Movie is not good.

it's an amazing experience that has to be seen in a theater

cameron harps on the fact that people are not going to movie theaters anymore and instead like to sit at home streaming shit

that is offensive to an artist like cameron, who's movies are MADE to be seen on the big screen

this had to be seen in a theater to be appreciated

I understand your take, but in front of my 75" flat screen in the basement with a decent/good 5.1 Pinnacle speakers with a wet bar and a toilet beats $20 for popcorn and a coke in most cases.

Gone is your grandpas' 19" tube TV.

Combine all of the above and

You can put only so much lipstick on a pig.

Just my opinion though.

It doesn’t compare to a 100+ft imax theater with no distractions.

And I’m not a big theater guy. The Batman is the only other movie I’ve watched in theaters since the start of Covid. And I’m about to see Avatar for a second time. I probably watched the original Avatar in one sitting at home the same amount as I did in theaters which is twice.

This isn’t about the story in Avatar 2 or whatever, it’s about the viewing. And if you have any desire to see the movie, IMO it must be done in theaters. And IMAX if possible

Eh. I'm sick of movie theater pricing. Movies are better on the big screen but I'd rather watch them in the comfort of my own home. I don't have much disposable income these days so some things had to be sacrificed.

Cameron can go **** himself complaining about it.

by the way, i paid 8 bucks for matinee

come on man

Hollywood turned people off of movie going. You'll have to excuse me if I don't weep for Hollywood now that the bill for that has come due because people have enough quality equipment at home to make going to the theater only a modest upgrade, at most.

AVATAR 2
 

Kansas city has better options than Topeka. We don't have early morning matinees and we only have two theaters. One sucks. The other has inflated prices.

Our matinee prices are almost $14. I can own the movie for a few dollars more and watch it as much as I want.

Same here and was even better this time around on a modern laser projector. These were both clearly made with the intent to be seen in 3D on a giant screen. I have little interest in watching either again at home and I have a pretty good setup.

Following the first Avater, the studios used 3D as an effects add on to try to justify a premium on ticket prices and mostly resulted in a worse moviegoing experience. It either added little to no depth or just had a worse picture like Clay is complaining about.

I paid $19. Its a 3 hr movie. Thats cheap entertainment. In fact, thats the cheapest possible entertainment option for a weekend night possible. What else can you do for less than $20?

Hell that might not even get you 2 decent beers at a restaurant these days. The quality of some of these more modern theaters like AMC Prime or a real IMAX are also a big difference from back in the day when tickets were under $10.

I will side a bit with 007. In my small town they just upgraded the 1950's seats with 1990's seats. We now have cup holders on both arms! And nicely padded seats!

Movie going is situationally dependent based upon population density and logistics.

I went to a theatre in a large city and it was outstanding. I could even order some food and an adult beverage. I could definitely understand movie viewing under those circumstances.

So they are really making 5 of these things? I knew they were making 3, but someone told me 5.

I think a big part of the success of the first one was the experience. No one had seen a 3-D movie of that high a quality before. It wasn't the offset image thing or the stupid colored glasses thing. And it was a perfect amusement park ride experience with a few helpful chemicals of your choice. The color palate and the bizarre world itself.

Is this movie going to be "an experience" like the first?

If they keep making $2B+ each time, I don't see why they would ever stop making them.