James Cameron's AVATAR discussion thread

[DinoLast]

I'll definitely be getting this next month. I have a feeling the 8 month wait until November will just be for the Extended Edition which sounds like it will have somewhat dubious additions to the story.

Yes I want to see the making of and the deleted scenes.
Cameron stated that nothing will be added to the movie itself at the moment.

<embed src="https://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:uma:video:mtv.com:484747" width="512" height="319" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" flashVars="configParams=id%3D1632033%26vid%3D484747%26uri%3Dmgid%3Auma%3Avideo%3Amtv.com%3A484747" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" base="."></embed><div style="margin:0;text-align:center;width:500px;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:12px;"><a href="https://www.mtv.com/movies/trailer_park/" style="color:#439CD8;" target="_blank">Movie Trailers</a> - <a href="https://moviesblog.mtv.com/" style="color:#439CD8;" target="_blank">Movies Blog</a></div>

 

[tomandshell]

I actually think that I will wait until November--it's good to know that an actual special edition is on the way.

 

[Khev]

I hearby dub Cameron "Lucas II".

Well I hope you're happy for being right in a sense. Cameron just announced that the Blu-Ray release of Avatar will not include the 2.39:1 aspect ratio millions of us saw when watching the film in Real 3D and 2D auditoriums but will only include the 1.78:1 cropped ratio featured on IMAX screens.

Yes it will fill our 16x9 HDTV screens and will "look bigger" but dammit I want the original uncropped composition I saw when it was in theaters.

https://www.thedigitalbits.com/mytwocentsa178.html#031710

EDIT: On second glance it looks there was some cropping with both ratios. Notice Neytiri's fingers on the 1.78:1 image vs. the extra scenery on the sides of the 2.39:1 image over Cameron's shoulder.

I really wish they'd just include both versions and give us the option to choose the composition we prefered the most. The wide 2.39:1 was the version I saw in theaters and even though it wouldn't fill our HDTV screens it just looks more cinematic, IMO.

 

[quadcent]

rereleased later this year, well that would be great since i never saw it the first time.

 

[Darren Carnall]

i dont get people who complain about the 'black bars'. You're not missing anything... it's how it was in the cinema. give us the cinema ratio version dammit!

 

[Darren Carnall]

here's a quote from that website...

Now, before anyone gets their panties in a bunch that it's 1.78 and not 2.35... our information is that the 1.78 ratio is the preference of Cameron. In his mind, the IMAX presentation is the preferred theatrical ratio - not the 2.35 ratio seen in traditional theatres. By using 1.78, all of that original IMAX presentation image area can be presented. So essentially, you're not losing anything in the image by having it 1.78 vs. 2.35... you're actually gaining more image​

So basically you're losing image at the sides but gaining some on top. whatever... I still think cinema images always look more spectacular and panoramic (especially in a visual film like this) when in 2.35:1

oh well, I'm waiting till November anyway for the one with... oh, yknow... extras!!!

 

[Bullseye]

At least Cameron has adopted Blu Ray unlike Lucas.

 

[CelticPredator]

Atleast Cameron has the decency to leave his movies alone, unlike Lucas.

And really? This aspect ratio is a problem? You're not going to get the same aspect ratio as the theater because....you're not watching it in a movie theater. You're watching it at home. It's not that big of a deal.

 

[Bullseye]

As far as I am aware only Philips have released a TV with proper cinema aspect ratio anyway. I would prefer to see the full image myself. Black bars have never bothered me.

 

[IrishJedi]

And really? This aspect ratio is a problem? You're not going to get the same aspect ratio as the theater because....you're not watching it in a movie theater. You're watching it at home. It's not that big of a deal.

Aspect Ratio is absolutely a big deal. I'm surprised to hear you say differently as an aspiring director.

 

[CelticPredator]

You misunderstood. I dont mean in general, I mean this "theater vs home video" stuff.

You wont get the same thing because you're not at the theater.

 

[IrishJedi]

You misunderstood. I dont mean in general, I mean this "theater vs home video" stuff.

You wont get the same thing because you're not at the theater.

For most people, sure. But some have HT set-ups that rival or best the average cinema. That said...

As far as Aspect Ratio, it's a simple matter of the composition of the image itself, not the size. To go from 2.39:1 to 1.78:1 is quite significant, as Khev's image comparison also pointed out. It literally changes the layout of every shot.

 

[galactiboy]

Odd choice... especially choosing the aspect ratio that less people would have seen.

 

[CelticPredator]

It's odd to me because I'll throw in a DVD into my Blu Ray, and the black bars disappear. I mean, I never had a problem with them, but I kinda like them gone. I dont see the need for them.

Plus my TV is up high and kinda far away so the more room I have to see, the better.

 

[Khev]

This aspect ratio is a problem? You're not going to get the same aspect ratio as the theater because....you're not watching it in a movie theater.

Every other movie I own on both DVD and Blu-Ray retains its original theatrical aspect ratio. Do you understand what the term means?

 

[CelticPredator]

Yes I understand what that means. Jesus. I just dont think it's such a big deal on the home movie market. But thats me I guess.

 

[BadMoon]

Yes I understand what that means. Jesus. I just dont think it's such a big deal on the home movie market. But thats me I guess.

I'll play devils advocate and say I really don't care either. Seriously my focus is on the middle of the screen anways. I'm not focusing on the boarders looking for tree that's missing from the shot and getting worked up over not seeing it.

 

[Khev]

Yes I understand what that means. Jesus. I just dont think it's such a big deal on the home movie market. But thats me I guess.

It isn't just you. A lot of people care little for shot composition or the original integrity of the filmed image and simply want the biggest picture on their TV screens. Its where the term "Joe Sixpack" came from with regard to home theater. Whether or not that's a derogitory term is for you to decide.

I just find it ironic that Cameron would make such a decision for a film like Avatar. Its less annoying considering that the 1.78:1 ratio actually was shown in theaters (though only on IMAX screens) but still be withholding the 2.39:1 ratio shown in Real 3D and 2D auditoriums he's denying home audiences the opportunity to see the edges of many visual effects (for which it won an Oscar no less) and the composition of its cinematography (for which it also won an Oscar.) Very puzzling, unless of course he intends to release both versions in a later set.

 

[occulum]

I'll play devils advocate and say I really don't care either. Seriously my focus is on the middle of the screen anways. I'm not focusing on the boarders looking for tree that's missing from the shot and getting worked up over not seeing it.

standard format man here. ^^^
I'll bet this whole "widescreen" revolution with home theater is driving you nuts then

 

[BadMoon]

standard format man here. ^^^
I'll bet this whole "widescreen" revolution with home theater is driving you nuts then

Huh? I have a 52 inch LCD surround sound and all that jazz. I just don't care.