# Everything Else > Arts & Entertainment >  Avatar

## Doug Loudenback

I don't see a thread but if there is one already, please merge. 

Just saw Avatar at the Harkins Cine Capri. 2 things: On that screen, it is not 3D (we could have waited ... we were there for the 3:30 pm Saturday showing but would have waited until after 6 for the next 3D, so we skipped it.

Second and more importantly, my wife and I enjoyed the movie to the hilt. Stunning graphics; story wasn't too original (Euros v. Native Americans transported about 100-150 years from now on a distant planet), with lots of big birds, etc. But, totally engaging and a very satisfying ending.

----------


## kevinpate

I've only seen a tv trailer for this, but with the sound down below my hearing level, my first thought was when the heck did the smurfs become anorexic teens.

Kinda glad to hear it's got more appeal than that.

----------


## Doug Loudenback

> I've only seen a tv trailer for this, but with the sound down below my hearing level, my first thought was when the heck did the smurfs become anorexic teens.
> 
> Kinda glad to hear it's got more appeal than that.


Were I to compare this movie with (1) _Lord of The Rings_ Trilogy and (2) _Star Wars_ movies, both of which genres and movies I enjoy but neither of which really fit what this movie is (in the 1st place, _Avatar_ is not a saga like both of those groups were), I would place it somewhere in the middle ... I've always seen _Rings_ as very very serious fiction, _Star Wars_ as more frivolous but nonetheless entertaining. Some of the characters in _Star Wars_ struck me as being "different" for no other purpose and kind of cutsey. The characters in this movie, while obviously not "real," seemed a better fit to me in the hypothetical world of the movie which was deftly created. And the very blatant analogy of the expansive Euro-linked interests in the US vs. the Native Americans, as well as business interests as a if not the driving force in use of military, made the analogy more realistic to me.

----------


## PennyQuilts

Thanks, Doug - I'll put this on my list to see.

----------


## venture

Movie is incredible. The start was a little dry for me but I didn't want it to end. Visually stunning, the story line definitely had the Native American tone to it but also highlights our species lack of regard for anything by the almighty dollar. I am thrilled that he already has the two sequels in the works for it. It wasn't quite up there with LoTR for me, but its definitely very high on my "will watch 35 times" list.

Side note. Great service as always from Warren. Did seem their portions were getting a bit smaller on the meals, but may have just been a new crew in the kitchen today. All in all food and service still great. Haven't gone to another theater since they opened and probably never will as long as they remain. Can't beat the product.

----------


## citizenkane

I saw it yesterday at Warren in 3-d.  I have to admit I was skeptical at first, but it was actually a very good film.

----------


## Doug Loudenback

> Movie is incredible. * * * It wasn't quite up there with LoTR for me, but its definitely very high on my "will watch 35 times" list.


If any movies ever match LoTR for me, I'll know that I've died and gone to heaven. As to Avatar, I'm glad to hear that sequels are planned ... maybe this will turn out being a saga before it's all done, as well.

----------


## Edmond Earl

Quail Springs has it on an IMAX screen

----------


## dismayed

Looked fantastic in 3-D at the Warren this weekend.  There's a forest scene where these little seedlings are falling from a tree and there are bugs floating in between the "camera" and the characters... it was simply amazing.

----------


## mooshie

I usually see movies at Warren, but I saw Avatar at the new imax 3-d.  It was easily the most impressive 3-d movie I've seen.  I'm not sure if it's just the movie that did it well, or if it was the imax screen.

----------


## duckman

I just got back from the IMAX 3D at Quail. The film was impressive, but the theater was scorching seemingly adding to the length of the film. I sum it up as "Fern Gully" with a $400 million budget.

----------


## trousers

Saw the 3D version last night at Harkins, pretty cool.  My wife LOVED it.  Didnt feel like 3 hours.

----------


## Karried

I saw it at Quail in 3D because IMAX was sold out. I love this movie... lol, I too was thinking Fern Gully though, as my kids loved that movie when they were little and I watched it a hundred times with them. 

I'm taking the rest of the family on Christmas Eve to see it on the 3D Imax screen. This time I got tickets way in advance (like yesterday!)

I don't like long movies.. but this one had me sitting on the edge of my seat and hoping it didn't end. I didn't feel like it was over 2 hours long at all. 

It was like entering a new world - special effects simply amazing.... everytime I looked at my 12 year old, he was leaning forward and either smiling or looking completely amazed (which is how I probably looked as well!) 

Definitely worth seeing this movie and if you can do the 3D and Imax, even better. You won't be disappointed.

----------


## fuzzytoad

Of course, if you *really* want the 3D Imax experience, drive up to Tulsa and watch it on the real Imax screen.

----------


## metro

The 3D IMAX was amazing. Like the matrix on steroids and the 3d was like you're really there!

----------


## Ginkasa

> Quail Springs has it on an IMAX screen



This is a lie.  Not a lie created or willingly told by you, Edmond Earl, but a lie nonetheless.  The "IMAX" screen as Quail Springs is a "fake" IMAX screen.  If you want to see a movie with the "IMAX experience" you need to drive to Tulsa.  Otherwise you should save your money and see the movie at Warren or Harkins or, at worst, a "normal" auditormium at Quail Springs.  

I've posted about this before, but this simply isn't a case of "preference" or opinion.  The simple fact is that the IMAX at Quail is a cheat and a lie and you should not be tricked into spending so much money on it.

Here is an excellent article by Roger Ebert on the subject: That's not the IMAX I grew up with - Roger Ebert's Journal

The 3D isn't better, the screen isn't larger, its not worth the extra cost.  Go to Warren Theatres and watch it in the Grand Auditorium if you need a large screen with 3D.  If you're not in the balcony you'll be saving tons of money and if you are you're at least getting your money's worth.  But don't go to Quail's "IMAX."  Please.

----------


## Karried

So much money?  My ticket for a 12:45pm showing on Thursday was $7 Imax 3D at Quail Springs.   Correct me if I'm wrong but I think I might spend a little more in gas for the drive to Tulsa (or even Moore)  for a 'Real Imax Experience'.  

Apparently, I'm not all that particular. And, actually, I really could care less, the movie is wonderful..  I loved it!  I'm not going to waste my time measuring the screen or lamenting about the fact that Quail isn't a Real Imax.. I'm going to enjoy a great movie with family and friends.

----------


## Ginkasa

*shrugs* Their website says its an additional $4 (which, again according to the website, should have been $11 at 12:45pm), but what do I know?

Anyway, my point isn't to ruin anyone's experience who has already been, but to deter anyone who will be going for that "true IMAX experience."  If you don't care, more power to you.  If you enjoyed your visit, great.  I'm glad you had a good time.  But there are people who care and will probably feel cheated if they to Quail Springs expecting a screen the size of Mount Everest.  

I'd feel cheated if I ordered Dr. Pepper and got Pibb Xtra, or, the comparison more used, ordered a Coke and received New Coke.  I don't see what's so wrong about trying to prevent that.  If you read the article I linked in my above post it explains everything.  Basically, though, the entire idea behind IMAX for the past 30 years has been the epic size of the screen and the different dimensions of the screen.  The screen at Quail Springs has neither of those and is simply a brand name being thrown on a marginally modified existing screen.  Again, the article I linked above has an example.

----------


## Matt

That Ebert article should be reposted anytime anyone here talks about the "Imax" at Quail Springs.  God, what a sham.  But then again, I wouldn't expect anything less from AMC.

----------


## venture

I think we all have different preferences to theaters. Personally, once I went to the Warren when the opened, I refused to go to any other movie house in the area. Harkins was my choice before, but not it is a dump compared to the Warren. Plus the balcony is so worth the extra few bucks. I have no problems having a huge seat, warm restaurant style food, and someone waiting on me.  :Smile: 

With that said, I didn't get to see it in 3D but that is mainly my own choice since the 3D movie glasses give me a headache.  Maybe i'll just pack a bunch of advil and try it again.  :Smile:

----------


## dismayed

> I think we all have different preferences to theaters. Personally, once I went to the Warren when the opened, I refused to go to any other movie house in the area. Harkins was my choice before, but not it is a dump compared to the Warren. Plus the balcony is so worth the extra few bucks. I have no problems having a huge seat, warm restaurant style food, and someone waiting on me. 
> 
> With that said, I didn't get to see it in 3D but that is mainly my own choice since the 3D movie glasses give me a headache.  Maybe i'll just pack a bunch of advil and try it again.


It's totally worth the headache.

----------


## Richard at Remax

I guess I am in the minority. I didn't like it at all. It didn't have the feel to a james cameron movie and I thought the story was unoriginal and drawn out. 

However, the visuals are worth the price of admission, so I still tell people to go see it.

----------


## Dustin

Just saw it in IMAX 3D... Best movie I have ever seen!  Makes me not want to be a sky person..

----------


## dmoor82

> I saw it yesterday at Warren in 3-d.  I have to admit I was skeptical at first, but it was actually a very good film.


^^^ I also saw it at warren! it was the BEST movie I have ever seen!

----------


## HVAC Instructor

> ... Best movie I have ever seen! Makes me not want to be a sky person..


Ditto! Great movie. Definately the best I've ever seen.

----------


## so1rfan

Evidently its a "racist" movie. White man needs to save the less developed race.

James Cameron's Avatar is a stylish film marred by its racist subtext – Telegraph Blogs

Is Avatar Racist? | Cinemaroll

----------


## MadMonk

LOL, can one be racist against a made-up race?

----------


## jbrown84

> That Ebert article should be reposted anytime anyone here talks about the "Imax" at Quail Springs.  God, what a sham.  But then again, I wouldn't expect anything less from AMC.


You act as if AMC stole the trademarked IMAX name.  IMAX has put their name on these theatres.  If you want to rag on someone for it, rag on IMAX for watering down their brand.  




> Evidently its a "racist" movie. White man needs to save the less developed race.
> 
> James Cameron's Avatar is a stylish film marred by its racist subtext – Telegraph Blogs
> 
> Is Avatar Racist? | Cinemaroll


Absolutely ridiculous.  He saved the Na'vi by becoming one of them.  He's not the "noble white man".  The white people are the bad guys.  Beyond absurd.



Oh and it's the best movie of the year!  Definitely not propelled by the most original story ever, but not every movie can have that.  Cameron is a great storyteller and has amazing vision.  The effects are unbelievable.  In 3-D, it looks like you're really there.

----------


## fokochang

> So much money?  My ticket for a 12:45pm showing on Thursday was $7 Imax 3D at Quail Springs.   Correct me if I'm wrong but I think I might spend a little more in gas for the drive to Tulsa (or even Moore)  for a 'Real Imax Experience'.  
> 
> Apparently, I'm not all that particular. And, actually, I really could care less, the movie is wonderful..  I loved it!  I'm not going to waste my time measuring the screen or lamenting about the fact that Quail isn't a Real Imax.. I'm going to enjoy a great movie with family and friends.


mine was 11 and i bought it online for wednesday at 430. what gives?

----------


## kevinpate

Having never bothered to see a 3d film, I concede curiosity.  How does providing 3-d glasses work out for the folks who can't see past their noses without their own specs?  You know, the me's who go anyways.

----------


## dismayed

The glasses are big enough that they will fit over your normal glasses.

----------


## rowdy55ok

I love movies, but I hate to "go" to the movies. 

My son asked me to go with him to see "Avatar." I was stunned and pleasantly surprised by the invitation but not fond on driving to Quail Springs or Warren or anywhere out of my beaten paths around the southside, so we went to Crossroads.   I didn't see it in 3-D, I don't know what IMAX means. 

What I do know is that I was "sooooo mesmerized by this movie, I didn't want it to end. I wanted to go there.  I was with my son who was not embarassed to be seen with his 'mom' and it was one of the best times. 

What could be better? Merry Christmas everyone.

----------


## Karried

> mine was 11 and i bought it online for wednesday at 430. what gives?


We went to the theater and bought the Advance tickets in person, about a week before 12/24 (of course, had no idea we'd have to brave a blizzard!) ... we each paid $7 for Imax 3D and my son was $6  (age 12) total - 7 people. 

When I looked online afterward, the tix were $11.00 each  - I was thinking maybe when we got to the theater with our tix they would say it was a mistake but no one did.

Something I found interesting... the mall at Quail Springs was like a ghost town on Christmas Eve! (blizzard) ... But the Imax showing of Avatar was packed for both showings.  Unfortunately, they probably regretted going to the theater later.  When we got to the mall around 11 am the storm wasn't too bad but when we came out about 4 hours later... the storm was in full force and the parking lot was a mess.  We have a huge 4 wheel drive truck (thank God) but so many cars were stuck. ugh.

Avatar on 3D Imax was incredible.  I've seen Avatar twice (first time only in 3D).  The second time I was just as enthralled, if not more, as I was able to notice more details.  This movie is really good, seeing it on Imax in 3D is a real treat.

----------


## Matt

> You act as if AMC stole the trademarked IMAX name.  IMAX has put their name on these theatres.  If you want to rag on someone for it, rag on IMAX for watering down their brand.


That's a good point you've got there.  It's just as much IMAX's fault for signing off on this scam, you're right.

It's just that AMC sucks so bad in so many other aspects that I just threw all the blame on them out of habit, I guess.  But anyway, yeah, shame on them, shame on IMAX, and "God help you" to anyone who's dumb enough to fall for their crap and thinks that they're getting the real IMAX experience at AMC Quail.

----------


## MadMonk

The family and I saw the movie in 3D at the Warren this afternoon.  Wow!  The big action scenes are incredible and the flying scenes induce a fair amount of vertigo.  However, it was the subtle things that really caught my eye.  There were several times where for a split second, I was about to swat away the bugs or floating ash floating in front of my face.  There was even one scene where I started to get annoyed at the person in front of me for raising their hands up, when I realized that it was on the screen.  IMO, watching this movie in 3D is a must.

----------


## Spartan

Saw it at the Warren on the balcony level. Good experience, though I don't know why I spent $25 on balcony tix when it was really the kind of movie that makes it difficult to focus on anything but the screen. You could have put me in a box in a closet in the back with a peephole, as opposed to on the balcony, and I would have enjoyed that movie..

----------


## RedDirt717

It's a combination of "Alien", "Dances With Wolves" and "Ferngully".

I saw it at the imax at quail springs in 3D. It was fine there. I've been to a "REAL" imax screen before and honestly it doesn't differ all that much. I dont think there is a "gold standard" when it comes to IMAX in my opinion.

The storyline in avatar was really pretty standard. I will say that the special effects, graphics, 3D and sci-fi twist made it one of the most entertaining movies I've ever seen. There were parts where so graphically intense it literally took my breath away.

Anyway, well worth the 11 bucks.

----------


## Karried

> There were parts where so graphically intense it literally took my breath away.


That is exactly how I felt!  I've seen it twice.... I think I could see it another few times and not get bored!

----------


## fuzzytoad

> I saw it at the imax at quail springs in 3D. It was fine there. I've been to a "REAL" imax screen before and honestly it doesn't differ all that much. I dont think there is a "gold standard" when it comes to IMAX in my opinion.


I'm curious as to which "REAL" Imax screen you're comparing your experience to.  A real Imax screen fills your entire field of vision with a gigantic curved screen.  A Liemax screen is barely bigger than a regular movie screen.

And while there may not be a "gold standard" for Imax, there is a "standard" screen size prior to this whole "branded Imax" BS that AMC has been peddling.

_"A standard IMAX screen is 22 metres (72 ft) wide and 16.1 metres (53 ft) high."_

I know all this doesn't really matter to many of you.  A bunch of you have absolutely no problem spending and extra $4-$7 for privilege of saying you say something at the "imax" theater. The rest of us want a true IMAX experience and will drive to another city if we have to instead of providing money to a company which has no qualms about lying to its customers.

----------


## Of Sound Mind

> We went to the theater and bought the Advance tickets in person, about a week before 12/24 (of course, had no idea we'd have to brave a blizzard!) ... we each paid $7 for Imax 3D and my son was $6  (age 12) total - 7 people. 
> 
> When I looked online afterward, the tix were $11.00 each  - I was thinking maybe when we got to the theater with our tix they would say it was a mistake but no one did.
> 
> Something I found interesting... the mall at Quail Springs was like a ghost town on Christmas Eve! (blizzard) ... But the Imax showing of Avatar was packed for both showings.  Unfortunately, they probably regretted going to the theater later.  When we got to the mall around 11 am the storm wasn't too bad but when we came out about 4 hours later... the storm was in full force and the parking lot was a mess.  We have a huge 4 wheel drive truck (thank God) but so many cars were stuck. ugh.
> 
> Avatar on 3D Imax was incredible.  I've seen Avatar twice (first time only in 3D).  The second time I was just as enthralled, if not more, as I was able to notice more details.  This movie is really good, seeing it on Imax in 3D is a real treat.


We had tickets to see the 4:30pm showing on Christmas Eve, but the weather was just too frightful to venture out. I'm glad we didn't, although we were very disappointed about not getting to see the movie.

We went yesterday (Sunday) morning at 9am. The theater was still at least 3/4 full, even with the icy roads.

It was a truly amazing movie, especially in 3D on their IMAX screen. It was a visual feast. Our entire family was mesmerized and couldn't stop talking about it for the rest of the day. We're ready to go back. It was well worth the wait and more than worth the money. I'm more than happy to shell out another $13 per ticket for our family to see it again. It certainly ranks in my all-time top five, if for no other reason than it being so visually stunning.

----------


## Of Sound Mind

> ... and "God help you" to anyone who's dumb enough to fall for their crap and thinks that they're getting the real IMAX experience at AMC Quail.


When there is a "real IMAX experience" that's within 30 minutes of my home, I'll be happy to go there. Until then, the IMAX experience at AMC Quail was just fine for me and everyone else watching in that theater when I was there (based on the rousing ovation afterwards)... this "inferior" IMAX experience certainly didn't diminish in the least how much we enjoyed it.

----------


## Karried

That is how I feel... Brad, try going and buying tix in Advance.. not sure if that might make a difference, but we did only pay $7 for Imax 3D.  Maybe they charge more to buy them online.

----------


## Of Sound Mind

> That is how I feel... Brad, try going and buying tix in Advance.. not sure if that might make a difference, but we did only pay $7 for Imax 3D.  Maybe they charge more to buy them online.


I bought them online, but the service charge was waved because we have a MovieWatcher membership. Since we went early on Sunday, we actually got them for $9 each, which meant I got a credit for the difference in the way of guest passes. 

Not sure how you got such a good deal. I haven't seen prices that low online or at the theater for the IMAX 3D.

In any case, it was worth $7... $9... $13... and more.

----------


## Of Sound Mind

Also, for what it's worth, I have been to a true IMAX theater a few times and there is an unmistakable difference. I don't think that AMC should call that theater an IMAX theater if it's not a true IMAX theater. That's definitely the fault of the IMAX people; can't really blame AMC for trying to market it that way.

Having said that, I don't think I would have enjoyed it as much in a true IMAX theater. It would have been too much and too big to take in all that was going in — i.e. it would have been too visually overwhelming and, in my opinion, taken AWAY from the experience. The true IMAX theaters are cool, but they can be almost too visually stimulating to the point that my aging brain can't absorb it all and it is sometimes frustrating.

Call me "dumb enough to fall for their crap", but AMC's "IMAX" experience was a perfectly enjoyable experience for me as well as my family and just about everyone I know who's been.

----------


## Matt

> When there is a "real IMAX experience" that's within 30 minutes of my home, I'll be happy to go there. Until then, the IMAX experience at AMC Quail was just fine for me and everyone else watching in that theater when I was there (based on the rousing ovation afterwards)... this "inferior" IMAX experience certainly didn't diminish in the least how much we enjoyed it.
> 
> . . .
> 
> Call me "dumb enough to fall for their crap", but AMC's "IMAX" experience was a perfectly enjoyable experience for me as well as my family and just about everyone I know who's been.


Hey, if you know the difference and are okay with settling for a compromised experience, then great.  My post wasn't directed at you.  It was directed at the throngs of people who don't know any better going in and won't know any better coming out, because AMC and IMAX certainly aren't going to tell them.

And may God have mercy on their souls.

----------


## MadMonk

So, how does the "IMAX" screen at Quail compare size-wise to the screen in the Warren's grand auditorium? When we went, were a bit late and had to sit near the front (4th row), so it almost seemed like an IMAX experience! I plan to go back, but watch it from further back.

----------


## kevinpate

My lads, recently 21 and nearing 17, slipped out to spend some brother time and see this the other night.

It earned their stomp of approval.

----------


## fuzzytoad

> So, how does the "IMAX" screen at Quail compare size-wise to the screen in the Warren's grand auditorium?


It doesn't compare.

The screen you're talking about at Warren's is very close to IMAX(real) size, like 80ft X 50ft

The Liemax at Quail is slightly larger than a standard movie screen at 58x28 feet.

----------


## RedDirt717

> I'm curious as to which "REAL" Imax screen you're comparing your experience to.  A real Imax screen fills your entire field of vision with a gigantic curved screen.  A Liemax screen is barely bigger than a regular movie screen.
> 
> And while there may not be a "gold standard" for Imax, there is a "standard" screen size prior to this whole "branded Imax" BS that AMC has been peddling.
> 
> _"A standard IMAX screen is 22 metres (72 ft) wide and 16.1 metres (53 ft) high."_
> 
> I know all this doesn't really matter to many of you.  A bunch of you have absolutely no problem spending and extra $4-$7 for privilege of saying you say something at the "imax" theater. The rest of us want a true IMAX experience and will drive to another city if we have to instead of providing money to a company which has no qualms about lying to its customers.


I've been to one in Tempe, AZ and Washington DC

There was a size difference, but only someone concentrating on minor details would really notice. It wasn't so much of a difference that I wouldn't go watch another movie there and pay the same price.

----------


## fuzzytoad

> I've been to one in Tempe, AZ and Washington DC
> 
> There was a size difference, but only someone concentrating on minor details would really notice.


I'm not sure what your definition of  "minor details" is, but I'd like to think that most people are observant enough to notice this difference:



If not, then I apologize 100% to the theater owners I accused of being deceitful and ripping people off.  And I'll make sure I'm *extra* careful on the road with all these people who are so adept at spatial awareness...

**edit, that wasn't the picture I wanted to link, but there's a better(non-hotlinkable) example here: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/asse...pare-8023.html

----------


## RedDirt717

Actually IQ wise, my spatial intelligence is far more advanced than most. The point is, for most people the size doesn't matter. Big is big. 

In fact I'd wager that the screen size being smaller actually helped many with the experience. On other larger screens, I've felt overwhelmed and had a hard time concentrating on the actual plot. What ever your personal beef is with IMAX is a personal opinion but it seems the overwhelming populations doesn't give two ****s if the screen is a mile high, or standard theater size. So the attack on the "spatially challenged" isn't warranted. So you seem to be making a lot of noise about nothing.

----------


## fuzzytoad

> Actually IQ wise, my spatial intelligence is far more advanced than most. The point is, for most people the size doesn't matter. Big is big. 
> 
> In fact I'd wager that the screen size being smaller actually helped many with the experience. On other larger screens, I've felt overwhelmed and had a hard time concentrating on the actual plot. What ever your personal beef is with IMAX is a personal opinion but it seems the overwhelming populations doesn't give two ****s if the screen is a mile high, or standard theater size. So the attack on the "spatially challenged" isn't warranted. So you seem to be making a lot of noise about nothing.


That's why I gave a link to the other picture which shows the key element.  It isn't just about size. The audience member isn't getting to see the entire view in one of these fake IMAX theaters, but they're still paying the same price as if they were in a real one.

I'm making noise about the fact that AMC and IMAX are trying to pass off something in a deceitful manner.  

If someone doesn't give two ****s that they're being ripped off, that's awesome for them.  It's the sort of attitude I've grown to expect from the average OKC resident.  

Everyone wants this city to become the best it can be, yet we should all happily accept a mediocre facsimile of something as nice as an IMAX theater.

I mean, if we're all fine and dandy with half-assing things around here, why don't we save some money and just build a half-court practice facility for the Thunder?  It's basically the same thing.

----------


## RedDirt717

It's not the same thing, the movie is exactly the same and the "experience" is not that much different. 

We don't feel like we're being ripped off. I saw Avatar with a friend from LA. Neither of us thought anything about it. 

Actually I remember her specifically saying she was worried about going to the movie because she's gotten sick at 3D movies before. The AMC theater may have actually helped that. Keep making a big deal out of nothing, you're really marching alone on this one.

----------


## fuzzytoad

> It's not the same thing, the movie is exactly the same and the "experience" is not that much different.


No, the movies are not exactly the same.  An IMAX 70mm projector uses 70mm IMAX print sources projected on a screen which can handle the extreme size of the picture.  

A fake IMAX theater(or Digitial Imax, or Imax Lite or whatever you want to call it) two 2K-resolution Christie projectors running 35mm print sources(the same as any other digital theater.)

Because 70mm IMAXs are 1.44 in shape (as is the 70mm material) and digital IMAXs are 2.07 in shape you immediately lose 30% of the picture cropped top and bottom.





> We don't feel like we're being ripped off. I saw Avatar with a friend from LA. Neither of us thought anything about it.


That's great that you don't feel ripped off.  I would feel ripped off.  Lots of people who didn't know the difference before are feeling ripped off.  Enough people that the IMAX CEO, Richard Gelfond, is putting out press releases to answers the criticism.

Now, is there some reason why you think I should not be allowed to voice my displeasure with the fake IMAX theater being built in OKC instead of a real one?  Is there some reason why I should not be allowed to inform people who otherwise wouldn't know that they're paying more money for something that's no different than a regular digital movie experience?(like what you can get at the Warren)

Seriously, what's wrong with me wanting the best for OKC?  Tell me why I must settle for mediocracy?

----------


## Of Sound Mind

> Now, is there some reason why you think I should not be allowed to voice my displeasure with the fake IMAX theater being built in OKC instead of a real one?  Is there some reason why I should not be allowed to inform people who otherwise wouldn't know that they're paying more money for something that's no different than a regular digital movie experience?(like what you can get at the Warren)


Not at all, but can you do it without denigrating others who simply don't care that it's not a "true" IMAX experience and thoroughly enjoyed the movie despite being "ripped off"?

As I've said previously, I've been to both types of theaters. I enjoy the classic IMAX theater, but I also enjoyed the "ripped off" AMC experience as well... and as I said previously, and others have said, I think I actually preferred the AMC experience for this movie because it was not too visually overwhelming with its intense action sequences like it could have been on the already overwhelming screen in the classic IMAX theaters.

----------


## Matt

What did you guys think the chances were of OKC ever getting a real IMAX theater before this thing went in?

What do you think they are now?

----------


## fuzzytoad

> Not at all, but can you do it without denigrating others who simply don't care that it's not a "true" IMAX experience and thoroughly enjoyed the movie despite being "ripped off"?


I'm sorry, but I don't think I was "denigrating" anyone.  Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain I didn't outright attack or demean anyone in this thread who was satisfied with the showing at Quail's theater.

What I *do* feel I was doing was correcting those who incorrectly state that there's "no difference" between Quail's Imax and a real Imax, especially since a large majority of OKC residents have no basis for comparison and might easily be swayed into paying an extra charge for something that's no different from the digital theaters at the Warren.

----------


## RedDirt717

> I'm sorry, but I don't think I was "denigrating" anyone.  Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain I didn't outright attack or demean anyone in this thread who was satisfied with the showing at Quail's theater.
> 
> What I *do* feel I was doing was correcting those who incorrectly state that there's "no difference" between Quail's Imax and a real Imax, especially since a large majority of OKC residents have no basis for comparison and might easily be swayed into paying an extra charge for something that's no different from the digital theaters at the Warren.





> "I'll make sure I'm *extra* careful on the road with all these people who are so adept at spatial awareness..."


No one is saying you shouldn't voice your opinion, where I have a problem here is basically saying people are slow because the masses in OKC don't agree that some kind of grand injustice has been committed.

----------


## fuzzytoad

> No one is saying you shouldn't voice your opinion, where I have a problem here is basically saying people are slow because the masses in OKC don't agree that some kind of grand injustice has been committed.


Ok, so now we're playing the "let's take everything another person says out of context so we can make them look evil" game.

F this, I'm so f*cking sorry I got upset with the fact that more bullsh*t is being built in OKC instead of the real thing

I'm even more upset that so many people in this city are perfectly happy with mediocre crap.

----------


## RedDirt717

> Ok, so now we're playing the "let's take everything another person says out of context so we can make them look evil" game.
> 
> F this, I'm so f*cking sorry I got upset with the fact that more bullsh*t is being built in OKC instead of the real thing
> 
> I'm even more upset that so many people in this city are perfectly happy with mediocre crap.


Like what else? What else is being built that's mediocre?

----------


## venture

Okay, relax you two. Move on. This is way off topic about the movie now.

----------


## the hip

I will attempt to bring us back to the topic. I have seen Avatar twice. An amazing movie experience! The best Sci-Fi movie since Matrix. It destroys all three new Star Wars movies. The LOTR trilogy I put in a different category due to the fact they are based off of novels.
It MUST be seen in a 3D movie theater to get the full visual effect. Kudos to James Cameron on a technical masterpiece.  I have heard he's a jerk to work for, but his demand for excellence pays off and is displayed for 2hr 40min on the screen.

----------


## venture

I kinda agree with you that it is the best since Matrix, I think it is because it is fresh. I also think the ball was dropped a bit on the Star Wars movies (the new ones) and so much more could have been done with them. The new Star Trek has grown on me some, not sure about changing the entire story line around...but eh. I think it was too much of a "here we are, this is how things will go in the future" intro type of movie. So yeah...Avatar really takes the cake for anything since Matrix.

I also agree LOTR is one of those epics that just stand out of the Sci-Fi category. I am really interested to see how the new Warcraft movie comes about since it'll be a blend of  LOTR and Avatar. Considering the budget for it (similar to Avatar) it has potential to be right up there as well, but Sam Remi isn't James Cameron. Will probably be an interesting competition since I would expect the first Warcraft movie to come out around the same time as Avatar 2.

----------


## nik4411

i really enjoyed avatar it was a great flick. lots of nice visuals to always keep the eyes busy.
i was getting a tad antsy though. its hard to sit there for so long sometimes.

----------


## venture

> i really enjoyed avatar it was a great flick. lots of nice visuals to always keep the eyes busy.
> i was getting a tad antsy though. its hard to sit there for so long sometimes.


Try doing all 3 extended versions of the LOTR movies.

----------


## Ginkasa

> Keep making a big deal out of nothing, you're really marching alone on this one.



This is not the truth.

Anyway...

I think that Avatar is the Star Wars (and I'm referring to the 1977 movie, not the entire series) of the '00s (make that the 90's also).  The story is a little bland, borrowing most of it from other movies and traditional storylines, but the technology and imagination behind the world and the creatures more than makes up for it.  It probably won't have the same impact that Star Wars did because people aren't as wowed by special effects anymore, but its still an amazing accomplishment.

----------


## PennyQuilts

> LOL, can one be racist against a made-up race?


I loved the experience.  I had never seen a movie in 3-D and that was so much fun.  But you can't get too caught up in the sky people being bad vs. otherwise.  I would like to think I would be more like one of the natives but until and unless that mother tree provides decent bathroom fixtures and a way to keep off bugs, I am what I am...

----------


## dmoor82

^^^ WOW thats a big,huge difference!anyways I have now seen Avatar twice,and might see it again! I love it!Question???? why would any1 watch this movie in 2d?

----------


## mugofbeer

My 9 year old wants to go see Avatar.  I know nothing about it so I am asking for opinions - 

Is Avatar appropriate for a 9-year old?

----------


## PennyQuilts

I think it would be a little intense at times but okay, depending on the nine year old if you were right there with them.  It could be a little scary because it is so realistic.

----------


## jbrown84

It's generally appropriate for a 9-year old but there is some PG-13 language. (s**t, d**n, but no f**k)  So it's up to you on what you let your child hear.

----------


## mooshie

> My 9 year old wants to go see Avatar.  I know nothing about it so I am asking for opinions - 
> 
> Is Avatar appropriate for a 9-year old?


That is a maybe.  There is a love making scene in the movie between Na'vi and Na'vi.  You don't really seen anything, but passionate kissing.  Maybe you'll have to talk about that with your child.  Other than that, there is some action scenes with violence where people/aliens are shot.

----------


## decepticobra

leave it to James Cameron to refuse to direct or write Terminator 3 but to instead dust Avatar off of the dusty 10 year shelf its been sitting on. This FernGully knock-off is non-canonical to true Cameron-esque material. He's just trying to compete with all the Disney, Pixar, and Dreamworks SKG CGI crud thats out there.

----------


## decepticobra

> This is not the truth.
> 
> Anyway...
> 
> I think that Avatar is the Star Wars (and I'm referring to the 1977 movie, not the entire series) of the '00s (make that the 90's also).  The story is a little bland, borrowing most of it from other movies and traditional storylines, but the technology and imagination behind the world and the creatures more than makes up for it.  It probably won't have the same impact that Star Wars did because people aren't as wowed by special effects anymore, but its still an amazing accomplishment.


so what youre saying is that its cliche?

----------


## mugofbeer

I went to see it today with my 9 year old and tho some of the language was a little raw, we had a discussion and he is OK.  I found the animation to be spectacular and extraordinarily realistic.  However, I also found it to be a science fiction version of Dances With Wolves.  The baaaaad old marines being the bad guys is kind of an irritant to me.  The rendition of the alien world, the animals, the foliage, the insects and all the unique features of the planet were outstanding.  Whats the sequel going to be about?

----------


## Dustin

I saw this movie for the 2nd time today in real 3D instead of "IMAX" and it was even better than the first!  The picture and sound quality didnt compare to "IMAX" but you really get to become involved in the story rather than getting all caught up in the amazing cinematography.  If you've seen it once, I highly recommend you see it a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or hey, even a 5th!!

----------


## venture

So far have only seen it twice, may go more. LOL

So far it is up to $1.063 Billion in revenue. #4 all time highest grossing. Should pass Pirates: Dead Man's Chest which is at $1.066B. LoTR:Return of the King is at $1.119B so it'll beat that too. Titanic is $1.842...not sure it can catch that, but as strong as it is now, I wouldn't be shocked.

----------


## mugofbeer

I'd be more interested in the numbers of tickets sold rather than revenue since so many Avatar theaters are 3d and/or IMAX and sell $12-15 tickets.  It was a great movie though.

----------


## jbrown84

They don't really keep track of # of tickets sold, but they do have lists that are adjusted for inflation.  Gone With the Wind takes it when you do.

All Time Box Office Adjusted for Ticket Price Inflation

----------


## Caboose

> They don't really keep track of # of tickets sold, but they do have lists that are adjusted for inflation.  Gone With the Wind takes it when you do.
> 
> All Time Box Office Adjusted for Ticket Price Inflation


They should also adjust for population.

----------


## jbrown84

Huh?

----------


## Caboose

> Huh?


Well, you know... selling 15,000,000 tickets to a movie in 1920 when the population was 100,000,000 is much more impressive than selling 15,000,000 tickets in 2010 when the population is 300,000,000.

Using those examples, and lets say tickets cost 1 dollars in 1920 and 8 dollars in 2010.

1920 - 15,000,000 tickets sold X $1 = $10,000,000 in sales
2010 - 15,000,000 tickets sold X $8 = $120,000,000 in sales

So, we adjust the 1920 tickets for inflation, so we multiply 15,000,000 by todays ticket prices...  we find that the adjusted take for 1920 movie was $120,000,000 also. This makes the 1920 movie look roughly equivalent to the 2010 movie. 

But, when we factor in population we see that the 1920 drew in 15% of the available population. The 2010 movie only drew in 5% of the available population. If we extrapolate how many tickets the 1920 movie _would have_ sold had there been 300,000,000 million Americans at the time, it would be 45,000,000 tickets. 

So adjusted for inflation AND population and the 1920 movie is up to $360,000,000. It seems like if we are gauging the value of movies this would be a better way to do it.

----------


## ronronnie1

> Well, you know... selling 15,000,000 tickets to a movie in 1920 when the population was 100,000,000 is much more impressive than selling 15,000,000 tickets in 2010 when the population is 300,000,000.
> 
> Using those examples, and lets say tickets cost 1 dollars in 1920 and 8 dollars in 2010.
> 
> 1920 - 15,000,000 tickets sold X $1 = $10,000,000 in sales
> 2010 - 15,000,000 tickets sold X $8 = $120,000,000 in sales
> 
> So, we adjust the 1920 tickets for inflation, so we multiply 15,000,000 by todays ticket prices...  we find that the adjusted take for 1920 movie was $120,000,000 also. This makes the 1920 movie look roughly equivalent to the 2010 movie. 
> 
> ...


Kind of off topic, but this is exactly why I don't trust figures regarding music and record sales.  Kind of an apples-to-oranges way of keeping track.

----------


## dismayed

> Kind of off topic, but this is exactly why I don't trust figures regarding music and record sales.  Kind of an apples-to-oranges way of keeping track.


Same industry that claims illegally downloading one song one time costs their industry $150,000 per instance....  I agree that it's wrong, but clearly that's a "bit" overstated.

----------


## Dustin

its official!  Highest Grossing Film Ever!  Now its time to break the 2 bil mark!

----------


## fromdust

it has broken the 2 bil mark....

----------


## Dustin

Wow....  Unbelievable!

----------


## Bunty

Where's the best place in the metro to see Avatar for the 2nd time after seeing it the first time at Penn Square?

----------


## Caboose

> Where's the best place in the metro to see Avatar for the 2nd time after seeing it the first time at Penn Square?


Bunty, the best place in the metro to see ANY movie that is at appealing by virtue of its visual effects is the Warren.

----------


## Joe Daddy

> I don't see a thread but if there is one already, please merge. 
> 
> Just saw Avatar at the Harkins Cine Capri. 2 things: On that screen, it is not 3D (we could have waited ... we were there for the 3:30 pm Saturday showing but would have waited until after 6 for the next 3D, so we skipped it.
> 
> Second and more importantly, my wife and I enjoyed the movie to the hilt. Stunning graphics; story wasn't too original (Euros v. Native Americans transported about 100-150 years from now on a distant planet), with lots of big birds, etc. But, totally engaging and a very satisfying ending.


Best movie ever IMO! What a thouroughly enjoyable experience!!

----------


## S!xStr!ng

I was skeptical at first to see it in 3D because of the older 3D movies I've seen weren't that impressive... but when I saw this in 3D I was blown away.

----------


## venture

> I was skeptical at first to see it in 3D because of the older 3D movies I've seen weren't that impressive... but when I saw this in 3D I was blown away.


It was quite amazing. Forcing to me to plan to upgrade the home theater to display 3D movies more clearly.

----------


## Dustin

I think yesterday (Friday) was the first time since Avatar's release that it wasn't being played on the IMAX at Quail.  Alice in Wonderland took over.

----------

