Avatar (UK - BD RA/B)
Our Marcus paints himself blue and infiltrates the natives on Blu-ray disc...
Feature
2154. After the death of his twin brother, paraplegic former Marine Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) is inducted into the Avatar program as he provides a perfect DNA replacement for his brother.
Travelling to Pandora, Sam’s consciousness is transferred into an alien host body and he’s assigned a mission to learn as much as he can about the native ten foot tall Na’vi alien race as he can. Walking a tightrope between helping the science researchers, led by Dr. Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver) and providing insider knowledge to the head of security Colonel Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang), Jake’s priorities become increasingly blurred, especially after meeting native Neytiri (Zoe Saldana), and discovering the beauty of this new world that his people are slowly destroying.

It seems like a million years ago since I wrote up my thoughts on the fifteen minutes Avatar Day cinematic preview back in August and weirdly it seems ages ago since I saw the actual movie before Christmas. It was exciting times for a while there, what with the return of James Cameron to our big screen, the first proper presentation of 3D and a showcase of what it could do and of course the movie just exploded across the box office, not only making money, but becoming the highest grossing film of all time, even surpassing Jimmy C’s last movie Titanic. You might say that Avatar is a certified triumph, you might even say that it’s an instant classic, but for the life of me I can’t really say that my feelings towards it get much higher than lukewarm.
From the get go, Avatar feels like a James Cameron movie. His effortless ability to make his worlds feel lived in and believable is as sharp as ever. The moment you arrive on Pandora you know the landscape, you have a feel for the technology at hand, and you know the characters and the parts they have to play. This is all done with minimal detail but Cameron just draws you in with charm and sets you off on his adventure.
For me the movie really comes to life when Jake takes the first steps in his host body. The feeling of freedom the character displays (after all let’s remember this is animated, albeit via performance capture) is astonishing and is a great piece of uplifting cinema to get you on the side of our hero. His interactions with Dr Grace also add a lot to the development of the character and the feeling that he’s achieving something comes with a warming change of attitude from Sigourney’s character as the movie develops. But of course the real heart of the story takes place in the rain forests and with the arrival of the mesmerizing Neytiri.

If there was ever an argument for how much of a success the step forward in technology—especially when it comes to animated characters— Avatar has achieved, it’s with the combination of Zoe Saldana’s performance and the subtle work within the animation of her character Neytiri. Literally from the first moment you see her, she draws you in and when she starts interacting with Jake, I dare anyone to say they weren’t captivated. Her voice, her movements and the character's grace is one hundred percent believable and for me the heart and soul of the movie.
However, it’s also Neytiri's arrival that highlights what frustrated me about Avatar. We knew from the get go that the movie was much akin to Dances With Wolves and others dealing with similar themes. After the first trailer hit, there was a lot of online debate and generally it was a fun little joke in the build up to the movies release ( South Park even got in on the gag with a Dances with Smurfs episode).
Unfortunately and surprisingly for me, the similarities to movies past really held back my thorough enjoyment of Avatar as I couldn’t help drawing parallels. Everything just felt too close to Pocahontas (specifically Disney’s version of it) and I don’t mean the obvious stuff like Neytiri's family set up, the douche bag tribe warrior who should be marrying her but won't now because of Jake, her going to talk with a tree, the relentless zero compassion bad guys on the rampage to make money for the company or the fact that the lead character seems to be voiced by Mel Gibson (sorry Sam Worthington—you do sound a lot like him in this movie though). I mean that it got to the point where I kept expecting Neytiri to burst in ‘Just Around the River Bend’ and start hanging out with a hummingbird and a raccoon.

Okay that’s probably a little overblown, but I did find myself constantly thinking that James Cameron isn’t going to stick to this. He’ll throw us a curveball or take us somewhere different, but for me those storytelling curveballs never came and despite the big visuals, the alien world, the military war, the mecha suits the luminescent flowers, the Pandora wildlife, and the giant dragons (of which, I can’t believe only five Na’vi ever worked out how to tame), nothing about this story or indeed its characters felt fresh to me and despite enjoying the movie, my connection to these characters was distanced because I’ve met them too many times before and just felt as if I was constantly a step ahead when it came to knowing how all this was going to play out.
Watching the movie again (that’s right, I never went back to the cinema for more of the 3D goodness), I have to say I felt the length of the movie more this time out. It’s all running smoothly but around the point where we get the dragon flying montage (they look an awful lot like the ones from Evolution don’t they?) I just kept thinking how much more there was until the end and how much we have to get through before the big ‘ol battle commences. I also have to say that I didn’t miss the 3D at all. There were moments where I remember a richer experience on the big screen (like the insects filling in the air in forest) but generally the tried and trusted 2D experience was just as impressive but more on that in the next section.

Video
Whatever your reference quality disc is for Blu-ray, move it aside. Avatar looks incredible throughout and the more vivid your TV settings are the more it seems to thrive. From the slightly new 20th Century Fox logo until the film’s title kicks off the end credits the transfer is astonishing, filling the screen with eye popping colour, incredibly sharp detail, perfect black levels and lighting that shows off an HD TV’s flashy and subtle abilities.
Of course, the argument will be that Avatar is essentially an animated movie and all computer generated animated movies looks great. That argument is a valid one but not all animated movies are made by James Cameron and there isn’t an animated movie out there that’s presented a landscape like the forests of Pandora. Literally from the moment that helicopter ship thing sets down in the woods you will be dazzled by the wash of texture, detail and colour on the screen. Every blade of grass has a presence, every beam of sunlight and insect makes the image feel alive and when the action kicks off, it just keeps getting better.
Explosions glow, reflections off of surfaces look incredibly natural, the Na’vi can feel 3D with their level of realism (especially in the scene with Neytiri and human Jake towards the end) and the layers of objects within some of the shots looks amazing. I also found that the special effects hold up well too. There’s the odd dodgy composite when real actors inteact with CGI and some of those Pandorian beasts look decidedly game like, but this is all in the filmmaking because nothing's going to take the sheen off of this transfer.

As you can tell, I was impressed and I’m glad to say that I for one got the transfer I expected from James Cameron’s new movie without any disappointments. Avatar on Blu-ray is pretty much flawless and you won’t believe how many times it keeps reminding you of the fact.
Audio
Other than the distracting score with opening beats sounding too much like ‘My Heart Will Go On” and the Toy Story sounding bit when the wildlife turns on the army in the forest, Avatar once again delivers the goods.
The DTS-HD Master Audio track is as subtle as it is aggressive. One moment you’ll be wowed by the atmosphere the track creates in the quiet forests the next have your doors rattled by a dragon’s roar or an explosion. The track pretty much covers the entire spectrum and all of it well.
Surprisingly, I actually found the dialogue to be one of the most impressive elements of the track. It’s wonderfully clear as you’d expect but it seemed to come with a little bit extra power than a lot of other discs (or it could be I’ve been watching a lot of small dramas lately).

I wouldn’t go as far as saying it was as impressive or as much as a step up as the video transfer was, mainly due to the score sometimes feeling a little lost in the action, but it’s still up there with top end audio tracks and more than hammers homes the goods.
Extras
Well unless you count an added DVD copy as an extra feature or access to the Avatar Program online (which I don’t) we get jack. Of course we all knew this up front, same as we all know the special edition will hit at the end of the year. It’s weak, but this movie was so huge that they could have probably gotten away with selling it without a box... Don’t get any ideas studios!

Overall
I know I threw up a few negatives in my review, but I still enjoy the majority of Avatar. Against the odds James Cameron has made another movie for the masses and as always has done it his own way (outside of a lot of the ‘paints with all the colours of the wind’ story elements and a few too many overly clichéd characters). As a long time fan, I’d probably place this in the lower end of my favourite Jimmy C movies (just above True Lies), but again I don't mean that as a negative thing, because a lesser James Cameron movie is still ten times better than most.
Whether or not you opt for this bare bones edition is going to come down to how patient you are for the end of year mega edition, but if all you really care about is seeing the movie with a glorious transfer and a fine audio track, you’re going to be one happy Avatard. That’s what’s the hardcore fans are called right?
* Note: The above images are taken from the Blu-ray release and resized for the page. Full-resolution captures are available by clicking individual images, but due to .jpg compression they are not necessarily representative of the quality of the transfer.
Review by Marcus Doidge
Advertisements
Existing Posts
self confessed avatard
Yes you are correct but (and this is splitting hairs really) he didn't replace top and bottom picture info with black bars for the theatrical prints (for Scope), they just extracted the 'scope ratio' portion of the 1.78 ratio, printed that out anamporphically onto 35mm and only included a 2.39 ratio for the DCP. As I didn't work with the DCP I could say for sure but my understanding of it was that each hard drive had both the 2D and 3D version on it and was aorund a 300GB file.
Presumably, as the scope version wasn't a straight forward centred extraction, (and therefore couldn't be just projected larger at 2.39 - cropping top and bottom) any 1.85 D-Cine print would have had to be on a different hard drive. Again, I don't know all this for sure (re the different ratios of the DCP versions) but maybe someone who presented either or both could clarify.
Presumably, as the scope version wasn't a straight forward centred extraction, (and therefore couldn't be just projected larger at 2.39 - cropping top and bottom) any 1.85 D-Cine print would have had to be on a different hard drive. Again, I don't know all this for sure (re the different ratios of the DCP versions) but maybe someone who presented either or both could clarify.
I'm quite confused here. So JC originally shot the film in 1.78 right? Then for the cinemas, he reformatted it to scope 2.35 (that means replacing the top & bottom screen with black bars) right? Then, for this Blu, JC presented it with the original 1.78 right? So, what's the problem? Do you prefer seeing a 1.78 movie turned to 2.35 by covering its top & bottom with black bars? I hate that. That's why I bought T4 DVD which has 1.78 ratio that reveals the top-bottom of its 2.40 format (which presented in the other DVD version).
got this on day of release its well worth the price i paid 14-99 i would have paid more as where you loose on being no extras it makes up for with the most amazining picture quality to date there is not one frame that looks bad i wish all films could be predented like this.
I suppose it's again just personal preference. I tend to think that in the digital realm, there's far more room to manouvre as far as ratio goes in a way that film makers just didn't have with film, or at least with the presentation of 35mm in the home. I wouldn't tolerate a reformat of a film shot anamporphically to 16x9. In the past, with Super 35 and 4x3 TV's, you could have your cake and eat it by having a scope (I know you know all this Chris, I'm just illustrating my point - oh Lord please let me have a point by the end of this) print theatrically and a full frame 4x3 version for video without losing (as much) from the sides.
I see Avatar in a similar way. The 16x9 is the native ratio. Cameron may have had an eye on the scope ratio (for theatrical) when framing but the 16x9 is what they're all looking at for the most part and for the home, it seems to be a good decision to fill the screen rather than have the slightly distancing effect of scope letterboxing. But that's just me.
I would agree that the on screen grapics look a little lost on the centre. They could and should have possibly been enlarged to suit 'the home' environment of a TV but then would it be a distraction being able to read really obviously the timecode ticking by on Jake's diary cam? I don't know.
As for the subtitles being high, I kind of prefer it (for this film) as they are at least stylised and not player generated after thought. They 'fit in' and don't look out of place to me. One of the reasons I have a hard time with subtitled films on large screens is that you are constantly looking up and down the frame, between reading and watching what's going on on screen, I get eye strain bordering on motion sickness so (although a different medium, TV rather than large screen cinema) I quite like the fact that you can read the subs without much eye movement.
As an aside, I always thought Tony Scott's experiment with subtitle placement on the BMW short, Beat The Devil and Man On Fire were heading in an interesting direction. Why do the subs have to be bolted to the bottom of the frame?
Why not place the subtitles in different areas of the frame? Having the film maker think about where the eye is looking is a good step forward rather than just turning over the film to a subtitling facility.
Also, the placement of the subtitles (and I know this from being in the job I'm in) for 3D is a bit of a learning curve for the tech bods. Again, it has to do with where the eyes are focused, how much stereoscopic effect is applied to the subs (where the subs appear in the 3D plane front or rear) depending on the on screen action, and minimizing eye strain when viewing in 3D. None of that matters for 2D I grant you but where the subs have eneded up on the BD might be a hold over from their relative positon across all the theatrical varients covering the 2D/3D 1.85 & Scope versions.
Personally, I think it's a good thing that there is uniformity to Avatar's ratio now. I know this doesn't make it right in a purist sense, but most people's exposure to Avatar from now on will be on DVD/BD in the 16x9 ratio. In 5-10 years time, no one will really remember that it was ever presented in scope (if not in all) but the majority of it's screenings during its theatrical run.
Until 21x9 3D TV's become the norm that is. But that's another story.
Chris Gould wrote: Of far greater concern is the fact that the BD+ on this disc appears to be causing headaches for a lot of players, software and hardware. That's not a good thing. There are actually multiple versions of this title in every region, each with slightly different protection (most of which has already been defeated).
Strangely, I had problems with the DVD not the BD. For comparison, I put the DVD in and wanted to jump to somewhere around chapter 28 (I was trying to find the bit where Quarritch is briefing his troops before the final attack) from the chapter menu and 'it' wouldn't have it. The player/disc just kept making a double click sort of sound about 3 times before it chose to stop the disc. An eject, power off and on sorted the problem but I've never had that happen before. My Pioneer DVD player is quite old (about 7 years...cheese and rice it is old) so it might be on its way out.
As for the BD, on the PS3, considering there's b****r all on the disc supposedly, just menus, it does fart about loading. No longer than fully loaded BD's but you'd expect a simple (again supposedly) disc to load reasonably quickly.
Chris, would it be possible to put up any DVD/BD screen cap comparisons at all?
I see Avatar in a similar way. The 16x9 is the native ratio. Cameron may have had an eye on the scope ratio (for theatrical) when framing but the 16x9 is what they're all looking at for the most part and for the home, it seems to be a good decision to fill the screen rather than have the slightly distancing effect of scope letterboxing. But that's just me.
I would agree that the on screen grapics look a little lost on the centre. They could and should have possibly been enlarged to suit 'the home' environment of a TV but then would it be a distraction being able to read really obviously the timecode ticking by on Jake's diary cam? I don't know.
As for the subtitles being high, I kind of prefer it (for this film) as they are at least stylised and not player generated after thought. They 'fit in' and don't look out of place to me. One of the reasons I have a hard time with subtitled films on large screens is that you are constantly looking up and down the frame, between reading and watching what's going on on screen, I get eye strain bordering on motion sickness so (although a different medium, TV rather than large screen cinema) I quite like the fact that you can read the subs without much eye movement.
As an aside, I always thought Tony Scott's experiment with subtitle placement on the BMW short, Beat The Devil and Man On Fire were heading in an interesting direction. Why do the subs have to be bolted to the bottom of the frame?
Why not place the subtitles in different areas of the frame? Having the film maker think about where the eye is looking is a good step forward rather than just turning over the film to a subtitling facility.
Also, the placement of the subtitles (and I know this from being in the job I'm in) for 3D is a bit of a learning curve for the tech bods. Again, it has to do with where the eyes are focused, how much stereoscopic effect is applied to the subs (where the subs appear in the 3D plane front or rear) depending on the on screen action, and minimizing eye strain when viewing in 3D. None of that matters for 2D I grant you but where the subs have eneded up on the BD might be a hold over from their relative positon across all the theatrical varients covering the 2D/3D 1.85 & Scope versions.
Personally, I think it's a good thing that there is uniformity to Avatar's ratio now. I know this doesn't make it right in a purist sense, but most people's exposure to Avatar from now on will be on DVD/BD in the 16x9 ratio. In 5-10 years time, no one will really remember that it was ever presented in scope (if not in all) but the majority of it's screenings during its theatrical run.
Until 21x9 3D TV's become the norm that is. But that's another story.
Chris Gould wrote: Of far greater concern is the fact that the BD+ on this disc appears to be causing headaches for a lot of players, software and hardware. That's not a good thing. There are actually multiple versions of this title in every region, each with slightly different protection (most of which has already been defeated).
Strangely, I had problems with the DVD not the BD. For comparison, I put the DVD in and wanted to jump to somewhere around chapter 28 (I was trying to find the bit where Quarritch is briefing his troops before the final attack) from the chapter menu and 'it' wouldn't have it. The player/disc just kept making a double click sort of sound about 3 times before it chose to stop the disc. An eject, power off and on sorted the problem but I've never had that happen before. My Pioneer DVD player is quite old (about 7 years...cheese and rice it is old) so it might be on its way out.
As for the BD, on the PS3, considering there's b****r all on the disc supposedly, just menus, it does fart about loading. No longer than fully loaded BD's but you'd expect a simple (again supposedly) disc to load reasonably quickly.
Chris, would it be possible to put up any DVD/BD screen cap comparisons at all?
I think the framing is a little loose in places. It might have been shot in 16:9, but that's only because it was shot digitally and that was the native ratio. JC is on record as stating that he composed the film for scope and it looks a little tighter that way. There's some stuff in the HDD review that illustrates it well. With the 16:9 version the subtitles are half way up the screen and the on-screen graphics all sort of float in the middle. There's a lot of dead space at the top and bottom.
I was actually comparing shots from the trailer with the DVD today. It doesn't ruin it, but JC basically changed his mind after he shot the film.
Of far greater concern is the fact that the BD+ on this disc appears to be causing headaches for a lot of players, software and hardware. That's not a good thing. There are actually multiple versions of this title in every region, each with slightly different protection (most of which has already been defeated).
I was actually comparing shots from the trailer with the DVD today. It doesn't ruin it, but JC basically changed his mind after he shot the film.
Of far greater concern is the fact that the BD+ on this disc appears to be causing headaches for a lot of players, software and hardware. That's not a good thing. There are actually multiple versions of this title in every region, each with slightly different protection (most of which has already been defeated).
I don't mind the 1.78 ratio at all on this release.
I think, like Kubrick, Cameron seems to prefer filling the screen with image rather than black bars for viewing at home.
There was a lot of fuss about whether some of Kubrick's films should be presented in 1.85 on BD (after they'd been traditionally released in 4x3) a year or so back. Technology has moved on and whereas now 16x9 dislpays are common, back in the VHS day, 4x3 TV's were the norm. So it was proper, if you follow Kubrick's line of thinking, to have his films presented open matte for home viewing. Initially I was concerend about the reframing of Kubrick films for BD but having done a bit of reading, I came to understand and accept the arguament. The films on BD look stunning and I was amazed at how they lend themselves to the 16x9 ratio after years of seeing them 4x3.
Avatar seems to be a similar case. From a purist standpoint, yes a 2.35 version should be 'out there' but with so much work gone into creating every frame of Avatar, why cover it up with top and bottom masking/borders? Compositionally, it's a little different from Scope but we're not talking a Scope to Pan & Scan travesty here.
Avatar was shot and worked on in 16x9. It was only reformatted to Scope for it's theatrical run where the intention was to fill the screen. Some venues ran it 1.85, the reason being if they had top & bottom masking (to achieve a scope ratio) it would have resulted in a smaller overall iamge.
On balance, that's all that's happened with the BD & DVD release. The decision to fill the screen has been made. Having seen both Scope 3D and now the BD I have no complaints with the chosen/preferred ratio or presentation of Avatar.
I think choosing 1.78 for home viewing was the right decision for this film.
It'll be interesteing to see whether The Abyss and True Lies (both apparently being prepped for BD release) will undergo similar opening up/reformatting to 16x9 as they we're both shot Super35.
I think, like Kubrick, Cameron seems to prefer filling the screen with image rather than black bars for viewing at home.
There was a lot of fuss about whether some of Kubrick's films should be presented in 1.85 on BD (after they'd been traditionally released in 4x3) a year or so back. Technology has moved on and whereas now 16x9 dislpays are common, back in the VHS day, 4x3 TV's were the norm. So it was proper, if you follow Kubrick's line of thinking, to have his films presented open matte for home viewing. Initially I was concerend about the reframing of Kubrick films for BD but having done a bit of reading, I came to understand and accept the arguament. The films on BD look stunning and I was amazed at how they lend themselves to the 16x9 ratio after years of seeing them 4x3.
Avatar seems to be a similar case. From a purist standpoint, yes a 2.35 version should be 'out there' but with so much work gone into creating every frame of Avatar, why cover it up with top and bottom masking/borders? Compositionally, it's a little different from Scope but we're not talking a Scope to Pan & Scan travesty here.
Avatar was shot and worked on in 16x9. It was only reformatted to Scope for it's theatrical run where the intention was to fill the screen. Some venues ran it 1.85, the reason being if they had top & bottom masking (to achieve a scope ratio) it would have resulted in a smaller overall iamge.
On balance, that's all that's happened with the BD & DVD release. The decision to fill the screen has been made. Having seen both Scope 3D and now the BD I have no complaints with the chosen/preferred ratio or presentation of Avatar.
I think choosing 1.78 for home viewing was the right decision for this film.
It'll be interesteing to see whether The Abyss and True Lies (both apparently being prepped for BD release) will undergo similar opening up/reformatting to 16x9 as they we're both shot Super35.
Just got a copy for £9.99 at Blockbuster after trading in a couple of old BDs (they were c**p, only worth about £3). Unfortunately I have of the variants that our friends in Antiga have not dealt with yet, so no HD screencaps for the time being. Thanks a lot for BD+ Fox - it sucks and it's your fault.
Apparently Tesco online are doing it for less than £13 though.
Edit: Avatar now with 1080p screencaps.
Apparently Tesco online are doing it for less than £13 though.
Edit: Avatar now with 1080p screencaps.
Phil92 wrote: Sainsburys is selling the Blu-ray for £14.99 in-store.
My local even has a dude dressed as a Na'vi. I wish I was joking.
My local even has a dude dressed as a Na'vi. I wish I was joking.
Sainsburys is selling the Blu-ray for £14.99 in-store.
Have na'vi seen it. Not bothered about picking it up due to the lack of extras and insult of having the RRP pushed up by the SD copy thrown in with it. There is conflicting opinion about the aspect ratio and Cameron's preferred presentation, as some say that he favours 1.78:1 for home viewing and other sources quote him as giving 2.35:1 the nod.
If Fox had been in any way bothered, they might have included a link to You-Tube, as there are numerous offical postings of material about the production of Avatar. Just a thought, and an inexpensive one at that.
This might be the first Blu rental. Looks like it's time to take up that interesting offer Love Film are doing when you join up. S*d buying this, when it is widely reported that there is a 4-disc collector's copy being released in time for Thanksgiving in America, and we'd guess that the same thing will be brought out here before Christmas. You can hear the cash cow letting out a sighing "moo" as Fox warms their hands in preparation for squeezing the teets again.
As for everybody else being upset about the lack of extras? If you listen carefully, you can still hear Gargamels' rage...
THE WILSON BROS
If Fox had been in any way bothered, they might have included a link to You-Tube, as there are numerous offical postings of material about the production of Avatar. Just a thought, and an inexpensive one at that.
This might be the first Blu rental. Looks like it's time to take up that interesting offer Love Film are doing when you join up. S*d buying this, when it is widely reported that there is a 4-disc collector's copy being released in time for Thanksgiving in America, and we'd guess that the same thing will be brought out here before Christmas. You can hear the cash cow letting out a sighing "moo" as Fox warms their hands in preparation for squeezing the teets again.
As for everybody else being upset about the lack of extras? If you listen carefully, you can still hear Gargamels' rage...
THE WILSON BROS
If they'd bothered to put features on it, we might have got a reason why.

I see they went with the 1.78:1 ratio in spite of Cameron expressing a preference for Scope for 2D versions of the film.
The book you get for "free" with the steelbook is pretty cool.
Avatar was amazing but very long.


Suitable only for persons of 12 years and over
Disc Details
Release Date:
25th April 2010
Discs:
2
Disc Type:
Blu-ray Disc
RCE:
No
Video:
1080p
Aspect:
1.78:1
Anamorphic:
No
Colour:
Yes
Audio:
DTS-MD Master Audio 5.1 English, Dolby Surround 5.1 English, Dolby Surround 5.1 Spanish, Dolby Surround 5.1 French, Dolby Surround 5.1 Portuguese
Subtitles:
English HOH, Spanish, French, Portuguese
Extras:
DVD Copy
Easter Egg:
No
Feature Details
Director:
James Cameron
Cast:
Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana, Sigourney Weaver, Stephen Lang
Genre:
Action, Adventure, Drama, Fantasy and Sci-Fi
Length:
155 minutes
Ratings
Awards

Amazon.com
FOLLOW DVDACTIVE
Follow our updates
OTHER INTERESTING STUFF
Hot Interviews





Latest Reviews





Released Soon





Most Talked About




