Go see it. And if possible, see it in IMAX 3D with good seats. Yes, it contained some gimmicky 3D shots, but not that many, and overall the immersion worked well.

It's easily the best movie I've seen all year, beating out Star Trek, District 9, and Fantastic Mr Fox.

On my list if I can convince the wife to go

I can't tell if you're reviewing the effects or the story/movie.

Effects are nice and all, but I have no interest in sitting through a 3-hour screensaver, which is the impression that I get from the ads. Well, I suppose there are all those hackneyed sci-fi clichés, too.

I've been lied to by ads before, though, so my impression may well be wrong.

Bitt, I'm in the same boat as you, but I've read a couple of reviews that say it's a great movie outside of the effects. Even if it is "Dances with Wolves" in space.

Ebert, who I generally agree with, gave it four stars. It's important to note that he gave Armageddon, a movie that is most definitely nothing but special effects, but which frequently gets good reviews anyway, one star.

I tend to agree with Ebert as well, and I've had the same concerns.

I've not been excited by the movie at all leading up to the release. I think a lot has to do with the way it's been marketed to death. You'd think that such an expensive movie wouldn't leave much in the budget for marketing [kidding], but this thing has had way too many tie-ins. The worst I've seen was an episode of Bones a couple weeks ago. Almost the entire episode revolved around Avatar, including a segment where they played practically the entire trailer with the characters watching it during the damn show. That really pissed me off and was enough to get me to skip it entirely.

But now that reviews are coming in, it really does sound like the movie its self is quite good (apparently Zoe Saldana's performance is particularly good, even with all the CG laid on top of her), and the effects might be even better than we were told they'd be.

I'm approaching it this way: there's an Imax 3D theater near me in D.C., and I'll check it out as an amusement park ride. If I so happen to see a good movie while I'm at it, great. Either way I've been told the visual experience is spectacular.

*side note*
I've not experienced this myself, but can anyone speak to the poorer experience one gets at an AMC IMAX? Aziz Ansari's somewhat famous rant really put me off of trying it out (not that there's been much I've wanted to see since then). All I know is that the IMAX website now shows many more IMAX 3D screens in my area than there were before, and the new theaters are ones I've been to, so I know they didn't build new screens in them. I'm with Aziz, I don't want to spend IMAX money if I'm not getting the full IMAX experience. I might spend a buck or two, but not full price...

Stop paying attention to the marketing department, and pay attention to the actual movie creators by seeing the movie. It will be well worth it. Much like my industry, marketing is done by a separate group of people paid to hype things. I'm not going to let their work ruin the actual movie.

And Matt, odds are the marketing team was given a huge bucket of money due to the cost of the actual film. The more a movie costs, the more marketing is going to try and pull in as many people as possible with tie-ins everywhere to recoup costs. Yes, marketing in many cases may just be trying to polish a turd, but not so with Avatar.

I just got back from seeing it a second time, this time at a normal screen but with Real 3D. Still just as impressed with the movie, and debating where it fits on my all time movie list now.

The story may have it's weak points, but overall I found it quite good. And just the style of the film (outside the effects) worked really well. One of the things I realized recently is that it's a nice solid single story. It's not bouncing around between multiple subplots and such. Thats probably part of the reason I am still surprised that it's nearly 3 hours long. It feels shorter, even after seeing it again.

Put another way, most of the crowd clapped when it ended on opening day. And today, most of the audience clapped when it ended. So both the "must see" and the "well, it looks good enough to see" crowds are really enjoying it.

I'm now debating when I want to see it a third time. I'll probably wait till I'm back in Austin to see it at a civilized theater though. I had to stand up and ask the person behind me to stop kicking my chair about 5 minutes in.

Is that an Amercan thing or does it just not happen in the north of England. I don't think I've ever witnessed anyone in an audience applauding at the end of a film. It's not like the actors can hear you!

Pretty much every film I see nowadays at the cinema is marred by some kind of idiot. Whether it's talking, chucking popcorn or phones going off etc. A friend of mine has simply given up going to regular screenings because it just pissed him off so much. One of the cinemas near me does over 18's only screenings, although in my experience the 'adults' are just as retarded as the kids.

I think it's an American thing. Although I have been on a flight to Spain where most of the passengers gave the pilot a round of applause when he landed ok. That was very weird.

As for Avatar, I get the feeling it will have a long run at the cinema, so I'm going to wait until the numbers die down and go and see it towards the end. The thought of sitting for 3 hours with kids messing about with the whole 3D thing doesn't sound like fun to me.

And as for Avatar the film, I'm not a fan of Sci-Fi so I think my opinion will have to wait until I've actually seen the film. Whilst I'm sure the technology has moved on greatly in this film, it still has a CGI look as far as I have seen from the extended preview they had on Sky HD. Maybe that won't matter to me in 3D?

Cheers

Cris.

I think this is most usual on charterflights, but it happens sometime on regular flights as well. I wonder if the same passengers applaud when a bus driver arrives on the bus stop without any problems as well...

Stig

It probably depends how relieved they are, i.e. how badly they feared they'd never arrive. I nearly did just that the other week: the National Express bus from Heathrow to Cambridge broke down on a roundabout in Luton, so after an hour's wait they sent us on our way on a replacement bus whose driver had to ask us to give him directions from Cambridge park and ride into the city centre, although I later wondered if that had just been a miscommunication due to his poor English, as he had a satnav chattering away to him in some Eastern European language, and while driving he answered his mobile phone only to say "No, I'm driving [pause] I don't understand you, my English isn't good [hang-up]".

So we were all, in fact, quite relieved when he arrived at the bus stop without any problems.

Peter

As usual, I'll save my money and bide my time, watching it a year from now when the local DVD rental shack has it available for copying viewing. Or possibly wait even a few months longer than that, and pick it up for free, over the air (TV).

Then I'll watch it as many times as I want to, pausing, replaying scenes etc.. and without the privilege of somebody kicking the back of my seat or chatting on a mobile.

All thanks to you guys, who pay the big bucks up front at the cinemas to keep the game rolling!

Cheers

Uh....

Since the movie wasn't screened for reviewers prior to the release date, the only information I had about the movie was from the marketers. If the movie sucked, as I inferred from the marketing, why would I want to reward the creators (and waste 3 hours of my life) by paying to see it?

In addition, having no preview screenings is usually a big red flag that says the studio thinks the movie is terrible. Occasionally this isn't the case, but it is more often than it's not.

And I pretty much explicitly asked my question: is the marketing lying to me, as it often does? The only story elements included in the ads really are worn out plot devices, though. "Going native" themes date back at least to Kipling, and probably much further. And it doesn't look like it adds much of anything to the military sci-fi genre. Then again, there haven't really been many military sci-fi movies; the only ones that come to mind are Starship Troopers and Wing Commander, neither of which is, to be generous, very good.

I seem to have wandered off into tangents, so I'll shut up now.

I would normally agree with you Mark. I have a nice cinema system here, and now I have a PS3 as well as Sky HD I am really happy with the picture and sound quality as well as the lack of smelly kids.

But, I am interested to see if 3D is worth it. Or is it just a gimmick? I don't think the 3D experience when it does come to home cinema will be able to deliver the same experience as Real 3D or IMAX. I can't see it adding to the plot much, but I think it's worth a couple of pounds to find out.

Cheers

Cris.

Oh it's definitely a gimmick, like HD.

I saw A Christmas Carol last week on an ordinary sized cinema screen using RealD and I was suitably impressed. The circular polarisation on the glasses lenses are much better than old linear design, you lose very little light in the process and the 3D effect is maintained even if you're waggling your head round.

The first 3D film I saw was one of the Harry Potters in the IMAX which had a 3D sequence using a previous 3D system which was pretty crap.

I've witnessed a couple of good home cinemas, but unless you're a nutter with nothing else to spend your money on or a premier league footballer, it's never going to be as good as a quiet cinema for reasons of scale alone. If I ever did build my big bastard house, one floor would be for the cinema alone. But I'd still end up at the cinema for the big releases.

Also, one of the perks of working shifts was going to the cinema in the afternoon. Then you only had amorous students to worry about!

You just had me looking up RealD and circular polarization on Wikipedia. Fascinating!

I'd say that nothing at home is going to beat the big screen for visual impact, but it's not too difficult nor insanely expensive to get better audio at home than at the majority of cinemas.

I'd probably go this week to see Avatar if it weren't for this pesky cold I've got. Hopefully it will still be playing in 3D in a few weeks. I've never been to a 3D showing at the cinema before.

It actually was previewed extensively to the press/reviewers, starting at ComicCon this year. Back then it was just a few pieces, but as it got closer, more and more was shown. On December 10th, more then a week before the release, a reviewer friend of mine saw the entire thing. The reviews themselves may have been embargoed for a bit, but it did even win an award from the New York Film Critics Online before the general release.

Ok, sure, the story is a rehash of ideas in the past, and as Bruno here said, "Dances with Wolves" in space. That doesn't diminish it though. Ideas are rehashed all the time, but what is unique here is a very well done detailed new world.

The main point I was trying to get at with the marketing/creators difference is that it's marketings job to slap it on the side of happy meal boxes or whatever. Marketing doing so though isn't directly connected to the quality of the movie, instead it's tied more to the cost of the movie.

I'll have to see Avatar in 2D at some point to really judge how it helps. I can say that the 3D was never really distracting and instead felt natural about 10 minutes in. The trailers before the movie in 3D had way more gimmicky things in them then the entire presentation.

IMAX vs RealD is a hard one. IMAX gave me the bigger presence of course. But the 3D was a little more noticeable, in that it could be distorted a bit with head movement. If you do see it in IMAX, get good seats where you don't have to move your head around much. It is shown in a normal film aspect ratio, instead of the taller IMAX ratio, so ignore the very top and bottom of the screen when picking a seat.



I definitely don't miss the megaplex theaters though, and anytime I see a movie at one (very rarely these day), it does make me appreciate the higher end places more. The Alamo Drafthouse has very strict rules on talking, using a cell phone, and so on. And due to the wait staff serving food, the rules are enforced very quickly. The Arclight in Hollywood also has a great movie experience, due to auditoriums built to allow people to move their legs without kicking the seat in front of them, and by having assigned seating.

I made the effort a few years back to stop subscribing to cable TV, and in doing so, I've had more money in the budget to put forward towards a good theater experience. In turn, it's made me appreciate the experience more, and I do think a visit to the big screen is worth it from time to time at least.

The last feature film I saw on IMAX was one of the Matrix trilogy, I wasn't impressed. I came out with neck ache even though I had a really good seat. Of course it didn't help that the film totally sucked also.

Some of the cinema's around here now have VIP screens, you have to pay a lot more but maybe it would be worth it for something like this.

Cheers

Cris.

I saw the 2nd one at the IMAX in Manchester and it was, for want of a better word, shit. It wasn't framed for IMAX which meant you were constantly looking around to keep up with the action. I seemed to spend most of the film looking at Laurence Fishburne's cheek. Also, the blowup was horrendous meaning everything was either fuzzy, grainy or both. It put me off watching feature films at IMAX for a very long time.

I really must give that a try, I've done the whole premier seating thing, but not full blown VIP treatment. In fact, I only know of one cinema that does it.

Sounds like a mini meet if I ever heard one

Try and find out if that place near you is showing it VIP and in 3D and we'll do it

Cheers

Cris.

The sad thing is that early digital cinema projection was of a lower resolution than HDTVs of the time, once the aspect ratios of the movies were taken into account, and even more so when frame rate is taken into account. It's gotten better since:


Even so, DCI 2K is basically the same as 1080p.

Few of us have 70-foot TVs, though. (Of course, the larger the screen, the more exacerbated the low framerate problem is, though.)

They're showing it at the Printworks. The place I was referring to doesn't do 3D apparently. They're all evening showings this week and next. When did you want to go?

Holy crap!!! £18.50 is more than I was expecting. Let me check with the boss.

Cheers

Cris.

For that price, the movie should come with a happy ending.

I should point out SWMBO will not be attending.

I did my best to follow the thread, but couldn't see if anyone had any input on the whole "IMAX doesn't necessarily mean IMAX" thing. I'm debating whether to simply drive to an AMC with a smaller screen or hold out and go downtown where the parking is terrible just to see it on a larger one. Mostly I'd just be pissed if they were both the same price yet one offered a poorer experience.

Spoiler free...

I just saw Avatar in IMAX 3D. The 3D-ness didn't really add anything, but I agree that it does "work". This is the second IMAX film I've seen of late. The previous one Star Trek, wasn't 3D, but I was in the second row. Combine that with Star Trek's ShakyCam (tm) effect, and it was worthless. This time, we made a point of getting in the queue an hour before showtime, and were able to get better seats.

(I was in London in '95 and saw a film, and they had assigned seating for movie tickets. Wonderful stuff for an IMAX 3D film. Sit 3/4 of the way back in the center, if at all possible.)

The plot was entirely predictable, and had techno-stupid holes as well as military-protocol holes you could drive a truck through. Nonetheless, it was entertaining and visually rich. The whole 3D gimick is fun, but I won't shell out $15 again, the next time a 3D film comes around.

Was Avatar a groundbreaking film? Yes and no. Does anybody look back fondly on Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow as a feat of cinematic greatness? Does anybody look back at Jurassic Park as epic cinema? No, not really, and I assume Avatar will be similarly treated by future critics.

What I do expect will come out of Avatar is that all the technology behind the film will find its way into unusual and interesting places. Once the price comes down, we'll be able to see far less conventional scriptwriting that can leverage this technology toward realizing much cooler results.

For contrast, District 9 was bonkers good, with far fewer drive-a-truck-through-them plot holes as well as far less moralizing about how The Man is an agent of pure and unadulterated evil yet doing a far better job of demonstrating the very same.

We're long overdue for an alien film where the aliens are emphatically not humanoids (with or without blue warpaint).

Now, the spoilers, wherein I grouse about plot holes, technological deficiencies, and assorted annoyances.

You're comparing Sky Captain with Jurassic Park?

But thanks for bringing up Sky Captain. I'd forgotten about that film, and it makes me worry for Avatar. Watching the performances I just felt like something was missing. The actors just felt detached in their reactions from the scenery. And no, I'm not talking about when they had to interact with the scenery, I mean when they were merely talking to each other. I could just feel like these were simply people standing in an empty room. Perhaps that was due to the actors used, but I'll be interested to see if I get the same feeling from Avatar.

Replies in the spoiler.

I saw Star Trek in IMAX and I thought it was an excellent way to see it. But then I was near the centre of the theatre, which probably helped.

In terms of technological filmmaking, they were similarly groundbreaking. Admittedly, no one's bothered to build much on Sky Captain's plot (Sin City and 300 are the only things that come to mind), probably because it's marshland (overextended metaphors FTW!), but there was definitely innovation there.

That said, are you implying that Jurassic Park, with such classic dialogue as "It's a UNIX system! I know this!", is really that much better than Sky Captain?

I compare Sky Captain, Jurassic Park, and Avatar because all of them were groundbreaking in their use of technology but had really goofy stories and one-dimensional characters.

The exception, of course, was Star Wars, which was both groundbreaking in its technology *and* was a truly fantastic story. Words can't say how much hope I had for the prequels and how that hope was relentlessly smashed into tiny bits by George Lucas.

Random thought: Any relation between George Lucas and Lucas Industries (i.e., Lucas, Prince of Darkness)?

My favorite bit of Jurassic Park was when they were in the jeep running from the tyrannosaur, and the camera view of the tyrannosaur is through the rear-view mirror. The camera shifts focus to the mirror itself where we see the ubiquitous "Objects in mirror are closer than they appear."

Just a little three-second drop-in, but clever.

tanstaafl.

Rear-view mirrors don't have that inscription. Was it a side mirror?

Yes, he meant side-view. Didn't you see the film? It was a great gag. Everyone loves that one.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/T-rex2.jpg

Following up on drakino's spoilered discussion...

Yes

tanstaafl.

Yeah, it just wasn't all that memorable.

TV Tropes doesn't seem to allow linking to images unless you've already visited the site, so: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CloserThanTheyAppear

I wasn't arguing about technological filmmaking. I was commenting on "Does anybody look back at Jurassic Park as epic cinema?" I'm not sure exactly what he means by that, but yes, I think everyone looks back on it that way! I mean, those first fly-over shots of the island (with the very memorable theme playing), those sweeping fields of dinosaurs, how is it not "epic?"

I just couldn't possibly think of those movies as equals. I really disliked Sky Captain. Besides, if you ask anyone on the street, I'd bet that 9 out of 10 wouldn't remember Sky Captain but would remember Jurassic Park, despite how recently each one was released.

I thought I wasn't going to like Sky Captain from first seeing the trailers. But I loved it. I quite liked Jurassic when I first saw it, but I think if I saw them both again this weekend, I'd prefer Sky Captain.

My favourite bit as that even with 8 networked Connection Machine CM-5's they don't have a swapfile turned on anywhere, as the relatively simple act of compiling code will cause random processes to die as they only have a finite amount of memory apparently.

Doesn't surprise me. You saw how "together" their developer was.

Saw it in 2D today, and I have to say while it held up decently, 3D did help enhance the movie quite a bit. Interestingly, some things in the movie in 3D were just flat with no attempt to make it look 3D in the 2D version. For example, all the photos of the Na'vi that are seen in the remote lab are just flat photographs instead of the hologram ones.

I saw it a couple of days ago the overall effect was very good, it was only off-putting a couple of times and I was very impressed, and I would tell you straight out if I thought it was a pointless gimmick!

Main downside was the cheap specs (which they (Apollo Cinemas) didn't charge for unlike some! If I see many more in 3D I might see if you can buy higher quality glasses with proper nose pads.

Somebody sent me this article about the original screenplay. It answered many of my questions (and most of yours I think), bascially the movie we saw was vastly cut down and a lot of things which could have even been quickly explained were left out:

http://www.chud.com/articles/articles/21969/1/PROJECT-880-THE-AVATAR-THAT-ALMOST-WAS/Page1.html

If you liked the movie and was slightly frustrated then it's worth a read to get the gist of the screenplay without having to read the whole thing!

In this article Cameron says he will write a novel, which I imagine will be the original screenplay modified to fit the movie:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jXOYzLx-6QscSpCcZrBlfjmJ5mGAD9CNRKEG0

edit: One gripe, I thought that the Avatar of Grace (Sigourney Weaver) was slightly too much like her, to the point of it being distracting. In some movies I like the fact that I don't know the actors, and her face in the Pandora world was annoying.

Hmm... seems like Avatar is kinda like The Abyss (another Cameron movie), with huge plot elements removed in the final cut. Who knows, maybe they actually have this some of stuff on film and will do a director's cut.

Saw it today in 3D digital projection. First time seeing a digital projection. Wasn't much impressed with that. As long as I have a choice, it will be film I go to see.

Avatar, while full of eye candy, was oh so predictable.

Box Office Stats for Avatar

This too.

I saw it last night in 3D, here is what I thought about it....

3D - For me a total gimmick that added little to the telling of the story and acted as a distraction most of the time. Wide shots seemed to have no 3D effect at all while close up shots seemed to be more like layers of 2D rather than real 3D. At no point did I feel I was in the movie or the movie feel like it was coming at me.

Story - For a film of it's length very little of the story was developed beyond the blinking obvious. Dialogue was pretty weak and had little depth.

Animation - I felt like I was watching a badly acted intro for a computer game that lasts 3 hours. I still think the technology is light years off being realistic and in a few years time we will look back at it an laugh. Although impressive I never really felt transported beyond what was clearly a computer generated landscape with people added in here and there. The most impressive work I have seen of this kind but still off the mark for me.

£18.50 VIP Cinema experience - At our local cinema it works out to be around £8 extra and for the food and drinks you get, as well as one of the best view I have ever had at the cinema it was overall worth it. We had seats in a gallery that were above the projectors, so you were looking slightly down on the screen which seemed strange at first, but it was a lot easier on the eye.

Unfortunately in Manchester £18.50 isn't quite enough to get rid of all knob heads and we did have some annoying people sat next to us who sat in our seats and refused to move, the staff were typically useless. The free popcorn and nachos also ensured you had an added surround sound track of every single person around you munching rather than every other. They were a bit further away from you and there was a nice amount of leg room too.

So overall, I wouldn't see Avatar twice. It was an enjoyable film, but as a non-fan of Sci-fi this film suffers from all the same problems that every other film in the genre I have ever seen. Such a shame as I think with a better writer it could have been a real epic.

Cheers

Cris.

The 3D does one important thing for me. It makes complex action sequences, or scenes with a lot of visual noise, more easy for my brain to parse.

One of the problems I've had with action films is the inability to tell what's going on during visually complex scenes. Film directors have been trying to "push" this envelope as action movies have become more advanced in recent years, and in many films this has crossed some kind of a line in my old addled brain.

The 3D gives my brain more data to help parse the onscreen information, and lets the directors push that line a little farther without losing me.

Of course, this just means they'll push it more...

There's seldom really any useful plot information in an action scene anyway. It's just eye candy. I've long been of the opinion that they should just leave them out. I don't go to the movies to see that kind of thing, at least not any more. If I want big explosions and whatnot, a video game is more immersing anyway.

Spectacular visuals is about the only reason I go to the theater anymore. They've got to be combined with a decent movie that I'm otherwise interested in of course, but I'd rather just watch most other movies at home.

A movie needs more than just plot to score amazingly high marks in my books. In some movies, the action and visuals greatly add to the artist appeal.

I'll probably see Avatar in the theater, but despite all the good press, it's still not pulling me with the force of a "must see" flick.

I would partially agree with you, but I do like to see really well done action sequences, and I think it is possible for them to add to the film overall. For example the opening scene of Quantum of Solace is an action packed scene which ends with Bond opening the boot of his car to reveal the reason for the whole scene.

Avatar, to me, doesn't have the depth to the story to back up the action. It's just all action. I think it's a shame that directors are dumbing down cinema on a continuing basis. After all isn't the point of cinema to tell a tale? What's so wrong with doing it well? Some of my favourite movies of all time have no explosions, no car chases and almost no action at all. They still made it to the list.

Cheers

Cris.

I didn't say anything about visuals. I said "action scenes". Even so, I'll admit I overstated my case a little bit.

A movie that is all action, though, is just boring. An action scene should be there to heighten the emotion that the audience is feeling. If it's all action, then you can't heighten it. It's like audio level compression. If it's all loud, why bother?

That's not to say that there isn't a place for an all-action movie, but it feels like that's all that comes out any more. (Also hyperbole.)

Right, but if I'm paying to see eye candy, it helps if I can parse all of it. The 3D really helped me there.

I'm just as interested in a pretty movie, or an action movie, as I am interested in a deep movie. All of those things are valid. Avatar certainly didn't fall into the latter category, but that doesn't make it a mediocre film in my book. I thought it was a great experience.

Sure, its plot was entirely predictable, and done before. Its message about the environment and about conquerors' treatment of indigenous populations was heavy handed and was obviously the entire reason for making the film. But I'll give the movie this bit of credit: Despite all the predictability, the film still swept me along with it and had me rooting for the Navi all along. I found it exciting, beautiful, and enjoyable to watch.

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.

I just don't remember anyone I've known using the same scan rate displays and computers as myself back in the day complaining about flicker or headaches caused by their displays. Were we too young? Don't know.

1/3 of calls could be a pretty low number or percentage of incidents. I don't know how many Nokia monitors were sold nor how many calls you received. But you must have seen offices of hundreds, if not a thousand or more displays all running at 60Hz, no? Besides, 1/3 of calls still puts the number in the minority. Which only helps substantiate my claim of "for most people" - 66% is well into the "most" camp.

Brighter display = longer persistence of image = less perceived flicker. At least that's what I've always learned. Other strains are caused by looking at a dim display. Try it yourself. I can adjust display brightness at my fingertips, and a dim display gives me eye strain very quickly. This has nothing to do with flicker of course, which is what I was saying initially.

I was under the impression that it was fluorescent lighting that caused the really bad flicker in 60hz CRTs. It was explained to me as the 120hz flicker from the fluorescent lights interfered with the 60hz CRT and cause the flicker to be much more noticeable. This gets really bad if the lighting is old and drops to the main circuit's frequency (60hz). It wasn't as bad in areas that have incandescent lighting instead.

This I can believe. No one I knew was using their computers in an office environment "back in the day." And by the time I was using colour CRTs in an office, we were on fast electronic ballasts. Now if you can see fluorescent flicker on a properly working and well built electronic ballast, you're super-human.

Thats what I remember as well. I tended to notice monitors at work at 60Hz giving me problems much more then a 60Hz CRT at home. That includes a 27 inch CRT monitor that I used frequently at home.

Are you yanking my chain?

Assuming not, let me explain the situation. Not all people who called had problems with refresh rate. Not all people who called had their video output running at 60Hz. Not all people who called had 21" monitors. And, most importantly, most people wouldn't call computer monitor tech support with a complaint about their eyes burning.

I know very little about Amigas, so I'll quote Wikipedia here:

(For others like me, "AGA" was apparently the most advanced graphics chip put in an Amiga.) Based on the time and the specs, I would expect that the largest monitor intended to be used with that system was 15".

If you still have one, hook it up and look at it through the corner of your eye. To most people, it really does flicker badly.

My Amigas were all pre-AGA and couldn't even display 640x480, only up to 640x240. That is without the specialty add-in board I had for primarily editing of still images. In any case it was also limited to 60Hz, not the fancy 72 of the AGA models (the Amiga 1200 and Amiga 4000)

Unfortunately I don't have any CRTs other than my TV (32") anymore. I also don't have any incandescent bulbs which I used to use exclusively years back.

I really am surprised you're arguing this, Bruno. I guarantee you that I could go a "blind" comparison between a 60Hz monitor and something like a 72Hz. The difference is incredible.

The other thing you're not thinking about is that most people with CRT monitors didn't/don't KNOW that they can improve it. They probably just assume that that's the way the computer is and they live with it because they have to. There's plenty of people who live with Clippy and Norton too, but they're just as ecstatic when I tell them I can fix those.

*edit*
in addition to Bitt's comparisons between monitors and TV, I'd point out that you watch a lot more motion on TV, so any flicker would be less noticeable. If you mentioned that, Bitt, sorry I forgot it. You just had so many good points as to why we're right :p

Which is interesting because last time I had my eyes tested I was told my convergence was crap. Although apparently it can be exacerbated by stress and I was little frazzled at the time, so maybe I'm all better now!

We'll have to chalk it up to my eyes having been developed in a secret lab to be perfectly in tune with a 60Hz scan rate then. And when I said I "didn't know anybody" I wasn't talking about the clueless drone office worker of the time. Everyone I knew back in the day was at least partially a computer junkie of some kind. We're talking hundreds of ppl btw.

On my Nanao I could only tell the difference when I WAS doing something with motion.

I don't get my eyes tested, so I can't tell you how bad/good they are. I did have them tested 5 years ago, and was told he could give me glasses but I could manage fine without them. At that point I figured that was a total waste of money, and until I start bumping into things I won't be going back.

Everyone's eyes are slightly different distances apart, right? Do you think this has any bearing on how good the effect is for that individual? There has to be many many factors like this that could cause problems with 3D films.

And a brief comment on the off topic thread here, I had my Amiga 500 plugged into a 14inch portable TV, now that thing flickered like a bitch at any output When I got my first PC monitor 72Hz was better for me, but my mate at the time couldn't tell the difference and saw no flicker at either. Everyone is different I guess.

Cheers

Cris.

Trying........so.........hard......not......to.........comment........

lol

Cheers

Cris.

Doesn't seem fair telling someone who hadn't seen the movie what to look out for. Forcing them to spend the whole movie being distracted by what could/should be unnoticeable.

How can the 3D depth of field issue be made unnoticeable ? It is an intrinsic part of 3D.

Unless you have eye tracking for each viewer and a separately generated image that somehow simulates a reduced depth of field then the depth of field issue is always going to be there.

You mean like those little reel-change blit marks in the corners?

I've never noticed those. If I had I most likely would have ignored them as flaws in the negative.

With respect to pointing out things to people that are not necessarily obvious.

I don't care for noise canceling headphones, primarily because they create a kind of tension that I find annoying. After wearing a pair for 20 mins I feel the same as if I'd been listening to white noise.

When I've pointed this out to fans, typically a few days later, I'm told that they had stopped using them for the same reason.

So, Are you doing someone a favor by telling about that, or not?

Red Letter Media review of Avatar in two parts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJarz7BYnHA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLzKwTcGO_0&feature=related

This is the same guy who did the 7-part Phantom Menace review a while back.

Ugh, I really hate the delivery. Like, really hate it. It completely gets in the way of what are some interesting insights about halfway through (when he starts talking like a reviewer and stops with the annoying stuff).

Not to defend the movie too much, but technically it wasn't "the" military, was it? I was under they impression that they were essentially an organized group of hired guns, paid for by the corporation. "The military" as he says it implies governmental oversight, but the leader of the troops in Avatar reported to a company man. I guess that wasn't as funny.

In summary, I couldn't stand the guy and stopped listening after about 6 minutes (don't know how I got that far).

The delivery is the best part of the whole schtick. It's what makes a potentially otherwise dry dissection into something you can smirk at while watching it. His points have so-far been valid for every review I've watched (this one, Phantom Menace and a couple of Star Trek ones). BUt mostly I watch it for how dead-pan (and twisted) the presentation is.

Anyway, let'e not add any spoilers about Avatar to the thread, I still haven't seen it. But I do want to. It will probably be on the small screen though as I don't think I'd like to have anyone take care of my daughter while my wife and I go out to a movie. Though we're stepping out this Saturday to go hear Kevin Smith speak.

Uhhh... yeah. What Bruno said. (Never thought I'd ever say that! )

tanstaafl.

That's the thing, I don't like any part of the schtick. It's not a funny schtick. It's annoying.

And I didn't give any spoilers. I didn't say anything that he didn't say in his review, unless you count correcting him.

Fair enough, you don't like the reviewer's comedy. I wouldn't have posted it if I hadn't found it funny though. BTW, I only said let's not add any spoilers, not that any had already been added.

The movie is cliche in many respects, certainly derivative and formulaic, but it still looks good for what it is. And the review doesn't disagree with that either (I watched the whole thing).

Shades of the British East India Company there, then?

Saw Avatar. Phenomenal. I found it easy to look past the holes. It could have gone on another 20 minutes and I would have been quite comfortable watching it.

I saw it recently at the IMAX. Great film, great story, liked it a lot. Jerky movement was very distracting for me, quite sure I would have enjoyed it more in 2D.

Avatar was robbed at the Academy awards. As usual, the Oscars represent political and social trends, having little to nothing to do with film making.

You didn't like The Hurt Locker at all?

I liked The Hurt Locker. I also liked Up in the Air, The Blind Side, Inglorious Basterds, District 9 and Up. I've yet to watch the other three nominated films.

Avatar was robbed. I'm not a "James Cameron" fan (even though I've enjoyed some of his movies), but he deserved, without question, to win best director, even if Avatar hadn't won for best film. As decent as The Hurt Locker was, it wasn't close to being the top war-time movie I've seen, and it wasn't of the same calibre as Up nor Inglorious, let alone Avatar. Frankly, I would have cut that list down to 5 nominations rather easily.

I mean, if the Academy wanted to give that movie another award so badly, they could have created the "Best Slow-Paced War Picture Directed By a Woman" category. Then I'd agree it was the top of the year.

Avatar got just as many awards as it deserved. There's more to directing than special effects. It was a technical achievement. If anyone other than the winner deserved it it was Tarantino.

But I don't really have a problem with the winners. Besides, I don't consider the Oscars or any of these Awards ceremonies to be the last word on what is actually the best.

The only award I took a bit of issue with was with Sandra Bullock, but at least she gave one of the better acceptance speeches of the evening.

Did you watch The Blind Side? Her performance was definitely Oscar-worthy.

I normally don't watch the Academy Awards at all, instead usually letting my wife record them so she can skip through them later. This year I made an exception because I was enjoying my brand new 55" Vizio VF551XVT. I've been recording HD for months, but this was my first weekend with my new TV, having moved up from a 32" JVC CRT.

I'm not going to argue about Avatar's merits, but I'l say that while watching it, I never once thought, "wow, what a technical achievement." That's an insult, the movie was much better than Titanic, IMO - in every way.

Well that's where we differ once more. That's all I thought for about half the movie.


Heh, and you'll never win me over with that argument. I thought Titanic was alright, but I thought that was by far the least deserving movie that year, from the given nominees, to win best picture. Just look at the others:

As Good as It Gets
The Full Monty [I admit, I haven't seen this one]
Good Will Hunting
L.A. Confidential

Of the three of those I saw, I consider them all to be much better movies than Titanic.

In fact, thanks for bringing up Titanic. I actually feel about Avatar a lot like I did about that movie. The characters are all written and played out the same way. I never really know these people. They seem sort of distant to me. I don't connect with them like real people.

Ah, whatever, it's subjective anyway. You liked Avatar, I'm happy. I haven't even seen The Hurt Locker yet. I wasn't arguing for that winning, I was just saying that Avatar wasn't my favorite movie I saw last year. I'm glad you enjoyed it so much.

Avatar wasn't necessarily my favorite movie of 2009, but of those nominated and taking into account everything that it takes to make a good movie, I think it was deserving of the award.

I saw all of the movies you mentioned, and they were all quite good. I'm not certain I would have given the Oscar to Titanic either, but I do feel strongly about Avatar versus the others it was up against.

Offtopic - my favourite movie of the year was definitely District 9. It did have to compete with Watchmen and Avatar though.

I always loved the Watchmen story - and the film was awesome, but not quite there.

Avatar was pretty close though - it was just the Hollywood plot that sucked, but for me the 3D was awesomely real. The best bits were in the jungle with dust, seed floaters etc - the depth of field really worked.

Offtopic again - I hate flicker from almost everything. Cinemas are the worst for me, but any CRT below 72Hz really hurts my head, and all old fluorescents are bad. Worst in peripheral vision, obviously, but also pretty close to straight ahead.

How I love 96Hz refresh rates and LCD screens!

Damn, Watchmen was a year ago this month. So early it almost seemed like a 2008 release. Which is very unfortunate when it comes to Academy awards, because stuff from the first half of the year seems to often get ignored.

BTW, the LCD on your computer is probably 60Hz.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure Bruno is right about that, but it works differently. 60Hz on an LCD is not 60Hz on a CRT. But we've argued about that already...

And yeah, if a movie has any hopes of an Oscar, they dare not release before September or they're forgotten. Not that I would expect Watchmen to win or even get nominated in any category, though. Not a chance.

I'm curious, though. Given the actual release date, I wonder if they tried to get Shutter Island released before the end of '09. It's odd that a movie of that caliber would be released in the very beginning of the year. Had it not been, I would think it would be a shoe-in for a nomination for Best Director. That film is like a master class in film directing.

Maybe they plan to re-release it at the end of the year? (Shutter). At the end of the day, there's only a fixed amount of slots to release a movie. Stuff gets bumped around all the time by months or years at a time. MOstly to get favorable weekends rather than awards consideration I believe. Happened to Fast and Furious and the last Harry Potter (which was supposed to be released during the preceding November).

*click*