For The Love Of Port

Moses Botbol wrote:If they have to spend so much to tell me to go see it; it must be lame.

Avatar? I think they've spent relatively little on advertising compared to many movies.

This is a pretty funny comment on the plot:

Peter,
That is hilarious!

Eric Ifune wrote:Peter,
That is hilarious!

too funny

I agree it is funny. However, Frederick should get credit for posting it first, on the first page of this thread. I think he's too modest to point this out.

Eric Menchen wrote:I agree it is funny. However, Frederick should get credit for posting it first, on the first page of this thread. I think he's too modest to point this out.

I must have read the post without checking the link. Good job Frederick.

Finally saw it last night at Gold Class Cinemas in Redmond, WA. This IS the way to watch a movie! We got a complimentary glass of champagne when we checked in. Ordered our food for the movie before being seated - duck tacos, popcorn, and a bottle of Tempranillo. Sat in reclining seats with blankets and pillows (if we wanted them).

That made watching it all the more better and it was only $22 for the ticket. With most movie places around here in the $10-$15 range (IMAX is $13.50), I'd gladly pay the extra for a nice intimate location where I can order food and drink while I watch.

As far as the movie goes, the plot wasn't anything we haven't seen before, but it's how it was pulled off that matters. We may go back and see it again. It reminded me of District 9 having a familar plot. But the difference was in how it was presented.

So if you live near Redmond, WA, Bolingbrook, IL, South Barrington, IL, or Pasadena, CA; you should consider checking out http://www.goldclasscinemas.com/

Would anyone admit to having already seen this 2x?

Although I know that theater in Redmond, I'd have to say that as decadent an experience as that theater presents, the 3D IMAX tops that type of experience. The movie without those visuals and even sound system that the Lincoln Square Cinema's brand new IMAX created for the release of this film. That 3D is mind blowing and take the flick itself into a different and spacy realm. The IMAX 65' screen and accompanying accoustics are worth the price of admission.

Steve, if you are going to see this again, make sure to check out the Lincoln Square experience!

Thanks Roy,

My neighbor works at Lincoln Square and I'm sure he's seen it at least 2X. I guess for my wife and I, we prefer what we get from Gold Class over the IMAX experience. It was still 3D, and we had no issues with screen size from our position. And the fact that we had reserved seats, with nobody to either side of us and a bottle of Tempranillo and some duck tacos seems more valuable than what we'd get at Lincoln Square. Now had it been at The Big Picture in Redmond Town Center, it would be a different story. The screen there is much smaller relative to the seating and you don't get the amenities. However that theater does have it's place in our repertoire too.

I just found out that we'll (and by "we'll," I mean my wife) be hosting a baby shower here in a couple of weeks. If it is still in IMAX at that time, I may scoot on over to experience it from that point of view. Maybe I can smuggle in some accessories - just don't tell my neighbor.

Aha, I did not know you were able to see it in 3D too ... that changes everything. I'd take the food & wine over IMAX anyday, with 3D being even. I agree the Big Picture is nice and that is what I was thinking you were talking about. Now I do remember when this other new theater was announced last summer or so.

Saw Avatar last night in 3D on Lincoln Square Cinema's Imax screen.

I'm not sure that 3D is all the way here yet. This was by far the best 3D effect that I've ever seen, but it was still unweildy. I couldn't focus on anything that came forward out of the screen, though the added depth of field behind the screen was truely wonderful. The only in-front-of-the-screen effects that I enjoyed were the floating tree seeds, ash, and cinders. Those were very cool, in part because you didn't have to focus on them in order for them to have a dramatic effect on your perception of the scene. They made the entire theater feel like part of the forest.

As far as the movie goes... this might be the first movie I've ever seen that actually lived up to the hype. Very well done. Yeah, the story is somewhat generic, but it just. doesn't. matter. The overall movie is that good.

I only have one complaint. Unobtainium? Seriously? That's the best you could come up with? That's a generic geek-rant term. Why on earth (or Pandora) would you actually use it in a blockbuster movie?

It was only mentioned once (that I recall), but that one time completely threw me out of the moment. I was engrossed and immersed in the movie, then abruptly thrown back into a theater filled with people wearing geeky looking glasses. I don't know if that was supposed to be some sort of in-joke or if it's a reference to some other movie/book, but it was really really bad.

Luckily, the rest of the movie was so good that I was able to get back into the moment fairly quickly.

I've worked in circles that used the term unobtainium, so I didn't blink. I took it as one non-technical person explaining it to another non-technical person. The first probably once had an explanation of what it was, but that wasn't important to him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobtainium

Unobtanium is a handwave. It just means don't waste your time wondering about it. If it has impossible qualities -- wave your hand; for the purposes of this story it CAN have those properties. In this case the properties seem to be: something they need very badly, and can't get elsewhere. It is almost self-explanatory; maybe here is a case where people who are familiar with the term get distracted by other associations.

It seems to me it was once used on the Rocky and Bullwinkle show; Boris and Natasha were trying to get it and R&B were trying to stop them. (Might have been some other word like it.) It has a long history of being used for this kinds of purpose, as well as being used to disguise a real substance sometimes.

Well, as my wife had not seen the film, my daughter volunteered us to all see it again this afternoon. We tried Sat. on my wife's birthday but not only was our show sold who (who knew it was going to still be this crazy) but Sunday was too, all shows up until the 10:15 p.m. and that's too late for our little one. So I bought tix for today. My wife liked it, but only a B+ from her. But then again, we regularly disagree on flicks we see together. My daughter is at least consistent, saying that it is still the "best movie I've ever seen in my entire life." Big words at 7. Having seen it just a couple of weeks ago, I still found it very enjoyable and a few things were visually perceived that were not the first time. I wonder how long it will take them to make a sequel, as I am sure the bank on this film's first month probably has already set the wheels in motion.

Thanks guys, I am actually familiar with the term unobtainium. That's why it was so jarringly out of place to me.

The guy who used the term was the businessman in charge of the operation. He used it to explain to the head scientist why they were there, and that's what makes no sense to me. Well, that's the in-story reason. The real reason is that James Cameron felt that he needed to explain to the audience what was going on, and probably thought that using the term would be funny to the geeks in the audience, but that's really why it doesn't work for me.

1.) Unobtainium isn't a term that a businessman would use. It's something an engineer or fantasy geek might use... but really not a businessman. Especially one as tightly wound as that guy.

2.) For the moment, let's assume that the businessman was also an engineer. (Maybe he was, I'm not sure.) I still don't think it makes any sense for him to use the term with the head scientist because she certainly already knows what the metal that they're mining is. Has to. Makes no sense for the head scientist - no matter what branch - to not know what they're mining and why it is so valuable.

3.) Unobtainium isn't really a term that I believe Sigourney Weaver's character would use or appreciate anyway. She's a scientist who studies plants and indigenous species. Astrophysicist? Possibly. Theoretical Physicist? Sure. But a Biologist? Um... doubtful.

The scene would have been just fine if they hadn't used the word at all. Or if the metallic rock has to have a name, make one up. Call it dilithium or tiberium. A made up name actually works better than a geek reference because it is essentially meaningless. A geek reference pulls you out of the story. If Cameron called it unobtainium because it's supposed to be a hand wave, then he should have literally used a hand wave instead. Far more effective. Just grab the rock, wave it in Sigourney Weaver's face, and say "this is why we're here."

I really think it's a case of Cameron underestimating the intelligence of the audience (he thought that we wouldn't understand if he didn't spell it out for us), while simultaneously thinking he could insert a geek joke. For me, it backfired badly.

Oh well, like I said it was still a great movie.

Ahhh, I understand your point a bit better Glenn. I thought he used that term to explain it to Jake, not Sigourney Weaver's character. And while a businessman, I thought the guy was kind of a dumb pawn businessman.

dilithium or tiberium

Now there are some geek references.

I don't think it was expected to be interpreted as a substitute for the "real" name, but AS the "real" name. There are plenty of other element names that make reference to the rarity or oddity of the element: think of the names of the noble gasses -- Krypton, Xenon (hidden, stranger) and the like. We're just not used to the name being derived from English words. Maybe in the future, English is a Classical Language and suitable for deriving element names. (Of course, I may be over-thinking Cameron's train of thought.)

I finally saw this last night and wow what a movie! It was great and I see what all the hype is about. The special effects were seemless and it's the best 3D movie I've seen, and I'm normally not a fan of 3D movies. I'd like to see this again just to take in all the background stuff that one normally misses the first go round on a movie.

Andy,

Now that's what I'm talkin' about. That is why I went the 2nd time. I filtered out much of the plot and really concentrated on the visuals and audio. I am not kidding. When the tree came down, our theater's floor literally shook from the impact of the speakers. Amazing "feeling" to say the least. Watching how the 3D works in terms of the depth perception and spatial relationship is phenomenal.

However, I believe the upcoming Alice in Wonderland (I am sure you saw the previews) ... laugh all you want guys, it will be even greater if you're just into 3D animee. There you find things in your face, feeling like you can touch them, versus as Glenn aptly put it, "behind the screen" effects. It is very very different.

Panasonic has bet the house on the future of 3D. It is here to stay and will be getting far more popular as it is being brought mainstream for the very first time. Up until now, it was always a gimmick. Now it is the next version of going from Black & White to color, from monoraul to stereo, from analog to digital etc. Broadcasting in 3D on TV will begin in 2010, at least on one channel if not more! Before the end of the upcoming decade, 3D TVs will replace Hi-Def once the consumers accept the curve of the pricing later on and make peace with buying news sets to make the switch ... kinda like how long it took to go from VHS to DVD.

As fast as things are changing nowadays with "technogression" my coined phrase for technology progression I don't think we can even imagine where things will be in 20 years ... except for our VPs of course.

Thanks Andy for the use of the avatar .