Avatar 2: The Way Of Water (film)

[MinionZombie]

NdrknJJXAmM

[Neil]

Well! The actors haven't aged a bit over the past 13yrs! WOW! :)

Is that Stephen Lang as an Omaticaya @1m19s?

At the very least it's going to be a visual feast!

[MinionZombie]

I wonder if it'll have the same escapist fantasy vibe that it generated last time around, you know, where people kept watching it because they kept wanting to be in that world?

Perhaps it will again, after two years of feckin' Covid, that is.

The water stuff looks like it'll be quite a treat for the eyes. I just hope it has a better story and script overall this time around. I enjoyed Avatar, but there was no escaping how generic many of its beats felt and how single-shaded some of the characters were. Yes, it provided clarity, but it was also a bit too simplistic.

Speaking of Avatar - have you seen either of the extended cuts? I got the Blu-Ray way back when and I've done the longest cut a couple of times (that's the version with a few scenes set on Earth at the beginning - makes for a nice contrast).

[Neil]

I wonder if it'll have the same escapist fantasy vibe that it generated last time around, you know, where people kept watching it because they kept wanting to be in that world?

Perhaps it will again, after two years of feckin' Covid, that is.

The water stuff looks like it'll be quite a treat for the eyes. I just hope it has a better story and script overall this time around. I enjoyed Avatar, but there was no escaping how generic many of its beats felt and how single-shaded some of the characters were. Yes, it provided clarity, but it was also a bit too simplistic.

Speaking of Avatar - have you seen either of the extended cuts? I got the Blu-Ray way back when and I've done the longest cut a couple of times (that's the version with a few scenes set on Earth at the beginning - makes for a nice contrast).

"Either" of them?

I was only aware of one of them, with the major difference being showing him back on Earth and giving his disability some depth etc.

NOTE! Odd the trailer isn't available in 4K 60fps :)

[MinionZombie]

"Either" of them?

I was only aware of one of them, with the major difference being showing him back on Earth and giving his disability some depth etc.

NOTE! Odd the trailer isn't available in 4K 60fps :)

Yeah, there's three cuts - theatrical, special edition, and extended collector's edition.

https://www.movie-censorship.com/list.php?s=avatar


a) Theatrical Version (2009)
Runtime: 155:05 minutes
Rated: PG-13

The Original Theatrical Version was, as its name implies, only shown in cinemas and released worldwide on DVD and Blu-ray in April 2010.

b) Special Edition (2010)
Runtime: 163:38 minutes
Rated: PG-13


James Cameron provided an extended version (a so-called Special Edition) of a majority of his movies - with the exception of "The Terminator", "True Lies" and "Titanic". By the way, Cameron does not prefer the expression Director's Cut in that context, since he is convinced that the original theatrical version always represented his Director's Cut. This Special Edition is nine minutes longer and the following censorship report will deal with it. In August 2010, the Special Edition was released in cinemas worldwide, grossing a substantial $40 million. It will be released as a part of the Collector's Extended Edition on DVD and Blu-ray in November 2010.

c) Extended Edition (2010)
Runtime: 170:54 minutes
Rated: PG-13


The Extended Edition can be seen as a kind of bonus version. It is based upon the Special Edition and is nearly completely identical to it - except for the opening of the film. Initially, "Avatar" was to start on Earth. In the end, Cameron removed these scenes, because they would needlessly delay the plot. Only small parts of it were shown during Jake Sully's opening monologue. Cameron clearly prefers the classical start of the film aboard the spacecraft. However, the fans' disappointment with the missing scenes on Earth was so profound that Cameron decided to insert them in a kind of Extended Edition. Thus, it must rather be viewed as some kind of bonus for fans.

I didn't see much point in viewing the middle version, so I've only seen the theatrical version (a) and the extended edition (c).

[paranoid101]

Looks like a Video game cut screen lol

[Neil]

Looks like a Video game cut screen lol

Except for the insane visual fidelity! :)

Also going to be interesting to see if it's going to be a 3D must watch or not. Seems 3D has sort of died given what in truth is its inferior image quality compared to 2D.

[Neil]

KmF669UVGtI

[Neil]

d9MyW72ELq0

[Neil]

Feature Running Time: 192 mins <-- Wow!

o5F8MOz_IDw

[MinionZombie]

I wonder what "numb arse" is in Na'vi? :p

I remember seeing the original in the cinema back in 2009, when the new version of 3D really was a 'wow factor'. It was a memorable cinema experience and I enjoyed it very much.

Will I be going to see this in the cinema? Not likely - thirteen years makes a big old difference. Will I be buying it on Blu-Ray? Certainly.

Looking at the trailer ... I do hope it's not just the first movie all over again, but with added water. :shifty:

[Neil]

I wonder what "numb arse" is in Na'vi? :p

I remember seeing the original in the cinema back in 2009, when the new version of 3D really was a 'wow factor'. It was a memorable cinema experience and I enjoyed it very much.

Will I be going to see this in the cinema? Not likely - thirteen years makes a big old difference. Will I be buying it on Blu-Ray? Certainly.

Looking at the trailer ... I do hope it's not just the first movie all over again, but with added water. :shifty:

I'll see it at the cinema and, probably against my better judgement, see it in 3D. I know Cameron has put a lot of work into it, so I'm hoping for a nice step forwards... Even though the image quality/range is not as good as 2D.

[Neil]

Sounds like reviews suggest a mediocre story, somewhat parallel to the first, but great visuals, atmosphere and action.

[Neil]

So any folks here seen it yet?

[Neil]

Well, booked to see this in 4DX tomorrow. ie: 3D with moving seats, wind, water, smells :)

[JDP]

smells :)

Keep your fingers crossed that there aren't any "ripe" zombies in that flick.

[Neil]

Keep your fingers crossed that there aren't any "ripe" zombies in that flick.

I'm wondering what the movement, smells and water spray would be like with 4DX for an adult flick? :sneaky:

[MinionZombie]

I'm wondering what the movement, smells and water spray would be like with 4DX for an adult flick? :sneaky:

Back/forth/back/forth, fish, and something akin to Noel Edmond's House Party?

[Neil]

So, Avatar 2, generally good. Some mediocre stuff, but generally a good story - somewhat similar to the first - told well, with stunning visuals frankly.

Now, onto my 3D experience, which was so bad I think I'm going to pursue it. The image was dim and lacked a lot of colour. And this was even with the 2D material before the film, even without 3D glasses on. It just felt wrong! If felt so bad I'd probably never see a 3D film again. And while I haven't seen a 3D film in a couple of years, I don't recall coming out of one in the past feeling that way. So I'm going to see if I can complain/visit a local cinema of this chain, and watch 3-4 mins of the film (in 3D) to see if it is the same, or better. I think the projector and the cinema I went to in London had a problem.

[MinionZombie]

I've heard of this being a problem - i.e. piss poor 3D projection.

I saw numerous mixed stories from folks who went to see Dawn in 3D. Some folks had a fine experience, while others had a terrible experience - and it all came down to the projection at their specific cinema, so it comes down to the projectionist and the equipment, it'd appear.

I'd certainly be much more cautious about going to see a 3D film these days, if I even bothered to go to the cinema factory now, that is, because it seems your experience can be ruined by so many things - and now even a professional projectionist isn't good enough to do their job properly.

[Neil]

I've heard of this being a problem - i.e. piss poor 3D projection.

I saw numerous mixed stories from folks who went to see Dawn in 3D. Some folks had a fine experience, while others had a terrible experience - and it all came down to the projection at their specific cinema, so it comes down to the projectionist and the equipment, it'd appear.

I'd certainly be much more cautious about going to see a 3D film these days, if I even bothered to go to the cinema factory now, that is, because it seems your experience can be ruined by so many things - and now even a professional projectionist isn't good enough to do their job properly.

Yeh, as a friend of mine who used to own a production company for the film industry pointed out, long gone are the days of projectionists. So there could well be problems, but since it's all automated, it goes unnoticed or unreported.

[MinionZombie]

Yeh, as a friend of mine who used to own a production company for the film industry pointed out, long gone are the days of projectionists. So there could well be problems, but since it's all automated, it goes unnoticed or unreported.

Seems to be about one person running an entire cinema's worth of computers, right? Flitting back and forth, not paying attention to focus, framing etc. Pathetic.

[Neil]

Right, I've phoned Cineworld and reported by grievance. They will now chat to the Wembley cinema as regards that screen/projector. If they come back and say yes there is/was a problem, fabulous.

That said, a couple of my friends are planning on seeing it (in 3D) so I might go a watch it again so I'll be able to compare that showing to the last one brightness/colour wise.