New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

August 21 = AVATAR Day - Page 4

post #91 of 201
9/3/09 at 10:18am
Quote:
I believe (?) the difference between a chimps DNA and a humans DNA is only about a 5% difference.

I am pretty sure it is 1.5% i heard a program a while back on NPR that was talking with (i think ) Bush's National Science advisor (an oxymoron i know) and he illustrated the point that if there is life anywhere else, it is unlikely we can relate to each other in any way whatsoever. If anybody has read Poul Anderson's "Boat of a million Years" towards the end there are two really important lessons to know.
1. Without faster than C travel, the reality is that anytime it takes 14 years to get somewhere, (and 300 years on earth since we are talking about relatavistic time) it kind of makes you think "is this REALLY important?"
2. Whatever aliens we may meet... are likely to be so different in every way that even the most basic communications will take years. (certainly much longer than it took Kevin Costner to learn the native american tongue.)

And yes, Avatar seems to be a real fantasy piece, but my point is that if you take just a little bit of time to incorporate some sort of reality into it (like probabilites of this physical universe.) then the story can be so much better.

Whether it was removing the "shared experience" kicker from Contact, or building the Enterprise on earth in that star trek movie, writers keep making these little stupid expediencies that really hurt the story.

I am not saying that i need to think that James bond really does all that stuff, but the one movie where he swam out of a submarine all the way to the surface... it made me swear off the movie franchise all together. (ok, i saw casino royal and the "non fantast" nature of the stunts etc. was a big appeal) same with other movies. it is either childrens fantasy or a movie with some grounding. that way i can get into it.
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #92 of 201
9/3/09 at 11:19am
I can live with some BS'ing of physics that allows a movie maker to establish a scenario in which the story can take place. That is not to say it is impossible to try and stay with in at least a theoretical scientific reality. The mark of good sci-fi for me is that you can overlook these fabrications if the story and characters hook your attention sufficiently.

Blade Runner contains impossible situations (how long would it actually take you to watch C beams glitter in the dark off the shoulder of Orion, especially if your replicants only live four years ?) The quality of the story and characters of the movie make this otherwise outrageous idea seem feasible.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Dizzman View Post

I am pretty sure it is 1.5% i heard a program a while back on NPR that was talking with (i think ) Bush's National Science advisor (an oxymoron i know) and he illustrated the point that if there is life anywhere else, it is unlikely we can relate to each other in any way whatsoever. If anybody has read Poul Anderson's "Boat of a million Years" towards the end there are two really important lessons to know.
1. Without faster than C travel, the reality is that anytime it takes 14 years to get somewhere, (and 300 years on earth since we are talking about relatavistic time) it kind of makes you think "is this REALLY important?"
2. Whatever aliens we may meet... are likely to be so different in every way that even the most basic communications will take years. (certainly much longer than it took Kevin Costner to learn the native american tongue.)

And yes, Avatar seems to be a real fantasy piece, but my point is that if you take just a little bit of time to incorporate some sort of reality into it (like probabilites of this physical universe.) then the story can be so much better.

Whether it was removing the "shared experience" kicker from Contact, or building the Enterprise on earth in that star trek movie, writers keep making these little stupid expediencies that really hurt the story.

I am not saying that i need to think that James bond really does all that stuff, but the one movie where he swam out of a submarine all the way to the surface... it made me swear off the movie franchise all together. (ok, i saw casino royal and the "non fantast" nature of the stunts etc. was a big appeal) same with other movies. it is either childrens fantasy or a movie with some grounding. that way i can get into it.
Reply
Reply
post #93 of 201
9/3/09 at 11:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by sierraalphahotel View Post

I can live with some BS'ing of physics that allows a movie maker to establish a scenario in which the story can take place. That is not to say it is impossible to try and stay with in at least a theoretical scientific reality. The mark of good sci-fi for me is that you can overlook these fabrications if the story and characters hook your attention sufficiently.

Here's the problem. Our knowledge of physics may be very limited. In our eyes, we understand so many theories of physics, but I don't think we're close to grasping the potential of what is truly capable in our universe. For this reason, I give the ideas created in many sci-fi films the benefit of the doubt. If we were to travel back in time and tell people from the year 400 A.D. that we've placed humans on the moon, they'd think we were crazy, or witches or something along those lines. I still think we have a very long way to go before we understand what is actually possible, and how to make those possibilities a reality.
Reply
Reply
post #94 of 201
9/3/09 at 12:16pm
the issue is in taking one leap, but not the others that should follow. And in the world of Sci Fi, there is such a MASSIVE body of work that has barely even been touched with stories that are really just waiting for great CGI and 3d to take us there.

No need to come up with your own crappy story.

I want Foundation, i want beserkers, i want flandry, i want islands in the sky!!!
Reply
Reply
post #95 of 201
9/3/09 at 12:45pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dizzman View Post

I am pretty sure it is 1.5% i heard a program a while back on NPR that was talking with (i think ) Bush's National Science advisor (an oxymoron i know) and he illustrated the point that if there is life anywhere else, it is unlikely we can relate to each other in any way whatsoever. If anybody has read Poul Anderson's "Boat of a million Years" towards the end there are two really important lessons to know.
1. Without faster than C travel, the reality is that anytime it takes 14 years to get somewhere, (and 300 years on earth since we are talking about relatavistic time) it kind of makes you think "is this REALLY important?"
2. Whatever aliens we may meet... are likely to be so different in every way that even the most basic communications will take years. (certainly much longer than it took Kevin Costner to learn the native american tongue.)

And yes, Avatar seems to be a real fantasy piece, but my point is that if you take just a little bit of time to incorporate some sort of reality into it (like probabilites of this physical universe.) then the story can be so much better.

Whether it was removing the "shared experience" kicker from Contact, or building the Enterprise on earth in that star trek movie, writers keep making these little stupid expediencies that really hurt the story.

I am not saying that i need to think that James bond really does all that stuff, but the one movie where he swam out of a submarine all the way to the surface... it made me swear off the movie franchise all together. (ok, i saw casino royal and the "non fantast" nature of the stunts etc. was a big appeal) same with other movies. it is either childrens fantasy or a movie with some grounding. that way i can get into it.

Oops!

1% it is:

http://www.scienceblog.com/community.../20031949.html
Reply
Reply
post #96 of 201
9/3/09 at 12:50pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dbuudo07 View Post

Here's the problem. Our knowledge of physics may be very limited. In our eyes, we understand so many theories of physics, but I don't think we're close to grasping the potential of what is truly capable in our universe. For this reason, I give the ideas created in many sci-fi films the benefit of the doubt. If we were to travel back in time and tell people from the year 400 A.D. that we've placed humans on the moon, they'd think we were crazy, or witches or something along those lines. I still think we have a very long way to go before we understand what is actually possible, and how to make those possibilities a reality.

Not to be argumentative but the biggest piece of science fiction is time travel.
Reply
Reply
post #97 of 201
9/3/09 at 2:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dbuudo07 View Post

Here's the problem. Our knowledge of physics may be very limited. In our eyes, we understand so many theories of physics, but I don't think we're close to grasping the potential of what is truly capable in our universe. For this reason, I give the ideas created in many sci-fi films the benefit of the doubt. If we were to travel back in time and tell people from the year 400 A.D. that we've placed humans on the moon, they'd think we were crazy, or witches or something along those lines. I still think we have a very long way to go before we understand what is actually possible, and how to make those possibilities a reality.

I think we are saying pretty much the same thing. Indeed, what might be called fantasy now, could with sufficient time become reality. When we watch sci-fi there are many devices the audience must take for granted or the entire movie just falls flat.

In so many sci-fi films, people only manage to cross the vast distances they do in space by being put into hyper-sleep or similar. We know that now, at this point, this is not possible but I can accept that perhaps one day a method will be found and if it's use allows the movie to transpire then fine. As an example, to rule out the use of the hyper-sleep would make it impossible for iconic sci-fi films like 2001 & Alien to even get off the ground.

I maintain that if the movie is good, then these matters become of less importance.

Problem is lately, the movies are often terrible, full of hackneyed characters and a stupid premise. I think it is no coincidence that due to the limitations of SFX at the time, directors had to rely on the audience to use their imagination more, to build suspense without massive CGI set pieces. They had to work harder.

The model Ridley Scott had of the derelict alien ship in Alien didn't stand up to close scrutiny and rather than appear sinister; he worried it would just look like a poor model. His solution was to rely on the footage from the cameras mounted on the heads on the character's space suits as they approached. The blurry, flickering images with the broken radio transmissions created much more suspense IMHO than would a perfectly rendered CGI version you would likely have if the movie were made now.


"Lets get the hell out of here"

Reply
Reply
post #98 of 201
9/4/09 at 12:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Not to be argumentative but the biggest piece of science fiction is time travel.

Again, how do you know that for sure. History tells me to accept nothing as a certainty, but as a well thought out theory with our current understanding.

Sieraalphahotel,
Very good points. I'm guessing by your comments, you must have really enjoyed District 9. I sure did.

All I can say is, I saw the trailer for Avatar(on a Christie 2K) yesterday and I think it looks very promising. I can't wait to see this in IMAX 3D and then digital 3D and then 35mm I'll definitely be at the opening night showing, if not a private screening of this one.
Reply
Reply
post #99 of 201
9/4/09 at 8:26am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dbuudo07 View Post

Again, how do you know that for sure. History tells me to accept nothing as a certainty, but as a well thought out theory with our current understanding.

Sorry - the "anything is possible" argument doesn't hold any water (IMO) when it comes to the subject of time travel. The challanges are too overwhelming. Especially as it is depicted in Sci-Fi movies and books.
Reply
Reply
post #100 of 201
9/4/09 at 10:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Not to be argumentative but the biggest piece of science fiction is time travel.

I would argue against that quite a bit. Unless they are specifically writing a stroy that wants to get into the issues of theoretical time travel. most good sci fi avoids it like the plague. too many loops.

i had just written a big thing about why space war with sub c travel would never happen... then i looked at it and my brain yelled out GEEEKK!!!!!!

never mind.

If it is a good story and not a fantasy cluster, then it should do ok.

But i know for my family, having to wear the 3d glasses means it is a no go.
Reply
Reply
post #101 of 201
9/4/09 at 12:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

the biggest piece of science fiction is time travel.

I think the biggest, and least plausible, piece of science fiction would be a world where Peter has lost the ability to suffocate the universe with his hyperbole generator.
Reply
Reply
post #102 of 201
9/4/09 at 1:50pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dizzman View Post

I would argue against that quite a bit. Unless they are specifically writing a stroy that wants to get into the issues of theoretical time travel. most good sci fi avoids it like the plague. too many loops.

i had just written a big thing about why space war with sub c travel would never happen... then i looked at it and my brain yelled out GEEEKK!!!!!!

never mind.

If it is a good story and not a fantasy cluster, then it should do ok.

But i know for my family, having to wear the 3d glasses means it is a no go.

Avatar will be shown in 2D also.
Reply
Reply
post #103 of 201
9/4/09 at 2:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldmachine View Post

I think the biggest, and least plausible, piece of science fiction would be a world where Peter has lost the ability to suffocate the universe with his hyperbole generator.

on the contrary, what about a movie where the hyperbole generator is accidentally connected to an uninteruptable power source and a super internet thesaurus...

Forget jason and freddie!!!

Reply
Reply
post #104 of 201
10/8/09 at 3:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by GINTER View Post

Contrary to what the article says, the trailer is NOT in 3d. I have RealD polarized glasses and both the trailer on the site and on Apple.com are 2d only.

Bummer.

Even if the trailer WAS in 3d, just how will having real D glasses make you see it in 3d?

You wouldn't be able to.
Reply
Reply
post #105 of 201
10/19/09 at 1:46pm
Interesting article on Cameron and Avatar: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2..._fact_goodyear
Reply
Reply
post #106 of 201
10/19/09 at 3:49pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Johnson View Post

Interesting article on Cameron and Avatar: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2..._fact_goodyear

Thanks

I must say my anticipation has exceeded my previous record, in wanting to see a film. And that film was The Dark Knight becuase of the ground breaking use of IMAX.

I have seen plenty of 3D movies both in the past and recently and I know it is a story telling process that can be taken to the absolute limit. And if anyone can do it, it is James Cameron.

Ok Jim! I am ready! Knock my freakin socks off! Blow my mind!
Reply
Reply
post #107 of 201
10/19/09 at 4:21pm
That was an interesting article. Gives you an idea of how he goes about creating his masterpieces. Makes me want to see this film even more than before. I'll be there on my birthday for the first showing. What a way to spend a birthday
Reply
Reply
post #108 of 201
10/19/09 at 4:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dbuudo07 View Post

What a way to spend a birthday

What a better way???
Reply
Reply
post #109 of 201
10/19/09 at 4:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by CINERAMAX View Post

What a better way???

Sorry, I should have said, "What a great way to spend a birthday! Can't wait"
Reply
Reply
post #110 of 201
10/19/09 at 7:15pm
Thread Starter 
New Avatar trailer soon

Quote:


Well, whether you do or don't, a new trailer for the movie will play in theaters this Friday, October 23rd. If you aren't heading to the theater, you'll have to wait until the 29th when it debuts online. It's likely that a bootleg will pop up on YouTube though.

For those of you who weren't impressed by the first teaser trailer, this one is supposed to be the ultimate. It will show much more of the story clocking in at a length 3 minutes and 30 seconds.

http://www.joblo.com/index.php?id=29142
Reply
Reply
post #111 of 201
10/23/09 at 9:26am
Thread Starter 
New Avatar trailer is here...

Not yet!

The old link no longer works.

Reply
Reply
post #112 of 201
10/23/09 at 8:48pm
Thread Starter 
Avatar HD Trailer (original)

http://www.vimeo.com/6199030
Reply
Reply
post #113 of 201
10/27/09 at 10:12am
Thread Starter 
Early peek at 'Avatar' production design

http://www.variety.com/article/VR111...ryid=1009&cs=1
Reply
Reply
post #114 of 201
10/27/09 at 11:15am
12 page The New Yorker Avatar production report/Cameron interview;

Man of Extremes
The Return of James Cameron.
Reply
Reply
post #115 of 201
10/27/09 at 12:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

12 page The New Yorker Avatar production report/Cameron interview

Thanx, but already posted 8 days ago (look about 10 posts up).

Meanwhile, has the new (longer) trailer officially been released on-line?
Reply
Reply
post #116 of 201
10/27/09 at 3:30pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Thanx, but already posted 8 days ago (look about 10 posts up).

Meanwhile, has the new (longer) trailer officially been released on-line?

Quote:


UPDATE - You knew it would happen eventually. Fox "asked" that we remove the bootleg trailer and we have done so. The HD version will be online next week and we'll have that up as soon as it hits...

http://www.joblo.com/index.php?id=29223
Reply
Reply
post #117 of 201
10/28/09 at 6:16am
Thanx for the update Lee. I thought the longer trailer was due out this week. Oh well, a few more days.
Reply
Reply
post #118 of 201
10/29/09 at 6:19pm
Thread Starter 
Cowboy crowd gets 'Avatar' eyeful

Quote:


Trailer to play during Sunday's game

The 3 ½ minute trailer will be shown on the stadium's giant HD screen, the world's largest, according to Guinness.

Millions of viewers tuning into FOX NFL Sunday also will see the trailer.

Ninety-second commercial spots of "Avatar" also will air Sunday on regional games carried by Fox affiliates, as well as the fourth game in the World Series, also carried on Fox.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR111...goryid=13&cs=1
Reply
Reply
post #119 of 201
10/29/09 at 6:33pm
Thread Starter 
OK . . . one more time . . . The NEW Avatar trailer in HD:

http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1809804784/trailer
Reply
Reply
post #120 of 201
10/30/09 at 1:43am
I like the trailer. After seeing this trailer, I think the movie has a more interesting plot as compared to the first released teaser trailer as things become more clearer. This movie should be a treat.

I think it is best to preview the particular screen and theatre/cineplex with another movie before seeing Avatar in it so as to take full advantage of the experience James Cameron is striving to give the viewers.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: D-cinema Equipment and Theaters

AVS Top Picks