cut to get into the movie, since it weighed in at 2 hours 40 minutes long. I also think it would help flesh out a story that was somewhat bland. Ah, who am I kidding? I wanna see more bad-ass CGI explosions. Screw the plot, bring on the blue alien sex.
I bring nothing to the table.
I'd be interested to see what proportion of this film's takings were from repeat viewings, and how this figure compares with other blockbusters. Avatar is one of very few films that I have paid to see more than once at the cinema, and it's the first time that I'm doing this simply because I wanted to see the film again (as opposed to being asked to go with someone else who wanted to see it). In 3D IMAX, it really is an impressive spectacle.
Why are adults so critical of kids movies? Of course they're simple and stupid, but such movies were not made for you. Unless you are under the age of 8. Alvin & the Chipmunks was a movie for young kids... and to even analogize it with an adult movie such as the Avatar is moronic.
A more analogous slam would have been The Blind Side. I can't for the life of me figure out why people consistently pay to see Sandra Bullock movies. Sure, she's hot. But her movies are also consistently crap. Look at her list of movies here. There's not even one worth watching. But yet they always make money.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Sherlock Holmes is a solid movie with good acting and an interesting take on the Holmes story line. It'll probably evolve into an interesting series of movies. Alvin and the Chipmunks is well made mindless children's fare. For the 4-8 age group love it and it is doing extremely well in the box office. Avatar on the other hand is a visually stunning movie, but the noble savage storyline is strait from the 70's. It is not a bad movie by any stretch, but without the special effect advancement, would this movie garner any attention? Will Avatar's real legacy be laying the groundwork for better integrated CGI rather than the story told?
It's the same story all over again and yet it succeds.
Well. It'd be worse if the story that succeded and most people enjoyed was about evil prevailing, wouldn't it?
The story was pretty much formula. They blew all the money on effects, certainly not on writing.
Still, expect more of the same. Movie theaters have to find themselves a niche (so they think), and what movie theaters can do that home theaters cannot (cheaply) is provide a 3D hi-def effects-fest such as this one.
If production costs come down, they may actually be able to do some movies with good stories in this advanced medium, and your 10 regular films can be made and put out directly in DVD/BluRay.
--PM
More like champagne. Large quantities of valium don't cause people to babble incoherently about how wonderful it is.
Another nail in the "Piracy kills our industry!" coffin. But honestly, even the file-sharers were telling everyone to go see it in the theaters first.
The "plot." Pretty much the same: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104254/
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
i saw it yesterday and was really dissapointed. next time please try less military parade and more of a storyline. it could be sooo good and they just fcked it up. what a pitty :(
I feel as though I am the only one not drinking from the cool-aid on this one. The story line, apart from the apparently necessary political message, is nothing more than a rehash of a million other stories. From the noble savage to the walking armor suit so reminiscent of the suit that worn in the Aliens finale by Sigourney Weaver, this story was a soup of elements found in many other stories and movies. Were this story presented as a book, without James Cameron's name, it would have been rejected outright.
The only creative elements that exist in this movie were the special effects and associated artistry, which made the movie worth watching. They were outstanding.
Finally, why do entertainers continue to feel that they have to present their beliefs within a movie. If I want to be preached at or listen to political messages, I will go to church or read a newspaper/book. I do not want to see it in movies or hear it at concerts.
Weed - 'look at the pretty colours' :-D
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
They did make a sequel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vD4OnHCRd_4 :)
Quoted: "One of the riskiest movies of all times is now officially one of the most successful at the box office."
Gee, I wonder if that's because people are getting more and more nauseous over the regurgitated offal force fed to us by the movie industry for the past two decades?
Dear movie industry,
Stop remaking 20-30 year old movies. Thank you.
And that was to just not go to the movies. This was the option I chose.
Go on, citizen, stamp the vote card. R or D, your choice.
Two scenes in particular. The first where she's teaching him how to 'fall' and use the leaves to break the fall. The second was when they introduce the "last shadow" pterodactyl. My thoughts, out loud, were "I wonder where that's going to be used in the story."
I saw someone rolling his eyes so much they became unscrewed and he had to be taken to a mechanic.
Always proofread carefully to see if you any words out.
I just came home from seeing Avatar in 3D and I must say it rivals Watchmen in sheer visual splendor. The story is a bit predictable, but I didnt really think about that until afterwards because I was so immersed in this beautiful world Cameron has created. It could have used a better soundtrack but then it would have been a completely different movie. Definetly worth the money, and well worth seeing again on the big screen.
I disagree with the "not science fiction" thing, the fact that they didnt combobulate the parallell deflectors and set phasers to stun but instead treated technology as an everyday occurence makes it more believable. The idea of the planet as a network is neat as well, one can imagine the whole thing as a Post-Singularity society, with a sentient network of biological entities as the collective conciousness of the planet.
Now the world has gone to bed, Darkness won't engulf my head, I can see by infra-red, How I hate the night.
That's exactly what my wife said as we left the theater. "Well It looked pretty, but the first 3/4ths the movie was just 'Space Pocahontas'."
James Cameron has done this to us before. Titanic had the same effect. Everyone was swooning, until they realized just how vapid the story was... and people started making fun of "I'm the king of the world!" and the old lady who throws away the insanely valuable necklace... [shudder] So all we need do now is mock Avatar endlessly... and cynicism will win the day. :)
http://www.beanleafpress.com
To say that hollywood doesn't recycle well established plots and put a new skin on it is silly. Personally, I rather liked Dances With Smurfs, and went to see it twice.
Your sig(k) has been stolen. There is a puff of smoke!
Everything I've heard makes it sound like it's to film what Donkey Kong Country was to video games. (DKC was graphically impressive for the SNES but the game underneath all of that was meh. I don't think anybody would have cared for the game if it looked like say Super Mario World and played the same as DKC. I hear the same is true of Avatar.)
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
I don't go see movies very often but this is one film that I was very happy to see in theaters. I realized about 20 minutes into the alien world that it was well worth the money to see it now - I don't think even the nicest BluRay player and HDTV can faithfully reproduce all of the computer generated detail they packed into this film.
I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
You know, if this stage of your relationship lasts more than a week, I am legally allowed to stab you both.
"Asleep at the switch? I wasn't asleep, I was drunk!" -- Homer
I don't know what kind of weed you've been smoking, but maybe I should get some because mine generally doesn't cause me to see 'pretty colors'. Perchance were you thinking of lsd or some other hallucinogen?
I'm a bit confused. You prefer movies that introduce elements at random and then never incorporate them into the plot? Red Herring: The Film? As I think Ensign Chekhov said, if you put a giant freakin' pterodactyl in the first act, it absolutely must swoop down on a futuristic helicopter in the third.
Of course, the story was still silly. But not because it followed basic plot structures that have been in place since Aristotle.
Just because you sold your soul to the devil that needn't make you a teetotaler. --The Devil and Daniel Webster
It's a stereotyped cowboy and indian flick; even with "hostiles." The bad guys are all white males, and the worst have southern accents. The only people with intelligence or perception are female. The male hero only learns when mentored by a female.
It's a combination of Dances with Wolves, and Mononoke, but without the charm of either. Fabulous animation does not make up for appalling imagery and story.
The most brutal way I've ever seen someone handle this was 'Oh, you have a girlfriend. Are you going to get married?' 'I, uh, don't know--' 'Well, do you love her?' '...' 'Anyway, what were you saying about the movie?'
Haven't seen Avatar but the over all "Looks great but what's underneath kind of sucks" sounds like Donkey Kong Country. (I mean would anybody have cared about DKC if it looked like Super Mario World?)
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
That James Cameron shooting script in full: http://imgur.com/JmRmb
I keep having to remind myself that this movie wasn't made so much to sell tickets so much as to re-sell 3D to the masses.
Most consumers had written off most 3D flicks to cheesy horror flicks where the ax is getting thrown right at you.
Notice in this movie the astounding lack of "COMING AT YOU!" 3D moments, and more use of the visuals to help set the mood & stage for what was going on in the movie (ie: busy control room, falling ashes, etc).
Coincedently this is exactly what I preach to my friends & family about when I said that if the MPAA wants to continue to exist, they'll find a way to fill the theater seats. This innovation will help for the next 5 years or so until the consumer market saturates with 3D glasses & Tech.
I've been hearing a lot of people making comments that the story in Avatar is not a new story
Any literature teacher will tell you there are no new stories and haven't been for centuries.
A great work is a great great work by virtue of how well the story is told.
( Good writing, good acting, good script, etc )
Shakespeare is often given as an example. None of his plots were original but his works are still valued centuries later.
That being said Avatar is not Shakespeare. It is showcase for next generation special effects like Star Wars or Jurassic Park. Movies like that are rarely enjoyable once you are no longer impressed by the effects......they don't have anything else.
I don't see the message of the film as a problem. You can't have a story without a message. People don't like political messages in their entertainment if they disagree with the politics. Doesn't matter if you are a conservative or a liberal. Everybody reacts like that, few are honest about it.
I think the message in Avatar is a good message to be repeated. Too much of the world operates on the ideas of justice being the will of the stronger and history being written by the victor. I believe that embedding messages like Avatar's in entertainment will encourage respect for all people, whether or not they can bomb the hell out of you.
That can only lead to good things.
stab
Palm trees and 8
The scenery was cool, but not all that impressive. If you've ever played the Myst series of games, you'll know that striking visuals and landscapes like that have been done before. In fact, my first reaction on seeing Pandora was that it looked just like something I'd expect to see in Riven, and that's nearly a decade old.
The graphics were...ok. Sorry, but I really expected better. The cgi rendered reflections in the soldiers' face masks was a nice detail touch, but it made them look artificial. No stray strands of hair, 'flat' skin (just texture, not topographically modeled), and odd lighting effects looked unnatural.
The physics weren't all that great either. Turn your hand around quickly and you'll notice it 'jiggles' for a moment after you stop it. Not in the movie.. flesh didn't behave as I expected. Watch closely in the background when they are climbing up to choose their flying mounts, you'll notice their movements look like insects. We're introduced to scarface while he's lifting weights so he can keep in shape in the 'low gravity', and yet I saw no low gravity effects.
The sounds were the killer though. Whoever did the sound effects needs to be fired (upon). All of the flying craft used ducted fans for propulsion, and yet they all made the sounds of a helicopter. That, to me was the most distracting element, especially because there were so many scenes with flying craft.
It was good, yes. But not great. It was't realistic enough for me to believe... I kept getting jarred back to reality by the incongruities. You notice something isn't quite right, and maybe you can't put you finger on it, but it still nags at the back of your mind to remind you it's fake. And all of that could be forgiven if the story were compelling enough, but I've read too many similar 'persecuted aliens' stories to be impressed. It was, at least, worth the price of admission, which is something I find is all too rare these days.
Finally, why do entertainers continue to feel that they have to present their beliefs within a movie.
Because movies are a valid and welcomed medium for getting these messages across. I think you're letting Avatar influence your blanket statement above. I've seen this go horribly wrong two ways. You can belabor a belief or political idea in a movie to a point where nobody will be able to stomach it and you can also use such a tired message that most people are sick of hearing it. I haven't seen Avatar mostly because I feared the Fern Gully message so many other posters have mentioned. While the political message is valid, I'm sick of hearing it. Not because I don't care but because I read enough of it in the news.
... okay, I don't have to watch this movie. A shame that Cameron didn't take a more original story and risk it like Star Wars. Or even to tell a similar message about mankind's follies with a more complicated story like District 9 did. But he's James Cameron and the monetary risk was huge so of course we got some Grade F gruel that has been slammed into our gullets fifty times or more. This plot was sure to be labeled 'acceptable' by the public committee on what people will swallow.
This isn't true of all people, some people are going to love Avatar. And for a younger viewer it might be new to them. Fine. In Hollywood, the price for unoriginality is very very small. Too small in my opinion but
If I want to be preached at or listen to political messages, I will go to church or read a newspaper/book. I do not want to see it in movies or hear it at concerts.
Please, I implore you, watch Brazil or Dr. Strangelove. Listen to Bob Dylan or Pete Seeger. Now tell me that those movies and songs wouldn't be the same without those messages. There's an example of people using an artistic medium to get a message across that -- while not always original -- was not tired and was done tastefully. That message actually comprised much of what made them who they are. There's an appropriate way to do it but the artist always risks losing people by baking in a message that is contrary to what some people believe. James Cameron lost very few viewers with his message because it was a safe one. But if it had been more original it would have been brilliant and more timeless.
My work here is dung.
Considering I fell asleep halfway through for a couple minutes then woke up wanting popcorn, that's probably the best analogy yet.
While James Cameron isn't in my top list of directors by a long shot, having seen most (all?) of his movies and now Avatar I have to admit he is a good director. He does the movies he likes and he puts loads of personal effort and risk into them. And he knows how to get the plot, visuals *and* the screenplay right. I said *right* not original or superb. Given, the Avatar plot isn't anything new. Cameron boldfacidly admitted in an interview that it was 'Dances with Wolves' (..Pocahontas/Ferngully/etc. ...) in SF and I, as everyone else, was prepared to see a generic plotline unfold.
But:
I was suprised that the didn't flog a dead horse in terms of stale american cornyness in dialouge. There was a bit to much of that in Abyss and I was surprised that he'd improved on that in leaps and bounds. The play and dialog where simply textbook, no more and no less, but they avoided pressing any issue. It was as if Cameron almost expected one to know the story. And Avatars pacing is excellent, imho. No strange Abyss-like 'Submarine drama turned ET' plot-turns or mood-swings. Just the right amount of action, tension, poetry and subplot you can expect and not to much avantgarde experimenting as not to confuse the target audience, i.e. the masses. The FX are first class and lack the significant botches that disturbed the visual experience in 'Attack of the Clones'. I was prepared for something like that in the 95% CGI movie that Avatar is, and was glad they didn't screw up.
Bottom line: Camerons movies are certainly not top-of-the-line in terms of avantgarde and arthouse, but they are allways a sure bet for a few hours of popcorn-movie fun. Which, as I understand, is his intention. And thus makes him a good director, in my book.
My 2 cents.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Ignoring the 3D buzzword, as my eyes are buggered in such a way that I can barely be considered to have 3D vision normally so tricks to improve the apparent depth of film visuals don't tend to work for me at all, is it still impressive enough as switch-your-brain-off-and-eat-the-eye-candy type fantasy goes? Or are people just flocking to see it primarily for the 3D gimmick?
that is, kirk cameron:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirk_Cameron
mainly because i'm not really interested in his evangelical christianity
but what i wouldn't do is go see his movie, knowing what i was getting into, and then once outside the movie, complain about being preached at with political messages. well, what the hell did i expect?
you knew what you were getting into. its disingenuous of you to complain about the environmental message of the movie, when you could have sniffed it out from the context of the movie 20 miles away
james cameron very much intended to provoke a pro-environmentalist agenda with his movie. and? so fucking what? how do you suppose that james cameron could get out of bed in the morning during filming and editing, be passionate and motivated about the movie he was making, and at the same time, be castrated of one of the main reasons he wanted to make the movie in the first place by removing the message he wants to convey? its his movie right?
if james cameron is going to make a movie, he is going to make the movie he wants to make. if you tell him to make a movie watered down of any message important to him, i would expect him to simply not make the movie, if he has any passions or principles about him. meanwhile, if you don't like his politics, simply don't watch his damn movie. but don't expect that removing the motivation from the artist to create his work, that the artist will still want to make his work
look: i don't like kirk cameron's evangelical beliefs. but i don't believe i can snap my fingers and kirk cameron will still be motivated to make movies devoid of any of his passions or principles. instead, i simply won't watch kirk cameron's movies
you can't have james cameron's artistic output without james cameron's passions and principles. deal with it. and if you can't deal with it, don't watch his movies
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
but inflation adjusted records would still be more truthful.
Better yet - actual number of tickets sold, instead of a dollar figure. Then you don't have to worry about inflation and exchange rates at all.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Is this figure really accurate, because, although it grossed almost 1 billion dollars, and cost 400 million to MAKE, there also needs to be a pair of 3d glasses, of which are not the cheap regular kind but a more expensive kind to be handed out at all cinemas for the viewers. The lenses must cost a pretty penny, are they recyclable, or reused, (hygiene) and whether or not they are, was that cost added to the 450 million, or is it the cinema that must pay for the glasses?
Judge for yourself. I think you'll find it to be amazing. I do believe it is a new technology, or at least a new way of using it... You still wear polarized glasses, but there was no eye strain..
Why is this a troll? He/She is entitled to think the movie sucks. I didn't see Avatar yet but I certainly can say that Titanic sucks, big time.
"Given that the big alternatives were Sherlock Holmes or Alvin & the Chipmunks, I think the winner was clear."
What the heck - Sherlock Holmes was infinitely better. Avatar was nice and all but nowhere near as entertaining, IMO. That comment is damned near trolling! *shakes fist* And get off my lawn!
I don't know about the science behind the 3D, but the end result did look amazing and I forgot I was even wearing the glasses after a couple of minutes. From the very first scene where people were waking up in zero-G in a mile-long star ship interior, I was wowed.
It wasn't like any of the carnival 3D flicks I've seen before, and I didn't have any eye-strain. (I know what you mean about crappy 3D; but for some reason this didn't hurt my head.) Anyway, since it doesn't cost any more to see it in 3D than in 2D, I'd definitely opt for the gee-whiz version if you're going to watch it.
The film, like everything Cameron has done, was formula to the bone. The criticisms against Avatar are founded largely I think on the fact that unlike his previous fare, this one wasn't quite as tight. There were a couple of logical, "Huh?" moments for me, primarily because tree people with sticks v.s. space people with machine guns really only has one ending. But by and large it was still well worth $10. Given that the last three films I saw in theaters included, "Star Trek", "Indy 4" and "X-Files", James Cameron's latest offers by far the most entertaining and least awful Fantasy/Sci-Fi.
-FL
and when they tried to save Sigourney Weaver by uniting her with her avatar but failed because she had left it too late, I knew how he was going to live happily ever after with Ms Smurff...
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
I read that after Titanic, Cameron said he had his "f*ck you" money. Now it looks like he's got his "f*ck you and the horse you rode in on" money. So, what's next? Piranha 3 - Sushi from Hell?
Was a great visual spectacle, however a terrible film story-wise and not really worth 2h40 mins of my time.
... sad stuff
It reminds me of when IMAX first arrived - they would show 40min visual spectacles with no story, just to show off the technology. Avatar should have been one of those rather than attempting to pad it out.
On the other hand, I enjoyed Sherlock Holmes. I thought Downey was excellent and it reflected the spirit of Conan Doyle's books far better than the old man Holmes ever did. I'm not really sure why the critics (and the summary) seem to be enjoying bashing it so much. While it may never have had a chance of beating Avatar in the box office it is still the more worthwhile film in my opinion.
It is very likely that the top two (not inflation-adjusted) box office films of all time will be James Cameron's films now
"Ahead of it are Titanic ($1.8bn; £1.1bn), The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King ($1.12bn; £695m) and Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest ($1.07bn; £664m). The huge box office takings are partly down to the higher cost of tickets for 3D performances" [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8438824.stm]
and Avatar has the next few months with no major releases to keep raking in the money. My cinema was charging double the "normal" ticket price for the IMAX 3D showings. I'd be interested to compare based on actual viewer numbers rather than box office takings.
I'd tell a UDP joke, but you may not get it. I'd tell a TCP joke, but I'd have to keep repeating it until you got it.
Why in the fuck were those mountains floating? Nobody seems to give a shit, but I want to know why those goddamn mountains were floating. You can't just toss in FUCKING FLOATING MOUNTAINS with no goddamn explanation in a "science fiction" movie. Unless you're calling it straight-up fantasy, you get no FLOATING MOUNTAINS.
Floating. The fucking mountains were floating, and there was never even a hand-wavey explanation. Nothing. Just, meh, the fucking mountains float, they're legendary, who gives a shit?
Fuck you. I want to know why those goddamn mountains are FUCKING FLOATING FUUUUUUUUCK WHYYYYYYYYYY ARE THEY FLOATING?
<xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
The various plot elements -- such as they are -- have been used over and over again in fiction. Dark Roasted Blend had an entire "issue" devoted to ten possible sources for Avatar from Science Fiction.
It's possible to make sympathetic characters that don't look at all like a human. See, e.g., District 9. But apparently they didn't feel like it here.
I enjoyed the movie well enough. But scientifically, it was just bonkers.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
"Given that the big alternatives were Sherlock Holmes or Alvin & the Chipmunks, I think the winner was clear."
Sure is....
Sherlock Holmes would squeak by Alvin... just barely.
This movie is a dud, and one I am sick and tired of hearing about!
Don't care that its from Cameron, didn't care about those 3 idiotic ring movies and books and don't care about this.
Only thing its soaring towards is /dev/null
And just because all the sheep are flocking to it doesn't mean they are right.
1311393600 - Back to Black
Your a smart guuy
Frankly I am sick and tired of this practice of demonstrating one's fake sophistication on Slashdot by criticizing everything under the sun as being "unoriginal". It is nothing but a circle-jerk of self-important dilettantism.
I don't know what your expectations were when you walked in to watch "Avatar", but mine were both pretty clear and pretty low. I was pleasantly surprised by both the plot, and its execution, including acting mind you.
I went to see it for the aesthetics... because unlike the super sophisticated crowd, I remember that film is a VISUAL art... and I found the world of "Avatar" with the high-tech humanity superimposed on the magical jungle to be absolutely beautiful. "Avatar" was a moving picture, a painting created by hundreds of true artists working for years... an achievement of visual art that the lot of you seem to dismiss in one sentence.
The plot was no more recycled than 99% of other plots. We're not nearly that original as a species, and given that we've already had a couple thousand years of written history, I'll bet you that there is nothing truly original left... only original interpretation of the same kinds of events happening to various people in various situations. It is the execution of the old formula that makes it original or not (see: "Batman Begins" for an example within the realm of cinema).
As a recycled plot, "Avatar" did pretty well. It was compelling on a brute emotional level, and if you bothered to consider that it was condemning everything that made it possible it was actually rather sarcastic.
So please stop. You're not fooling anyone.
that somewhere out there, Debbie Gibson and Lorenzo Llamas are sitting around lamenting the fact that Cameron and Company CGI'd 3/4ths of the cast while they're stuck doing "Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus"!
Sig Follows: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
Inflation Adjusted Box-Office Results Avatar has not been added yet, but it will likely still be in the top 5.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
No the Titanic didn't suck, it sunked. Get it right AC.
I liked Avatar - was even willing to see it twice (didn't pan out due to holidays). The movie was very well done. I thought the dialogue would have been much worse - i mean painfully bad. It was pretty good (except the colonol, his dialogue sucked). The characters were amazingly rendered.
I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
...is still really good. Still one of my favorite movies in fact.
Watch some Bollywood films.
You might get it then. They do little cool things that might take 10 minutes of the 3.5 hour run time.
I get the value of Chekhov with regard to having a tight story. The problem is, hollywood has turned a virtue into a vice.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Well, it is a big budget (make that: BIG!!! budget) holiday blockbuster. The last time you saw one of those with a unique plot and surprising plot twists was.... when?
There are different types of movies with different entertainment qualities, and you should judge it by its own genre. Do you go to a kung-fu flick expecting an emotional story about small town life? Do you go to a sports movie expecting Shakespeare?
The Matrix is the last big budget blockbuster that I can think of with an original story, which was almost eleven years ago, and was not a holiday blockbuster (it was released in March).
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
So the way they make these movies 3d is putting in blurry backgrounds and forgrounds and the glasses make them clear - so you get a 3d image. The theatre screen is just a flat surface. Given that - what is preventing this movie from being released, in 3d, for your plasma/LCD screen? It would come with 2-4 glasses (the ones at the theatre were of nice construction) and you can get a 3d experience at home.
Anyone, with tech knowledge, can give a laymens answer?
I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
Definitely escapist; It's the dream of what could be, might be, should be in the eyes of the artist. Cameron ties his vision together with a 'fragile story' with some social undertones almost as an after thought. Sooner or later, some artist would have done one of these Utopian paradise worlds worlds; Cameron got there first. A visual feast that takes us beyond the distraction of the plot, actors, into the world of art without many barriers. If there is any shortcomings, I would like to have seen a new opus magnum created for the musical score and better quality 3D glasses.
I believe that if he had explained why he thinks both movies suck he would not be modded as Troll.
Avatar sucked. And so did the Titanic.
As this stands, it is neither Informative, Insightful or Interesting. For obvious reasons it is not Funny, so it is a Troll.
Seriously, there is not that much good SciFi coming from the studios, so every time there comes _something_ resembling a very good movie, it gets excellent ROI. Who would have guessed? Seriously, the interval for stuff you ought to watch in the genre is stretching to half a year by now (last was star trek - spring, now avatar, next is Iron Man 2 - spring again).. if competition would be like 10-7 years ago, this numbers would not be achievable.
It's actually a sign of very smart marketing, though I don't like that little detail about it: WE ARE ALL SCREWED!
(sorry, I get a little emotional at times when someone approaches me from behind)..
Finally, why do entertainers continue to feel that they have to present their beliefs within a movie. If I want to be preached at or listen to political messages, I will go to church or read a newspaper/book. I do not want to see it in movies or hear it at concerts.
You're missing the entire fucking point of art. Your personal views must be pathetically weak if you can't suffer the "message" of a mainstream blockbuster.
I liked Sherlock Holmes generally, especially since all the actors hit the right notes, especially Downey, who I really do hope wins an Oscar one day, even though it won't be for this.
As far as plot, what I appreciated most was that in the end despite all previous appearances that everything was explained as rational cleverness rather than anything being supernatural. Too few things promote rationality in this demon-haunted world, so it's always nice when something swims against the tide.
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
That was actually pretty cool
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
During the part where Neytiri starts training John...er...Jake to appreciate nature, I actually thought they were going to break into singing "Colors of the Wind."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Yeah, I have no problem with a Chekhov's Gun every now and then, but they beat it into the ground. Another one I can think of is when they introduced the mobile facility in the floating mountains.
Ideally, it shouldn't be completely obvious to the audience that the plot element is there for no other reason than to facilitate a future plot element. Given that there are several of these, it seems the writers were a little too lazy.
Something that doesn't seem to be mentioned much in the 'something borrowed' department is the deathworld concept. Pandora was already dangerous and then became an adversary once the planetary consciousness decided to fight back. For me this elevated the story to more than Pocahontas-in-space since the indigenous people's wholistic view on the world wasn't just philosophy, it was real.
P.S. The 'anti-technology POV' complaints are completely off base. Recall that the scientists are allowed to stay.
Lots of posters say unoriginal movies are lame but seriously given the budget what did you expect?! If you want originality go read a book. But what I think is amazing is how it packed in so many ideas from modern sci/fi and fantasy in a single movie with a coherent plotline.
Dragonriders of Pern (need I say more)
Phaze/Proton world of Piers Anthony -- In the inevitable sequel we'll find that "unobtanium" is what makes Pandora's biology cool...
Orson Scott Card (Speaker for the Dead, specifically containing conscious trees, and particularly all the issues around human/alien relations)
Piers Anthony's Cluster series "Thousandstar" and "Viscous Circle" (Pushing your consciousness into another living creature)
Issues around technology disparities between intelligent aliens (in Orson Scott Card and so many others)
Dune spice mining
The Gaia hypothesis (in too many novels to count).
The mechwarrior suits.
If only it had a computer network spontaneously generate consiousness it would have EVERYTHING! I guess they wanted to leave room for a sequel!
Pretty well. Look at, say, 2001 and The Abyss. Sure, both of them have aliens doing impossible stuff, but they're supposed to be more advanced than us. All the stuff the humans do in those movies were either possible at the time or plausible extrapolations from existing tech. (Yes, even the 'breathable fluid' suit - the rat in the movie really did breathe liquid. It turned out - later - that we couldn't come up with a light enough fluid to scale up to adult human lungs, but it's used for premature babies today.)
Oddly enough, the movies that put enough thought in to get the science right tend to do well.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
It wasn't actually the Gov though it was a private company using mercs for security, which instead of stroking we move into full on BJ territory
A horror movie as a Titanic sequel would have been great. A research team could discovery an icy island, where they find DiCaprio wandering around for decades looking for BRAAAAIIINS. And to survive they must chop his head off, shoot him with a shotgun, then set him on fire.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
If you find the plots cliche and predictable, then you have not seen very many indy American films. American companies tend to export things that make money, and outsiders only get a very narrow view of our culture. It's out own fault, but we usually do laugh when Europeans try to explain American culture to us. (they're usually the only ones that do this, I can't explain why)
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
type of 3d movie process that gets rid of the horrible blurry/eyestrain polarized glasses technique
Do you wear glasses? Some people, depending on their eye specifications, will always suffer 3d movie strain. It's a small portion of the population and not the fault of the movie makers....your eyes just can't handle it.
Anyhow, give it a try. Even without the 3d, however, the world designed was gorgeous so that may entice you if you like nice visuals. 3d just makes it 3d.
I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
I saw it in a local multiplex that had a 3D Imax screen.
First, "3D Imax" apparently isn't Imax like at the science museum where the seating is very steep and the screen is a large concave surface. At the multiplex, they just used one of the larger "main" auditoriums with a temporary/movable partially curved screen that seemed not that much larger than the normal screen for that space.
Bottom line -- I did not get the "IMAX" experience like you get at the science museum or some traditional Imax theater.
As for the 3D part, that was good, although after a while I stopped thinking about it; it wasn't overdone but in some cases it seemed too subtle to be worthwhile. The visuals are all so stunning that I think 3D is like fudge sauce added to ice cream that already has 8 other kinds of sauces on it.
The good thing was that I wear glasses and the polarized 3D glasses fit over my regular glasses well and I had no problems with fuzzy depth of field as I have in other recent non-Imax 3D films. This was my biggest worry.
I'd kind of like to see it at the Zoo here which has a traditional IMAX screen; I think it might have more impact. The problem with Avatar is that the movie isn't that good. Every native people/environmental/military/corporate cliche gets used to beat you over the head, and the storyline is extremely simplistic, and the backstory non-existent. We can travel 5 years in huge space ships but our world back home sucks?
I wish the Navi were more complicated, compromised in some way that made them actually threatening or morally culpable. I wish there was something to like about the corporation and the mercenaries. I wish I knew what the heck unobtainium was and what it was for; the drive to get it at any cost MIGHT have been justifiable if it was some kind of magic energy source needed to keep alive the entire planet earth for example; or at least it would have made for good discussion.
Titanic II: The Floaters
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
I was in Bangkok on vacation and on one of the hotel channels they were running previews of upcoming movies.
Yep, that one was on the list. I just about died laughing.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
Princess and the Frog is another movie worth seeing even as an adult. Interesting story, colorful characters, funny jokes, pretty animation, and good music. Maybe not terribly original, deep, or groundbreaking; but a worthwhile kid-friendly film.
A shame that Cameron didn't take a more original story and risk it like Star Wars.
I find it interesting that you should mention this, because I found the parallel between Avatar and Star Wars to be striking. Unlike you, I don't find the plot of the 1977 Star Wars movie to be original at all. It was simply that a farm-boy found a message from a princess who was captured by an evil knight and imprisoned in a dark fortress. With the help of a good knight and a pirate, he frees the princess and destroys the fortress before the dark knight can destroy the village.
That's about the most unoriginal story ever. It's been done over and over again since the middle ages. That's not why I loved Star Wars, however. I loved it because the visual spectacle at the time it was created was unlike anything that I had seen before. (I was only 9 years old in 1977, but still ...) Fighting with laser swords is cool! Fast moving spaceships with rapid fire lasers are cool! It had never been done before. The feeling was electric.
As I was watching Avatar at age 41, I got that same feeling. I felt like I was 9 years old again and seeing something absolutely amazing for the first time. The 3D effects were awkward for about the first 15 minutes of the movie, and then I stopped noticing them. The simply became the experience. The computer animation sequences were ridiculously good -- fantastically detailed. I think you can tell, I loved the movie.
Movies don't always have to be story-telling masterpieces. Sometimes they can just take you out of life for a while and put you on a visual roller-coaster ride. This movie did that more successfully than anything that I've seen in a long, long time.
Instead of spending $430million making one bloated FX crap-test they could have made 10 regular films.
SciFi tried that couple of years ago.
We got Mansquito, Man-Thing and Alien Apocalypse.
Wonderful movies all, and a great addition to the culture of the world. If you are drunk enough, that is.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
You need to remember Abyss. Aliens are going slaughter every human being on earth because we occasionally kill each other. Seriously. That is the plot.
Cameron has 3 good movies: Terminator, Terminator 2 and Aliens.
This Slashdot crowd is way too jaded. I enjoyed the movie thoroughly. I thought the CG was amazing and groundbreaking, the use of 3D was subtle and deep, the plot was extremely relevant to what's going on in Nigeria and to Iraq - and, of course, to our treatment of Native Americans. I also thought the alien chick was hot.
"The world is a construct of forceful imagination. Those who don't know walk around in the reailties of those who do"
The aliens are still too stiff, their faces are too uniform, their movements are too smooth - they need pores, facial hair, creases, loose skin, etc - but it is still the best I've seen.
You saw the 2D version, with your wife and kids and you forgot your glasses at home?
So you slept through the movie instead of watching.
Ergo, aliens are both "too stiff" and "too smooth" for you, while you have never noticed the details on the skin and under it (muscles, tendons, blood vessels...).
Do yourself a favor and go see it in 3D, preferably in IMAX - alone. Pay attention to details this time and don't forget your glasses.
Also... Not all creatures ON EARTH have facial hair. Why would aliens have to have any?
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
I liked Avatar but the story itself was pretty predictable. I had almost as much fun pointing out the other movies Avatar is simply a mashup of (The Matrix, Aliens, any generic Cowboys vs Indians movie, even a nod to World of Warcraft in the floating mountains!) as I did watching the movie. When something was pointed out, you knew pretty well how it was going to come back in the closing of the story.
The visual effects were very good though. I did tend to get immersed into the scenes - a very good thing.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
I saw it for a second time this last weekend .. rendering digital animation that looks realistic
Theater is sold out every showing on the 3D screen
I caught more details the second time that I missed @ first
It still is a great movie. I noted the gasps from other viewers over the visual details during the first jungle scenes
This is very ground breaking technology to film
I still found myself wanting to swat the bugs from around my head, there in the alien jungle
There will be some that will be put off by the underlying message regarding the western industrialized corporate mentality of dealing death and destruction to other cultures for profit. But, hey, the shoe fits ... we really DO suck in real life ..
"Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
Many chick flicks are no more sophisticated than stuff for children. There are shallow movies for every demographic. Da Governator made action films on par with Sandra Bullock or Alvin and the Chipmonks but his were action movies.
Some movies are just like rides to appeal to certain groups. While other movies are more like a tour, museum, lecture, or just a form of fictional voyeurism.
A good children's movie may not appeal to adults; being Pixar isn't a requirement (it just is if you want to appeal to the most people.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Definitely see it in real IMAX 3D (no comment on the smaller, LieMAXes). The RealD was a little more fluid, but it's not worth losing 25% of the screen, and the IMAX version definitely felt more immersive. The IMAX versions have the full 1.78:1 cut, while the rest have 2.35:1. I haven't been able to confirm what cut the LieMAXes show, but from what my friend said, it sounds like it has the 2.35. It's possible it varies from LieMAX to LieMAX as well.
http://blog.ronhsu.com/2010/01/01/best-seats-for-avatar-3d/
http://www.firstshowing.net/2009/05/30/cameron-says-avatar-wont-be-shown-the-same-size-everywhere/
To the GP, personally, I thought it surpassed Star Wars, considering the relatively limited time he had. It definitely fleshed out the love arc a lot more (although that would have been ultimately extra creepy if Lucas had as well). The story is complete. Cameron doesn't need to make two more if he doesn't want to. I'm hoping there won't be sequels, since I believe sequels usually ruin things (there are exceptions).
Wasn't it because humanity was carrying nuclear tests underwater too?
I read TFA, and on the chance that I would ever even set foot in a movie theater, if the available choices are:
Its Complicated
Nine
Sherlock Holmes
Alvin
avatar
That list is pretty much the order I would go see them and the 3 DVD's I will purchase along with about 60 others from the TCM catalog (Thats about the ratio of REAL movies to old movies in my collection and purchases. Matter of fact I would rather see Alvin on a SAT MATINEE with all the carpet munchers than avatar!
Even if I was given FREE PASSES with FREE POPCORN AND DRINKS and the ONLY movie choice was avatar as the others were full, I would LEAVE!
Why lets see:
Its Complicated - It appears entertaining, Lake Bell, Zoe Kazan
Nine - Nicole Kidman, Marion Cotillard, Penlope Cruz, and it appears entertaining
Sherlock Holmes - Looks interesting, Rachael McAdams
Alvin - stupid gimmick from the song, does not look entertaining, doesn't appeal, but would be a better waste of my time and money
Lets look back at Camerons other $1B baby, Titantic. The only reason to watch is Kate Winslet. Every one knows the story. Boat hits iceberg and sinks, thousands die. Told, retold, re-retold, re-re-retold, re-re-re-re-retold.... enough already....
You can throw all the $$$ of CGI and other FX at things and I will still rather watch a 30-50's B&W film on TCM. Better story, better acting, better actresses, and less over blown wasted FX when its not needed.
If I want 3D I will get my blue & red glasses out and watch The Creature from the Black Lagoon or any of the other B 50's 3D movies. THEM! is a better SciFi movie.
1311393600 - Back to Black
The themes concern mostly an US audience, people elsewhere have outgrown those themes long time ago.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
The story was fairly simple, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes stories are simple because the creator is incompetent, and can't actually design anything complex that holds together. That's not the case, here. This is a deliberately simple story, executed well. That's not a bad thing; see Shakespeare. I think Cameron went in to this project with the desire to recreate an early-twentieth century pulp adventure, but with as much scientific rigour and production quality as he could throw at it.
This is probably a version of what played in his imagination as a bright young SF fan.
There will be some that will be put off by the underlying message regarding the western industrialized corporate mentality of dealing death and destruction to other cultures for profit. But, hey, the shoe fits ... we really DO suck in real life ..
If it was a criticism of us (modern U.S.), why did the plot seem like it a could have found a home a couple centuries ago? I think it was more a criticism of a certain universal type of human behavior, than any particular culture or event. Keep in mind, the story was written a decade ago.
If it seems like it's directed at us, it's just because we suffer from the SAME flaws that people have always suffered from. It's worth remembering that many of the characters exhibit the same virtues that people have always displayed, too.
This film really revolutionized motion picture technology. Here's hoping that there will eventually be a film using this technology with a plot that hasn't been rehashed to death.
I have come to understand that Cameron had to make the plot generic to appeal to a mass audience and make the big numbers necessary to recoup investment. By all accounts this has been achieved. Hopefully as the price comes down, the technology will become accessible to directors willing to take a chance with a story we haven't seen yet.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Most likely most movies one watches don't cost $43 million.
If your only criteria to watch movies is how much they cost it is completely understandable you would not care about the plot. But that is nothing to boast about to be frank, unless you think ignorance and bad taste is a badge of honour to be worn proudly.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
And the rest of us have to live with the consequences.
Rule of the mob is all fine and dandy, a fact of life, but there is nothing to be proud about being part of the lowest common denominator.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I heard a sight of relief when all the silliness was finished. And this was inner London, not a leafy rich suburb.
Finally objective proof that European audiences are more discerning :-P
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Hollywood is shit scared of the spiralling of costs.
Basically they are betting all or nothing in a few movies, if you check carefully blockbuster's credits you will see very often that companies that would be otherwise competing against each other, are collaborating and sharing the enormous risk. That is not a sign of strength, but an implicit acknowledgement of how broken the blockbuster model is.
It is simply an economic model that will not scale.
The saner attitude, which every production company is following, is to make smaller, less risky movies that if win, win big, and if lose, can't bankrupt the company.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
No wonder children have so low aspirations. Many adults think that the right fare to be offered to them should be "simple and stupid".
Comments like the PP makes me be all more grateful for my older relatives taking me to see challenging stuff when I was young.
Also I never insult the intelligence of any children by assuming they are mentally challenged.
Gosh, to think that there are people out ther thinking is those terms is really depressing.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
You are kidding yourself if you think otherwise.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
How do you know?
The history of art is littered with examples of stuff that looked great at the time but which the passing of the years became obvious it wasn't that great.
The custodians of these things (film historians and critics) are already very doubtful about the artistic values of both of these movies, and in any case we are far too close to them in order to judge them objectively.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Star Wars SUCKED! I never could understand what people saw in it. Empire was marginally better. Return of the Jedi ABSOLUTELY blew chunks! Episode 1 wasn't bad (at least until Jar-Jar shows up). The rest, pretty mediocre.
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
It was mentioned the "Low" gravity. Also, you'll notice the size of the natives, which also argues for Low gravity. Then, one can assume, that the Floating mountains were made from some EXTREMELY porous, yet strong, core material in which the pores are filled with a lighter-than-air (much lighter) gas (or possibly vaccuum, though less likely). The trees and water and all that shit could then be attributed to ages of dust gradually acreting onto the surface and then pollen seeds being carried there by winds. It seems like this was alluded to, though highly indirectly (the "bones" of the natives were said to be made of some naturally occurring, extremely strong, yet light "Carbon Composite" [which isn't that what bones are anyway???]). So, there kinda was a really, really flimsy explanation. But, it was there.
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
Where was there a GAIA concept in Foundation? I don't remember one AT ALL? I agree with the sibling of the post, sounds more like Frank Herbert's "Jesus Incident/Lazarus Effect/Ascension Factor".
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
Urgh, I hope you really didn't say it out loud in the cinema.
It is not only Western civilization that has colonized/exploited lesser (yes, I said lesser) civilizations. All civilizations in all locales throughout history have done so. It's part of evolution/natural selection. And if you don't like "lesser" I don't care. Lesser in this context means "less able to defend themselves from other cultures and less able to project their own culture onto people in other locales". So, by definition, the cultures that lose are lesser. END OF STORY!
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
Lesser in this context means "less able to defend themselves from other cultures and less able to project their own culture onto people in other locales".
What other measure matters? Anything else is totally subjective. It is the only meaningful objective measure.
dying out of many plant- and animal species due to the destruction of their habitats by humans would also be natural selection or evolution.
Yes, it is. Humans are part of the ecosystem. If a super-predator comes along and kills all the other predators and/or prey, that is a form of natural selection. It is a particular ferocious kind and may even be counter-productive in the long haul for said super-predator, but, that too is natural selection in action.
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
The word unobtainium is still utterly ridiculous (seriously guys?), but it wasn't featured too prominently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobtainium#Aerospace_and_electronics
Engineers have long (since at least the 1950s[2]) used the term unobtainium when referring to unusual or costly materials, or when theoretically considering a material perfect for their needs in all respects save that it doesn't exist. By the 1990s the term was in wide use, even in formal engineering papers such as "Towards unobtainium [new composite materials for space applications]".[3] The word unobtainium may well have been coined within the aerospace industry to refer to materials capable of withstanding the extreme temperatures expected in reentry. Aerospace engineers are frequently tempted to design aircraft which require parts with strength or resilience beyond that of currently available materials.
Yet Socrates himself is particularly missed.
A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed.
"Hey I'm some kind of military commander guy. Look at my scar, how evil I am, arr arr. Some primitive aliens are sitting on top of a pile of high grade jew gold and refuse to leave, so instead of drugging them up and moving them away, or mining underground without disturbing them, we are going to SHOOT A BIG TREE. Watch us behaving in a unreasonable stereotypical right-wing racist greedy big oil etc etc redneck way and losing to a stereotypical primitive good clean happy healthy spiritual natureloving hippie etc etc space indian tribe."
"A shame that Cameron didn't take a more original story and risk it like Star Wars."
Excuse me, Star Wars was an original story??? There's a mash up of stolen ideas, if I ever saw one.
It gripped her hand gently. 'Regret is for humans,' it said.
What (if any) are the differences between imax 3D and a normal theater w/ 3D showing Avatar? Is it just a larger screen? Is there different tech?
I saw it in 3D (non imax) and was forced to sit a few seats off center in the second row. Normally I can't stand to watch a film where I literally have to move my head to follow the action on the screen but with Avatar I absolutely loved it. It just felt like it added another layer of immersion to the film.
So, with this 3D tech does it matter where you sit? If I'm closer to the screen will objects appear closer to me? What were your experiences based on where you sat? Is there a sweet spot for 3D?
Last, what is preventing them from creating a DVD/Bluray and letting you achieve this type of 3D at home on your current CRT/LCD/Plasma? I assume it's not as simple as pop the disc in and wear the same type of 3D glasses?
Not offtopic you stupid fucker with mod points because this ties into how much money the movie studios make. They supposedly "lose" millions from people viewing a free low-res version.
Except that movie tickets aren't an essential good. People disagree with oil companies making billions because they do it by charging extortionate prices for goods they know people have no choice but to buy.
Try telling me you have no choice but to buy a movie ticket?
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
This may come as a shock to you, but there are actually hundreds of countries on Earth, not just one. Fucking amazing, right?
Or did you miss where the majority of this film's income is from OUTSIDE the US? You know, the place that says "Here Be Dragons" on your map?
I expect that provided he lives long enough, they'll happily fund a couple more "Mega Blockbusters" since he's now known for movies that might cost a fortune to make but have incredible return on investment.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
The Halo movie is slated for 2012 according to IMDB along with Mass Effect and Metal Gear Solid (can anyone with an IMDBPro subscription please check that Uwe Boll's name is nowhere near that?), with Warcraft in 2011.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".