ROFL

To be fair, James Cameron came up with the idea and plot 14 years ago.

Let's see … 2010 minus 14 is 1996. And Pocahontas came out in … June 1995. Yep, that sounds about right. I guess he didn't learn anything from stealing Terminator.

The Pocahontas angle is more a thematic formula that Disney is also guilty of following. Dances with Wolves, which Cameron did cite as an inspiration for the story, predates both movies.

If you want to talk about more specific idea lifting however, then take a look at Call Me Joe

Oh, and the author who claimed Terminator was a rip-off of his short stories is to this day suffering from oxygen starvation from having his head stuffed too far up his own ass. Harlon Ellison is a douche to put it mildly.

The only quotes I've seen from Cameron on the subject say that he'd had the idea for Avatar before Titanic, which came out in 1997. Production on Titanic started in 1995, and pre-production started even earlier than that. A very close friend of mine did some very early R&D work on CG musculature for Cameron back in 1994. That work was too complex for the digital characters used for Titanic, and, IIRC, was driven by the desire to find out if the technology was capable of producing digital characters that could be the main characters of a film. And oh, look, what do you know, he wrote his script in 1994, which was before Pocahontas came out.

Not to mention, the story of Pocahontas has been around since the early 1600's. It's not like Cameron would have needed to steal it from Disney. (Now there's a company that's absolutely shameless about lifting material.)

I've read (from some interview(s)) that Cameron had the idea for Avatar at some point in the 80's and has, since then, been developing the idea, predating the script's date obviously.

But, none of that matters since we all know Cameron was sent back from the future prior to principal photography for the original Terminator, so he would have known about all these stories already. Including that his Avatar movie would be a blockbuster success and spawn 3 sequels.

Undoubtedly, but also a brilliant writer.

There are a mind-boggling number of science fiction stories, and a much more limited set of common sci-fi tropes. The odds of multiple independently-originated stories sharing similar plot elements is high.

When someone as popular as Cameron publishes something new, the weirdos come out of the woodwork, smelling the scent of a deep pocket. Sometimes the rich folks even settle with the little noisy folks, even if they didn't actually plagiarize.

And then there's the enlightened ones who would rather not bother with lawyers. Larry Niven, for example, told me that he would not be getting on Microsoft's case about the first Halo game. "You can't copyright rings", he said.

Avatar income compared (adjusted for inflation).

GWTW still on top.

I don't pay much attention to adjusted totals like these. They're a curiosity, sure, but there are too many other factors that they don't (and shouldn't) adjust for, making many of the positions inaccurate if not irrelevant.

Frankly, I'm surprised Avatar is doing as well as it has been though. Being a good movie is besides the point, I just didn't think this type of movie would find a wide enough viewership to pump the numbers so high so quickly. With Titanic it was totally understandable - that movie had extremely wide audience appeal right from the start.

GWTW is especially impressive as the Great Depression was still in full swing...

Kind of like now...

On the topic of movie budgets and income, I've been hearing fairly good things about this book.

Sorry to bring this thread back, but I wanted to update it with my opinions now that they're informed

My wife and I saw it tonight. We saw it in the regular 3D and not the IMAX 3D, because all the IMAX screenings were sold out. Besides, they're all the normal theater-sized IMAX screens, not the real IMAX screens.

And while I'm on that, what the hell is the deal with that? I live in a metropolitan area with TWO IMAX theaters, and neither is showing Avatar at all, let alone in 3D.

So we lined up early and got pretty decent seats. Not dead-on, but about 4 and 5 seats from center.

I am not a fan of 3D.

I'm sorry, but it just isn't enough for me, and it's a combination of things. To me, it still didn't seem like it was quite there yet, technologically. It was certainly the best 3D I've seen, but it just didn't do it for me. And to those of you who saw the film in the same theater type I did, did the movie appear to be projected a tad dimly? It did to me, and I can't blame it on the theater. This one is usually very high quality and is only a few years old.

The entire time I watched the film, my eyes were not happy with me. I could definitely see issues between the glasses and the projected image. Hard to describe, but issues.

The biggest issue with the 3D was that my wife and I had had to strain so hard to see the image properly, and afterward, we had the worst headaches, ones that seemed focused entirely behind our eyeballs. Ugh. No thanks.

Next, to the visuals. Those were, of course spectacular. I definitely got a kick out of those, and all the props in the world to Cameron for that achievement.

Lastly, the story. I'd place it solidly between my low expectations, and the Golden Globe for best picture It certainly wasn't a new plot in the least, but at least it had a few other things to say. It turned out to be pretty darn good.

In general I was impressed by the pacing of the film, which never seemed to drag for me which is a feat considering its length. And it definitely got me excited at the end. Great stuff.


Overall, the negatives I had were minor. I wasn't hot on the 3D quality. Story-wise, I thought District 9 had a more interesting twist on this plot. And lastly, the whole movie was great right up until the credits. Then Cameron felt the need to splash AVATAR up on the screen in giant bold letters, which seemed super cheesy to me. But then it got worse, with the song that played over the end credits. That song is horrible. Ugh.

Still, I enjoyed the film, and was pleasantly surprised. It's not the best movie I've seen all year, and I've seen many better ones over the past few years, but it was far better than I thought it would be and turned to be quit good.


Back to the issue of 3D for one moment: perhaps it was just the technology I saw it with, though millions of other people saw the same thing. All I know is that I'm going to have to see an EXTREMELY convincing display of home theater 3D before I buy into the whole idea. Because if I had to watch even half of the TV I watch right now in THAT 3D with THAT quality, there's not a chance in hell that I'll be "upgrading" my equipment with that junk. My eyes ache at the very thought.

3d critique:

Not sure why you put that in spoiler tags

I understand the depth of field issues with 3D, and that is certainly part of it, but that's not entirely what I was having difficulty with. It's like I had to strain a little bit to make it 3D. It wasn't just an adjustment, it's like I had to force it. And when I got back out into the real world it was very strange to adjust.

It's just not a feeling I'm going to want at home.

I did have one logic issue with the film, though. It involves the ending so I'll put it in spoiler tags:

That's one of the problems with glasses-based 3D. You're effectively wearing sunglasses, and getting probably somewhere around 50% of the light that's on the screen to your eyes. Think about it. If each of your eyes is seeing half the image, then unless they're using two bulbs, you're seeing half the light. There's obviously overlap in some cases, so there's probably a good bit more than 50% actually making it to your eyes, but that's the basic issue.

I've seen it in a variety of settings, and dimness was a problem on one of the RealD screens I saw in on in Colorado. I'm not sure what projector they used, but it was dimer then it should have been. The best showing I saw was at the Alamo Drafthouse, using Sony 4k projectors and RealD. The brightness was almost too much, as minor flaws in the screen were visible for brief moments, but thankfully not distractingly so. I'd say it could very well be an issue with the theater you went to.


I've never gotten a headache or eyestrain from watching it, with IMAX 3D or RealD. I could definitely see a headache problem using active glasses though. If you were having to squint a lot to see the image clearly, something may have been wrong with the setup, or how you were trying to look at the movie. In the proper setting and tech, the 3D experience shouldn't tax your vision at all. Almost makes me wonder if they had a slight focus problem. It would be harder for the projectionist to tell with the way they see it without the glasses.


Up till the end, the movie had no title presented, nor any credits. The movie just starts. At some point it needs to be displayed.

That's OK: IMax uses the old school linear polarization method of 3D, so you didn't miss much.



That depends. Did your theater use the "Real D" logo? When I saw it, the screen was just as bright as any other movie. With the glasses on. My understanding is that theaters are supposed to upgrade their projectors and screens for a brighter presentation for this. It's possible that you ended up in a theater which hadn't. Or perhaps you were in a theater which was not using the Real D projection system.



And that is why 3D will never be anything more than just a gimmick. At least not with current technologies. A very significant portion of the population has the problems you do, or worse. When we saw Avatar, we saw it with a large group of people, and one member of the group elected to stay home: On a good day, she has depth perception issues with her normal vision anyway, and 3D movies are just torture for her.

Even with the latest Real D technology that uses circular polarization glasses, which is about as good as you're gonna get, it's still an annoying technology that causes eyestrain and headaches, and alienates everyone who doesn't happen to be wearing their contact lenses on movie night.



I was disappointed to find out the the current push of 3D television technology is worse. They use the flickery electronic LCD shutter glasses. That's just unacceptable to me. You know how bad it hurts to look at a flickery CRT at 60 hz? Now imagine that, but at an even lower flicker speed, and a separate flicker pattern for each eye. No thanks.

Hmm, hadn't noticed that. Still, it seemed very cheesy to me in the way it was done. And nobody can convince me that the music over the end credits was good. Ugh. At the very least, it felt very out of keeping with the rest of the movie. I would have preferred more orchestral stuff.


I forgot to mention one of the biggest problems with 3D: glasses. I reiterate what I said in the other thread: I will not adopt 3D until I don't have to wear glasses of any kind. I got Lasik so I wouldn't have to wear glasses anymore. I'm sure the ones we'll have for home theaters will be much nicer, but I just don't want to wear them.

Hmmm... My current CRT TV is 60Hz (with only one field per full scan even). No flicker. All my early computer monitors were 60Hz. No flicker. Movies are mostly 24Hz. No flicker. HDTV in North America is 60Hz.

I agree about the issues with 3D detracting from its adoption, but problems with displays and flicker aren't necessarily based on their refresh/scan rates. The story with shutter-based glasses is a different beast entirely because they're covering your whole field of vision. If each eye is to shutter opposite the other, that means each "lens" would actually be 30Hz if the displays are going to be 60Hz. Though I suppose they can interpolate and run the scan rate at double or quadruple time. IMO, high scan rate enhanced TV looks like shite. It makes a lot of things look like they were filmed on a home video camera.

Are you kidding, Bruno? Every time I get a new client who still has a CRT monitor, the VERY first thing I do is up the refresh rate as high as it will go, because 60Hz kills my eyes (it's a nice imperceptible improvement that I think leaves the clients a little happier with me after I've left ).

On those old CRTs, did you ever increase the refresh rate? With some people, they don't notice the problem until it's corrected.


Totally agree with you there. It turns everything into soap operas.

Let me re-explain. I wasn't talking about multi-scanning monitors. When I used 60Hz it's because the computer and monitor were both fixed at that rate. Commodore 64, Amiga, etc...

With a Windows PCs I used my last Amiga monitor briefly but then went immediately to a top of the line Nanao so I could easily max out the capabilities of any graphics card at the time.

That said, 60Hz still didn't provide any type of visible flicker nor headache inducing effect for me. The higher refresh rates however were great for animation and later 3D, so long as the playback was in sync with the scan rate.

Maybe you guys were using shitty monitors with other flaws other than 60Hz scan rate.

Like I said, most people are still looking at 60Hz today in their TVs.

Now if you want to mention crappy magnetic ballasts for fluorescent lighting and low cycles...

Televisions != monitors != film.

First, monitors are viewed up close, which means more of the image is in your peripheral vision, where flicker is more noticeable. This is also why flicker appeared worse on a 21" monitor than it did on a 14" monitor. Second, monitors are often displaying large fields of solid color, whereas the relatively low brightness, the motion, and the variegation of the image typically reduce perception of flicker. Third, NTSC, PAL, and SECAM all interlace, which doubles their effective flicker rate. Fourth, it's possible, though I don't know this for certain, that CRTs intended for TVs utilized phosphors with longer afterglows.

Film is 24fps, but each frame is "flickered" two to four times by shuttering the continuous light source behind the film, bringing the "refresh rate" up to at least 48Hz, and as much as 96Hz.

You're right. I wonder why a 60hz CRT computer monitor looks very flickery to me, while a 60hz (well, 30hz interlaced) television set doesn't.

It's probably got something to do with the different designs of CRT computer monitors versus television sets. Monitors are crisper and probably have a phosphor that got a lower latency time. Maybe that has something to do with it.

Regardless of that: Putting a 30hz LCD shutter in front of my eyes will make my brain explode after about 10 minutes.

Flicker is seeing the scan rate. Or rather when the scan rate is below a certain threshold which is different for everyone, based largely on the persistence of the image in your brain (determined by how many rod cells in your retinas). 60Hz is far fast enough for most people not to notice, regardless of how close you sit in front of the display. Everyone in Europe must have gone completely batshit insane with 50Hz.

Sure, of course the light in a projector needs to turn on and off. Otherwise you'd never be able to watch anything but a blurry seemingly vertical-scrolly "image" on the screen. 48Hz, quite a bit below 60, doesn't provide an appreciable flicker in theaters regardless of how close you sit to the screen - at least not to me (damn I'll never sit in the front row again). I've also not heard of anyone else mentioning it either actually.

One thing that gets me is definitely color combinations, though they don't cause flicker, they hurt to look at. Some for just a few seconds, other only after prolonged reading. Dark background and light writing is pure shit for lengthy reading.

Anyway, IME, crappy screens coupled with shitty lighting provided the headaches, not simply a 60Hz refresh rate. Brightness plays a big issue as well, so make sure you're not staring a stuff that's too dim for too long. There's a lot more going on with the current 3D tech that's likely to cause all sorts of problems, including focus/strain issues which is one of the biggest complaints I've read about.

No it doesn't, that's what the shutter is for. Try striking an arc lamp 24 times a second.

I didn't suffer a headache watching the 3D version of Avatar, but I did suffer a bit of eye strain. It was to the point I had to rest my eyes for a few seconds by either taking off the glasses or shutting one eye.

Te me items that should have been close to me were just blurry, and almost double vision. Andym was sat just a couple of meters away and didn't get that, so it's my eyes not the projection. Objects at mid distance were ok, but the overall effect isn't what I call 3D (like real like is!

I figure that making a 3D system that works for everyone must be nearly impossible. I'm just a bit unlucky that the effect just isn't worth it for me to ever watch another 3D film.

Cheers

Cris.

Yeah, I shouldn't have written it like that. The "projected light" needs to be strobed, not the lamp providing the light itself.

When I worked tech support for Nokia monitors in the US, probably a third of my calls were "my eyes really hurt when I use this monitor". I got more appreciation from explaining to people how to change their video drivers from 60Hz to 72Hz or better than for anything else, by far.

Your argument that "60Hz is far fast enough for most people not to notice" has no basis in reality. Just because your eyes are too slow to notice the flicker doesn't mean that you are the norm.


Actually, you've got that backwards. If you want to reduce perception of flicker, your background lighting should be as bright as possible in comparison to the relatively dim monitor. The flood of additional light will make the relatively low flicker of the monitor less perceptible.