James Cameron's Avatar

[ccesarano]

So I got free tickets to see James Cameron's Avatar on a special viewing this Friday. Expect a blog post to describe the awesomeness Friday night or Saturday.

[Nolan]

So I got free tickets to see James Cameron's Avatar on a special viewing this Friday. Expect a blog post to describe the awesomeness Friday night or Saturday.

And if it's terrible we don't get a descriptive blog?

[ccesarano]

I just realized how much of an asshole I was for not sharing the wealth.

http://www.avatarmovie.com/ticketing/

That's where you can get free tickets if you're interested (or if your closest theater still has any left).

EDIT: Just found out it's only a fifteen minute screening, not the entire film. I'll basically be seeing what everyone at Comic-Con has already seen. Lame.

I might see if I can check out Inglourious Basterds after, then.

[Nolan]

Yea, my theaters were sold out, plus they were 2 hours away and 6 hours away.

I want to see Inglorious Bastards too (despite Brad Pitt) but I still need to see District 9.

[ccesarano]

What's wrong with Brad Pitt? He's actually a good actor. I figured Fight Club made that obvious.

[Nolan]

He's just so......dumb. I can never see him as anything but a fucking retard. I know he's a good actor at least some of the time (fuck Troy though). I love Fight Club, I like Oceans 11, 12 Monkeys was good then he does dumb stuff like Mr and Mrs Smith and Troy...

I just don't like him no matter how good of an actor he can be. Kinda like how I like Micheal Cera, but I bet he can't act at all, he hasn't seemed to do anything but play George Micheal Bluth in all his parts with slight variations.

[ccesarano]

He also did a fantastic job in Benjamin Button.

Troy is a fun film, and I was surprised at how fun Mr. and Mrs. Smith were as well. I dunno. I'm just gonna blame you for it, because Brad Pitt is definitely a good actor. No doubt about it.

Michael Cera plays the same character repeatedly, but he at least is good at playing that character.

[Nolan]

I never denied the fact that he can act, I just don't like him. Blaming me seems about sensible actually.

[Fang Zei]

Here's an interesting little factoid to keep in mind if you plan on seeing the movie:

Everything in the movie was composed, shot and rendered in 16:9 (1.78:1). For the digital 3D version it'll be shown at that aspect ratio, but for the regular 2D version it'll be framed in cinemascope (2.35:1) just as the trailer posted online was. That decision was probably made because the dollar theaters tend to have fixed-height 2.35:1 screens as opposed to stadium seating multiplexes where a single curtain descends and the taller 1.85:1 screen becomes a shorter 2.35:1 screen. So if a small-town theater with a fixed-height 2.35:1 screen got a 1.85:1 print of a movie, it would have to project it onto the wider 2.35:1 screen with a lot of wasted space on the sides.

[ccesarano]

Remind me. Is 16:9 the wider or thinner variation?

[Nolan]

Here's an interesting little factoid to keep in mind if you plan on seeing the movie:

Everything in the movie was composed, shot and rendered in 16:9 (1.78:1). For the digital 3D version it'll be shown at that aspect ratio, but for the regular 2D version it'll be framed in cinemascope (2.35:1) just as the trailer posted online was. That decision was probably made because the dollar theaters tend to have fixed-height 2.35:1 screens as opposed to stadium seating multiplexes where a single curtain descends and the taller 1.85:1 screen becomes a shorter 2.35:1 screen. So if a small-town theater with a fixed-height 2.35:1 screen got a 1.85:1 print of a movie, it would have to project it onto the wider 2.35:1 screen with a lot of wasted space on the sides.

The way I read it is 16:9 isn't as wide but...possibly taller?

[ccesarano]

Hrm. Most film makers these days seem to try and make wider screen films. Then again, early 90's Cameron started to make films in a format so they'd actually cut parts of the top-and-bottom for theatrical widescreen, but then actually had much more of a picture on VHS full-screen.

If you catch what I mean.

So him going with a not-so-wide aspect ration would technically make sense since most HDTV's aren't as wide as the widest film aspect ratio.

[Fang Zei]

Hrm. Most film makers these days seem to try and make wider screen films. Then again, early 90's Cameron started to make films in a format so they'd actually cut parts of the top-and-bottom for theatrical widescreen, but then actually had much more of a picture on VHS full-screen.

If you catch what I mean.

So him going with a not-so-wide aspect ration would technically make sense since most HDTV's aren't as wide as the widest film aspect ratio.

Exactly.

Cameron shot everything from The Abyss to Titanic in 4-perf Super 35, which has a native aspect ratio of 1.33:1 (aka 4:3, the shape of a normal tv). The image takes up so much space on the film that a 2.35:1 scope print can be "extracted" for theatrical exhibition while the original negative is saved for 4:3 pan n' scan transfers (as you said). Several films were shot in Super 35 throughout the 80's (Enemy Mine for example), but it was Cameron who helped turn it into the trend it is today.

I should point out though that the visual effects shots aren't necessarily done in as tall an aspect ratio as the regular shots. In fact, some of the T-1000 shots in T2 were only done in the final 2.35:1 ratio in order to save time and money on rendering.

The funny thing about Avatar is that it was done in 16:9 (like Terminator and Aliens), but it was shot in HD which is a much different animal than 35mm film. Even though 1080p is only roughly the resolution of 16mm (yes, it's true), the fact that it's digital gets rid of so many disadvantages of a photochemical emulsion. There's no film grain, for one thing. That's why some of these directors like Lucas on Clones/Sith and Fincher on Zodiac/BenButton have been able to shoot their cinemascope (2.35:1) movies with 16:9 1080p HD cameras and just shave it down from 1.78:1 to 2.35:1 for the finished movie. The difference with Avatar is that everything in the movie (not just the non-effects shots) is being composed in 16:9. So even though there's a scope print being struck for the 2D crowd, the 16:9 version will be the version.

[ccesarano]

Wait, so if I have the widescreen edition of Terminator 2 it's actually crappier than if I had the fullscreen edition?

Man, that's lame.

[Fang Zei]

See: what I wrote about the T-1000 shots in T2.

I always found that comment from Cameron about him preferring the 4:3 fullscreen versions of his Super 35 movies to be a little weird. I don't think he was thinking ahead to people having widescreen televisions. Heck, dvd had only just launched when Titanic came out.

[Fang Zei]

Here's the theatrical trailer, with your resolution of choice if you scroll over the HD (I'm in the computer lab watching it in 720p and it's friggin' gorgeous).

http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1809804784/video/16357477

impressions?

[ccesarano]

Just wanted to share Red Letter Media's review. I may be chiming in on this eventually.

[Kotzu]

Where the hell is his Attack of the Clones review...