Avatar (same thread new title) - Page 11

Getting back to the aspect ratio, it has now been confirmed that the 2D version will be 2.39:1 in all theaters, and the 3D version will be released in both 2.39:1 and 1.85:1, with each theater showing whichever ratio allows for the largest screen.

Mumbles,
Do you have a link for this? It makes sense, but I thought the 3D version was cropped for 1.78:1 and Cameron wanted viewers to have the extra vertical immersion(I agree with this).

I wouldn't label the 1.78 version as "cropped", since that's the aspect ratio the film was shot in. Instead, it's the 2.35 version that is (vertically) cropped.

Wrong word. I meant framed.

Sorry, I don't have a link. I'm a projectionist, and I called the distributor to see what the deal was. That's what they told me.

And just to clarify, the 1.85 version isn't cropped, it's opened up. So you'll actually being seeing more on the top and bottom than the 2.39 version.

As far as the vertical immersion goes, that's why the 1.85 version exists. For theaters with top and bottom masking, they're opening it up. But for theaters with side masking, the 1.85 version would not produce a taller image, just a narrower one. So they decided it would be best to open up the side masking and just leave it at 2.39.

In other words, they want the image to fill the biggest screen possible. I may not be doing a good job of explaining it, but what they're saying makes sense, and it's consistent with the comments made by Cameron a few months ago.

Can anyone hazard a guess as to how the 2D DVD/BD will be framed?

Gotcha. I didn't mean to use "cropped" when I talked about the 1.78:1 version. I meant framed. Yeah, it makes sense for CIH setups.

Cameron's said that he thinks the 2D version looks best in 2.39:1 no matter what, so I'm guessing that's what the DVD/BD will be. But I'm curious if it'll also be 1.78, because that would make sense for the 3D BD, and aren't those supposed to be 2D compatible?

I'm going to go with 1.33:1. Hey, you asked for a hazardous guess...

Whatever it is, I'm sure it will be what the perfectionist that is Cameron wants it to be.

I consider Ebert's opinion of a film to be utterly worthless and meaningless, whether positive or negative.

I view his reviews like any other "professional" reviewer's: interesting reading material. They're all ultimately worthless unless you find a reviewer who you've NEVER disagreed with in the past. However, I do enjoying reading all reviews from everyone and trying to predict what a particular movie's reviews will be like.

I disagree that all reviews are utterly worthless. Even if there's no such thing as "perfect" agreement with my tastes (or perfect disagreement, for that matter), I can still detect a general pattern or logic behind the taste of some reviewers. No such logic exists with Ebert. He'll like or dislike a movie for the SAME reason he had the opposite reaction to another film. He's all over the place, making him valueless as a guide for what I think is good or bad. That's what makes him utterly worthless as a reviewer.

I won't argue about Ebert specifically, but I do take any single review with a grain of salt. Mass amounts of similar reviews is a different story, though.

One thing I will say about Ebert, that sort of meshes with what you're saying, is that I can never correctly predict how he's going to feel about a certain movie.

I normally don't read reviews since I write them, but I just wanted to see what kind of reaction this film gets. Also, a lot of people like Ebert. What you guys say may be true, but I don't know because I don't read his work.

Well, think about it - reviews are nothing more than one person's opinion, and we know how the old saying goes.

I form my own after seeing the film, but I do love to read what others have to say about it. In no way does it cloud my judgment. I've loved lots of films that are critically slain, and vice verse.

Reviews are opinion + observation.

I meant about him being inconsistent. I know what a review is

I'm seeing it at the excellent Muvico theater in Thousand Oaks, Ca., Thursday nite 12:01am.

4K sony digital projectors

I'll be seeing it Sunday afternoon (opening weekend) at the Muvico in Rosemont, IL. Muvico has very nice PQ & AQ.

I usually agree with Ebert (say...60% of the time).
But some of his reviews I strongly disagree with.
For me, the best thing about Ebert is his writing.
IMO, he is an excellent writer...engaging and often witty.

For some counterpoint, here is a less complimentary Avatar review:

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jj...venge-fantasy/

Wow. Just another spin.

larry

I'm usually interested in what Ebert has to say, but his reviews are so filled with spoilers that I can never read them until after I've watched the movie.

Since I saw it had spoilers in it, I didn't read it, but the title gave you a good idea of the reviewers thoughts.

+1

I've long known that Cameron was going to go all political with this one, but since it's sci-fi, as long as it isn't too stupid and insulting, I'll let it slide and just enjoy the film. If I can.

Why do I get the feeling, after reading this "review," this is another BS attempt by the right-wing to cast Hollywood movies as politically motivated?
Dark Knight anyone?

For clarifying the nature of the website you have linked, I suggest anyone interested to go to the Homepage BEFORE reading its "review."
It all becomes much clearer....

I'll go see Avatar and I will almost certainly enjoy it greatly, as I do most SF blockbusters and almost all of James Cameron's films.

But although he made them heavy-handedly and his ideology was hanging out when he did so, Breitbart has some valid points.

This isn't Aliens, where the Marines were cast in the role of heroes and the bad guy was a corporate stooge. This is Avatar, and the Marines are cast as the muscle which is enforcing the corporate greed of some huge conglomerate which is exploiting a wondrous substance that produces energy to feed civilization. Pardon me, but the parallel between taking petroleum from the Middle East and "Unobtanium" from Pandora does seem pretty obvious.

And if Cameron was not consciously trying to evoke memories of the racial strife between Europeans and both Africans and Native Americans, then why make the Na'vi tall Watusi-like slender aliens with dreadlocked hair and distinctively different skin color, who shoot bows and arrows at the white-skinned invaders?

There does seem to be quite a bit of political commentary and obvious parallels contained in the plot of Avatar, and it's not concealed under the surface, it's hanging out for everyone to see.

It has been 35 years since I took off my USCG uniform, but I still fiercely resent the all-to-common attitude that Hollywood displays towards the US Military. My USCG service was typical of many if not most in uniform, the word "Service" is used for a reason. Whether one puts to sea in a small boat in bad weather to rescue people in distress, or wades through the toxic waters of hurricane Katrina in search of survivors, or picks through the rubble of a city following a major earthquake, the mission is to save lives.

Even those relative few who are put into combat in a foriegn land have no choice in the matter. The President just sent 30,000 troops into the hellhole of Afghanistan in the days before Christmas. They went, because that is what those who have sworn the oath of Service do when ordered. They go to places they would not themselves choose to go, to do things they would not themselves choose to do, because the man we all elected made the choice for them.

Hollywood needs to change it's attitude towards those who serve, is my point. If you disagree with it, I would ask that you respect the AVS rules when replying. For example, no names of elected officials or political parties need be specified. I was discussing my opinion of a plot element in the film which is the topic of this thread.