Avatar

[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?