Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Warning- Avatar

[Vaj]

On Dec 20, 2009, at 7:22 PM, off_world_beings wrote:

> > Several times angelic-like females have descended and made love  
to me in my sleep. Not joking. Its as real as it gets. The movie  
will not capture that. The feeling stays with you for days, weeks,  
and even for a lifetime you can recall it and it comes back. Very  
humbling feeling mixed with sweet love.

> >
> Yes, but does she let you see the children?>>

Children are for mortal humans  like yourself for example. The  
rest of the universe does not indulge in that practice.



You thought I meant physical children? LOL!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Warning- Avatar

[yifuxero]

rightbasically a high-tech version of:
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1638307584/tt0099348

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon  wrote:
>
> Don't get me wrong, I liked the film and would recommend it to anybody. I 
> just found it *predictable* as if Cameron's favorite movies were Star Wars 
> and Dances With Wolves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Bhairitu 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sun, December 20, 2009 9:55:07 AM
> Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Warning- Avatar
> 
>   
> Vaj wrote:
> > On Dec 20, 2009, at 12:25 PM, Mike Dixon wrote:
> >
> > 
> >> Vaj, you didn't find Avatar predictable? It's the story of the American 
> >> Indian all over again, greedy whites, stealing land from the much more 
> >> intuned, peace loving, indiginous people. They did everything but give the 
> >> Na'vi smallpox infested blankets. No blood for expensive minerals!
> >> 
> >
> > I already knew the plot before I saw it so it's hard to say! I was 
> > responding more to "predictable" as a negative comment in terms of it being 
> > a pro-Green planetary culture vs. a more Conservative- Republican corporate 
> > war machine: Hollywood libs diss Republicans.
> >
> > What was your gut reaction to Colonel Quaritch's statements that the N'avi 
> > embrace "tree-hugger crap" and that what was necessary was a "shock and awe 
> > campaign" of "pre-emptive action," as he "fights terrorists with terror"?
> > 
> 
> The usual business associate that likes to go see movies with me isn't 
> big on this one either. Cameron is often long on hype and short on 
> story. So far no one has said it will win a golden globe. I saw "2012" 
> but Emmerich is humble compared to Cameron. I'll have to check to see 
> if the schools are out all this week. If not I may go check it out 
> otherwise I'll skip it until school is back in session if I still chose 
> to go. BTW, 3D digital performances are as good the last day it is 
> shown as the first because there is no film to scratch. That is unless 
> some dumbshit kid hasn't thrown his drink at the screen and the theater 
> hasn't cleaned it properly (or replaced it in some cases).
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Warning- Avatar

[Mike Dixon]

Don't get me wrong, I liked the film and would recommend it to anybody. I just 
found it *predictable* as if Cameron's favorite movies were Star Wars and 
Dances With Wolves.





From: Bhairitu 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, December 20, 2009 9:55:07 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Warning- Avatar

  
Vaj wrote:
> On Dec 20, 2009, at 12:25 PM, Mike Dixon wrote:
>
> 
>> Vaj, you didn't find Avatar predictable? It's the story of the American 
>> Indian all over again, greedy whites, stealing land from the much more 
>> intuned, peace loving, indiginous people. They did everything but give the 
>> Na'vi smallpox infested blankets. No blood for expensive minerals!
>> 
>
> I already knew the plot before I saw it so it's hard to say! I was responding 
> more to "predictable" as a negative comment in terms of it being a pro-Green 
> planetary culture vs. a more Conservative- Republican corporate war machine: 
> Hollywood libs diss Republicans.
>
> What was your gut reaction to Colonel Quaritch's statements that the N'avi 
> embrace "tree-hugger crap" and that what was necessary was a "shock and awe 
> campaign" of "pre-emptive action," as he "fights terrorists with terror"?
> 

The usual business associate that likes to go see movies with me isn't 
big on this one either. Cameron is often long on hype and short on 
story. So far no one has said it will win a golden globe. I saw "2012" 
but Emmerich is humble compared to Cameron. I'll have to check to see 
if the schools are out all this week. If not I may go check it out 
otherwise I'll skip it until school is back in session if I still chose 
to go. BTW, 3D digital performances are as good the last day it is 
shown as the first because there is no film to scratch. That is unless 
some dumbshit kid hasn't thrown his drink at the screen and the theater 
hasn't cleaned it properly (or replaced it in some cases).





  

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Warning- Avatar

[Bhairitu]

Vaj wrote:
> An interesting aside, at the beginning of the previews where you're told to 
> put on your 3D glasses, the theatre I saw it at opened with a 3D advert. by 
> the US Air Force. It was very clearly targeted at kids and teens. The tagline 
> is "It's not science fiction: it's what we do every day; it's the United 
> States Air Force." The hidden tagline is 'if you like video games and Sci-fi, 
> you'll just love killing people with us, you've never have to see the blood. 
> Sign up now!'
>
> I'm finding all movies for the last several years have cheesy military 
> advertisements in with the previews. This was the first 3D one.
>   

Depends on the theater.  The one nearby doesn't show ads just movie 
trailers.  The CineMark chain OTOH has way too many ads IMO including 
military ads.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Warning- Avatar

[Mike Dixon]

I guess it was more predictable than I imagined, but writing a story line with 
a statement like Col.Quaritch's comment is typical for Hollywood where everyone 
trips over themselves trying to prove they are more *sensitive and 
compassionate* than anybody else. I guess it's a guilt trip for playing 
*pretend* for a living.





From: Vaj 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, December 20, 2009 9:44:45 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Warning- Avatar

  


On Dec 20, 2009, at 12:25 PM, Mike Dixon wrote:

Vaj, you didn't find Avatar predictable? It's the story of the American Indian 
all over again, greedy whites, stealing land from the much more intuned, peace 
loving, indiginous people. They did everything but give the Na'vi smallpox 
infested blankets. No blood for expensive minerals!

I already knew the plot before I saw it so it's hard to say! I was responding 
more to "predictable" as a negative comment in terms of it being a pro-Green 
planetary culture vs. a more Conservative- Republican corporate war machine: 
Hollywood libs diss Republicans.

What was your gut reaction to Colonel Quaritch's statements that the N'avi 
embrace "tree-hugger crap" and that what was necessary was a "shock and awe 
campaign" of "pre-emptive action," as he "fights terrorists with terror"?



  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Warning- Avatar

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , Vaj  wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 19, 2009, at 10:57 PM, off_world_beings wrote:
>
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , Vaj  wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Dec 19, 2009, at 4:00 PM, off_world_beings wrote:
> > >
> > > > Oh ok, my bad.
> > > > (sounds awful though --  like watching JaJa Binks in 3d :-)
> > >
> > >
> > > It was actually quite good. However if you are a conservative or a
Republican, the jabs in it--several directly aimed at Bush Admin
policies and some taken from Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld and Neocon way of
thinking--will make you say things like Mike said.>>
> >
> > Well that shouldn't be a problem for me, seeing as how I was the
first on FFL to support Obama.
> >
> > < It was a very "tantric" movie in that it dealt well with
inter-dimensional congress>>
> >
> > Several times angelic-like females have descended and made love to
me in my sleep. Not joking. Its as real as it gets. The movie will not
capture that. The feeling stays with you for days, weeks, and even for a
lifetime you can recall it and it comes back. Very humbling feeling
mixed with sweet love.
> >
> Yes, but does she let you see the children?>>

Children are for mortal humans  like yourself for example. The rest
of the universe does not indulge in that practice.

OffWorld

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Warning- Avatar

[Vaj]

On Dec 20, 2009, at 1:51 PM, Vaj wrote:

> An interesting aside, at the beginning of the previews where you're told to 
> put on your 3D glasses, the theatre I saw it at opened with a 3D advert. by 
> the US Air Force. It was very clearly targeted at kids and teens. The tagline 
> is "It's not science fiction: it's what we do every day; it's the United 
> States Air Force." The hidden tagline is 'if you like video games and Sci-fi, 
> you'll just love killing people with us, you've never have to see the blood. 
> Sign up now!'
> 
> I'm finding all movies for the last several years have cheesy military 
> advertisements in with the previews. This was the first 3D one.

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123165646

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiB3vrhPDNs

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Warning- Avatar

[Vaj]

On Dec 20, 2009, at 12:55 PM, Bhairitu wrote:

> Vaj wrote:
> > On Dec 20, 2009, at 12:25 PM, Mike Dixon wrote:
> >
> > 
> >> Vaj, you didn't find Avatar predictable? It's the story of the American 
> >> Indian all over again, greedy whites, stealing land from the much more 
> >> intuned, peace loving, indiginous people. They did everything but give the 
> >> Na'vi smallpox infested blankets. No blood for expensive minerals!
> >> 
> >
> > I already knew the plot before I saw it so it's hard to say! I was 
> > responding more to "predictable" as a negative comment in terms of it being 
> > a pro-Green planetary culture vs. a more Conservative-Republican corporate 
> > war machine: Hollywood libs diss Republicans.
> >
> > What was your gut reaction to Colonel Quaritch's statements that the N'avi 
> > embrace "tree-hugger crap" and that what was necessary was a "shock and awe 
> > campaign" of "pre-emptive action," as he "fights terrorists with terror"?
> > 
> 
> The usual business associate that likes to go see movies with me isn't 
> big on this one either. Cameron is often long on hype and short on 
> story. 


The "story" here is largely non-verbal, as much of the story is about an 
advanced spiritual "technology", interfacing with a Brahman-like "unified 
field", which is portrayed visually and which only needs to be briefly 
described verbally.

An interesting aside, at the beginning of the previews where you're told to put 
on your 3D glasses, the theatre I saw it at opened with a 3D advert. by the US 
Air Force. It was very clearly targeted at kids and teens. The tagline is "It's 
not science fiction: it's what we do every day; it's the United States Air 
Force." The hidden tagline is 'if you like video games and Sci-fi, you'll just 
love killing people with us, you've never have to see the blood. Sign up now!'

I'm finding all movies for the last several years have cheesy military 
advertisements in with the previews. This was the first 3D one.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Warning- Avatar

[Bhairitu]

Vaj wrote:
> On Dec 20, 2009, at 12:25 PM, Mike Dixon wrote:
>
>   
>> Vaj, you didn't find Avatar predictable? It's the story of the American 
>> Indian all over again, greedy whites, stealing land from the much more 
>> intuned, peace loving, indiginous people. They did everything but give the 
>> Na'vi smallpox infested blankets. No blood for expensive minerals!
>> 
>
> I already knew the plot before I saw it so it's hard to say! I was responding 
> more to "predictable" as a negative comment in terms of it being a pro-Green 
> planetary culture vs. a more Conservative-Republican corporate war machine: 
> Hollywood libs diss Republicans.
>
> What was your gut reaction to Colonel Quaritch's statements that the N'avi 
> embrace "tree-hugger crap" and that what was necessary was a "shock and awe 
> campaign" of "pre-emptive action," as he "fights terrorists with terror"?
>   

The usual business associate that likes to go see movies with me isn't 
big on this one either.  Cameron is often long on hype and short on 
story.  So far no one has said it will win a golden globe.  I saw "2012" 
but Emmerich is humble compared to Cameron.  I'll have to check to see 
if the schools are out all this week.  If not I may go check it out 
otherwise I'll skip it until school is back in session if I still chose 
to go.  BTW, 3D digital performances are as good the last day it is 
shown as the first because there is no film to scratch.  That is unless 
some dumbshit kid hasn't  thrown his drink at the screen and the theater 
hasn't cleaned it properly (or replaced it in some cases).

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Warning- Avatar

[Vaj]

On Dec 20, 2009, at 12:25 PM, Mike Dixon wrote:

> Vaj, you didn't find Avatar predictable? It's the story of the American 
> Indian all over again, greedy whites, stealing land from the much more 
> intuned, peace loving, indiginous people. They did everything but give the 
> Na'vi smallpox infested blankets. No blood for expensive minerals!

I already knew the plot before I saw it so it's hard to say! I was responding 
more to "predictable" as a negative comment in terms of it being a pro-Green 
planetary culture vs. a more Conservative-Republican corporate war machine: 
Hollywood libs diss Republicans.

What was your gut reaction to Colonel Quaritch's statements that the N'avi 
embrace "tree-hugger crap" and that what was necessary was a "shock and awe 
campaign" of "pre-emptive action," as he "fights terrorists with terror"?

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Warning- Avatar

[Mike Dixon]

Vaj, you didn't find Avatar predictable? It's the story of the American Indian 
all over again, greedy whites, stealing land from the much more intuned, peace 
loving, indiginous people. They did everything but give the Na'vi smallpox 
infested blankets. No blood for expensive minerals! 

From: Vaj 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, December 20, 2009 9:04:29 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Warning- Avatar

  


On Dec 20, 2009, at 11:14 AM, Mike Dixon wrote:

"will make you say things like Mike said"? What, predictable or Comparing it to 
*Star Wars* and *Dances With Wolves* or that I liked it?


"Predictable" .



  

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Warning- Avatar

[Vaj]

On Dec 20, 2009, at 11:14 AM, Mike Dixon wrote:

> "will make you say things like Mike said"? What, predictable or Comparing it 
> to *Star Wars* and *Dances With Wolves* or that I liked it?


"Predictable".

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Warning- Avatar

[Mike Dixon]

"will make you say things like Mike said"? What, predictable or Comparing it to 
*Star Wars* and *Dances With Wolves* or that I liked it?





From: Vaj 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, December 19, 2009 7:25:13 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Warning- Avatar

  


On Dec 19, 2009, at 4:00 PM, off_world_beings wrote:

Oh ok, my bad. 
>(sounds awful though --  like watching JaJa Binks in 3d :-)


It was actually quite good. However if you are a conservative or a Republican, 
the jabs in it--several directly aimed at Bush Admin policies and some taken 
from Bush-Cheney- Rumsfeld and Neocon way of thinking--will make you say things 
like Mike said. It was a very "tantric" movie in that it dealt well with 
inter-dimensional congress and the idea of interdependent origination as a web 
naturally connecting all sentience.



  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Warning- Avatar

[lurkernomore20002000]

I saw it Friday night. I thought there would be a huge throng, so I picked a 
low traffic theatre, and it didn't have 3D, so I was disappointed there.  But I 
enjoyed it.  I felt he really got the "mystical, back to nature, indigenous 
people tuned into nature" part right.  When I go to a movie, as long as I don't 
feel I wasted my money, or more importantly, time, then I feel pretty good.  My 
kid wants to see 2012, and I heard that it is sort of stupid, but the SE make 
it entertaining.  Yea, entertaining, (and a little escape).  I Can always use 
some of that. Also plan to see The Road, today if possible.  

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon  wrote:
>
> I saw it last night at the 12:01 AM showing. It's a wonderful movie but very 
> predictable. Kind of a *Star Wars/ Dances With Wolves* kind of movie. 3D is 
> excellent and worth seeing.
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Warning- Avatar

[Vaj]

On Dec 19, 2009, at 10:57 PM, off_world_beings wrote:

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > On Dec 19, 2009, at 4:00 PM, off_world_beings wrote:
> > 
> > > Oh ok, my bad. 
> > > (sounds awful though --  like watching JaJa Binks in 3d :-)
> > 
> > 
> > It was actually quite good. However if you are a conservative or a 
> > Republican, the jabs in it--several directly aimed at Bush Admin policies 
> > and some taken from Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld and Neocon way of thinking--will 
> > make you say things like Mike said.>>
> 
> Well that shouldn't be a problem for me, seeing as how I was the first on FFL 
> to support Obama.
> 
> < It was a very "tantric" movie in that it dealt well with inter-dimensional 
> congress>>
> 
> Several times angelic-like females have descended and made love to me in my 
> sleep. Not joking. Its as real as it gets. The movie will not capture that. 
> The feeling stays with you for days, weeks, and even for a lifetime you can 
> recall it and it comes back. Very humbling feeling mixed with sweet love.
> 
Yes, but does she let you see the children?

Buddhist and Shaivite yogis have actually perfected such interdimensional 
congress for the expansion of consciousness, but I think it's fair to say, not 
all such unions are necessarily evolutionary. But union with a yakshini is many 
times more intense than with a human. 


V
Of the Sabbath of the Adepts
In the black hours of earth, when the Christian superstition with fell blight 
withered most malignantly the
peoples of Europe, when our own Holy Order was dispersed and the sanctity of 
its preceptories lay violate,
there were yet found certain to hold Truth in their hearts, and, loving Light, 
to bear the Lamp of Virtue
beneath the Cloak of Secrecy. And these at certain seasons went at night by 
ways open or hidden to heaths
and mountains, and there dancing together, and with strange suppers and spells 
diverse, did call forth Him,
whom the enemy called ignorantly Satan, and was in truth the Great God Pan, or 
Bacchus, or even that
Baphomet whom the Templars worshipped secretly, and yet worship as in the VI° 
all Illustrious Knights of
the Holy Order of Kadosch, all Dame Companions of the Holy Grail are taught to 
do, or BABALON the
Beautiful, or even Zeus Apollo of the Greeks.
And each when first inducted to the revel was made partner of that Incarnate 
One by the Consummation of
the Rite of Marriage.
Consider of this.

VI
Of Classical Fables
The Ancients of every nation report their heroes to have been born of the 
marriage of Gods with mortals. As,
Romulus and Remus begotten of the God Mars upon a vestal Virgin, Hercules of 
Jove, Buddha of Vishnu in
the form of a white elephant with six tusks, Jesus of Jehovah upon a virgin, 
and many another. Even true
Gods were born of mortal mothers, as Dionysius of Semele.
Also they recount many loves of heaven for earth, Diana for Endymion, Zeus for 
Leda, Danae, Europa, and
the rest; even Hades issued from his gloomy kingdom to ravish the maid 
Persephone.
There are also loves of Gods for nymphs, Bacchus for the Ariadne, Zeus for Io, 
Pan for Syrinx; there is no
end of these. And satyrs, fawns, centaurs, dryads, a thousand gracious tribes, 
leap lightly and lustfully
through their legends.
Again we have the loves of fairies for mankind, and the commerce of the Beni 
Elohim with the daughters of
men; and yet again the marriage of Orpheus with Eurydice a nymph, and the fatal 
nets that Laura, Melusina,
the Sirens, Lilith and many another cast for men.
It is even said that to every Neophyte of the Order of A\A\ appeareth a demon 
in the form of a woman to
pervert him; within Our own knowledge have not less than nine brethren been 
utterly cast out thereby.
There are also vain loves, as that of Ixion for Hera, of Actaeon for Artemis.
Consider of this.

VII
Of Certain Greek Rites
Among the peoples of the Balkan Peninsula and especially the Greeks, beneath 
the bush of their false
Christianity, is hidden the wheat of Demeter. And even as the Muslim trust to 
be united by death to the Hur
al’ Ayn of Paradise, so do these others yet think that earthly marriage is but 
fornication, for that Death is a
nuptial wherein the soul is united to that God or Goddess to whom on earth his 
lust aspired. Thus, even in
the embraces of their lovers, their hearts were fixed on Artemis or on 
Aphrodite or on Ares or on Apollo, as
the inner tendency urges and the intuition thereof proclaims.
Consider of this.

VIII
Of Succubi and Incubi
>From all time the life of man has now and again overflowed, in sleep, without 
>will, and only reflected itself
dimly and fantastically by dream into his knowledge. Now since naught can be 
lost on any plane, but only
changed in appearance, the inner substance of this life-stuff does indeed beget 
monsters in part material,
which the doctors of the Middle Ages called Incubi or Succubi according as they 
performed the functions of
male or female. These, too, b

[FairfieldLife] Re: Warning- Avatar

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , Vaj  wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 19, 2009, at 4:00 PM, off_world_beings wrote:
>
> > Oh ok, my bad.
> > (sounds awful though --  like watching JaJa Binks in 3d :-)
>
>
> It was actually quite good. However if you are a conservative or a
Republican, the jabs in it--several directly aimed at Bush Admin
policies and some taken from Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld and Neocon way of
thinking--will make you say things like Mike said.>>

Well that shouldn't be a problem for me, seeing as how I was the first
on FFL to support Obama.

< It was a very "tantric" movie in that it dealt well with
inter-dimensional congress>>

Several times angelic-like females have descended and made love to me in
my sleep. Not joking. Its as real as it gets. The movie will not capture
that. The feeling stays with you for days, weeks, and even for a
lifetime you can recall it and it comes back. Very humbling feeling
mixed with sweet love.

<< and the idea of interdependent origination as a web naturally
connecting all sentience.>>

Which my mommy taught me when I was 5 years old. Seems obvious to me.

OffWorld

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Warning- Avatar

[Vaj]

On Dec 19, 2009, at 4:00 PM, off_world_beings wrote:

> Oh ok, my bad. 
> (sounds awful though --  like watching JaJa Binks in 3d :-)


It was actually quite good. However if you are a conservative or a Republican, 
the jabs in it--several directly aimed at Bush Admin policies and some taken 
from Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld and Neocon way of thinking--will make you say things 
like Mike said. It was a very "tantric" movie in that it dealt well with 
inter-dimensional congress and the idea of interdependent origination as a web 
naturally connecting all sentience.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Warning- Avatar

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> , Mike Dixon 
wrote:
>
> I had to wear special glasses to watch the movie in *3D*.
>
>
> 
> From: off_world_beings mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com> >
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Fri, December 18, 2009 8:18:27 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Warning- Avatar
>
> Â
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@
wrote:
> > >
> > > I saw it last night at the 12:01 AMÂ showing. It's a wonderful
movie but very predictable. Kind of a *Star Wars/ Dances With Wolves*
kind of movie. 3D is excellent and worth seeing.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Mike:
> >
> > How does it compare to IMAX 3-D? Is it even better than that?
> >
> > I've seen 3 or 4 IMAX's in 3-D the past couple of years and I must
say I was very impressed. Prior to that, I was only familiar with the
3-D technology from the '60s and I wasn't very impressed (I was more
impressed with John Waters' Smellovision or Odorama, whatever it was he
called it!).
> >
> > So if this is, as touted, a 3-D technology that is a quantum leap
over even the IMAX 3-D, it must be incredible.
> >
> > By the way, I have already resigned myself to the expectation that
the movie itself will not be so great. I wasn't a fan of Titanic at all,
although impressed with what Cameron achieved with it (a great
Cinderella story). So I'll go see Avatar just for the historical aspect
of it.>>
> It is not 3d. That is a misnomer. They call it 3d because the graphic
artist can spin an object around and add color, textures, shading like a
sculptor, and then animate it (make it move around.) The effects are
applied to a "wireframe" such as you see me spinning a simple version of
the concept here, -- http://screencast <http://screencast> .
com/t/ZWE2ZmIzOÂ Â  -- but this is all that "3d" means here.Â
You do not get the impression that there are 3 dimensions such as in a
IMAX movie where you wear special glasses that allow the eyes to see 2
very slightly different views of the same image just like in real life,
which is what gives us our sense of 3d in real life.
> These movies are no less 3d than a painting by Carravagio 400 years
ago, and if traditional animation artists were given as muchÂ
time and money as these movies are given to create a "3d" animation
using only paint to create the shading and textures, the results would
far exceed these highly expensive animations that are given the misnoer
3d. These movies take 3-4 years and 4 times as much as a traditional
Disney animation such as Beauty and the Beast to make (which take about
a year to make.)
> All I can say is the results are not worth it visually. If a
director such as Cameron spent as much money and as much time on a
traditional animation he would go down in history as one of the greatest
visionary in animated cinema of the era, since tradtional artists
given that amount of time and money would create something no-one has
seen before, and would far surpass the visuals of these so-called "3d"
movies.
> There is no 3d in these movies. It is a flat screen and there is no
3d. no more 3d than any movie. It is all 2d.
> The only 3d is when you wear those special glasses, or there is a
hologram. A hologram is somewhat 3d. An animated hologram would be the
unltimate 3d animation. Everything else is pure 2d dimensional
> OffWorld>

Oh ok, my bad.
(sounds awful though --  like watching JaJa Binks in 3d :-)

OffWorldAgain

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Warning- Avatar

[Mike Dixon]

By the way, I think there are three different versions, One in 3D, another not 
in 3D and then the IMAX, which I'm not sure if it's a 3D version.





From: Mike Dixon 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, December 19, 2009 8:40:59 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Warning- Avatar

  
Yes.





From: Rick Archer 
To: FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Fri, December 18, 2009 9:39:55 PM
Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Warning- Avatar

  
From:FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:FairfieldLi f...@yahoogroups. com] 
On Behalf Of off_world_beings
Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 10:18 PM
To: FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Warning- Avatar
It is not 3d. That is a misnomer. They call it 3d because the graphic artist 
can spin an object around and add color, textures, shading like a sculptor, and 
then animate it (make it move around.) The effects are applied to a "wireframe" 
such as you see me spinning a simple version of the concept here, -- 
http://screencast. com/t/ZWE2ZmIzO   -- but this is all that "3d" means here.  
You do not get the impression that there are 3 dimensions such as in a IMAX 
movie where you wear special glasses that allow the eyes to see 2 very slightly 
different views of the same image just like in real life, which is what gives 
us our sense of 3d in real life.
These movies are no less 3d than a painting by Carravagio 400 years ago, and if 
traditional animation artists were given as much time and money as these movies 
are given to create a "3d" animation using only paint to create the shading and 
textures, the results would far exceed these highly expensive animations that 
are given the misnoer 3d. These movies take 3-4 years and 4 times as much as a 
traditional Disney animation such as Beauty and the Beast to make (which take 
about a year to make.) 
All I can say is the results are not worth it visually. If a director such as 
Cameron spent as much money and as much time on a traditional animation he 
would go down in history as one of the greatest visionary in animated cinema of 
the era, since tradtional artists given that amount of time and money would 
create something no-one has seen before, and would far surpass the visuals of 
these so-called "3d" movies.
There is no 3d in these movies. It is a flat screen and there is no 3d. no more 
3d than any movie. It is all 2d.
The only 3d is when you wear those special glasses, or there is a hologram. A 
hologram is somewhat 3d. An animated hologram would be the unltimate 3d 
animation. Everything else is pure 2d dimensional
OffWorld
So when you go to see this particular movie, do you wear special glasses?




  

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Warning- Avatar

[Mike Dixon]

Yes.





From: Rick Archer 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, December 18, 2009 9:39:55 PM
Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Warning- Avatar

  
From:FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:FairfieldLi f...@yahoogroups. com] 
On Behalf Of off_world_beings
Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 10:18 PM
To: FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Warning- Avatar
It is not 3d. That is a misnomer. They call it 3d because the graphic artist 
can spin an object around and add color, textures, shading like a sculptor, and 
then animate it (make it move around.) The effects are applied to a "wireframe" 
such as you see me spinning a simple version of the concept here, -- 
http://screencast. com/t/ZWE2ZmIzO   -- but this is all that "3d" means here.  
You do not get the impression that there are 3 dimensions such as in a IMAX 
movie where you wear special glasses that allow the eyes to see 2 very slightly 
different views of the same image just like in real life, which is what gives 
us our sense of 3d in real life.
These movies are no less 3d than a painting by Carravagio 400 years ago, and if 
traditional animation artists were given as much time and money as these movies 
are given to create a "3d" animation using only paint to create the shading and 
textures, the results would far exceed these highly expensive animations that 
are given the misnoer 3d. These movies take 3-4 years and 4 times as much as a 
traditional Disney animation such as Beauty and the Beast to make (which take 
about a year to make.) 
All I can say is the results are not worth it visually. If a director such as 
Cameron spent as much money and as much time on a traditional animation he 
would go down in history as one of the greatest visionary in animated cinema of 
the era, since tradtional artists given that amount of time and money would 
create something no-one has seen before, and would far surpass the visuals of 
these so-called "3d" movies.
There is no 3d in these movies. It is a flat screen and there is no 3d. no more 
3d than any movie. It is all 2d.
The only 3d is when you wear those special glasses, or there is a hologram. A 
hologram is somewhat 3d. An animated hologram would be the unltimate 3d 
animation. Everything else is pure 2d dimensional
OffWorld
So when you go to see this particular movie, do you wear special glasses?



  

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Warning- Avatar

[Mike Dixon]

I had to wear special glasses to watch the movie in *3D*.



From: off_world_beings 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, December 18, 2009 8:18:27 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Warning- Avatar

  

--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@ wrote:
> >
> > I saw it last night at the 12:01 AM showing. It's a wonderful movie but 
> > very predictable. Kind of a *Star Wars/ Dances With Wolves* kind of movie. 
> > 3D is excellent and worth seeing.
> >
> 
> 
> Mike:
> 
> How does it compare to IMAX 3-D? Is it even better than that?
> 
> I've seen 3 or 4 IMAX's in 3-D the past couple of years and I must say I was 
> very impressed. Prior to that, I was only familiar with the 3-D technology 
> from the '60s and I wasn't very impressed (I was more impressed with John 
> Waters' Smellovision or Odorama, whatever it was he called it!).
> 
> So if this is, as touted, a 3-D technology that is a quantum leap over even 
> the IMAX 3-D, it must be incredible.
> 
> By the way, I have already resigned myself to the expectation that the movie 
> itself will not be so great. I wasn't a fan of Titanic at all, although 
> impressed with what Cameron achieved with it (a great Cinderella story). So 
> I'll go see Avatar just for the historical aspect of it.>>
It is not 3d. That is a misnomer. They call it 3d because the graphic artist 
can spin an object around and add color, textures, shading like a sculptor, and 
then animate it (make it move around.) The effects are applied to a "wireframe" 
such as you see me spinning a simple version of the concept here, -- 
http://screencast. com/t/ZWE2ZmIzO   -- but this is all that "3d" means 
here. You do not get the impression that there are 3 dimensions such as in a 
IMAX movie where you wear special glasses that allow the eyes to see 2 very 
slightly different views of the same image just like in real life, which is 
what gives us our sense of 3d in real life.
These movies are no less 3d than a painting by Carravagio 400 years ago, and if 
traditional animation artists were given as much time and money as these movies 
are given to create a "3d" animation using only paint to create the shading and 
textures, the results would far exceed these highly expensive animations that 
are given the misnoer 3d. These movies take 3-4 years and 4 times as much as a 
traditional Disney animation such as Beauty and the Beast to make (which take 
about a year to make.) 
All I can say is the results are not worth it visually. If a director such as 
Cameron spent as much money and as much time on a traditional animation he 
would go down in history as one of the greatest visionary in animated cinema of 
the era, since tradtional artists given that amount of time and money would 
create something no-one has seen before, and would far surpass the visuals of 
these so-called "3d" movies.
There is no 3d in these movies. It is a flat screen and there is no 3d. no more 
3d than any movie. It is all 2d.
The only 3d is when you wear those special glasses, or there is a hologram. A 
hologram is somewhat 3d. An animated hologram would be the unltimate 3d 
animation. Everything else is pure 2d dimensional
OffWorld



  

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Warning- Avatar

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of off_world_beings
Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 10:18 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Warning- Avatar
It is not 3d. That is a misnomer. They call it 3d because the graphic artist
can spin an object around and add color, textures, shading like a sculptor,
and then animate it (make it move around.) The effects are applied to a
"wireframe" such as you see me spinning a simple version of the concept
here, --  <http://screencast.com/t/ZWE2ZmIzO>
http://screencast.com/t/ZWE2ZmIzO   -- but this is all that "3d" means here.
You do not get the impression that there are 3 dimensions such as in a IMAX
movie where you wear special glasses that allow the eyes to see 2 very
slightly different views of the same image just like in real life, which is
what gives us our sense of 3d in real life.
These movies are no less 3d than a painting by Carravagio 400 years ago, and
if traditional animation artists were given as much time and money as these
movies are given to create a "3d" animation using only paint to create the
shading and textures, the results would far exceed these highly expensive
animations that are given the misnoer 3d. These movies take 3-4 years and 4
times as much as a traditional Disney animation such as Beauty and the Beast
to make (which take about a year to make.) 
All I can say is the results are not worth it visually. If a director such
as Cameron spent as much money and as much time on a traditional animation
he would go down in history as one of the greatest visionary in animated
cinema of the era, since tradtional artists given that amount of time and
money would create something no-one has seen before, and would far surpass
the visuals of these so-called "3d" movies.
There is no 3d in these movies. It is a flat screen and there is no 3d. no
more 3d than any movie. It is all 2d.
The only 3d is when you wear those special glasses, or there is a hologram.
A hologram is somewhat 3d. An animated hologram would be the unltimate 3d
animation. Everything else is pure 2d dimensional
OffWorld
So when you go to see this particular movie, do you wear special glasses?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Warning- Avatar

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk" 
wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@ wrote:
> >
> > I saw it last night at the 12:01 AM showing. It's a wonderful movie
but very predictable. Kind of a *Star Wars/ Dances With Wolves* kind of
movie. 3D is excellent and worth seeing.
> >
>
>
> Mike:
>
> How does it compare to IMAX 3-D? Is it even better than that?
>
> I've seen 3 or 4 IMAX's in 3-D the past couple of years and I must say
I was very impressed. Prior to that, I was only familiar with the 3-D
technology from the '60s and I wasn't very impressed (I was more
impressed with John Waters' Smellovision or Odorama, whatever it was he
called it!).
>
> So if this is, as touted, a 3-D technology that is a quantum leap over
even the IMAX 3-D, it must be incredible.
>
> By the way, I have already resigned myself to the expectation that the
movie itself will not be so great. I wasn't a fan of Titanic at all,
although impressed with what Cameron achieved with it (a great
Cinderella story). So I'll go see Avatar just for the historical aspect
of it.>>

It is not 3d. That is a misnomer. They call it 3d because the graphic
artist can spin an object around and add color, textures, shading like a
sculptor, and then animate it (make it move around.) The effects are
applied to a "wireframe" such as you see me spinning a simple version of
the concept here, -- http://screencast.com/t/ZWE2ZmIzO
-- but this is all that "3d"
means here.  You do not get the impression that there are 3 dimensions
such as in a IMAX movie where you wear special glasses that allow the
eyes to see 2 very slightly different views of the same image just like
in real life, which is what gives us our sense of 3d in real life.

These movies are no less 3d than a painting by Carravagio 400 years ago,
and if traditional animation artists were given as much time and money
as these movies are given to create a "3d" animation using only paint to
create the shading and textures, the results would far exceed these
highly expensive animations that are given the misnoer 3d. These movies
take 3-4 years and 4 times as much as a traditional Disney animation
such as Beauty and the Beast to make (which take about a year to make.)

All I can say is the results are not worth it visually. If a director
such as Cameron spent as much money and as much time on a traditional
animation he would go down in history as one of the greatest visionary
in animated cinema of the era, since tradtional artists given that
amount of time and money would create something no-one has seen before,
and would far surpass the visuals of these so-called "3d" movies.

There is no 3d in these movies. It is a flat screen and there is no 3d.
no more 3d than any movie. It is all 2d.

The only 3d is when you wear those special glasses, or there is a
hologram. A hologram is somewhat 3d. An animated hologram would be the
unltimate 3d animation. Everything else is pure 2d dimensional

OffWorld

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Warning- Avatar

[Mike Dixon]

 Shemp, it's the first 3D movie I've seen in many years(maybe since the 
sixties), so I can't compare it to anything, but I was very impressed. It's 
like HD on steroids! I may go back and watch it again on IMAx, I chose not to 
view it on IMAX last night because the seating wasn't great, so I settled for 
regular 3D.





From: ShempMcGurk 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, December 18, 2009 9:21:24 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Warning- Avatar

  


--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Mike Dixon  wrote:
>
> I saw it last night at the 12:01 AM showing. It's a wonderful movie but very 
> predictable. Kind of a *Star Wars/ Dances With Wolves* kind of movie. 3D is 
> excellent and worth seeing.
>

Mike:

How does it compare to IMAX 3-D? Is it even better than that?

I've seen 3 or 4 IMAX's in 3-D the past couple of years and I must say I was 
very impressed. Prior to that, I was only familiar with the 3-D technology from 
the '60s and I wasn't very impressed (I was more impressed with John Waters' 
Smellovision or Odorama, whatever it was he called it!).

So if this is, as touted, a 3-D technology that is a quantum leap over even the 
IMAX 3-D, it must be incredible.

By the way, I have already resigned myself to the expectation that the movie 
itself will not be so great. I wasn't a fan of Titanic at all, although 
impressed with what Cameron achieved with it (a great Cinderella story). So 
I'll go see Avatar just for the historical aspect of it.





  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Warning- Avatar

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon  wrote:
>
> I saw it last night at the 12:01 AM showing. It's a wonderful movie but very 
> predictable. Kind of a *Star Wars/ Dances With Wolves* kind of movie. 3D is 
> excellent and worth seeing.
>


Mike:

How does it compare to IMAX 3-D?  Is it even better than that?

I've seen 3 or 4 IMAX's in 3-D the past couple of years and I must say I was 
very impressed.  Prior to that, I was only familiar with the 3-D technology 
from the '60s and I wasn't very impressed (I was more impressed with John 
Waters' Smellovision or Odorama, whatever it was he called it!).

So if this is, as touted, a 3-D technology that is a quantum leap over even the 
IMAX 3-D, it must be incredible.

By the way, I have already resigned myself to the expectation that the movie 
itself will not be so great.  I wasn't a fan of Titanic at all, although 
impressed with what Cameron achieved with it (a great Cinderella story). So 
I'll go see Avatar just for the historical aspect of it.