The Last Air Bender with Celestial Sparkles

Last year I watched Transformers and then watched fireworks in the parking lot of a church in Alpharetta.  I did the same this year, with M. Night Shyamalan’s adaptation of the cartoon series Avatar: The Last Air Bender as a prelude.  To avoid confusing audiences, the film’s name was shortened to The Last Air Bender.  The dialogue was cheesy in many scenes but I dug the costumes and all the Tai Chi posturing.

Click here for more Air Bender pictures.

~!~
I went to Super H-Mart after the movie and saw more lovely English on cookie boxes.

And now for some fireworks!

For more Asian snacks packaging and fireworks images, click here (go to pages 2 and 3).

13 thoughts on “The Last Air Bender with Celestial Sparkles

  1. jammer5

    I was going to see it yesterday, but the parking lot was completely full, so I’ll probably wait till tomorrow. Did you see the 3D version? It’s my understanding M dude was exacting on what he wanted the CGI to look like, and it came out pretty seamless. I’ve also read the dialogue was a bit stunted, so I know what to expect.

    Much of our fireworks got rained out here, but there were still enough brave hearts out there to go on with the show.

    Reply
    1. sittingpugs Post author

      I am not on the 3D bus. I don’t want to put spectacles on spectacles. I know that other lensed individuals have no issues with it, but the sheer fact that even one person (lensed or not) experiences head and eye discomfort discourages me from risking it.

      I would only get on the 3D bus to watch the Bowl Games, the NFL Playoffs, the Super Bowl…a sports inspirational without an obligatory love story.

      Reply
      1. jammer5

        I thought the same thing as I too wear glasses. But I found them to not be a discomfort, and the 3D is light years ahead of the old right/left headache devices. Avatar seen in 3D is totally different then when seen in 2D.

        I’m not sure how 3D would play out on sports events. That might have a ways to go.

        Reply
        1. sittingpugs Post author

          The technology is already in brewing.

          ESPN

          NASCAR

          If I wanted to see something in 3D, I’d just open my eyes. =]P

          “That’s what I go to the movies for–to feel what other people feel, to know what they know.”

          – Meryl Streep

          I don’t watch movies for a simulation or facsimile of reality.

          Reply
          1. jammer5

            Wouldn’t watching sporting events in 3D qualify as simulation? The only real reality is actually being there. Everything else is pretty much scripted, meaning you see what they want you to see, regardless of the action taking place. There is no substitute for our eyes . . . yet.

            Watching a replay is not reality: it’s a facsimile because it already happened. Same with movies: they already happened on either the stage, computer, or real life.

            And this is deja vu all over again: I had this conversation in a different setting concerning similar subjects years ago. We were discussing music, frequency reactions to plucked strings, and how that interacted with the Doppler effect. Simulation and facsimile kept popping up, whether we wanted it to or not. Plucking a guitar string starts a long list of strange frequency behaviors. Not that it has anything to do with 3D, but there are comparisons, aural wise.

    1. sittingpugs Post author

      Wouldn’t watching sporting events in 3D qualify as simulation?

      It’s a sporting event. The suspense and narrative created by game-play is not fiction the way a dramatized sporting event is fiction. I would watch a sporting event in 3D because for me, the technology would accentuate the game-play in a manner that I find appealing and non-superfluous. Applied to narrative cinema, even action films or corporeal-and-motion-heavy sequences, 3D would not make those images any more real or enticing than in 2D.

      The only real reality is actually being there. Everything else is pretty much scripted, meaning you see what they want you to see, regardless of the action taking place. There is no substitute for our eyes . . . yet.

      Or no substitute yet for our senses, which virtual reality is supposed to provide?

      Watching a replay is not reality: it’s a facsimile because it already happened. Same with movies: they already happened on either the stage, computer, or real life.

      A replay is a memory that can still be open to interpretation but is visually accurate in terms of what is recorded. The signification of those images (was the ball in or out, was that hand on or above the collar) is another issue. No amount of badgering of the witness can make that replay remember something incorrectly. No coach can cry “leading the witness or coerced confession.”

      And this is deja vu all over again: I had this conversation in a different setting concerning similar subjects years ago. We were discussing music, frequency reactions to plucked strings, and how that interacted with the Doppler effect. Simulation and facsimile kept popping up, whether we wanted it to or not. Plucking a guitar string starts a long list of strange frequency behaviors. Not that it has anything to do with 3D, but there are comparisons, aural wise.

      And echo? The vibrations that one hears, are they any less real-as-in-factual?

      Again it’s about preference. For narrative cinema, I’m not on the 3D bus.

      Reply
      1. jammer5

        Okay, different interpretations and perspectives. I’ll grant you that. As to a string being plucked, once it is plucked, it’s done, the rest can be predicted via math. But it’s what’s happened already that’s intriguing. Cause and effect. If recorded , is it still factual, or simply an echo. It’s certainly not real, in that it happened in the past, even though it was recorded in what was then the present. That particular conversation took place between a bunch of us, engineers, writers and little old me, at a restaurant in Tijuana back in the eighties, and got a bit heated at times. But was serious fun. The outcome was we all toasted the chef with some mighty fine brandy. So a toast to you is in order 🙂

        Reply
        1. sittingpugs Post author

          If recorded , is it still factual, or simply an echo. It’s certainly not real, in that it happened in the past, even though it was recorded in what was then the present.

          Like talking to someone’s reflection rather than the person himself. The reflection exists and is of a real person, but the reflection is not the person.

          Reply
          1. jammer5

            Exactly. And I had an old bottle of Kahlua in the cupboard, so a shot of that was saluted to you 🙂

            That conversation was fascinating. It started out as a discussion on basic frequencies as they pertained to computers, as both engineers there were computer engineers. How it evolved into a discussion of what happens when a guitar string is plucked, I don’t recall.

            But the consensus came down to this: When a string is plucked, it sets off a series of events, the first event being a frequency is generated. Then strings near it begin to vibrate sympathetically because of two things: one being in the proximity of the original vibration, and two, via material transfer. That’s pretty much a given. On instruments, like a Martin guitar, the effect is more pronounced, and is what some think results in the “presence” of an instrument.

            The second thing that starts is the wave generated by plucking the string. Because it is plucked along it’s length, the wave will be generated in two directions: towards the bridge and towards the neck. When each wave reaches it’s destination, it will rebound, and at some point along the string, they will collide. But as they are traveling back and forth, Doppler takes effect, meaning the frequency changes depending on the position of each wave along the string.

            If you not familiar with the Doppler effect, it means a frequency will increase as it comes toward and decrease as it travels away form you. Now all this occurs after the string is plucked, so while the original sound is done and gone, the residual effect is still going on.

            And that was the main point of contention: is the residual effect still the original sound, or is it a product of cause and effect? This question brought in both simulation and facsimile and took the discussion to a whole new level. Being a guitar player, I said if a note is struck, it’s done. It would be like creating a device that would automatically generate a harmonic note, when the original note is struck, and say it’s doing it in real time, which in my mind it isn’t, as it’s attempting to do so after the note is already struck.

            Your example of the reflection versus the real image defines it better than I did, but the result is still the same: it’s generating a harmonic note based on the reflection, rather than the actual note itself, because the actual note is long gone.

            By the way, the conversation took place in a newly opened five star restaurant in Tijuana. It was the dream of a Tijuana native who became a renowned chef in both Spain and France, and the meal was unbelievable. Unfortunately, Tijuana, as you now know, was not the best place for it, and it closed after less than six months. I felt bad for the chef, as he was a fascinating individual. He spent some time at our table exchanging pleasantries.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s