Cool News
UPDATED!! Dedicated Talkback: Today Is AVATAR Day!! How Is That 16 Minutes Of Footage?? + More!!
SPOILER ALERT !!
Merrick again...
An official teaser for the AVATAR-based video game has gone online over at Ubisoft.
See it HERE!!!
Merrick again...
In case you're not in an AVATAR Day zone, seems there may soon be more opportunities to behold material from the film.
Per this press relase from Panasonic...
Panasonic and Twentieth Century Fox Team For
Global Promotion of James Cameron's AVATAR
Panasonic Contributes to Creation of Highly Anticipated Hollywood Release
Osaka, Japan - Panasonic Corporation today announced collaboration with Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation and Lightstorm Entertainment on the global promotion of James Cameron's AVATAR. As the film's exclusive audio visual partner, Panasonic has provided some of its latest AV technology products to help create the eagerly awaited film which will debut in theaters worldwide on December 18 in both 2D and 3D. Through this collaboration, Panasonic will add momentum to its ongoing efforts to promote its industry-leading Full HD 3D technology to consumers.
In the epic action adventure AVATAR, James Cameron, the director of TITANIC, takes us to a spectacular new world beyond our imagination. On the distant moon Pandora, a reluctant hero embarks on a journey of redemption and discovery as he leads a heroic battle to save a civilization.
As part of the collaboration agreement, Panasonic will launch a global advertising campaign tied to AVATAR and promoting numerous Panasonic AV products, including 3D. It will mark the first time for the company to run a worldwide advertising campaign which is focused on a single film. Panasonic will show dazzling Full HD 3D assets related to AVATAR at numerous events to prove the power of 3D technology to consumers around the world. A sales promotion campaign tied to the new film will also be carried out by the company throughout the world.
In the United States, Panasonic will be activating the AVATAR partnership with a variety of sales and marketing components including integrated advertising in major media outlets as well as promotional activities to key trade and consumer audiences. Additionally, Panasonic will continue to educate various constituencies about 3D through a nationwide truck tour this Fall featuring multiple customized tractor trailers that will bring the immersive world of Full HD 3D to audiences using 103-inch Panasonic VIERA Plasma HDTVs and Blu-ray Disc Players. Panasonic will also showcase the appeal of Full HD 3D technology at major trade shows including the International Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas.
In Europe, three mobile Full HD 3D theaters will start visiting shopping malls and other locations this Fall. Beginning with the IFA trade fair to be held from September 4, Panasonic will show Full HD 3D videos including the AVATAR trailer at trade shows and events across Europe.
In Japan, promotional activities aligned with Twentieth Century Fox include TV commercials for Panasonic's VIERA flat-panel TVs that will air this Fall. At CEATEC 2009, a major electronics trade show in Asia which will be held from October 6, Panasonic will demonstrate its Full HD 3D technology at the Full HD 3D Theater in the Panasonic booth.
AVATAR is also a film that uses the latest in cutting-edge film production technologies made possible. Panasonic's AV products supported this effort. For example, Panasonic's 65-inch and 103-inch Plasma monitors are being used not only in the production studios but also in James Cameron's own editing room because their picture quality and accurate color representation earned high marks from the discerning film director. Other Panasonic products in use include the AJ-HPX3000G P2HD professional camcorders with P2 Memory Cards, which were used by James Cameron to map the scenes before shooting in 3D, notebook computers and LUMIX digital cameras.
"I believe 3D is how we will experience movies, gaming, and computing in the near future. 3D is not something you watch, it's a reality you feel you could step into," said Mr. Cameron. "In 2008 I was thrilled to join forces with the pioneers at Panasonic. They share my philosophy on the future of entertainment. As a consumer electronics company, they are setting new standards in technology. Panasonic's brilliance is demonstrated by their 3D presentation for the home. I've had an opportunity to view Panasonic's Full High Definition 3D technology first hand and it was remarkable. Panasonic is the perfect teammate for us behind and in front of the camera. They play a crucial role in realizing the next giant step forward for in-home entertainment."
"Our collaboration with Twentieth Century Fox and James Cameron as the exclusive audio visual partner on AVATAR is the largest promotional program Panasonic has ever undertaken focusing on a single film," said Toshiro Sakamoto, Executive Vice President of Panasonic Corporation. "It is truly an honor to be able to help bring the artist's vision to life. Panasonic is leading the way to bring 3D into the living room, taking home entertainment to a whole new level with our development of the first Full HD 3D Home Theater system, which we initially announced at CES 2009. Panasonic is also developing professional 3D production systems to improve the 3D production environment and make it easier for content creators to create more 3D programming for consumers to enjoy in the comfort of their own living rooms."
...which can be found HERE.
Merrick here...
As you're probably aware, the standard-length teaser/trailer for James Cameron's AVATAR hit The Net yesterday (HERE).
And, as you also probably know already, today is "AVATAR Day" near and far - when 16 minutes of the film will unspool for those lucky enough to snag tickets to screenings at select theaters.
Yesterday's standard trailer appears to have underwhelmed many - although viewers who've seen Cameron's Comic-Con presentation of footage say you have to experience this material presented on a big screen...and in 3D...to truly appreciate its quality, scope, and impact. Having not seen any material from AVATAR on a big screen/in 3D (our local IMAX - and theaters in general - are disappointing in a big, big way at the moment), I can't vouch for such assertions one way or the other.
So...dear readers participating in AVATAR Day today...tell us what you think in the Talkbacks below. How does your perception of the film differ between your viewing of its online trailer & seeing it in ultra-immersive humongo-vision? Does it feel like Space Smurfs -vs- Colonial Marines? Or, does today's footage draw you in and utterly win you over? Is there true magic at work here - or high end CGI that is, at the end of the day, just high end CGI? Or, does reality lie somewhere in between?
Tells us. Talk about it. Share with the world, and have fun!
In case you're not in an AVATAR Day zone, seems there may soon be more opportunities to behold material from the film.
Per this press relase from Panasonic...
Panasonic and Twentieth Century Fox Team For
Global Promotion of James Cameron's AVATAR
Panasonic Contributes to Creation of Highly Anticipated Hollywood ReleaseOsaka, Japan - Panasonic Corporation today announced collaboration with Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation and Lightstorm Entertainment on the global promotion of James Cameron's AVATAR. As the film's exclusive audio visual partner, Panasonic has provided some of its latest AV technology products to help create the eagerly awaited film which will debut in theaters worldwide on December 18 in both 2D and 3D. Through this collaboration, Panasonic will add momentum to its ongoing efforts to promote its industry-leading Full HD 3D technology to consumers.
In the epic action adventure AVATAR, James Cameron, the director of TITANIC, takes us to a spectacular new world beyond our imagination. On the distant moon Pandora, a reluctant hero embarks on a journey of redemption and discovery as he leads a heroic battle to save a civilization.
As part of the collaboration agreement, Panasonic will launch a global advertising campaign tied to AVATAR and promoting numerous Panasonic AV products, including 3D. It will mark the first time for the company to run a worldwide advertising campaign which is focused on a single film. Panasonic will show dazzling Full HD 3D assets related to AVATAR at numerous events to prove the power of 3D technology to consumers around the world. A sales promotion campaign tied to the new film will also be carried out by the company throughout the world.
In the United States, Panasonic will be activating the AVATAR partnership with a variety of sales and marketing components including integrated advertising in major media outlets as well as promotional activities to key trade and consumer audiences. Additionally, Panasonic will continue to educate various constituencies about 3D through a nationwide truck tour this Fall featuring multiple customized tractor trailers that will bring the immersive world of Full HD 3D to audiences using 103-inch Panasonic VIERA Plasma HDTVs and Blu-ray Disc Players. Panasonic will also showcase the appeal of Full HD 3D technology at major trade shows including the International Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas.
In Europe, three mobile Full HD 3D theaters will start visiting shopping malls and other locations this Fall. Beginning with the IFA trade fair to be held from September 4, Panasonic will show Full HD 3D videos including the AVATAR trailer at trade shows and events across Europe.
In Japan, promotional activities aligned with Twentieth Century Fox include TV commercials for Panasonic's VIERA flat-panel TVs that will air this Fall. At CEATEC 2009, a major electronics trade show in Asia which will be held from October 6, Panasonic will demonstrate its Full HD 3D technology at the Full HD 3D Theater in the Panasonic booth.
AVATAR is also a film that uses the latest in cutting-edge film production technologies made possible. Panasonic's AV products supported this effort. For example, Panasonic's 65-inch and 103-inch Plasma monitors are being used not only in the production studios but also in James Cameron's own editing room because their picture quality and accurate color representation earned high marks from the discerning film director. Other Panasonic products in use include the AJ-HPX3000G P2HD professional camcorders with P2 Memory Cards, which were used by James Cameron to map the scenes before shooting in 3D, notebook computers and LUMIX digital cameras.
"I believe 3D is how we will experience movies, gaming, and computing in the near future. 3D is not something you watch, it's a reality you feel you could step into," said Mr. Cameron. "In 2008 I was thrilled to join forces with the pioneers at Panasonic. They share my philosophy on the future of entertainment. As a consumer electronics company, they are setting new standards in technology. Panasonic's brilliance is demonstrated by their 3D presentation for the home. I've had an opportunity to view Panasonic's Full High Definition 3D technology first hand and it was remarkable. Panasonic is the perfect teammate for us behind and in front of the camera. They play a crucial role in realizing the next giant step forward for in-home entertainment."
"Our collaboration with Twentieth Century Fox and James Cameron as the exclusive audio visual partner on AVATAR is the largest promotional program Panasonic has ever undertaken focusing on a single film," said Toshiro Sakamoto, Executive Vice President of Panasonic Corporation. "It is truly an honor to be able to help bring the artist's vision to life. Panasonic is leading the way to bring 3D into the living room, taking home entertainment to a whole new level with our development of the first Full HD 3D Home Theater system, which we initially announced at CES 2009. Panasonic is also developing professional 3D production systems to improve the 3D production environment and make it easier for content creators to create more 3D programming for consumers to enjoy in the comfort of their own living rooms."
...which can be found HERE.
Merrick here...
As you're probably aware, the standard-length teaser/trailer for James Cameron's AVATAR hit The Net yesterday (HERE).
And, as you also probably know already, today is "AVATAR Day" near and far - when 16 minutes of the film will unspool for those lucky enough to snag tickets to screenings at select theaters.
Yesterday's standard trailer appears to have underwhelmed many - although viewers who've seen Cameron's Comic-Con presentation of footage say you have to experience this material presented on a big screen...and in 3D...to truly appreciate its quality, scope, and impact. Having not seen any material from AVATAR on a big screen/in 3D (our local IMAX - and theaters in general - are disappointing in a big, big way at the moment), I can't vouch for such assertions one way or the other.
So...dear readers participating in AVATAR Day today...tell us what you think in the Talkbacks below. How does your perception of the film differ between your viewing of its online trailer & seeing it in ultra-immersive humongo-vision? Does it feel like Space Smurfs -vs- Colonial Marines? Or, does today's footage draw you in and utterly win you over? Is there true magic at work here - or high end CGI that is, at the end of the day, just high end CGI? Or, does reality lie somewhere in between?
Tells us. Talk about it. Share with the world, and have fun!
-
+ Expand All
-
Forgive me, but what the fuck is CGI?
-
and I'll actually go with an open mind. I'm sure it'll be impressive. Eyeballs molested a bit. People need to get a grip. It was never going to change film forever. Movies have been around for a century...Jim Camerons CGI aliens aren't going to alter everything forever. Get a grip. It's gonna be a kickass ride of a film.
-
Computer Generated Imagery
-
I don't give a shit if it looks like a cartoon. I happen to like cartoons.
-
CG is just a shortened version of the already shortened CGI (Computer Generated Imagery). CG is just computer generated. So, sentence wise, it would be like. That alien is CG (Computer Generated) as opposed to being a directed and saying, "Lets create this alien using CGI (Computer Generated Imagery) Just context
-
No wait, i wont ever get to see it in 3D anywhere during its release because its only being shown in 2D nationwide this December!And so far the 2D looks mehh!
-
Thanks buddy.
-
but in my shitty country there is no 3d cinemas...i'm so hoping they release this movie in 3d for blu-ray like what there doing for the video game..
-
Thanks mate
-
India?
-
It was soo good, I didnt understand why this wasnt "better" than prawns in D9, also it was revolutionary, because damn, In 3D it was photoreal, in my head I compared, Beowulf and even Gollum facial captures, it was really damn good. The stereo 3D was soo good, my eye were completely focused and thought the screen was a window to another world. I saw it on fake IMAX, i wish it was just bigger, than I would be in there. This has to be watched on real IMAX screens.
-
way to view. How many people get to watch it in 3-D then?
-
By the time most of us get around to actually seeing it around 6 or 7 tonight, this TB will be completely and utterly useless in terms of discussion. once you get into the thousands of posts, its impossible to keep track of anyone or actually have your opinions expressed and compared to others. Should have waited a few more hours, at least. Now we're just gonna sit around all day and spout useless conjecture and listen to the haters say how bad it sucks and how jimmy cameron is a hack, etc etcetc. I'm tired of it already.
-
seriously, NO WAY, I hate shitty CG as the next person, GI JOe, made my eyes cry because the render are sucky, I feared for Avatar, becase the teaser does look cartoon and gamey, but not the 3D version. I really thought, naturally that everything was real that I can touch and feel. I tried hard to find the CG imperfect spots, nothing came out. Perfect, absolutely 350 million all on the screen.
-
What shitty country are you from?Im from Shitty Ireland!
-
The plot seems a bit cliched and cheesy as hell, and Sam comes across as a bit unsympathetic.The CGI looks pretty flawless to me, and you definitely get the feeling you are being immersed into this new world, though the world looks a bit like World of Warcraft. And it's a relief that the movie is shot in Cameron's classic action style. No ADD hand held camera or MTV editing. As for the 3D... I don't know. It is distracting, IMO. I experienced a bit of eye strain, and to me the image felt a bit dark and sort of always bordering on out of focus... don't know if that's me, the theatre, the technology or the fact that I was sitting pretty far to the right in the theatre. Also, some of the 3D shots are jarring, especially when there are small objects in the foreground. Still, some of it looks great, especially a scene where Sam is flying on a big pterodactyl-like animal. Also, shots featuring focus pulls seemed a bit odd. Added to the distraction were the subtitles (I'm not in the US), which were in 3D and really stood out, literally. Definitely gonna see this, but not sure if I'm gonna see it in 3D.
-
I watched in Japan, man, there was like no one. Super emtpy theater, AT THE ONLY IMAX theater in JAPAN. I think Japanese people are no going to like blue aliens.
I was walking in, some people didnt even know what they were in. They were like, what is this? Whats AVATAR? whos is Jim Cameron, I didnt even see Titanic.
there were only 30 people at the only showing at the only IMAX theater. WOW, this is not going to work in Japan, like how Dark Knight didnt even enter top 10 in Japan. They just dont like certain stuff. -
We're already getting reports from overseas, so...
-
the sound was actually what really impressed me. and it doesn't look nearly as cartoony in 3d on the big screen, especially when the characters are just talking to each outer and you can really see the performers behind the cg. i wasnt expecting so much michael bay shakey cam though, i think i was sitting a little close.. so consider my eyeballs fucked..although i wouldn;t say raped, because they were kinda getting used to it by the time it all ended. far to brief. i want to see more.
-
That's good that the CGI looks a lot better on the big screen, but what from the plot looks bad? That's not good if the plot is really weak. Not only do we want a nice looking movie, we want one that has a good story to go with it. Is that too much to ask?
-
I just watched the presentation, and while the 3D was impressive, the story looks cliched, cheesy and predictable. This was my first look at Avatar anywhere, and I kinda hated the design of the cat people.
Still, I am definitely seeing it in 3D at the biggest and best screen available. -
I think is the position you are in.
I mean all 3D movie have bad spots, due to the focus of polarize glasses.
since there was too many people in the Japan preview
I was dead center. DEAD center.
FLAWLESS, no headache, focus problem, perfect lighting, bright, not a pickle.
the ONLY shot I found hard, is the chase sequence with jake and the animal. There was too many trees moving across the screen which made the focusing hard.
BUT, i dont even think Cameron can do anyting about it, is not like you can remove trees in a forest. -
Aug 21, 2009 10:11:47 AM CDT
Who cares about Delgo 2 - Tarantino just delivered a masterpiece
by powersofi
Where is the Inglourious Basterds thread?
-
Just kidding. I wasn't aware other countries were getting Avatar Day as well, and so early in the morning. I figured it was just gonna be 6 and 7 everywhere. Sorry. But it'll still get filled up with nonsense by this afternoon. Just sayin.
-
so yes people have definitely already seen it.
-
Was pretty god damn impressive. The bio-luminous stuff was AWE-SOME and the 3D Stereo was better then I imagined.
If this sounds as if I am fawning over this film and hyping it up - that's because I am. Saw Joel Silver with Guy Richie as I was leaving... didnt hear what they were saying though. -
Middle ground CGI is middle ground CGI, no matter the size of the screen. What I saw in the teaser yesterday looked like something out of a Star Wars prequel, and not something worthy of having been hyped and overhyped (mainly by this site) for over a decade. I realize you guys are putting a lot of eggs in the Avatar basket because you've heralded it to the heavens, but jeez. That looks no different than your average Roland Emmerich or Paul W.S. Anderson film, and until I am proven otherwise, I will treat it as such.
-
Do I have to get there extra early. Is it first come first serve or does my email confirmation guarantee me a seat?
-
Avatar have more plot then Transformers and GI Joe in only 15 mins. I know that it is Dance with Wolves in Space, and Pocahontas Intergalatica.
But it is story that it is deep and easy to understand by any culture around the world.
Like Titanic, anyone from anywhere would get the simple story.
If you have Dark Knight, like in Asia, they just dont get it, no matter how good it is.
Avatar, the structure is soooo simple, anyone would understand it, and feel the character experince.
Naytiri is amazing. The moment she was crying in front of a dead Navi. I was like, oh shit, this shit is real performance....
freaking dance with wolves in space emotional. -
Now that people get to see 16 minutes of the dang thing.
-
you can remove trees in a forest when they all exist in weta computers.
-
Aug 21, 2009 10:18:14 AM CDT
The update is great news for the film....hopes rising.
by hint_of_smegma
Getting that much exposure really will put this film in peoples minds prior to release, although I still wonder how attractive the material and how it's presented will be to that general public, but I guess we'll see soon enough. I've watched the teaser 5 times now, I'm trying to take into account it is better (obviously) viewed in high def 3D but I have to say, despite others saying it improves with viewings, it didn't for me. Certain scenes are amazingly realistic (med bay 'This is Great!') and some are pretty bad, really delving into CG cartoon territory so on the basis of the material seen so far, I'm still worried for the movie. Knowing it's marketing is going to kick up a major notch is great news though, hopefully we're going to see more and get some great reports of how good it actually looks so fingers crossed, if a bit nervously. Beyond Terminator, Titanic and Aliens, the guy made The Abyss - and that was one of the best action 'character pieces' in decades, especially the directors cut - Cameron knows how to get great performances so lets hope he wasn't too caught up in the technology to notice. Downside is Michelle Rodriguez - there's no way of getting around that kind of shitty acting so I'm wondering if he's using CGI to whitewash her out of the movie. Again, here's hoping!
-
I was a doubter, and I was shut upped and eye raped by the 350 million dollar rendering in 8K resolution 3D. it was sick yo.
I even noticed that WETA brought back the eye balls of King KOng for the cat people of Navi.
Freaking simulation eye ball souls. It was real, no uncanny, souless eye balls, but Kong oscar level CG eye balls. Amazing. -
Anyways, I can't wait till 6pm.
-
I know, but it wouldnt be a forest. Even they have power to remove it. I was saying that the scene was in a forests, set in a forest, therefore distracting trees for the chase.
-
Now in Three-Deeeeeeee!
-
freaking 3D sensory overload from the stereo presentation.
-
That term is really offensive and insensitive and kinda makes me sick. The maturity level on these talkbacks here is subterranean. Surprising that the staff hasn't addressed it.
-
Yes, i agree. Navi are Thundercats, mixed with CATS musical, smurfs, and pocahontas. But I still found it strange that Cameron gave them nipples.
I dont think nipple were neccessary, since they are alien. Very distracting nipples on blue aliens. -
What did you see? How about a description of the scenes, etc?
-
BUT GANG RAPED multiple times by stunning VISUALS. is a metaphor, get it?
-
it is a bunch of clips not connected with each other. Same stuff from comic-con.
-
But the trailer looked stunning to me, so, I can watch that while I wait for Dec.
-
I'm planning my Friday night with the Mrs. and I have the tickets but... it is kind of a hassle getting to the theater.
-
for the million of us who want to see it recorded off a cell-phone?
-
Please get eye ball raped together with the Mrs. I did it with mine. We were both stunned after for about 20 mins. Wordless. Violated by 3D
-
I get your ignorance loud and clear.
-
Is going to be all blurry, from polarized images. It is worthless on cell phones, camera, crap the teaser trailer is worthless.
THis can be only watched in a 3D IMAX theater. -
I will use the word "violated" instead from now on.
-
From what i read of the Comic Con stuff its pretty much the same.
I forget the order, but we have a scene where Sam Worthington shows up to a breifing by harcore sargent in his wheel chair. Then a scene where his is put on a table by sigorney weaver before waking up on the table and running out of the room. Then where Sigourney, Worthington and another Avatar are in the jungle with big beasties. SamW being chased by a Jaguar/raptor and saved by Girl Navi, The two of them in AWESOME bioluminous jungle. Then where SamW has to ride the dragon - before finishing with the end of the trailer. We also had an intro from Cameron in 3D. -
Peace.
-
As in 'violated' with a plunger handle?
-
Aug 21, 2009 10:41:05 AM CDT
What about those who don't live anywhere near an IMAX theater?
by mr_incredible
What about those, Jim? Because most people will only be seeing the underwhelming teaser trailer and not the 16-minute IMAX 3D preview.
-
for PS2?
-
The Christmas Carol train was FUCKING AMAZING! Yeah I live in a state the went that route instead.
-
Aug 21, 2009 10:42:44 AM CDT
sooo can someone record it by putting the glasses in front of th
by rartus
I'm lazy.
-
it is amazing. Dec is so far away. This is true premium presentation of a motion picture. no TS rips, video recordings, crap not even in a normal 2K theater.
4K to 8K, fake IMAX and real IMAX is the only way to enjoy this presentation. Other than that, it would be lesser of a overhype experience. Just get the best experience you can. and let 350 million of 8K renderings entertain you, and it got a story from, dont forget, 14 oscars TITANC, TERMINATOR boy. all I know, is that I am bored, and this WILL entertain me in way not done before. I seen every 3D movie released until now. NOT DISNEY DIGITAL 3D, DREAMWORKS IN-TRYU 3D, ro IMAGEMOVERS 3D, or IMAX 3D for potter. THis is truely the BEST 3D in presentation form ever made up to now. I think this is what JC is saying about the revolutionizing. The best up to now, until someone sees this, and try to top it in the future, MAYBE TRON LEGACY, HOBBIT 3D, I dont know. It will be the best untl that happens. SO enjoy it.
go in with a open mind, most important thing, you will be entertained and oh,.. eye ball raped. sleep now, laters. have fun with the talkbacks. -
I'm going to go see this at 7.15 then see District 9 THEN Inglourious Basterds....my senses are going to be completely violated by the end of today!!!!!!!
-
That had some of the most realistic looking faces, hair renderings, etc.. but it's not enough to fool the human eye. You still know that you're looking at digital.
Ironically, it may look better on the small screen, which will cover up the flaws. -
WAS RAPED! Nothing else.Sorry James, your film looks like garbage.It looks like a film for ten year old girls.
-
The movie!
-
Not once did I think "this is CGI". It was more like "can this really be CGI?". I had to remind myself that blue cat people don't exist. The performances are totally believeable. In response to what I felt was cliched: the Navi are the classic cliche of the indigenous people, "noble savages" in touch with nature. And their native language sounded too made up to me (that's nitpicking though). It feels like pochahontas, dances with wolves and countless episodes of western series. And Sam is of course the ignorant modern man who is slowly assimiliated in the tribe through different trials, thus learning to appreciate their way of life and fight on their side when the humans invade. So it feels sort of predictable, run of the mill plot, which didn't appear to hold to many surprises when it comes to character developments or plot turns. I may of course be wrong. The couple of glimpses we had of the fight scenes looked awesome though.
-
Aug 21, 2009 10:44:53 AM CDT
it's not a Pixar film, it's a James Cameron film...
by porkinz the x-wing instructor
Those of you who are being so negative about this kickass movie must be kids who were in diapers when Titanic came out; if you've been to the movies to watch ANY of his movies, you know that they always kick your ass (in a good way)!!
-
= No money from Series7.
-
if you snagged the tickets and DONT go its a dick move to all the people that wanted to go but couldn't get tickets. YOU'RE GOING.
-
He breaks out his Mad-Libs book to start a screenplay, I bet. Still, I'm very much looking forward to Dec. 18th.
-
hold on to your butt man, that's quite a lineup.
-
Nah, just kidding. I suppose this 16-minute preview won't be posted on the Internet (in HD, of course). Hopefully, the second trailer will do a better job at selling the movie for the unconvinced.
-
Have to take the lady out on the town anyways, get a nice fancy dinner afterwards. Maybe see BASTERDS if she's up for it too...
-
http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-way-of-the-barbarian-infusing-your-spiritual-life-with-conan/
-
atta boy. enjoy it for those of us who cannot!
-
Except for Titanic of course.
-
I am a huge fan of this site and always love hearing other people's stories about being the first ones to see this and that. I was lucky enough to grab 2 seats for NYC Lincoln Center 6 p.m. showing today. I can't wait to share with all of you what I think is going to be a great 15 minutes at the cimena. Was I a bit let down by the trailer? Yes, but I have faith that this will be a whole different experience on IMAX. Anyone else going to the same place today as I am?
-
to some extent
-
Aug 21, 2009 10:58:22 AM CDT
THUNDERSMURFS, THUNDERSMURFS, THUNDERSMURFS HOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
by carlthormark1978
-
The more I really dig it.
-
Seriously, I thought the trailer looked pretty damn good. Couple of scenes almost had me fooled, unlike The Incredible Hulk (which I liked, but damn, sucky CGI). It's nice to see CG that uses a color palette, instead of everything being shades of gray. (I'm looking at you, WETA!)
-
Does Harry even contribute to this site anymore beyond the weekly DVD reviews which he doesn't even do weekly anymore? It seems that Merrick has taken over all of Harry's duties on the site and the lazy fuck with the easiest job in the world can't be bothered to do said job. What gives? Is he in semi-retirement?
-
On our glorious full size IMAX screen. Anyone else in the Nashville area going tonight?
-
With a few space battles thrown in? Just going completly by the trailer here, don't judge me.
-
What a fucking odd year for Box Office results, like every big film grossed more money overseas then in America. Yeah I know thats usually ture, but it seemed overwhelmingly so in 97.
-
And it would still be the highest grossing movie ever.
-
Nuff said.
-
But what's with the art direction? "Hey, we're building an entirely original alien world and its inhabitants from the ground up. So here's the plan. First, we'll dive right into the uncanny valley by making sure nothing we create is more than two or three superficial features away from its terrestrial equivalent. Then, once we've got just the right amount of space elf in our sketches, we'll fill the whole thing in using the color palette from MS Paint."
Also, is the super-lo-def game trailer intended to make the movie look good by comparison? I want the film to succeed but I'd like to start whining about the game as soon as possible. -
really? Stats? comparisons? interesting.
-
The last Airbenderover.
-
We dont have any imax theaters were I live (uruguay) and we still have avatar day. It`s on 3D screens, just no Imax.
Im going today at 8pm baby! -
...when inserted into real backgrounds, like District 9 and Mighty Joe Young. When EVERYTHING on screen is CG (like the Star Wars sequels), it just somehow looks less real.
-
Mind Blowing! Comparing the 2d to the 3D version - i've seeen both.
Is the difference between watching someone eat and eating yourself.
Fanboys are going to explode. -
It's going to THAT booked.
-
Jungle. Amazing.
This is a 3D film. As soon as tickets are on sale at IMAX. Book! -
It may not be as revolutionary as Cameron boldly suggested - but this is an epic sci-fi flick... can you ask for anything more?
-
Why does it seem some posters never have ANYTHING to say about anything other than how much it sucks? Will they have the nerve to admit they were wrong come December or will they be in hiding?
-
...Just the same old 3D we've been seeing the past two years? What could possibly be NEW in 3D?
-
which was in 3D but because i had lasix done years ago i literally could not see the 3D either with the glasses or without, because both were blurry. i kinda wonder whether my eyes would still react that way just because it's in DIGITAL 3-D. My best bet to not waste money would be to see it in 2-D. anyone else have lasix done, and have the problem i have? anyone? bueller?
-
Pee. You.
-
I just got back from the preview at the cinedom, Cologne, germany. I did not like the trailer much, but in 3D on a big screen, its much better. Still I'm no convinced, its action packed and loud and in-your-face, but somehow it still looks like a computer animation, and I was not really drawn into it. It was not like the dinosaurs in Jurassic park, where i really thought I was looking at a giant dinosaur.
You see Jake Sully arriving in the military base, getting ready for becoming a an alien ( with the help from Weaver ) and making his first moves as an alien in the lab, that was ok. You see him fighting big creatures in the dark jungle, but when the scenery gets lit up, with gleaming colours and everything, its a computer animation. The best we have ever seen maybe, but still ... -
Completely overated.....
-
Just cut off the tails.
-
It's blurry without having had lasix. 2D is the way to go if you ask me.
-
How many times does it have to be said? The majority of people who see this film will see it in normal screens and most of those won't have 3D, therefore no matter how good Avatar looks in Imax 3D, it will be a far lesser experience for the average movie goer.
Maybe Cameron has pushed the technology, maybe he hasn't. But it won't matter because most people will see big blue cartoons, not living, breathing aliens. -
That's what the Navi look like:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_0rKA1cgjjVw/RjGmvDClocI/AAAAAAAAAAk/cBP5JN8m4tE/s320/monstar.gif -
...complaining that Yoda in The Empire Strikes Back looks like "a rubber puppet." He was. And the Na'vi are CG. Are you detractors really THAT unimaginative?
-
One minute until showtime! So excited!
-
Except that we also know that prawns in District 9 are fake...but they don't look it. District 9 probably has the best alien work done in recent years and for a fraction of the budget of Avatar.
-
Hi. It's 3D. It's just so well shot. This film comes alive.
-
Are going to have heart attacks when they see this.
-
The Prawns look every bit as CG as the Na'vi. Which is to say, they look convincing and serve the story well. You're comparing a feature-length experience to a trailer. When I saw the District 9 trailer, I thought the Prawns looked terrible. The film itself changed my mind. Is it so hard to believe that Avatar will have the same effect?
-
Aug 21, 2009 12:15:44 PM CDT
If you "have" to see a movie in imax and 3d then it's already fa
by alienindisguise
Great art can stand alone without gimmicks. If a movie has a great story then you can watch it on a 13 inch black and white and still get moved.
-
Is Jimmy just lying to us and its actually so advanced the image is truly shown in 3D, but we have to wear the glasses so we don't get STDs when Jim juices all over our faces when the credits roll?
-
nice. I was thinking how the table scene was storyboarded on how an nba player sits while getting taped up,
-
So I was super amped to watch this panel, especially since it was in 3D. The last 3D movie I saw was Beowulf, which didn't really wow me in terms of the 3D effects (I did enjoy the film though).
For some reason, I sort of expected 3D in Avatar to be used like it was in Beowulf, and so many 3D pics before it - as a gimmick to shove something out of the screen.
In the 30 mins of Avatar that we were shown, I saw 3D being used very differently from Beowulf. Avatar uses 3D to draw the viewer's focus to the characters/subjects, and make them seem deep into the screen. Get the difference?
I'm sure things will fly out of the screen in Avatar, but the 3D seems to make the screen deeper, and ultimately more immersive.
Just my humble opinion. I am now donning my flamesuit - carry on! -
I do not think it will matter if the story is good. Sure, if the trailer CGI is indicative of the whole film, geeks will continue to whinge that cameron failed to 'push the envelope' when it comes to photo realism. And since he did use that expression, he will get roasted - verbally, if not financially. But if the story is good, and the action compelling, audiences have already signaled that an animated movie can make a helluva lot of money. So far, this looks like a live action/animated hybrid. I certainly plan to see it, and will reserve judgment. Yes, D9 aliens looked very, very real. Whether that was due to them being integrated into a real background, and thus having our eyes fool us, VS a complete cgi world, I do not know. I will say this though, does anyone remember that one really awful sequence in Iron Man were he blows up the tank and walks away. It looked truly awful. That was a cgi put into a real world. Most of Iron man looked amazing though.
-
Camerson whould have went with ILM for the CGI...WETA's best work is still nowhere close to ILM's best...guess Cameron wanted to save some money by going with WETA but the end result will suffer...I can only imagine how good that trailer would have looked with ILM's magic...drool
-
EDIT: Cameron 'should' have went with ILM
-
it still looks gamey and cluttered and the cgi can't hold a candle to Gollum or King Kong and they didn't need 3d to look good so there ya go.
-
Aug 21, 2009 12:25:04 PM CDT
I just realized this isn't really a movie. It's more of a...
by flickapoo
...theme park event type thing, like CAPTAIN EO. That changes the definition of success quite a bit...
-
the latter means that whatever object is there looks and reacts just like in the real world with nary a trace of cg'ness. Avatar so far has failed that test.
-
Aug 21, 2009 12:26:30 PM CDT
I'm with you, Merrick, on the disappointment scale. If anyone f
by greatwhitenoise
Our local IMAX theatres in Vancouver are also not carrying the clip today. Totally unacceptable! If that's a Cineplex decision, shame on you. If that's a local management decision, then I suggest you lean on them fiercely for dropping the ball on this. They're giving you a bad name.
-
There were a couple moments of herky-jerkiness that reminded me that they were CGI. For me the closest thing to perfect would Davey Jones from Dead Man's Chest. I seriously thought it was a mixture of prosthetic and cgi, I didn't find out until later that it was all motion capture.
-
Aug 21, 2009 12:27:31 PM CDT
Ahem...if anyone from Cineplex / Famous Players is reading...
by greatwhitenoise
Our local IMAX theatres in Vancouver are also not carrying the clip today. Totally unacceptable! If that's a Cineplex decision, shame on you. If that's a local management decision, then I suggest you lean on them fiercely for dropping the ball on this. They're giving you a bad name.
-
Cameron needs to crawl in a corner and quietly off himself ASAP because this movie is gonna tank on a major scale. Wtf happened man? I mean this cartoony bullshit from the man who brought us T2 and Aliens. I have lost faith in movies and with the exception of a certain few(Chris Nolan, David Fincher, Paul Greengrass) it would seem most film makers have lost originality and substance in there works.
-
Its not even booked in all the Imax screen for Christmas/release. A lot of them will still be showing A Christmas Carol which comes out in early November.
-
First of all, it is Cameron, and it will have a huge opening because he is after all the director of the highest grossing movie of all time, and this is his first feature in ten years, and it is a sci fi spectacular. 2) Nothing else will be competing with it at the time. 3) Only geeks will complain about the lack of photo-realism as long as the story itself kicks ass. The cgi in the trailer while not seemless, does not offend the senses. So if the story is great, this movie will make serious money.
-
who gives a fuck?
-
You've lost faith in movies over a two minute trailer? Not to mention a trailer that's filled with all kinds of awesome sci-fi/fantasy that's never been seen like this before? Because if anything, faith was lost with summer with almost every big budget movie that came out, and Cameron has single handedly restored that.
And as for Weta vs. ILM. Well they're both pretty damn good, but Weta did Gollum, who was a MAJOR breakthrough, and King Kong, which might be the best CG character ever, in a tossup with Davy Jones. -
If I had to venture a guess, I'd say $250-280 million domestic. We're talking HARRY POTTER numbers here.
-
It appears you do, or you wouldn't be wasting your time posting here, you fucking wank.
-
Toadkillerdog, and MandrakeRoot come on man. Are you guys serious or just in denial. The movie did'nt look like anything spectacualr and just because Camerons attached to it dosen't mean its gonna make a lot of money. I mean it might do well for the first week or two but then trail off into the abyss(no pun intended). And yeah MandrakeRoot I totally agree with you on how there really were no good movies this summer and just over inflated crap like Transformers2 or Terminator Slvation, which could have been good. But this was the movie that was supposed to change that and a trailer is supposed to make you more excited about going to see the movie. This did just the opposite and now I don't think I'm gonna spend ten dollars to see Ferngully 2.
-
Can you imagine what it would have been like, if the AICN TBers were around when FP came out?
-
Darn, so no tchotchke is being handed out? I was at least hoping for a pin or something. It's Avatar Day, for cryin out loud!
-
This will exceed Dark Knight, no problem. You forget, this is a LOVE story. Once the word spread it will work its James Cameron/Titanic magic and the young girls will want to be the blue alien girl and escape into the romance. Anyone who even remotely doubts Avatar will have their ass handed to them., Remember all the negativity leading up to Titanic's release? All I can say is, buy Fox stock now.
-
If the CGI creatures look as terrible to you as they do to me, instead of shelling out money for a ticket, how about this: don't go. I mean, if you're in my camp and think CGI is killing Hollywood movies, there's a really easy way to do something about it. Hit Hollywood where it hurts most: box office receipts. Then maybe, just maybe, they'll get back to making movies that look and feel believable.
-
I agree Cameron should have hired ILM. They have never let him down before. BTW CGI is an outdated term. It's CG now.
-
is the teaser deliberatly lame? the footage is mind boggling, way beyond anything we've seen in cineama's. not a trace of final fantasy-ism: the performances are truly that: performances. the Na'vi are actually ALIVE.
-
Aug 21, 2009 12:56:19 PM CDT
James, your over-hyped Dances With Thundersmurfs nonsense...
by biggusdickus
...will be nowhere near as good a movie as your ex-wife's brilliant 'The Hurt Locker'.You know it too, don't you Jimbo?
-
Is due to the lack of interest coming off of Comic-Con. After Comic Con Ironman pics and District 9 ravs where everywhere, not just geek sites. The fact that the trailer is released barley got noticed out side of geek sites. I heard the morning radio show I listen to (Lex and Terry?? Anyone?) talk about District 9 and Iron Man 2, I've yet to hear shit about Avatar from them. And they don't know fuck all about movies. Think about Speed Racer, I didn't even realize that it was at comic con before it came out. Huge bomb. I don't think it will do that but I bet it will be more like The Watchmen. Unless the reviews are amazing for it. If it gets great reviews it'll probably be pretty big.
-
Don't mind me, the comment "the Na'vi are actually ALIVE" made me do it.
-
Aug 21, 2009 1:01:42 PM CDT
that should have read "It's Alive 3: Island of the Alive"
by turketron_2
-
That is dead on. They would say - the monster looks animated! *He was, so what it looked awesome!* Robby is just some duded in a metal suit! *he was, so what he was awesome!*
-
Sure, the trailer makes this look like a live action/animated hybrid, and not groundbreaking cgi. And yes, Cameron has no one to blame but himself if he promised photo-realism and this is the best he could deliver. But I can not help but think tat a huge part of the geek reaction is due to a basic desire to 'tear down the idols'. Cameron is not above being derided, and his monumental ego sets him up for such. I am a fan of his movies, but not the man himself. After that fiasco trying to prove that Jesus was a myth, I lost a huge amount of respect for him. But it does not lessen my enjoyment for the talent that shows up on-screen. If the trailer is indicative of the movie, the cgi will be a letdown. No if's an's or but's about it. However, that does not mean the movie will be bad or will fail. If he tells a compelling story and the action is a great, who cares if we are watching an animated movie?
-
Why dont they just make cartoons? I like the good old days of Aliens and Terminator 2, when stuff actually looked real. Even the Star Trek Movies looked more authentic than this tripe.
color me uninterested. -
At no point did I think I was looking at real footage. I guess I didn't realize this was an all CGI mo-cap movie, I thought it had some live action and was more like 300 or Sin City. The trailer was gigantically underwhelming. And I'm sorry, but "you have to see it on the big screen in 3D" does not bode well for your movie. Because if your 10 year epic really only works in 3D on an Imax, you've got some serious problems to address between now and whenever this movie comes out. It's Cameron so I'm hopeful, but this is not what I was expecting. I've avoided most stories about the movie and had no idea what I was looking at in the teaser, but it was only mildly engaging and the CGI people were distracting.
-
Wife number six.
-
The movie looks really interesting to me, but talking about whether or not it will be a box office success is a different animal.Even if it opens "big," it's all relative. They have to make a ton of money just to recoup the cost of making and advertising the film. Titanic hit it big because of the repeat business and great word of mouth. But all of those women who saw Titanic (a certified finanical smash), or even much earlier "repeat chick viewing" movies like Ghost aren't going to see Avatar four or five times while it's in theaters. They've been desensitized to spectacle/sci fi/cool alien movies by the video games their children play and the DVDs their kids have watched 1000 times. Plus, in the last decade they have seen three more Star Wars Movies, a glut of Pixar stuff, and may have sat through 10000 BC, Matrix Reloaded, or other movies that Avatar evokes unintentionally. It could be a great movie, but once it opens and that initial spike of money peters out after a couple of weekends, what will the final tally be? I'm thinking more along the lines of the Abyss or Watchmen than Titanic. Plus, many other people besides me have already said it: Avatar just isn't on the public's mind right now. I have heard no one outside of this site and CHUD who knows this movie even exists.
-
It's not the CG so much that is the issue, it's the fact that the Navi look........ well they look stupid. They don't look menacing or anything, they essentially look like bipedal, skinny cat-creatures. Had they added more 'meat' to them and they didn't look so anime-ish, they might have worked better. It's just when someone like Cameron says this "will get butts back into theater seats" and whatnot, I expect the man to deliver, as does everyone else rightfully because we all make up the financial backing that makes the movie industry.
-
...but I have just SEEN the 3D footage in a cinema and repeat: the goofy blue elves of the teaser trailer are, in actual fact, not goofy but, I'll say it again, ALIVE... The crappy teaser looks like souped up pre-viz footage, the 15 minutes of Avatar Day decidedly did not. Forget the teaser.
-
anybody who says otherwise must be partially blind
-
Examples of exceptional CGI in movies? "Zodiac" a film where the CGI enhanced the movie and helped transport the viewer into the period.
-
is embarrassingly shallow. You can't tell from watching the movie which effects house worked on individual shots. Give it a rest.
-
does have an article about it today, ironically. So I stand corrected there. Took five minutes.
-
When James Cameron figures out how to make a 3D film where we don't have to wear special glasses to watch his film ... THEN it will be the wave of the future. Otherwise it's a gimmic no matter how well he does it. Make a camera that does what the old Viewmaster Dinosaurs series accomplished and I'm there.
-
Should've done this on Labor Day...
-
to say one can't tell the different between each effects companies style is absurd. Sure we may not know the 3rd party effects houses working under each company and what they are doing by why is that even relevant?
if you can't tell the difference, i recommend going to the opthamologist. And of course if you go see Avatar, make sure you ask that opthamologist for a rape kit.
-
Going in a few hours. Please don't suck. At least its free.
-
I thought that the creatures and even some of the hardware looked very much like CGI and it totally broke the spell of Suspension of Disbelief. I really hope the movie proves me wrong as I have never been dissapointed in a Cameron movie, but I suspect that this one is going in for a major crash landing. I can hardly watch a movie with alot of CGI unless it's seamless. THE INCREDIBLE HULK CGI looks every bit as good as AVATAR and I hated that movie. Most CGI looks something that would be more at home on a Video Game-NOT the Big Screen-it just looks fake up there. I did see DISTRICT 9 and the Fx were virtually seamless. Those creatures looked real, while the AVATAR...not so much.
-
should be making $1 trillion. It's true, young females do spend a lot of money- Hannah Montana is living proof of that fact, but in all seriousness, this is going to be a hit, but not a earth-shattering cultural event.
-
Can we go home now?
-
the Dolby 3d is pretty spiffy... transforms the movie quite a bit!
-
The real problem is that you have already decided, based on a 2 minute teaser trailer. Maybe in the future movies will be made by popular concensus, even then not everyone will agree on characters, plots, endings e.t.c. This is Cameron's movie, so we, as always, decide to see it or not.
-
If you just saw the trailer, post in that talkback.
-
I am tired of having to explain to people that this is not M Night's movie based on a shitty cartoon. The sooner Avatar gets some name recognition among the non-geek demographic, the better.
-
Everyone who has been disappointed by the trailer, everyone who thinks it looks like CG cartoon bullshit, everyone who thinks it will tank and James Cameron will be sucking dick for spare change, YOU'RE ALL GOING TO GO SEE IT.
Right?
If not just to prove a point about how accurate your foreshadowing was. You're all going to pay money to see it.
This movie will clean up. And like Harry or somebody said, this is the beginning of a media onslaught. They don't make a 250 million dollar (or whatever) fantasy sci-fi epic with franchise in mind without also figuring in about 200 million (or whatever) of advertising.
I gotta tell ya, I'm kinda convinced this movie will make shitloads of money.
Just kinda funny, is all. -
The footage really fuck with your perception of time! It just flew by! And yes it is the best 3D yet! The most beautiful and detailed CGI ever, extremely brightly lit. And yes Cameron fans expecting ALIENS or T2 are in for a rude Awakening. This is the movie were CAMERON outpixared PIXAR! And i dont mean it in a derogatory way! The pixar guys are gonna look at it and go: How will we ever top that!
Seriously the world are gonna be hit with a magnificent movie in Desember. i will watch it at least 4 times! My mind is already craving more and i will have to watch the trailer on a daily basis just to get my Fix! -
...the Gamescom, but I didn't want to wait in line for more than 2hrs. :P (The new Castlevania footage, with the voices of Patrick Stewart and Robert Carlyle looked pretty cool though)
-
I still think it will prove a failure. The trailer looks like a cartoon, and in the theater it looks like a 3D cartoon. It boils down to "feeling" you either walk away feeling that you like it or you do not. In this case, I do not. I don't hate Cameron personally, I just don't like this movie.
-
That means it just as AWESOME as Transformers 2 ! But ICE AGE 3 only had a 90 million dollar budget LMAO
-
I can happily report that it looks very impressive, the 2D trailer doesn't do the film justice. Looking forward to seeing the whole thing now :-)
-
Saw it. Anyone tells you the Na'vi aren't photo-real - they're LYING. Anyone tells you that 3D is 'just a gimmick' - they're FULL OF SHIT. As others have said, forget the teaser. It's impressive, but it doesn't even remotely do justice to this movie. In 3D, any problems you may have had disappear. The Na'vi DO look like actors in makeup, especially in close-ups, and are incredibly expressive. Sigourney's Avatar could literally be her in make-up - the mo-cap work is flawless. And damn - a real Aliens vibe from seeing her in a new JC movie. The nighttime forest is stunning - like an acid trip. Real magic at work. Great Cameron compositions in the small action scenes shown, dynamic but clear - Bay can get screwed. And most importantly, breathing space between the action - Cam isn't afraid to slow things down and take in the performances and atmosphere. My only minor complaint is a few shots in the scene with Jake wrestling the bansheeray slip out of the uncanny valley somewhat, but Cameron said that about 9 out of 10 shots will be over it and pull you back, and he was right. Plus, there's still time to improve things; the FX work will be right down to the wire on this show. Over all - a stunning and immersive experience. This movie WILL be this generation's Star Wars/LOTR, and for us JC fans of the 80's and 90's, a real return to quality blockbusters. See it on the biggest screen you can come December. James Cameron has done it again.
-
then it will look realistic on film. I never saw a trailer that looked fake that did'nt look fake on film. Oh, and BTW: Most of us dont live where we can see it on IMAX. It's going to be judged on film.
-
You are mercilessly mauling the trailer, the effects, James Cameron, but YOU'RE STILL GOING TO GO SEE IT. Forget what I said about it making alot of money, you're right, that's irrelevant.
I just find it funny that 99% of you that are so appalled by Avatar at this point, you're still going to put down your hard-earned cash and go watch the movie.
I'd think you'd just stay home. Somebody said above 'If you don't like it, save your money.'
I don't even get why people are so passionately irate. Wouldn't you just accept that it doesn't look very good and move on? Why post continuously about how terrible everything is?
Flash of lightning. Nevermind. I just realized I'm questioning the entire concept of the internet now.
Forget everything I said.
If you are not excited for Avatar, that's totally fine. Nobody is right or wrong about it. I am hyped, and I'm glad I'm hyped, because it's that feeling that I used to get for big exciting movies when I was little.
Fuck an Avatar Day though. I don't want to see anymore until December. -
Just in case somebody at the FOX HQ is interested in a straightforward opinion from Germany: Good luck. Why? The technology, I guess the projectors are the Achilles' heel of your project.
Right after the free preview I spoke with the manager of my local cinema where "state of the art" (his words) projectors have been installed just 2-3 months ago for Ice Age 3. I've complained about the flicker during the action sequences, it was impossible to follow the movie and I still have headache while typing this little review. My eyes are still fine and I'm 32, so I'mpretty sure this is not the problem here.
As long as the picture was standing still the movie was interesting, it looked "interesting", but as soon as the main character or any other character "moved" it was unwatchable. The "Jurassic Park"-like chase was simply not identifiable, sorry. It was not only too fast, but the conversion/rendering/interline flicker/whatever its name for this phenomenon is was terrible. I am not complaining about some Bourne Identity fast cuts etc, but the technology itself. The data amount was apparently too much for the "state of the art" projectors.
We do not have IMAX here in Dortmund, I suppose it is RealD (at least this was the name of the sun glasses), maybe it looks different there, but I recommend to stay away of plain German 3D cinemas. I've heard of similar complaints earlier, especially watching Ice Age 3D which has far less action. Avatar is different.
I will not comment the content or the story line since I do not know it, frankly the visuals with humans looked interesting in 3D, the 2nd half however, this was not my taste (hey, remember, I'm 32) and 95% of the whole footage was pure CGI. I love J. Cameron's movies but this one, I don't know, it is not his style. It was like looking at SHREK, but in blue or Star Wars: Revenge of The Sith, especially the Yoda parts. Great visuals, but unfortunately fake looking. Stallone looks more real with his botox filled face.
Again, it sounds a little bit harsh but these are just my thoughts. The trailer looks worse online and I recommend to check out the preview because there is a major difference between both mediums, but one have to accept this digital made environment in order to like it I guess. The "visuals" can not be compared with any previous films made by Cameron. So do not expect Titanic, True Lies or T2. -
It's always been story.
-
Seriously? I mean, the alien effects were incredible and these creatures truly are photo-realistic. But what the hell's the point when they're so completely human looking? Give me testicles, extra appendages, wings, something other than anthropomorphic WoW characters. Sure it's an incredible CGI effect and truly photo-realistic, but if your going to use this technological innovation to create something that could easily be achieved with traditional make-up what's the point?
400M for World of Warcraft characters... SUCK IT ETHIOPIA! -
Doubts disappeared. This is going to be so huge.
The HD trailer is SHIT. And I defended it. but this reallydeserevs big screen. No other way around it. -
You can't make me!
-
Aug 21, 2009 2:16:43 PM CDT
For people to want to watch 3-D at home, the movie has to be a b
by trannyformers_apologist
Panasonic has equipped vans with large 3D TVs and plans to drive them around North America and Europe showing Avatar footage as early as next month.
Panasonic is planning to start selling 3-D TVs next year. Rivals, including Sony Corp., which has its own movie division, and Samsung Electronics Co. of South Korea have shown prototypes and may offer similar products.
The problem is the scarcity of content to view in 3-D. Skeptics say a number of Blu-ray discs of appealing 3-D movies must come out for 3-D TVs to catch on.
Several animation films are already being shown in theaters in 3-D, but "Avatar," set for release Dec. 18, will be the first major non-animation film debuting worldwide in both 2-D and 3-D.
"I believe 3-D is how we will experience movies, gaming and computing in the near future. 3-D is not something you watch. It's a reality you feel you could step into," Cameron said on video.
Panasonic is hoping its collaboration with Cameron will give it an edge in brand image as a 3-D leader as well as in obtaining suggestions for technological improvements for home TVs, said General Manager Masayuki Kozuka.
"We want to get global interest rolling," he told The Associated Press. "For people to want to watch 3-D at home, the movie has to be a blockbuster."
-
to fuck you eyes!!! ZOIDBERG: "Ah, what am I saying?"
Not seeing AVATAR today... Somewhat intrigued by it, not bowled over by the trailer, but yanno, at least, unlike this years TREK, we will finally be visiting some truly alien worldscape, if on the cartoony side of reality. I sorta liked when that Na'vi chick jumped on that flying thing... Hmmm. -
John Knoll is supervising. They are working on the final big battle. Now everyone can shut up. ILM AND WETA are collaborating together on this film.
-
Are you media guys? I rang IMAX and they said there are NO public screenings in OZ, only closed media showings (and obviously contest winners etc). How did you guys get in?
-
Oh god, do I wish that was true, TurdOnTheRun!!!
-
Aug 21, 2009 2:27:09 PM CDT
Majority of people who see the film in a 2-D environment
by trannyformers_apologist
Cameron quote:"You have to make a good film that would be a good film under any circumstances," he said. "You have to put the narrative first. The reality is no matter how many (3-D) screens we get, you are still going to have a large number of people -- possibly the majority of people -- who see the film in a 2-D environment."
-
There's no contradiction between going to the film and being disappointed in the trailer. If I didn't know for certain that I was going to see the film, I wouldn't care if the trailer was crap. As it is, I'm now worried that I'm going to be disappointed when I see the film. I don't get the point you're trying to make.
-
Aug 21, 2009 2:28:31 PM CDT
IF ONLY THEY WOULD REMAKE THE BABYSITTER'S CLUB IN 3-D....
by gruemanlives
All I got.
-
I don't usually stoop to reply to such pathetic abuse but this is a forum. I posted as I had something to say you troll fuck. As for wanker- its a pity your father wasn't. Counter abuse now over.
-
Mine eyes hath seen both, and there is NO comparison. Fox should not release ANY trailers for this film, just release it in December and let people see it on the big screen. Guys, it looks fantastic. And the motion-capture work is the best-ever. The N'avi NEVER look unconvincing. And the story and script, from just 15 minutes, really grabs you. OHHHH THIS IS GOING TO BE BIG!
-
Are you James Cameron ? Go play outside.
-
Talk about a game-changer.
-
I just saw it at the Wimbledon IMAX and can confirm that it is obviously a great improvement over the trailer which I was slightly underwhelmed by from a CGI point of view. In 3D on a big screen at times it is outstanding and the general consistency of the CGI is the best I have ever seen on a movie... however yes, it's still obviously CGI and your mind keeps relating back to this (mine did anyway as I produce Architectural CGI stills for a living). The only negative for me is that the 3d through the glasses is also a little distracting at times as some of the picture seems a little blurry occasionally and strained my eyes a little... Maybe it’s me but I don’t have a need for glasses so doubt it's to do with my vision... and i'd had no beer either!. Anyway... I saw enough to ensure that I'm there with bells on opening day.
-
Sleep on, sweet prince...
-
i was expecting more of a live action/cg mix the majority of the scenes shown were all CG (no live actors) the 3d is amazing and i cant wait to see it on an imax screen (i attended a digital 3d screening)they defintely are the best humanoid character animation i have ever seen the girl on the attack was amazing and the facial animation and emotions are there too, all very well done my only gripe was that they didnt show the full teaser! they just showed the end bit probably cause most of the scenes in the trailer were the ones shown in the preview! i thoroughly enjoyed it and will be in line on the 18th!
-
I think the lamest thing I've seen in 3D was that MY BLOODY VALENTINE... the old, goofy version was more entertaining. Coraline was awesome in 3D, but I think, it'd still been pretty cool in 2D. Avatar should definitely WOW in 2D as well, or it simply a gimmick.
-
Once again, I completely don't understand what you're expecting when you whine about the "shitty CGI". As opposed to ... WHAT?!? What fucking movie did you guys watch where the CGI was absolutely so photorealistic that you believed, unequivocally, in everything you were watching on the screen?!? Was it some secret movie that only exists in your imaginations?!? You're going on and on about the "prawns" in DISTRICT 9 (which, once again, were created BY THE SAME FUCKING COMPANY THAT'S DOING AVATAR!!!), and those actually look far less impressive to me. They're not really emoting or anything, they're just a bunch of gray shells and tentacles interacting with people. JURASSIC PARK?!? That had seven minutes of CGI in it, and considering I can point out all seven of those minutes, and compare them unfavorably to AVATAR, you'll have to give me a better example. "Shitty rendering"?!? Where did you see this "amazing rendering" you are apparently comparing it to?!? Granted, I don't think AVATAR is going to revolutionize the way we go to the movies or any of that nonsense, but the money's up on the screen, as always, and it looks a hell of a lot more convincing than the STAR WARS prequels could have dreamed of being. I guess you guys will continue to bitch and whine, because that's what you do, it's just a goddamn shame you'll be doing it two rows over from me in the theater I'm gonna go see AVATAR in this December.
-
I think you could do it with two cellphones, each filming through one of the polarized lens. They'd need to be near each other, and not move independently...
You'd then have to re-compose the images together, probably with traditional red-blue method. It would look TERRIBLE, but theoretically possible. -
Saw the Avatar teaser before "Inglorious Basterds" this morning. Looked worse on a big screen then it did on my MacBook.
-
Saw it today here in Vienna, sadly the lackluster trailer was not saved by the 3D footage.
Works fine when mixed with real enviroments but as soon as it hits Pandora it's all Cheesy-I (pun inteded)animation...guess they have some insiders at Pixar who stole their tricks and polished them a bit, that's what it looks like...Story seems like a mix out of Lord of the Rings, Star Wars and WoW...
stragely i felt the 3D gimmick straining my eye where as with Ice Age 3 that was not the case..well i guess 14 years preproduction ain't enough :-)
Should be a mild success nothing more -
Why, yes. It truly does.
-
I'm not talking about the people who are just disappointed in the trailer. I'm talking about the people who are really energetically tearing the movie to shreds 4 months before it's release, BASED on the trailer.
You may not be one of these people. -
..I don't have a point. I just think it's funny.
-
That have seen it do I have to be there super early? Like 5 hours early for something? I have a ticket for a 6:45 show tonight in phoenix and planning on heading there after work so I'm wondering if I can get in still? I get off a hour and 45 min before show time and I wana know does my ticket guarantee me a seat or have they out sold each show time and its first come first serve to ticket holders so they don't have a empty seat in the house? Please help
-
just not as excited after the trailer. Perhaps my comments were misunderstood earlier but some idiot
-
Avatar got permission from my parents hence It courted my optical organs these many years. This past decade, Avatar has always treated my eyes with the utmost respect with many gifts such as flowers, candies, and extra strength Visine. Avatar and my eyeballs are engaged to be married this upcoming December 18th after a decade plus long courtship. And believe me good friends, a savage fornication betwixt said motion picture and my visual orbs shall occur that honeymoon night at the local IMAX theatre I kid thee not!
Is that better, godhelpus? -
I thought this talkback was for people that had actually *seen* the footage? I'm reading a lot of people whining about this, that and the other but very few people actually saying what they thought of the 15 minute preview. I thought the whole thing looked great, the Na'vi look very realistic (The one 'played' by Sigourney Weaver in particular was very impressive) and the forest scenes looked great with amazing colours. I was really taken with a couple of moments when there appeared to be insects flying around in the cinema - great stuff. I also really liked the lab scene with the very bright holographic displays. Really don't judge this by a trailer - it *has* to be seen on the big screen in 3D. I think the trick will be not to get too focused on the 3D but instead concentrate on enjoying the experience as a whole. I agree with others that say the time flew by! At the end I really wanted to see more.
-
Aug 21, 2009 3:14:49 PM CDT
Phantom Menace is proof acting and CG don't make a film
by lockesbrokenleg
The acting in it was shitty, and it still made over 900 mil.
-
You can make jokes, your really cool. Give yourself a round of applause.
Why do people find it so hard to believe that I have a positive opinion on the movie? Okay, so maybe it's not "photo-real", or the most groundbreaking effects movie ever, but I really couldn't give a shit about that. Some of the scenes shown look like they need work, BUT, I see nothing wrong with the majority of them. This is easily as good of CGI that's ever been put to film IMO, so I don't see what the big deal is. It seems people are judging it on what they thought it would be, not what it is. And for what it is, a CGI movie, it looks ace. The Final Fantasy comments have to be a joke, as those characters look far from real, as those are the graphics on point with the best of videogames. Avatar is far and beyond any videogame I've seen, and I'm still waiting for someone to point out these games that match it. Imagine if a Pixar cartoon looked like this, everyone would be shitting themselves, saying how groundbreaking it is, which is funny cause Pixar is already miles ahead of any videogame.
I do think he's put out some great work, but I'm really not the biggest Cameron fan, in fact even Aliens, his "masterpiece" took a few viewings to grow on me ( I always preferred Ridley's). I just know 100% that when this movie is released, it will be regarded as the best CG ever put to film. I'd be willing to bet a lot on it, and the majority of reports coming already say what I suspected, the trailer doesn't do justice.
And finally, what's really baffling is how all these nerds and movie buffs, who come here for their love of movies, have a final opinion on two minutes of quick cut scenes, and virtually NO dialog. All these complaints that the Navi can't emote properly is based on what!?! We haven't seen shit! I guarantee a majority of the naysayers are so thrilled to see Cameron fail, just like they were when Titanic came out. But fuck, how can you not give this man the benefit of the doubt? If anyone deserves it, he does, and he doesn't deserve how you guys have turned on him like vultures. Anyhow, I'ma check out the footage in a few hours, so it should be interesting to see the difference, but all I know is while you guys keep hating, I got a new James Cameron movie to look forward to, and I couldn't imagine it any other way. -
If the cg is consistent, then personally I call that a style. I think the cg looked okay but really it doesn't matter because I know a year from now it will look like crap to me anyways. That's where most cg falls. It looks like the film has a style to it though, not just hyper-realistic, but some kind of style. Maybe on purpose or maybe some of you are right and the cg sucks. Either way, in a year, we're probably all going to be saying "This looks like crap now". I miss real, physical effects but the way I hear it is there is no way this movie would be possible without cg, and that to me is a interesting in itself.
-
It was a perfect storm of coincidences, but I ended up seeing the promo. I had no ticket, but 30 minutes before the show all reservation is cancelled and I could obtain 2 tickets. There is too much I could tell you, so it will be quite random. The CGI. It is the BEST I have ever seen. Yes it is. Can it be improved in the future? Sure, but as it is now it was perfect. See, I am a CG artist myself. If you seen one of those "fake or photo" test you can find online, I never failed. If it looks cartoony for you it is because it is blue and has big yellow eye. It has to be alien yet something the audience can relate to and attractive for adults (there is even CG alien nudity here) and cute for children. You might think you have seen the result, but until you seen them talk, act or just linger on screen you will totaly forget all your complains. The scene where Jake and friend wake up surrounded with doctors... It felt real people. it just did. big relief here. ok, some thoughts (good and bad) Sigourney Weaver is in very good shape. She could totaly do a new alien movei, yet her avatar felt even more cartoony than the others. The 3d was not that impressive as I hoped, but it was not IMAX just a regular 3D theatre. The alien creaters are supercool. Stephen Lang is perfect. The facuial animation is flawless. no dead eye here. No rigid botox faces like in Beowulf.
IT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO BE THE NEXT STAR WARS! -
Movies cost too much money now a days so if the trailer looks like shit and nothing in future is appealing about this movie then not gonna spend 10.50 to go see a cgi piece of crap. Cameron needs to get his head out of his sorry ass and make a good movie againbecause I gotta tell ya man the only cartoon or animated film I would pay to see would be a spongebob squarepants movie. Otherwise forget it.
-
while I was watching this I had the same feeling when I was watching Jurassic Park for the first time in the cinema...awestrucked/mesmerized. I was completely transported in this 'world'. The Na'vi were believable, and yes you can tell it's CGI, I was however accepting them as fully realized characters. This is two or three steps above Davey Jones, the bodily movements were amazing, the facial expressions and range of facial muscle movements staggering, it leaves Doc Manhattan to dust.
I also noticed the color contrast was significantly higher compared to the trailer. The 3D is great, subtle but effective, it draws you in, non-distracting whatsoever. The lighting is spot on, much of the action takes place in broad daylight, and it feels natural. You notice the CGI characters have actually MASS, instead hollow CGI puppets jumping and bouncing around. And everything you see is full of life. I read some minor complaints about the camerawork, there is definately shakycam here, but it works..you can follow the action easily and it enhances the CGI. There are also a couple of beautiful controlled tracking shots however. A nitpick: it does have a Pocahontas/Dances with wolves feel to it...the dialogue was okay, but some were on the verge of 'cheesy'. In short: it's FUCKING AWESOME and now I can't wait to see the whole damn thing...damn you Cameron! oh and for the record the trailer compared to this footage is likt night and day -
Testify brotha!
Medster101: Wow. Okay. I'm not sure if you were joking or not, but alright. I am clear on your stance. Thanks. -
Cameron owns the world and Tim Burton is his Vice Over-ruler.
-
The prawns in D9 were NOT done by Weta. They were done by Image Engine out of Vancouver B.C.
But the rest of your post I agree with. :) -
Dude that rocked, ha ha!Panasonic is pushing to create the in-home 3D standard with their new line of TVs, Avatar and presumably Blu-ray players. I have no idea if they will succeed or if their new technology is worthy of succeeding. the fast home 3D gets here the better, but it's got to be good. That means a seperate 1080p/24 image for each eye. That means no discernable dimming and no eyes strain.frankly I can't imagine what James Cameron is promoting, that we're going to spend all day with 3D goggles on for every piece of visual technology, especially since the 3D is just an illusion and not some tangible interactive plane.
-
CGI is still in its infancy.
Give it another 20 years and they 'might' get it right.
Avatar is still a fucking cartoon and Cameron is smokin' some good shit if he thinks this is some cinematic revolution - it's Roger Rabbit 2009 Jim, no better than a cretinous Pixar film with added lens flare.
NEXT!
-
have you seen it in IMAX? for me the 3d was underwhelming. nice in the live action scenes but the all-CG parts looked like 2D to me. by the way is it all CGI? I mean the forrest is just way to photoreal (yes) and alive to be just CG
-
Anybody that couldnt get a ticket that wants in? (maybe buy me a nice big popcorn! lol)
-
if you think CG needs 20 years i tell you, you need 4 months and your mind will be changed. enjoy!
-
itunes has it up, but I still can't fucking download it.
-
It wasn't IMAX but the screen was larger than the only IMAX we have here in Amsterdam lol.
The 3D totally worked for me, particular with the taming of the dragon (banshee), I had almost vertigo!:)
And yes ALL of the forest stuff is CGI...amazing -
I came back last night from a press screening of the 3D footage. It's absolutely spectacular. I am not even going to elaborate. But the trailer you watched, is just that: A blurry, crappy 2D version of something intended to be seen in 3D. But even when I took the glasses off, everything was awesome. Is it better than Gollum from Lord of the Rings? Answer: Yes. A LOT better. Cameron wins this hands down, and you dumbasses just wasted your ENTIRE uneventful day, getting worked up over nothing. Haha, I laugh. But the last laugh will be Cameron of course, because this baby will probably cross 1 billion world wide. Mark my words, At the very latest, In december, you will ALL be proven wrong. Not just Wrong, but predictably so. How many times have people doubted Cameron and he won? Well, when my asshole was being blown away by the footage, ALL I could think was: That's why he is Cameron, and that's why AICN talkbackers are AICN talkbackers. Nuff said. Cya losers.
-
bring on The Expendables. Stallone assembling a large cast of bad asses is more intriguing (as I type this at least) to me than big cam breaking new special effects barriers.
-
You're awesome
-
yes. here red hair is kinda funny but she is still hot.
-
I'm glad to hear that. I hope you're right about the quality of the vfx because raising the bar forces everyone to up their game.
-
Aug 21, 2009 3:41:53 PM CDT
SEEN IT : ANYBODY WHO SAYS THIS AIN'T PHOTOREAL SHOULD BE SHOT
by theplant
YEAH, I'M TALKING ABOUT YOU MORON FUCK YOU, I'M GOING TO SEE THE MOVIE 52 TIMES IN IMAX AND I WILL CRUSH ALL THE HATERS AND WILL NOT HEAR THE LAMENTATIONS OF THEIR WIVES COS THEY HAVE NONE
-
Aug 21, 2009 3:43:16 PM CDT
Thanks JohnRyder... Since we're on 3D, here something from Disne
by mrriddle
THE WALT DISNEY STUDIOS ADDS TO D23 EXPO EXCITEMENT WITH PRESENTATIONS BY DISNEY STUDIOS CHAIRMAN DICK COOK AND ANIMATION CHIEF CREATIVE OFFICER JOHN LASSETER, PLUS U.S. PREMIERES OF “TOY STORY” FILMS IN DISNEY DIGITAL 3D™ AND DIGITALLY RESTORED DEBUTS OF “SNOW WHITE” AND “TRON”
Burbank, California – August 19, 2009 -- The Walt Disney Studios is jumping on the D23 Expo bandwagon with four days (September 10-13) of exciting programming that includes major overviews of upcoming films by Disney Studios Chairman Dick Cook and Disney-Pixar Chief Creative Officer John Lasseter, plus a full schedule of events spotlighting new releases and newly restored digital versions of classic favorites.
Cook will present exclusive sneak peeks at such highly anticipated Disney features as “Disney’s A Christmas Carol,” Tim Burton’s “Alice in Wonderland,” “Old Dogs” (with Robin Williams and John Travolta), “Prince of Persia” and “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice” (both from producer Jerry Bruckheimer), “Tron: Legacy,” plus updates on many more exciting projects. Lasseter will discuss and show materials from such upcoming Walt Disney and Pixar Animation Studios’ motion pictures as “The Princess and the Frog,” “Rapunzel,” “Toy Story 3,” etc. Both presentations will be held at The Anaheim Convention Center in a 4000-seat arena.
All other film screenings and programs will take place in The Walt Disney Studios Theater (at the Anaheim Convention Center), a custom-built state-of-the-art venue with 3D capability, located within the Convention Center. All Disney Digital 3D™ presentations will be shown in RealD 3D, the world's most widely used 3D cinema technology. Among the U.S. premieres at the D23 Expo will be new Disney Digital 3D™ versions of “Toy Story” and “Toy Story 2,” the digital conversion of the original “Tron,” and a newly restored digital version of the Walt Disney classic “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.” Expo guests will get an exclusive look at all things Muppets, as well as meet the filmmakers and see exclusive presentations for such highly anticipated new Disney features as “The Princess and the Frog,” “Toy Story 3” (from Disney-Pixar), “Tron: Legacy,” “Tinker Bell and the Lost Treasure” (from Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment), and the new ABC-TV holiday animated special, “Prep and Landing.”
The Expo will also debut selected scenes from the upcoming Disney Digital 3D™ version of the Studio’s 1991 modern classic, “Beauty and the Beast.” Other highlights of the four-day event include a program devoted to the music from “The Lion King,” a panel discussion and screening of “Sleeping Beauty,” and the first U.S. screening of “Trail of the Panda” (Disney’s second co-production with China). There will also be presentations on two recent documentaries – “the boys: the sherman brothers’ story” and “Walt & El Grupo.”
A special screening series, “Fifty and Fabulous,” will unspool at 10:00 pm in the Studio Theater on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights spotlighting films that are celebrating their 50th anniversary – “Darby O’Gill and the Little People,” “The Shaggy Dog,” and “Sleeping Beauty.”
D23 EXPO – WALT DISNEY STUDIOS THEATER
PROGRAM OF EVENTS
THURSDAY 9/10
1:00 PM “Beauty and the Beast” panel discussion;
and screening of selected scenes in Disney Digital 3D™
4:00 PM “The Lion King” music program
7:00 PM “the boys: the sherman brothers story” panel discussion/ screening
10:00 PM “Darby O’Gill and the Little People” screening
FRIDAY 9/11
11:00 AM Dick Cook / Walt Disney Studios presentation (in the Arena)
1:00 PM Screening of “The Nightmare Before Christmas” in Disney Digital 3D™ plus Tim Burton shorts, “Frankenweenie” and “Vincent”
4:00 PM “Tron”/ “Tron: Legacy” presentation;
Digital debut screening of original “Tron”
7:30 PM “Walt & El Grupo” presentation;
Followed by screening of “Saludos Amigos”
10:00 PM “The Shaggy Dog” screening
SATURDAY 9/12
10:00 AM Disneynature presentation
12:00 PM “Snow White” panel discussion;
Followed by screening of Restored Print
3:00 PM “Princess and the Frog” presentation
5:30 PM “Prep and Landing” presentation
7:30 PM “Trail of the Panda” screening
10:00 PM “Sleeping Beauty” screening
SUNDAY 9/13
11:00 AM John Lasseter / Walt Disney and Pixar Animation Studios presentation (in the Arena)
1:00 PM “Muppets” presentation
4:00 PM “Tinker Bell and the Lost Treasure” screening
6:30 PM “Toy Story 3” presentation;
7:00 PM “Toy Story” and “Toy Story 2” debuts in Disney Digital 3D™
Tickets to the D23 EXPO are available at http://www.D23Expo.com. Admission includes access to all experiences and entertainment at the D23 EXPO and can be purchased for single days or for the full four days of festivities. Admission is $37 for a one-day adult ticket and $27 for children 3-12. Four-day passes are $111 for adults and $81 for children. Members of D23: The Official Community for Disney Fans will receive a discount on up to four admissions, as well as early entry to each day of the D23 EXPO for themselves and their guests.
Special vacation packages including Disneyland Resort hotel accommodations, D23 EXPO tickets and theme park admission are available at the D23 EXPO website. Packages are available from both the Walt Disney Travel Company and the Anaheim/ Orange County Visitor & Convention Bureau, which is offering a limited number of area hotel rooms at special rates to those attending the D23 EXPO.
Many more details about D23 EXPO entertainment, events and special guests will be announced in the coming weeks. Fans can keep up with all the news by visiting www.D23EXPO.com, as well as by following “Disney D23” at Twitter and on Facebook. -
ALLTHE HATER ARE NOW COWERING AND CRYING LIKE BABIES, THEY BETTER RUN, COS THEY CAN'T HIDE, CAMERON FUCKKED YOU ALL IN THE ARSE WITH A HUGE SPEAR AND IT HURTS HATERS
-
right saw this at the london Imax (theres only one for the whole damn city but i'll get to that). Its alot better than the crappy looking trailer (that looked like a bad cartoon), this looked like an amazing cartoon (sorry anyone saying this looks photo-realistic is just plain lying, it really doesn't). The 3D works really well and I can see why the film has been so brightly lit, it works well with the darkening you get from 3D glasses. I wouldn't really want to watch this in normal 2D if the trailer is anything to go by and thats going to be the issue.
As a 2D film it looks like a CGI cartoon that could have been made 5 years ago. In 3D it does look very impressive but the Navi are still funny looking and their movement is far too "iRobot" to look like anything but cartoon characters. Its loud, its frantic and its typical Cameron Macho, the problem is there just isn't enough Imax screens for everyone to see it properly and I'd say it will look even worse on DVD. I don't see it making too much, not that it should be judged on that, the advancements in 3D tech alone warrant it being called a success. -
Just got back from the 16 minute preview.
Lol at the cinema manager who told us all to put our 3D glasses on - duh
I liked the trailer yesterday, but wasn't blown away like I expected.
But the footage I've just seen was terrific. I was quickly into the characters and the creatures in particular looked incredible. wtf was that stuff Jake used on the pterodactyl thing to tame him?
3D definitely made a huge difference and was the best I've seen to date.
Expectations for this - a top notch blockbuster ride for everyone. No more, no less. Excited -
THERE'S ROOM IN MY NIVERSE FOR YOU ANYDAY! CAMERON IS KING OF THE WORLD!!! HEY HATE MONGERS... FING LOSERS OUT THERE!
GO FUCK YOURSELVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!FUCK OFF LIV EIN HELL MOTHERFUCKERS! YOU DONT DESERVE TO ENJOY IT... DIE OF DIE OFF DIE OFF! 86D FROM MY UNIVERSE! CYA -
And we only have a TalkBack to discuss a fucking trailer to a film about Delgo and his Final Fantasy friends' adventures in the World of Warcraft?? The joke that is this site just stopped being funny and started being quite sad.
-
Aug 21, 2009 3:53:12 PM CDT
Everybody bitches about not getting tix and now I cant GIVE one
by shiftyeyeddog2
seriously folks... make up your minds
-
30 mins before the show, reservations are cancelled?? Does this mean I can get in to one in NY today?
-
...on all fours...hissing and grinding their teeth
-
Is it worth it? 16 minutes of footage? Fucking line, showing up an hour early...
-
Bravo, cockboy. You just called yourself a retard. I mean... well, you are a TalkBacker, are you not? Oh... heheh. Ok. You go get your head out of your ass (or Cameron's ass, is it?) and maybe folks will take your opinions seriously. Fucking elitest fuckstick.
-
Could the whole eyeball raping and fucking thing be any more played?
-
Those quotes are going to be displayed in glowing neon once the inevitable "OH, THIS WAS NEVER MEANT AS A 2D EXPERIENCE!" shit starts spilling out of Fox and Lighstorm.
-
Deal with it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9P_St-sOWY -
At least an acclaimed director is taking a shot at crafting original material. If this tanks expect a remake of true lies starring Ryan Renolds in the Schwarenegger role, and Adrien Brody in a role previously filled by Jaimie Lee Curtis.
-
Learn how to make paragraphs and repost, then I'll read what you have to say. Good or Bad. For all I know, or care, that was just one loooooooooooong sentence!
-
Hell, I haven't seen the actual footage on an IMAX screen in 3D, I'm still just defending the teaser I watched in 2D, medium-sized QT, even, on my MacBook. I wasn't even too crazy about those stills they've ben releasing ... but if you watch that teaser and all you can do is bitch, you're either the cinematic equivalent of one of those spoiled rich chicks from "My Super Sweet Sixteen" or you really are that fucking jaded. And if that's the case, not only shouldn't you go see AVATAR, you should throw out your TV set and lock yourself in a goddamn closet until state-of-the-art catches up with your delicate "perfectionist" sensibilities.
By the way, I DO see something of a problem: the teaser isn't exactly cut like a trailer, it's just whatever footage they apparently had handy that they assembled to make a coherent, chronological showreel. You get a rough idea of what's going on, but it's not completely setting up the premise of the film, nor is it paced completely like a trailer. That didn't bother me, but the actual trailer-trailer's likely gonna garner a different reaction from a few of the naysayers. -
I love Cameron and have since first seeing Terminator as a child. I love Titanic despite the hate it has garnered in so called "geek" circles. But after all the build up and quotes from Cameron himself about this being a "game changer", I am so underwhelmed by that trailer and so disgusted at the blind love on display that I really wish Cameron would come out and address the reactions to the footage himself. If it kicks my ass in December then great. I fucking really hope it does. But that footage that I watched in the theatre this morning looked like a big fucking cartoon. I pretty and colorful cartoon. But still a cartoon.
-
comes out on the field in fucking Minnesota.
-
Let's just get down to brass tacks.
-
Anyone who disagress with your opinions should throw their TV's away. Hmmm... interesting considering that this FILM was meant to be EXPERIENCED on the BIG SCREEN. Christ, fucking tools like you are exactly why any kind of debate on this site is dead before it begins.
-
after you have seen what is like a true vision coming to life in uncompromised 3d spectacle every studio will want their next blockbuster be like this, because EVERYTHING ELSE WILL BE A STEP BACKWARD. simple as that. It will not be the best movie ever. It did not have the same effect on me as seeing the huge opening battle in LOTR for the first time ever.
-
PROBABLY BLIND BUT DOESN'T KNOW IT
-
Gets his fucking arms or legs broken and ends up on IR within the first four weeks of the season. :)
-
But it gave me blindness
-
Because I have four to the KC screening tonight I have no use for.
-
Not at all. I didn't say "If you dislike the footage", what I actually said "If all you can do is bitch". Read my post again. If you didn't like it, you didn't like it. However, if your entire argument is "The CGI looks too cartoony", then I'm afraid you're gonna have to provide me with some sort of frame of reference.
-
the tide is turning, so fuck you, we"re going to Avatar Day Hollywood
-
looked a hell of a lot better than the Apple trailer.
-
i think the mixed reactions to the comic-con footage comes from the fact that noone had any idea what tha avatar and navy looks like. now the prepared audience loved it. think about it: design an alien you would fuck.
-
Aug 21, 2009 4:19:49 PM CDT
honestly dont understand the polar views here- Mandrake- read th
by bobman46
The trailer looks "alright" nothing amazing or world changing. I've seen more impressive video game cut scenes. As for 3d. I still think it's a gimmick plus with all the movies going 3d and the resulting 3D tvs and stuff, it allows more studio revenue as they sell you all the movies you already own NOW IN 3D! I'll go and see it. Make my own mind up.If you think positively of this film, good for you. It's just a film. It's not some kind of fanatical persecution to think differently from you - this is for you Mandrake so less of the name calling and keep it civil son.
-
By the way, there is no such argument as "It was intended to be seen on the big screen ...!" or "... in 3-D!" Most professional filmmakers, since the advent of home video, have to sweat having it seen in ANY format, which is why the 1:33 aspect ratio is usually marked off on their 24p video monitors during filming. Trust me, Cameron's not sitting at his editing bay with polarized glasses on, though I'm sure everything's been tweaked SPECIFICALLY for IMAX 3-D, since this is the point of the entire exercise.
-
Cameron SAYS:"You have to make a good film that would be a good film under any circumstances," he said. "You have to put the narrative first. The reality is no matter how many (3-D) screens we get, you are still going to have a large number of people -- possibly the majority of people -- who see the film in a 2-D environment." 400 million dollar Fury Anime: The Movie "Fucking your Wallet in 2009"
-
Aug 21, 2009 4:25:50 PM CDT
So the 16 minute 3D 'Dances With Thundersmurfs' cartoon...
by biggusdickus
looks slightly better than the 2 minute 2D 'Dances With Thundersmurfs' cartoon.Wonderful. I'm happy for all you Imax-goers who get to this in all it's glory, but the other 90% of us in the cinema-going world will have to make do with seeing our Thundersmurfs in 2D and that's what will make or break this movie.Not a hater, just not as blown away as I should've been by the first glimpses of a James Cameron movie. The 'Titanic' box-office record is safe, methinks...
-
Epic Masterpiece Game-Changer Revolutionary This generation's Star Wars Amazing like dreaming with your eyes open Like an addictive drugLawrence of Arabia Matrix and Dances With Wolfs
-
Aug 21, 2009 4:30:12 PM CDT
....even though the trailer looks like a cut scene from a final
by tinspider
-
Come on man . First of all how do you know for a 100% that the movie will be the best CGI ever? And second of all dude I grew up o the terminator movies and loved both ridleys alien and camerons aliens equally( even though they're both very different films) but I gotta say that avatar does look like a cartoon and those Na'vi characters just look like fuckin cartoons. I wouldn't mind if it is was animated like gollum but this shit looks like a Saturday morning cartoon.
-
Exactly! The problem isn't that people dislike what they've seen or even that they're expressing it, it's that they're 1) expressing their opinions as facts and 2) present these opinions-as-facts in the most idiotic way imaginable. Then, it stops being their opinion of the movie and starts being an anti-AVATAR manifesto or an anti-Cameron manifesto. I'm actually genuinely curious when I've asked "What is AVATAR's CGI 'cartoony' in comparison to?!?" Nobody's really provided an answer.
By the way, this 3D resurgence only exists because studios are fucking DESPERATE to keep the theater experience alive (which equals an eleven to twenty dollar "rental" per prospective moviegoer as opposed to a four dollar, multi-day DVD rental or a blanket fee by the time it hits cable or on-demand). Once they approximate 3D for your beloved home theater experience, and they will, studios will have to justify ticket sales with theaters on gimbals, or Mant running around, or random gold bricks under theater seats or something. -
I saw the screening at a cinema with RealD 3D projection. I will compare it to Beowulf which I've seen in 3D with xPanD technology.
- real actors got blury when moving faster. CGI only scenes were sharp all the time
- CGI actors on real background looked perfect
- The motion capturing was the best I've seen to date. Not even Beowulf got it more realistic. Even the in many cases taken for comparison Gollum from LotR was beaten.
- The "out of the screen" effect was minimal compared to Beowulf (see Grendels mothers tail)
- The level of detail on the Na'vi planet was huge and extremely vivid
- The scenes from the teaser, which involved real people in front of CGI background, looked much more impressive and couldn't be recognised as green screen scenes that much compared to the 2D version.
- The temporary OST featured tracks of The Thin Red Line and Crash. I hope that we will hear similar atmospheric music in the final product. It fit really well.
-
Well, if we're gonna rag on Cameron and his shitty effects, let's go back to that fucking awful Terminator "eyeball surgery" head from THE TERMINATOR. God, that was sooooo fake looking! I was all like "Hey, look, that dude from 'Big Blue Marble' is pulling his eyeball out!" Nice head-cast, James, maybe next time, you can shoot it without all the movie lights reflecting off its skin. FAIL!
-
Don't think transfering of tix is possible. I'm in line right now and they came through and checked everyone's ID and confirmation email. Although, for those of you out there without tix, I didn't use my +1 and they said they'd give it away just before the screening. Probably doing that everywhere so it might be worth it to check just before start time(s).
-
I think that's what it was called in KentuckyFriedMovie... LOL!
-
Aug 21, 2009 4:44:40 PM CDT
The line "This is great!" is most likely taken out of context
by orionsangels
He may actually be responding sarcastically, by saying, oh yeah sure, "This is great!" The way he says it in the trailer, implies that he enjoys being a 10ft blue alien. I don't know, maybe the scene plays out like that. Will have to wait and see.
-
I do like that they've gotten away from using 3D as a "jump" gimmick and started using it as an immersion technique. Unfortunately, you can't do that very well with live action (so you wind up with stuff being flung off the screen at you), which is why it makes sense that they're doing it here.
-
It should be , and it is , a new benchmark for this mainstream CGI stuff . We could be in far worse hands !
-
going to see this film. You will understand why.
-
Wow, that hadn't even occurred to me! If nothing else, this may well be the ultimate stoner movie. Sorry, WIZARDS!
-
Didi I see Jar Jar binks in there? I will be spending "Avatar Day" watching Piranha 2: The Deadly Spawn, probably more entertaining than this shit sandwich!
-
A terrorist in Iraq just ran into a crowded market place with this movie strapped to his chest!
-
5 mins to go!
-
I won tickets. There were some giveaways here in Australia. It was closed to the public. MOst of the crowd were male, I.T. vibe and in their twenties.
-
Cunts like you should be shot. Turn your fucking phone off, you antisocial little knob.
-
Aug 21, 2009 5:03:20 PM CDT
And the world will look up and shout: "LOOKS LIKE SHIT"
by trannyformers_apologist
Cameron must be pissed by the giant "M E H" that reverberated around internet after people finally got to see his Photo-real Cartoon. Poor Brainwashed fangirls have got their work cut out for them trying to justify this 500 million dollar cartoony shitfest
-
I was at frys electronics and they have a 3d digital display 60" set up and a harddrive for the feed. It uses a pc to control the shutter type glasses and gives a very good 3-d image..This is not the same old shutter glasses technology as in the past.
I was impressed with the images in both movie and game feed modes.
It won't be to long for this technology to be priced for home use..by the way I will be in line for this tonight and I look forward to seeing the work Mr. Cameron has invested so much time and effort in...and for all the haters out there...suck it hard!!! -
Yea, I thought so too because the "out of the screen" experience was only present when there was CGI involved.
In theory it is possible with real objects too but would need fast moving cameras since the are responsible for the 0 point of the picture ( the point of depth which is even with the screen ).
Anyway, I am not a professional with this topic. Just interessted in that stuff and had a fun talk with a friend who happens to be in the camera business and told me a lot about what Cameron is fighting with technically and what happened on set of Jacksons Dam Busters teaser shooting, which was shot in 3D too if I remember correctly. -
1. The blue CGI Smurfs. Every critic on the planet is going to dump on them. 2. Love Scene-I smell an all CGI love scene between two of the smurfs. If true, it will be a howler. 3. Cameron-there are forces at work who will pounce on Cameron if this movie fails. I now not only see a fail in this movie, but I predict a fail of 'Razzi Awards' proportions. The Smurfs riding dragons attack scene-that just looks...well...totally stupid, like something from a Sat. morning cartoon. I predict this movie will someday be filed in a bin of other 'Big' movies that tanked like THE POSTMAN, HEAVENS GATE, HOWARD the DUCK and WATERWORLD. Now, I have to say I loved WATERWORLD, enjoyed HOWARD, never saw HEAVENS GATE and felt that THE POSTMAN was far far better than the trashing in got-hell, renting it I expected it to be pure shit but was pleasantly surprised. AVATAR is heading for one big thumping, and the major reason will come down to one thing: CGI Smurfs. How come Gullerimo can make convincing human/monster hybrids and Cameron-who set THE standard in ALIENS-turns in this? I'll never understand...sigh.
-
http://clockworkshorts.com/2009/08/21/avatar-day-movie-preview
-
If it's well-told, our minds will forgive some -- even many -- shots for looking "too CG." Christ, you fanboys make me hate being a fanboy.
-
Isn't that sucker gonna be in glorious, eye-fucking 3D? I barely remember these movies, except they are pretty fucking funny, intentionally or not, when you have nothing else to watch. ;-)
-
The complete CGI ones are kind of... cartoony? LOL!
-
Okay, so I keep hearing the same thing. It looks like a videogame, it looks like a Saturday morning cartoon. All I ask is you show me these games and cartoons, cause I'm missing out. Some fool said Killzone 2, so I preceded to watch a few cut scenes from it, and there is absolutely no comparison. As for cartoons, what are we talking here? Clone Wars? I don't watch that shit but from what I've seen that's about the top notch cartoon graphics, and they're not very good at all. You people honestly can look at environments in Avatar and say they don't look completely real? The detail is astonishing. Also the handful of closeups at the female Navi look extremely close to a person in makeup. Like I've said, it's not completely photo-real, but who the fuck cares. It looks CG enough to keep it stylized, fantastical and alien, and it looks real enough to seperate it from a cartoon. You know when the SW prequels came out, no one said they looked like cartoons, and this is leaps and bounds better than that. Also it seems that Avatar day footage has been pretty much uniformly praised.
As far as 3D goes, I'm indifferent, and maybe you see 3D as a gimmick, but Cameron has specifically used it here to create an immersive world, not tacked on as an afterthough.
All I gotta say is if people can't get excited to watch aliens on an alien planet fight armed soldiers and gnarly beasts by a renowned sci-fi director, then fuck it, there's just no convincing you. And on that note, I'm done trying to convince people, cause all I really give a shit about is my opinion. So keep on with your paper-thin criticisms, if that makes you happy. -
Heres your comparison:
"cartoony" Avatar:
http://tinyurl.com/nxwqs6
"superior" Final Fantasy Spirits Within:
http://tinyurl.com/n64djz
Im sorry but its quite obvious that Avatar is a HUGE step up in effects than ANY of those films you mentioned. -
Aug 21, 2009 5:26:17 PM CDT
Saying it looks better in 3D is like saying it looks better drun
by felwithe
Except I actually watch movies while drunk.
-
I've already said, I'm not attacking you and really don't care either way. I'm just not impressed with what I've seen and will judge it when I see it. I'm not criticizing you or what you think. Unlike you who went on the attack because I dont think the same as you. But I'll forget that. Anyway, I'll wait for the movie rather than hyper analysing the trailer footage which is probably still being worked on
-
Thought it was a blast. I can see why it has to be seen at IMAX, though. Blew the non 3-D trailer away. Not really sure where all the hating is coming from. Doesn't look cartoonish. It looks alien, and I thought that's what we were going for here. Can't wait for the whole thing.
-
...then nothing will change your mind. It looked amazing on the big screen and in 3D - the way it's fucking intended to be seen. And CG is CG - if you are predisposed not to like CG as a rule, are a smug fanboy arsehole with an overinflated sense of your own insiginficant importance or have a closed mind, don't fucking bother. Me? I think it looks great. Not a game changer, but it looks great and I'm looking forward to seeing it in December. Now, bring on a good story.
-
I work at Framestore, a London VFX house working on Avatar. We went to the IMAX preview this afternoon. Here's my review, taken from my blog - http://postyourreviews.wordpress.com/
In the beginning God created man, in the knowledge that James Cameron would one day create Avatar, thus putting his own creations to shame in the process…………… well, that’s what the guys at Fox’s marketing department and Cameron himself have been claiming for the last few years! Quite a tall order, surely he is doomed not to live up to his own hype? Ordinarily yes, but this is the man who wrote and directed The Terminator, somehow surpassed it with a sequel born of genius, reinvented Alien, and lets not forget The Abyss and that other one about the big boat! Who else but Steven Spielberg and George Lucas has done as much to push the boundaries of high concept fiction and frequently redefine the definition of revolutionary?
When the trailer for Avatar debuted online yesterday there was a surprise vitriolic backlash of confusion and indifference (though mainly confined to the cynical forums of sites like Ain’t It Cool News) Countless geeks posed the question “Is that it?” or “What’s with the blue smurf/cat dudes?” Even I jokingly suggested an alternate title “Avajar Binks” For most people this was the very first glimpse of anything associated with the film. I can understand why some of them where caught off guard. Personally I’ve had some extra time to adjust. Although I’ve not worked on any shots myself yet, I’m surrounded by people who are attempting to preserve their sanity while they grapple with the stereoscopic visual effects. Yeah, each shot essentially has to be done twice (one version for each eye!) So I’ve watched several intriguing and eye popping sequences over the last few months, and frankly much of it surpasses content shown in the trailer (trust me, they are holding back!) Then after watching the 15 minute 3D Imax preview, I reckon any doubters will soon be silenced. It’s simply impossible to gauge the sensation of viewing it in 3D on a screen the size of a building. The digital characters and exotic vistas are beautiful and breathtaking.
If anything, it’s probably the deeply saturated colour palette causing any detractors to yell “video game!” Admittedly, the outlandish creature designs don’t feel as unique as when Cameron first imagined them all those years ago. There have been numerous films in recent years which explore a similar aesthetic. The Star Wars Prequels (especially Revenge of the Sith) King Kong etc. Personally I adore those films, so I’m not complaining. At this stage, we can’t make judgements on the story, script or dramatic weight. Will anything ever match the life changing, era defining, and profound effect of viewing Jurassic Park or The Matrix for the first time? With a track record this consistent, I for one, am willing to give James “King of the world” Cameron the benefit of the doubt! Roll on December 18th. -
Relax dude I'm just saying the movie looks like shit is all. I didn't curse your mom out or something. But yeah the movie does look like shit especially because the Na'vi characters just look plain stupid and dopey. The concept art looked better than the final product and that says a lot.
-
I like how Cameron or his marketing people manipulate the audience. We connect the sentence, the only sentence in the whole teaser, "this is great" automatically with the pictures and therefore the motionpicture Avatar. Now if we let time pass and someone mentions the word Avatar, our brain automatically points us to "this is great".
Is this the first time that this was used so offensive or did I miss that in the past? -
Was not as hyped. Not really photorealistic. I will say a good job of portraying emotion in the faces of the avatars was done. Be the creatures themselves didn't look life like. Abe Sapians practical effects make up was more...effective. The movement of the CG characters didn't even have a mo-cap feel to me. I think it would make a good non- hyped movie, but it didn't look like something u'd expect a movie so long n the making to look. I don't know. Maybe the story will elevate peoples opinion, including mine. But then again, I said that about the 3D after watching the trailer online. Anyways, Inglorious Basterds is about to start, gotta "turn off all cell phones.."
-
I just watched every frame on that Mech sequence. There was no clipping. So stop the bullshiting.
-
Wha?! Are you talking about the ammo feed?!
-
Does anyone know who is responsible for the score in the teaser? I doubt it is Horner.
-
What a disgrace, I'm going to boycot.....what? The price just keeps getting put up by random dickweeds who don't know a fucking thing?
Phew! That's ok then, I was going to boycott the Earth for daring to support life, thus allowing the human race to exist, thus allowing James Cameron to make a fucking awesome looking movie just so some anonymous internet hard asses can compare the images to everything from video game cut-scenes to scenes from the Star Wars prequels.
My point? It just pisses me off is all. All I can say to the serial whingers is it must suck to live life sneering at everything ever made because it doesn't live up to your standards of perfection. That or you think that Cameron is lying to you personally...he's out to get you with his Thundersmurf movie, he knows it'll drive you insane to see a colourful and relatively original movie in amongst the world of grey dreck and black and white movies about Gay Cowboys Eating Pudding. -
Wouldnt have noticed if cocknasty hadnt mentioned it but it does. it also looks like they forgot to texture its pilots face. the whole mech just looks... wrong... like they just threw it in for the trailer and didnt polish it.
-
Saw the preview in London Vue West End at 6pm. After letting us sit in their from 5:40pm and we waited and waited and waited until they finally showed the damn thing at 6:30pm. After the Cameron intro, it was clear that the 3d was killing my enjoyment. Its jarring, its distracting and makes even the live action scenes look like a bloody cartoon. My friend also thought the same thing. I think this movie will be fun but not great. I hope to god, they also show this film in non 3d. 3d works well as a theme park attraction and for cartoons (like Bolt and Monster House) and Imax short films. But feature films...no. It doesnt work for me. Maybe the technology needs to advance further.
-
I agree something like clipping issues shouldn't be there, but this is a very early teaser and they will probably fix issues like that by release. I have seen the other films you mentioned and after seeing the 16 minute preview today, visually Avatar blows them and every other film out of the water. It is not completely photorealistic - we wont achieve that for many years yet - but it comes close. Artistically it is stunning and unlike anything we have seen.
-
WHAT HE'S DONE BEFORE!!!!! DAMN THAT FUCKER!!!!!!! HE SHOULD REMAKE ALIENS AND THE ABYSS WITH THE EXACT SAME EFFECTS, THAT'LL FINALLY MAKE MY MISERABLE ASS HAPPY!!!!
Oh wait, I can simply watch the DVD's of those films and stop whining like a little fucking pussy. That's a big relief, thought I was going to have to overreact there for a second and call the man the worst director in living memory based on a two minute trailer. -
The dragons in that flick look like every other CG creature, besides, since we have no photos of dragons it's hard to imaging how they could possibly look photoreal.
Perhaps 'convincing' is the word you wanted. Even then that movie was a pile of shit that wouldn't have been saved by real dragons, but it's all about the CG right?? -
No, it's not. Look at it again. The butt of the gun is on resting on the outer-right side of the forearm. I'm looking at it right now and that's exactly what it looks like as the mech turns around.
-
I haven't kept up with this stuff, since I don't game hardly at all anymore... Spirits Within was pretty cool when I finally saw it on dvd, but it simply shouldn't have been marketed as Final Fantasy, because even as a casual gamer, I was kind of scratching my head. Now, Advent Children had some amazing shit in it, but I've mostly forgotten it, because... well, storywise, I recall it being kind of tedious. I don't really give a crap about how groundbreaking this movie is or is not, just how I react to it on a viceral, emotional level. If it blows me away on that level, the rest of the stuff will be just extra cool. I mean would you like to have an uber realistic dream of sitting in a boring office cube or a flight of fantasy, crazy ass adventure dream?
-
Use the #avatar in the search.
-
Aug 21, 2009 5:55:37 PM CDT
NPR (American Public Funded Radio) "Avatar trailer debuts to mix
by jackrabbitslim
This is real world shit ... ok NPR isn't entirely real world but ... you get my gist. Mentiniong similarities to Delgo - that flop from two years ago. Anyway - http://tinyurl.com/l7djz5
-
Along with MarketSaw.com they single handily RICK ROLLED the entire internet movie community with all that outrageous hype and fanboy brainwashing horseshit.
Good job Cameron you sir are a Professional Troll Make Michael Bay's trolling antics seem benign in comparison. Revolutionary, Photo-real,game-changing, mind blowing, this generation's Star Wars indeed. -
Once again, you prove you are nothing but a worthless, one-note, trolling pile of hot mess.
-
Me and my damn concern for non-Amuricuhn furrener readers...
-
It's hardly subliminal is it???
Perhaps the disabled guy just thinks it's great that he can walk? Maybe he likes Thundersmurfs?? Do you think we landed on the moon or was it a conspiracy? I need to know where you're coming from on this issue. -
yet there so much to criticise.
We've seen nothing of the story and I don't believe that Cameron is keepin the best till later; that's stooge talk.
The graphics are stunning but at the same time look like a computer game, the story is pretty similar to many as well.
Whoever wrote Ferngully earlier stole my reference which I quoted to BBC Radio this morning, and that is what we saw. There's nothing grandiose in the story and the main character appears cocksure.
As far as I'm concerned, at the moment, it's going to be a 'gimmick' movie, i.e. a 3D bonanza which everyone is going to want to see in 3D but is just a flash in the pan. Now, the 'making of' is going to be a Blu ray in its own right.
The preview itself had far too many '3d' moments which reminded me of Freddy VI; they were 'just for 3D'. I saw some of them in 2d in the trailer and they didn't work at all. The scene with the feet - it works in 3d but in the 2D trailer it looks like they are just making a point waving the feet about. It makes no sense.
IT's going to be a beautiful mess though....absolutely beautiful.
It's a gimmick movie, it's there to promote 3D, and at points it does it well, fast motion fails miserably though unless you really have no focus whatsoever. I found the 3D to be so blurred (and I had a good position, both fields doubled on top of each other - that's a bad sign.
-
did not see the ComicCon footage, but from the descriptions, but i think the same scenes were used. scene order was as follows: stephen lang speech, sigorney weaver talking to worthington, plugging in to the avatar, waking up as the Navi, confrontation with the panther thing, meeting with female Navi and fighting off wolves, learning to fly the dragon, then a quick montage of scenes fighting the marines. it was much better in 3D. the "waking up" scene is the worst, too bad its the first time you see the Navi- they look better on Pandora than in the lab- plus the "This is great" mouth movement still looks weird. Not photoreal, but very immersive.
-
Just searched for Avatar on Twitter - those who have seen the 16 minutes of footage unanimously claim it to be mind blowing. I quote one person: "Avatar screening: OMG. There really isn't much more I can say just OMG"
-
Doesn't work on me and to be honest I hope the whole trend fails. I hate missing out on things.
-
I saw it in Imax Digital, and it was not bad. I still dont know what is about, and I am still waiting for the game changer. The CG was good and the 3D not bad.
-
Ha! Well, the photo links you sent seem to support what I said. The butt of the rifle is not fixed and, therefore, can swing on either side of the arm. That is what I see happening as the mech turns away. (Regarding that model, there are only two visible black bolts with two other fixed points belonging to the shoulder strap attachment.)I suppose there are stupider details to debate but I don't see a clipping issue.
-
say goodby to your nickname, cos soon you all will be too ashamed to use it here.
-
quoted from npr story
Not all the early reactions were laudatory.
In Tel Aviv, Shay Ringel tweeted after a screening: "What was THAT?! ... Everyone walked out (scratching) their heads saying, `Why are we here?'" -
So us proles can see it ourselves.
-
I guess that's what I was trying to get at - I don't see it going through the forearm; it's resting against the outer-right side of it.Anyway, yes I agree. I would like to see Cameron return with a great film.
-
just saw it at 68th and broadway in NYC......This is going to be a monster.
-
I figured what the heck I was just going to hang out and drink a beer at home. MIght as well go, how bad can it be?
-
Odysseus is right. STORY is what will resonate. With the notable exception of the few VFX artists that might chime in, I can't abide the chorus of fanboys with their snarks. How many of you will look back on AVATAR a decade from now and say it gets better with age? How many of you have been in the industry so long that you're so jaded and have seen it all?
I just saw the 16 minutes here in Florida and thought that the 3D was phenomenal. I am waiting to reserve judgement about the narrative. Cameron displays his usual prowess with the aesthetics, though he's not really improved much on dialogue. But I am intrigued to see it come December.
BTW, FOX did a shit job of checking people's celphones, etc. before the start. Asking people to turn them off wasn't good enough. It's bad enough the inconsiderate douchebags think it's okay to incessantly play with their gizmos during a regular flick, but to those few people flagrantly using them during the 16 minutes: you should stay at home and leave the theater going experience for people who don't want to be distracted by your little lights of shallowness.
-
without the glasses, it's blurry and shadowy, so if anyone does try it's not going to look great.
-
I only said what I said because of your unnecessary comment along the lines of "does anyone really give a shit blah blah". Yes a lot of people do give a shit, and all I was pointing out is that if you take the time to come read the talkback and post then it would seem you do too. I came here to discuss Avatar, not read trolling comments like such.
-
Aug 21, 2009 6:28:57 PM CDT
Did those "clipping" images get taken down?
by atomicroboticzombiewearwolf
clicked on the links to slashfilm and I get a message saying that what I'm looking for is no longer there. Hmmmm.
-
they don't look real because their skin is colored
-
Seen people comment on this on youtube, looks like a non-issue to me.
-
are pictures of fucking toys?! Make sure you take out the spaces in the link.
-
Just got back from the NYC showing at 6. Walked back to my friend's apartment, that is why I am posting this almost an hour and forty-give minutes later. Anyway, here are my thoughts on the footage I saw. The facial movement on the characters was great, it really had a natural way about it. THe environment during the day in the jungle when Jake is getting chased by the monster, amazing. I forgot that none of that was real. During the night time, when the female Avatar rescues him (forget her name) is when it seemed to get a little too cartoony with all the colors and such. I will sum up my feelings about it by explaning my headline. This does not look realistic at all. Yes, there were a few moments where there were glimpses of what Cameron has bragged about all these years, but that is all. If he would of just sold this as a CGI movie with amazing visuals and a good story, I think every single one of you would be having a different reactions then what you are having now. Who can blame you? You were promised something totally different then what we are seeing. Do I think it will be a good movie? Yes, Cameron always have good stories up his sleeve. Do I think it will change the way we view cinema? No, it isn't that good.
-
Just got back from the NYC showing at 6. Walked back to my friend's apartment, that is why I am posting this almost an hour and forty-give minutes later. Anyway, here are my thoughts on the footage I saw. The facial movement on the characters was great, it really had a natural way about it. THe environment during the day in the jungle when Jake is getting chased by the monster, amazing. I forgot that none of that was real. During the night time, when the female Avatar rescues him (forget her name) is when it seemed to get a little too cartoony with all the colors and such. I will sum up my feelings about it by explaning my headline. This does not look realistic at all. Yes, there were a few moments where there were glimpses of what Cameron has bragged about all these years, but that is all. If he would of just sold this as a CGI movie with amazing visuals and a good story, I think every single one of you would be having a different reactions then what you are having now. Who can blame you? You were promised something totally different then what we are seeing. Do I think it will be a good movie? Yes, Cameron always have good stories up his sleeve. Do I think it will change the way we view cinema? No, it isn't that good.
-
Just got back from the NYC showing at 6. Walked back to my friend's apartment, that is why I am posting this almost an hour and forty-give minutes later. Anyway, here are my thoughts on the footage I saw. The facial movement on the characters was great, it really had a natural way about it. THe environment during the day in the jungle when Jake is getting chased by the monster, amazing. I forgot that none of that was real. During the night time, when the female Avatar rescues him (forget her name) is when it seemed to get a little too cartoony with all the colors and such. I will sum up my feelings about it by explaning my headline. This does not look realistic at all. Yes, there were a few moments where there were glimpses of what Cameron has bragged about all these years, but that is all. If he would of just sold this as a CGI movie with amazing visuals and a good story, I think every single one of you would be having a different reactions then what you are having now. Who can blame you? You were promised something totally different then what we are seeing. Do I think it will be a good movie? Yes, Cameron always have good stories up his sleeve. Do I think it will change the way we view cinema? No, it isn't that good.
-
You are most likely SOLD on it already. Hell, I loved Star Wars, but I didn't go for that advance trailer shit before Meet Joe Black, etc. But you what, those trailers for Phantom Menace were pretty damn good, and when I finally did see them, I was honestly pretty hyped up about the Prequels. I thought the trailer for AVATAR was pretty good, but it didn't make me shit my pants, drool uncontrollably, or make me want to go through all the rigmarole of queuing up for sixteen minutes of lubricantless eyeball fuckery. ;-)
-
hit the enter button 3 times
-
Wow. Just got out of showing. Skeptic no more about visuals. Dialogue a bit silly in place, so will be same iffy Cameron story/charcters. But visually stunning. Details later once I got to my computer (not fun on phone.)
-
...but Jurassic Park did it better in 1993!
-
Seems alot of geeks here are defending the movie the've never seen by calling all who honestly are saying, "Man, this thing looks pretty fakey" based on a preview they HAVE seen Haters. So, heres a new rule: Anyone attacking someone for saying the CGI blue Thundercat Smurfs looks like fake CGI blue Thundercat Smurfs is a Hater. If you disagree with our opinion, you are a Hater. The Ugly Truth is that it really looks like one of the greatest imagineers of our time has shit on his own movie. And for those that say that it doesnt matter what the Avatars look like on screen because its the STORY that matters...would TITANIC be as good if the ship looked like a toy? How about AVATAR: What it they used stop-motion GI Joe and Barbie dolls to tell the story. Would you say it did'nt matter, that all that matters is the Story? What if the dinosaurs in JURRASIC PARK were one-dimensional cardboard cutouts? Still the story, huh? Its call (drum roll please)....SUSPENSION OF DISBELIEF. You can have the greatest story of all time, but when something glaring reminds you its 'fake'-GAME OVER. I just dont see how this thing can survive with so much screen time dedicated to something that looks and moves like a video game. Ouch.
-
Aug 21, 2009 6:51:42 PM CDT
they don't look real becuase they look like shitty cartoons, idi
by gomez33
why do people keep stating that these Navi don't look real because they have blue skin etc. Thats just a shit excuse. Gollum looked very real but was 2 foot tall with fucked up skin. these look like fucking cartoon characters!!! Deal with it Cameron fucktards.
I'm sure the film will still be good (like most of his stuff, no defending Titanic, it was shit), its just not the huge leap that was expected. It does work better in 3D and the 3D elements were subtle but very good, its just that it still looked like a completely CGI based cartoon ala final fantasy and Pixar. Thats no advancement for me and I hate all action cartoons except manga stuff so i don't think i'll enjoy it (though i still will be going to my not so local Imax to watch it in December) -
Saw the 6pm show in the huge Imax theater at Lincoln Square. Theater was not completely full but close. anywhere, here are my impressions. First of all, Quint had it exactly right. The special effects are very cool, but this is not like Jurassic Park where you will sit there in amazement upon seeing your first dinosaur. I thought Pandora looked very cool, but at the same time I did not feel like I was immersed in an alien world. Instead I felt like I was kind of immersed in a videogame. As a few others have pointed out, it was what that last big battle in Phantom Menace would have been like had it been in 3D. The blue aliens (whatever they are called) looked cool, but are they any better then anything we have already seen? Not really. If you've seen Gollum and thought that a CGI created character can't get any better, then you were right, at least up this point. Also, I don't know if it is just me, but everything that was up close in the Pandora scenes looked great, but the background looked very fake, kind of like looking at a painting rather then actual scenery. The 3-D was great, but if you hadn't told me this was photorealistic or whatever they are calling it, I would have not noticed the difference. maybe someday 3-D will reach a point wherre you truly feel like you are immersed in a movie, but to me it felt like I was watching a very well done 3-D movie, but a 3-D movie nonetheless. Another concern I have is that at times I actually felt a little dizzy, which I never experienced in a 3D movie before and if this movie is 3 hours or close that could be an issue for a lot of people. But I don't want this to sound like I am hating on the movie. The action scenes were great and though I didn't find the 3-D to have you know what my eye balls, I still walked out looking forward to the movie. But as Quint says, I think everyone needs to keep their expectations in check because this is not nearly as revolutionary, at least regarding the special effects. so I am not a hater as I will still be there opening day, but my expectations will be to not see revolutionary effects, but to just see a great movie, which I hope Avatar proves to be.
As a final thought, when the footage ended, the audience clapped, but it was a muted reaction for sure. -
design an alien you would fuck.
-
First it's the "game-changing photo-real CGI" then it's "well you have to see it in IMAX 3-D" now it's changed again to " The story is all that matters"....really James Cameron "KING OF THE TROLLS"!
Get the fuck out of here... brainwashed fanboysLMAO -
The reason people thought the trailer was underwhelming was primarily visual. That the CG was fake or looked average. I really think this is because most people saw it in standard resolution which has a limit to the depth and 'truth' it can convey. HD did the material much greater justice but is itself, in its 2D form, a reduced version of the stereo 3D which I saw in IMAX today.
All I can say is holy shit. It looks very very good. Is it real? Hard to say but I can say a lot of what's happening on the screen is CG and NO ONE questions it. The unreality of an alien world is more cognitive than technical-- I think it's crossed the 'feeling real' threshold. The action is pretty amazing, the camera use is phenomenal (check out the depth he gets from when the camera turns downward as he mounts the flying creature). The expressions on Neytiri's face are the most natural CG I've seen (it does look better than gollum with no hyperbole) and the use of eyes on the Avatars and Na'vi is nothing short of spectacular. The eyes convey so much feeling.
-
Got back from the 6pm screening at Aventura Mall.....Amazing...online trailer does not do it justice
-
I am a 34 year old male, I am not a sci fi "fan boy" or a James Cameron fanatic. I am not a Star Wars or Star Trek groupie, not that there is anything wrong with any of that. I want to say that I really was blown away, I think the visuals were incredible, the characters skin, the eyes the lighting everything in my opinion was incredible. I am V E R Y interested in seeing the full film and am looking very forward to spending my $14 hard earned dollars on this. I think it will be a incredible ride and will be well worth the time spent. Of course I have only just seen 15 minutes but I am very excited. I love seeing new and different types of films and no doubt am looking forward to visiting this world of Avatar. I really do not see why people are hating, but since people seem to hate everything and there are certain people that hate themselves, life and any movie for that matter I guess it is pointless to try and figure it out. I was with another older individual who is very excited about this film as well. He is not a "fan boy" either and is actually in the 60year old male demo. So I would have to say I think this is a very good sign and obviously what the studios want.
Large demographics. The film will be massive no doubt about that, this film will go down in history. Either as the biggest hit or the biggest failure but it will be the biggest something! I am sure rooting for it to be a hit. If the film is as good as it seemed to be today for me then I think it should have no trouble being a hit! -
Although this does look cool, the animated characters don't seem anymore "realistic" to me than Jar Jar.
-
...you are SO right. The preview has been put online because, obviously, the makers must think that it's something that will impress the viewing audience. But this footage won't impress everybody, because the aliens really DO look like friggin' CGI blue Thundercat Smurfs!
This is my theory: when a film maker decides to create a cinematic world almost entirely removed from reality (The Phantom Menace, King Kong (Jackson version), Van Helsing, Avatar) there comes a point when that film maker stops realizing that the stuff they are producing looks FAKE because the film maker is not using any REAL elements (like real locations, real actors, etc) in the footage to act as a 'reality check'. -
Okay, so I just got back from the screening of the footage, and all I can say is holy shit! It's been years since I've left a movie theater with chills all over my body, but low and behold, Avatar succeeded. The CGI is absolutely beautiful, and anyone who says different is blind, or has extremely unreasonable expectations. I would confidently say far and away the best CGI put to film. It did not look cartoony in the least bit. Yes, you could tell it is CGI, but how could it not be? BUT, if it was passed of as live-action, I truly suspect most people would not know the difference. It may not be the absolute photo-real CGI some people were expecting, but it's easily the closest we've ever had, and this will revolutionize film making. The environments are stunningly real. Watching it you could almost swear they filmed on location. The Navi look beautiful. Tall, agile, they have a real weight, and they look alien while still maintaining a human connection. Sigourney Weavers avatar was especially impressive, it looked exactly like her. As for naysayers saying the Navi cannot emote, you'll be in for quite the surprise. The emotion comes off very well, extremely close to watching at a real actor. No soul-less eyes, which makes a huge difference. Definitely ahead of Gollum and Davy Jones.
The action they showed was absolutely top notch, the type of action you rarely see in Hollywood blockbusters anymore. The scene where Jake's avatar is getting chased by the giant beast thing is breathtaking. The animal CG is spot on too, easily as good as any of the Jurassic Parks. The winged creatures were also pretty fucking incredible, and the action scene they showed was just plain exciting. I'd say the wolf type things they showed were the weakest, but the scene was also kinda dark, so I didn't get that good of a look.
The 3D worked very well, although just a touch blurry in some places. It really does immerse you in this atmosphere and for once seems to be highly superior to the 2D. The sound was fucking incredible too, I thought I'd get blown out of my seat.
The crowd I saw with - although not sold out - was blown away. It got a hefty ovation at the end, and all I could hear was "how fucking cool was it", "that insane!", and the like. This movie is going to be huge. It's a spectacle that's never been seen before in movies, and word of mouth is gonna be insane. People are gonna go just for the experience. The story seemed pretty damn good, although not much was shown. Dialogue was typical JC dialog, few cheesy lines but good for the most part. Watching it I was completely thrilled to see Cameron tackling a movie like this, and as someone who's always had a soft spot for aliens, alien environments, CG monster movies, war flicks, and balls out action, this is like a dream come true.
I know this has gotten to be quite the long rant, but I sincerely thought what I saw was incredible. I'm not a Cameron disciple, but I'm fairly positive that when everyone who's hating now see's this movie, they will love it (except for that small percent of people who are predisposed to hate whatever they saw). The 2D trailer is a joke compared to what I saw. Mr. Cameron's certainly getting the last laugh on this one. Oh, and all the hype by the various big name directors is justified.
If the 15 mins I saw was any indication, this will no doubt be a classic. Of course that's barring he doesn't fuck up the rest of the movie, but I doubt he will. December can't come soon enough -
But this film has got me really stoked, so whatever. But I really can't fathom the videogame comparisons...it's ridiculous.
-
I saw the 16 mins IMAX 3D tonight. Going in I had no real desire to see the movie but was still curious due to Cameron's history. In general I hate 3D. This was probably some of the best 3D film i've seen but it doesn't really change my mind on the medium as a whole. It looks ok in some scenes but whenever there's fast action it just can't keep up with what's on screen (or my eyes can't due to the 3D). I don't have a problem with the CG. Looks better than most. What little we know of the plot so far seems extremely rehashed though and the main character is pretty damn unlikeable. I'll still probably go see it in 3D upon release but I can't say i'm any more excited about it than I was before the preview.
-
Saw the 15 minutes in Wellington NZ. To get the full effect you need to see it in 3D on the big screen, and the more you watch the better it looks - you have to get used to it. In the trailer Sam's Avatar looks like Aladdin crossed with the genie. Up on screen with the 3D? Oh mama!!
-
the acting in this will be piss as this 16 minutes of bullshit demonstrated.
-
...knows when NOT to use CG:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jdx_zQLtme4&feature=related
-
movie? I can see it now. . .Navi=Freedom Fighters= minutemen=patriots= Al Aqaeda
-
...THIS is the footage that shows that a good film maker knows when NOT to use CG: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jdx_zQLtme4
-
Do you get a bonus for giving Cameron a handjob while bending over for him? Calling t2 "genius" clearly shows you don't know shit about shit.
-
stop using gollum as the bar of photo real creature work.....davy jones from pirates 2 blows gollum out of the water...he is AMAZING and his facial animation is the best to date....and what kind of argument is " this is the best CGI to date even though it looks fake" that is just retarded.....there are soooooo many films with photo real FX.....just admit it has a fantasy quality to it and that is it.....no need to defend it to the point of making no sense...
-
After listening to hype for coming attractions for decades, I've learned whenever the hype is focused solely on special effects or technologies used in the filming rather than the narrative itself, it almost certainly never bodes well for the film.
Was Cloverfield a bad film? Not really, but a film I look back on as being wholly unremarkable because it was a bill of goods sold on the gimmick of the first-person perspective handicam style of filming.
I see Avatar as being in the same boat. I really doubt it'll be a bad film, but once all the "game-changer" buzz and whatnot dies off following the film's release, we'll look back on it as being one of James Cameron's more pedestrian efforts as a director. -
The 3D was gimmick-free and very immersive. The characters seem engaging, especially Neytiri. The two jungle beast attack scenes totally drew me in, it was really exciting. When it was over, I realized that I hadn't blinked for 16 minutes. Bravo.
-
I was in no way sold on this at all, especially considering the shitty teaser released yesterday. However, it looks pretty sweet in the theater. The aliens are a little silly, but they look pretty fucking sweet in the proper format. I guess you will either get over the style of the aliens or not...but consider my low expectations significantly raised to...yeah, I'll look forward to seeing that in December.
-
If that is the case, and this 16 minutes of 3D is the legal equivalent to mind-altering, how will the general populace get enticed? By word of mouth? Critical clamour? 2D ad's will be the selling point won't they? Hmm.
-
Stop bitching you fuckin' nerds - Dec 18th is gonna be a day long remembered and that's just what Cameron was aiming for....the preview was awesome ...totally felt immersed in an HD quality video game....AS INTENDED.....
-
then that's a bummer. I thought maybe this footage would be more action oriented. I'm sure the footage will look substantially better on IMAX than at Comic-Con, but the Comic-Con footage didn't blow me away. I think if Cameron hadn't hyped this as a REVOLUTION of cinema (and thus kept the hype to a minimum), I think I'd feel more excited. The footage at Comic-Con featured some absolutely beautiful footage (some of the Pandora stuff showcasing the 'layout of the land' looked beautiful), and it looks like a good movie for sure. I think the mo-cap and CGI look great, and definitely better than most. But nothing I saw really blew me away the way other footage has in the past. I'm worried that this might be a highlight/showcase of CGI technology first, and a great story with character development second. I'd love for Cameron to prove me wrong, but so far I've seen nothing contrary.
-
Everything I've read positive has to do with how great the movie looks. Does anyone feel like this is going to be an exciting story, or is this all about "we make our 3D CGI imaginary creatures better than past 3D CGI imaginary creatures?!"
-
I've been waiting forever for him to make that movie! It has the potential to be 10 times what Avatar is!
-
Yah, totally agree on the overzealous HYPE machine being a red flag that the actual content might be sub par. There have been a lot of gimmicky, hyped movies in past, and only if the rest of it proves quality does it remain memorable in the mind, in spite of the HYPE overshadowing it.
-
now that people have had a chance to see for themselves that Cameron has in fact delivered the goods. People everywhere are raving about the experience and calling what they've seen so far as nothing less than mind blowing.
-
then you are stupider than I thought.
-
Beowulf proved that
-
Why should somebody be stupid for expecting Avatar to be photoreal? Wasn't the T1000 photoreal? Would you like Terminator 2 if the T1000 looked less than photreal?
-
Went to 7PM showing in Times Square. The "sold out" performance was two-thirds to three-quarters empty! And the crowd coming out of the 6 PM showing didn't seem much larger. We were told at the start that we could buy tickets to the first midnight showing on 12/18. I'd be curious how many of those tickets were sold. My opinion - seemed sterile, but this was a coming attraction. We'll see.
-
Watchmen set the standard. Hell, it's my TB name. We want big blue dicks. It's not coming out until December. You guys have more than enough time to fix this glaring omission in post production. Everybody gets a big blue dick for Christmas!
-
Like I said to mandrakeroot earlier, calm down. I don't get why some people get so pisse from both ends of this argument. This whole thing is a fucking joke anyways. And with that said jdiddkdjajhshsidoihajsodugaisi?
Blows yo mind don't it? -
Nah, no bonus for me sadly. But this site has become so cynical and negative at the cost of all logic and perspective? As a film lover how could you rate T2 as anything less? It's pitch perfect for it's genre and a wonderful work of fiction in it's own right. As for Avatar, I clearly gave a balanced and logical opinion based on what I've seen so far. I certainly wouldn't say it equates to a metaphorical handjob.
-
...of a blue-faced cat-alien from Avatar, then take a screen-grab of the T-Rex from Jurassic Park (from 1993!), and then take a screen-grab of Davy Jones from Pirates of the Caribbean 2. Look at them: which looks most fake? Be honest.
-
A big key to fantasy or science fiction films is suspension of disbelief.
Special effects can be an important facet of suspending the viewer's disbelief, but the most important element is almost always storytelling. The audience is more than willing to suspend disbelief when you give them a story worth a damn and characters they become emotionally invested in and care about.
The graphics in the most recent Star Trek movies is so beyond what was capable of special effects artists in the early 1980's - but yet it's 1982's "The Wrath of Khan" that bests the whole bunch in terms of staying power thanks to its powerful narrative and characters.
Now, it's August... Avatar premieres in December. I could be completely wrong about this movie, and I would have no problem admitting so. The thing is, right now the buzz around this movie is predicated on either "OMG the graphics raped my eyes!" or "WTF the graphics suck!"
Why are we hearing nothing about the characters? Why has discussion of the narrative been limited to very vague outlines that give the impression of Avatar telling a very cliched story in a fantastic CGI environment?
Again, maybe I'm wrong - and I'd like to be wrong because I enjoy James Cameron's work - but I'm just not getting that impression right now. -
The T1000 was metal...not some organic alien creature. And no it didn't look totally "photoreal" anyway. There won't be photoreal humanoid characters in our lifetimes...or our children's.
-
The Navi guys look aweome and the Navi babe lokks kinda hot - The scene when he picks his flying mount dragon thing is cool as hell - the background landscape is photo real and the face expressions are spot on
-
Reminded me of the Final Fantasy films too, the characters are still just not real enough. The aliens in District 9, despite the occasional colour/contrast glitch, fitted into their universe more. Lacking humanoid faces made their creation and believability much easier of course. The CGI is good, of course it is, but I just don't think these creatures look real.
-
...Heaven's Gate in space. It will be a cosmic flop.
-
The T-Rex in Jurassic Park was organic, Davy Jones in Pirates of the Caribbean was organic, and the big monster in Cloverfield was organic... and they ALL look more real than Avatar's pussycat alien-people.
Shit, even the US version of Godzilla looks more real! -
Aug 21, 2009 8:16:42 PM CDT
Just saw it! We need to lower our expectations a wee bit
by dirk_the_amoeba
I liked what I saw. And the world draws you in. But it is not photo-real. The cgi is very apparent but the effect is not jarring when it transitions from real to cgi, however it is noticeable. This is not a game changer in respect to the cgi, even with the 3D. I do think it will be a very entertaining story though, and I look forward to the full movie. I understand the geek sentiment about it not living up to Camerons bragging - and from what I saw, it does not. He still has four moths or so to make it better, but even if it stays the same it should be a good movie - just lower those expectations a bit.
-
Aug 21, 2009 8:27:14 PM CDT
Anybody who thinks AVATAR looks photoreal should watch this...
by mr. waturi
http://www.apple.com/trailers/newline/the_new_world/large.html
It's the trailer for "The New World." Similar environments, characters, and shots. Compare this to AVATAR and you will see that we are still years away from seeing photoreal CGI worlds. That being said, I will be there opening day. -
if the hype wasn't so huge? James Cameron has said that this movie was "revolutionary," and had he not hyped his own work to crazy heights would the negative reactors think different? I'm a HUGE fan of Cameron's work, and when I waited for hours to get into Hall H to see Avatar footage I was very excited to see what he'd been "sitting on" for over a decade. I was excited for an exciting story and compelling characters, as well as revolutionary photography and special effects. What we saw were some beautiful green screen-created landscapes and backgrounds, and impressive CGI: no great hints at character development or an intriguing story. I walked out of the 3D presentation curious about the movie and interested to see more, but not DYING to see the movie. It's undeniable that the motion capture and CGI in this movie will be impressive (the facial expressions on the Na'vi easily top anything else I've ever seen), but I'm still not 100% sold on what's important in a film: the characters, and a good story. Will Cameron deliver on that?
-
... but not great. Some of the backgrounds could have been worked on a bit more, they being on the same level of video game quality. The female Navi did look hot. The main character is unlikable. My main complaint is that the 3D made my eyes hurt during and after. For this reason I may choose to see it in 2D only.
-
I also saw the 16 minutes of footage. The teaser trailer sort of let me down but the 3D footage was incredible. I really felt like I was entering this weird new world (especially in the jungle scenes). The creature attack was cool and I also enjoyed the simple yet stunning glowing flower scene. I agree that the footage we were shown does make Worthington's character a bit of a pompous ass but I'm guessing that is the purpose of these early scenes (and the character's transformation as he learns to love the Navi). I'll definitely be there (at the Imax 3D screening) in December.
-
Just a few bullets:
-Much, much more interesting in 3d (compared to the 2d trailer). After a few minutes you really get accustomed to it, and it adds a nice layering to the images. That being said, what you see is really more of 4 or 5 different "planes" of images on the screen, instead of what looks like a 3d object floating in 3d space. It's like 4 or 5 sheets of film projected at different distances. The images on the planes are still semi-flat, but the distances to those images are different, if that makes any sense. Compare that to say, beowulf in 3d, where you had objects that actually seemed to be 'in your face.' It's a stylistic choice, this is much more 'subtle.'
-Yes, it still looks cartoony. Better than a good video-game CGI, but no-where near the 'photo-realism' that was promised. It looks animated, plain and simple. Objects still don't move like they do in real life. The cloth/texture cgi is supurb, but it's still not quite there yet as far as the main characters' appearances. Go back and look at the mech suit from District 9. Granted the grain of that film was such as to make everything look more believable, but you won't be seeing anything that looks that "real" in this film. This looks like a fantasy film.
-Third, and many of us had this issue, the character designs are pretty much just awful. It looked like a Disney family film, with cutesy blue-cat aliens. This added immensely to the "cartoon" feel of much of the action. The main "avatar" just looked silly. The "Pocahontas" one looked much better, but still, the overall designs just look annoying.
-Tone/Color usage. Hate to say it, but you do get a very Lucas-y feel for a lot of the sets. Once on Pandora, you had no illusions that you were watching a giant CGI set with giant CGI creatures running around doing fantastical things. The only sets that looked great were on the space station/marine base. Those sets were great and the computer screens/monitors were quite nice. Any scenes on the planet, however pretty and colorful, looked like Lucas-style cgi backdrops.
There's just this intangible feeling of things not quite feeling right once they are on Pandora.
So, moral of the story, I'm sure it will be a fun fantasy movie, but "Alien"s still looks 100x more realistic and grounded in reality than anything I saw in the screening.
-
If it didn't hurt, it would hardly be rape now, would it?
-
The CGI is really, really nice. It's not "game-changing." Some of the backgrounds look completely real, but nothing we haven't seen. The least "real" - looking environment is actually the coolest - the glow in the dark stuff in the Pandora forest is pretty nifty. As far as the characters, I think the opposite of what some are saying here - the Na'vi are far more impressive to me when you see them in the lab next to the actual humans, especially the hands and feet. When they are the only things in a scene, I think they are more clearly computer-generated. Hmm, what else? I like what I'm seeing from Worthington, looks like he can really carry the picture. Some of the dialogue cheeses me out, particularly the boy-girl stuff. Now, the 3-D: Seems like it still is not where Cameron wants it to be. I thought the 3-D was great in some places and really, really headache-blurry in others. It was a lot more tastefully used than other 3-D movies I've seen, none of the "punch you in the eye" stuff, but I am still not sold on this iteration of 3-D film technology. All in all, seemed like cool sci-fi, and I'll definitely go see it. It is not going to be the greatest thing ever, though. Really, it isn't.
-
Soldier gets injured. Ends up at outpost far from civilization. Encounters locals at war with his people. Befriends locals. Becomes one of them. Ends up fighting own people to save locals. Oscar for Kevin Costner. None for Jimmy boy this time.
-
I agree wholeheartedly. Thought the footage was amazing. Can't wait for December 18th
-
Look at that footage from "the new world" and tell me a single thing from "Avatar" looked half as realistic. Now, I don't have any problem with this being a cartoony-fantasy adventure movie, but don't feed me a pile of shit and tell me it's ice cream. Don't call that shit photo-real. Very nice CGI, but we've had smoke blown up our asses for a few years about this, that's why some people are upset.
-
Saw the 7.15 showing in Toronto tonight. It took a little while for the eyes to get oriented to the 3D footage. Thought the beginning scene with the soldiers being briefed did not benefit from the 3D effect. Felt too gimmicky. Once youre with the Navi...or whatever the hell they are called...it was pretty impressive. The colours really popped, especially in the night scenes. The Navi characters were pretty expressive especially the main female..sorry dont know her name. What really did it for me though was the collage of battle scenes at the end. That really whet my appetite for December. On the whole? I think it would work better if the beginning human interaction scenes should have been in 2D...and once you get into the pure CGI stuff then put it in 3D. Other than that...well done!!
-
I know its been said a lot of times but the trailer doesn't do it justice. The footage was pretty awesome, its revolutionary but more about the filming aspect. I thought it looked awesome but to me Davy Jones was the most realistic CGI I've seen
-
just back in from a Charlotte, NC screening, and i'll be DAMNED if i'm not looking forward to December. and i truly believe now that anyone who views the CGI employed in this film as anything less than amazing could not have seen the preview in IMAX 3D. seriously, until you're sitting in the theater with those glasses strapped to your face, you've really no idea what to expect... no true point of reference. what you saw in yesterday's trailer may as well be another movie altogether.
you can throw out all of the JP T-Rex, Gollums, and Davy Joneses that you wish... they ALL pale in comparison to the Na'vi and the (beautiful) world they inhabit. when you see the female Na'vi scolding Jake, saying he is like a child, you will NOT be able to honestly say you've seen animated emotion on that level before in your life. i was in a full theater, and you could hear the collective gasps of awe when Jake is first shown on the table, getting used to his new body. we all knew as you will soon that the game has indeed been changed. -
Hey folks, I'm writing this as soon as I got home from the 7:15 showing at the Scotiabank IMAX in Toronto. I was hoping to get a free poster but they'd run out of those by the time I'd got there as I'd rushed to it after going with friends to see Inglourious Basterds. Also I wanted to go into the footage without seeing anything so I'd even avoided seeing the trailer when it released online on Thursday morning... however guess what was playing before Inglourious Basterds...? That's right, the trailer... bastards... So on with what I saw and thought and forgive me if I have forgotten the names of some characters or the flaura and fauna because I don't have an encyclopedia of Pandora in front of me...
Anyway, before they ran the footage one guy spoke to us to welcome us and tell us we were some of the first people in the world to see it. Then a representative of FOX came on to say a few words and all he'd said was to not record anything using cameras cell phones etc. and so we popped on our glasses and the footage began with James Cameron (in 3D) talking to us telling us his excitement and not to worry about spoilers because everything was from early on in the film. I'll describe the footage briefly as I'm sure others will in greater detail, we saw footage of the military guy talking to his men and Jake pulling up in a wheelchair, followed by the scene of Jake entering into his Avatar body, waking up moving around making a mess then running out the door. Then we were on Pandora and Jake and some other Avatars were fighting some rhino looking thing and then he was chased by some alien jaguar thing. Then we see the Na'vi chick saving Jake from some creatures and nighttime on Pandora, we follow Jake and the Na'vi chick walking around arguing, then finally we get to the scene of Jake wrestling some flying dinosaur thing and taking to the skies, and capping that off at the end was the same trailer that you've all seen, except in 3-D. The 3-D in the starting scenes with just the soldiers, general and Jake on set in 3-D wasn't anything to write home about. The scene of Jake entering his Avatar body and the med labs was really cool, but it's not until you get down onto Pandora that it reaches new levels of awesome!
So what did I think of all this? Fucking amazing! Fucking Amazing! Fucking Amazing! I have to say that three times just to try and stress what I felt. It really is hard to really describe! You've all seen the trailer to judge some of the snippets of design work for yourselves, but until you see this in 3-D, you're missing out on 50% of what makes it all so fucking fabulous! Let's also address one thing. Given the designs of the Avatars and Na'vi, within the first 5 seconds of seeing them on screen, it really does look like an extraordinarily impressive Pixar Animated film, which would be somewhat accurate given that the scenes are 100% CG. But by second 6 you won't really give a damn because its Fucking Amazing! You'll stop thinking about the tech, the amazing facial captured animation, facial captured animation, you'll even stop thinking about the 3-D and just get sucked into every scene! And given that these are just random scenes from early on in the movie stitched together, that's saying something! I was completely spellbound as to what I saw and I wish I could see the movie right now! In fact, before I knew it the 20 mins of footage was already over and I felt like I'd only watched 3 mins! And don't get me wrong, the CG itself is really impressive and leaps ahead of anything I've seen. It's probably just the design work, particularly of the Na'vi/Avatars that makes it look cartoony.
Cameron's in a lose/lose situation when it comes to some stubborn critics. I really do believe that Cameron can make a movie with actual photorealistic humans and scenery. But if he did some assholes will complain why he bothered when he could've just shot it with live action actors and sets for cheaper and call it a gimmick. So Cameron has instead chosen to use this technology to render non humans and a really alien looking world that doesn't exist, but no matter what he puts up there you'd automatically know it's CG, because you know for a fact it doesn't exist. But what he has up there is rendered and even moves photorealistically. I don't know what some people were talking about with concern to the animation on animals... it looked plenty fucking real to me, or at least was animated really fucking well! You've never seen anything like it, but it's believable! From the rhino thing to the jag thing to the bird things! Everything moves and feels alive from the tree branches that break to the leaves that fall it's all interacting with the characters. Night-time on Pandora is really awesome too! It really is an alien world, and therefore for most people, it's alien-ness may subconsciously remind them that what they are seeing couldn't be real and therefore has to be CG. And if you're just judging it from a quickly cut trailer or some stills that you stare at long enough, then this will be an issue. But I've got no doubt in my mind that once you're actually watching the movie and see entire scenes of the actors play out before you, all of that will be forgotten and you will indeed believe and love these characters and the world they inhabit! And that's thanks to great acting, wonderful direction and good storytelling. From the little I've seen I'm already highly impressed and have no doubt in my mind that audiences will absolutely love this movie! I reserved 2 tickets for this and took someone with me who had no idea what he was going to see. I even had to remind him a few hours before the show that this was not Avatar the Last Airbender because that's what he thought I was taking him to on the way there. FOX's main problem will be audience awareness for this film, Today is supposed to be the start of the marketing campaign, so they better not fuck it up! Anyway, the point is that he flipped out for it! It was a real visual treat!
When you see this movie, for the love of all that is good DONT see it in 2D. I saw the trailer in regular 2D and I saw the trailer in IMAX in 3-D and it is a world of difference! Those military aricraft and the action scenes looked so immersive and badass! Don't be an idiot and opt to not see it in 3-D unless you're visually impaired or something, then I sympathize... Avatar will be one of the best films ever made! I'm already convinced! If the romantic angle works out, I do believe it is possible that this could do Titanic numbers, it's something that audiences will never have seen before on the big screen!
-
Saw it. Pretty much blown away. This is the best 3D I've seen. Wow.
-
It was an experience just to experience 16 mnts of it. I cant wait for december 18th. I still say that Davy Jones was pretty realistic, the Na'vi look realistic but you still know that they are CGI, but I cant wait till december to be wronged
-
I thought it was fantastic. The facial expressions were spot on and they even looked like the actors. What makes me laugh about this site though, is that everyone is always bitching about remakes, sequels and prequels and here is a film that is essentially what we ask for al the time. Who gives a shit if the CGI is not what we all expected. Just enjoy the film on its own merits. District 9 was great but it shouldn't all of a sudden be the benchmark for all great films. CGI there wasn't perfect either. Seriously Avatar looks great and most of you will be in line to see it despite all of the complaining. Relax people it's just a movie.
-
Dark Crystal is totally more photorealisitic 3D CGI when you cross your eyes looking at it. Come on, she had lobe plugs, m'geh.
-
I've been a Cameron fan since I was 12 and I saw Aliens for the first time. He always pushes the envelope and this time he pushed it again.
I almost never comment on this site because it always ends up being the equivalent of two eight year olds spitting at each other. But I felt compelled this time because of the unbelievable backlash I'm reading from the trailer.
CG is amazing. Half the incredible shit you've seen in movies over the last 20 years has been brought to you by CG. Practical effects are amazing, and they should still be used when it looks good (Pan's Labyrinth springs to mind). But without people at least TRYING to make CG more real, it'll never happen.
Avatar is the closest it's been. Sigourney Weaver looked like Sigourney Weaver, and this "cartoony" business is just bullshit. Have you ever seen a 10-foot humanoid move? I have, after today. And oddly, it doesn't look like a 6-foot human. Weird.
Just realize there's no way this story could be told without CG. None.
I took my wife to see this footage. She had no interest in the movie going in. When it was over she looked at me and said, "Is it December 18th yet?"
Then she made me buy tickets for the 12:01 showing, which they were offering early. She hasn't been to a midnight showing for five years.
Sorry this is so long-winded. Fuck off, trolls.
Peace. -
there's really no point of reference or prior context to make sense of the things you see in this film until you've seen it. and the trolls who proclaim Avatar looks like a video game has either yet to see *any* extended portion or sequence from the film, or has a Playstation 37 that no one knows about.
-
Yeah, it'd make a good video game. Maybe that's their plan. o_O It was gorgeous, at least.
-
http://tinyurl.com/mjk4lt
-
Will play in IMAX theatres for three months (and do well) but be dead in cinemas in three weeks. Yeah there's sound and fury, but it doesn't signify much. There's an evolutionary nudge (as a full-length movie designed for IMAX quality 3D, if not for the IMAX format) but there's nothing in the story which necessitates that. So, it's a sideshow. Shame.
-
he scores on your bitch asses.
-
You could say that it was as if you were literally there! This 3D preview just put all other 3D movies to shame!
-
will send telegram when uncomparable becomes a word.
-
not writing another review posted this on
http://forums.thecarlounge.net/zerothread?id=2706286&page=4
non-biased review...
Cast your doubts aside NOW. I have never seen anything like that on screen, ever.
They showed like 3 or 4 scenes from the movie (16 minutes total). Every scene is so incredibly detailed there is no way to soak it in in one viewing. The voiceovers are spot on and the Nav'ii (sp) really DO look 10 feet tall next to humans. And I'm not sure how much more photorealistic they can get. The facial expressions are so spot on and realistic you really connect to them in a weird way. They don't feel like CGI characters.
There are no cheap 3D thrills like **** popping out of the screen for a lame scare, everything looks completely natural and where it should be.
I've never felt my adrenaline pump and heart start to beat out of my chest before during a movie, but one of the scenes where "Jake" is getting chased by some kind of animal did exactly that. It was a weird to have that feeling in a theatre seat.
I'm still pretty wound up from seeing it, I'll post some more when it sinks in a bit.
I loved the trailer and probably watched it a dozen times the last two days, but it does this movie absolutely NO justice, even at 1080p on my 52". It has to be seen in imax 3D.
One other thing, to anyone else that went, was there only like 30 or so people in your theatre at well? When I heard it every screening was sold out I figured the theatre would be packed wall to wall, but to my surprise it was EMPTY. Made me feel a little luckier to get these tickets in the first place.
I am soo ****ing pumped for this movie. -
The FX in Star Wars was just icing on the cake. The reason that film still stands today is because of the story, the characters, and the mythmaking. FX no matter how amazing will always date a film eventually. Avatar may be the most technologically advanced movie ever but if the story sucks and the characters blow then it will be forgotten as soon as the next fx dazzler opens. Many of you who saw it are gagging yourselves on the cgi and 3-d, but how is the character portrayals? Does the storyline seem solid? Thats whats really crucial....
-
I turned to my friend and I said, "My eyeballs hurt!"
-
imdb is alight with negativity after the trailer yesterday. While the trailer was ok, the footage I saw tonight really was something! The mo-cap work that was done really seems improvements over what Zemeckis gave us with Beowulf. I actually started trying to piece together the story rather than analysing skin textures and all that jazz. Though given some scenes with the girl, I can't help but feel the film is going to be a 'hard PG-13' much like Titanic was. I'll definitely see it, though I think the Japanese audiences will embrace this more than the large majority of Americans who can't get into science fiction/fantasy stories like this one. I try to be open-minded.
-
We're going to see Avatar in December!
-
I just left the Screening in Nashville, TN and I have to say that I was really impressed with the direction I see this film going. The visual effects on this film were mind blowing. The only way this movie can be truly enjoyed is the IMAX Experience in 3-D. It was truly an enjoyable experience.
-
Story seemed solid. It's hard to judge with a few out of context scenes but what I saw here and at Comic Con seemed interesting.
-
Chicago's Navy Pier Imax screen is one of the largest in the world, it's impressive even before the film begins; seeing basically 35ml sized ads being DWARFED by four stories of blank screen is something to behold and set's the anticipation factor high. Now the footage. All indications are that this is a bench mark piece of filmmaking. 'Avatar' is epic, imaginative, psychedelic, visceral, and layered with so much visual depth and emotion; this is an event NOBODY has seen before. All the talk about 'Thundersmurfs' and 'Ferngully' don't even register once you see it in it's proper context. I think the fact that it's challenging to imagine, based solely on the impressions you get from a postage-stamp sized QT movie vs 4 story IMAX, just how incredible this thing looks...is a virtue. Nobody is going to be disappointed here. Just relax...it'll be out soon and then everybody will know. 'Avatar' is for real.
-
Aug 21, 2009 10:02:29 PM CDT
Oh, and to the idiot that said they were turning people away
by lockesbrokenleg
based on multiple names. Shit, I went to the screening twice. Eff that Avatar website up the ass. The theater wasn't even sold out.
-
I saw a 6pm showing at the AMC 25 in NYC. After watching the preview it feels like I saw nothing groundbreaking. Watching the T-Rex for the first time in Jurassic Park or Gollum in LOTR was groundbreaking. Watching Worthington's character in his Avatar interacting with the alien rhino and then running away from a beast that looked like Samael from Hellboy didn't wow me. Neither did Worthington picking his flying alien lizard/bird. The 3D in the beginning with the marines is unnecessary(it hurt my eyes trying to watch it).
As for the story, its Dances with Wolves or the Last Samurai (take your pick). Couldn't Cameron have had someone help him write something original? JC shouldn't have hyped this movie like it was something revolutionary, he didn't invent 3D. Nor was he the first filmaker to make a 3D film. I hope the real gamechanger is Fox finally firing Rothman when this film isn't the blockbuster some people think it is. I'm more excited for Tron 2 3D than this. -
...'cause I feel like I just saw a fully-realized 3D calot chase (minus a couple legs) and armies of 15-ft. tall, scantily-clad alien warriors...GAME ON, kids!
-
I can't wait to the whole thing! Thanks again AICN for the heads up! Only complaint I had was the IMAX 3D glasses, could they make those any more uncomfortable?
-
http://tinyurl.com/kmexed
See the preview screenshots here!!!
http://tinyurl.com/n8bv28 -
Like a lot of people I thought the Na'vi looked too animated in the teaser trailer. That's not the case when you're watching them on the big screen in an actual scene. I thought they looked in-fucking-credible in those scenes. I think the thing that's hard to get past is that Pixar and Dreamworks animated movies are very colorful and the world of Pandora is very colorful so it's hard not to think "animation" immediately. The SFX are breathtaking, my only reservation about the AVATAR Day clips is that there was only one piece of interesting dialogue, and that was Col. Quaritch saying "My job is to keep you alive.......I will fail". Interesting and memorable, the rest not so much. And anyone about to make a "James Cameron can't write dialogue" comment, just STFU. THE TERMINATOR, TERMINATOR 2: JUDGEMENT DAY, TRUE LIES, TITANIC, and especially ALIENS have great dialogue. Quotable as hell, excellent at driving the story, and most importantly his dialogue is great at fleshing out the characters.
-
The dialogue in Avatar reminds me of George Lucas and the prequels.
Maybe Lucas helped out with the script.
Revolutionary! Mind-blowing! -
for someone who has been constantly bitching about how terrible this movie is going to be, why would you go to the screening? I usually avoid the stuff I don't want to watch, you masochistic twat.
-
The 2D teaser has lame as fuck CGI, but the 3D 16 minutes was AMAZING. Never seen anything like it before.
-
I am so excited. The 2D preview doesn't do it justice. IMAX 3-D is the only way to see it. It was unlike anything I have seen before.
-
You gonna plunk down your 16 clams to see it in IMAX 3-D ?
Or are you gonna insist it's just Beowolf 2? Step up bitch. -
Admittedly, it took me a little while to get used to the 3D (hard to see past the little warps on the surface of the screen itself at first), but the 'implantation' warp and then the transition from blurriness to the overseeing docs brought me right in. Say what you will about the character design choices, accents, etc. but this preview footage feels downright historic. A Lumiere train for the 21st century, if you will...
-
Your Beowulf stuff looks like shit compared to this.
-
According to Moriarty, back in the day: http://www.aintitcool.com/?q=node/14876 And it was the worst flop ever. Maybe James Cameron's Delgo will do better.
-
People were actually getting into heated arguments in the tb's about whether it was in fact cgi or just great makeup work, that was how realistic it was. It was hilarious to read some tb'ers INSISTING that we were looking at a guy in makeup when of course it was pure cgi. I'm not seeing that phenomenon with these Avatar clips.
-
Fuck, that is hilarious.
-
And you know what? He really isn't that far off. Yes, the trailer lowered my expectations, but the footage I saw brought them higher then ever. I've never seen such detail and seamless interaction.
At this point I have to ignore those basing final opinions on that sub-par trailer. Then again they are also the lucky ones IMO. Because now my expectations have been raised, and I know what kinda ass-kickery to expect. However the naysayers, they will be completely blown away as the vast majority was today. And that's gonna be a great feeling. -
I also gotta say that Gollum and Davy Jones comparisons are moot. Those were created against real backgrounds for the most part. If they were in all CG movies I'm sure it wouldn't be nearly as impressive. And as it stands, I still think the Na'vi surpass it.
-
Sigourney Weavers avatar in the scene showed looked as close to a person in makeup as I've ever seen for a CG character. Twas spot on to her look.
-
Aug 21, 2009 10:54:31 PM CDT
THUNDERSMURFS, THUNDERSMURFS, THUNDERSMURFS HOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
by carlthormark1978
-
fuck
-
... time to re-watch it.
-
Aug 21, 2009 11:04:33 PM CDT
So did you people actually pay to see 16 minutes of a movie?
by ihaveseeneveryepisodeofprisonbreak
I know there were a lot of free passes, but it soundls like a lot of people paid full price. Did you get a raincheck for the full movie, or did you get raped in the ass and paid to see an extended trailer and then have to pay to see the actual movie when it comes out too.
-
Aug 21, 2009 11:04:34 PM CDT
So did you people actually pay to see 16 minutes of a movie?
by ihaveseeneveryepisodeofprisonbreak
I know there were a lot of free passes, but it soundls like a lot of people paid full price. Did you get a raincheck for the full movie, or did you get raped in the ass and paid to see an extended trailer and then have to pay to see the actual movie when it comes out too.
-
I guess some Talkbackers have terrible reading skills.
-
I have heard people say they paid for tickets, so fuck off! They probably got them from scalpers or something, no need to be an asshole!
-
Back from the screening. Went in with kinda meh expectations after the trailer online. On IMAX 3D however, you will be doing a huge fucking disservice to yourself if you don't see it this way. Facial animation was spot on Gollum 2.0. Pandora is beautiful! The tiger chase sequence had me grabbing my ankles with a tube of WET in my hands. I'm just in fucking awe!
-
It's just 20 min of a movie I'll see all of in a few months.
-
when "The Hangover" is the highlight of the summer, you know we have issues. Fuck me, I am not sure if it is age, but DAMN, seeing movies just isn't what it used to be. Some of the TBers have talked about Jurassic Park, Terminator II, and LOTR. . . when the BLUE FUCK are we going to have that type of big budget, yet emotionally satisfying movie? Wolverine was awful, as was Terminator Salvation. TDK was great last year, but it was the exception to the rule. . and just what the fuck are we going to do if the Hobbit sucks???? Time to take up knitting I guess
-
are the bes I've seen.
-
Just goes to show that 6 years is more than a life time for most TB'ers. I do not think any of those TB'ers are around anymore. And I never heard of Delgo
-
Actually, the best film of the summer was The Hurt Locker by far! It was one of the few films I have seen in a long time that actually exceeeded expecations after hearing great revew after great review. For Example: Disrict 9 was a very good but was also no way near as good as the reviews made it out to be. I had heard great things about The Hurt Locker and was still completely blown away. I hope Katherine Bigelow wins an Oscar this year because it sure is deserved. Even James Cameron would have to give it up to her and admit how great that film is!
-
Note, that this is not a bad thing. I was somewhat suprised that that it is as much of Fantasy as it is a Science Fiction film. No, it's not the second coming. Yes, the dialog is somewhat trite but it's still VERY VERY COOL.
-
Does the environment look photo real? No because it's bright and can't possibly be real. This is a fantasy world. It is soooo alien that I don't know if you could make it real. You would need to change the art style and everything. Which would be fine if he chose to, but it's such a subjective thing that I'm fine with the style they chose. So much so that I don't care if it's not "photo real". The CGI is probably technically the best I have seen, and the actual characters are top of the line.
That being said who knows if the story will be any good. But I'm just tired of the photo real bullshit. -
For fifteen minutes, i've got the number and i'm coming back for more.
-
& maybe Brothers Bloom .... not so disappointing a summer.
-
ON how blown away i was.
$160.
-
I will it see it again and again.
-
and they are not showing it here
-
Aug 21, 2009 11:46:12 PM CDT
CarlThorMark1978, "Dances with Thundersmurfs" that's funny.
by stereotypical evil archer
-
too bad she probably gets eaten by the wildlife
-
In 3D, Avatar will rock your world. Footage got a standing ovation at the theater in Charlotte.
-
I was so excited tonight when the light went down and Cameron's face came up. I saw it at 6:45 at the Regal/stonecrest theater in Charlotte. The place was about 3/4 full and the audience reaction seemed to be polite excitement and dissapointment. The Na'vi look pretty weak when you first see Worthington in his avatar, but the longer they're on screen and the more scenes you see them in, the better they look. For me, they only started to look photo realistic when they started showing the scenes in the water. I don't know why, but the water effects looked really good. I also think the female Na'vi, I guess the Zoe Saldana character, looks waaay better then the Sam Worthington avatar/Na'vi. I mean it does look amazing and is probably the best 3D cgi movie that there's ever been, but it's not the gamechanger I was hoping for. You at no point, not for a second, ever forget you're watching a film. If you watched "dances with wolves" 12 times, "lord of the rings" 12 times, played 'legend of zelda' and 'fable' for 24 hours, then took 3 ambien and passed out, your dream would look alot like Avatar. Unless they are fucking with us and the film takes a massive turn in the 3rd act, it does feel like, even after 15 minutes of random scenes, you know where the film is going, and it does "feel" a whole lot like "dances with wolves". Not that, that was a bad film, but it is a certain formula and this footage feels like it's following that road map. I am a giant Cameron fan and i've been sticking up for this even after watching the trailer yesterday, telling myself and everyone else that the 3D Imax would tell the real tale in how awesome this film was going to be. Well, maybe it's just a byproduct of the hype machine and the whole "new level of cinema" and "gamechanger" thing, but as I walked out of the theater, the thought that kept running through my mind was: Wow...that ALMOST sucked, right? I mean it DIDN'T suck, and as the look and feel of the actual film begins to unsurp what this film looked and sounded like in my mind for the last 3 years when no footage of the real thing was seen, it might actually begin to be great to me, but I have to say, sadly, that i'm kind of dissapointed. And considering how much I revere Cameron, that is saying something.
-
Zoe Saldana is in Puerto Rico filming THE LOSERS and at the last minute decided to att. AVATAR DAY in San Juan as a surprise. The Q&A was incredible...
-
Before I get into it, the screening at the SF Metreon IMAX tonight wasn't in "full" IMAX. It was a "matted" aspect ratio of about 4:3 or 1:33. I assume the finished product will be a typical matted IMAX ratio of either 1.85 or 2.35:1? (anyone know the answer to this?) Were the aspect ratios the same for other locations? (and the Metreon is a "real" IMAX theater btw, not one of the LIEMAX ones.
Okay, first thoughts: Brilliant CGI. Incredible, gorgeous alien world and creatures. Most photorealistic CGI, EVER. Beautiful, vivid, vibrant colors. 3D looks absolutely fantastic. While everything looks incredible, and the scenes that we were shown are very, very good, there is no real context for them. They were, as Cameron himself said in his brief intro to the scenes, set in the first half of the film, which is all set-up for the main story. (So no spoilers) But, having also read his scriptment years ago, and based on Cameron's own quotes that the film is "Dances With Wolves" in space, I am concerned about the tone and final execution of the film. It will either be an epic, powerful and moving film like "Braveheart" or "DWW", (C'mon, parts of it are still good even today; You're just holding a grudge because "Goodfellas" didn't win best picture that year) but might end up with something less grand or entertaining in the end. The set pieces in a typical Cameron film are all there: Blue color-tone, intelligent, strong and empowered female character(s), military/technological fetishism, hardcore action scenes and brilliant, beyond state-of-the-art SFX. Without a doubt, the film will be an amazing technological marvel, one that will set the high-bar for Mo-cap, 3D and SFX for the millenium. I only hope that Cameron succeeds as greatly with the characters and the story, as well. From what I briefly saw tonight, I think he might have pulled it off. I sincerely hope that he did; fingers crossed... -
3D SCHmeeDee... But the world they've created looks insanely badass, and pure Cameron. Best 16 minutes I've had all week.
-
I saw the 7pm showing. The audience tonight was pretty low-key, and the theater wasn't quite filled to capacity. (close, but still at least 10% of the theater was empty, I think.) It got an enthusiastic, but not overwhelming response at the end. People applauded loudly, but no "standing ovations". I wonder if some people stayed away, thinking it would be a zoo. I can't say how many people were at either the 6pm or 8pm shows. I'm kinda worried the film may become a victim of it's own hype. Storywise, it may not be the second coming of cinematic Christ, but then it will probably still love your eyeballs long time! Oh, and the theater, an AMC, was offering matinee prices on any movie with a coupon from Avatar Day, and the box office was selling tickets in advance for the first midnight showing of the film. Pretty cool, I thought...
-
That was immersion. Cameron has a leap forward on his hands here. I was completely immersed in the world. The first short scene felt like standard, run of the mill 3d. But the in-world stuff... completely felt like a place. A place I want to go back to NOW.
Loves: The expressive ears, the beautiful facial expressions. The way the uncanny valley issue was overcome simply by using facial features that were very non-human. In a way, it tricks the eye. Not once did I feel like I was looking at a "corpse puppet". Beowolf was impressive, but did have that problem in many places. The planet's environments, very realistic... not that I know what this planet "really" looks like. But it felt very, very real and very very HUGE.
Problems: Very few, all nit-picks. The character animations are not perfect, but come closer than ANYONE has come before, period. Audio tracks seemed unfinished, not "sweetened", blah. ( this could easily be the FauxMax/WEEMax theatre I was at ) The live action sequences still had a bit of what I call the "video shine".
But my biggest gripe is that I have to wait until DECEMBER to go back there again.
The screening I attended was NOT packed, but don't be fooled into thinking the interest was low. Most screenings are over-booked on purpose, these were not.
Hilarious moment in line. Usher (or whatever you call them now) came out and asked the crowd if anyone was there from the "radio promotion". You could hear crickets. NOT ONE! Stick a fork in computerized, corporate radio. It's done. If it were present, I would have kicked it's charred corpse just to watch it's shriveled, charred and yet still somehow flaccid penis fall off and disintegrate into a thimble-sized pile of ash. To the sound of Coldplay. -
They had people from Fox checking tickets and ID's. I got into the screening with an email and a pic of my ID on my iphone... ;-)
-
I was one of those people who had very high expectations for this film. Buying into the hype, and being such a big fan of James Cameron, I was pretty excited for the film. Then I saw the trailer for it on Thursday, and although it got better for me after watching it several times, it was a definite disappointment. Tonight I was able to see the preview at 6pm here in Minneapolis. Now that I've seen the footage, my faith in James Cameron and this movie has been fully restored, and then some. It really did look amazing. How many times have you seen a trailer, and thought, "damn, that looks like it's going to be a really good movie" only to see it and the movie sucked? Well, I will make the argument the other way for this movie. If all you've seen is the trailer, then you haven't seen shit. Are the visuals the most earth shattering thing I've ever seen on film? No. I ask you this though. So what? From what "I" saw, the movie looks absolutely amazing. In the end though, what matters most, is Cameron trying to tell a good story? From what I could tell, the answer is yes. Granted I only saw 16 minutes of it, but wow, what an amazing 16 minutes. What people have told you in regards to the eyes is absolutely true. They really are expressive, and emotional. They definitely do NOT look dead. As for the Gollum comparison's. Gollum was an amzing job, and you have to give props to everyone involved with him. With that being said, Gollum is CLEARLY cgi, and it really sticks out if you watch those movies today. The cgi in this film when it comes to the Na'vi, is lightyears ahead of what they did with Gollum. The level of detail in the mouth and eyes is really impressive. I am sooooo relieved after seeing the footage tonight. I can now relax, and anxiously await 12/18. For those of you who weren't as impressed with the footage as those of us who were, all I can say is that's a shame. I'm VERY glad to be in the crowd with those that are excited for it. Much better to be here, than where you are being all negative and cynical about it. Have fun sulking!! I get to be excited!!!
-
Aug 22, 2009 12:38:22 AM CDT
I never said I went to Avatar Day did I?......NO
by trannyformers_apologist
@Kief_Ledger
I didn't have to be there to hear the dialogue. I didn't have to be there to hear the dialogue. I didn't have to be there to hear the dialogue. I didn't have to be there to hear the dialogue. I didn't have to be there to hear the dialogue. I didn't have to be there to hear the dialogue. I didn't have to be there to hear the dialogue. I didn't have to be there to hear the dialogue. I didn't have to be there to hear the dialogue. I didn't have to be there to hear the dialogue. I didn't have to be there to hear the dialogue. I didn't have to be there to hear the dialogue. I didn't have to be there to hear the dialogue. I didn't have to be there to hear the dialogue. I didn't have to be there to hear the dialogue. I didn't have to be there to hear the dialogue. I didn't have to be there to hear the dialogue. Understand that... I hope.
I never said I WATCHED the footage ...did I ...NO. Nice try though....lmao "Dialogue sounds like shit" "The dialogue in Avatar reminds me of George Lucas and the prequels." Try not to jump to conclusions about peoples comments.
Keep up the good work you're doing great! -
Why, yes. I'd love to. Thanks. Twice if possible.
-
The time flew by.
It was beautiful. The imagery was deeply engaging. In a few minutes characters were established that I cared about.
I'm in for seeing it in December!
-
http://tinyurl.com/n8bv28
-
Aug 22, 2009 12:40:14 AM CDT
Checked out Inglorious Basterds with the coupon
by flying spaghetti monster
still couldn't stop thinking about the Avatar footage...no matter how many Nazis got burnt alive or shot in the face.
-
Sure ... they could have subdued all the greens in the jungle and blues in the water and sky and made the Navis skin look grey and pale and more "photorealic". But once you get past the bright dreamy like colors, the facial movements and expressions of the characters and the MOVEMENT is photoreal. Like someone said earlier, no-one complained about ewoks and a rubber puppet Jedi master with miss piggy's voice. I don't think you people understand what PHOTO-REAL is. The characters in Toy Story are photo real because they look and reflect light as if they actually are made of plastic. The NAVI are photo real as well because they look like and reflect light like real flesh and bllod. Jar Jar looked just as real .. but he moved like a floppy cartoon. Thats not the problem here. You have seen nothing like this.
-
First of all why are asshats WHO HAVE NOT SEEN THE CLIP posting? no one wants to read crap you're pulling out of your ass without an ounce of substantiation. if you've only seen the trailer and not in 3D imax STFU you're conjecturing and if you shut your trap now instead of digging more of a hole you'll feel like less of an asshole when this movie comes out and owns all.
Second I have to take issue with anyone talking about the movie looking photo-realistic. These aliens are not real, it's impossible for it o be photo-realistic. There IS an immersive feel that's inescapable as you watch it but I'd describe it as HYPER REALITY. It's not that the CG stands out as artificial but the overall feel is more dreamlike, again hard to explain. The closest approximation for me would be old Conan/Tarzan covers which the palate of colors, shading and poses made them look otherworldly. The clarity of the images certainly is in the photo-realistic area but the overall takeaway is that not that you sit there feeling like what you're seeing on screen is happening in front of you in the the real world, but that you almost feel like you've been pulled into the movie. AGAIN IMPOSSIBLE TO EXPLAIN WITH WORDS FOR NOOBS WHO HAVEN'T SEEN IT. YOU GOTTA SEE IT IN 3D AND IT WILL MAKE SENSE. -
Actually ... it would have been an easy fix to give the world a more photorealist color and texture to everything in order to make this seem like more of the same. You miss the point. It's supposed to be a dreamlike world from your WILDEST dreams that does not look aything like "photo" real but real none the less. If you want Cameron's old work go to the video store. Face it its just not the dark, gritty militaristic Cameron you were all hoping for. File this one where it belongs with the likes of Nania, Neverending Story and the Dark Crystal and you have something they are dreamt of being originally but could not achieve. This is something new. Deal with but have hope ... because he will give you what you want in a couple of years with Battle Angel.
-
You're joking, right? I mean, I'm all for leaked stuff. But anyone who thinks they can judge this work based on non-3d footage is just not firing on all cylinders. Matter of fact, one of the things I love about this is that anyone who pirates this, at any point, in 2d... is basically doing the equivalent of taping half a song off the radio and sharing a second generation copy of said crappy tape. It's about FUCKING time we advanced cinema technology. This is the answer, at least for a decade or so, to the "piracy" issue when it comes to films. Once people have seen it this way, seeing it an any other format will be a huge let down. Will it end "piracy"(what a shockingly stupid and inaccurate word for free sharing!!!)? Absolutely not. Anyone who thinks that will ever happen is delusional. But it'll get enough butts in paid seats to make it hurt a HELL of a lot less.
-
Right ... what Happy boy said .. apparently at the same time I was saying it.
-
wonderfully put
-
The 3D was nice, but the story look generic and dull. I am completely unexcited now.
-
I went to the Avatar presentation with two friends, and we were all quite blown away. It really does seem to be a game-changer. The teaser will not prepare you for how swell this stuff actually looks. Our IMAX seemed to be a baby 3-story screen as opposed to the usual 5, but it still rocked. Weather probably caused the footage to 'pause' for about a minute on the female alien. Taking off the glasses, you could really see how much detail went into the one frame. The coupon promotion was applied to tickets we already bought for Inglourious Basterds, and a great night was had by all.
Specific awesome moments are already probably detailed, but we were all so overwhelmed, it really did feel like 2D cinema was a step back. All during the trailer for IB, I was just wanting to step back to Pandora. The lighting in some of the shots was downright uncanny, especially in the dragon-taming sequence. The amount of detail in each of the characters was staggering, even in the background tribal members. They looked cartoonish at a distance, well, exaggerated, but up close, did not betray a digital origin. Seeing the best bits of the trailer play in 3D with added footage (the copse of flaming trees falling on the aliens comes to mind) also sold it. No huge smattering of applause, if only because most people were so taken back. The comments were favorable, ranging from, oh my god, to buying tickets immediately. -
Enough already. DELGO is for five-year-olds. AVATAR is for adults.
-
When you see the first clip of the military hard ass talking about the most hostile environment in the universe where every living thing wants to rip you to shreads and snack on your eyeballs, you expect the next sceen to jump to a baron wasteland of a world as depicted in any run of the mill war/survival story. But then you are thrust into this breathtaking world that is full of a kind of cartoony, dreamy like color and beauty that is in such complete contrast to the perception that these humans have. .... Its a brilliant statement about humanity in general and you realize that the LOOK of the movie itself is part of the story.
-
in the above example... what is more evocative and emotive for a Howard novel cover... a real life photo snapshot of some dude in a loincloth wrestling with a giant stuffed snake or a Boris painting with the dramatic contrast, poses and background that you could never execute IRL which still somehow encapsulates with one look the entire spirit of the novel? Avatar (to me) is NOT photorealistic... but for the millionth time it's not due to any flaws in the CG... there's no doubt looking at this work that Cameron could have shot a totally photorealistic movie that looks exactly like Universal Soldier or some shit Hollywood makes. this movie isn't about that. dumbasses who haven't seen shit talking about this looking like Gears of War dont have a clue what they're talking about. when you see it it's nothing at all like that. the funny thing is that the problem here is that some lower wattage viewers actually are walking out of the theatre thinking "wtf did i just see???" because they cannot wrap their brains around something totally new they've never experienced before. it's funny as shit ppl compare this to Star Wars or PS3 games they've seen before... it's the OPPOSITE of that when you see it you're going to feel like the biggest dumbass in the world... like old ass ppl in the 60s who'd listen to Hendrix and compare him to screeching cars as a frame of reference because their brains literally couldn't mentally process the audible stimulus their ears were experiencing
-
This IS going to be the next Star Wars, Neverending Story, Dark Crystal and Jurassic Park to a new generation of kids who see nothing special in those old movies at all. (Sadly) For those of us who are older and can't seem to rememeber how we were enchanted so completely by stuff like Warwick Davis in a fur suit with absolutely ZERO emotional expression and a kid who rides on the back a huge white dragon with the face of a cocker spaniel ... Lets not ruin for them.
-
Theater I saw it in was a fakemax but I think 3d is a gimmick the story is everything. And this story is beyond cliched and been done to death already. The outsider coming to the native savage land then learns their culture and fights for them against his own. Yawn. Having said that the 3d in the opening of the actual actors is by far the best I've ever seen. I actually felt I was in the room when the general was giving his speech. Howevwe once on pandora it was all too cartoony but in 3d. Not photo real at all. It will prob be decent but star wars it will never be and I really hope its expained how the female blue thingy can speak english while her other tribe members speak a native language only. Also sam w is the most wodden actor ever and his voice work can put u to sleep
-
Again ... What Happy said. Bravo. I think we have our advocacy Boy.
-
no-one in the 'real' world knows about this movie! Only geeks give a fuck!
-
Phoenix ... you are right. But the Pocahantas like storyline is what will bring your mother, your sister, and your daughter to the movie thus thrusting it into a Titanic like status. While providing the Halo like militaristic stuff for the xbox crowd as well as the deep blue, glowing trees, pointy ears stuff for the World Of Warcraft crowd. I think the real story and genious behind Camerons idea will come with the title of the movie. Yes .. he is in an Avatar in a real life MMO. What happens when his boss decides to pull the plug?
-
I'm glad someone could express with words, because I could not.
-
And you are also right about the fakemax thing. What a disapointment when I saw that 20 foot high screen they want me to believe is IMAX.
-
Correction ... only geeks give a fuck now. Check back in January.
-
Aug 22, 2009 1:29:10 AM CDT
Roger Ebert was underwhelmed by the 15 min of footage
by trannyformers_apologist
Roger Ebert was underwhelmed by the 15 minutes of Avatar footage.
No how can this be?... HUH ? Ebert saw it twice and is underwhelmed .....NOW HOW CAN THIS BE?
http://tinyurl.com/ncu639
Oh it be. -
I have to say I was very impressed after the live action footage you get the real deal which is the cgi footage..I was absolutley blown away at the realistic eyes and expressions..The forest scenes are the real showpiece and the scenes of jake taming his flight are absolutly immersive..I saw two showings back to back and changed seating just to see if what I saw was as good as I thought..It was.
to all the haters I have to say you all need to get some kind of life as this will be a huge hit.
I don't know what you all expected from a 2-d trailer for a 3-d movie but if you didn't see the 3-d footage your mouth is now your ass
so feel free to speak from it..I can understand some of the doubt about the footage if only viewed in 2-d ..I felt kind of let down also but you really must see the 3-d rendered images to truly judge the results , which I feel will only be even better come december..
All you people who have nothing better to do than slam something that you haven't experienced need to really see this as soon as possible , it will change your view, -
She speaks english because she was raised by humans then sent back into the wild. Like ... duh. Ok I made that up.
-
'Day After Dances With Thundersmurfs Day.'All hail Jimbo's Mighty Hype Machine!
-
It's still a James Cameron movie after all. Most overrated director ever.
-
trust me ... I don't give a shit what you all think but you will eat this with a spoon and ask for seconds
-
I have to second (third?) Happy Boy and Todaysfate against all this silly "photo-realism" griping. A more apt description for the style of this preview footage would be "hyper-realism" or maybe even "surrealism" (in the literal sense of the word, as it presents characters and environments that go above and "beyond" the real). Whatever you call, though, it it's still a pretty amazing sight to behold. I got this odd feeling watching it, like I was a kid again and looking through a gigantic viewmaster or on some ultra-deluxe Disneyworld ride. It wasn't strictly "photo-real", I guess, but based on this footage I don't think I'd want it any other way than it is.
-
Just saw the 16 minutes of selected scenes in IMAX 3D and have good new to report. The Na vi no longer look like Star Wars prequel characters. In IMAX, I was blown away by the CGI realism and was able to accept the Na vi creatures as human. I think the addition of dialogue was helpful in humanizing these creatures and I enjoyed seeing Sigourney Weaver on the big screen. Some of the other alien creatures, like the dragon looking thing with wings, were also shockingly improved in IMAX 3D. I really enjoyed the use of 3D with the futuristic computer screens that were displayed right before Worthington went into his MRI / Avatar chamber. I was disappointed that there wasn’t more of the human / alien battle scenes in these clips, but the brief flashes they gave at the end were exciting. As for the other scenes, I enjoyed the various creature battles and watching Worthington slip a roofie to one of the winged dragons. I have very high hopes for this movie now and believe that we really do have a hit on our hands and a potential “game changer.”
-
Nothing. Else. Matters.
-
Aug 22, 2009 1:48:24 AM CDT
T H U N D E R S M U R F S - Underwhelming your eyeballs in Dece
by biggusdickus
Convincing. CGI. Matters.
-
You haters fuckin' suck Michael Bay Robot Cock! At least "KING JAMES" is writing/producing/directing ORIGINAL material AND pushing the envelope. I saw both the Comic Con and Avatar Day footage... until you've seen the forest floors of Pandora in 3-D... STFU! They are absolutely beautiful! The aliens are...alien. I saw more passion in 15 min of Avatar than I have seen in every Bay movie combined. And all your whining isn't gonna fuck things up for those of us who know that we are witnessing "the return of the king"! It's his world and we just live in it... you sad little angry shitholes. THANKS JC!!!
-
Aug 22, 2009 1:50:09 AM CDT
FAKE IMAX well, it kinda looked better than real Imax
by lockesbrokenleg
At least the fucking screen didn't switch from widescreen to normal during the fucking movie.
-
exactly stated ...It does make you feel like something viewed through a spectacular viewmaster.. The hyper realisim is quite extroadinary.. I found myself feeling almost in a slightly altered state after viewing the first time around so I stayed for a second viewing and still felt immersed in the film.. I must say it felt like seeing something new for the first time.. I will be in line on opening night as anyone with a sense of wonder should be..
I pity all the fools who have spoken from their asses about this film.. I'm glad I got to see what little I did see until december 17th at midnight...Jim you did good -
End of story. Photo-real, hyper-real, surreal or not. Isn't amazing all we really want at the end of the day?
-
Such passion in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Original material? It's 'Dances With Thundersmurfs', ffs!And, sorry, but inferring that it's better than a Michael Bay film is like telling us that dogshit is tastier than catshit. It's a moot point, sweetheart...
-
Aug 22, 2009 1:54:23 AM CDT
My friend and I got there early. We got our seats dead center
by lockesbrokenleg
People came in and sat around us. Some next to us. After the screening we see the PRESS reserved things on our chairs. I was laughing my ass off. We didn't notice cause when we got in the theater the lights were dim.
-
Ok... so. I felt the same way about the trailer after viewing it the first day several times. VERY underwhelmed. CG just didn't cut it... especially after hearing the hype DIRECTLY from Cameron one evening two months ago. It fell pretty low on my "must see" list.
Then I saw the 16 minutes of footage in 3D this evening. Just have to say that I was indeed impressed. What the online trailer fails to show is the incredible face and emotion work done. I simply have not seen better lip-sync and expressions before... they were perfect. hard to tell in the trailer since there is only a single line delivered. The blue character worked much better in a 3D landscape than in the QT trailer... and it is obvious that I lot of attention went into this.
Flaws - I did not like the creature textures and renders. They all felt plastic and too slick. Almost like they needed another render pass... I personally think the two ice-planet monsters from the recent Star Trek film presented more "danger" than the ones in Avatar. I did not like 'some' of the character animation in regards to arm & leg movement. Some of it was stunning -- completely realistic, and then others felt stiff and forced. Weight.
Anyway, just wanted to say that my hope is restored, and I do in fact look forward to Avatar again... I think it will honestly be a magical and fresh experience if we can just let go of our modern cynical and SPOILED critiques. I, personally, think if the original Star Wars movie were to come out now that 1/2 of everyone would rip into it and say it was crap... we have become so jaded, and have lost a part of us that can just go and escape in a new world... and appreciate the care and effort that went into creating it without demanding that it "better look photo-real" or it's dismissed as junk.
My 10 cents. -
The only problem is that after this ... it will almost be impossible to bring the just announced World Of Warcraft, and Gears Or War concepts to the silver screen without them looking like Street Fighter or Doom in comparison. The bar has definately been raised for the video game movie. Face it ... Camerons vision may in fact be older than all of these things which have come about in the last 12 years or so. He thought of what an AVATARs when online MMO gameplay was in its infantcy
-
My theater was 95% full. There was a huge amount of applause at the end, and after the thanator chase scene (when Jake is about to become a snack), and when Jake finally mounts the creature and starts to fly.
The depth of detail of the environments of Pandora in mind-boggling.
This movie will be huge. -
Here's a link: http://tiny.cc/nvTUJ. Mirror: http://tiny.cc/df1uZ or http://tiny.cc/2jYGd.
I'm no hater here but the vehicles from the trailer look really cheap. The texture could be a lot better, and the mech's movement look as if they don't weigh anything. For the amount of money that they got, the vehicles should look Transformers 2 good. I think the aliens will look better on a big screen, but it will be the opposite for the vehicles. They really need to fix the GC for the vehicles. And asking a game company like Ubisoft to do some of your CG is a bad idea. -
"Those were created against real backgrounds for the most part. If they were in all CG movies I'm sure it wouldn't be nearly as impressive. And as it stands, I still think the Na'vi surpass it." just shows how ignorant and uninformed you are...no offense
-
And there will be no way to make a Thundercats movie ... because these Navi actually do kinda look like what I would imagine and hope thundercats would be as good as ... part of why these Navi look AWESOME. But thats just the 80s kid in me talking.
-
The theater i saw it in has a big sing on the top adveetising it as a IMAX THEATER. The enttry to the particular theater has IMAX. Engraved all around the actual theatre's entry doors. I thought 'yes I get to see it in its actual big ass imax'. I thought I was about to be engulfed by the huge screen fror this film above all films after all the hype. But when I saw that fucking wana be screen it was like watching phantom meance all over again!! I was pissed. How dare they label it a true imax theater. I enjoyed the preview of avatar and am looking forward to the film I just think the film is making a big mistake by using a cliched story and making the cg the movie instead of the story with cg helping to tell the tale like jurassic park lord of the rings and dark knight. 3d will always be a gimmick. But damn its a crime to charge good hared working folk full imax prices for a non imax experience. Cuz after the presentation they had a 'imax' showing of harry potter in there next and it got me pissed off. It's like thinking ur fucking A woman and finding out she has a penis
-
Aug 22, 2009 2:09:52 AM CDT
I just find it fucking weird that it's supposed to be seen at
by lockesbrokenleg
an IMAX theater, but it was barely shown in any IMAX theaters. DURRRR
-
Avatar is like bubble-tape... it's for us.. not you. So piss off. You douchebags are so focused on negative energy, and nitpicking bullshit that you forget that this is JC! Remember in the Abyss when Bud and Lindsey had to decide who drowns? Gameover!? Bishop. Kathy Bates asking Cal if he's gonna cut her meat? Give JC some respect. Visuals are just a fraction of a JC film. Character development, details, peaks and valleys... he's the master. And at least this isn't as remake or a sequel. Just sit in yer stinky little basement and play WOW and Talkback while the rest of us go experience magic from one of the greats.
-
Dont forget Arnald telling Jammie Lee to dance on his lap.
-
Edit button would help harry and did u get to see it in imax harry? What r ur thoughts after the trailer and avatar day and do u know what jim's reaction to the comments on the trailer are since u are his buddy?
-
exactly... or The Red Scorpion doing his terror home video and the battery is running out on the camera man... who else has another "priceless" JC moment?
-
Edit button would help harry and did u get to see it in imax harry? What r ur thoughts after the trailer and avatar day and do u know what jim's reaction to the comments on the trailer are since u are his buddy?
-
I posted a quick message from my phone but wanted to take a minute back on my PC to really describe and clarify a few things. The aspect that everyone wants to know first is it Photo-realistic? No. ANd I don't think Cameron wants it to be. With that being said, is it because the CG is lacking in any way? Absolutely NOT. In fact it is bar none the best CG Animation done to date. The reason i say then that it's not photo real is quite simple: They are 10 foot tall blue fucking aliens. Of course it's not goddamned real. But it is Convincing and Believable. In every seen that you see the Avatars or the Na'vi they look completely in place, part of the world they inhabit (which also includes the lab from which the protagnist and his fellow test subject emerge from). The enviroment is as foreign and alien as it is strangely familiar. Being that the Alpha Centauri is the closest Star to Our Sun, it would stand to reason at least in my mind that any life sustaining inhabitable planets would be somewhat like Earth. The flora and fauna are a wonder to behold though, and I fell in love with the Panther like creature and the Hammerhead Rhino beast. Both seem so natural to the world of Pandora. The scenes were essentially the same we heard were aired at Comic Con, albeit with a few bits left out. But in the scenes we saw, were great character development, emotional depth and enough humanism to these CG 'Thundersmurfs' as our wacky talkbackers like to call 'em, that I was already personally invested in Story. Yes after 16 minutes...and so what if that makes me a big girl. What fascinated me the most was the subtle nuances in the gestures, movements, facial expressions of the Na'Vi. After a few seconds I forgot that I was watching Thundersmurfs...I was watching the story of Jake as he explores and learns about this new world. I read Ebert's review and I think he's being a whiny bitch. ONe of his statements is and I shit you not "You expect every scene to be perfect" Wait...on a film that is 4 months away and still deep in POST? Um no I don't Roger. I have immense respect for the man but frankly...he's being a picky old grouch. I also wholeheartedly disagree with him about the flying creatures. He doesn't seem to understand that the way the Wings flapped was in fact intentional. It was a learning session. At any rate, it may not please everyone, but from what i've seen I think this movie is going to redefine SciFi, 3D, CG Animation and IMAX as we know it for years to come. I haven't felt this giddy since Star Wars (The OT). I believe it will be the Star Wars of this Generation. It will makes sluts out of all of our virgin eyeballs come December. One last thing...the 3D in this movie was not in your face nor gimmicky in any way. I'm NOT a big IMAX guy. It's an hour drive for me to get to the closest one at the Mall of Ga and frankly it's a pain in the fucking ass to get into (3rd floor of the Biggest damn Mall in Ga, Booo.) but this one happened to be at the new IMAX at the Barret Pkwy location and it was well worth the hour and ten minute drive. I'll be seeing it in IMAX when it comes out for sure. To all the haters...seriously, make fun...HAVE FUN, ripping it a new one, but trust me, you'll want to see this one.
-
Maybe the trailer was put out a day early on purpose in order to create a rift between those who saw the 16 minutes who actually still went after seening the trailer and those who changed their mind and did not go and now sadly will not have a clue for 3 months and some 20 odd days....thus creating this neverending debate in a diabolical attempt to show the world how much difference 3D can really make..
-
in my prev post. so what it's 3 am and i'm fucking tired.
-
that is a very good point...lol.. kudos
-
Fuck you Ebert.
-
nuff said
-
Went to the 6pm Mile High City AVATAR: 3-D IMAX Presentation.
SOLD! Trip the shrooms fantastic! Visually, it's AMAZING! Cameron, Fuck the Haters. It's going to be a GREAT TIME! We were immediately offered the chance to buy tickets at the box office for December as soon as it let out. I am ready for December now. Great fucking work Cameron! Iron the wrinkles out and deliver the knockout punch in December. From what I've already seen, AVATAR is going to Be Amazing! I cannot wait for the entire film now. -
No, really. I get what you're saying. Great, defining moments of Cameron cinema. And I'm sure that when I see this - and I will be paying Big Jim some of my hard-earned - it will have a solid story, albeit one I'm sure we're familiar with already.My point with all the 'Dances With Thundersmurfs' digs is to point out that this time, Cameron's pomposity is not backed up by the evidence. The Thundersmurfs just don't look convincing. End of. No doubt it looks jaw-dropping when seen in Imax, but the vast majority of people who do see this movie in December will not be seeing it in Imax and so it has to stand or fall as a 2D movie. When viewed as such - on the evidence so far - it appears to be found wanting.Oh, and I'm more Elder Scrolls than WoW, by the way...
-
Aug 22, 2009 2:40:15 AM CDT
i saw the footage in 3D but not imax and it was fucking great
by slappy jones
it looked amazing. I wasn't blown away by the trailer but after seeing it on the big screen its obvious cameron doesn;t give a fuck about a little quicktime window on a laptop. he is making this for the big screen. and if the whole film is as good as what I saw then it will be great.
-
Gotcha... but at the end of the day, hasn't everything been "done"?.. So, if this is "Smurfing with Wolves"... so what? At least w/ JC there will more than likely be genuine laughs, tears, catch-phrases galore... great performances, sick set-pieces, insane detail, and more action than you can shake a blue-dong at. But what JC is doing is pushing the envelope to change cinema... to get more IMAX and more 3-D into theaters in all the malls and googleplexes across the world. As always.. he is pioneering... and it just pisses me off how quickly talkbackers forget what he has done. It's just embarrassing. OK... I'm out.. thanks for the debates. LONG LIVE THE KING!
-
wait, so the actors in the beginning were CG?
or its not all CG until they get to the rainforest placE?
saw it hours ago, was UNREAL. everyone was blown away in the imax. -
..but will probably make a great video game.
-
WTF! How are blue aliens ever going to look "real"? Give it a rest. All I know is I've watched this fucking thing 15 times and I've been thinking about it all day. I suspect most of the complaining is from the same people jerking off over the transformers 2 trailer and look how that piece of crap turned out. You'll have to forgive me but I'm going to have a little faith in the guy who did Aliens, Terminator 1, 2 and the highest grossing movie of all time. When your worst movie is True Lies you've earned some trust. And how bad can the cgi be if I kinda want to fuck the blue cat woman?
-
I hope surely hope so.
-
The 3-D looked good when it worked...but it still just bugged me. Bits were blurry as my eyes were trying to get used to all of it. I don't think 3-D is necessary as this film looks great visually already. The 3-D distracts a bit.
-
I checked out the preview in the Imax theatre in Calgary tonight and wow, I was impressed. From the second I saw Cameron on screen in 3-D I knew I was in for something special. From 20 minutes you can't tell how the overall flick will be, but from a technical perspective it was fantastic. I watched the trailer on iTunes last night and was a bit underwhelmed, but the jump to 3D made the flick much more appealing to me. The 3-D seemed to "flicker" for me once or twice near the beginning, but once I had a few more minutes of getting used to it the flickering went away.
I felt like yelling out "Riiiii-pley" when Sigourney came on screen. -
I just wanted to add that after watching the trailer last night I was skeptical about the Avatars looking "real" enough, but tonight watching the scene where Worthington first plays around with his Avatar put those fears to rest somewhat. The Na'vi blended in well in the environment and with humans. I think the true test of their "realism" will come after watching more of the scenes with them interacting with things that we know "exist" in our world, like more humans, human created objects, vehicles etc.
-
' of course blue tall aliens are not gonna look photoe real and they were never meant to so stop bitching' guess what? The director big jim himself has claimed this whole film was meant to be the most photo real 3d movie ever. It was hisa intention so u lot can get off ur high horse and fuck off instead. He failed.
-
Thought it was cool that his avatar looked like him.This movie will make tons of cash but not TITANIC money in any way.Nor was this a cherry popping experience like say STAR WARS was to me(and some of you) in 1977 but it came close.That scene with the PANTHER_RAPTOR was intense.Sigourney Weaver is still fuckable as ever.Found the concept of space marines and the tension between Weavers doctor to the gung ho crippled space marine kind cliche as was his Tom Cruise-ish hot dogging it in the lab when he gets his new body.And hey the Matrix nerd guy from GRANDMA'S BOY was in it.
-
It was an incredible night of cinema.
-
I gave myself a night the mull over what I saw and this is the conclusion I came to:
It's the best 3D I've ever seen, but it's the story that will count.
If Jim is using 3D to enhance an already great tale, then bravo. But if he is using it as a gimmick to sell an under-written story then no deal.
I'm not a hater and I'll be there opening night, but my overall feeling was underwhelmed. My eye-balls still have their cherry. -
...did this remind anybody else of Ferngully: The Last Rainforest?
-
THIS is a cinematic revolution? You've got to be fucking kidding me. Sure, it's one step up from the Star Wars prequels but it still looks like CGI.I should have known this would happen after all of that hype. This is like being promised a billion dollars and then being given one dollar. Cameron is officially on my hate list now. Fuck you Cameron for all of your lies and boasts, and fuck all of the plants in this TB.
-
Aug 22, 2009 4:28:27 AM CDT
I WISH LUC BESSON WOULD MAKE HIS 5TH ELEMENT SEQUEL MR. SHADOW..
by carlthormark1978
-
did anybody else notice how during some of the scenes such as sam worthington on the wheel chair or when the monster is chasing his avatar the 3d really seemed to pop, the depth of field was full you could feel as if anything on the screen you could grab. in other parts though it seemed like the 3d either wasn't finished or wasn't as hard worked on. Parts like the bioluminescent forest while the design looked awesome i couldnt help but feel like i was seeing several flat plains layered on top of eachother to create almost a cardboard cutout look. I'm not sure why this is but as a whole this may not take CGI to a completely new level but it definitely takes 3d movie going experience to new heights.
-
Aug 22, 2009 4:45:49 AM CDT
About Roger Ebert: He Sounded Like He Was Being Very Fair To Me
by media messiah
I didn't see the 15 to 16 minute preview of "Avatar", but I did see the short trailer...and it was underwhelming, alright. It felt like "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" in terms of its mix of real actors with animation--the animation just pops-out at you??? That was intentional, by Roger Rabbit's director, however, it wasn't the intention of James Cameron? Cameron promised us seamless photo-realism CGI images, yes, besides the 3-D, and the editing process of the 3-D, the big breakthrough would be his motion capture puppets...one that would be something of an appendage of his actors--however, he failed, unless he has only given us shots of CGI that has not been fully processed and rendered, however, I seriously doubt that??? So why have we gotten to see this much of the aliens this soon??? I think execs at the studio weren't sold on the look of the aliens, and James Cameron, and his "Yes Men" crew and computer techs were standing by their work. I think the previews at Comic-Con, and at recent industry functions elicted a bad reaction by some, the reason for the more expansive previews so that people could see the preview en masse as a trial balloon to get a better feel of what the greater public reaction might be. The truth is, the design of the main aliens does not work. I would have changed their color to a brownish, or red color, or even a dark black, as it would read better--by the brain and eye. As well, I would have made the aliens, more alien--because the special effects team seems unable to produce a believable humanoid puppet? That said, I am shocked that, as Roger Ebert pointed-out, and something I observed independently, from the short trailer, is that much of the computer animation of the creatures is herky-jerky, like stop-motion animation. In addition, as some have said, the creatures lack weight...as they move around, meaning, they seem to not be material??? One more thing, the main aliens, don't move about in a believable manner, besides just the weight issue. They seem like they are badly placed within the shots...and the surrounding environments, and sets, something that James Cameron claimed that his motion capture process would eliminate. The movement of the CGI puppets reminds one of "Dark Crystal" or "Thunderbirds Are Go"...as they bounce about the scenes, without a smooth gate to their walking, running, or even their leaps--they just don't read as being real...living creatures. Even the movement of their arms, and hands, are off??? Again, these creatures, just don't read as being real, even in their slightest movements--it just is never true to life??? Lastly, I would have rewritten the screenplay to adjust for this problem. Instead of the aliens being alien, Cameron should have said that they are quite literally avatars--faux creatures created of computers that give the false illusion of life--made from hard force field projections...that attain independence and become self-aware as they go rogue from the computer program that runs them. Why would the military create such creatures? As some kind of advanced Xeno encounter battle training simulation for soldiers, should thing ever encounter alien life-forms that may be hostile, etc. The military might use an entire moon as some kind of interstellar Bikini Island for weapons testing. When these hard force fields go rogue, and become sentient, and able to reproduce, feel emotion, and die...the military has a battle on its hands. It would just work better for the audience, as it would be easier to dismiss the CGI look, and lack of weight of the characters, as things now stand.
-
So this will look great in 3d but not in 2d?
Am I the only onbe who doe not have a 3d cinema at home?
I hear people talk about the quality of the CGI...hmmmm...story? anybody?
No?of course Pocahontas has been retold infinite..
-
most retarded question possible..the designs are absolutely based on things from our own reality..they're a mix of humanoid and animal..So grow the fuck up...people are not blind.
-
A buffoon and obviously almost as full full of himself as Cameron..only much less talented
obviously. -
The blue alien in "Farscape" looked real, and of cause, the blue mutants, Night Crawler and Beast, in the "X-Men" movies looked real...as they were real actors in make-up, but Avatar's CGI looks bad. It drags you completely out of the realty that James Cameron is trying to create!!! And now that I'm finished with you...Quantize, you can go back to being a studio plant.
-
I shouldn't be working for him, he should be working for me!!! I'm the King of the Universe, and beyond, media wise!!!!!
-
Let's wait till the film comes out and we all watch it and then will discuss it in talkback, right now I don't think it's fair to give it a final judgment. I scoffed at the District 9 trailer and I recently saw the film, now it's one of my fav films of the year. We tend to focus too much on special effects. A great story with compelling characters can make you forget you're watching CG effects.
-
The suject line of my post, is in reference to the last line of your posting. James Cameron promised photo-realistic images for this movie, and I am holding him to his promise.
-
It's definitely above the normal CG, at least from the few seconds we see in the trailer. We haven't seen the world in long sequences, that give the world more life, just in quick spurts. I ask you, Bad in what sense? Bad next to live action characters or bad as in delgo bad? Have you ever seen a real life alien and real life alien planet? No, how do we know it doesn't look cartoony in real life? There skin is tight, they move in a jerky manner. I don't know. You're judging real by what you know to be real. The only problem I really had with the CG, were those horse like creatures. I hated how they galloped, looks beowulf bad, but again, how do I know those animals don't gallop like that? I have nothing to compare it too.
-
You don't. Apparently you both have different opinions on what photo-realistic is, so his promise still stands, at least in his mind. I have to see the entire movie to give a final verdict.
-
I was worried when I watched the trailer - had the sinking feeling that this was going to be a huge turkey... and the CG looked like, well, CG. This doesn't apply to the proper 3D footage. It's stunning. I can understand why they've been so hesitant about putting footage out there now - this film just doesn't work as a standard trailer, you HAVE to see it in the full 3D, and they can't do that on a mass enough scale (it's not exactly as easy as a YouTube viral). The 15 min preview was stunning, once I'd got over that weird 1-2 mins it takes for your eyes to really adjust to seeing the 3D. So many of the sequences were outstanding - if they can work out a way to really market this to get people to experience the 3D aspect on a mass scale, it'll open the floodgates for films like this. That said, I was really reminded of 'Dances With Wolves' but with space marines... anyone else get that?
-
Aug 22, 2009 6:34:22 AM CDT
Far worse than the CG for me was Worthingtons performance
by industrykiller!
Stiff and overly kurt in his line delivery and one dimensional in it's douche baggery. So the CG isnt photo realistic, get over it, as long as the vision is true that can easily be overcome. A bad lead actor giving a depthless performance isn't so easily unmade.
-
not Kurt, its 5am and Im tired
-
Out of your mind? The biggest surprise for me was how good his personal charm comes trough in the CG. Just like Zoe Saldana's sexiness. This is what sells the character. Worthington was the best thing in T4 (by best I mean the only good. Along with Anthon Yelcin) At the end of T4 I was furious (not really, I could not really give a shit) that his character has to day while the ridiculous angry man who cannot even grove a decent goatee lives for the sequel (which will never happen)
-
"Call Me Joe" was written by Poul Anderson in 1957. It was about a crippled wheelchair-bound astronaut whose mind is transferred into the body of an alien lifeform so he can explore the surface of another planet. Eventually the astronaut 'goes native' and chooses to stay in the new body living out his life as an alien.
Although I read the story years ago, I immediately recognized the similarities in the story. -
Likely. I think Cameron was quoted as saying that h's basically pouring every sci-fi story he's ever read into this film.
-
The rest looks mediocre at best. The CGI is NOTHING SPECIAL and actually slightly worse than some of the stuff from the SW prequels, so fuck off you blind fucks who think its the "BEST CGI EVEEEAAARERRR!!!!!!!" The dialogue is rather abysmal, especially Jake who speaks like a typical gangsta shit...then again, Cameron has never been able to visualize a futuristic society that doesn't look EXACTLY like our present world; TECHNOLOGY-WISE, yes, he comes up with great stuff, but socially,not so much...notice how the future in "Aliens" looks suspiciously like the mid-80's? It's really depressing that Cameron thinks people'll still be talking like "You a bitch! Me a ho, yo!" or whatever in the 22nd century. You don't get a lot of fuckers walking around in 2009 in powdered wigs, "Thee They Thou-ing", do you? I also found it somewhat dubious that the Na'vi have a word for "moron". Anywho, this is definitely aimed at the kids...may be "okay", but not the universe-altering cosmic event we'd been lead to believe...
-
Particulary when the people shouting it the loudest didn't even think of it.
-
And how did yours truly feel? Well, this is the second time I've seen these scenes (the first being at SDCC) and I must say I'm still underwhelmed. By God, I want to love this movie. As an IMAX 3-D experience, it is breathtaking. But after seeing nearly half an hour of it so far, I still can't say that I feel anything for any of the characters; it just feels hollow to me. Much has already been said about the less than groundbreaking but still impressive special effects, and I will add my voice to that chorus. Avatar looks cool, but like the greatest videogame ever made and not a work of cinema that will, as the filmmaker has promised, change the way you view movies. I realized tonight that I bought the world of Pandora and all the creatures that inhabit it ... except for the Na'vi. They just look like cartoon characters to me. The Na'vi are to the Smurfs what the Wookies are to Ewoks. Their much taller, more ferocious cousins.
-
Really. This has to be seen on the big screen to appreciate the scope of what Cameron is attempting. The 3D was just as amazing as the U23D film i saw late last year, and have been waiting to see a movie of that quality since. The CGI looked so real, the forest, the aliens. See it on the big screen. 3D if possible.
-
I was really hoping for a rape.
Of course the footage was underwhelming after half the internet was abuzz that it was the second coming of Christ. Hell, if Christ had relentlessly hyped himself for a year before he came back from the dead, everyone would have been like, "Ohhhh, he came back from the dead. Biiiig fucking deal." -
James Cameron, (should be Camera)has developed a system that allows real people to be recorded with a real time playback showing the actor as a creature and in 3D. I think that is correct. How is that not ground-breaking? Will this technology not find it's way into main stream media? And if others want to awe their viewers as well, even those at home, isn't it fair to say this is the future of the way we will view our entertainment?
-
Should've posted this last night when I got home, but I thought it was amazing. The thing that struck me most about the character design was that when you see Sigourney's avatar there's no doubt that it's her... just weirdly different. Amazing. I haven't seen any of the recent 3D movies - \last thing I saw was Bugs 3D on IMAX years ago - so I don't know if that's any better or worse that the modern standard. I was impressed, if still a bit headachey after only 15 minutes. If it's being shown in 2.35 non-3D as well, then I think I'd rather see that and avoid the brain pain. I'm pretty much guaranteed to see it at least twice.
-
Saw the trailer online on thursday and was completely underwhelmed by it. I even considered not bothering to travel to sheffield for the screening. Upon seeing it my opinion has changed. The 3D effect were amazing especially the luminescent fauna. Overall its not completely perfect but still cannot wait till december.
SinclairZX_81 currently playing Horace goes skiing -
I certainly liked what I saw and I'm not about to get into an argument about how really good the 3-D/CGI stuff was. Cameron's gifts as a producer, director, and technician are not to be denied. The problem is that he is just not a good writer. It happens and he knows it which why he "borrows" so much from other, much better writers. The story such as it is not compelling -- it's just cowboys and native americans. Oops, make that evil corporate white guys vs blue injuns. Or blue noble savages. Do I have to feel guilty about how my descendants treated imaginary blue people? That's silly but what is worse is that everywhere I looked I saw borrowings. Pocahantas? Oh yeah. Dragon Riders of Pern (or was it that Harry Potter movie from a few years back?) Starship Troopers? 'Nam movies? The rain forest moon of Pandora (I mean Endor. Stealing from Lucas -- how weak is that?) Unless you've never seen a movie, you know how every scene will play out and how the whole movie will play out. We're going someplace where everyone has been too many times before. As for the reaction to the showing, I can say the theater was quiet at the end. The audience was clearly disappointed and I heard mutterings about being "underwhelmed." This is highly unfortunate. I think most people hoped this would be something more than Cameron's 20-year-old PC fantasy. If you put an Ewok on a rack and stretched him out real good (and who hasn't wanted to do that?) then sprayed painted him blue, you would have a Pandoran. In sum, I know I will go watch the movie when it comes out, but far more out of duty than joy.
-
Wait till this movie comes out, see it on shrooms and then a post. bitch cock ass balls
-
jsscript2007, British company Image Metrics created the advanced facial software to mirror an actor's perforamance. Here is a demo of the advanced facial capture:
http://www.image-metrics.com/project/image-metrics-unveils-new-warrior-demo
Their software was used to create Avatar although they didn't work on it. Their software was licenced out to WETA. -
http://www.image-metrics.com/p roject/image-metrics-unveils-n ew-warrior-demo
Make sure 'n ew' is 'new' in the link address and it should open and there you are, a demo of the CGI. -
Almost every big name director has committed their future movies to this kind of technology. That is fact. So yes, this movie already is incredibly influential and it hasnt been released.
As for people like Media Messiah, no one really wants to hear your incessant hate. It's clear that 95% percent of people who saw actual 3D footage were blown away, and you aint changing anyone's mind. Is it just me or are the haters more stuck on this movie than the fans? Why don't you all get lost and focus on movies your excited about.
Oh and I also don't get the complaint about the story. All we saw was a few action scenes from the first half of the film. Didn't hear much dialogue either, so there's not enough there to form a final opinion. -
View site, click the 'work' link. Then click the second page link at the bottom of the screen, page will update and click:
Image Metrics Unveils New Warrior Demo
There is the demo. Avatar used the same CGI facial reproduction. Super realistic facial mannerisms. -
I saw Inglorious Basterds after the Avatar screening and forgot all about Avatar. :D
-
Please explain your rational that anything I said was ignorant? The fact is that majority of the scenes in Avatar are 100% CGI. Sure a lot scenes in LOTR and POTC were done with green screen, and motion capture, but for the most part they are interacting with real actors and real backgrounds, which as we see from movies such as district 9, seem easier to animate more close to reality. All CGI movies up until now have been mostly cartoons (except big battles in LOTR, Spiderman, etc) so the fact that this looks more realistic in an all CGI world really makes it uncomparable to those two characters. I suppose the closest comparison could be to PJ's King Kong. Now please tell me what is uninformed about that?
-
Common sense?! In the aicn talkback?!
My good man, you are throwing pearls to the swines. Do not waste your words here, trying to explain the importance of JC's new tech. Just enjoy the movie, like most normal people will. -
Avatar producer Jon Landau on Image Metrics:
"Image Metrics’ revolutionary technologies for performance-driven character animation require neither complex motion-capture hardware, nor specialist technical knowledge. Their animation solutions put the performer at the heart of the process, dramatically enhancing the creativity and reducing post-production time. It is this type of innovation that will again allow us to present to the consumer, stories that could not otherwise be told."
http://marketsaw.blogspot.com/2008/08/amazing-avatar-tech-say-goodbye-to.html -
Just got back from a night out after the 6pm Burbank show.
Theater was 4/5 full. Heard a couple people snipping about the 'fake CG' in the 2D/online teaser trailer the day before... more on those folks later...
I wasn't blown off my a** by the online teaser, but seeing this presentation has changed my mind. There's so much going on here that's exciting that the story is less of a concern to me. So f*cking what if it's Dances With Wolves in Space? I could use a classically constructed (ie. beginning - middle - end), well-shot sci-fi melodrama -- esp. when it's being delivered wrapped in a technologically sumptuous bow like this.
The Good:
* I like that it immediately felt like a James Cameron flick. The way the military debrief is staged just made me feel right at home. And to follow that with the return appearance of Sigourney... ahh, it just feels right.
* The camera movement is consistent with a JC movie. He's not trying to be 'super cool' and 'hip' here. He's trusting his instincts and just doing what he does best. The compositions are clear. Every frame is layered in subtle and effective ways. And this is the first 3D experience where the layers of 3D feel truly discrete. When that guy blasts away on his machine gun, the spent bullet casings that fly out -- each casing is a discrete 3D objects. It's a surreal combo of what you're used to, and what you're not.
* I like the footage they chose. It felt a little random, but it was nice not to be subject to a blatant trailer with obnoxious voiceover, blaring temp track, etc. And it was ballsy to feature scenes that are more acting / emotional and not random sh*t blowing up for 16 minutes. There are long stretches of the two CG N'avi talking -- the camerawork feels lucid and handheld without being nauseating (ie. Steven Summers Cam).
* There's a scene that takes a place on the edge of a cliff -- where the lead character has to wrestle and subdue this winged creature. The CG animation was really solid here -- but what really sold it was the vertigo-inducing use of the 3D as the camera pans around / down / up. I also liked how the proceeding lead-in to the scene felt like something from Michael Mann's "Last of the Mohicians". Something about the way the camera is operated -- it just feels right.
The Bad:
* It's a shame that the 2D trailer features the male N'avi character more than the female one, because her "CG acting" is far better than his. I think it has something to do with the creature design just working better in her case.
* You have to pull a stick out of your a** and accept the story for what it is. The thing I'm worried about the most is the inevitable Billy Zane-type character running around waxing his moustache and waving a gun around for the last half-hour of the movie. (JC's best villain was, obviously, the Queen in Aliens. His track record isn't so good with human ones.) I'm hoping whoever he is -- the Colonel? a character we haven't seen yet? -- he's dispatched with quickly and the last reel is eye-popping eye f*ckery like Titanic. (Say what you will about the first 4/5 of Titanic, it's the last 20 min. that own and mop the floor with you.)
PS - Kudos to Fox for how this whole thing was handle (beyond the initial online snafus). The line was organized, drama-free. I didn't get it at first, but now I think this limited edition longform teaser thing was a smart idea.
While we were waiting in line to go in, I was watching people filter in to the adjoining movies -- everyone was texting on their phone, Facebook updating, blah, blah. Remember when you went to a movie excited about the experience of seeing a movie, and less about your status update??? I'm excited to see something where a filmmaker of JC's caliber tries to freshen up the medium and steps outside the box to captivate. You cynical a**holes should give yourselves that chance too. -
I was particularly impressed with the Na'Vi and avatars ability to genuinely give a performance, and have nuanced subtleties in facial expressions etc, instead of just having fairly broad strokes of hahpy and sad etc like CGI of the past. Also, Cameron's use of depth of field, not just things coming towards, but the screen actually having depth, was one of the more incredible things I've ever seen. The first section of the preview, the debriefing with security, was some jawdropping visual depth, never seen anything like it. My eyes were definitely fondled. And they liked it.
-
i watched the preview yesterday here in greece.The CGI apsect of the film was breathtaking,not revolutionary but not the failure some haters were ranting about.
Now my problem is with the 3D aspect of the film.Unfortunately i havent seen 3d movies before,the avatar preview was my first time,and i didnt know what to expect.my only encounter with 3d,is the 3d images u can download from the net,and see them with those red/blue paper glasses.
Sorry to drag,but pls bare with me thats important.I was in the preview with a friend of mine,whose only experience with 3d cinema,was a star wars theme park in Disneyland 15 years ago.He said he was very impressed with the experience,he could feel the spaceships,lasers etc coming out of the screen and towards him.
We watched the preview,we loved the cgi and the movies concept,but we were very disappointed with the 3D.There was no scene were we could feel thats something was coming out the screen,except from a tiny moment during the chase with the beast,when i noticed a leaf coming towards me and i instinctively moved my head in order to avoid.But that was just that.There was field of depth in the movie,u could see for instance different layers of the objects,and feel their distance between them,but the whole time u could also see that they were always shown on the cinemas screen.they never came out of the screen,u could always feel that u were watching something on a screen.
Is this how the 3D cinema is supposed to be? my friend told me that the experience in the star wars theme park was way better,u could feel the movie coming out of the screen.but here u could only feel the field of depth and nothing else,apart from the short moment with the leaf.
I asked other friend who watched the preview too,and they also said the same thing.that there was only field of depth and nothing else.They even consider UP and bloody valentine as better 3d experience thatn avatars preview.
Is this how 3d cinema is experience.just a field of depth,but with the image nailed all the time on the screen? or the 3d cinema here was fuck up? there is not imax here in greece,only cinemas with the usual screen sizes.was the screens size the problem? or Cameron just fucked up the 3d experience with his own made 3d technology?
pls guys answer me,otherwise if the avatars 3d experience is like that,then i am going to have a huge disappointment with the film. -
You're fucking joking right??!
You mean the Blue Hairy Space Fairy they called Hank McCoy? Not only was the shade of blue they used totally putrid, you could see the seams poppping on his costume, his makeup running and the fir falling out! If that's realistic, give me the "fakeness" of Avatar. You can have your Blue Spaceberry. -
in the preview,there were some girl companies 18+,25+ somewhere there.They cheered when they saw worthigton,they liked him when he was as navi,they were thrilled with the imaginery and the action sequences,and they loved it with Sam and Neuteri romantic moment at the end of the preview.
Its obvious that Cameron is trying to recreates the love story of the Titanic,only this time its the opposite: Neuteri is the one who will change Sams thinking.Teenage girls is one of Avatars main target groups,and if they accept the movies offering,u can bet that avatar is going to be a huge success,not a new titanic but surely not the disaster the haters would love to happen. -
I think you're problem with the 3D is the type of functionality they are trying to use it for. It isn't about "thrill ride" adventures with things constantly jumping out towards you and coming up with contrived reasons to have things shoot towards your face. That's a gimmick. It's about depth of field and perception. It's about creating a world inside the screen where everything isn't on the same plane any longer, things can't actually have aesthetic distance and subtlety. He uses it to draw your eye to the foreground or background and allows you to focus on what he wants you to without using blurred vision for depth. The 3D isn't about jumping in your face anymore, that shit is played out 20 years ago for little kids. This truly is revolutionary. It's about telling a story in a brand new way. When the people were sitting around listening to the security officer talk about Pandora, and you could see the hallway go down and away from you as he walked, and the people listening in the foreground at different distances, that what is about. THAT experience. It's not supposed to rape your face, but add a brand new dimension to the storytelling and world that gets you more immersed. It seems like the screen goes away from you, to create a real room insid ethe screen where the characters exist, not to have the room come out to you in some cheesey, disney thrill ride crap. It's an amazing, and yes, revolutionary effect, and it blew my mind, personally.
Personally, I just think you are missing the point. -
"It belongs with the likes of Narnia, Neverending Story and the Dark Crystal." Well, that's different then. All of those are fantasy films, not science fiction films. I will try to go back to looking forward to this movie, by telling myself it's a fantasy world and not a science fiction world.
-
...and there was, at most, 40 people waiting outside the theater to get in. Very small compared to the amount of line baracades the theater had set up in anticipation.
-
Aug 22, 2009 10:35:00 AM CDT
Samplelord, you do realize that it was only a 16-min
by jackknifed_juggernaut
preview, yes? and that the scenes presented were, for the most part, disjointed and placed out of context? so it would hardly be possible to make an informed judgment on the quality of the story... hence the focus on the visual merits of the film.
-
I was underwhelmed by the trailer, and overwhelmed by the IMAX preview. Definitely the best CGI/3D ever, and that is enough to make me see it. But will it be a great movie? Only if it is a great story, and that at this point is unknown.
-
What you described about the depth and aesthetic values was the most interesting thing I've heard in a long while. I now see how it increases the vocabulary of the film language. Thanks.
-
Seriously, there is nothing about this footage - NOTHING - that even remotely looks like "shit". People who have seen this and are pretending like absurd movies that came out 9 years ago had better cgi are trolling, plain and simple. This might not change cinema forever, but if you saw that presentation and did not think it looked fucking amazing and are not incredibly stoked to see this movie, to at least give it a chance based on the insane visuals it promises, then you simply are not a movie fan, and you just don't belong here. More than that, I feel sorry for you, I really do, because you are so jaded that you will never really enjoy anything except your own cynical, "ironic" sense of humor. In 1977, you were the people who saw the trailers for Star Wars and after glimpsing the model work in the previews said "That shit looks fake. Fuck that piece of crap. Planet of the Apes had better effects ten years ago."
-
RATED R. Too much of these sci fi ventures demand an R rating to truly wake us up but instead sell out to the lowest common denominator! What I saw is not a breakthrough, it's test bed to the style of CG Weta does. It's NOT ILM--still the king of cgi. I think prequel Star Wars creatures look 80 times better than what I saw. These CG films have to be bold, cut out the family brand of tired and boring films.
-
The 3-D that you and your friends preferred has for awhile been disdained by many as a gimmick method of using it. The way Cameron is using 3D is more to aid directing the film rather than making it a theme park ride experience. It's about placing you in the world, and it's about making you focus on what the director wants you to focus on. I'm sure there will be some pop-out-of-the-screen moments, but they are largely considered to not be the best use of 3-D and only for cheap thrills. So Cameron's reasons for using it are different are are more to aid in your immersion and interest in watching it rather than poking you in the eye...
-
I can't say I'm sold 100 percent. This is going to completely come down to the script - the technology and visual scheme is pretty damn impressive. Doesn't mean anything if the story isn't compelling.
Got a full write up over meah --
http://tinyurl.com/mcaf5j -
Aug 22, 2009 11:27:31 AM CDT
The dislike for Avatar is all just a BIG HATE CONSPIRACY
by trannyformers_apologist
Anybody who does not like Avatar is the devil and should be banned from the internet! The far reaching conspiracy against Cameron's Avatar must be stopped at all cost. Be sure to never say anything negative about Avatar ever again. Avatar in 3-D is critic proof. Roger Ebert and everybody else who was underwhelmed by Avatar Day is the devil and a troll. THE CONSPIRACY OF HATE MUST BE PUT TO AN END! Groundbreaking Revolutionary Mind-blowing Like dreaming with your eyes open Amazing Overwhelming This generation's Star Wars Photo-real Breathtaking Like an addictive drug Game-changerCameron's Lawrence of Arabia Epic masterpiece The greatest movie ever made Fucking your eyeballs Jaw-dropping The best CGIever made An original story that DOES NOT resemble anything you ever seen before Cameron has never made a bad movie and is a God State of the art 3-D experience like nothing you have ever seen before Does not even remotely looks like "shit" Unlike regular movies, Avatar 3-D taps into unused regions of the brain for ultimate BRAINWASHING experience!
-
that people were predicting Titanic would be a massive failure?
-
Most people are loving it.
-
That scene on the cliffs with the dragons was fantastic. GREAT visual depth there with all the dragons flying around in the background. Also enjoyed the jungle scenes with all the insects buzzing, leaves falling, and dust swirling in the foreground and background. And that shot of the jungle collapsing around them? FUCKING EPIC.
-
Does anyone remember when Peter Jackson's King Kong was first revealed to us via a teaser trailer??
Didn't we all complain that Kong wasn't 'photorealistic'??!!
Think people, you haven't seen the finished product yet, settle down. -
Look at all the Google News hits: http://tinyurl.com/nlc92g I think the "James Cameron's Gayliens" meme still has a chance to rally, but it looks like "James Cameron's Delgo" has the early lead here. // Yeah, I know I said I was going to give this film a chance and I am. I still think it's hugely amusing that Fox must be shitting their pants over the early anti-buzz on this.
-
Are you trying to convince everyone who liked the footage that they shouldn't like the footage?
-
OK, I saw this on a liemax last night, and it is totally as advertised by Mr. Cameron. Best CG ever, perfect 3-D, just amazing. NOw, it is more of a CG movie than a movie with CG in it, but the CG is so good, it still feels like a real movie, not just a cartoon.
And really, to all you idiots saying the animation was jerky or that the CG was spotty, you REALLY need go out and pay someone to fuck you today, because you've got some serious issues, and living in your parents basement for 30+ years is really taking its toll on your mental acuity. My wife, who rarely cares about HD, 3-D, DTS, or THX, audibly gasped at the luminescent plant scene, and my son was blown away, as was I.
This in no way looks like Jar Jar, or is worse than D9. D9 was blurry and grainy to make the aliens blend in. Avatar is crystal clear high def, and still looks real.
My only complaint was I was hoping for some alien vs Marine action, but I guess that's from the second half. I'll be seeing that on opening day.
Welcome back, James!
-
Tranny is doing a great job of proving my assertion. Has he even seen the 3D presentation? If so, where is the actual criticism of what he saw? Ebert said he was "underwhelmed"...that is a far cry from saying something looks horrible or like "shit". Read Ebert's fukll review of District 9...he was underwhelmed by parts of that, too, and claims it never transcends space-opera. I know what I saw, and it certainly "does not even remotely look like 'shit'".
-
Only 40 tickets were handed out per theatre per showing.
-
"I’ve seen a good number of 3D movies before, but I have never seen anything like Avatar. The sensation of depth and richness is stunning. What truly makes it work is Cameron’s direction. In most 3D movies, the director is quite content to poke things at the viewer. Any excuse to wave a broom-handle in your face is good enough. Cameron doesn’t resort to these tricks. Instead, he uses 3D as a new color for his visual palette. 3D is used in Avatar to service the movie instead of the movie servicing the 3D. It is this restraint that makes a huge difference.
Most 3D movies have this feeling of actually being 2D with occasional 3D objects thrown at the viewer. In this sense, 3D has always meant something is coming at you. Not so in Avatar. Instead of coming at you, Avatar invites you in. Unlike any 3D movie I have seen before, Avatar presents true depth, presenting several levels of perspective that just has to be seen to be appreciated."
More at http://tinyurl.com/m4jonn -
he looked into his first VIEWMASTER BACK IN THE 60'S.
-
Aug 22, 2009 12:14:22 PM CDT
Why does your personal happiness depend on the gross of a movie?
by lesbianna_winterlude
You know who you are.
-
Man i'm from Ireland aswell and I figure they'll show this in 3d in Dundrum cinema. They showed Beowulf there in 3D. yeah it's no IMAX but hey we take what we can get here right? :)
-
Aug 22, 2009 12:18:36 PM CDT
fianlly a 3-dimensional performance by Sam Worthington...
by six demon bag
been waiting all summer!
-
No really, buy some stock in these 3D companies. I saw the 3D footage last night and it was incredible. It was similar in how it felt when you first saw the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park. The 3D did not feel like a gimmick whatsoever. For instance, the coolest effect there was happened when they showed Sam moving along a group of tables while an officer was briefing the crew on how dangerous Pandora is. The depth in the tables and background was outstanding. It wasn't a special effect, rather it was a testament to the authenticity of the 3D technology.
-
You really think fox is worried about a jump-the-gun reaction of a 2 minute trailer by people on nerd sites? Go to youtube, or the facebook page. It's got a very positive reaction, and these are more in line with regular movie going folk. Now keep in mind this is still the trailer I'm talking about.
Now when it comes to the footage...it is almost unanimously praised by everyone who's seen it. And it's not light praise, people were blown away.
This was by far the smartest move James Cameron has pulled. If he did not show this, people would go by the trailer and maybe not wanna see it. However the free showing restored almost everyone who saw it's faith, in fact even raised expectations higher. Cameron knew the trailer would not do justice, so by showing people what he already knew, the positive word of mouth on this will be enormous. I highly doubt Fox is worried. -
Lets put the "CG looks great!/the CG looks like crap!" debate aside for a second.
I did not get to see the IMAX screening due to work commitments, but I have a few questions for those who did:
I have seen other films in the IMAX 3D format and while the look is somewhat novel and a marked improvement over the old blue/red anaglyph system, I found that "normal" 2D films do look better to my eye. It could be that DPs who primarily work in 2D, have yet to figure out the 3D visual "grammar" and how it differs from tradition 2D cinematography... for example, in 2D the foreground most object in frame may not be what the viewer is supposed to be looking at... there might be an object or character in the foreground, but the intent of the director or the DP may be for the viewer to pay attention to the middle or background action. This technique is lost in 3D because whatever is visually "closest" to you is the thing that the viewer tends to play most attention to. Now, my impression is that Cameron has studied the short comings of 3D cinema, so my first question is: Does he avoid problems such as the one I described above? And if "yes" how?
Second, I find the 3D effect not totally convincing overall. to my eye is looks more like a moving popup book with a series of two dimensional reliefs that give a sense of depth, but individual objects do not have a true three dimensional quality. I have heard that Cameron used a new process. So, do objects and characters have a true rounded 3D appearance or do they look oddly flat, but existing on separate "planes" of perspective? Is Avatar an improvement over 3D that we have seen in the past?
I am curious to hear people's opinions who are "in the know" on this type of thing. -
So that's where his mind is at right now. I think he's gotten summer block buster over load.
-
To address your two main questions, and it is really the same answer for both:
I thought that Cameron did an excellent job of drawing your eye past the objects in the foreground and leading you to focus in on the integral parts of each shot, and I think this was achieved more smoothly than in other 3D films BECAUSE of the new 3D technology. The reason, in my opinion, that stuff in the foreground as what attracts your gaze in traditional 3D is because of the “planes” you mention.
Most 3D features planes of images “coming out of the screen” toward you, with the actual movie screen being the “furthest” plain from you. AVATAR is exactly the opposite. It seemed to me that the movie screen itself was the CLOSEST plane to me, and I was looking INTO it, as opposed to having stuff come “out” of it toward me. Nothing really jumped out at me, it was more like I was looking through a plane of glass and into a jungle environment at a zoo or something.
As for the “planes” themselves, it seemed to me that there were hundreds, if not thousands of different points of depth, truly giving a multi-dimensional effect, and not the typical “diorama” type feel that most 3D has. Yes, it did seem to me that things were curving gradually into the background as opposed to the kind of projected-into-different-planes-of-glass look that typical 3D has.
-
As others have said, better than I'm probably about to, the 3D footage stood out from other 3D films like Beowulf in that there was none of that "stick in your eye" type gimmick. 3D films in the past relied on sticking things toward you, putting the foreground in your face, as you suggested. Cameron's 3D footage went in the opposite direction. It opens up the depth of field. It can best be described as "deep". I don't recall a single moment of something sticking out towards my face from last night's footage. I can recall instances, however, where the film just felt so... so deep. That's about the best word I can use to describe it. The scene where they are on the cliffs trying to tame the dragons was mighty impressive, with the background disappearing into a far-off haze, with dragons flying around everywhere, in and out of the background and midground. The 3D I saw felt immersive and inviting, like I was looking *in* at a world instead of having that world poking *out* at me. Did I make sense?
-
When I went to see I Am Legend, just to see the TDK opener, it made me want to see the rest of that movie so bad I thought about walking out of I Am Legend because it seemed like there was no way it could compete. The Avatar footage was ok, but not the coolest shit ever. The 3D is blurry and hard to focus on what is happening when there is a lot of action. It was a distraction more than anything. At this point, I do not think I'd go see it without something more to lure me in. I expected the 3D to be something breath taking, and it just wasn't. The story sounds pretty trite, the scriptment appears to be pretty close to accurate with what was shown, so the effects really needed to make this, but it just looked like a decent CGI "save the environment" movie.
-
That is very interesting. I am sorry to have missed it yesterday... Oh well, I guess I will have to wait until December like the rest of the world.
-
I have seen virtually every 3-d presentation that has been out there from Bwana Devil to Avatar preview and a whole lotta shit in between.. I'll say this much..It is the most immersive presentation I have ever seen..
Now a word to all the haters out there that are passing judgement
only having seen the 2-d presentation..Trying to compare the two is like comparing making love to a real live beautiful woman that is highly skilled in the art of lovemaking and the other would be jerking off to her picture...thats how big the difference is between the two presentations..Now some of you haters may not be able to understand the difference as only ever having had the later..nuff said -
I went to see Inglorious Basterds last night here in Canada. At our theatre, the Avatar trailer was followed immediately by the one for the new Trailer Park Boys movie. It was like a heroin needle popping Cameron's big blue bubble. The audience reaction to the Avatar trailer wasn't any different than their reaction to the trailers and commercials before it. They just sat in bored silence. But they got excited by the TPB trailer and laughed all the way through it.
The Avatar trailer just makes the film look like a generic action movie. If Cameron is trying to do something with the CGI characters, maybe he should have shown that in the trailer instead of just showing us the CGI. Everyone does CGI. Its kind of mundane now. -
These fucking Na vi are hard to fucking kill.
-
Where did you sit..If it was up close that may have been the reason.. I the footage twice and found only minor blurring problems when I sat closer to the screen ..On the second viewing I was further back and it eliminated that issue..Otherwise I
found everything to have a great sense of depth and clarity.. The
scenes of the taming of Jakes flight where absolutely spectacular.. The overall presentation was more than I could have hoped for after seeing the 2-d trailer.. I think Fox may have fucked up ther marketing campaign for this overall so far but they will fix that no doubt with all the money riding on this
incrdible presentation -
I wouldn’t quite go as far as Mr. Dark does in his analogy, but here is what I would say:
I think watching the trailer in 2D vs. watching the 3D Imax presentation is the equivalent of watching a movie in black & white pan & scan when the thing was shot in color and cinemascope. You are still getting the effects, still seeing the same exact cgi, etc., but if a director and his team film a movie in color and in the cinemascope format, clearly they are putting in a lot of work because that is how they want you to view the film. If you see said film in b & w and pan & scan…yeah, you are technically seeing the same movie, and if it sucked in color/widescreen it will still suck in b & w/fullscreen…but that is just not how the movie was meant to be seen.
It would be unfair to judge the visual brilliance of, say, THE GOOD, THE BAD & THE UGLY, based on viewing the trailer for the movie on a b & w standard ratio tv: when you see the movie in its original ratio and in color, it is like a whole different beast.
-
No wonder people think it's all igloos and snowmobiles. You make it sound like we've got one theater in the whole country. It's okay to name a city, even if it's a seemingly insignificant, "I'll never get out of here" town like Kapuskasing, eh.
-
I think action on the Imax screen tends to look blurry even in 2D, depending on where I am sitting in the auditorium.
-
I've never seen a movie look blurry on an IMAX screen. Now regular theaters on the other hand.
-
Proves that design is the main driving factor in the "antibuzz." The navi and monster designs look fine, but definitely derivative...and a bit too messy, too much going on. However, Cameron rarely fails with his character/story stuff (except Titanic, imo), so I'm still excited.
And yes, everyone did completely think Titanic was going to flop a few month before the release date. -
well ok maybe I did go a little overboard but I tried to relate it to something most of us have done...that is make love to a beautiful woman.. urhmm.. not the latter
-
Did anyone else find the color palletts as beautiful as I did..I will be seeing this film in its finished state a few times just for that alone.. I also have a feeling this film will do extremely well with the stoner midnight movie audience if Imax gets on with the late nite showings...I can say that this will do very well with the psychedelic eating crowd of mushroom munchers everywhere world wide..I personally think this film may be as close to getting high without having to ingest anything at all as we may get for a while to come..
-
Yeah, but here's the problem with that: many people WON'T be able to, or desire to, see this in 3D, not to mention the sales potential of its future DVD release.
AVATAR will stand or full on the strength of its 2D quality. -
I think your wrong ..I think the majority will see this in 3-d just not in Imax or Lie-max but by the time December rolls around most major cities will be showing this in real-d in non Imax theaters I would hope..If they don't then you will be correct in your statement.. There has to be enough venues to showcase this type of film in order for it to succeed..and showing it in 2-d will not be a money maker..
as for the 3-d presentation in home there are now monitors being sold as 3-d capable for the new in home 3-d format ..To see this new format try a fry's electronics near you if you have one as they are now promoting this here where I live using a 60" lcd screen and 3-d shutter glasses that are pc driven and the effect is very impressive especially in the gamer mode ..
It will be a while before its out there but don't kid yourself 3-d will be coming home soon. The only drawback to the 3-d in home veiwing it seems is that the size of the screen directly relates to the immersion factor and frankly the movie screen is the only place to see 3-d and get the total effect ...so far.. -
are saying that Avatar looks like cut video game scenes, I realize you mean this as somewhat derogatory, but isn't that a bit "glass half empty?"
Video games have come a long way since the old 8bit Pong days... In a way aren't you just saying that the artistry and hard work put into today's video games are near cinema quality? -
you are correct sir take the new republic star wars game..In some cases it looks better than the films..
-
If, as you say, the bulk of AVATAR's audience sees it in 3D, then the movie will be one of the biggest bombs in cinema history. There just aren't that many 3D venues to support it. There are a few, but in a typical cineplex, it'll likely be in one out of say, 12 screens.
For AVATAR to do well, mass audiences have to stand in line to watch it in plain old 2D. Remember that UP was a big hit in BOTH formats. The movie plays just as well in 2D, or even better, than it does in 3D. We'll see if that's the case for AVATAR. I suspect that the 3D and IMAX media/advertising angle is being used to wow the audience to make up for a possibly weak story. -
Beast...was of the material, and you felt it, Avatar's creatures feel and look immaterial, and that is my ultimate point.
-
Aug 22, 2009 2:53:49 PM CDT
I'd see 20 Avatars before I'd suffer through another PIXAR
by lockesbrokenleg
overrated fuckfest.
-
They are not handing-out movie deals like ice cream anymore--they give them almost exclusively to their friends, lovers, and family members now!!!
-
The irony is that IMAX technology (and the modern multiplex for that matter) was invented in Canada during the 60s & 70s.
We may have to take the ski-doo to the a film, but our actual theatres are second to none. -
The rest of the world disagrees with you about Pixar.
-
good points, that E3 Kights Of The Old Republic trailer is as good if not better than any other action set piece in the prequals.
-
Really?!? You thought REIGN OF FIRE's CGI was "less cartoony" than what they've shown of AVATAR?!? Or SIGNS?!? Or FINAL FANTASY?!? Or JURASSIC PARK, which, I'll state again, had barely 7 minutes of CGI in it?!? It almost sounds like you just have a random list of movies with CGI in them and threw them up there because you really didn't have an answer, beyond "I hate AVATAR because ... because ... I just hate AVATAR!!!" Hey, if that's how you see things, fine, but I gotta say, it sounds less like you're a "connoisseur" of "photorealistic CGI" and more like you "dig" being a "fucking Internet troll". Oh, well.
By the way, I don't get the WOLFMAN thing -- you do realize that's pretty much all Rick Baker practical transformation effects (it even looks like a shot-for-shot riff on AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON) gussied up with a little off-the-shelf morphing software, right? -
That's why shit like CARS is fucking popular.
-
...but CARS plays like gangbusters to little kids. They're its target audience.
Outside of Japan and anime geeks, adult animation isn't very popular. I can see why; what's its point? If you're going to tell an adult story, do it in live action with actors. -
One more thing ... weren't you guys all just bitching about Cameron NOT directing another Terminator flick or an Aliens flick or what have you?!? Christ only knows what you'd be doing if he attempted CGI in that TERMINATOR VERSUS ROBOCOP ON ALIEN HOMEWORLD flick you've been running in your goddamn heads for the last twelve years.
Hey, he's an arrogant cocksucker, I'll grant you that much, but I'm fairly certain he could have stuck a photorealistic Jesus Christ that cured diabetes every time you clicked on the trailer in the fucking thing and this would STILL be the reaction. In fact, some of you sound like you had your speeches ready six months ago. Unfortunately, so far, whether you hate/want Cameron dead or not, the movie usually winds up kicking ass. Just try not being a snivelling pussy about it while the rest of us are waiting, huh? -
Pixar is a good brainwashing company. The high gloss movies with the cute cars and animals. Everyone eats that shit up.
-
It's not just here. Go on over to The New York Times online. They have a story about the screenings in the Arts section, and further coverage in in the NYT blog. The reaction in ITS comments section is underwhelming and 'meh'-filled.
-
I just love reading the ranting of individuals like rastuso, atomica, mandrakeroot and talkbackers_are_gay.
You guys are right... the CG IS real, and everyone who disagrees with you and your ilk lives in their parents basement with no social life with only purpose is to spread hate. WTF?
So, by criticizing the trailer and IMAX footage for its truly underwhelming performance people like myself and our opinions are immediately cast aside as trivial and frivolous.
Mandrakeroot you alone are posting some real (unsubstantiated) gems:
"Now when it comes to the footage...it is almost unanimously praised by everyone who's seen it. And it's not light praise, people were blown away."
Based on this talkback and with discussions from other people at the Burbank screening, and judging by the SMALL smattering of applause at the end of the footage, people are still guarded in their expectations of this film.
Hardly evidence of people being "blown away" and far from "unanimous praise".
I'm going out on the same flimsy limb you used to make your statement and make a claim of my own. The ONLY individuals truly "blown away" are the die-hard nerd/geek/JC community.
And you want to know the best part, I consider myself a part of that die-hard nerd/geek/JC community, but I'm bot allowing it to blindly influence my opinions.
Anyone whom claims the CG is better in IMAX as opposed to 1080p is blinded by their own ignorance. If it wasn't filmed using IMAX cameras we're looking at 2K 35mm blown up to IMAX.
That's not an ideal situation whatsoever!
I guarantee you the VFX being done are of half-res IMAX or 2K 35mm and then reformatted to IMAX during or after the DI.
Christopher Nolan to date is the only Director to utilize the IMAX format properly in conjunction with 35mm.
The stereoscopic 3D, on the other hand, and the depth it brings is wonderful and ironically best utilized in the least action filled sequence of the footage... the opening briefing.
This was easily my favorite sequence. It was tense, well paced and well acted and reminded of the briefing from ALIENS.
Too bad all the tension was diffused when finally seeing the supposed ruthless, relentless and merciless Na'vi.
CG good or bad aside the art direction of the Na'vi is what is killing my ability to freely and comfortably allow myself into the world of Pandora.
And I suggest to ANYONE (Atomica this is for you) that thinks the Na'vi are fully integrated into live action, take a REAL HARD look at the Lab Room sequence again.
If you watch the 2 live action actors trying to calm Jake down, often their eye lines go right through Jake or worse, their not even in line with him whatsoever.
As most of you know during filming there would have been a tennis ball at the proper height and position for the actors eyes to focus on.
I can't say wether that method was employed or not, it's fairly common, but it was amazing to me how the integration completely fell apart.
The Lab Room sequence is why people should be comparing the Na'vi VFX work to Davy Jones, because in BOTH cases you have CG creatures rendered into actual practical sets with human actors.
And unlike the Na'vi, Davy Jones NEVER took me out of the film. Quite the contrary, Davy Jones was a living breathing creature.
The Na'vi in the world of Pandora are more convincing, but still suffer from skeletal, muscular, animation and lack of weight problems.
I do agree with others that have stated the Zoe Saldana Na'vi is more convincing than Sam Worthington's Jake.
The other creatures in the the world are more convincing; oddly enough, even amazing; particularly the panther like beast.
Bash me all you want, I'm just offering my opinions and not just spouting unrequited love or hate for Avatar.
I love ALIENS, TRUE LIES, most of the ABYSS and some of TITANIC and I am hopeful that AVATAR delivers as an entering film experience.
I just refuse to herald it as the 2nd coming of Visual Effects and Film in general. -
"Yes, you could tell it is CGI, but how could it not be? BUT, if it was passed of as live-action, I truly suspect most people would not know the difference." WTF? readingcomrehension much? I haven't not seen the '16 minutes', nor am I really itching to do so. The trailer looks like 'Final Fantasy', or maybe a little bit better; just like all movies with a lot of CGI are a little bit better than the ones that came before it. Revolution my ass.
-
Is the same as adult live action.
As for Avatar, I dug the initial trailer, I suppose. It didn't do anything gross to my eyeballs, but then again, I really wasn't expecting it to.
The only issue I really have here is this: In order to be great, a movie has to be able to be viewed on pretty much any screen. If Avatar only looks good on an Imax screen, and in 3D, then it's not a good movie. People should be able to dig it just as much at their local dive theater as they do at a state of the art facility. And what happens when this film comes to video? Will we all have to buy 3D television sets to get any kind of enjoyment out of Avatar?
-
Was I imagining things??
-
I thought the Navi moved with a real weight and had realistic movements. I didn't even notice whether or not the technicians were properly looking at Worthington's Avatar. Uhm, he's 9 feet tall, I think looking in his general direction is good enough. And the action was chaotic- it was hard to focus on them specifically as they weren't what you were supposed to be looking at. Why were you looking at their eyelines to begin with?
-
you were not imagining things it was there and it was spectacular..
-
...except for the part about adult animation.
-
If one spends all their time trying to pick apart the work they leave no time to watch and enjoy it..I would wait until the final product is out there and after a few viewings to try to rip it apart... But that is what some folks enjoy more than a movie going experience...
-
Never ever have seen a complete movie on a really different planet! It is something new and this alone makes my day! Don't talk bad about the creative spirit in this one because if this movie will not make money we never will see new stuff on the big screen again... just remakes of remaked sequels or something from Michael Bay.
-
As I already stated I used the Lab Room sequence as evidence of how the Na'vi DO NOT integrate into live action contrary to what several talkbackers have claimed.
I do not need to see the film again to "nit pick" the Lab Room, for what I noticed was during a single viewing and therefore really "popped" to me.
D.Vader - both technicians were trying to calm Jake down and looking UP at him. Trying to make eye contact which is what people do when conversing with one another. The action was NOT that chaotic to support your claims of them just idly looking at his arm, chest, the wall behind him or wherever. Eyeline is INTEGRAL when integrating CG and Live Actors as it can immediately blow the realism when actors are found to be staring through the CG or at another area entirely.
And Anthrax hit the proverbial nail on the head... I want to be able to enjoy AVATAR on my HD TV and not just an overpriced and overhyped IMAX theater. If this film can ONLY succeed visually in IMAX 3D than it has already failed. -
...Fox MUST be shitting themselves right now. If they weren't, there wouldn't be such a surfeit of new talkbackers in here fawning over the clips.
I have no problem with the positive remarks made by regulars, but some of the plantariffic things being said by the n00bs are making me cringe in their obviousness.
And no, I'm not a hater -- I can't wait to see the movie. -
It wasn't like a trailer for Star Whatever 100 that was shown before your usual movie crapfest. This was a special screening of scenes from a 3D movie. Not everyone saw it.
-
to read the reaction of people who HAVE seen the footage if all the morons who HAVEN'T seen the footage would stop posting endless shit.
-
Aug 22, 2009 4:25:01 PM CDT
Reaction reminds me of Star Drek Austin premiere
by trannyformers_apologist
Avatar Day's rabid brainwashed fanboy reaction reminds me of the rabid brainwashed fanboy reaction to Jar Jar's Star wars Trek surprise world premiere in Austin . It's all here... typical overblown positive reaction from die hard fangirls who are now special because they get to see it first. They even had an introduction by Lord James Cameron himself. There to remind the lucky viewers that this movie is the greatest movie of all time and to tell your friends about. Fox and Cameron suck their cocks a little bit for free and.....BAM! Your very own brainwashed hype machines ready to advertise Avatar with bullshit lies and outrageous hype. I hear it is the best 3-D experience since U2 3-D concert, My Bloody Valentine, Journey to the Center of the Earth,and Beowulf. Oooohhhh Ok must be epic then.
-
I know, I've been watching IMAX at the Cinesphere for almost 40 years. I was only kidding about Kapuskasing because it's Cameron's home town. He's
Canadian, eh. -
I saw it. Ask me anything you want to know. I won't rely on any hyperbole...I will give you my honest-to-goodness opinion.
-
The Minneapolis 6 pm showing was only 1/3 full, but those who did go seemed impressed.
By far this was the best 3D I have seen in a theater. What impressed me the most was the overall clarity of the live actions scenes. Also, the eyes of the animated characters were able to show emotion, which is a step forward. It is true that the trailer does not give this film justice, experience it on the big screen and you'll be impressed. -
Thank you sir! OK, general reaction to acting, cinematography, editing? Did it use the Horner score or temp music?
-
You don't have to like Pixar. But, many, many film lovers,film professionals, artists and audiences feel that Pixar is a cut above the rest in terms of characterization, story structure and of course, animation.Brainwashing has nothing to do with those reactions, it just means that those films resonate with audiences because they can identify with the main character's dilemma and the humour in the films. Look at "The Incredibles" the humour and the action scenes have a clarity that is deceptively simple, but if you study the staging it is extremely complex. Their films are extremely well paced and, to most audiences, not remotely boring. To each their own, but I wish I could be as entertained by product like "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" as I am by "The Incredibles." But, for all the eye-candy in "Transformers" I'm bored because it lacks emotion and doesn't involve me in the story. It's just not engaging outside of it's VFX and if I just want to watch that, ILM has a great showreel on their website for all to see.
-
Yes, I know many people like cute animals running around. I get a little tired of that crap especially since it's always in every Pixar and or Disney movie. Enjoy, though.
-
I don't think anyone is disputing that. I just didn't notice the technicians' eyelines at all. I DO think the action was busy enough to not notice. Or at least, the eyelines were not bad enough as to be jarring and distracting.
-
You really are an asshole sometimes.
-
and an overwhelming majority loved what they saw. The question has been answered.
-
Only sometimes?
-
I wish I had your patience.
-
Just saying.
-
It comes and goes =).
-
Unless you count an animated and extremely pliable Holly Hunter. Hubba, hubba.
-
repeat: Only...sometimes?
-
Rip off Superman and James Bond, and family sitcoms. Mix them together. That's what you get. Shit.
-
...awesome. I was so glad I got to see the special preview.
-
Every movie has awesome CG these days, if there isn't a great story to go along with it then who cares? The real problem this movie will face is the twitterlanche (or whatever) on opening night as viewers tell their friends that the story sucked.
Humans (Americans) bad. Noble aliens good. Can't we all just get along?
Pass. -
I don't know, this was really great but his last film before this one, Aquaman, was his best effort, in my opinion. Vinny Chase gave a helluva performance, and I loved the way Cameron developed his relationship with Mandy Moore over the course of the film. And the action scenes... ridiculous! That boardwalk leap into the tidal wave -- WOW. I was even at one of the theaters in the Valley that shut down do to the heatwave, but went and saw it again that night and then the next morning. SO GOOD! Haven't seen the non-Cameron sequels, but the first AQUAMAN definitely bests this Avatar flick. Anyone agree?
-
Aquaman held box office record for opening weekend for a couple years (till Dark Knight beat it). Doubt AVATAR will do that.
-
I thought the presentation was incredible and I was mesmerized and inspired by the settings and story.
With that said, I see the big push for this movie as more than for the movie's success. The big companies need this to do well to get more hardware out there: more 3D Imax screens, more 3D TV screens, more new gizmos.
If Avatar does well (and I believe it will), it's going to push more than just a videogame and some plastic figures.
I plan on seeing it as much as I can handle it--my inner videogame/sci-fi geek is in heaven. Ringworld anyone??? -
Unless you saw the IMAX3D footage and unless you see the movie in IMAX3D you will not be able to appreciate the magnatude of what was done here. AVATAR has visuals so detailed, so vivid, so lifelike DESPITE the cartoony design of the animals and beings, that you can't possible see it on anything less than IMAX3D. To view it anywhere else including the current top of the line screens you think you've been watching movies like UP or Ice Age three on.... is like listing to mozart over an AM radio station or playing a computer game with the graphics set to low. I saw both Polar Express and Bauwulf in IMAX3d which are LEAPS above what you saw in a regular 3D versions ... I grew up watching Captain EO, and ive seen Nascar 3D and Space Station 3D in IMAX ... and I aint seen anything like what I saw in AVATAR yesterday. Believe it. This movie may be the first where it really does make a difference whereand how it's seen. You can;t play a Bue ray in a DVD player. Period.
-
i'm astounded that with the supposed level of knowledge of the geeks and freaks that post here, no one has mentioned that this is NOT real imax. the spate of new 'imax' theatres do NOT have screens that conform to the imax format. if a real imax movie were shown on them, they would appear letterboxed (sides would be black) these blown up films also do not have the sharpness and clarity of films actually shot in the imax format. really... so many geeks and you guys don't know this? by the way, was totally underwhelmed by the 16 minutes. the 3-D is obtrusive and makes it look like a cheap cartoon. the dialogue was written for pimply 16 year olds (no real surprise there) and the action scenes only reminded me that spielberg did this better in jurassic park. cameron has 'fucked my eyeballs' with films like aliens and T2, but there's nothing new here. it reminded me of the wretched excess of peter jacksons kong more than anything else. i'll go see it.. eventually, but breakthrough, it ain't. period.
-
For you pople that have never seen anything at all in IMAX3D ... you don't know what you are missing and you don't know what you are talking about. It's a better effect than you think it possible could be compared to standard 3D movies.
-
"Thank you sir! OK, general reaction to acting, cinematography, editing? Did it use the Horner score or temp music?"
As far as the score, I am not sure, so I'll just get that out of the way first. I did not recognize it as being from another film, so it is probably Horner's original. It certainly worked fine with the scenes themselves.
The cinematography response really needs to be divided into two parts: one for the actual cinematography in the live-action stuff, and one for the "virtual cinematography" in the 100% cgi scenes. The real stuff is a little bland. Not poorly shot, just bland. There were a lot of fill lights, so there weren't many shadows (I am assuming this was for the 3D...so we could make out the incredible depth in all the live action shots), and this detracted a bit from the atmosphere. I kind of felt like the whole thing was lit like a doctor's office. I definitely did not look at this and think that Dean Semler or Wally Pfister shot it, let's put it that way. Because of this, the photography itself lacks a little bit of style, but I think the actual visual content makes up for that. The production design, IMO, was pretty tight.
The virtual cinematography is another thing altogether. There were some shots that were completely breathtaking, particularly the nocturnal stuff in the jungle. Absolutely beautiful, very atmospheric...almost hypnotic. Personally, while it might not have been "photoreal", I thought the cgi environments looked as good if not better than anything I have ever seen, and they are "shot" beautifully in the scenes that were presented.
The editing seemed fine, certainly not hard to follow, although the scenes we saw all ended mid-way through with abrupt fades to black, so it is a little tough to judge overall. Again, though, from what I saw, the editing (and also direction) was typical Cameron action fare. Was it an editing tour-de-force like BOURNE ULTIMATUM? I couldn't tell you. But, like I said, I didn't have any trouble following anything, I never got "lost", and none of the cuts I saw were jarring or drew attention to themselves, so it gets a pass on editiing 101.
Now for the acting. This is really the toughest to call, because we saw very little from the actual human actors in the preview...and even less dialogue. I will be honest, in terms of the acting and dialogue, it seems like the Worthington character is your stereotypical, i.e. cliched, "hot shot", not much different than Will Smith in ID4. He even has his own "I know you didn't shoot that green shit at me" moment, which I was not thrilled about, and much of the dialogue to him or about him (most of which came from Sigourney) was VERY heavy-handed in the way it beats us over the heads with the whole "he's a real hot shot!" thing. But again, all we got were a few lines, and maybe this was the point: since there wasn't time to really show character development in this preview, maybe Cameron wanted to be sure that we knew this about the character right up-front. Who knows...could also be lazy writing, and I will only be able to tell you for sure when I see the whole thing.
The virtual acting, I thought, was great. I honestly don't see the problems some are discussing: I thought the Na'vi moved fine, looked like a real part of their environment, and felt like the performances, from what I saw, were right up there with Davey Jones, Gollum, and Christopher Johnson. I can't say that the na'vi looked or performed "better" than those, so I can't say it is some huge leap forward, but it is also in no way some sort of huge step back as some here would lead you to believe. These might not be the best cgi characters ever, but they seem to rank AMONG the best, in my opinion. -
But right now, for the life of me, I can't recall which film it was from. It was NOT James Horner, though.
-
i saw it at the BIGGEST imax in the world and it was bloody unreal. You cannot compare this to a computer screen. Wise up Slackers
-
What do you mean? I'm talking about one of the biggest movies of all time (and Cameron's most successful) and you're saying WTF? I can only assume you're kidding. Aquaman was S-I-C-K. My only real question is when will him and Vincent Chase team up again? Of course now that Chase is working with Martin Scorcese I bet Marty's gonna make him his new "Leo DiCaprio" and be in every one of his films, ugh.
-
Aug 22, 2009 5:51:42 PM CDT
Oh, I love people on the net that live in ther own fantasy
by lockesbrokenleg
worlds. Utter bullshit.
-
Was sad when Vinnie's Smokejumper's flick got canned, wasn't it? Luckily he did Scorcese's Gatsby, so all is well.
-
Moon made Solaris seem like an action adventure. You geek motherfuckers have the worst taste in movies.
-
You hit the nail on the head MrTaste ....this whole thing may simply rub some people the wrong way. For me .... Peter Jackson’s King Kong is a masterpiece. Yes .. There is a similarity here. And I guarantee you that had the same technology been around in 1993. Jurassic park would have been just as "wretchedly excessive". Cameron could have made things thin 14 years ago... I suppose he could have gone to Jim Henson and Phil Tippet to provide the creatures. He waited until now ... he waited until he knew things could be more convincing than Jar Jar Binks at least. But face it ... some of you just don’t like the content ... so you are blind to the technical achievement. As if to knock the technical aspects of the film would in some way have changed what Cameron wanted to begin with. ... which is the Blue Cat Like beings with tales. Whether they were puppets, men in costumes, hand drawn cartoons, or CGI, they are what this particular story is about. I would not be surprised that if and when someday some real aliens show up ... they are accused of looking .. "fake".
-
Yah, SmokeJumpers was gonna be real good and I was looking forward to Ed Norton's performance but in the end worked out for the best. Still hoping they make a live action reboot of Benji though. Fingers crossed. Anyone see Avatar and actually think it was better than Aquaman? I just want someone to agree with me that the scene where James Woods is about to kill Vincent Chase in the underwater dungeon was better than anything that could "F" my eyes.
-
Well, "meh-filled" is one thing. For openers, the two-minute teaser is kind of questionable, in terms of content. Why Cameron didn't milk things further and just lay out some sort of T2 teaser with one or two earth-shattering effects showcased is beyond me. Either that, or release a for-reals trailer-trailer designed to get people pumped up for the actual goddamn movie, instead of an extended showreel that really doesn't do or say much beyond show everybody that "See?!? I told you I was doing this with CGI!!".
Secondly, like I said in my last post, Cameron is an arrogant prick. We all know this. If he'd just kept his mouth shut and let the movie itself do the talking, instead of proclaiming it the second coming of Christ before showing one single image, a lot of the negativity being thrown at it wouldn't exist. It's like when Stephen King showed up in the old MAXIMUM OVERDRIVE TV commercials and snarled "I'm gonna scare the hell out of you!" He could have made a movie that would have made THE EXORCIST look like SORORITY ROW, it wouldn't have mattered at that point. It was a challenge being thrown at the audience and King lost. Same thing here. However, I knew upon first reading the infamous "This will be a game-changer" statement that they were whistling Dixie out of their collective assholes -- that it would be a 300 million dollar Cameron sci-fi action movie and that it would likely do about as much "game changing" (actually, less, considering T2 and THE ABYSS pretty much heralded the age of CGI ... and there really is no "next thing" after CGI) as any of his other films have. He's pretty much his own worst enemy here. That doesn't excuse some idiot ranting about how great the CGI in REIGN OF FIRE was in comparison to the AVATAR teaser, but I suppose it does explain it.
The thing about CGI is -- it's still, even now, in its infancy. The studios latched onto it ever since JURASSIC PARK because it was easier and cheaper to make giant monsters or Jar Jar Binks on an SGI than it was to built them out of latex and machine parts. Unfortunately, two things happened: 1) directors use CGI as shorthand for having to shoot, light or frame anything like the olden days of stop motion or practical effect, they just wind up cramming CGI any old place. Ninety percent of the time, it shows. 2) we, the audience, forget that, no matter how lousy CGI looks, it still looks cooler than a lot of the effects from yesteryear. It's like we were blown away by JURASSIC PARK or the T-2000 and then got overly-jaded in a hurry.
I'm still not clear why the studios haven't scaled back and attempted to use CGI AS A TOOL, rather than AS A REPLACEMENT for other techniques. I remember when I saw the behind-the-scenes stuff for THE PHANTOM MENACE and they had originally planned on shooting Ahmed Best in a suit, then just replacing his head with CGI. They even showed a side-by-side comparison of the two processes (those of you with TPM on DVD, go back and watch that extra). Needless to say, the just-the-head version looked a hell of a lot more convincing, but Lucas, continuing to roll the same craps he seemed to roll with every decision he made on that flick, decided to go with the all CGI version, which likely added a lot more work and definitely looked a lot more cartoony. In a perfect world, they'd use CGI WITH practical effects ... I just don't understand (aside from the financial reasons, of course) why they don't. I definitely don't understand why Cameron, with his background as an FX guy and his flawless staging of the combined techniques in T2, didn't. -
....did that Benji flick. Vinnie mentioned it recently at the golf course. I'm personally waiting for Drama to get his big break.
-
You crapheads loving that shit. Ugh.
-
It might have the opposite effect and mark the end of 3D.
A common number bandied about is that 7% of people can't see through 3D glasses. I have no idea if that is right but it is the number you usually see when you read about this.
People may not know if they are one of those 7% until they go to a movie. If Avatar is as popular as everyone says, that 7% is going to find out who they are.
Will Hollywood and the theaters tolerate a 7% loss of audience?
And those 7% don't live alone usually. Will a group of friends opt for the 3D or 2D version if one of them can't see 3D? Will a family by a 3D TV or DVD or whatever if one member can't watch it? -
HE DOES NOT GIVE A FUCK ABOUT QUICKTIME.
-
....but its the ludicrous overly-'feline' facial features and tails on the MAIN characters that are the biggest barrier to me taking the CG characters 'seriously', not the quality of the 'photorealism' of them. I just hope there's some very 'likeable' early scenes involving them, or we'll not give a toss either way about their 'romantic' storyline. Oh, and these more 'recognisable' features would have been a far better looking design overall for them, I reckon - http://www.geektyrant.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/navi2.jpg Now THOSE, I could have 'emotionally invested in'!
-
Go pop transformers into your ghetto dvd player.
-
If you don't like the blue cat like creatures with tales, simply move on. You just don't like this movie. But so far the 16 minutes I saw were flawless none the less. I'm sorry some of you wanted more titanium exoskeletons and grasshoper prawns, but for me I want something new. I got it.
-
HOLY SHIT ..thats awesome news. how did i miss that....
-
if you don't want to get a life, at least get some education. you could show this on the side of the biggest building in the world and it would still look no better than CGI from ten years ago. sheesh. no wonder america is getting stupider by the minute.
-
You are gay. Entourage is not cool. It's the same show every single half hour. Get a life.
-
His first mistake was hiring Worthington. Coronating some average no-name as the leading edge action star of the 21st century is mind boggling. This guy gets leading roles in Terminator 4, Clash of the Titans, 20,000 leagues under the sea is horrifyingly depressing. Film investors, take note, don't invest in Cameron, McG, Brett Ratner, or any of their ilk. Blomkamp is the wave of the future!
-
You seem to be laboring under the same misconceptions that lots of the anti-Cameron crowd are, namely that he proclaimed this, as you put it, "the second coming of Christ ". Really, please, let's tone down the hyperbole. Not once, not ever did he say anything that was REMOTELY close to such a statement. If he did, find it for me; find us the exact quote. The closest thing he ever said was that he was trying to revolutionize the way 3D films are SHOT, and that he was striving for a more photorealistic 3D. Its everyone else- the media and the FANS especially, that have hyped this to high heaven. Its getting a bit tiresome to hear everyone blame Cameron for statements he never made.
-
You seem upset.
-
What the hell is Entourage?
-
Then that is going to be a major problem when the DVD roll out time comes around.
What's Cameron going to say? "Don't bother buying the AVATAR DVD. It's not meant to be viewed on your TV." Yeah, that'll go over *real* well with the studio. -
You answered your own question with this one: "I'm still not clear why the studios haven't scaled back and attempted to use CGI AS A TOOL, rather than AS A REPLACEMENT for other techniques." Like you said, its cheaper. And as we all know, money is what the studios are most concerned with.
-
I can't see in 3-D (blind in my right eye) and was never really planning on going to see it in a theater that way. Unfortunately, the studios are collectively gambling on 3-D as the savior of the theater-going experience, since you can't bootleg 3-D movies and since 3-D IMAX is pretty much the only thing left that can't be replicated at home, until holograms come out or Fuck-O-Vision or whatever's "next".
slappy: considering DVD, television (pay or otherwise) and non-IMAX theatrical ticket sales will still make up the bulk of AVATAR'S income, despite the pimping of the 3-D aspect, you're pretty much dead wrong about Cameron "making it for giant screens". Like I said before, I'm sure he had 1:33 aspect ratio markers on his playback monitor throughout production, in the editing bay and even when viewing FXs. That's just SOP, these days. This stuff has to look good in any format, unless Cameron's financing the movie himself and somehow went completely insane during the shoot. -
You guys ever see the documentary about actors in James Cameron's films going to theaters and watching them amongst the fans? Very cool stuff: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-Sj8Z6DV5Q&feature=related
-
Yikes. Reminds me why I stopped buying those things.
-
This mysterious "game changer" lanquage I think refers to the aspect that we finally have content created for the large 3d screen. Quite simply, without it I don't think you can actually see how their skin looks real etc. Its too bad 90% of the people will skip the extra $4 in order to actaully see what the true quality. Again ... some peple are happy with VHS, others need Blue Ray. This is about film projection. The story is going to be an action packed tear jerker love story war movie. Thats what sells tickets. And we can all be rest assured that there will not be any pot brownies or leg humping or an overly intense Christian Bale for no good reason.
-
Not only is the movie boring as fuck, but it's not covering any new ground. Don't watch this snoozefest. Sam Rockwell is a good actor, he deserves credit, but the story is a mish-mash of 2001, Solaris, and one other movie I won't mention to avoid spoiling it, then they were put in a blender with a whole lot of molasses, and out came Moon. This is a case of fanboy hype and splooging. Don't see it, youlll thank me.
-
....I will LOVE this movie regardless, but I just fear that the less appreciative Joe and Jane Public that this movie needs to generate goodwill from, MIGHT NOT... Check out that link I posted back there (with no spaces in it), to see what I thought would be a more a more appealing, relatable, less ludicrous look for ten-foot tall, blue 'inter-SPECIES' canoodling.... I know the action and blood and fury will look great, but the many that will just end up seeing this on 2D-ONLY screens will need to feel 'emotionally connected' in these CG protagonist's storyline, or they won't feel very satisfied by the time the lights go up...
-
Aug 22, 2009 6:20:49 PM CDT
Lol, if you like sleeping through a movie rent Solaris
by lockesbrokenleg
It's peaceful.
-
until then, big snooze.
-
Yeah, I knew the answer when I posted it, it was unfortunately wishful musing. The sad thing is, NO ONE has gotten the all-CGI thing completely right as of yet, and they won't for a while to come, which is why a combination of practical and CGI is always the best way to go.
COCKSUCKER, or whatever his name is, pointed out how awesome the stuff in the WOLF MAN trailer looked, and I replied that it was mostly practical (Rick Baker, essentially re-doing his Oscar moment from AMERICAN WEREWOLF with a little assist from some off-the-shelf morphing software) -- that's exactly what I'm talking about. I also never understood why they didn't do the HULK as a real person with a lot of practical augmentation and a bit of CGI help to make him ten feet tall or whatever. ESPECIALLY anything that's either supposed to be human somewhere (the "Scorpion King" in THE MUMMY RETURNS) or somehow move around like a person. I have yet to see ILM or WETA or anyone else get it right, no matter what they claim they can do. That said, AVATAR certainly represents "as good as it can get", I think people are generally pissed off that it looks no better than that.
And I'm not defending or have defended those goddamn designs beyond pointing out that, for the sake of thinking ahead in trying to have somebody the audience was gonna have to relate to (let's call it "the Disney Syndrome"), Cameron and the studios both probably went with a snuggly anthropomorphic protagonist thing. But the Na'vi are fucking goofy-looking. No amount of "game-changing" was ever gonna fix that. -
I just don't see how anybody can look at the CG in the footage or trailer and say it looks bad. It is a fact that we have never seen this level of detail in any CG to date (except for ONE character in Kong '05). They don't move right? They don't feel plausible? I guess every schlub who watches movies is now an expert on what alien species will look like when we find them and how their biology works. Anybody who says they don't look real is completely missing the point. That is not debatable. This CG is not 100% photoreal but is a damn sight better than anything we've gotten from CG yet. It just stands out more because it's so much more ambitious than absolutely anything we've seen before.
-
I didn't notice you had answered your own question in the last paragraph as I typed my response on the subject. And actually, on the subject of The Wolf Man... I think its still up in the air how much is Baker and how much is CGI and how much is an integration of both. There has been extremely little said about how they are achieving the effects of that film (aside from the early word that Baker's work was being scrapped for CGI instead). I'll be very curious to check out the Cinefex issue for next spring.
-
Ok MrTaste ... lets talk about real IMAX for a minute. My first IMAX experience was "Chronos" at the Los Angeles Museum of Science and Industry. I was hooked. My first experience with IMAX 3D was in Las Vegas at the Luxor Hotel where instead of those silly thame park plastic glasses you wore a set of goggles over your face and ears that actually had speakers in it. I saw Nascar 3D, Space Station 3D and Polar Express in this setting and it blows you away. Sadly, this theare cloaed and now all that is left is the "fake" imax screens in town. Original IMAX was 120 mm and had a higher frame rate which is what made these films INCLUDING Polar Express infanately better in IMAX than what you see today in these standard 3D films. Now that IMAX has gone digital like everyone else, frame size and frame rate is no longer a factor. But what IMAX still has that regular projectors do not is the dual projection with creates a 30% BRIGHTER IMAGE than normal which solves the problem that Roger Ebert aloways has with 3D. That alone is reason enough to see ANY movie in IMAX 3d or regular 3D Sadly, the masses do not know this so they continue to deal with the squinting and headaches offten associated with 3d with is greatly deminished in IMAX. As far as the screen size. The nearest full size screen to me is 240 miles from where I live. Will I go there to see AVATAR probably not. But thats my loss.
-
Aug 22, 2009 6:33:07 PM CDT
Well, Mr. Hyde in League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was practica
by d.vader
And I think most pple are still on the fence over whether or not that was a better choice than ging full CGI.
-
of Extraordinary Gentlemen, cause wow that movie blew.
-
Ok MrTaste ... lets talk about real IMAX for a minute. My first IMAX experience was "Chronos" at the Los Angeles Museum of Science and Industry. I was hooked. My first experience with IMAX 3D was in Las Vegas at the Luxor Hotel where instead of those silly theme park plastic glasses you wore a set of goggles over your face and ears that actually had speakers in it. I saw NASCAR 3D, Space Station 3D and Polar Express in this setting and it blows you away. Sadly, this theater closed and now all that is left is the "fake" 1/3 size IMAX screens in town. Original IMAX was 120 mm and had a higher frame rate which is what made these films INCLUDING Polar Express infinitely better in IMAX than what you see today in these standard 3D films. Now that IMAX has gone digital like everyone else, frame size and frame rate is no longer a factor. But what IMAX still has that regular projectors do not is the dual projection with creates a 30% BRIGHTER IMAGE than normal which solves the problem that Roger Ebert always has with 3D. That alone is reason enough to see ANY movie in IMAX 3d over regular 3D. Sadly, the masses do not know this so they continue to deal with the squinting and headaches often associated with 3d with is greatly diminished in IMAX. As far as the screen size. The nearest full size screen to me is 240 miles from where I live. Will I go there to see AVATAR probably not. But that’s my loss.
-
isn't the cost of developing cameron's new 3d capture technology padded in the budget of this film? so now any movie that wants to use the technology after this film would have to pay a license fee to use it, wouldn't they?
-
I don't think that's how it works. The budget is the budget; WETA owns the rights to the tech, not the studio. The studio just sees the take from the box office, DVD, merchandising, etc.
-
Look, MOON is SILENT RUNNING 2.0. The movie cops to it. The problem is: not many people went to see SILENT RUNNING when it was first released, except, apparently, George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, the makers of MOON -- Bowie's kid probably got dragged to the theater kicking and screaming while Bowie ate fistfuls of acid and dreamt up "Ziggy Stardust" in the goddamn theater --, John Dykstra and Zoic FX, who respectfully decided to pimp the goddamn ship in both version of BSG (pay attention, Bryan Singer!) and pretty much anybody else who subsequently plundered the movie for coolness. People don't wanna think too much about their movies, not one iota more than they had to, then OR now. And good call on everyone mentioning SOLARIS. And I guess it's probably not a good time to mention Cameron and Lightstorm Entertainment produced the remake.
-
Right down to the Bubble Moon cars.
-
You are absolutely right. But for those of us who care this won't be a problem. May as well enjoy it while it lasts. Im sure the media will be all over the budget of this thing during rescession and even if the movie is wonderful they will ask ... "is it what money should be spent one" ... its the sad world we live in. While the masses flock to "G-Force" in Disney "discount" 3D.
-
while he ate fistfuls of acid. Would be a trip.
-
Vader, I'm with you on "Cinefex", grea magazine! I have no idea how much was CGI (those damn matte shots sure were!), but the AMERICAN WEREWOLF transformation nod is either and obvious makeup effect/morph hybrid (and one they sure as hell could have used on Baker's work in CURSED), or maybe Fox should have spit out the AVATAR trailer a day earlier.
-
Wow, best use of 3D I've ever seen. BUT, the illusion was distorted with fast moving action scenes. I saw it on a legit IMAX screen and hate to say it but I believe the strobing would be diminished on a LieMax screen or standard screen. Also - the story seems like it's made for 13 year old girls, 'giant' blue elves and mystical creatures of the forest face off against mean aggressive soldiers. Bleh. I'll see it once and hope I'm wrong.
-
Anyone else get the feeling James Cameron would be the perfect guy to helm a live action Thundercats after seeing this preview?
-
Koyaanisqatsi - "a damn sight better than anything we've gotten from CG yet"
-
Thanks very much, appreciate the detailed response. I was a bit worried when I heard that Mauro Fiore had been hired as DP, as I didn't think much of the look of The Island. Worthington's character sounds a bit naff too, but like you say I guess we'll have to wait to see the finished film.
Glad to hear the action and editing are typical Cameron fare, and if the editing isn't Bayhem MTV fare then everything is good in my book.
More than anything I just want a classical sci-fi film with plot, theme and characters. Thanks again, appreciate it! -
You may be right about the story. It seems like Pocahantas to me. But that is what gets your mom, your grandmom, your sister, and your daughters in seats, which is what will propel this one to the same megablockbuster cover of TIME status that Titanic enjoyed. And remember, die hard Terminator and Aliens fans could not understand how Cameron could get all soft and romatic with Titanic, and now we are having trouble with the whole fairytale Narnia, fantasy MMO aspect here. Its the story he wanted to tell. And yes .. it is like frengully, probably on purpose.
-
and then they get hunted by the military. Why? Wouldn't Jake and the Doctors know the military is coming? Makes no sense.
-
I think that over time. Everyone will come to love this movie for exactly what it is ... not what it is not. Because right now its just not what was expected by most of you. Pehaps we will get the dark gritty realism some of us wanted when he brings us Battle Angel in a few years.
-
...is from 'The Thin Red Line' by Hans Zimmer.
And unfortunately won't stay. Just temp.
Michael Bay used the same piece in the teaser trailer for 'Pearl Harbor'. -
Aug 22, 2009 8:22:11 PM CDT
I love people on the net that live in ther own fantasy worlds
by smackaddictfromhell
Oh the irony, here you sit all day dribbling shit, about crap you have no idea.
-
Thanks Gadzooky's. I remember hearing it and getting pumped bc I love Zimmer's score for that film.
-
He seemed like a nice enough chap. Didn't have many good things to say about Michael Bay though, that's for sure.
-
It seems like, overall:
Most of the people who saw the 16 minute trailer thought it was very good, if not completely photorealistic... while,
Most of the people who haven't seen the 16 minute trailer thought that it was poorly done and cartoony.
Hmm... which to believe? Which to believe?
-
And was very impressed with what I saw. What I heard, however, was pure Cameron. I'm not a fan of JC in general but he potentially has another huge hit on his hands. The visuals were simply stunning. I HATED the trailer, hated THE ABYSS, TRUE LIES and TITANIC. I liked ALIENS when it came out, but now it feels like an aged amusement park ride that was cool 20 years ago. He's simply not a good storyteller, IMO. This is the first thing he's done that completely wowed me. Hopefully he'll include a story good enough to serve the visuals. It would be a shame if the story falls short of at least that.BTW, we bought IMAX Dec 17 midnight tickets. In all my life I never thought I'd do that.
About the debate if this was photo-realistic or not: I would answer "no" to that. But that didn't stop us from be completely drawn into the world presented. It was physical but also fantastical. A fantasy world with consequence. -
I am in the effects industry and I can assure you that for the most part, cgi is far more expensive than practical effects when it comes to creating living, breathing characters. For example, creating an all cgi Yoda cost millions of dollars, whereas a puppet Yoda several hundred thousand at the most, and several hundred thousand to puppeteer. Jar Jar Binks cost well over 10 million to develop.
Studios do care about costs and do break down each shot according to cost.
BUT the real reason that they love CGI is that it is a post production expense. Studios want to spend as little as possible up front (which is why they shoot films so fast now and use minimal practical effects) so they can
assess the movie. If they think it has a great chance, they can pump as much money into post production visual effects as they desire( a post production expense and a separate budget). If it looks like a stinker, they can shit can it without spending a dime on expensive
visual effects. They can also endlessly change the movie, which is difficult when practical effects are used.
-
It looks very interesting to me- the main theme obviously regeneration. You're damaged, permanently, but you are transformed into something different, but whole. What happens to you then? Who and what are you?
Other themes- going over to the other side- "Dances With Wolves"- very lame, "Little Big Man"- also very lame. "The Enchanted Cottage"- injured veteran and homely woman transformed by love- I have not seen it but I want to now.
The political/social angle? "Coming Home"- very lame, various other movies that have been mentioned. Cameron's politics are not very subtle. Stephen Lang, in the two seconds he's in the trailer, looks like he would be twirling his moustache if he he had one. Scars to show a guy is bad- "Platoon"- hey Quentin Tarantino is not the only one to recycle old movies!
I'm sure I will see it nonetheless. -
Well said. I have posted something similar in past threads trying to explain this concept, but I stopped because there will always be people who are convinced that CGI is easy and cheep and crappy. The fact is... there are bad CGI effects and bad practical effects - neither is better or worse than the other.
-
Honestly, I can't be bothered to go to preview of part of a movie. Put the fucker in theaters and I might go, but don't waste my time with overhyped previews.
-
Avatar will revolutionize the movie film industry. I saw the preview in 3d yesterday and I originally thought that something would be lacking(either clarity or the speed) but there was and amazingly vivid feel to the whole experience. This will set the new standard for movie making, as long as they can do it like Cameron did. Quote me on it!!!!!
-
Aug 22, 2009 10:17:06 PM CDT
I think FOX should have given atttendes free DVD promos
by lockesbrokenleg
of the footage. We could have put them online. Free advertising for Fox.
-
I saw District 9 and was blown away and said so to some friends... only to have two arrogant little twats say shit like, "Really? What exactly stood out about it to you?" I said, "Ummm... were you fucking awake during the scene where they made him fire the weapons? How about the fact that, by the end, you feel bad calling it a 'prawn'? How about that the guy who played Wikus gives what is probably one of the best performances I've ever seen in a sci-fi film... and it's his first time." Ok... so then they go on and on about plot holes, which, if you think about it for two fucking seconds, make perfect sense - "If the ship had no fuel why did it hover there?" The thing came from fucking light years away, do you think maybe the anti-gravity part of it works no matter what? Like a car stereo runs off a car's battery, but the battery doesn't actually PROPEL the car? Shit like that... finally, I'm like, ok, you're such a cinema nerd, did you go see Moon? No? You care so much about performance and feel the performances in D9 were false, so did you see Two Lovers? Oh, no? What's that? You were jerking off to your Transformers blu-ray for the nine millionth time or too busy playing Halo? FUCKIN' AMATEURS... So now that that part of this rant is over, I have to say, I'm COMPLETELY FUCKING UNDERWHELMED BY YOU GODDAMN NERDS BEING COMPLETELY UNDERWHELMED BY EVERYTHING YOU SEE, YET YOU DON'T CALL TO THE MAT ALL OF THE FUCKING GARBAGE THAT'S COME OUT THIS YEAR. Getting back to that conversation about D9, someone asked me, "What about it was so original?" If you can see that movie and ask that question in the fucking summer of... Transformers 2, Terminator 4, Star Trek fucking 23 or whatever they're on now, G.I. Joe, and whichever other sequels, prequels, reboots, and remakes that are out, you seriously need a sledgehammer to the skull. Like I said, if you care so much and are so worried about what's 'original', did you see Two Lovers or Moon or any of a million other movies that have been out and flew right under your upturned nose, you fucking wannabe cinephile? Bullshitters, pure and simple.Another thing I've noticed about some of these people is that, again, with D9, in the scene where he's made to fire the weapons, I have a feeling that anything that feels too raw or 'real' or has genuine emotion without a wink, a nod, and a sarcastic, distancing remark gets these fuckheads mark of disapproval. As if anyone should give a shit... welcome to the human race you bottom feeding pieces of shit.As far as the Avatar trailer and how 'underwhelmed' you all are, I'M FUCKING UNDERWHELMED BY YOUR MISERY. Please don't let other people's enjoyment of something and appreciation for it ruin your love for being a dipshit, knee-jerk contrarian. And let me say that, before now, I always defended people's right to disagree and go against the grain when it comes to certain movies, The Dark Knight for instance, but now I realize that you fuckers are miserable no matter what and that it's not your opinions, it's something else going on in your lizard brains that has nothing to do with the quality of what you're seeing, but you're need to tear everything down that actually ATTEMPTS to be original or to get you to FEEL something... go dig up Pauline Kael's skeleton and cuddle with it if that makes you feel better.
-
well to me the beast CGI is FFVII Advent at LEAST the color dont look all fake and crapy like this crap to bad fot the peopple than THINK this has de BESTES OF THE BEST UVER NICE COOL CGIIIIIIII ;) you are dumb asses or 9 year olds
-
You slam every movie this summer and praise District 9 and Moon? Christ.
-
Here's a nice video summary of James Cameron's philosophy of filming Avatar, from the man himself:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8212895.stm -
I agree... about these sad, miserable, basement dwelling fucks. If you notice, early on in the talkback, most of these freaks who came out against the 16 minutes of Avatar Day footage hadn't even seen it in 3-D IMAX. But they are so quick to bellow their disdain... "oh, look at me... feel my pain... James Cameron is lame..." what exactly the fuck are you guys even doing at this forum. If you don't like JC films... go whine about Twilight, Inglorious Bastards, or WOW nerfing. JC is the fuckin' KING. End of Story. Show some respect for god's sake. We are talking about the man who brought us such great characters as "Catfish" from the Abyss... "They used to call this the hammer!"... such revolutionary FX as the "Russian water tentacle"... and such emotionally draining scenes such as "who drown? Bud or Lindsey"... and that was ONR movie!!! JC never has, and won't let you down... so shut your fucking whiny mouths and go be underwhelmed by tonight's shitty Tube8 porn, your stale-ass twinkies, and your level 78 death knight. For me? I'm all about 3-D Pandora, more action than you can shake a blue-dong at... and welcoming back the true king back to his throne!!! CAMERON RULES BITCHES!
-
Aug 22, 2009 11:32:21 PM CDT
If You Think the CGI Looks Terrible, Don't Buy a TIcket
by writefromleft
I think the creatures look awful. I'm not going. And you know what, if lots of other people stop lining up to buy a ticket like pre-programmed sheep, then maybe, just maybe, Hollywood will go back to the way they used to make films. You may say that I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one.
-
Thanks for the information. Sounds about like that could be how it is out there in Hollywoodland. I'm not surprised.
-
Yeah ... what they said. !!!! Awesome rants by the way.
-
Brought a friend with me who hadn't seen the internet trailer. I told him to lower expectations: it looks like the Star War prequels, CGI-wise (he's a huge SW fan, and liked the last one). Well, I was really impressed with how great the footage looked on the big screen (although the Na'vi design still makes me scratch my head). My friend said it was definitely a step beyond SW (and I agree). Some of it, including a few close-ups of the avatars, was photo-realistic, but a lot of the shots came up short (not surprising for the sheer amount of fx work on display).
-
Right on you guys… these guys are bottom rung… part of being an expert on something is knowing when something is the next step, transcendent, whatever the adjective and when you get two completely superlative films, D9 and Avatar, that are vastly different yet the best the genre or hybrid genre has seen in decades and all they have to say is assanine shit like on this thread you know these guys are fucking clowns, amateurs, losers, I can go on and on and I see them all the time and they like to think they have some affect on the cinematic world… it’s like they watched revenge of the nerds to many times and believed it… that’s why the word nerd exists to describe losers like this that at the basic level need a beat down… They are pissed off at the world and try to find some feeling of self worth and superiority because they do motion graphics or composite for some sfx company that’ll be out of biz next month… where do they get off with this sense of entitlement… pseudo superiority… smug homo-incestual-necrophiliacs… that’s the gene/cess pool here. The justice here is they will never ever create something like D9 or Avatar and they will never ever know the sheer inspiration and bliss of reveling in another member of mankind achieving personal perfection… achieving their dream… go take you starship enterprise classic and use it in whatever sexually perverse manner you do ya bunch of jagoff fucking bone chars.
-
How is it that they "used to" make films? That makes no sense because good drama, good action, good humor, and good storytelling are possible in ANY format. These particular characters and locations REQUIRE CGI to exist anywhere else but in the back of your mind when you are fast asleep. Or are you suggesting no-one make films at all about alien worlds and fantastic visuals. I had often looked at the vivid color of say a Christian Reese Lassen painting and said to myself "why can't they make a movie look like this?" And honestly AVATAR is the closest I have seen yet. It's brilliant to behold in IMAX 3d. Literally brilliant. The only visuals I have seen come closer are in animated films and stuff like “What Dreams May Come” and that scene in Contact where she ends up on the alien beach. If you don’t like that kind of stuff … maybe you are barking up the wrong genre here.
-
Aug 22, 2009 11:47:17 PM CDT
"Hollywood will go back to the way they used to make films."
by kikuchiyoboy
Like Towering Inferno?
Clash of The Titans?
Flash Gordon?
Come on now, How is this different? Really. I grew up watching stop motion creature work and I don't get why people frak out about this CGI. It looks way better than anything I've scene.
Dark Crystal was one of my faves, but I also love the design of this CGI world that Cameron has manifested.
I don't understand the hatred to a film maker trying to push the envelope. Now if the film sucks, than you have every right to be pissed, but as of now it's too early.
I went to the 16 minute promo and thought it was amazing, but I have to admit that some of the beats didn't work for me. I'm just hoping it's due to the nature of the presentation.
Other than that, this world is an amazing creation by all who worked hard to make it so.
-
does anyone else think that the cartooniness is coming from the character design and not from the effects?
-
"cartoony". It looked more amazing on the big screen, but the vividness of the environment does look cartoony.
-
Look at this expert… the way hollywood used to make movies and he faults JC… asshole… JC is the only artist to make these MBA’s that have spiraled pictures into the ground for 20 years now and you try and throw him under the bus… why don’t you get out your fucking etch a sketch and come up with something better… you cocksucker look at the brilliant collective work of fucking fantastic artists at weta etc etc and you think you can come up better… you’ll never get it … different does not mean better… its subjective… Hollywood
-
It looks like a great deal of fun. The effects didn't strike me as have being worked on from the Kong '05 team, with more refinement. The motion capture is insanely impressive, the 3D isn't too shabby, and the coloring is super bright and colorful to compensate for the 3D glasses dimming effect. Still waiting for a storyline hook to endear me, but it proved to be more entertaining than the trailer let on.
-
I think that is the point. You have these hard core (granted straight outta Halo)military going into a world that looks like something out of a children's fantasy book. The contrast and the fantastical nature of this world is the point. It appears the humans fail to see the beauty before them. No-one complained about EWOKS in 1983. As long as they Navi don't move and have the facial expressions of a cartoon like Jar Jar binks did. And as long as as they dont have the dead stare and robot mouth movements like Bauwulf did.... its a sucess and a step up. It will be interresting to see how the Jim Carrey Scrooge compares.
-
Who cares? I shed a tear when Anton Ego tasted the Ratatouille and was transported back to the innocence of childhood... before he became a dark self-righteous "expert"... (sound familiar?) The point here is: Character design and animation will always be a stylistic endeavor. Did you prefer "The Incredibles" design over "Akira"? or "Prawns" over "Jar-Jar"? "Gollum" over "Jessica Rabbit"? It is ultimately what the characters do, and how they are brought to life that defines whether they were memorable and effective within the context of the film. Not to mention the Photography, music, editing, script, and DIRECTION! ENTER: James Cameron. "Smurfs With Wolves"... "Thunder Gully"... who cares??? The question is: ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED??? Give JC the props that he has earned from each of you dildo sniffers, drop your cynical quills for one second and thank whatever god you pray to (hmpf) That JC has come back to humble your virgin sac once again. Jeez. Frickin' kids.
-
Cameron is creating a bioluminsecent world that is phosphourescent... its inspired by all the time he has spent in inner space... the entire look of pandora is based on the unique hyper real look of being underwater with equatorial sun shining through at depth... refraction, prisming, lens like maginification and crystalline clarity... Ive been there and ive seen it myself and thats the fucking brilliance of cameron... hes ingeniously using it as a visual baseline for avatar and people are misinterpreting as a CGI misfire instead of realizing its an artisitc choice.
-
oh man the imax 3d megatrailer was more entertainment than i could have asked for, but anton ego wasnt supposed to be a photo realistic phenomenon i will say emotion was conveyed very well, especially with Sigourney Weaver's Avatar... but with everything else, it all depends on the movie itself
-
i took a nihilist buddy of mine who has never seen any of camerons films to see the preview and surprisingly the kid was actually impressed...i need to stress that this guy actively detests practically every form of art/entertainment. And for Avatar to of gotten across his nigh impregnable barriers so quickly gives me hope. Cause lets face it, it's not going to be the cinema lovers that are gonna make this movie its money back. Do not underestimate the shrewdness of our man Big Jim. Remember when people said Titanic would flop?
-
There are only a few movies of this type in existence right now. Polar Express, Beuwulf, Final Fantasy and the upcoming Christmas Carol and AVATAR. Baowulf made Polar Express look bad. And AVATAR makes Baowulf look like Shrek. These are baby steps. Quit comparing apples to oranges. AVATAR is not Terminator or Aliens, nor does it want to be. Zemekis has his work cut out for him. Pixar has their work cut out for them. So say AVATAR is what it is. Call it animated if you want because if thats all it is ... then it looks better than WALL-E, The Incredibles, UP and Ratatouille combined... and last time I checked no-one was complaining about those.
-
You're awesome man.
-
I hear ya... I'm just saying... If any one man deserves the benefit of the doubt... it's Big Jim: aka "The Fuckin' KING". Photo real? Unreal? Cardboard cutout? CGI? Wiping butt-grease on the lens? The man will turn out the best fuckin' butt-grease, cardboard, CGI, photo-realistic, unreal piece of film you have ever seen... so why fight it, is all I'm saying. Just feel lucky that someone with this much passion and ability is still willing and able to create his art for US. Dig?
-
I wasn't trying to pee on James Cameron, or Ridley Scott, or other brilliant visualists. I just think that CGI characters and live action don't mix. And maybe I shouldn't have expressed that opinion here, as the talkback is for the 16 minutes of footage. I wasn't trying to be hateful or provoke. I guess it's just my gut response, having payed money for the three Star Wars prequels and having been deeply disappointed, not only by the scripts but by the incessant CGI. The original Star Wars feels real to me. Alien and Aliens feels real. Blade Runner feels real. Maybe it's a generational thing. I'm in my 40s. But the model work, and having actors play aliens, it doesn't kick me out of the dream-state. The dream-state that happens when you're watching a really good movie. And I guess I just miss it. Sorry I've upset a few of you. Didn't mean it.
-
Im still really looking forward to Avatar as its the first wholly original sci fi movie in ages and the fact that its from James Cameron only makes me more excited. But its the T2 and Aliens Cameron that gets me excited, the guy knows action, but Titanic feels like it came from the mind of a seven-year old girl, and Aliens is so much fun but as a sequel to Alien it packs a much weaker punch. also James Cameron, JC, Jesus Christ??? weird
-
I agree.
-
Damn you Lucas. Your legacy continues to interfear with progress. I too was disapointed when the Star Wars Special edition came out with those enhanced features including cartoony jawas and that hideous looking excuse for Jabba the Hut. But is was NOT the CGI in the prequels that ruined them. It was the completely lame dialog and jr. high school level editing and pacing that messed it up. Naboo was and is still one of the most beautiful places ever imagined and digitally created for the big screen... its just that what went on there was LAME.
-
death and taxes ... AVATAR is not going to have the same problem the prequels had. At least that is something.
-
BTW, if you wanna laugh your ass off!!! Check out the "Masters" of the riff, TOTALY destroying the prequels... WAY worth the money... you can feel the venom and disdain they feel for those films. Awesome! http://www.rifftrax.com/rifftrax/star-wars-prequel-trilogy-pack
-
oops its http://www.rifftrax.com/rifftrax/star-wars-prequel-trilogy-pack
-
And it's not to do with the quality of the CG which is obviously very fucking impressive to whoever saw the IMAX preview, 3D or otherwise. It's primarily the stylistic design choice of the Avatars/Na'vi that will turn some people off. I showed the trailer to my sister and her first reaction was "Why are they so ugly?" I I think that there will be those who will not find the designs appealing at first glance. Even I was taken aback quite a bit. However as you watch more uncut scenes the designs begin to feel natural and you become more interested in their facial expressions and all the little details. At the end of the day, the navi are aliens and so parhaps may have some grotesque appearance to some. Some people find elf ears kinda freakish but I bet a bunch of you would willingly hump the elf girls with big elongated ears in everquest or LOTR or warcraft or whatever... and there's a subculture of you that have a hard on for anime catgirls, or mutant blue girls from X-Men and what have you. Anyway just take it as being part of the alien experience. Youre either turned off and the idea of mating with them is off putting to you, or for some reason you're turned on because you like feline appearences and the wilder side of life. Anyway, if I were Wikus and had to choose between either boning a prawn or a Na'vi, I know which one I'm going with...
-
Post of the day.So true. I guess thats why they keep the real aliens locked up at Area 51 and those undisclosed areas of New Mexico.
-
I never thought of that one. Maybe some people really are just simply turned off or even afraid at the sight of them. You know like some people have this inexplicable fear of clowns. So the call them stupid or fake. Once you see them moving and talking in the film they are anything but fake .... but maybe they will be creepy to some. Maybe they look too much like demons? Who knows ... but that only serves to validate Camerons work. No one is afraid of the aliens in District 9 because even though they look like they are made of real stuff, their design looks too much like something from a b horror film. They are almost too insect like to be taken serioulsly.
-
make it so!
-
Well, that explains haters on these boards. Guess their eyeballs have been fucked to blindness by hate.
-
Marine: Colonel, Jake's gone rogue on us. What do we do?
Quaritch: That motherfucker! Kill his real body, that'll teach him. -
kinda like earthworms after a rain
-
You decide. Seriously, I've seen the footage and heard about the half-full / 1/3rd-full theaters now. So, what's the lesson, gang? They can't GIVE this movie away. Also, consider there was next to NO coverage of this "event" in any of the mainstream press. This was an ignored nonhappening, folks - and so will the final movie, which looks like a cross beween FERNGULLY / CAPTAIN PLANET with THUNDERCATS. I heard a reviewer somewhere griped and said "It's aliens on dinosaurs, f-f's-s! What do you want?" My answer: "ALIENS ON DINOSAURS ACTUALLY DOING -ANYTHING EVEN REMOTELY INTERESTING- to get me excited to see this." Colors of the Wiiiiiiiiind.
-
This event was not put on by your local radio station. It was put on by Fox. Only a few select tickets were given out. That's why the theater was half full. It wasn't like a radio show thing where they give away 100s of tickets.
-
i've been in the VFX business for 15 years and the hardest thing to do is to put a full cg character in a scene that was shot in camera..IT HAS TO MATCH EVERYTHING IN THAT REAL PLATE....IF IT DOESN'T IT'S QUITE OBVIOUS...AN ALL CG SHOT IS SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO MUCH EASIER TO DO AND HAVE THE CG CHARACTER/CREATURE LOOK GOOD BECAUSE YOU KNOW HAVE ESTABLISHED THIS ALL CG WORLD THAT HAS NO PHOTO REAL COMPARISONS TO LIVE UP TO....IF THE WHOLE SHOT IS FAKE MUCH MORE FORGIVING....ASK ANYONE WITH ANY OUNCE OF INTELLIGENCE IN THE VFX WORLD AND THEY WILL TELL YOU THE SAME THING...THE NAVIS LOOK LIKE TOTAL SHIT WHEN THERE IN THAT LAB WITH REAL ACTORS AND SCENERY....but they slightly improve once in the all CG world and that is completely due to the whole world looking fake
-
i haven't read ONE SINGLE OPINION ANYONE here has offered on something THEY DIDNT SEE
the criticisms have been based on the trailer, OBVIOUSLY, you fucking tool...and even worse for you, theres been some criticism on these pages from people who've SEEN the 16 minutes..
dont make HORSESHIT up to prop BULLSHIT up..your a liar. -
madrakeroot read your first couple of sentences.....you made my point for me
-
Im guessing some people saw the trailer and changed their minds about going because they didnt think it would be any better on a 30 foot screen in 3D with IMAX sound then it was on youtube. Those people are wrong. There could also be people who perhaps had something more important come up at the end of the day on friday just after work and figured since it was free and only 15 minutes long they would not be missing much.
-
I generally don't like posting on the internet, cause it's basically pointless, and the immense display of people without knowledge and decency is overwhelming. Not to mention those who severely need to get laid. But I just wanted to address a few more things...
Superfinn, Sorry but nothing I said was not true. As COUNTLESS people have said, the footage is extremely life like, and since you haven't seen it, there's really no discussion.
And davexfx, for someone who supposedly works in this field, it should be obvious to you that movies made with strictly CGI to this point have been cartoons. It's quite clear Avatar is not a cartoon. You really think the FX animators on T4 had the grueling job of matching those robots to the landscape? I doubt it. I know it's not easy, but the makers of Avatar are succeeding on a scale never seen before.
Spymunk - It's painfully obvious your just hating for no reason other than to hate. You think FOX is gonna have trouble selling this? Do you see all the other shit thats put out that cleans up? This is gonna absolutely blow peoples minds, especially kids who live for this sort of the thing. The romance will attract many females, and we already know everyone who goes to these shits is gonna watch it. The reason theaters were so empty was because FOX only sold a certain amount of tickets. Also, as the trailer was released to the public one day before, what the fuck did you expect?
Please though, by all means, keep doubting Mr Cameron. You know as well as everyone else does he's gonna fucking own come December. Like usual. -
Simply put, this day can't come soon enough in my opinion! I went across the road to my local movie complex (St Luke's, Auckland, New Zealand) with my other half & my neighbour & his friend tonight to watch this 15-16 min promo (In 3D) before we went out dinner. And, I'm bloody glad I did suggest this idea to them! Any movie you view needs to do one thing only. To take you into its world for the length of its running time. Nothing more, nothing less. All "Art" is always subjective, you will never get 100% consensus on matters like these because we just aint wired that way! So, with that off my chest, what did I think of the footage I saw? Ab-so-bloody-lutely phenomenal to say the least!!! Without question, this will be an amazing movie to see come December. I have not seen a 3D movie in a very long while, but was astonished at the mind boggling level of detail, realistic depth of field, Stunning colors to name but a few things! And, with only this small level of footage, its way too early to start making any criticisms about the quality of the storyline thus far. Remember, as JC points out in his intro, this footage is from the first half only. Frankly, if this is correct, then the second act promises to be even more spectacular! I want to ride one of those dragons as well! Which by the way, look very much like something that Roger Dean used to paint in the 70's!-Thats a good thing in my book-he is a supremely talented artist!
I am now feeling like I did when I was 14 (I'm 45 at present) when I saw Star Wars in 1977. Excited, enthusiastic, eager to see this thing in all its glory on the big screen...
I suspect this movie will be a benchmark for others to try and emulate. But, James Cameron has raised the bar pretty damn high. At the least, a few others following in his footsteps will get close, but the bar is definitely being set very very high! -
They didn't want packed theaters; at mine they said my gf and I were like numbers 42 and 43 or something. As we exited the second screening of the day, there was a line of pple waiting to go in with 3D glasses. That tells me they only ever planned to have half-full theaters, but the interest level here was high enough at least that they added a third screening.
-
http://tinyurl.com/59wh6y
"Thundersmurfs? Fuck yeah I'm there!" -
Bad reception at comic con. Disappointed reports across the internet at the trailer. Half empty cinemas for the free previews.Goodbye, 'king of the world' - you're about to get pwned by life itself.
-
Aug 23, 2009 7:15:09 AM CDT
WHO FUCKING CARES ABOUT 3D? DOES IT MAKE A MOVIE BETTER? NO.....
by carlthormark1978
3D has always been, and always will be, nothing more then a gimmick and I don't give a fuck about it. Just give me a good movie that it well written with good acting and solid Direction. Then there is the small matter of that you can't even watch 3D movies in your home and, even if you could, you would need a giant fucking screen just for it to have the same effect as in a theatre. I really wish that all the time, money and effort spent on pushing this fucking bullshit format would be spent on developing better movies.
-
...there's a simple solution. Don't see this movie and stop spending hours upon hours talking about a movie you have no interest in seeing. I'm sure you have better things to do with your time and money, right? Otherwise if you keep whining and then go see this movie when it comes out, a movie you already claim you hate, it'll mean you're nothing more than a bitch that takes it up the ass.
-
....yeah, the environments have a 'Roger Dean' similarity to them which is neat. Google images of 'Roger Dean art' anyone who hasn't seen his 'floating mountains' etc. This movie will look pretty 'trippy' regardless of whether it has that CG 'artificial' sheen or not...
-
Aside from the space go-karting scene with hoe-down music that feels more 70s than anything else in the movie.
-
I saw it at the London IMAX; personally, I thought the action scenes were way too blurry, couldn't see what the hell was going on and no real sense of the 3D whatsoever. However, when the camera was still, the visuals were absolutely stunning - particularly the luminous forest, that blew me away. The worst part for me was the script - Worthington's character was so gung ho in his lines, it just made me cringe. I hope in context, when we know the character a bit better, it works. All in all, a mixed bag but glad I made the effort. I must say, it got a muted round of applause afterwards though - no whooping or cheering at all.
-
Luke Skywalker just dropped this movie into an exposed ventilation shaft of the Deatrh Star!
-
The technology they used to shoot it, not the quality of the bloody CGI. The quality of cgi is generally based on the time and money you have to spend on it. 3D helps in the suspension of disbelief and fools you into thinking you're seeing real, solid objects. Judging by the few comments by people who actually saw it, this would seem to be the case.
-
I know that's blasphemy but facts are facts. Now will I refuse to see it? No. But everything I am seeing so far is not encouraging.
-
Of course, he's never liked 3D, and I don't blame him: the glasses SUCK if you already have glasses.
-
Ebert was underwhelmed by the movie itself, he actually said that it was one of the better uses of 3D he'd seen. My bad, DON'T JUMP ALL OVER ME, OKAY?
-
It’s fascinating that a great number of people have already spent more time debating the fate of this film than the actual length of the film itself.
It’s difficult to take the opinion seriously from people with talkback names that sound like something originating from a bathroom wall, scrawled four feet off the ground. For the most part, I see industry professionals with insightful knowledge being shared with movie fans around the world. It’s like being in the lobby of the world’s biggest movie theater. I can almost smell the popcorn.
There was a moment when this talkback made me think this was like a school room full of kids invited to a party and there are always a few that refuse to go. They sit with folded arms, spewing profanity at anyone within earshot, because it’s not how they want it to be and therefore they want to ruin it for everyone else. And what inevitably happens is the party goes on and everyone has a good time. Then those party-poopers generally sneak in the back door and discover there is actually a good time being had.
The people who are happiest expect nothing and embrace what they receive. It’s an ungrateful child that demands more from his parents, because he has been spoiled.
Do you freak out if the weather isn’t how you want it to be? Don’t base your happiness on things you can’t control otherwise you might grow up to be a filmmaker. You know those arrogant bastards that have to things their own way. Some of them even dare to create an entire new world.
Like a child swearing he’ll never be like his father, you’re probably more like the man you hate than any of us.
James Cameron has his own weather machine. Until you're ready to deliver, respect him.
At least he's earned it. -
Aug 23, 2009 9:51:01 AM CDT
I read Ebert's criticism and he sounds like an AICN talkbacker
by chakraborty
He says the flying lizards aren't flapping their wings fast enough, and that when one character falls in a chasm he uses the wrong arm to pull himself up amounting to a continuity error. WTF? Those are the most idiotic criticisms...he really should be an AICN talkbacker.
-
who actively want something to fail. Did their uncle touch them when they were younger or something? Or maybe James Cameron's failure makes their own failures bearable.
Anyways, the teaser trailer looked intriguing, and I would say it is something that piques my interest but hasn't yet sold me one-hundred percent. They have until December to sell me a ticket so we will see what they come up with next. Despite the fact ideas have been cobbled together from other places, it doesn't quite look like anything I've seen in film before. -
It's who you walk through the forest with, that makes it memorable.
-
Why promote CGI aliens as "lifelike" and then design them looking like doe-eyed stuffed dolls? They look like big blue Beanie Babies. How is anybody supposed to look at them and not be constantly reminded that they're computer generated? If Cameron was going for photo-realistic, couldn't the aliens be a little more life-like, and not look like a shameless marketing tie-in for Toys R Us?
-
If you spend all your time back-stage learning how the magic trick will be done, how can you possibly expect to believe it during the show? You can't have your cake and eat it to.
-
nuff said
-
you probably have your head in a toilet.
-
You haters don't deserve anymore attention on the subject of this film..Most haven't seen the 16 mins. and wouldn't know art if it came up and fucked them in the ass..You fucking trashdiggers have nothing better to do than 1.slam something that is an incomplete preview
2.Slam a professional who has nothing better to do than try and give you something new to view instead of the regurgetated tripe that the rest of hollywood is hoping your pea sized brains will lap up. 3. Something ground breaking and visually stimulating
that just might pave the way for better things..Fuck all of you haters and your worthless opinions..The rest of you that enjoyed the preview I'll see you there in December.. -
Aug 23, 2009 11:09:44 AM CDT
I saw the 16 minutes and was unimpressed.
by christian_bale_trashed_my_lights
I recommend others do the same so they can form their own opinions. My cinema had only eight other people in it, so there's no chance you won't get a seat.It's sad to think that this movie is going to sink Cameron's career after some of the wonderful movies he's given us over the years. FOX really needed these previews to start putting the word out there about Avatar so it had a hope of making money back.It seems that they, and us, are going to be sorely disappointed when it finally arrives.
-
Talk about continuity error and flapping wings sounds like someone who went in looking to find faults.
-
So it's continuously showing where you live? What's that aroma?
-
Nice Rant Mr. Dark... and might I add? FUCK you C.H.U.D. basement dwelling zeroes. Have some respect. Do you not realize this is "The Return of THE KING!?" Did you not stew in your smelly juices over Aliens, T2, The Abyss, etc.? ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED??? You act like JC sold you a mule when he promised a goat, or whatever you sad creatures like to fuck... The point is...1) Anyone who HASN'T seen the footage in 3-D IMAX, STFU then save your soda cans and cut back on your HoHo's, save your allowance and prepare for DEC. 18th. Plan in advance... slowly expose yourself to the outdoors/sunlight so the trip from your basement to the yellow bus won't damage your pasty oily sheen... then make a fuckin' pilgrimage to the nearest IMAX (even if it's the next state over... get your grandma to drive you (she's the only one who still loves you anyway)) And go experience what the rest of us saw... THEN you can run your pie-holes. 2) You ungrateful shit-bags should praise Cthulu or whatever pseudo-cool deity you pretend to be into, and thank him righteously... that a man with such vision, passion, determination, money, execution, wit, ego, and fucking MAD SKILLS has returned from his explorations of the deep (yeah, imagine any of you shut-in fat fucks having the balls to go that deep in a submersible), created his OWN technology, and is back TO ENTERTAIN YOU! And all you can do is whine about a trailer you saw on-line? And nitpick about "photo-realistic" GAH! You sad, sad. little monkeys. I have NEVER "talked back" before... and after this thread dies, I probably never will again... but when I saw you low-life sad shit stains embarrassing yourselves like this, I felt obligated to come give you freaks a text beat-down. Go dunk yer twinkies in slim-fast, get the prying bar so yer grandma can change yer diaper, and go suckle at EBERT'S Teat... because NOTHING you can say will keep the rest of us from the JOY (I can explain that word to you if you need), wonder, fun, laughter, and tears that will be fucking our brain stems in IMAX 3-D DEC 18th. Out. LONG LIVE THE KING!!!
-
It was indeed breathtaking. The 3D was a little inconsistent, but not enough to detract from my enjoyment of the scenes. The CG was absolutely some of the best I've ever seen. I actually felt my fear of heights kick in during the pterodactyl/dragon scene. The acting was a little hammy, but no more than anything in TITANIC so I doubt that it'll get in the way of the mass public's enjoyment of the film. The emotions were there and that counts for A LOT considering this was CG acting. I think some people will have an issue with the design and art direction of the planet and mech etc., but I didn't. To me it all looked spectacular. The luminescent night forrest scene made me feel like I was there and in awe. From the reports, it seems that all the theaters were 2/3 full. Mine was too, but I noticed the empty seats were all the front rows closest to the screen. I think FOX did this on purpose so that everyone who got in would have a good seat. If so, they're brilliant. They can't risk people reporting negatively because they were sitting too close and had a bad experience. And to FOX, it might be too late, but please make the glasses black rimmed! Ours were yellow and the rim color was in my peripheral vision. Black will immerse me further. Also of note was the demographic on my line to get in. EVERYONE was represented. There were young geeks, regular 30 something folks, old folks (like in their 60s), black, white, spanish, asian. This thing will be huge if it comes out and reviews + word of mouth are positive. BTW, I too was a little underwhelmed by the trailer, but went because Cameron has never let me down. And for all you people complaining about effects that aren't perfect, remember TRUE LIES? That jump jet sequence at the end around the building was the FURTHEST thing from perfect! Even back then! But it was still awesome. You know what else isn't perfect? Your fucking face! But you look at it in the mirror everyday doncha? If you and your Mom gave your face a chance, stop complaining about perfect and give this movie an open mind. My 5 cents. Flame on.
-
I was informed that the cinema on E 59th was showing it all weekend. If this information is incorrect, then sorry!
-
So, in the future we have the technology to transplant a human consciousness into an alien body, but we can't repair a spinal cord injury?
Science fail! -
Not really it looks awesome! It has the most detailed CG I've ever seen! Anybody who says it looks like shit does not know how to use their eyes or brains! Exclamation Point!
-
Shut the fuck up about the damn wheelchair bullshit. It's a movie! It's movie science, not real life science, for fucksake.
-
Aug 23, 2009 12:14:30 PM CDT
I'll never forget when Ebert gave Hollywood Homicide 3stars out
by chakraborty
Ebert thought Hollywood Homicide (that stinkfest with Harrison Ford and Josh Hartnett) was hilarious. I remember thinking to myself "Something's not right with Ebert. He needs to see a doctor and get himself checked out.". Soon after, he was diagnosed with cancer. Now he's like a crazy old man who sits on his porch complaining and drooling.
-
The Avatar design look like shit.The Mech design look like shit.The teaser trailer looks like shit. The posters look like shit.The 3-D looks like shit.The detail CGI looks like shit.The dialogue sounds like shit.The game looks like shit.The toys look like shit.Anybody who says otherwise if a liar and a troll Exclamation Point!
-
One has amazing visuals and a stupid story and one has a stupid story and amazing visuals. Can you guess which is which?
-
Anybody who does not suck Cameron's blue cock IS a liar and a troll Exclamation Point!
-
My impression of Trannyformer: "Oh.. Look at me.. I'm angry, and I go against the grain! I hate everything because I'm hard that way! I said what you didn't want me too.. so give me some attention! I'm stirring the pot because I like to see you all squirm... I'm just that counter-culture. Yeah! I ROCK!... FEEL MY PAIN!!! please?... hold me." OK you douche.. we get it. You hate AVATAR geez... so don't go. Create something that you will enjoy. Perhaps join a yoga class, and try some herbal teas... there are many find blends on the market.
-
only serves to encourage the joy I feel for this film.
-
You might want to revise your failed insult.
-
people actually went out of their way, drove or walked or took a bus or cab or whatever to go sit in a theater and watch 16mins of something and then leave? the least they could have done is attach it to a movie or something. or least have the theaters offer you something. i realize the tickets were free but man....that seems like a jip, no matter how cool the footage may have been.
-
The biggest complaint is there weren't enough diaper changing tables for the whiners.
-
Is that a serious question?
-
LOL... that was funny. And Bouncy X... the point is, that people DID catch cabs, crawl, pogo-stick, and moonwalk to go see just a trickle of JC's work... because it's BIG JIM... The King. We all made lucid decisions to go, and everyone in my IMAX was jacked/hyped/ and I heard nothing but positive feedback. I personally went to see "District 9" afterward. Yes. see how that works? I times the FREE 16 minute event to coincide with seeing a film I was going to pay to see in the theater anyway! Genius!!!
-
hehe
-
Thanks for saving me from writing on here. Nice work. Roll on 18/12. I know I will have an amazing experience personally. The best bits of every sci-fi novel he read brought to life... um, yep!
-
Some places offered matinee prices for any movie that was showing.
-
Aug 23, 2009 1:05:40 PM CDT
Ebert is still giving Cameron the benefit of the doubt though
by orionsangels
Which is what you all should be doing, until the film comes out. They'll be enough time for the predictable haters to spew their venom. Most it will consist in hating the CG.
-
I did catch the Friday preview on a real imax screen and I too wanted to like it (I don't think there was anyone there who didn't want to like it). Even though there was some applause, the response was muted. The sad fact is that you don't see the money on the screen. All of the level headed reviewers I've read say pretty much the same thing - of course it looks better than delgo, but it remains a disappointment, and an expensive one at that. This brings me to the reason I am posting - fanboys suffer from a strange kind of dementia when it comes to eagerly anticipated movies (particularly sci fi movies). When they don't get what they want, they frequently deny what is evident and try and shout down the opposition. All of this "hater" (a term which really sounds moronic and should be abandoned) talk is a symptom of the delusion that you can make this movie better simply by willing it to be so. It isn't going to happen - I was ready to dismiss the look of the trailer, but the screening simply didn't look that great. Also, leaving aside the look, the story looks to be trite, heavy handed and sappy. District 9, on the other hand, had a fun little story, looked cutting edge and cost a fraction of the Avatar budget.
Also, those of you who ask "who cares how much it cost" should think about what happens to studios (any enterprise, really) who have to absorb massive losses. Sometimes these studios go down; at the very least, they are forced to make fewer, less risky and cheaper projects for sometime.
-
If SK229 is a pretentious ass, what does that make you, sir?
-
My pleasure, and thanks. Stupefying these haters is like shooting fish in a barrel, tho. I generally prefer tougher game. But man, now I know why people always make fun of talkbackers (no offense to either of us, lol)... There really ARE sad monkeys like Trannyformers out there!!! LOL. OMG... I thought it was like a myth or something. We should organize some kind of "hater care package" that contains: Love, deodorant, Slim fast, a comb, a Herman Miller Aeron chair, a holographic "7 of 9" trading card, and a hit of ecstasy... and maybe we can "transform" these sad freaks from depraved murlocks to some sort of benign hedgehog creatures that won't constantly pollute the energies of the universe with their sad, emo-istic,trite commentary... then maybe, we can all get along and enjoy AVATAR together as one!
-
Thank you for your enlightened opinons.. I truly believe that even if the haters did see the preview it would be like "putting pearls before swine" ..There are some people out there that just can't appreciate anything that is
put out there for their enjoyment.
These people go through life not
living to enjoy it but to despise the very existance of their being.
They can only be happy when wallowing in their own misery and self loathing..The only time they believe they are seeing perfection is when gazing upon their own distorted image..
They are hating upon a man who has tried to give something unique to the film industry every time he brings something to the screen..Mr. Cameron is a gambler and I'm sure he is accustomed to risks. Where as the only risks you haters take is in over nuking your Mac and cheese in the micro.
You fucktards are the worst part of fandom and have no joy except in someones failure..You all not only seek to have a film fail you actually want it over the chance of success..If you want to see failure find the nearest mirror and gaze upon it till your hearts are content or better still look into the eyes of your parents when they are gazing at you..
There you will find all the failure you need. -
over here in norn iron we used to have one but people were to busy getting drunk and beating each other than it went out of buisness, so it now sits there collecting dust!!! fuckers! ahh well at least we finally got a 3D cinema... backward movie fucking island cunt bollocks...
-
Very eloquently written. May I subscribe to your newsletter?-Torgo
-
Are you serious?! Wheelchairs have looked exactly the same since they were invented (in 1932 by Harry Jennings)! Meanwhile, cars have changed dramatically. You know what else hasn't changed too much? The bicycle! Same shit for like 100 years.
As for science being able to transfer a mind into an avatar, but not fix a paraplegic: We've cured POLIO and a zillion other horrible diseses with science, but what happens when you step out into the snow without a Mom approved coat on? You catch a fucking cold. And you know what science has been able to do about that? NADA.
-
To all the people who came on here to discuss the 16 minute preview, whether you liked it or not, WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU EVEN FEEDING THESE TROLLS?
Ignore them. What do you care if Trannyformers wants to post endless stupidity? He is TROLLING, and by you responding in any way, you are giving him and his ilk exactly what they want.
Be the adults here. Ignore them and let's (those of us who saw the preview) discuss it like, you know, actual movie fans. -
Word. There are some folks who were still underwhelmed after seeing the IMAX 3D footage and their complaints are genuine. I respect it. Even so, many people thought TITANIC was horrible crap, but it clearly found it's audience. I believe AVATAR will as well. Can't count out the women. They're the ones who drove TITANIC through the roof. A good (and cheesy) love story is all it takes and it looks like Cameron will again deliver Brie for the masses.
"putting pearls before swine" huh Mr Dark? isn't that a little highbrow for this forum? LOL. -
The problem is if the majority who liked the preview, all 97% of the people who attended worldwide, doesn't steps in to correct the pendulum, sex change like Trannyformers will have this forum (which is read by James Cameron) all for themselves, and anyone from the industry stepping in will go "oh, Cameron made his Fantom Menace then, Avatar is epic fail". People don't live in the real world. They now live on the internet.
-
Yeah.. you are right. But since this is the first time I have ever "talked back"... I am just having fun doing some creative writing, and in the process, slamming some losers! Nothing they say is actually affecting me or my interest in AVATAR. Just having some fun! But I do suspect that to some of these "trolls" (as you call them) this might be as good as it gets for them. Wow! This is truly an eye-opener! LOL
-
Aren't people who complain about "Troll Complainers" that engage with Trolls just as reinforcing to Trolls than the people who respond to the Trolls in the first place?
-
I get where you're coming from, But do you really think that you NEED to defend this film from idiots who are so obviously trolling? Take Tranny, for example. I read his/her posts because they make me laugh, but I feel no need to respond because he/she is obviously just having what he/she considers to be fun by FUCKING WITH PEOPLE WHO CARE WHAT HE/SHE SAYS.
No one who comes in here and is curious about the footage will take his/her “opinions” seriously. For example, Tranny kept referring to this movie as having a $300 million budget (even thought it is reported to be $200 million). All of a sudden, he/she shifts and refers to it as having a $400 million budget. Another talkbacker jokes “4? Can I et a ‘5’? ‘5’ anyone?”…and about six posts later Tranny is back referring to this as a $500 million movie…lol…
Trust me, no one who comes on here is going to take anything someone with that screen name says seriously anyway, and what we need to be doing, those of us who liked what we saw, is discussing the footage’s pros and cons with the other folks who actually saw it and were not impressed…and are also not only capable of speaking in hyperbole.
-
Maybe you didn’t see my earlier post where I complain about the people who hate on the people who hate on the haters, and warn all you fuckers not to hate on me for hating on the people who hate on the haters. You should probably read that.
Seriously though, yeah, I am sure some of these trolls are going to jump all over me now, but I don’t five a shit. The point is, I would like to discuss this movie footage with the people who have seen it, but if all they do is engage the trolls, then I have no one to seriously discuss this shit with…
-
about trolls...lol...they always WIN!
-
Again - wanting to like this movie is not going to make it a better movie. Most of us have a pretty good idea whether something is worth seeing after a 16 minute preview and this simply didn't measure up. Criticizing those who disagree with you won't fix it either. Do you really think all of the critics who have given the screening a tepid review (and that would be the vast majority) are secretly trying to undermine Cameron or this movie? Seriously?
The legion of angry fans on this talkback remind me of the republican nutjobs who have been showing up at the town halls. Go outside for awhile and get some fresh air; try doing something that doesn't involve staring at a screen for a change... -
I Traveled all the way to San Diego from Texas to see the Comic Con footage. I saw the AVATAR DAY footage. I was there for the Big Jim panel. What do you want to ask, know, or discuss? I'm here for you.
-
Is that their opinions are valid. They've got the same $16.00 (what it costs for IMAX in NYC) as the rest of us. This site is for the ultra movie geek though. Most of my friends have never even heard of this site. Sometimes the geeks love something and it flies with the general audience (300, IRON MAN), and sometimes they hate it and it flies with the general audience (TWILIGHT, Anything with Martin Lawrence). Gotta take this site's visitors with a grain of salt (and maybe some hot sauce and duck sauce). And as idiotic as they can be, there are some pretty genius haters on here that make me laugh pretty hard.
-
Unlike the haters on here, I'm looking forward to seeing Avatar at Christmas. However, here's my thought about CGI: Last night here on British TV, they were showing "Back To The Future - Part 2", and there was a quick scene where Marty wanders up to the front of a tall Casino building that (in the "alternate" 1985) is owned by his nemesis Biff Tannen. The Casino has flashing signs and lights all over it and a huge "Biff's" logo at the top of the building (see here: http://tinyurl.com/ny38rl )
ANYWAY, at that exact moment, it occurred to me that I was expecting the facade of this casino to have been achieved by CGI, but I realized that it was not CGI, and in fact they had actually created it for real, (probably by decorating an existing building).
ANYWAY, the point of all this, is that I suddenly realized again how refreshing it was to look at something flashy and ludicrous that had not been created in a piece of software. -
Well, here is a question from another talkbacker and my response, re-posted from high above--
"Thank you sir! OK, general reaction to acting, cinematography, editing? Did it use the Horner score or temp music?"
As far as the score, I am not sure, so I'll just get that out of the way first. I did not recognize it as being from another film, so it is probably Horner's original. It certainly worked fine with the scenes themselves.
The cinematography response really needs to be divided into two parts: one for the actual cinematography in the live-action stuff, and one for the "virtual cinematography" in the 100% cgi scenes. The real stuff is a little bland. Not poorly shot, just bland. There were a lot of fill lights, so there weren't many shadows (I am assuming this was for the 3D...so we could make out the incredible depth in all the live action shots), and this detracted a bit from the atmosphere. I kind of felt like the whole thing was lit like a doctor's office. I definitely did not look at this and think that Dean Semler or Wally Pfister shot it, let's put it that way. Because of this, the photography itself lacks a little bit of style, but I think the actual visual content makes up for that. The production design, IMO, was pretty tight.
The virtual cinematography is another thing altogether. There were some shots that were completely breathtaking, particularly the nocturnal stuff in the jungle. Absolutely beautiful, very atmospheric...almost hypnotic. Personally, while it might not have been "photoreal", I thought the cgi environments looked as good if not better than anything I have ever seen, and they are "shot" beautifully in the scenes that were presented.
The editing seemed fine, certainly not hard to follow, although the scenes we saw all ended mid-way through with abrupt fades to black, so it is a little tough to judge overall. Again, though, from what I saw, the editing (and also direction) was typical Cameron action fare. Was it an editing tour-de-force like BOURNE ULTIMATUM? I couldn't tell you. But, like I said, I didn't have any trouble following anything, I never got "lost", and none of the cuts I saw were jarring or drew attention to themselves, so it gets a pass on editiing 101.
Now for the acting. This is really the toughest to call, because we saw very little from the actual human actors in the preview...and even less dialogue. I will be honest, in terms of the acting and dialogue, it seems like the Worthington character is your stereotypical, i.e. cliched, "hot shot", not much different than Will Smith in ID4. He even has his own "I know you didn't shoot that green shit at me" moment, which I was not thrilled about, and much of the dialogue to him or about him (most of which came from Sigourney) was VERY heavy-handed in the way it beats us over the heads with the whole "he's a real hot shot!" thing. But again, all we got were a few lines, and maybe this was the point: since there wasn't time to really show character development in this preview, maybe Cameron wanted to be sure that we knew this about the character right up-front. Who knows...could also be lazy writing, and I will only be able to tell you for sure when I see the whole thing.
The virtual acting, I thought, was great. I honestly don't see the problems some are discussing: I thought the Na'vi moved fine, looked like a real part of their environment, and felt like the performances, from what I saw, were right up there with Davey Jones, Gollum, and Christopher Johnson. I can't say that the na'vi looked or performed "better" than those, so I can't say it is some huge leap forward, but it is also in no way some sort of huge step back as some here would lead you to believe. These might not be the best cgi characters ever, but they seem to rank AMONG the best, in my opinion.
--so there you have it...what are your thoughts on these things?
-
Don't imagine JC really cares what you guys think. He knows he has your 10-15 bucks; that was never in dispute. You guys would see the preview if it had been a puppet show.
Harry's sniffy tweet the other day made me laugh - "so distasteful to my love of film". First off, learn to write - this is painful wording even by twitter standards. Second - real film lovers are honest with others and, more importantly, themselves. The truth is, Harry tends to love most of what comes out because in so doing, he reinforces the imaginary friendships he has with guys like James Cameron. If Harry had a genuinely critical eye, Hollywood would stop returning his calls and his reason for living would end. -
Yes Ray I believe it was the Union Plaza Hotel and casino in Las vegas, Nv. and the effect may have been a combo Matte painting and lighting effect but not CGI.
-
Thanks for the compliment medster101!
And WriteFromLeft don't feel you need to apologize for posting your opinions, that's what the talkbacks are for. And I happen to agree with what you wrote! -
Difficult to argue with you sir. You came, you saw, you meh-ed. Not me. I had high hopes and they were exceeded. I admit I sat there waiting for it to be bad, and it kinda was for the 1st few minutes, but then Marcus Wright wakes up as a ThunderSmurf and I was sold. From then on, it just kept getting better and better. I like the intense color palette. I liked the rhino thing that flashes its bright colors - like many animals do to warn off predators. I liked the giant Panther that looked like it just got out of the shower and that it actually catches Marcus Wright (can't wait to see how he gets out of that). And I REALLY LOVED the flight scene. Everything about it. It made me feel like I was there and I was scared. Those huge screaming things + being 10,000 feet on the edge of a 3D cliff absolutely took my breath away (and yes it really does seem that the scene was partly modeled after the finale in Michael Mann's 'Last Of The Mohicans'). Maybe they'll tweak it a bit more before release and you'll be brought into my camp. I hope so. If you're going to pay come Dec18th, I hope you get your money's worth. I hope everyone does. I want this to do well so Cameron can keep making big event movies like this. Unless this completely misfires, I know I'll be seeing it multiple times just to experience the scenes I've already seen over and over again. Cuz once its out of theaters, this experience will be gone forever.
-
But I liked what I saw, and I don't think I am in the minority. The minority here on this talkback, maybe, but not in general.
And even if I am in the true minority, are you telling me I liked what I saw simply because I wanted to like what I saw, and not because I legitimately enjoyed it? Because if that is what you are implying, that is a pretty bold assumption to make about someone you don’t know…and thus don’t know their tastes in movies, literature, etc.
I am a huge fan of Edgar Rice Burroughs (“A Princess of Mars” is one of my all-time favorite novels), pulp sci-fi, and the “planetary romance” sub-genre of sci-fi in particular, and since this is, according to Cameron himself, his vision of what a “planetary romance” looks like…well, of course I am excited. And the footage itself did nothing to discourage that excitement. What I saw for sixteen minutes on Friday was the kind of world Burroughs wrote about in his Mars and Venus novels brought to life for the first time ever, and that is extremely exciting to me.
-
I pretty much agree with you but I would go a step further and say I don't really think you can compare the Na'vi to Christopher Johnson or Davey Jones since from a design standpoint they're just too dissimilar. The successful execution of those types of less-human-looking characters hinges on totally different visual aspects than Gollum and the Na'vi. That being said I did think the detail and texture work on the Na'vi was more impressive than what was done with Gollum six years ago. Is it a great big quantum leap? No, but at this point we've already discovered the techniques we'll use to render CG images and make them emote. Now it's just a matter of being to progressively put more and more detail in the images themselves until filmmakers find the next revolutionary tool.
-
Guys listen and learn.Thats Camerons big bet.To make you believe that the aliens are real,to make your primitive brain accept that the blue guys are as real as the real actors in the movie,to get immerse in the movie in such a way,that for not even a fuckin second you will sit and think: jeez look at the aliens,you can tell that they are made of cgi,since u can distinguish them from the real actors in the movie.
thats his personal ambition with this project,and his personal vision to bring 3d cinema into the next stage.
Why do u think he used blue aliens instead of complete human like creatures? why make the things more difficult to achieve,by representing us something alive but totally strange to our senses,knowledge and percetion? you prove the difficulty of his choice: you havent stop bashing the trailer because the aliens are like blue,big,basketball player cats.your hate for why the alien world looks alien (oxymoron right?) is the perfect prove for the obstacles this movie faces.
But Cameron has the guts,and he goes with his vision,he needs to show to the audience,and the studios,that u can believe that an alien world can be accepted by your mind as real.
and i am sure he will deliver it.why? because i sat at the 15m preview,and when it ended,i was like: what the fuck,15m passed already? THATS his point,he is going to make with this project.not if the doctors in the table looks higher where sams head should be,or where sam controls the flying serpent with the right hand,while it flies left,or that spaceship over there has less textures,or the light doesnt reflect right in the plant behind the right tree,or whatever the fuck.
THATS NOT HIS FUCKING POINT.now go create some idioti photoshoped pictures with blue furries or whatever shit makes u feel that u r correct.but u r wrong,and i laugh at your general direction. -
The reason the "HATERZZ" are going on about the CGi is because that is how Cameron has been selling this. He hasn't talked about the plot, he hasn't talked about the acting, his one tool for selling the movie is how badass it's going to look. And frankly, to talk about "art".... the guy makes popcorn movies. Some consider them good popcorn movies, but popcorn movies nonetheless. Nothing he has done compares with, say, Scorsese or Kubrick or even Ridley Scott. It's like claiming that a hard rock band is "better" than a punk band. Both pale in comparison to a half decent jazz group in terms of virtuosity, and the jazz group can do it without any of the electronic crap.
-
WHO WANTS TO JOIN ME ? I'M GOING TO BUY THE GAME, SEE THE MOVIE IN 3D, 3D IMAX AND IN 2D, THEN BUY THE BLU RAY, OR BOTH IF THEY ARE RELEASED WITH DIFFERENT FORMATS. THAT MAKES 60+16+16+16+25+25 = 158 BUCK MINIMUM HE'LL GET FROM ME, PROBABLY UP TO 200 IF I SEE THE MOVIE AGAIN AND AGAIN ON IMAX. WHO'S WITH ME ?
-
At least your comments are sincere and make sense and you have your educated opinion. But here is the thing. I can list all 20 or so movies that have been released in either IMAX3D, REAL 3D or Disney "Discount" 3D and AVATAR is a hand down improvement over all of them. Did you see Beowulf in IMAX3D, regular 3D or in 2D? Or did you see it at all on a big screen? Because until now, Beowulf in IMAX3D represented about the best Hollywood has been able to produce in 3D with CGI graphics. If you truly believe tha what you saw with AVATAR is not all that great then I feel for you, because I have seen practically every CGI and or modern 3D presentation put ot including the stuff at theam parks, and none of them hold a candle to what Cameron is doing here.
-
"Why do u think he used blue aliens instead of complete human like creatures? "
Humans are MUCH harder to render than aliens, because we all know intimately what a human body looks like. Blue aliens are less, not more difficult. -
…lol…well, I don’t know about all that, but if I enjoy the actual movie as much as I enjoyed the preview presentation, I am sure I will probably see it at least four times on the Imax; once with my friends on opening night, once with my girlfriend, once with my dad (it is a tradition for us to see all 3D movies together since he took me to “Space Hunter: Adventures in the Forbidden Zone” when I was a kid…lol…), and once with my nephews.
-
How are you guys making spaces between your paragraphs?!
-
Don't forget the $8000 Pannasonic 55 inch 3D HDTV you will need in order to watch that Blue Ray in 3D the way the director intended for you to see it.
-
i'm going to join the camp of people who say that the more people bitch, the more i want to see it.
i'm not going to grease cameron's pole. i haven't liked every movie he's done, but he does have an impressive resume. it's a tentpole scifi movie, and it's new material. good enough for me. i'm there. -
With one of these:
Put that sucker under your paragraph, and there you go.
-
Obviously the big movie that AVATAR will be compared to this year is Zemeckis' A Christmas Carol. We will see which is better. Anyone want to place any bets? Sorry for all you folks that wanted cameron to give you another District 9. It's apples and oranges.
-
ACTING: Very Cameron-esque. 1) Ensemble scenes (such as the Avatar "bonding/fusing") were nicely done... meaning that multiple people were talking, and talking over one another as people would in an experimental/professional situation. (think The Abyss when they were trying to resuscitate Lindsey... everyone had dialogue, but it had a "real" impromptu feel.)I saw no glaring pitfalls of bad acting. Col. Quaritch was "over-the-top", but every drill instructor type character from ANY military movie IS. 2) The CGI acting... After all the championing I've done for this film, I will admit, I was a bit concerned about the Na'vi design... but when they are in action, and conveying emotion, it really works. The scenes in which Neytiri was hissing to back off the dog creatures, praying over them before putting them down, and chastising Jake, were all BOTH good performances, and NOT betrayed by the CGI capture. It looked and felt good... and because I have 100% faith in JC, I KNOW there will be MANY touching tender moments, as well as some BIG laughs. Some of the dialogue is Cameron-esque as well... some of it is campy and a bit "comic-booky" but nothing offensive.
MUSIC: Sounded great...Horner evolves with time, and that is good. I always feel that the music is good if you don't notice it. If it's too big, too soft, or just awkward, and your attention is drawn to it... it is bad. The latest "Harry Potter" film had some of the WORST music I have heard in a huge budget film to date... misplaced, goofy, and just poorly orchestrated/executed. Nothing bad here. Sounds good and original.
CINEMATOGRAPHY: Brilliant. Like all Cameron film... and others who get it (Peter Jackson, Sam Raimi)Cameron understands scale. When to come in close, and when to pull way back. (If Micheal Bay had ANY concept of scale, his films would be roughly 9% better... let's face it, you can't polish a turd)When you see the set pieces, and how they blend CGI and practical environments... all I could think of is: CAMERON!!! You see all the love and trapping. Cargo bays, cargo, ships, lights, armor, plates, wires, consoles, etc. Everything is lovingly placed to create realism and depth... and THAT is why the 3-D is so fucking glorious. Since I saw the footage twice, I caught myself looking about each shot at the INSANE detail, and it was all captured with skill, good lighting, and with controlled SCALE like you would expect. On the negative side of the CGI, some of the scenes where the giant puma creature attacks Jake's Avatar... too much is happening too fast with a creature whose anatomy were are unfamiliar with, so things are a bit hard to see at times, but the intention of what is happening is very clear at all times. However, the phosphorescent forest scenes (which we saw MUCH more of at Comic Con... were so mind-staggeringly beautiful, I was hard pressed to ever recall a time and place in my lifetime where I had ever seen anything so deep, colorful, alien, and just fucking fantastically impressive. (except for one time when I was trolling: (acid + ecstasy) and was looking through a trip-toy (dragonfly eye) at a crazy fractals program on a high-def monitor)! Just the "alive" feeling of the place... at comic con, there was one AMAZING shot I remember vividly... while Jake crossed a log and almost fell off into the void (he was saved by Neytiri) I recall that every step he took, the luminescent fungus on the ground glowed and reacted with every slight touch, and it was just gorgeous. I felt like a kid again... and at that moment, I knew JC was making good on his promises.
So, I hope this is helpful, if you want more specific details, I will be happy to try and oblige you.- Torgo -
I will add that although this comes out in 2 1.5 months ... there has been no trailer yet. Kinda odd.
-
AGREED.
-
And I mean about the arm moving in a way opposite to the bird's direction. I didn't notice this btw and I can't go back and rewatch it. But isn't the point of the scene to also show that Jake's Avatar connects to the bird using some nerves in his tail, and all he has to do to control it is to merely 'think' and the bird obeys? So if he wanted the bird to fly right, he'd think 'go right'. He doesn't need to move his arms on stirrups like how we'd ride a horse. For all we know in that scene he was telling the bird to bank to the right while simultaneously looking left just to check something out. Or mayeb the entire point of that fucking scene was that Jake is having trouble cotrolling the bird for the first fucking time so it's reluctant to obey, or he's having trouble adjusting to that method of doing things in a way that humans generally do not. Ebert is a fucking moron!
-
I'm sorry you don't appreciate the ART that goes into moviemaking or to be more precise a Science Fiction Fantasy Film..I didn't compare Cameron to Kubrick or Scorsese.. I was speaking of the design and look of an alien world and also the groundbreaking artwork and design effects of T2.
Everyone has ethier forgotten how great the films of James cameron were when they first hit the screen or many of you were too young to remember just how "new"
and cutting edge they were.
Look I'm not saying Cameron walks on water but his output as a director has always been to say the least cutting edge and interesting. I would rather see what he has up his sleeve than most of the Hollywood Hacks that are churning out the tripe that a consumate movie goer is getting fed up with... If you folks want the same old shit than continue to pay for it ...I make my statement at the box office however small it may be by not going to see shit just because it is on a screen. When something new
or interesting comes along like District 9 I'm always game to plunk down my duckets.If we don't demand better and more diverse films we will be subjected to more of the same dreck that the studios keep churning out..Now I'm not a fan of Fox studios at all but I have to give them kudos for taking the risk on this venture as well as James Cameron.
This expenditure on a film is well
almost unimaginable in a time like this. I hope to see a positve result and a film I and others will enjoy throughly.. -
your comments are right on target.
-
Yes it was. I'm more comparing Cameron's return to directing with Lucas's (not comparing Star Wars to Avatar). Will it be a success or a failure? I didn't have high expectations for this movie when I saw the presentation on Friday. It just didn't WOW me into wanting to see it when it comes out. I don't want to see a Sci Fi "Dances with Wolves". Glad to see JC back to directing movies but I'll pass on this one.
-
I am 38 now. I showed my kids A New Hope, The Empire Strikes Back, Neverending Story and the Dark Crystal on DVD years ago. I took them to see ET (my favorite childhood movie) for the 20th aniversary a while back. My kids (now 15 and 16 ) think all of it was LAME. All of it. They however think that ALIENS, The Abyss and Terminator 1 and 2 are awesome. This should be some indication of what James Cameron did for movies.
-
I thought the same thing about TITANIC.
-
use html tags:
^Remove spaces, one to go to the next line, and two to make a new paragraph leaving a gap. -
...he happens to be right!!! His criticisms are on point, and James Cameron needs to fix what is wrong with this movie before it is released. As I suggested in my postings about the short trailer, Cameron needs to break from his full commitment to motion capture which he insisted on solely using to create the alien creators, and should employ an array of special effects techiques, from animatronics, and special effects make-up (on his human actors) for close-ups (semi close-ups, and even fore, and middleground shots of the main aliens), to employing forced perspective shots, go-motion, traditional puppetry...and so on, and so forth...to nail the look of the main alien race, in order to give them a sense of material existence and height, weight, and width, within the shots. James Cameron's motion capture team has failed miserably. Those shots are no more advanced than motion capture of 16 years ago--someone sold Cameron on a lie, and he bought into it!!! He needs to get on the phone with (the late) Stan Winston's team right now, and integrate their animatronics and special effects make-up work with the visuals that have already been shot, before it is too late!!!
-
On Friday, August 21, Star Trek XI Co-writer Roberto Orci will be honored at the Twenty-Fourth Annual Imagen Awards in Beverly Hills, California.
As reported by Variety and Imagen.org, Orci, who will receive the Norman Lear Writer’s Award, is one of four honorees receiving special awards from the Imagen Foundation.
I shit you not. -
Serioulsy? I can recommend a good eye doctor.
-
I wanted to see Titanic when it came out.
-
My son is 16 and has 20/20 perfect vision. He tells me that these characters seem almost as if they were just actors filmed and then painted with photoshop after the fact. I agree that the faces of these Na'vi appear that well once you see them actually talking. If you have only seen the trailer, you have not seen this yet. There are scenes where they are running though the woods where it looks like this is the case as well. Granted, some of the other movements did look a little off. But that hasnt been a problem for me with Spiderman, Star Wars, Indiana Jones. So why should it matter now.
-
that sound you here is AsimovLives' head exploding. He will be missed.
-
Granted ... of course you wanted to see it. But you did not expect that last 90 minutes to be as realistis, surreal emotional, haunting and as utterly powerful as it ended up being did you?
-
I'm 37, as you can guess by my handle. What drives me crazy is the idea that technical perfection is the be all and end all of cinematic ART, as you put it. One would have to be a jackass to say that THomas Kinkade is a better artist than Picasso (because Kinkade's paintings "look like what they're supposed to be), and they would have to bea REAL jackass to say that Titanic was better than, say, Casablanca, which I distinctly remember people saying at the time. As well, it's asinine to say that Cameron is so much more above the "Hollywood Hacks" when there is a direct line between Cameron and Michael Bay.
-
Seriously, what do you like? You fucking hate everything. A 16 year old kid thinks it looks photoshopped. Damn, I just shake my head at some of the shit people post here.
-
Look at the shot of Jake hissing and baring his teeth at the banshee bird on the clifftop and tell me how in holy hell practical effects could achieve that? Makeup sure as hell doesn't and only cake and bury the actor's faces. Watching full scenes show off a range of emotions and subtle movements on the CG character's faces that practically spot on resemble the actual actors performances. I can't imagine what kind of prosthetic physical robot they ould make that can resemble that! Plus the use of CG allows for long clear uncut shots whereas with physical shit you've got to really use clever cuts and tricks to hide the seams but you'd never get those kinds of shots and moving scenery that I witnessed. I'm all for the use of practical effects blended with CG. And I respect them very much. But they do not apply here with what Cameron is doing. There is nothing practical that can even come close to comparing to that.
-
"No More Adavanced Then Motion Capture of 16 years ago." Really? Come one man, you're better than that. You can't tell anything about the motion capture based on that teaser! Did you see the 16 minute screening? You want bad motion-capture, watch an episode of Adult Swim's Xavier: Renegade Angel.
-
Direct line between James Cameron and Michael Bay?! No. Just. No.Michael Bay comes out of commercials and his visual style seems to owe a major debt to Tony Scott.James Cameron comes out of the Corman/exploitation school of the seventies, like Joe Dante or John Sayles. The only conceivable 'connection' between Cameron and Bay is an interest in military hardware and possibly some lighting cues (which Bay would've gotten from Cameron).
-
Thank
You
Very
Much!
BTW, I think its cool that real film geeks are now actually discussing film for a pretty decent stretch. But you gotta admit, the trolls make it more interesting when they jump in every once in awhile with their Captain Retardo capes flying.
Is Cameron making ART? Of course he is. He is employing countless artists in a shared vision. Every director does. Sometimes the movies are great and the CG or music or editing or cinematography or set design isn't. Sometimes all those things are spectacular, but the acting or the writing isn't. Its tough to bring together that many creatives and make something great, but it is always ART. Maybe not GOOD art, but art nevertheless. By that measure, Cameron is a successful artist. He makes good Pop art for the masses. Can't compare him to Scorsese or Kubrik. They weren't/aren't making popcorn movies. Brian DePalma is a better comparison. And IMO Cameron > DePalma. -
its of this massive amount of tree
branches and debris raining down on the forest! Far surpasses the first time i saw a dinosaur in JURASSIC PARK! -
He's gotta be. Everyone knows Bay has a secret Hollywood bigwig dad who is also a director. Its never been made public, but Cameron never seems to discuss Bay or his movies and Bay copies Cameron like a kid looking for approval. Just sayin'.
-
When the lion thing is chasing the guy, and the guy hides behind trees, and the lion thing charges at him. I felt like I was there. Fantastic.
-
Like the whole jungle was collapsing around us. That shot was fucking EPIC.
-
the fetishization of FX shots, the melodramatic plots... we wouldn't have Bay without Cameron. Suck it up.
-
The rumour was that Bay was the son of John Frankenheimer, but Frankenheimer denied it (can you blame him?)
-
Wow really? Thats kinda sad. I think Bay has made great stuff. Loved 'The Rock' & 'Armageddon'. Loved many of his commercials. Even 'Transformers' was pretty cool. Not great cinema mind you, but COOL.
Back to AVATAR. What shot of the jungle collapsing are you guys talking about? Did I blink and miss it?! Dammit! -
so I went to the preview not expecting much. i had previously seen the teaser trailer the night before which was ok. This movie at the IMAX in 3d was beyond impressive, I was blown away. After the jungle scene I even heard "holy Shit" from one other viewer. This is def. one that has to be experienced in 3d, period.
-
sound incredible. If anything this movie will at least be the most ambitious we've had in a long time (alongside Mallick's Tree of Life project).
-
Just as we'll have a newer generation that only imitates the surface patina of classics and distort the original movies themes. A Michael Bay was inevitable in this landscape. Look at the thousands of Scorcese imitators.I'm not dismissing his talent, even though I'm not a fan (Bay does shoot beautiful images), but his success was inevitable.
-
Or did you forget that Cameron and his peers are making commercial entertainment for the masses? Stick to checkers Wookie.
-
sorry I'm at work so I couldn't answer back before my brethren did.
But they do cover much of what I would have said.. Bay and Cameron are really not so much alike at all except the military angles.
Jim Cameron knows how to tell a story and use the visual to support it. Bay knows how to use visuals but can't tell a fuckin
story to save his ass.
By the way I still regard kubricks 2001 as one of the greatest Science fiction films made and Scorcese can do nothing wrong in my book.. he made Casino
and as far as i'm concerned it is one of the most accurate depictions of that time in Vegas that will ever be seen.. I should know I moved there in 1965 and spent 30 years in that town and it is more than accurate..only the names have been changed but it was all true..back to the point though .. I can almost guarantee that when this film comes out it will be nothing short of an epic..If you don't think so let me know ...I'll be on the boards and i have a great memory... See ya then -
quit with the "told you so." I've never trashed this movie, other than to point out that TO ME the Navi look fake (haven't seen the 3D version). What I have against Cameron is the idea that technology = art. Casablanca will always be a better movie than Titanic.
-
Hell, I actuially enjoyed (in a dumb rifftrax kind of way) the Island.
-
You're going for the "genre=melodrama" argument? This may be ironic coming from someone with the a handle named after Lucas, but melodrama is *not* a staple of genre fiction. Was 2001 melodramatic? (2001 was barely dramatic, let alone melodramatic). Was Solaris melodramatic? Was PLanet of The APes melodramatic? (well, yes, but 2 out of 3 ain't bad).
-
really entertaining stuff. Everything else though was just boring.
-
One of Bay's "best". Though no one saw it.
Clearly Michael Bay is one of our generation's leading filmmakers. Can't have a single talkback with out him being mentioned. Did you know dude made $75mil off of the 1st Transformers?! His deal was for 10% of backend.
Damn you Michael Bay! LOL. -
I am confused at the comparisons of Casablanca to Titanic. I don't recall those ever being made. Throughout the Titanic hype, the film I clearly remember it being compared to all the time was Gone with the Wind.
-
it would have been a good first day. And the advertising still doesn't kick in for months.
*****
Curiosity in James Cameron's Avatar on Thursday lifted its trailer debut to become the most watch on Apple.com ever. The trailer drew over 4 million views its first day of availability. The previous unnamed record holder stood at a less than half 1.7 million. -
I completely agree that a lot of filmmakers confuse technical virtuosity with great or even good filmmaking. I don't think Cameron is one of them though. He never compared Titanic to Casablanca AFAIK. The hype machine is obnoxious.
-
Aug 23, 2009 4:44:31 PM CDT
The shot where the miltary dude fires a gun in your FACE
by lockesbrokenleg
And you really feel like ducking out of the way. Tarentino must be salivating at that show.
-
but people did. I remember people saying that Titanic was the "BEST" movie of all time. No, Cameron didn't make the comparison himself. (although he does say a lot of nonsense about people talking about Avatar as being a dividing line in the history of movies).
-
box-office wise.
-
Its from the 16 minute screening. Its toward the end once it goes into trailer mode and shows lots of different action. I hadn't seen the teaser yet, so I thought for sure that moment would be in there. I was disappointed to see the teaser did NOT include such an image, though it did seem to show the action that precedes it- perhaps that of the helicopters shooting fire at the mountain.
-
it was in the quick clips towards the end of the presentation and yes it was spectacular and epic in scope. I for one can't wait to see this in its full presentation.
-
box-office wise, if you adjust for inflation GWTW (a movie I've never managed to sit through) crushes everything else.
-
Which, if you look closely, is what Cameron uses as the basis for his stories. Things don't come from a vacuum. In order to get to "2001" you had to have a new wave of writers; individuals that changed the thinking about what defined the subject matter of SF.Stanislaw Lem wrote "Solaris," and it was extremely cerebral and mind-blowing. That type of fiction isn't readily adapted into mainstream filmmaking, because audiences seem to accept simplistic ideas, and a conventional story-telling structure.Cameron simply uses the 'melodramatic' genre tropes of 50's era SF. That's not an accident, because he's making popular entertainment.Notice that he produced Soderberg's remake of 'Solaris,' it's obvious he knows about writers like Neal Stephenson and Pynchon, but he's making films for a specific venue…And he's doing it WITHOUT pandering to the Lowest Common Denominator.
-
I am always annoyed at the inflation game when comparing grosses. Yes, GWTW would have made more when adjusted, but that is not an even playing field either.
When GWTW came out, TV was just released commercially and was in very few homes. There were no video games and home video.
GWTW played for years in theaters. There were far fewer forms of entertainment. Who knows what the actual box office champ would be? -
Aug 23, 2009 5:01:47 PM CDT
Solaris was boring and shitty. Besides, the Russians did that fi
by lockesbrokenleg
The movie we got was 2 hours of George Cloony walking around the same set.
-
I've heard all these people talking about Avatar will be "Real sci fi", whatever that is, so the whole"pulp melodrama" thing seems a little lame to me.
-
I've heard all these people talking about Avatar will be "Real sci fi", whatever that is, so the whole"pulp melodrama" thing seems a little lame to me.
-
Where is this vast majority of critics you speak of? In fact, this article on MSN... (http://paralleluniverse.msn.com/features/movies/avatar-day-screenings/?GT1=28140), discusses the difference between reactions of the trailer and footage, and well, you'll see if you read it.
Also, the thing about the haters/ trolls, is that yes, there thoughts do matter as they are part of the population who could potentially pay money to see this. However, I guarantee that at least 80% or more of these people will be there opening day. The EXACT same thing happened with Titanic, and we all know how that turned out.
Personally though I don't care if this movies a hit or not. Part of me actually hopes it's not a big Titanic like movie, so it doesn't become cliche, and over-popular, ala Titanic. That's why I love The Abyss so much, it's a movie that the mass audiences don't really know about, yet its fucking phenomenal. However, after seeing footage, I do suspect Avatar will be colossal. -
and you cannot downplay the impact of radio. In fact, movies had to compete with free, live renditions of many of the same stories on radio (there are 3 different radio versions of the Maltese Falcon on the DVD I have, one with Bogart). I don't even like GWTW, but the fact is more people saw it than any other movie.
-
lockesbrokenleg, you might consider yourself lucky.But, I love both versions for different reasons.I still think that 2.5 hours for a Bay movie is boring and shitty.
-
It looked great, the plot and dialogue were crap. I went "First day" because my friends wanted to go. But spare me this "you'll be there on opening day" nonsense. I might have laundry to do.
-
SOmebody should film *that*.
-
To be fair, though, it doesn’t matter what other people are saying it will be, only what Cameron is saying it will be, and Cameron is saying it will be a throwback to the classic sci-fi adventures told by pulp masters like Edgar Rice Burroughs. And the stuff Burroughs wrote was most definitely “real” sci-fi; early sci-fi, yes, and sci-fi that lifted a lot of themes and clichés from other genres, most notably the “lost world” type of adventure story, but certainly, in its day, “real” sci-fi. Cameron has said in numerous interviews that he intends this film’s story to be a throwback to that particular kind of sci-fi adventure.
Here is a link to one of them:
http://tinyurl.com/m6ghpt
-
Do you shitheads think Jackass is the best movie ever?
-
but the people who have been saying this have been saying essentially hard SF, as opposed to science fantasy like Star Wars (and, arguably, John Carter of Mars). ESB's stuff was fun, and definitely a precursor to sci-fi, but it was really bad as science.
-
I am not sure if radio had the same appeal as a movie. After all, Mitchell's book was incredibly popular and many American's had already read it. They still had to see the cinematic version and multiple times.
While it is a fact that attendance figures for GWTW are higher than Titanic's in North America, is that the case worldwide? More people are capable of seeing films around the world today than in the 30's. -
THink about it: radio was free, and as ubiquitous as TV (or even the net) is now. My point is that GWTW was a once-in-a-lifetime phenomenon. Not to mention was that there was a lot of competition from *other movies*. 1939 is still considered the greatest year for movies ever.
-
This film will appeal to the whole world. Set your watch and warrant on it. Now if they will make The Dark Tower series in a similar fashion...
-
"ESB's stuff was fun, and definitely a precursor to sci-fi, but it was really bad as science."
…lol…No doubt. But that’s by today’s standards. Keep in mind that much of Burroughs’ Mars stuff (the first book was written in 1912, btw) was based on popular notions of the time. Of course as we learned more about the other planets in our solar system, it became somewhat necessary to classify a lot of his stuff as “space fantasy” or what have you. “Sword & planet” I have heard it called, in addition, of course, to “planetary romance”.
That said, I haven’t seen anyone “in the know” referring to this as hard sf. Not saying no one has, just saying I haven’t seen it. It was pretty obvious to me right from the start that this was going to be an adventure film dressed in the trappings of sf, as opposed to a “serious” sf film. And I am totally cool with that. I like all kinds of sci-fi, from early “proto” sf up through cyberpunk, et al.
-
and unforgivingly fucked! Can't wait to see this movie!!!
-
Star Wars is fantasy, shit head. Not sci fi.
-
no problem. WHo knows, I might even like this movie, in spite of my general animosity towards Cameron. The guy's ego just gets to me.
-
Wow. First of all, douche bag, show me where I mention “Star Wars”.
Second, fuck off.
-
No, the funny part about these "haters" is, no matter horseshit they type on here, they'll still, for the most part, be handing their money over to Cameron on December the 18th. ESPECIALLY the ones proclaiming "I won't be going to see this!" Hell, those guys are probably already checking to make sure they get off work the next day so they can catch the first screening Thursday at midnight. Then, they'll be the first ones on the AVATAR opening day talkback writing page-long manifestos about how bad it was. Nothing is sadder than some dude on here gushing "I've seen the teaser 67 times now, and at the 1:30 mark, you can clearly see the robot's arm clipping! FAIL!!!"
-
Aug 23, 2009 5:34:15 PM CDT
GeneralJackCosmo you agreed that ESB failed as science
by lockesbrokenleg
I am pointing out that ESB is a fantasy movie. Not sci fi. You are a douche.
-
That was a typo on Wookie's part, dumbass. He was trying to say ERB, as in Edgar Rice Burroughs you stupid fuck, which is what I was talking about.
-
1939 was a very competitive year. That is why The Wizard of Oz was considered a box office disappointment.
My overall point is that it is very hard to compare the popularity of a film outside of the era it came from . If released today, GWTW would not have done nearly as well. For that matter, Titanic probably wouldn't have either. However, for all intensive purposes, Titanic IS the box office champ. I am sure some film in the next ten years will knock it off. -
And what is with this tendency to resort to name-calling after one or two posts? Everybody's ready to whip their dick out and measure themselves. It's fricking boring.
-
You guys really fucking DO hate everything.
-
the whole if released today idea is fun to speculate, but eventually meaningless. WHat's ironic is that when Dark Knight came close to Titanic, people were grumbling "oh, but you have to adjust for inflation," not realizing that if you did, TItanic would come in 6th (behind Star Wars, SOund of Music, ET and 10 Commandments)
-
...lol...See what you made me do?
-
as penance I might just go see the damn movie. (Unfortunately, I wasn't able to see the Imax thing, because it wasn't shown where I live).
-
Did you see that I answered your question in full? Scroll up... that was way too long of an answer for you to miss. lol. Torgo
-
I did! Good points all...and nice to get another opinion on the footage that is 100% hyperbole free. I am jealous that you saw the footage more than once, you son of a bitch!
-
Also, some of those additional forest scenes sound amazing.
-
They were, and I could go into depth, but at that point it would actually be spoilers... so. If you can't see it yourself, may as well wait til December.
-
People love to hate Fox and Fox News. I think a lot of people are trashing Avatar only to punish Fox. That's certainly what Devin at Chud is doing. That fat fuck.
-
Meh. The King is just using FOX so he can further his own agenda... make no mistake who the "patsy" is here! LOL
-
I couldn't care less about Fox. I don't know if I really "hate" Avatar, I'm just kind of skeptical, and I'm dreading December because I'm afraid it will be all anyone will be talking about.
-
It must REALLY piss off those FOX suits that JC is so closely "in touch" w/ the AICN guys (their sworn enemy)... Granting interviews, etc. It must really burn their beans... so I ask again. Who is in control? FOX or Light Storm? I think we all know the answer. Whatever, JC does what he wants."
-
WHAAAAAAAAAAT? I must now divert hate toward that film whose 16 minute preview I enjoyed immensely! But really, CHUD and Devin suck.
-
The amount of money FOX is putting into this thing.
-
it's safe to say that at least 90% of the posters in this talkback, despite their reaction to either the trailer or preview, will shell over $$$ to see Avatar come December. Trannyformers_Apologist and COCKNASTY_BUTTSTANK will be first in line at the midnight showing.
-
Aug 23, 2009 6:24:48 PM CDT
A Response RE: James Cameron's GAYLIENS to MandrakeRoot
by thusspakespymunk
So it was said unto me by MandrakeRoot: "Spymunk - It's painfully obvious your just hating for no reason other than to hate. You think FOX is gonna have trouble selling this?"Oh, my, yes, I really do think they're going to have ONE HELL of a time selling this. What you seem to forget is that the internet is not a viable marketplace. It's just not. Nobody can make money "on the internet." People sell tangible products "on the internet" (and yes, I'm including songs, though that's a TINY market despite what you'll hear from porponents of online downloading relative to real purchases) at all. The internet couldn't sell SNAKES ON A PLANE and it couldn't sell WATCHMEN and it won't be able to sell this. ZOMFG, a MILLION HITS ON THE WEBSITE APPLE.COM FOR THE TRAILER? That's what I refer to as "The Geek Dollar." And you know what? DISTRICT 9 proved to us how badly THE GEEK DOLLAR really does in comparison with other dollar types. I've estimated before that the Geek Dollar amounts to roughly $30-40m worth of box-office. It's the people who, you know, actually paid to go see HELLBOY and HELLBOY 2 and DISTRICT 9, sometimes more than once. THAT is who is interested in AVATAR and THAT is who is hitting the website over and over. I'd like to see that number of hits on the Apple.com trailer adjusted for STAR TREK fans. You'd hear crickets if it were. There's been no major talk of this movie. There's no stars in it. There's no anticipation for it. Nobody outside of the geek crowd even knows what it is, and those who know the name AVATAR are commonly heard saying "Oh, I thought that was the movie about the little boy who does martial arts with air!" (FUCK this movie, by the way, for stealing the title AVATAR from the Nickelodeon project). There is almost no interest outside the geek crowd in the film. Tell you what, Mandrake - go to a mall right now, and walk around with a picture of the Na'vi looking through the glass, smiling as it says "GREAT!" and ask "Would you pay $15 to see a movie about this character?" No, people over the age of five wouldn't. It looks like a cartoon, sounds like a cartoon, acts like a cartoon - and as the box-office for PONYO showed this week, people in the US hate cartoons that aren't named Disney's 'NAME HERE,' and even then there's a love/hate admission of nostalgia that drives adults to go. Nobody's going to see a movie that looks like Thundercats making out with other Thundercats as far as the general population is at all concerned. You couldn't be more wrong if you tried."Do you see all the other shit thats put out that cleans up?"Thank you for helping my argument. Yes, ABSOLUTE SHIT CLEANS UP. Cameron's mistake here is in making this high-concept ECO lecturing, in the same way Al Gore lost to George W. Bush. While Al Gore was sitting there saying "The Na'Vi are an extraterrestrial race on a planet named Pandora which are the result of cloned bodies of deceased aliens being manipulated through psychic puppetry, all rendered in 3-D with complex-phased inverted bump-bit-mapping cross-fade formulated with ..." there's other movies going to come out around the same time with the mindset of George W. Bush: "Well, heh, I dunno what my friend over here is thinkin', but I call this America, and out here we love us some good old-fashioned TITS'N'ZSPLOJINZ!" The crowd will go "YAY!" and go see the tits movie and ignore AVATAR. Yes, people gravitate toward shit. The trouble is, Cameron's AVATAR is high concept shit, meaning that he took a crap on the shelf above where the sugar cereals are and therefore is making it less likely that the crowd who needs to see this to make it profitable will go."This is gonna absolutely blow peoples minds, especially kids who live for this sort of the thing."You idiot. Kids don't EVEN GO TO THE MOVIES ANY MORE. Increasingly, it is adults over 30 who are attending films - hence the dramatic drop in attendance of the types of films teens enjoy, and the reason studios are making fewer and fewer of them right now and focusing on appealing to older viewers. The big success story of this season isn't some big-budget kid movie. It's JULIE AND JULIA, about a lonely woman and a master chef. THAT movie is making big bucks and drawing massive repeat business and is staying strong in the Top 10. Movies with big concepts are dropping like flies. Big-budget extravaganzas are fading out every single time after less-than-robust #1 opening weekends. Kids are too busy stealing music off the 'net, texting eachother brilliant messages like TEE HEE IM UR BOO and sitting around on the couch going "Uh, whajiwandoo?" and getting the response "Uhdunno." Kids in the US can barely speak their own native language or carry on a conversation featuring more than three one-syllable words at a time - and I'm not speaking hyperbole there. I really honestly believe that the modern kid is dumber than Homer Simpson and has less of a capacity for rational thought and critical reason than a Mr. Man. I really do shudder to think of where the future is headed with these children at the head of major companies in the future. IDIOCRACY is HERE, good sir, and those kids are the future. And they will NOT want to see JAMES CAMERON'S GAYLIENS because - well - it looks as effeminate and "ghey" as a three-dollar bill."The romance will attract many females, and we already know everyone who goes to these shits is gonna watch it."While I approve of you referring to aicn.com as a "shit," and I may steal this term and change it to "a movie shite," for the future, plural as "shites," I can guarantee you I am not going to see AVATAR. I am positively guaranteeing it. I don't want to hear its eco message which I don't believe in. I - and as a gay man I strongly suspect female straight women will share my opinion on some level - don't want to watch skinny, ugly, weird-proportioned aliens make out. No, no, no. Women like ATTRACTIVE PEOPLE MAKING OUT, a la TWILIGHT, which - heedless of quality - cleaned up because it featured very pretty people NOT kissing but smouldering for two hours. THAT is what young teen girls and adult women want to see in the movies: pretty people NOT kissing out of fear the man might kill the women in his rageful aggressiveness and lack fo control. That's the modern idea of romance. The idea of two eco aliens with funny-looking faces kissing is, by way of teenage girl analogies, closer to wondering if that giant fatass slut whore you hate from 5th period, the ugly cow bitch who thinks she's got a chance with that one guy who's so fucking ugly who would want him anyway?, are going to kiss. You won't WATCH them kiss, but it's the idle curiosity of a train wreck. "Ooooooh, imagine if they DID kiss." "EWWWW! STOP, ASHLEY!" How you can so desperately overestimate the moronity of the average moviegoing public in the US is beyond me. "The reason theaters were so empty was because FOX only sold a certain amount of tickets. Also, as the trailer was released to the public one day before, what the fuck did you expect?"I expected news reports about floods of people being left out and wanting to get in (none). I expected some coverage in the major news as if someone gave a cae (none). I expected a story in the newspaper (none). I expected, most of all, that James Cameron would give us all who pine for it a reason to look forward to a hard 'R' sci-fi movie where people shove sawd-off future-shotguns into the mouths of acid-drooling aliens and scream "EAT THIS!" (none).
-
they could be lacing children's school milk with 100% rat ass (and for i know, they probably are), and i'd still be sitting in an IMAX 3D theater in 4 months.
-
Aug 23, 2009 6:32:27 PM CDT
Geeks did not make The Dark Knight or any Star Wars movie
by lockesbrokenleg
successful. They didn't even make District 9 successful. It's the general public. The internet couldn't keep Snakes on a Plane successful for one week.
-
Aug 23, 2009 6:34:14 PM CDT
I expected news reports about floods of people being left out an
by lockesbrokenleg
Most people weren't even aware it was happening. Continue living on in your dream world.
-
You're right. The difference was that DARK KNIGHT and STAR WARS buried the sci-fi/fantasy elements beneath a veneer of reality and/or characters. There's no one to ID with in AVATAR - a fairy queen Pochontas princess from another world who cries a lot and kisses a Thundercat? A crippled soldier who uses a magic Thundercat puppet? What? No, STAR WARS was about farm boys with big dreams and roguish dudes every guy wanted to be and exotic HUMAN princesses in trouble being rescued by handsome rogues and farm boys. That was simple - it was direct - and it made logical sense in the narrative cortex of a person's mind. Not so with AVATAR's overcomplicated Colors of the Wind.
-
Exactly! NOBODY IS AWARE OF THE MOVIE'S AD CAMPAIGN - BECAUSE NOBODY OUTSIDE GEEK CIRCLES -CARES-! THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS WAS TO GENERATE INTEREST AND AVOID THE BAD WORD OF MOUTH AT COMICON! FAIL!
-
... JURASSIC PARK is to CONGO. Remember how the ape effects in CONGO were going to change animal special effects? Remember? #AMY ... GOOD ... GORILLA!#
-
If you despise this movie so much, stop talking about it. You're just sounding like an ass. You don't make or break a movie, shit head.
-
Brilliant observations by Roger Ebert on the many failures of the footage. "IT'S THE MOST REALISTIC IMAGERY EVER! YOU'LL FEEL LIKE YOU'RE THERE!" Except the human eye notices when perspectives are off, when physics of the natural world fall apart, when animals beat their wings way too slow to keep aloft. Pfft.
-
So that means I win, does it? You gonna go cry, emo kid?
-
Remember when Cameron's friends were saying "This footage is so amazing; it looks real!" And now that we've all seen it, the reply is "Well, it's not meant to be real. It's meant to be another world." Just beause it's another world doesn't mean it doesn't revolve around physics and the human eye will be able to tell EVERY time a scene or shot fails to be "special." And that's going to be a LOT. This movie looks positively HORRIBLE from the trailer, filled with physics gaffes and incorrect perspective and size issues that are all out of place (like Worthington's face being the size of his entire chest in the suit when he wheels off the ship).
-
Prattle on with your huge paragraph posts. Go write a fucking "I hate Cameron" manifesto.
-
Avatar is what really derailed Spymunk's mental train.
-
Except that I don't hate Cameron, you nit. I even used ALIENS as an example of the good kinds of movies he used to make before TITANIC "derailed his mental train" as Vader says above. Movies with balls. Now, he's tryin to cater to girls and missing the boat 100 percent, and trying foolishly to cater to an audience thinking they care about CGI or effects. No - people care about characters and storyline, not preachy eco-manifestos. No, I'm a full-on Cameron fan of his past work. Not his current, though. Not at all. Nothing I've said has been Anti-Cameron, at all.
-
it's so entertaining.
-
That shit made ME cry—because I see what your getting at ThusSpake, I see it clearly.I generally don't agree with you, but you've made some interesting points that should be studied IF the movie fails to find an audience. The verdict is still in the air.Also, you kinda betray your biases when you write "…all who pine for it a reason to look forward to a hard 'R' sci-fi movie …"—that statement is irrelevant because 1)That's not the film Cameron wanted to make and 2)Those tweens/teens, what have you, aren't necessarily looking for that same type of film. They weren't alive when Cameron was making more violent action fare. The closest (and unfortunate) analogy for this movie seems to be the 'Furry Fandom' community, but, it has more than enough elements to support a mainstream audience, just not in the same numbers as 'Titanic'. Think about it for a second, this film could have the appeal of a major adventure film like say, "Chronicles of Narnia," a film which made a lot of money in 2005. Also, 'Avatar' IS a SF adventure movie. That attracts male teens in the 8-18 demographic, the same teens who may watch anime and play videogames. The most desirable demographic is, of course the 16-34 year olds, but I'm not completely sold on this films appeal yet. So, on the surface 'Avatar' seems to play to two different audiences with the potential to reach a lot more.
-
That's just…wow…So many suppositions in that statement alone.
-
... before attending the Friday preview screening so that I could go in fresh. Having now watched the online trailer many times I can safely say that I am psyched to see the movie, just maybe not in 3D. I think the Navi designs, and the setting in general, is a return to some real hard Sci-Fi in cinema. "Aliens" is only one facet of Sci-Fi, and is not the 'end all, be all' of the genre. As similarly expressed above, I too think everyone who is lambasting the designs has not read enough by the likes of Welles, Verne and Burroughs, not to mention more recent authors like David Brin. Get to readin' boys!
-
So ThusSpakeSpymunk thinks all US teens and preteens are 10 point IQ idiots and that because he's gay (he actually is, I'm not just calling him that), that he understands the perspective and wants of a woman? Well alright!
According to him, our youth are doomed, No one brings their kids to see movies (despite the massive success of Pixar and Dreamworks' animated KIDS movies) and because he can bitch like a woman, he understands them.
Sigh. The squaling of a gay man is the most horrible sound of all.
He sure sounds smart though with all his "facts"! He's definitely smarter than your average teen - except most of them know what to do with a cock and a pussy. Oh snap! -
The people saying it doesn't look real are just ignorant. We have absolutely no idea whatsoever of the biology of alien creatures and how the natural forces of their world might work. In Pandora's particular atmosphere and gravity those flying creatures might not need to beat their wings as often to maintain flight. The motion of the Na'vi running through the jungle will of course look different and not natural. Is it too much for your feeble minds to handle that things on other worlds might behave in ways unimaginable to us here?
-
I think the hard R crap is just bullshit. the whole idea that a movie has to have sex and violence to be good is idiotic. Scorsese and Lynch - neither of whom shy away from violence - made two of their most interesting movies with G ratings. I doubt Tarantino could do the same.
-
Worthington's face being the size of his chest? You need to have a physical and make sure your eyes and brain are working properly, because if that's truly what you are seeing...you are wrong. You are seeing exactly what Sam Worthington looks like only he's wearing a facemask and sitting in a wheelchair.
-
The part that looked the fakest to me was the Navi in the lab, and the Navi's eyes in general. Neither of those things should have been affected by the environment.
-
I even agree with some of lockes comments here.
-
It bugs me that there are so many people going around and saying shit like, "The CGI avatars take me out of the movie." This is not supposed to be totally realistic like the CGI vampires in "I AM LEGEND." Sure, those looked 100x more realistic than the Avatars, but then AVATAR was never meant to be some 100% realistic Sci Fi event movie. It is JC's attempt to reach the demographic that runs out to buy movie tie in toys at Wal-Mart. You know, like the geeks on this site.
-
What a great bit of humor! The Na'vi don't look as good as the vampires in I Am Legend! Oho, hahahaha! Whewwww! Thanks for that.
-
I AM LEGEND vampires?!!
-
I really would like to read his thoughts.
-
When he wheels off the ship? I mean... really?
-
I see it as his concession. They spent a lot of money on it and they intend to make it widely appealing and make that money and more back. And that's okay, they can do whatever they want with it, and I hope it makes a ton of money. Why? Because all that will go into funding Battle Angel, the hard sci-fi R rated Cameron movie we're waiting for! Who'll give a damn about Avatar once Alita is fucking your eyeballs out with her panzer kunst? Damn near fucking no-one!
-
I've poured through stills of every movie people are using as examples of better CG than what they've seen of Avatar. LotR, PotC, Minority Report, Iron Man, The Dark Knight, Jurassic Park you name it. Avatar isn't a great big quantum leap ahead of some of those later examples but it is noticeably better. Your eyes are not working if you can't see the detail and quality of WETA's work on this film. I'm willing to concede that from a design standpoint obviously people won't like the look of it. However, to say that the work itself is sub par or bad...you're betraying yourself as someone who has no eye for quality.
-
I wasn't comparing grainy stills I was comparing crystal clear images that I myself captured off my dvds/blu-rays.
-
I don't think its the CGI really, its the design, and their dislike of the design bleeds over into other areas, so they say its bad CGI and that they have bad animation and yadda yadda. But really, it comes down to the blue skin and Disney eyes I bet.
-
DAMN! GOOD JOB! FANTASTIC!!! LET'S COMPARE A BLUE RAY MOVIE TO A 3D DIGITAL PRESENTATION!!
-
When was the last time you saw a digital 3D presentation of any of the movies I listed above? There no 3D digital presentation versions of any of the movies I listed above. What I compared were 1080p stills to OTHER 1080p STILLS! See, I can type in all caps too.
-
You are so good at taking things out of context! HOORAY!!
-
You are the classic idiot that writes on this website......you argue your point of view with having just the littlest amount of knowledge on this subject which makes you dangerous. And you do it to defend your sad position on a movie that looks okay....before you get into talkback with someone PLEASE AT LEAST FOR YOUR SAKE SO YOU DONT COME OFF SOUNDING LIKE A TOTAL ASS KNOW WHAT YOUR TALKING ABOUT AND NOT WHAT YOU READ FROM CINEFX IF YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT THAT IS.....people like you make this website what it is....and not what it should be....
-
Now you fail to understand that you are the one taking my statements out of context. Nice, everything you accuse me of you are guilty of yourself. Keep it up.
-
Aug 23, 2009 8:15:22 PM CDT
D.Vader...design is certainly a part of my disappointment.
by hint_of_smegma
Just doesn't appeal. No matter how good the CGI turns out to be on 3D Imax,the Na'vi look a bit...daft. Guess we'll see how it turns out in a few months.
-
Aug 23, 2009 8:15:29 PM CDT
D.Vader...design is certainly a part of my disappointment.
by hint_of_smegma
Just doesn't appeal. No matter how good the CGI turns out to be on 3D Imax,the Na'vi look a bit...daft. Guess we'll see how it turns out in a few months.
-
that when I post I get stuck with the morons when it's clear from reading earlier on in the thread there was an actual discussion going on? :(
-
The presentation in 3D is mighty impressive and the movements are all pretty realistic. Its just those large eyes that take some getting used to. And the more I watch the teaser, the more comfortable I get with them.
-
Aug 23, 2009 8:22:18 PM CDT
Its hard to do high fantasy without it just lloking a bit silly
by snallyg
And ultimately, this thing looks a bit too silly for my taste. No amount of pixels is going to change the fact that two 10 foot tall blue cat people are making out. I mean, I'm a geek, but this might be too geeky for me. Hope the uber-geeks enjoy it. But from the sound of it, you all are a tough audience!
-
I concur the 3D presentation was one of the most impressive things I've seen on a movie screen. And it wasn't even a whole movie. I'll still reserve judgement 'til I see the thing, though.
-
At least you get people who think the CG zombies in 'I AM LEGEND' looked photo-real. Bwahahahaha!!!!
-
I was very impressed with the depth of the footage. It looks entertaining and imaginative, so I hope it holds my attention. One thing's for sure, though. Based on the screening, I'll definitely be seeing this in 3D come December.
-
One can only wonder what is going through the minds of any of the worlds top 500 directors who happened to see this 15 minutes of footage as well. You can just imagine them stroking their chins, thinking about the possibilities that this improved technology will open up for there respective future projects.
The potential for further truly dazzling movies from Cameron's new 3D camera systems are indeed, a very tantalizing prospect...
Irrespective of the final word on the finished movie, after Avatar hits the world in December, there will only be a "before Avatar" and a "Post Avatar" in the movie lexicon. Like Star wars ushered in the era of the blockbuster, Avatar will usher in a new era as well.
Even you doubters will be going to see it because you'll need to vindicate to yourselves as to just why you hate this movie so much. The rest of us will be taken on one hell of a ride. I for one, am eagerly counting down those days till December 18th eagerly... -
What they COULD be doing in a proper James Cameron movie:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeHrq_Fs1vk&feature=relatedWhat they ARE actually doing:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMtLDg4rlNQ
-
That's the paradox of the situation. The I Am Legend comment is so disturbing that you want to immediately forget it but it's so funny at the same time.
-
I've come to see that there are actually people out there cough*ThusSpakeSpymunk*cough who after seeing the trailer, thought Sam Worthington was CG. And bad misproportioned CG at that! ROFL!!!!!
Live footage = Bad CG! So the CG must be pretty decent if footage of actual humans is being lumped together with all the Pandora stuff and being called 'Bad CG'.
Sigh. -
A N.A.S.A. telescope just picked up an image of Slim Pickens riding the film 'Avatar' to Earth towards Moscow!
-
That first video has Bale and is thus vastly superior to every other thing on the planet.
-
WTF are you TALKING about? The CGI looks just as weak as all CGI, ever. Bad physics, planar movement in all kinds of weird physical directions, bad perspective, etc. It's the same-old-same-old. AvATAR is a footnote, not a lifehanger.
-
Just proves that those hyperbolic critics have no clue what CGI is, and thus all their cries of "terrible CGI!" can not be taken seriously.
-
True, but my point remains - the first video shows the movie we SHOULD be getting from Cameron - blazing gunfire, gutshots and tough men doing tough jobs. Instead, we are getting the second video, namby living-nature beings who dance with flowers. Yeah. Aw'right!
-
... then it's been put through the BEOWULF filter. I'm gonna go with CGI'ing a face onto a CGI body.
-
I think you hit the nail on the head when you said "The more I watch the teaser, the more comfortable I get with them." Previous audiences went through the same thing with E.T., but were willing to accept it once the movie got rolling. Cameron already pointed out the Na'vi's eyes are farther apart than humans. I'm guessing they were willing to sacrifice being too pretty in exchange for something more practical in that kind of environment. And unlike E.T, the Avatar trailer makes a point of stressing various strong states of emotion like joy, sadness and rage among others. Rarely are they blank faced if at all.
-
Cameron so far has only given us 2 minutes of footage. And a small portion of that DOES show blazing gunfire and tough men doing tough jobs. Other portions show the nature and the danger inherent within. Let's not jump to a conclusion that's too far away just yet.
-
So by your standards the only good movies are ones featuring "tough men doing tough jobs"? I for one don't mind all these comparisons to Dances with Wolves and other films of that ilk. Aside from being really incredibly slow I think the film's pretty good. You don't need explosions and carnage to make a good movie.
-
Also I'm pretty sure that 2 years ago Cameron himself used said Kevin Costner film as a comparison for one of the things he was going for.
-
The entire trailer for Avatar video game is a ripoff of the LAIR game for the PS3..
-
... knowing as I do that the Earth people soldiers are "the villains" of the piece for - you know - the crime of wanting to survive in a hostile world (How DARE they?), it's hard to build up support for Turqoihontas there.
-
... I will confess I'd love to see two Na'Vi bone. Just hotter Na'Vi than the two we get.
-
That's the real Worthington, not a stiff, wooden creation- though I haven't seen Terminator Salvation yet, so I dunno if that's just how Sam acts! Wokka wokka wokka! No really, that's obviously a very real Worthington. I think the problem some pple are having is the look of his face beneath the mask- its similar to the "real face plastered on a CGI body" that we saw in the Tron 2 teaser. But yeah, that's just a weird effect from the particular mask, and perhaps some CGI cleanup to make his face more visible underneath light flares- who knows? But its real. Nothing about that body looks CGI. And there's absolutely NO reason to even do that with a CGI body. What a terrible waste of time and money. Its nonsensical.
-
Because humans never did anything wrong when trying to survive in the hostile frontier of the early days of the United States. Really, your problem is that this just MIGHT shed light on the atrocities humans commit in the name of progress?
-
First, and again, you all need to stop using "haters" - it really sounds moronic; I'm guessing none of you are none of you are rappers...from 10 years ago.
Second, for those who haven't taken in the 16 minutes, don't get your hopes up, regardless of what you read here. The imax 3d really doesn't improve the realism of the creatures or the environment that much from the trailer. The fx very much resemble a video game cut screen. To me, he creatures look about as lifelike as balloon animals. After seeing the preview, I won't be seeing the movie in December. -
He doesn't look CGI, but the backgrounds are bad CGI...which makes him look somewhat CGI to some. The whole scene reads phony to the eye, and the brain.
-
Btw, I think Worthington was one of the best things about Salvation and it is a shame he got stuck in that and this; neither are going to help his career much, I suspect. I can't imagine Clash is going to be any good either, but we'll see.
-
Aug 23, 2009 9:00:28 PM CDT
Uberman: James Cameron Promised Us Realistic Looking...
by media messiah
...creatures, and he didn't deliver??? These images are no more impressive than "The Clone Wars" cartoon show!!!
-
The hair on the Clone Wars series, DOESN'T EVEN FUCKING MOVE!!
-
Stop this outrageous hyperbole! Oh wait, I forgot you are nuts. No! We need MORE OUTRAGEOUS HYPERBOLE! Compare it to the FX from An American Werewolf in Paris you crazy bastard!
-
Because they slapped a fake slow-motion effect onto it!
-
If anyone got that, let me know.
-
Stay with me folks. The Worthington wheelchair scene did not look too bad to me at first glance. The backgrounds looked obviously fake, but so what? I went back and watched it again and was drawn to the whole head in the mask thing, I honestly can not tell if it is live or memorex, but I can see if they decided to do a cgi. It could make since if things happened on the tarmac that did not make it into the final cut that might need to have a cgi instead of live action. That would explain if it is cgi - but then again, I can not be sure - and isn't that the point of having really good cgi? As for Ang Lee Hulk. When the first trailers hit, the cgi looked ass. 6 mos later, the cgi had been tightened up and while not flawless, it was damned good. Cameron has 4 mos and millions of bucks to clean this is up. Right now it looks like an animated movie with a live action component, and so what if it is? From what I saw it looks like it will be a great adventure flick. I will be there.
-
YODA DID!!! WHAT THE FUCK!!!
-
Who the fuck is Sam Worthington?
-
My thinking was that it was like the TRN2 things, with his face plastered on an artificial body to make everything look correct, and the fact that his face looks super-long, the entire length of his chest if you measure against the angle. It did totally remind me of the awful AWFUL TRON faces on robot bodies. Ewwwwwww. Just LET PEOPLE LOOK LIKE PEOPLE FOR ONCE!
-
I still think that old films like SUPERMAN, BLADE RUNNER, ALIEN, THE TERMINATOR, JAWS and even the original KING KONG (1933) were incredible films -- and their "special effects" and imagery were faarrrrrrrr from "life like" or the pleasure of "eye fucking." This film is using advanced technology. Regardless of whether people will consider it "revolutionary" ten years from now, it is still much more advanced than the effects used to make STAR WARS in 1977. As far as I am concerned, that film was pretty well received. You know, some TBers act like they have a DISEASE that causes them to be chronic NAGS. I wonder: Is this an anti-venereal disease? Is it the lack of relationships that cause geeks to complain about EVERYTHING?!? Get a life, little geeks!
-
This is just a guess, but maybe because it is a military provided chair, Cameron was trying to portray it as been more utilitarian, than flashy.
-
With this talkback. Not that there weren't good points made. But at this point we just haven't seen enough of the film to have a real discussion and I'm getting tired of "The CG looks great!...No it doesn't...Yes it does!...You suck!...No you suck!...Well it still looks bad!..." I personally think it looks great and more photoreal than anything else we've seen from a movie (though still not 100%). The real debate is all about taste. I agree with you D.Vader. I'm absolutely certain that people aren't really disappointed with the CG (no matter they want to tell themselves) but are using that as a scapegoat because they can't pinpoint what exactly it is that puts them off a bit. The quality of the CG work itself just isn't debatable. The design is.
-
Play alot of video games? Funny youn should mention that because video game cut scenes are actually looking better than CGI movies these days. I often find myself asking whiel seeing these cut scenes why they haven't made an entire movie that looks like that. The 16 minutes I saw looked like the best CGI movie AND the best video game cutscene I have ever seen.
-
It will drive you nuts how "fake" the special fx of those films look. But what an experience!!! I go at least once a month to visit and watch those amazing old films! They are certainly worth the $5 cost of admission! On Tuesday, I am going to watch THE BLACK SWAN. It is a great pirate film with special effects that are "cheesy" to say the least. But I would rather watch this than yet another POTC film with Johnny Depp.
-
and you think the cg look fake. but this is cameron here. the very best at his game. better directors are plenty sure, but no one can deliver big budget action like he does. he has no equal.
if this trailer comes from michael bay, or ratner, or sommers, or the rest of the hack pack... yes, i would be wary, and will tear down this movie right alongside you. but this cameron dude, everyone thought he's nuts making huge budget period romance that everyone the world over has known the story of. over 10 movies has been made of the titanic. but this guy made another version nonetheless, against all sane rationale, cast no big stars(at the time), shot overbudget and over schedule(good sign of a doomed project), and amidst the insider experts predicting the demise of cameron's career and studio's bankruptcy, his version of titanic turned out to be the biggest moneymaker ever. so please... before it gets embarrassing for you, give cameron the benefit of the doubt. he's earned it. -
Gotta disagree with some of what you say hoss. The CGI while quite good, and on a scale larger than most, is not the best I have seen. And the very fact that you or anyone else can identify it as cgi - means that it is not 'photoreal', but looks like cgi. Now, do not get me wrong, I do not care that it looks like an animated movie at times - if it is good, is all I care about. But you can not dismiss people who say it looks fake because they can spot it, when they were promised it would look real and thus not be able to spot it.
-
Was made specifically as a teaser and is not a part of the film. So I can see why they went all CGI with faces glued on. Just might have been easier for them that way.
-
I for one am happy these beings look like they do. If they were hidious like the prawns from D9 it would be a long 3 hours. If they were dull in color ... well ... they would look like everything else. I spose they could look like the little guys at the end of Close Encounters (which is what the real aliens look like by the way) ... but I think the fantasy element is what is going to make this movie unique. You "sci-fi" fans are just upset that Cameron has got soemthing here that resembles Narnia and The Dark Crystal rather than Blade Runner and Terminator. Too bad.
-
on the ass of a movie that isnt coming out until Dec. "In that one shot, jis eyelid looked fake" Get a life.
-
But by the end of the movie, he was a s cute a s reeses pieces! Ora a reuses monkey.
-
toadkillerdog, there is more detail in every frame of the trailer than most frames from other CG heavy movies combined. That is what's not debatable. And how can you say that this http://tinyurl.com/lxgnpu doesn't look photoreal? You can see the skin pores, and her musculature. There's texture painting, color, translucence, subsurface scattering. That looks like a real alien to me. I think the only thing that comes close is Davey Jones from the PotC movies. What would set as example of something better?
-
The trailer was awesome.
-
You're not kidding. How does it look in motion?
-
From the trailer you can't get any kind of real for the motion. The Avatar Day footage though....Wow
-
meant to type snallyg
-
Knows what he/she is talking about. And in my optinion once you see the motion you will realize thatthere is no debate here. Thats for sure. I would say about 95% real. Lets put it this way. I would put Beowulf at like %40.
-
...that is all I have to say on the subject. Though the script sounded as clunky as most of Cameron's previous efforts I was completel distracted by the beauty and sheer imagination of what my eyes were trying to take in. This film will, I predict, be bigger than Titanic. It really is that revolutionary in terms of 'experience' alone. There really hasn't been ANYTHING like it before in the history of cinema. Quite simply put, Christmas cannot come some enough.
-
The still photos look very good. And if that is the measuring benchmark, then I would say they come damn close to 'real'. But we are watching a motion picture, not still photos. The great effect you can produce from the stills, is lost when it expands to the big screen. I have zero problem with that. I like animated movies. I was pointing out that you can not dismiss others who can easily distinguish between the real and the cgi. And face it, even you can make that distinction which means you can tell it is cgi - regardless the quality. I am not debating that it is beautiful. It is. Or ambitious. It is. But so far - and I stress so far, it is not the best cgi I have seen. There could be many reasons, perhaps because the scale does not include real backdrops there is nothing to fool the eye. But the CGI in D9 - yes i know it was limited, but it was better. Iron Man - outside of that hideous scene with the tank, was better. I have said it before, will say it again, I d not care if I can tell that it is animated or not, as long as the story is good. The live action/animation is not jarring so it will not take me out of the movie, but I can only speak for myself, and I am very much looking forward to seeing the flick.
-
In terms of the CG characters in motion. They were all performance-captured. So except for some of the crazier shit that people obviously can't do the movements of all the Na'vi were performed by real people. That's the advantage of the process as opposed to regular key frame animation. And all the Na'vi actors went through a "dehumanization process" to learn how to walk and act differently than real humans do. It was all very impressive.
-
The effects in Iron Man are all environmental and not character based, you don't need to make an iron mask emote. And D9, as awesome and amazing as the Prawn effects were, aren't that much harder to pull off. Rendering things that reflect light, like metal or hard-shelled creatures, is much easier than things that absorb it, like mammalian skin. I guess what I'm saying is I prefer it when you shoot big and fail then when you shoot small and succeed. The best payoffs are always on the biggest risks.
-
trailer for the game (you should check it out as it seems to give a better idea of the kind of action Avatar will have) Im absolutely stunned at how damn childish so many so called genre fans are being. what the hell is all this "smurfs" shit? Are people just that childish? Well I guess if Cameron had made them green then they would be ninja turtles useing that inane logic. Whatever....Cameron only has to worry about the mainstream, Fandom is proving ,more and more how ridiculous its becoming. Fandom led to snakes on a plane, and could nt sustain that pos at the b.o. Fandom creamed in its pants over the Watchmen, and could nt sustain it at the b.o (and joe sixpack could nt care lees about that film for the most part). Im just really disgusted and dissapointed in fandom overall, all we do is is bitch and moan about how idea bankrupt Hollywood is and all the mindless remakes/reboots/adaptations/prequals/sequals etc..that gets churned out all the time, but the truth is Fandom does nt want anyone to actually take massive risks and try for anything original. Fandom really just wants Hollywood to continue to give them nostalgia blowjobs by making movies out og thier toys, or failed movies from the 80s (Tron). Fandom deserves exactlly what it gets from Hollywood....
-
Well put .... When I saw the extended scene where the female meets worthingtons charater for the first time. She come into the scene like Beuwulf.. flying through the air with arrows flying. But then she opened her mouth and started talking and gesturing and as the scene when on I was sold. It's the REALest looking and moving non-real characters you have ever scene. And i'm sorry ... even though the prawns in D9 looked good and looked like there were actualy there. They often moved like audio-animatronics when they walked or jumped.
-
mil, and had no CG in it, people on this site would be calling it the next fucking Sunshine, or whatever.
-
I've only read the treatment from back in the 90's and it read pretty much like how Cameron's been describing it. It's akin to Edgar Rice Burroughs as it's got the planetary romance angle that he used a lot. The culture clash is a big theme. It's got some truly amazing action set pieces, but the treatment was pretty light on dialogue. As for how the script is shaking up now I couldn't tell ya. The scenes from the IMAX footage didn't reveal anything special in terms of story and I think that's why they picked em.
-
Aug 23, 2009 10:04:19 PM CDT
I want Avatar to succeed in establishing a new benchmark
by toadkillerdog
I truly hope it does because it will be nothing but beneficial for all movie lovers. I hope the story is great - because effects alone never make a movie. I think the problem is in the scale. The na'vi in the hospital is a great scene, very believable. But as soon as they shift to the na'vi world, it becomes very obvious that it is all cgi. That is - I think what most people are reacting to. I do not care because I think it will be a stunning rendering of an alien world, animated or not. But so far, I do not see revolutionary cgi
-
like nothing I ve have exactly seen, it also looks quite weird, and thats a good thing as it means Cameron really has taken huge risks here. And I for one prefwer that he's shooting for the moon rather than playing it at all safe. I am actually very encouraged by how this is pissing so much of Fandom off, because that means it will most likely succeed on a huge scale as fandom comes across like a snake eating its own tail...
-
I have NO idea how cgi works. its all magic to me.
-
Just what we need....a movie about blue-colored, fish-faced aliens.
-
I would agree with you 100% in saying that it's not revolutionary but is rather evolutionary in that it's the closest we've gotten yet to this kind of thing looking real. I think that at this point we've already discovered most of the tools that we'll ever use as far as CG animation. Over the years the jumps in quality get less and less clear the closer we get to photoreality and what I like is that this seems to me to be a larger jump than what we've been seeing as of late. But like you said, definitely not revolutionary.
-
True ... the contrast is rather steep between the reality of the human facilities and the dark green, glow in the dark, blue dragons stuff. I guess some people are just going to like it and some are not. I think it looks like a fantasy painting that moves. Which more realism then seen in the next best thing, which is a cartoon. You can't compare this to anything else because anything else strives to look like our world. Did the plants in AVATAR look more real than say the plants in King Kong? What about the plants in Jurasic Park or Disny's Dinosaur. I mean ... how can you tell the difference?
-
turned out to be a real place. it's one of the moon of jupiter. watched 'alien world' on national geographic once where team of scientists imagine extraterrestrial life and alien environment(not about pandora though) based on climatology
and astrobiology. it speculated dense atmospheric condition would allow huge mass to 'float' in the sky and create huge forest canopy down below. i think someone did his research for avatar.
cameron's speculative science has that extra edge that always make it cool because you know he always try to give it some weight in real science. he's a futurist and an avid follower of astronomy. his power loader from aliens is already a reality today(google "real" iron man on youtube), ditto his liquid oxygen from abyss.
-
I'm not an animator but I'm not software illiterate and I have a friend who's worked at ILM for several years so I have a miniscule amount of knowledge I can share with the world.
-
I think we are all in agreement about the larger impact this will have. I am a fan of Camerons movies, if not the man himself. But I do applaud Cameron for pushing the envelope. I am looking forward to seeing this, and nothing that I have seen or read his diminished that in the least.
-
I'm just glad the guys out of the water and back in space where he belongs.
-
Yes ... I too remember the "king of the world" speach. But you alomst have to root for Cameron despite his ego in a year where the record for success could go to Transformers 2 or that Twilight sequel. And who wants either of THOSE at on the front page at Box Office Mojo.?
-
Probably will be largest opening ever for a December movie. Just consider what it has going for it: Cameron. The Director of highest grossing movie of all time. First feature in ten years. Nothing competing with it. Massive ad campaign. Massive geek interest - even those who 'swear' they will not see it. Massive mainstream interest. It will open huge. The quality of the flick will determine if it stays huge.
-
I actually think the film has a lot going against it in terms of success. There are so many ways you could market the film. You could present the action aspect, or the fantasy aspect. You could tout the significance of the director. Like you said, Toad, the director of the highest grossing movie of all time. You could even push the romance angle. In fact if they want this thing to be successful, i.e. getting your grandma and mom and sisters into the theater that's the angle they'll have to work more than any other I think. Definitely interested in seeing how Fox sells this one. I think all agree that Fox makes mostly shitty movies these days but they sure know how to cut a trailer.
-
T H E T R E E O F L I F E is sodomizing your cerebral cortex December 25th 2009
-
sci-fi action films, but rather very poetic art house films (nothing wrong with that, I love the thin red line). He cant give me what it is I want from Avatar.
-
by making different trailer versions to appeal to every base, then i'm going to go hide in the mountain and wont come down till december. i dont need to see every moneyshots exposed all over the tv and media when i can wait a few more months.
-
faces? They have very clear feline features, and really, what the hell does it matter that they are blue? Which color would you have preferred? This is exactly the ridiculous nonsense coming from fandom that im talking about...
-
seen the trailer for the game? Has insane looking action, if the film has that in it, there will be no problem satisfying the action junkies imho...
-
—I was wondering if you saw the 3D presentation?
-
ary. But I think everyone here seems to be missing the fact that its how Avatar was made (the tech used to make it) thats revolutionary. Its not even a damn argument. The volume mo-cap and 3d cameras Cameron developed and used are already influential. Both Spielberg and Jackson (2 of the biggest names in film) are making a Tintin trilogy useing Cameron's tech. Alfonso Curon has said he wants to make a drama useing the tech. Geez, it was after seeing footage of Avatar that Ridly Scott deceided to get backm into sci-fi, and guess what? He wants to use Cameron's tech. Michael Jackson was useing Cameron's tech to film his comeback concert, the list just goes on. Nevermind how many more theatres have converted to 3D because of Avatar. Its already influential, case closed.....
-
sitting it out due to my disgust/dissapointment with how the general so called genre fans are behaving. Unfortunatly I have not seen the presentation as there were no showings in Korea (where I live). But the reactions to the nfootage has clearly been very good, so it seems it was a good movie by Cameron to preview it for free in 3D. But I was wowed by the trailer, but I dont really want to see any more anyway before I see the film....
-
I guess the sci-fi/fantasy angle takes care of itself. I mean you don't see a trailer with giant blue space-cats and think "Oh yay another historical period piece!"
-
Aug 23, 2009 11:20:40 PM CDT
Remember all the negative prerelease of Titanic?
by vermithraxpejorative
Many don't recall, but titanic was getting terrible pre-release press, cameron was making a movie destined to sink, no one will go see a 200 million dollar love story, the movie is going way over budget, titanic opens to a dismal 30million considering it's budget... well, word of mouth works wonders. Cameron is a master storyteller and one of the best screenwriters going today, cliche? sometimes. bad dialogue? sometimes... amazing structure and emotion? always... If the movie is good it will do well, I bet word of mouth sets this thing on fire. I can't wait.
-
I hope I love the story, but the campy visuals hurt much of my enthusiasm for the film, much like Jar Jar Binks (and his thrown together underwater race) and the stupid CGI robots (with the poor stick figure design) from the Star Wars Prequels--they killed the prequel movies, at least in part, and I fear that these poor designs, and horrible motion capture work for "Avatar", will have the same effect, and that is to kill the movie.
-
Idiocracy may not be here just yet, but it seems to be on it's way. I'm a college professor, and my students are, by and large, pretty engaged. But something happened in a store on Saturday that really had me flummoxed. Three incoming freshmen (two girls and a guy,) were looking for "stickytack" to adhere a cork bulletin board to a cinder block wall. Okay, that's pretty dumb, but forgivable. What I couldn't overlook was the fact that they doubted everything that I told them about the appropriate method for hanging such a board. Drill? Spacers and screws? Masonry nails? Who's got stuff like that? Finally I suggested lining the frame edge with medium grade velcro, and I practically had to draw them a schematic to make them understand. As I left, I got a half-hearted "thanks." They were singularly disrespectful and just plain dense - these are America's brightest and best? Oh yeah, count on them NOT lining up for blue kitty aliens, regardless of how Cameron's directing skills overcome the rather trite design work.
-
ing what short memories everyone has. Titanic was being set up as his Heavens gate or waterworld. Everyone thought he was nuts, playing fast and loose with that much money with a period love story based on events everyone already knew. And it was all the same "experts" claiming this. Now all these same "experts" just know what will happen here too.....
-
But I don't think we are permanently headed for Idiocracy. I think the sociopolitical climate that dominated the Bush era has begun to change, ever so slowly, for the better. People numbed themselves with technology, but that's going to take some time to move on from. At least, I have to believe that - after all, even the public knows the Transformers franchise is brainless fluff, and sees through most cheap Platinum Dunes stuff now (though they still pay for it). In any event, AVATAR is still largely unknown to the general populace, and I think the blue people making out in the teaser will turn them way, way off. I think it MIGHT open big, but will drop off after the first week no matter what. I fear Cameron has a "Heaven's Gate" on his hands, in terms of the commercial success, at least. The movie may turn out well, but District 9 has already stolen its thunder with a similar message and, at least, judging by the trailer, vastly superior CGI.
-
—if you can somehow avoid the obnoxious hyperbole, I'm sure you'll enjoy it.Most of the talkbackers that drank the hateraide seem to hate the design but, target the CGI in their not-quite-coherent ramblings. I'm trying to stay objective, but as a long time Cameron fan, I can't really contain my excitement.The acting is fine, not so much the dialogue, at least from the clips we've seen. I've also noticed that the VFX, while breathtaking aren't perfect (as stated by several posters above. Two of them work in VFX and will, of course, be more accustomed to seeing the REAL flaws, as opposed to the mawkish angry bile of the jackanapes. Just ignore their spurious logic and ham-fisted comparisons.Don't expect perfection, just try to be as open as possible.
-
Need to watch it again though, as I kept watching the 1080p trailer to see what some of the nay-sayers were prattling on about.
-
I'd like to challenge you, Dark Knight Lite. As a college professor, I'd like you to craft an assignment for your kids that REQUIRES critical reading that CANNOT POSSIBLY be subject to any kind of interpretation or just skimming the pages, a little nongraded test of a reading that asks for specific info from the reading that is also NOT open book and is NOT a test where you're looking for a direct answer from the text itself that's on the page and can be remembered or memorized. In other words, this would be a test that would require ACTUAL CRITICAL THINKING and ANALYSIS. I bet every one of your students, no offense, would fucking flunk - hard.
-
—if it's good. It will be crushed if it's bad. Those teens will be tweeting by the 7 o'clock show.
-
to take down the images of 'Avatar' /'Delgo' comparison?
-
s'true...sorry JC ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AN06-LzHGnU -
In an interview to be published tommorrow in EmpireOnline, James Cameron gives fans a few tidbits on the inspiration for his upcoming Sci Fi Epic, 'AVATAR'. "I was hugely impressed with the way the actors interacted with the cartoons in 'Who Framed Roger Rabbit'. So, in AVATAR I took that concept-real actors acting against cartoons- and I set it in space!" When asked what the inspiration was for the aliens designs, Cameron hesitates and then states, "You know, alot of people are going to claim that I stold the designs from the Saturday morning kiddie show, 'THUNDERCATS', and others might mention the movie, 'DELGO', but to be honest...I really wanted this to be more like 'THE SMURFS', as I wanted that 'cartoon feeling'. In the end what we ended up with was a Smurf/Thundercat/Delgo hybrid-something that covers all bases in giving AVATAR that Sat. morning feeling. I can honestly say that in this...we succeded one hundred and ten percent!" If you really want to get into the AVATAR groove on opening day, James suggests sneaking in some Cap'n Crunch, a bowl, a spoon, and a pint of milk. It really helps get you, the viewers, into the AVATAR experiance. Part II of the Cameron Interview tommorrow...
-
dont know why the hell so many were/are expecting the cgi to be 100% photo real, thats impossible for creatures/characters/an enviroment thats alien/exotic looking. Once again, its all in how the film was made, and the tech developed to make it. That IS revolutionary, and is already changing things. As for Avatar itself, I read the old scriptment, and always got that its a modern updating of john carter of mars/dune/flash gordon/ crossed with anime influences (particularly Mizayaki). I mean look at the trailer and the designs, the mech armour looks right out of battletech/mech (a really good thing imho). I would also argue that there is a very strong "Heavy Metal" (the mag, not the music) feel to the look and designs of Avatar (which I love), and we know Cameron read heavy meatal as a kid. This really is a blender of all the cool action adventure sci-fi anime, pulp serial story, saterday morning cartoons etc...
-
What is wrong with people? Comments like this say it all."Just what we need....a movie about blue-colored, fish-faced aliens."So what are aliens supposed to look like? Do you also hate Admiral Ackbar?I used to think it would be amazing, if in my short time on this world, real aliens landed on the White House lawn and answered one of humanity's oldest questions, are we alone in the universe? But now I think that it is a good thing for the aliens that they haven't made contact with us because the majority of the populace would just react by lynching them cause they look differn't 'n us.Seriously folks, let's put this into perspective. This is James Cameron, the man who gave us Terminator and Aliens. He goes off and co-develops all new cutting edge technology so he can create an entire alien world to serve as the backdrop to a big old sci-fi jungle adventure epic, and this is the thanks he gets from the so called geeks and sci-fi fans? Please explain this to me, because as I see it now you schmucks don't deserve 50% photo real effects, let alone the exceptional quality Cameron has achieved on Avatar.
-
And I was laughing right along with them. Was actually looking forward to this movie quite a bit, but after seeing the trailer, it looks like Battlefield Earth 2.
-
batshit insane...and I love it. It just looks damn weird. And weird is really just a proxy for original. Works for me....
-
disgusted and dissapointed at fandom's ridiculous reaction too, as per my previous post, from now on fandom has no right to complain about the constant remakes/reboots and nostalgia blowjobs, its really what they want (apparantly everything from their childhoods must be adapted or remade so that they can live in this permanent nostalgia bubble), and its really all they deserve....
-
if it fails/succeeds at least Cameron is swinging for the fences, and has made a real effort to make something different.
-
Well, people might not know how to set their monitors right, for one thing. Two, people might not really look at a shot, instead just rejecting anything that doesn't read as from the real world. And three, many people just want to act too cool for school, and dis the stuff for being too cartoony.
-
I've saen people laugh at trailers to "War of the Worlds," "Miami Vice." "X-Men" and lets not forget the obnoxious comments for "Iron Man."
-
and they fail (critically and/commercially) they deserve all the derision given to them. I was like "Wait…Lemme, get this straight. A filmmaker should be vilified if they fail, because their ambitious?!"Another person I know is dismissive of any film coming out of the system and is somehow convinced that he's a better filmmaker than most directors…just because he thinks so. It's amazing no, how many people take on a superior attitude to creative people while adding nothing, absolutely nothing of worth to any discussion of the work produced. Although, merit and awards are earned, some people honestly believe their opinion is relevant by dismissing other peoples work. Sickening.
-
Aug 24, 2009 1:18:01 AM CDT
I find it sad that people went to Inglorious Basterds
by lockesbrokenleg
Because it looks like shit.
-
I'm impressed!!!!!
-
This is about selling video games, and 3-D movies and TV sets. It's all about endorsement deals, and ownership of trademarks, not about making a great movie!!!The whole damn movie could have been shot using real actors in make-up, completely without the unnecessary use of lousy motion capture effects, and thus shot, for far less. James Cameron has become the new George Lucas, and not in a good way. I hope this bombs at the box office, to teach him, and the industry, a much needed lesson about selling-out!!!Note To James Cameron: You can sell video games and 3-D camera and projections systems, as well as 3-D TVs, and make great movies at the same time, I know, you did it with "Terminator", "Aliens" and "True Lies"...so why sell-out now???And Choclate Woman, the best AICN poster in years, was banned for bad mouthing this movie??? What a waste!!!
-
That sounds like a movie concept right there. Virtual reality pod (the bubble) that a person sits in and is given the chance to re-experience their childhood, except with a certain level of power over the virtual nostalgia. Beat up that bully that stole your lunch money everyday of the 3rd grade. Screw the prom queen and then go see Star Wars or Jurassic Park for the first time in that old one screen theater which is now a dive bar/strip club.You're right, no wonder Hollywood is so obsessed with remakes and adaptations. Judging from these reactions, unless Avatar does really well, I think the original studio film is just about done. At least anything that costs as much as sci-fi and fantasy films normally do. Hopefully we can at least get a lower budget but quality original flick like Moon, District 9, or Serenity once every 2-3 years.
-
how how r u? :) have not seen the game trailer. trying hard not to. i even regret having watched the 2 minutes movie trailer. dont want anything else spoiled from now to december. that trailer will be the last promo stuff i'll see. i'm off going deep into the mountain now to avoid any more avatar images.
-
He has lost it. Now people are going for the name, not the quality, as there is none anymore.
-
did not sell out. If you hear him talk about Avatar you can easily sense the passion and love he has for Pandora and it's inhabitants, both the native wildlife and Na'vi, as well as the visiting human colonists. The dude spent a long ass time, way more than most filmmakers do, developing this film. If he just wanted to make a film to sell stuff, he could've done that in 1998 after Titanic. I'm sure the studio would have greenlit Titanic 2 or Alien 5 if Cameron pitched it to them.
-
first sentence. The implications of 3D movies as a end run around piracy are definitely on peoples minds. But, you're assuming that because your not interested in the creative direction of the film, that the actual movie is a failure. The movie hasn't been released yet. No one has seen the completed movie.But, tie-ins haave been with the film industry since Disney in the 20's. That's not indicative of 'selling out.' Using a new capture system and attempting to push the limitations of the current technology? That's also not 'selling out.' Just because your pining for the nostalgia of Cameron's older hits also doesn't make him a lesser artist for exploring different terrain.
-
"Now people are going for the name, not the quality, as there is none anymore."I haven't seen Basterds yet, so I can't comment on it in this case, but I do somewhat agree that Hollywood often times puts too much stock in movie stars and successful directors when marketing their films. The daunting reality of trying to break into the industry as a filmmaker is that your debut film needs to be the best film you ever make. Once your foot is firmly through the door, sadly that same level of quality is not as necessary. Of course, the best directors don't give up trying to make the best films possible and improve and evolve.Hopefully someday we'll get past the whole notion that a film has to have a star package to have a chance of success in the marketplace.
-
I used to admire Tarentino, but after a string of flops, he just doesn't impress me anymore. Same with Brad Putt, Angelina Jolie, that whole group of actors that are always on magazines, but couldn't act their way out of a fucking tax audit.
-
sold out, after Titanic he could have done anything, he could have pumped out more terminator sequals, made adaptations to almost any existing property with a large fanbase. He could have chased the money, and it would have been easy. Sorry, but spending years making documentaries and developing new tech to realize your vision is not selling out. As for the games and action figures...welcome to the modern world of filmaking dude. For any director to get a studio to pony up the money for something as flat out risky as this (especially as its something original with no pre-existing fanbase) giving the studio additional sources of revenue is a must. Sucks, but thats the game these days. This film is way too risky to be him selling out, he is practically putting his balls on the line here, I have no idea how you see that as selling out. Then Jackson sold out by making LOTR, Lucas sold out when he made ESB, and so on and so forth useing your language. Nevermind lets keep in mind that while film is an artform, it happens to be the most expensive art form of all time, thus it also has to be a business. Again, sucks, but thats the game. Thats why a really good director has be both talented and a hustler....
-
Read the article about the fan, and overall public backlash against "Avatar" and James Cameron, and then read the comments of posters which are featured below the article. Note: Cut and paste the address below in your internet navigator but eliminate any space, or spaces, that may appear in the address before hitting the enter button on your computer keyboard, or you will get an error message, and the wrong address.http://www.empireonline.com/empireblog/Post.asp?id=662
-
tino? It has nt opened here in korea yet, but I dont think I will be going to see it, was so dissapointed in Death Proof.
-
days they are letting hacks like Farci write reviews for them....
-
most people laugh at adam sandler's and mike myers's 'comedies' as well. that says a lot about their taste, dont it?
and i seem to remember people going ga ga over the phantom menace trailer. yeah, initial reaction to trailer is a great indication to quality of the complete film. -
They're always doing some 10 page tribute to Robert De Nero or some shit like that.
-
"backlash" in perspective shall we? Its only happening on film geek sites, where stupid shit like "eyeball rape" is created, thus in part leading to it. The rest of the world (ie. most of it) still has nt heard of Avatar, and thankfully does nt care about all the ridiculous crap that fandom does these days. As I said earlier fandom busts its collective nut over Watchmen, drag me to hell, etc..including all the film geek sites, and what happened? The average filmgoer could nt have cared less...
-
Aug 24, 2009 2:05:58 AM CDT
My friend who I took to the screening hadn't even heard of it
by lockesbrokenleg
He thought we were seeing 20 minues of Avatar the last airbender.
-
s really means nothing. Geez I remember when I saw the first trailer for FOTR in theatres, everyone (the mainstream) was just like "huh", "whatever", amazing how much that changed when the film actually came out and everyone went to go see it because the reviews, and more importantly, the word of mouth was so damn good.
-
(lets just stop with the asinine name calling and fighting) after all I really liked Star Trek too....
-
Iron Man was on top for four or five weeks, and that never happens. Star Trek did better in the second week than it did in the first.
-
had no prior knowledge whatsoever?
-
I thought it was great. The action scenes were top notch with the 3D, but the 3D was subtle. It wasn't in your face all the time. I saw the preview twice. Got in twice with no problems. There were about 100 people at both screenings.
-
...shot the main alien race without using motion capture, and considering the poor results, he should have. He should have dressed actors in costume, and enhanced them with special effects in post--something that he could have experimented with in R&D, before the main photography began for the film, and saved this production 200 million dollars, or more, in FX costs...with results that would have delivered aliens that are at least, visually believable, or convincing to the eye...as much as aliens can be under the circumstances. Given the large budget, and less bang for your buck, one might assume that Cameron owns a sizable piece of that motion capture company, and this was his way of milking Fox, and investors, out of hundreds of millions of dollars.If this is not the case, my latter musings, I sincerely apologize to Mr. Cameron...and if, rather, the truth is that Cameron was mislead by his effects team, and other collaborators, that his motion capture puppets are indeed a breakthrough, he should fire his whole team of "Yes Men (and Women)" and blackball everyone of them for life, for not availing him of their honest opinions ahead of time, so he could effectively correct this mess before falling into the crossfire of a public backlash--one that needn't of happened!!!
-
looked better than in UP. He really seemed to enjoy it. He likes sci fi stuff, so I thought he would. But he said he would defiantly see the movie.
-
both iron man, and Trek. Both of those films had legs, and made a large portion of their money that way. I was dissapointed though that Trek ultimatly didnt do all that well internationally....
-
But then again, so was the movie.
-
I got out of the Pixar hype train awhile ago.
-
and passionate fanbase, but that does nt change the fact that it simply did nt turn into the blockbuster everyone was hoping for. I believe it will become more discovered on dvd, and may become more influential as time goes on, but its a typical example of where fandom is now as far as im concerned, up its own asshole and only in love with things it can immediatly know everything about and is somehow connected to their childhood. All the while moaning, bitching, and whining about how unoriginal Hollywood is...The mainstream did nt care how "important" a comic (sorry, graphic novel) it was in the 80s, it just did nt entertain them like TDK did.
-
Because the creatures are 10-12 feet tall. That means tons of forced perspective sets and insane amounts of compositing that just isn't possible. There are tons of calculations to account for perspective distortion, Angle of View compensation, filming smaller actors to double for your ensemble cast, blue and or greenscreen work, matte paintings, eyeline issues, matchmoving issues… The list is exhaustive. Much better going full CGI, you'll still have enough problems to solve but, you'll have a more practical solution.
-
But, to each their own.
-
disagree dude, I have read the old scriptment and I dont believe Avatar could have been done any other way with the action, and kinetics Cameron clearly has in mind. And I stand by all my points about him not selling out, sorry, but I still dont think you have put a good counter-argument forward, you seem to be someone that just has a problem with 3d, and its like the idea of it offends you, like how dare the film industry try to find a way to recoup the money ther are losing to piracy (which ultimatly is just a form of theft no matter how you slice it)...
-
That's less than "Spider-Man 3." I don't know how true that is but, it was printed in The Guardian.
-
of the smartest guys around when it comes to fx. He knows what to use and when imho...
-
it seems to give a better idea of the kind of action we are in for...
-
As Choclate Woman pointed-out, Cameron was simply doing this film as "One big R&D test", his words, I am of course paraphrasing as he did not use that exact wording--I am simply recalling the context in which he spoke to AICN. Now, after seeing the visuals for "Avatar" this complete acquits Choclate Woman--as she called it right. James Cameron obvously didn't just mean film R&D, he was talking about married industries and evolutions of said technology, ala his endorsement of 3D TVs, motion capture, and video games, etc. This isn't so much a movie, but one big long commercial for technology that Cameron is selling, and it is not very good commercial, at that, as there just isn't any soul in it??? This was just one big fat "bait and switch". Where is the game changing photo-realism he promised us??? There isn't any!!!
-
its cost less than Spiderman 3, and remember that made huge bank. Cameron has said that he wanted to avoid budget overruns at all costs, after doing it on Titanic....
-
There's scenes in the 3D preview that had dozens of mech robots marching and shooting at you in 3D, and scenes of drop ships scorching trees in 3D. If that doesn't get you excited, well, I don't know what will.
-
I'm just saying that if you look at your statement that doesn't prove 'selling out.' How does R&D equal selling out? If your using the technology to enhance the experience of the viewer than by all means use all the toys you need to express yourself.Going by your argument, George Méliès is a sell out for developing effects technologies and not continuing onstage magic tricks.
-
Aug 24, 2009 2:39:30 AM CDT
TECHNOLOGY MEANS FUCK ALL WITHOUT A GOOD STORY!!!FACT!!!
by carlthormark1978
Notice how you never hear these Directors talk about the screenwriting process but they can't wait to slobber over how advanced the tech is. WHO. FUCKING. CARES?
-
There is no fucking way any of those shots I saw in the trailer or in IMAX could've been achieved without heavy CGI. The movie you're asking would be reduced to being something completely different and low level. The mo-cap is excellent and so is whatever lighting engine that they're using. I bet Cameron could actually make a CG human being on good CG old planet earth and you wouldn't tell the difference. But if he was going to do that, then what would be the fucking point??? You might as well just film it with a camera. Practical effects and makeup cannot achieve the level of detail shown in Avatar. The makeup and prosthetics would cover the actors face and you wouldn't see a wrinkle! You want to gussy it up with CG afterwards? Sure okay, I guess to make it work then we'd end up MO-CAPING the actor or ANIMATING a complex facial rig anyway and plastering the composite overtop!! Might as well just skip all that shit and do it CG the first time out rather than tucking your hand behind your head to scratch your nose! You sound fucking ridiculous! Face it, what you hate are the artistic designs. Even if Cameron was using physical makeup and prostehtics, what's to say the fucking aliens wouldn't look like that anyway??? Maybe because that's how he wants them designed in the first place??? If anything stiff physical props would look 10 X worse! Whether Physical or CGI it wouldn't fucking matter one damn bit!!!! What you're asking for is for the aliens to look more human or something more resembling some earth animal which wouldn't be that alien. You are a confused individual and don't know what the fuck you want!
-
What's good?
-
A book called "The American Screenwriter" from 1992, I believe. Good interview.
-
...Notice how you never here these directors (meaning Cameron, in this case) talk about the screenwriting process...etc. His point is clear, Cameron could care less about the story...or the script, this is nothing but a business deal to sell tech, nothing else. "Avatar" is on par with Lucas selling-out "Star Wars", in order to sell toys!!!
-
Aug 24, 2009 2:48:24 AM CDT
CINEMA HAS DONE WELL FOR OVER 100 YEARS WITHOUT 3D…..
by carlthormark1978
3D won’t make movies any better so I really couldn’t give a shit. It’s nothing more then a gimmick that Hollywood has been trying to sell to the public for decades in their pathetic attempt to get people back to the cinema. You want people to see movies at a theatre then MAKE BETTER MOVIES!!!
-
Aug 24, 2009 2:49:38 AM CDT
Blakindigo: He's Not Talking About The Screenwriting...
by media messiah
...of "Avatar" in that book.
-
Aug 24, 2009 2:54:25 AM CDT
BTW: At This Point, Avatar Looks No Better Than "GI Joe"
by media messiah
One might say that "Avatar" is all just 300 million dollars plus worth of a paramid scheme...falsely dubbed a movie. Bernie Madoff (James Cameron) anyone?
-
Welcome to the real fucking world! God forbid any creator wants to make a franchise out of something that, hell, people just might enjoy! Cameron is a lover of technology and wants to spread the love. If you found something you thought was really cool I bet you'd be out there pimping it yourself to every fucker on the planet. God forbid a man wants to introduce new technology to make theatres and home video better! Hell, maybe DVD is just one big phony sell out! Video cassettes were doing well enough and more physical! Who needed DVD with it's better resolutions and scene selection and digital shit that not only requires me to buy another box, but probably a better TV too. And FUCK those people that invented colour TV forcing me to get rid of my rabbit ears black adn white television just to enjoy their colourful gimmick shenanigans! Do you people really hate this movie so much you are reduced to making such bullshit claims??? This is fucking unparalleled! And you're the sort of folks calling out the world for falling into idiocracy??? This is more unreal than anything James Cameron could've done in some fantasy universe! We should just film your successive rants in good old fashioned real-D and add it to the extras and commentary or an optional background soundtrack to horner's score on the Avatar blu-ray to make the experience seem even more alien...
-
But, what about using this 'gimmick' in ways that aren't pandering? Like how the 'gimmick' of Cinemascope™ was used by talented filmmakers to enhance the story, using that new frame size to immerse the viewer into the film's world. Could you imagine "The Good, the Bad, the Ugly" in 1.66?Why couldn't 'depth' be used as another aspect of the storytelling lexicon?
-
You always have interesting stuff to contribute.
-
Does it ever occur to you fucks that maybe they don't talk about the story because they don't want to spoil shit and let it unfold for you in the cinema? You already know the premise. What precisely do you want them to talk about??? Would you like to know the plot twist and the ending??? You people are damned crazy! I prefer it this way. Keep the story to yourselves and sell the film to the public with the basic premise and pimp the visuals and technology! That's how it damned well should be! I'd appreciate it if you assholes don't spread any retarded idea for them to detail for me every plot point and arc before I see the fucking thing, alright?
-
Aug 24, 2009 3:04:52 AM CDT
THE DIRECTORS OF THE 70'S DID OKAY WITHOUT REALISTIC CGI OR 3D..
by carlthormark1978
What disappoints me the most about movies today is that, even with the limitless potential of CGI and Digital Video, we aren’t moving into a new golden age of cinema. Can you imagine what the Directors in the 60’s and 70’s would have done with the technology available to us today?
-
—I don't think Cameron will start talking about the story until the full publicity machine is unveiled. I'm quite sure he'll have a lot to say about the script. He talked about the themes of the movie in the second part of the L.A. Times article.
-
After the short intro from Cameron, the first scene is of a group of
human soldiers in a cafeteria being addressed by some sort of superior
officer who has a scar from some sort of claw across his head, which
lets everyone know that he's a bad ass. He is telling everyone
how dangerous Pandora (the planet they are on) is and how his job is
to make sure they don't die and how he is going to fail miserably at
his job. Sam Worthington wheels in on a wheelchair late to the
meeting and makes a bunch of noise as he takes a spot in the back of
the room. So we know he's basically supposed to be like the crippled
Zack Morris of Pandora's Bayside High.
In the next scene Sigouney Weaver is strapping Sam Worthington into a
tanning bed on the set of the Enterprise from Star Trek and it's going
to scan his brain, which she says is really small and pathetic and
they're flirting with each other and Sigouney's still got it even
though she's gotta be 60 now. Then the other scientist who used to be
the fortune teller from Drag Me to Hell is like "Wait a minute
Sigourney, you were wrong about his brain. His Thetan levels are off
the charts!" The technology in the Star Trek Enterprise has come a
long way since the beginning of the summer and everyone is carrying
around big touch-screen iphones that are made out of glass and this
was the first time in a long time I've seen a sci-fi movie and
thought, yes, technology moving in this direction would make complete
sense.
The next scene Sam Worthington wakes up on a gurney, but now he's
Jar-Jar Binks AND he can walk! He's so excited that he can use his
legs that he gets up (when all the scientists are all "SIT DOWN") and
runs away.
The next scene he is hunting on Pandora with Sigourney Weaver, who has
also turned into Jar-Jar Binks, and they find a triceratops whose mom
had sex with a hammerhead shark and Sigourney is like, "Don't shoot -
your bullets will do nothing against his armour but make him angry.
Stand your ground instead". So the thing charges and Sam Worthington
not only stands his ground, but yells in the beast's face and the
beast runs away and Sam Worthington is proud of himself, but it turns
out it didn't run away because Sam Worthington screamed, it's because
there was a jaguar who's mom had sex with the cloverfield monster
standing behind him. The cloverfield monster then chases Sam
Worthington around and might eat him, but probably not because Sam
Worthington is in the next scene...
And in that scene a sexy female Jar-Jar Binks (or Na'vi as they are
called in this movie so they can't be sued by George Lucas - SMART) is
fighting off a baby cloverfield monster and shoots it in the head with
poison arrows because the Na'vi are in touch with nature and don't use
machines like guns because they make you like a screaming baby, which is what
she calls Sam Worthington because his ignorance made her have to kill
an animal, which makes her really angry because she loves animals and
nature. And he's like, "Well if you love them so much, why did you
save me?" and everyone knows it's because of sex, but she lies and
says it's because he has no fear. He's surprised that she knows this
because he doesn't have his favorite No Fear t-shirt on like he
usually does.
Then they take a walk in the forest, which turns into a glow in the
dark miniature golf course at night and James Cameron is all like
"Don't worry, I haven't forgotten about you my beloved peyote-smoking
demographic".
The last scene is of a bunch of the Na'vi training Sam Worthington
about how to be more green and eco-friendly by catching a dragon on a
water-fall and riding on his back while he flies. Sam Worthington is
really good at this at first because of the whole no fear thing and is
winning the respect of the Na'vi guy who is the boyfriend of the Na'vi
chick who has a not-so-secret crush on Sam Worthington and yikes -
alien love triangle! Then the dragon knocks Sam Worthington off his
back and the boyfriend laughs because he remembers that he wants Sam
Worthington to die, but then he doesn't die and connects his magic
ponytail to the dragon's ear and they fly.
Then there was a montage of a bunch of shots from the movie with loud music. -
...although I prefer 70mm. NASA supposedly has a higher grade of film that would put IMAX to shame, but they won't give it to the public. It was developed for the Moon program, but they have never shown the public what this film can do, and how clear it is--but IMAX, digital HD, and traditional film formats previous, would look like a joke as compared to it. Until, or if NASA goes commercial on that top secret film stock, we won't be seeing any new cool visual leap at the box office for a while.
-
and could fail with ambition. "Heaven's Gate" killed the idea of the director as all-powerful deity. I'd love to see Jodorowsky make "Dune" with the tech of "Avatar" at his disposal.
-
last i check cameron still write his own film. all of them, including this one. and last i check all those films he wrote have solid scripts.
i dont see how he's not talking about "screenwriting process" could mean anything negative about the film. if he doesnt care about the story he wouldnt even care to write it himself, would he? just do what michael bay do - get a hack writer to finish a script in a week, and then shoot the damn thing fast!
you guys are really special kind of geeks, you know that? talking like you know everything when really you know squat.
-
That description…that will never be topped.
-
—and that film stock would require an entire new infrastructure in terms of lab work and equipment. Price is too high.
-
yeah and director of the 40s and 50s did okay without color? seen citizen kane or hitchcock's movies? how about wilder's, kurosawa's, truffaut's, fellini's? and chaplin and lang did fine without dialogue as well.
so what the fuck are we doing now watching movies in color with people blabbering nonsense to each other????
it's called evolution you numbnut! film is an artistic medium that will always ALWAYS strive to imitate real life at best it could. 3D is just the next logical step. -
Aug 24, 2009 3:20:00 AM CDT
yeah and director of the 40s and 50s did okay without color.
by cloudrider`
period. no question mark intended.
-
But with the industry trying to introduce 3D televisions, why go to see 3D at the movies??? You would need some new, and amazing, tech to keep people coming to the theaters, if high tech visuals, as an experience, is what you are selling an audience to spike box office? What could trump home 3D? Answer, that NASA film stock!
-
from james cameron - the abyse, terminator 2, aliens, true lies, ..... i expected something a little less computer game looking. yes it looks like a fucking computer game.
-
pat yourself on the back. and now go write for adam sandler or seth rogen. your material fit their audience.
-
new tv sets also. Something closer to 8K to view that film stock on.
-
That description of the 15 to 16 minute preview was nice, story wise, I'll admit that, but...the motion capture visuals of the aliens, has really hurt this film in my mind. I will see the film however, still, as I said, it would have looked, and played, better if they, Cameron and crew, simply shot live actors in special effects make-up created costumes...made to simulate the main aliens, in place of motion capture--costumes, BTW, that could be enhanced in post.
-
But they won’t unless it’s a best seller. Back in the old days, the studio’s used to have readers who would go through a few novels a week and write reports on their adaptability. These reports would be broken down into whatever genre the novels were. The higher ups would go through these reports and if something caught their eye they would option or buy the rights and develop it. Back in the 60’s and 70’s the discussion was always about what is the hot novel of the moment or a particular book that someone thought would make a really great movie. Raging Bull only got made because DeNiro was a fan of the book and kept pestering Scorsese to make it into a movie. Now there were instances of great original scripts such as Network, Chinatown and Taxi Driver but, ever since Star Wars, the studio’s have given up adaptations, unless the book has spent a couple of weeks or months on the best sellers lists, and the era of the “original screenplay” has been polluting North American cinema for over 30 years. The fact is that about 99% of these so-called “original screenplays” are nothing but amalgams of various movies that have made money in the past. Studio execs are fucking morons and are too busy snorting coke of the asses of whore to listen to someone describe the story structure and characterizations in a novel. They just want to hear if it’s similar to something else that has made money in the past. Avatar is a perfect example of this as, judging from the trailer, it seems to be Dances with Wolves meets Last of the Mohicans meets Lord of the Rings meets Star Wars. But then Cameron has never been much in the way of an original writer. The Terminator was influenced by that Harlan Ellison story among other things. Aliens was based on Alien. Terminator 2 was virtually a big budget remake of the first movie with a few twists. True Lies was loosely based on a French film called La totale! Titanic was based on historical fact not to mention that there had already been a few movies made about the event. The Abyss seems to be the only movie Cameron has made that can be called an original work. The truth is that I never expected Avatar to be very original which is why it doesn’t surprise me that Cameron is focused on promoting the technology behind it rather then his narrative or characterization. I just wish that all this money and tech was being put behind a great book or a script of blinding originality.
-
I did! In the same way that I find Rod Hilton's snarky reviews funny.
-
You know what this movie reminded me of? The trailer, I mean? I had forgotten it and forgotten it, and was struggling to remember. It's not NA'VI IN THE WATER! It may well be GAYLIENS ... but what it really is ... is ... AZURIK!http://s.xboxmovies.ign.com/media/news/video/azuriktrailer_01.movhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4W6witvZh8YOU KNOW IT TO BE TRUE, BITCHES!
-
on your 5 inch wide youtube window. when i look at the sky from outside my window, the moon looks like a used pingpong ball too.
-
I heard a scientist who helped to create it, that film stock, talk about it on Coast To Coast Live. He said that the film stock is about 37 years old, or older, but that it is far in advance, even now, of modern film and HD. He said the visual clarity is awing, so so clear that NASA doesn't want the public, in general, to have access to it, however, he did claim that it would create a film revolution if released as a film format publicly.
-
.... looks more 3D in 2D. I'm sorry the trailer is just not fucking my eyeballs
-
—then again, so was "The Da Vinci Code."
-
Thanks for bringing a little sanity to the proceedings. Glad you liked the trailer, I thought that you would.
-
Aug 24, 2009 3:38:11 AM CDT
I'VE SAID IT BEFORE - this is what MY Na'Vi does to yours
by thusspakespymunk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0moGWVGhgM
-
20th Century Fox have announced the trailer for James Cameron's 'Avatar' broke Apple.com’s record for the most-viewed trailer ever.
'Avatar' was streamed 4 million times in its first day, eclipsing the previous record held by J.J. Abrams’ 'Star Trek'.
-
Avatar = 4 million views.
Star Trek = 1.7 million views.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaBnKygEfB4&feature=fvw ... from a younger, stronger, tougher James Cameron!
-
Yeah, well, it's the first time they've shown such a train wreck. Nobody could look away!
-
Dream on. It's the precursor to the box office raping to come.
-
"Avatar is a perfect example of this as, judging from the trailer, it seems to be Dances with Wolves meets Last of the Mohicans meets Lord of the Rings meets Star Wars. But then Cameron has never been much in the way of an original writer. The Terminator was influenced by that Harlan Ellison story among other things. Aliens was based on Alien. Terminator 2 was virtually a big budget remake of the first movie with a few twists. True Lies was loosely based on a French film called La totale! Titanic was based on historical fact not to mention that there had already been a few movies made about the event. The Abyss seems to be the only movie Cameron has made that can be called an original work."
star wars is a rip off of kurosawa films. ET is a generic boy meets dog story with an alien. matrix is wiliam gibson meets ghost in the shell meets john woo meets true lies. every godamn movie in existence could be distilled in this manner if you try. a hack steal and make shit. a genuine artist steal, filter it through himself, and create something fresh. how many movies about titanic had been made before cameron's version? which version ended up being the most successful movie ever, against all odds? kubrick himself once said(and i'm paraphrasing here) that there's nothing new in film under the sun, all you could do is copy and make a better version of the same story. -
Fucking Hollywood and it's fucking remakes. It is far too soon to remake Attack of the Clones!!!!
-
Aug 24, 2009 4:24:11 AM CDT
cloudrider, FUCK OFF YOU TWAT, 3D THE NEXT LOGICAL STEP?
by carlthormark1978
No, moving pictures was the next logical step from still photography. Silent movies were the precursor to talkies. Color supplemented black and white. All of these things happened for a good reason. Sound and color movies were developed because the world is made of color and sound (except for people who are blind, color bind or deaf). I need sound to I can hear what people are saying. I need color so that I can tell what something properly looks like. Do I need 3D to understand that a ball is round on screen? Or that two people are standing apart from each other? Cinema is already able to convey depth perception sufficiently, even within two dimensions, not to mention that I don’t need glasses to watch it. In what way would 3D improve the experience of watching a movie as color or sound would? Never mind that sound and color are not guarantees that a movie itself will have any quality not to mention that I’ve seen plenty of great black and white/silent films over the years. Also, would 3D enhance comedies? Dramas? PORN? Will Directors start framing everything to maximize the 3D which will then make the movies look awkward on a 2D screen, kinda like how people are always pointing things towards the camera in a 3D movie which looks fucking stupid? 3D is nothing more then a gimmick and, IMHO, a bad one as it distracts your attention from the things that are really important such as the story and performances.
-
Aug 24, 2009 4:33:03 AM CDT
IS THERE SOMETHING MISSING FROM CINEMA THAT 3D PROVIDES?
by carlthormark1978
Apart from the superficiality of having things appear to fly in or past your face? Would Clerks work better in 3D?
-
please wake up and smell the shit you are shovelling. Nothing is flat out original, everything is based on something or heavily influenced by it. As others have pointed out, everything you say can be used to describe anything in such a ridiculous manner. And have you seen the outer limits episode that was the "inspiration" for terminator? Funny, I dont remember any aliens, guys with glass hands etc in terminator. So now influenced means unoriginal? Then please do tell what is original? As in not influenced by anything? And have you seen the french film True Lies is based on? I bet not. it has almost nothing to do with Cameron's idea other than that he used the central concept of an agent that lies to his wife about his job, otherwise they have fuckall in common. Nice try dude, but you then you also forgot to mention that Cameron wrote and produced Strange Days (which I believe would qualify as original). And Aliens is such a completely different film, that its ridiculous to dismiss its creativity because its based on a the first movie. You really come across like a conspiracy theorist nut dude....
-
Aug 24, 2009 4:42:47 AM CDT
cloudrider, HEY, AVATAR SHOULD BE IN 3D WITH SMELL-O-VISION.....
by carlthormark1978
Because the experience of seeing a movie won’t be complete unless I can smell Thundersmurf pussy!
-
one. ok, I get that you are some kind of art purist, that you think tech/money or anvancements in any of these areas is against the spirit of film, nevermind that film is a technological and visual medium. Thus things like color, surround sound, audio etc...have all contributed to film, Its all in how its used. 3d doesnt, and nor should it be used for everything. But it most certainly has a place if it adds to the experiance when telling a story that takes the audiance to a strange new world (Avatar, Coraline, alice in wonderland) or it helps give feelings of height/fear of said height in something like Up. Useing your weird logic then explain how color, digital film, sound, etc have contributed to film. Surely none of those things are needed then....
-
watching small, independent art house movies. So why waste your time/agravate yourself in a talkback for an epic sci-fi action movie?
-
Don't feed the trolls!
-
Aug 24, 2009 4:48:52 AM CDT
CarlThorMark1978 perfect example of noobs who must not post
by happy boy
As a cautionary tale to other noobs, this CarlThorMark1978 is a perfect example of inserting random ramblings that are not only factually incorrect, but add nothing to the discussion of the movie in the talkback. the post has no direct criticism or comment on the movie in question, it merely has random and not in any manner insightful or original random thoughts about nothing to do with the conversation at hand.
"Cinema is already able to convey depth perception sufficiently, even within two dimensions, not to mention that I don’t need glasses to watch it. In what way would 3D improve the experience of watching a movie as color or sound would?"
this is exactly the sort of FAILure at abstraction that I'm talking about. if this doesn't prove that the bottom 10% of AICN posters are the only idiots who are hating on this movie nothing will. if you cant manifestly comprehend how adding different points of depth will be a more immersive experience you're just stupid. there's no other way to put it, your cognitive and sensory abilities are below average to a below-functionary level. as someone who has seen this clip I'll state it plainly, what the additional points of depth perspective does is draw you into the movie. even people who dislike the CG WHO HAVE SEEN the 16 minutes of 3D in IMAX agree on this point. if you disagree you are 1)an idiot who cant even see his hand in front of his face and are too busy drooling on yourself to know the difference 2)an idiot who hasn't seen the clip and is making himself look like a total jackass talking shit about something he has no clue about
The statement "Cinema is already able to convey depth perception sufficiently" shows a complete lack of insight and basic comprehension. WRONG. Period. Until cinema can equal the spacial acuity of real life there's room for improvement. That random generality you make that really adds nothing to this discussion is simply incorrect and makes you look like a total idiot.
As for the rest of the rant... LMAO. You list photography, moving pictures, talkies and color. What are you 10 years old? Or do you simply have no clue on the development of film. You fail to recognize such manifest advances as Flip Books, Digital Media, Television, Videotape etc etc etc... all of which heavily impacted the shaping of modern cinema. It's like you are tracing your geneology... you start with your great granfather, meantion 1 cousin and your father and you post that really all anyone needs is "a father and a great grandfather." blissfully revealings to all your total ignorance of biology, geneology, heredity, economics, psychology, and the birds and the bees.
trash post. but useful to prove to all what NOT to post.
oh yeah and you talk a lot of trash but note ONE "great" silent film that you truly enjoy. speaking honestly there really isn't a single silent film that can compare to the effect of a modern movie because modern audiences have experienced movies with dialogue. even "great" silents such as The Birth of a Nation are important from a film archeology POV but honestly does not stand up to modern criticism because it entirely lacks the subtlety, emotional resonance and plain entertainment of modern cinema. I'll wager you've never even seen an entire silent film in its entirety. -
they dont go on and on about story because they actually may want that to be a suprise. Nevermind that no story can really be all that suprisiing as there really are only so many mythological stories that can be told, though of course slightly new spins can be put on them. And again, as film is a visual medium (go read books if story is the one and only important thing to you) its only natural that its the visual side of it that gets pushed to give audiances something new. Even though of course story is important. Have you read the old scriptment? I have, so I know the basic story, and that old scriptment had potential for a fairly good story, thats why im not worried about that.
-
up, Im wasting my time here, its like talking to a very dogmatic religious person, or a conspiracy theorist nut. They believe what they do because they do...
-
I got a really strong Heavy Metal vibe from it, which I was nt expecting. Actually visually is wasnt what I was expecting at all, And I love that, as I said earlier it looks batshit insane, and fairly weird....Love the old school sci-fi feelto it (john carter of mars, heavy metal, etc..)
-
3D isn't about shit flying past you. it's about establishing a new vocabulary in film. that in turn will change how movie makers construct their films and allow them to add emotive layers. here's an example for you morons. the table scene in Godfather 2, where they're all waiting for Vito. what's the point of the scene? Michael's alienation. how is this constructed? Coppola conveys this through 3 tools. 1)dialogue 2)temporal spacing 3)physical movement of his actors. If you watch how the scene is constructed Coppola physically alienate Michael from his family over time. It is done in order of the EMOTIONAL distance of Michael to each family member. First Carlo and Connie leave. Then after a beat the first of the brothers, Fredo leaves, then finally Hagan then Sonny leave Michael, leaving him alone. Simultaneously the dialogue tightens, starting with inane holiday banter and filtering down to Michael's declaration that he controls his own future. The long beat at the end reinforces all 3 tools Coppola used and lets the audience soak it all in. What if Coppola had a 4th tool? What if he had another tool to demonstrate Michael's alienation... instead of a flat 2 dimensional table if he could physically position Michael almost out of the frame with the rest of the family? Or if he could adjust it during the shot... in effect inserting an emotive PAN OUT throughout the scene while still keeping the rest of the family in-frame. In the hands of a talented director, how would that free up dialogue, or the pacing of the scene? what additional subtle emotive push could he insert? Honestly I dont know. I'm not smart enough to be able to figure that all out... but I'm not as stupid as you who dont even understand how IF THIS WORKS it has applications in all sorts of movies that brilliant filmmakers WILL USE if the technology can be perfected. Anyone saying anything else simply FAILS at basic abstraction, vision and comprehension of what movies are actually about. Plus porn. teh end.
-
that review summed it up perfectly. cheers
-
matter how many times you point out how illogical or simply unfactual what they are saying is, they simply change tact, and just start ranting about something....Its obvious their issues are all about their views on what film, or art should be, (apparantly "pure", and without any kind of new thing that did nt exist before they were born or were kids)and because Avatar does nt fit with that they hate its guts....lol, I love seeing how its pissing off fandom.....
-
s are to be allowed into a directors toolbox the way these guys are carrying on. Apparantly the technical side of film should have stopped developing in the 70s or so. Then why not earlier, like the 40s/50s?
-
you are basically saying classic literature such as wuthering heights would be better with pop-up pictures. Its all bollucks. 3D is a gimmick until they can do it without those fucking glasses.
-
You only need to look at the things you write to see the hypocrisy of your post. I can easily tell from all your responses how "intelligent" you are, so that's all I'll say about that before you embarrass yourself even more. And don't worry about me, I present all my thoughts in a level-headed way and I could give a fuck if you don't think so.
-
Aug 24, 2009 5:24:39 AM CDT
southafricanguy, THAT'S WHY I SAID TRUE LIES WAS "LOOSELY" BASED
by carlthormark1978
On La Totale which I have seen, thank you very much, as I got a hold of a copy after seeing True Lies in 94 because I wanted to make a comparison. I did the same thing with Louis the 19th, King of the Airwaves when I found out that it served as the “inspiration” of The Truman Show and EdTV. Also, dipshit, I said INFLUENCED when referring to The Terminator. Furthermore, Strange Days was nothing more then a conspiracy thriller where people were searching for recorded evidence against them while the idea of a machine that can record what people see was nothing new. But the evidence itself could have easily been a videocassette or tape. People are influenced by a lot of things and it would be ridiculous to suggest that anyone works in a vacuum. The real question is whether a person takes those influences and works them into a reasonably organic whole and, apart from The Abyss, I feel that Cameron’s work has felt a little too derivative without really breaking through the way Star Wars did (which was based on a shitload of things), Raiders of the Lost Ark (based on old serials and adventure flicks) or even, say, Se7en (a riff on The Abominable Dr. Phibes). Influence is fine but there comes a point where the movie has to stand on it’s own and from the look of Avatar there is nothing new to see here.
-
All I've pointed out is that the level of CGI in Avatar has never been attempted before, which is a complete fact. But that's okay if you seem to think animating robots is harder than living creatures. Ignorance is bliss...
-
I loved the trailer, I got into right away. I love Cameron's boys-own style, and some of the shots were old-school epic, the ship being dwarfed in scale by the Hallelujah Mountains, the final aerial assault. The Na'vi took some getting used to but I can see what Cameron is doing now. Some of the FX work is astonishing.
The hate on here is pretty astonishing really. There's going to be plenty egg-on-face come December. -
I think these people are fueling this movie like none other. The Avatar talkbacks are the hottest thing right not, and we all know bad press is good press. It's gotten to a point where all I do is sit back and laugh, and now I'm through posting about this until December, when people will finally realize how far off they were.
Oh and remember the rampant Quentin Tarantino hate after Death Proof? That reminds me very much of this. Everyone thought Inglorious Basterds would be garbage, but we all know how that turned out. Gotta loveeeeeeee the haters! -
terminator is derivitive, but then Star Wars isnt. And, so what if you said "loosely based"? The basis of your argument was that he had done nothing original except the abyss. Now you completely change tact, and its all about not being an orgainc mix. Geez man, how do you keep your story straight? Also love how you just dismiss Strange Days as being just a "conspiracy thriller" (have no idea what this has to do with anything since I included it as not being based on anything in particular and thus "original") well then I guess I can just dismiss star wars as just a fantasy in space with old stock characters like an old wise man mentor, and a pirate with a (secret) heart of gold. It could just have easily been a pirate or sword and sorcery film. And Indy can be dismissed as just an action movie, that could have been set at any time.....
-
Aug 24, 2009 5:45:20 AM CDT
jaws = moby dick meets whatever silly sea monster movie from the
by cloudrider`
-
have CTM, because if Avatar has nothing new to see, then I want to see the live action mix of heavy metal, miziyaki, and john Carter of Mars you must own. Im sorry but i ve never seen any of those type of things done large scale in a live action film. Where can I find these please? I love sci-fi, and I have always wanted to see someone try something that visually looks right out of heavy metal magazine, and I ve always wanted to see big scale action done with mech armour fighting aliens and alien creatures on a weird alien planet. I fully accept that its nothing new for you but ive never seen anything like this in live action. And having read the old scriptment, its a perfect blend of all those things just like star wars was a perfect blend of everything it threw in a blender and mixed up....
-
CarlThorMark1978 - let me ask you this simple obvious question. do you see the world in 2D or 3D?
if color and sound is part of our real world imitated on the movie screen, then perception of depth is definitely the next logical step. -
I love how you think you know someone based on comments about a cg movie on a movie site, and furthermore base your judgments on people about their supposed merits of film. Get a grip man, seriously. I laugh at you, and think you'd be blessed to have an ounce of the talent I do.
-
can boil down and dismiss all those movies in the same manner. Of course he is right that the blend must be organic, and the mix must create something fresh, but again im not sure how Terminator did nt do this, though i guess its all subjective, but then He cant have it both ways and want it to just be accepted fact that Star Wars and Indy got it right, but then its purely subjective when it comes to Cameron's film? Give me a break....
-
and the public voted in favour of Star Wars, Indy, and they damn well voted in favour of T1, T2, and Aliens. So what then will CTM use as an argument if Avatar does become a huge movie? What if it does become the next big event sci-fi movie? You know, because Cameron has no idea how to create something that can connect with a mass audiance like Spielberg or Lucas can..sarcasm mode *deactiviated*
-
can make $100 million in under 2 weeks, you better believe Avatar will be making a whole lot more. Every 10 year old boy in America will be going to see Avatar.
-
Aug 24, 2009 6:40:47 AM CDT
Happy Boy, FUCK. YOU. COCK. SUCKER…FURTHERMORE JERKOFF….
by carlthormark1978
I guess you’ve never felt “immersed” in a movie you’re whole life then since most movies haven’t played in 3D, right? A movie has never gripped you through its screenplay, actors or Direction then I suppose? Fucking morons like you are always obsessed with the latest bells and whistles but then that can be expected from Generation ADD fucktards like you who’s attention span is so small that you forget to wipe your ass because you’ve forgotten about the shit you took 5 seconds ago never mind that it was more then likely your brain that fell out of your asshole. The Cabinet of Dr. Caligary, Phantom of the Opera, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Metropolis, Nosferatu, Sunrise, Charlie Chaplin, Fatty Arbuckle, The Keystone Cops, Valentino, how about the original Ten Commandments? How many of those have you watched asswipe because I’ve seen them all and even went to watch a few of them in a fucking movie theatre so eat shit you braindead fucking mongolid. Unlike YOU, I have actually watched and read about movies that were made from ALL ERA’s, not just whatever derivative, CGI saturated fucking wank is being peddled to clueless inbred fuckstick brigade of the present of which I suspect you are not only a member but also their leader. Oh, and I also happen to have a fucking copy of the Call of Chthulhu, sitting on my shelf, which is a FUCKING BLACK AND WHITE SILENT MOVIE that I bought when it was released in 2005 so FUUUUUUUCK YOOOOOU. So, 3D is going to usher in a new era of cinema that will obliterate everything that has came before, eh? Or is it that stupid fucking cunts like you are being brainwashed by the studio’s into believing that so you dumb motherfuckers will pay overpriced tickets for whatever shit their selling so you won’t sit at home and download or buy it when it comes out on DVD in three months. Also, fuckface, why is it that all of the movies being presented in 3D are big budget genre films? I sure as fuck don’t see the studio’s putting the latest Woody Allen movie in 3D cinema’s, do you dickless? How would 3D enhance the experience of watching a neurotic Jewish nerd stuttering for two hours? Do you think people are going to pay a premium price to watch small scale movies? THEY’LL FUCKING STAY HOME thus helping in the destruction of North American cinema which has been on the slide for over two decades. The simple fact that you can’t comprehend, because your head is firmly up your culo, is that the push for 3D cinema is coming from the studio’s who want an excuse to justify charging you more money to see a movie, particularly ridiculously over budgeted effects extravaganza’s like Avatar, in the hope that it will be easier for them to recoup their investment which is getting harder every year when fucking moron Directors are spending 150 to 300 million on a movie these days. The fact is that you’re either a slobbering Cameron fanboy, one of those World of Warcraft playing fucking losers who’s half inch cock gets hard at the sight of a movie with female Thundersmurfs or one of the millions of fucking plebs that lap up the latest toy dangled in front of you. But I suspect that you’re all three and are probably posting while wearing your Grandmothers unwashed bra and panties as your Dad’s dildo is up your ass on ludicrous speed while you slide a banana down your throat to satiate your thirst for cock as your Mom gets more satisfaction out of taking a shit then ever having giving birth you out of her stinking fucking STD riddled sewer of a cunt you slack jawed hermaphrodite retarded troglodyte piece of shit.
-
Aug 24, 2009 6:44:50 AM CDT
DEEP THROAT = CITIZEN KANE MEETS THE SEVENTH SEAL!!!
by carlthormark1978
-
Aug 24, 2009 6:50:16 AM CDT
cloudrider, I'M ONLY CONCERNED WITH THE 5TH DIMENSION.......
by carlthormark1978
Beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call the Twilight Zone.
-
Aug 24, 2009 7:24:21 AM CDT
kwisatzhaderach, I'M JUST FUCKING WITH THE CAMERON FANBOYS....
by carlthormark1978
Hey, I love Aliens, The Terminator and Terminator 2 but my beef is that Cameron is using 300 million and all this tech just to make Dances with Thundersmurfs when the studio could have given 30 million to ten directors thus broadening the chances of the cinema going public getting to see some quality movies and maybe even one or two great ones. For me it’s about what’s best for the audience and I don’t think that the cinema going public is being properly serviced with these insanely budgeted movies. I just don’t think it’s healthy that Hollywood is spending this type of money but you can’t even discuss this with some of these fucking idiots on here who don’t give a shit, just as long as they’re entertained. That’s because they have no understanding of how movies like Avatar might have a negative effect on North American cinema and the truth is that most of them are trolls who couldn’t care less just as long as they get their fix of CGI candy while none of them can explain how the technology will help create the next Godfather or Network and that’s because they can’t appreciate things like story and characterization beyond the superficial archetypes and narrative devices used by Cameron, Spielberg, Zemekis and Jackson etc…..
-
its cost a lot of money? Dude, please grow up. Its not your money or mine being spent, so relax. Furthermore why should the budget matter? A film should cost exactly what it has to in order for it to be realized, no more no less. And if you had read the old scriptment, you might understand why there is no other way to make this film. And so sorry that epic action sci-fi thats a mix of john carter, dune, heavy metal, and assorted anime stuff (really cool sci-fi imho) is so beneath you. And really "thundersmurfs"? Are you that simplistic that you see blue automatically something is smurfs? Would you have preferred green (but then you would say ninja turtles) or maybe purple? (but then you would say Barney). For the record im against big budgets being given to hacks like McG , Ratner etc...Imho if a director earns the right to make big expensive films based on a good track record of useing that money well by making good films and returning on the investmentwith interest. Your predjudice is no different to me having a problem with a film because its low budget. Utterly ri-fucking-diculous....
-
First of all, nice name. Second, I think *some* directors will see this as a game-changer. I don't see Lars Von Trier or Michael Haenake going to 3D anytime soon - something for which we should all be grateful, I think. That, in essence, is why I'm leery about this movie. Not every movie is helped by the idea that bigger is better.
-
Star Wars wasn't really the first blockbuster. The Godfather was the first movie to be called a blockbuster, and Jaws was a gigantic hit. It was arguably the first blockbuster aimed at kids, however.
-
accepts the man,with no difficulty,as a real person.Then u paint a perfect photorealistic image of a blue humanoid alien.Your brain wont accept it as a real alien,regardless if the photorealism of the image has reached its limits.It doesnt go better than that.
If your brain doest accept the blue alien as real,then in this situation,the problem doesn lie in the technical restrictions of the medium,but in the limitations of our perception of reality.we havent seen blue aliens before,thus we cant accept them as real.
I accept and understand that Camerons aliens dont look as photoreal as we would want to,because simply the cgi technology as much as adanced is now,it has a long road ahead (holodecks anyone?)
But Cameron uses a trick,to bypass the current limitations of that all the haters ignore: the perception of 3D,or in other words how our brain comprehends the three dimensions of the space we are living in.
Now if my brain can senses the three dimension of Pandoras world,wont this thing trick him in some extent to perceive Pandora as real as the reality itself?
I will give the best example of this,which is from my personal experience from the preview: The scene in the bio-luminescent forest,during the night,while the camera was moving
cyclically with Sam centered in the screen.That shot with the 3d effect,made me live the scene,i believed that i was there watching that beutiful,colourful forest.I am not exaggerating,i have played a lot of state of the art videogames,killzone2,gow2 etc but none of them gave me the feeling and the immersion of that specific scene in the forest.
The haters keep bringing Camerons comments on how great is the cgi,which its really great,the best i have seen until now.BUT they ignore all the other comments Cameron has made on the rest of the films elements like direction,cinematography,design, 3d technology and ofc storytteling.I even posted a link with one of his interviews here in aicn,addressing these things and stressing how important role they have,each one of them,in the completion of the Avatar experience.
Ofc a teaser and a 15m preview with half-edited separated scenes,cant do justice to Camerons vision.its logical,its expected.You just cant compare the experience,THE FULL epxperience of avatar with previous movies like D9 (bouahahaha),POTC trilogy,LOTR,TF2 etc,because simply u havent seen yet the full movie in a state of the art 3D IMAX cinema as it is supposed to be.
so haters,please take that into consideration next time you open your mouth,to pour poison.Like real love,you cant codemn or praise her,until u have experienced her. -
vibrant colors were overused and characters became too talkative when color and sound were first introduced to film. it’s natural now with this 3D filmmakers use it to ‘poke’ things out at us, since that’s the most obvious thing to do. but that is far from what cameron is attempting with avatar. 3D as a film tool is still in its infancy. give time for creative filmmakers to explore its possibilities. even cuaron already expressed interest in directing low budget drama with 3D. just shut up and let’s see where film as a medium goes from here! small minds see only what is(wa wa wa…!!! 3D is a gimmick! wa wa!!!), great minds see what can be.
guess which group advance civilization and which one can only suck their thumb. -
hating,and moaning,and crying,and shouting,because Cameron still owes you money? jesus h chirst,why dont you send him to the court? its what they should in our civilized modern time.Btw how is your girlfriend? i forgot,u dont have one.cheerio mate.
-
Aug 24, 2009 8:04:09 AM CDT
southafricanguy, THERE IS NO REASON TO BE AGAINST LOW BUDGET MOV
by carlthormark1978
So you’re analogy is illogical and just another example of Cameron Fanboy Syndrome. You’ll say anything to justify Cameron’s fiscal irresponsibility. I know his track record but, I ask you, where is the limit? 400 million? 500 million? Do you not understand that it makes the possibility of making a profit more difficult? All of you have this stupid fucking idea that, because Titanic made 1.8 billion, Avatar will undoubtedly be profitable but has it occurred to a single one of you that, even if it doesn’t bomb, it might actually not be a hit on the scale of Titanic? How much did True Lies make? 378 million worldwide. T2 did 512. Aliens, 131 mill. The Terminator, 78 mill. Avatar is Cameron’s first PG13 movie since The Abyss and that only did 90 mill worldwide so he is NOT a sure thing. It’s just that you fucking idiots have deluded yourself into believing that Cameron is infallible and that Avatar will become a smash hit just because you think it will. That’s the exact same type of thinking that we got when The Phantom Menace or The Matrix Reloaded was about to come out and how did those turn out? I’m sure a few smartasses will bring up the fact that both of those movies were huge smash hits but would anyone argue that they were actually good? Avatar could be shit and still make a billion which does nothing but empowers the studio’s to not change their ways and make better movies. You also don’t seem to grasp that spending 300 million on a movie has the effect of skyrocketing the budgets for ALL movies, not just effects flicks. This is why you’ve got romantic comedies costing 50 million fucking dollars. This is why studio’s are becoming more conservative in the types of movies they make and how they demand that those movies be filled with the latest flavor of the month actor who happens to have the number one or number two movie on the charts. You know what, why bother, you’re the fucking morons that wonder why they don’t make as many good movies as they used to and are also the ones that bitch when something like Transformers ROTF gets made.
-
It really is just lunatic on this site. Thank God Corona Coming Attractions is back to bring some sanity to the online movie world. Anyone see Patrick Sauriol from CCA on TV talking about Avatar earlier?
-
the naysayer's beef is that they know they're not contributing anything worthwhile to the world. hence, their anger and resentment towards hugely successful people. not saying all naysayers are like that, but judging at how some of the geeks here are grasping the flimsiest and dumbest of excuses to tear down avatar, it can be quite obvious. :)
-
"Beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call the Twilight Zone."
lol post another 5 times in a row. maybe one of them will actually make some sense. seriously guy, instead of spamming and showing what a spaz you are, you might want to consider making ONE post that is semi-literate, with some discipline on addressing on the topic at hand. the point here is to try to make a coherent point, it's not a contest to see how many random posts you can make posting random crap. you're talking about WOW, your sexual frustrations, musings on the state of the movie industry as seen by fat dude on couch... basically everything EXCEPT what you saw in the theater. Is wikipedia your friend? You hold up Keystone Cops as some apotheosis of silent cinema when even back in the 1910s it was regarded as mindless low brow drivel primarily notable as background players/comic relief for more popular stars of the time. I guess you find VALENTINO'S STARE the epitome of sexuality as well right? LMFAO dude what a noob. you'll go farther in lfe (not saying much) apply a filter of your own when it comes to critical thinking, as opposed to relying on sad generalities like B&W=good 3D CG=BAD. For those who actual have developed the neurons that fire to make coherent criticisms of film, for the record Phantom of the Opera and The Hunchback of Notre Dame are inferior to both the source material in print and to subsequent productions on stage. Silent movies had enormous structural limitations, there's a reason why Metropolis had a million cuts in its time and you couldn't find a complete reel of it for like 50 years afterwards. What you dont realize and it's sad is that silent movies that you listed are significant PRIMARILY for EXACTLY what you're QQing about Cameron doing... being innovative media. Have you ever fucking SEEN The Birth of a Nation? it's fucking unwatchable as entertainment, the reason why it's so seminal is precisely because it's a snapshot of technical innovation in camera work at that point in time. it's amazing what these filmmakers did with the limitations they had but trust me, no one except noobs like you is watching it as entertainment. if anything it's like some piece of quaint (albiet significant for its archeological importance) artifact -
Aug 24, 2009 8:12:39 AM CDT
ominus, YEAH, LIKE YOU'RE KNEE DEEP IN PUSSY, HA......
by carlthormark1978
Quote from ominus - "Like real love,you cant codemn or praise her,until u have experienced her." Only virgin losers make pseudo poetic statements like that to try to convince people that they are some sort of swarthy Don Juan type when the truth is that you have no interest in women and crave the cock.
-
No thoughts on the trailer or footage? Or do we have to follow your twitter to find out?
-
And chicks dig these things.u should try it someday.
-
the haters will call it a plant,and the conversation will end there.then its a battle of who has the biggest e-pennis.
-
seriously, i understand your concern about big budget hollywood films. but that concern is more fitting in a talkback of michael bay/ratner/sommers/abrams films, and even spielberg films. this is cameron. he's back, after 12 long years. and you yourself admit to loving aliens, T1, and T2. "LOVE", that's your word. this resentment of yours towards avatar is no proof of that love. give the guy a chance, and divert all that anger to a talkback more deserving.
-
So, you’re argument is OLD = BAD, NEW = GOOD. Got it. I wouldn’t expect, a fucking drone like you, to be able to appreciate classical cinema because you seem to be incapable of understanding how some of those silent black & white films are able to convey more emotion then most of the trash that passes for cinema these days. You write all that shit and yet you didn’t make a single valid point about how or why 3D will enhance or improve cinema. So, tell me how it will make my movie going experience better apart from “wow, that Thundersmurfs nipples look like their right in my face”? You’re whole argument shows what a fucking moron you are because in not one instance did you explain how 3D will improve the script, the performances of the actors or the movies Direction?
-
Aug 24, 2009 8:38:48 AM CDT
ominus, THE ONLY WORDS YOU SPEAK TO A WOMAN ARE.....
by carlthormark1978
"How much for a blowjob?" "What, $100 for a fuck?!?" and "stick it in my ass...HARD!"
-
Still waiting for Carlthormark to show us the hard evidences which clearly showcase that the films budget is 300m.Well were are they Carl? or u just pulled that number out of your ass?
-
failed filmaker that has some deep rooted resentment towards anything big budget. Whatever dude, you re the miserable one ranting and raving. You have a pair accusing happy boy of old=bad new=good, when one of the main foundations of your argument is old=good new=bad. You are just a massive hypocrite, I suggest you try getting down from your holier than thou loft up there where you are defending "pure" filmaking and starving artists everywhere....Cameron, or any damn director for that matter, doesnt owe you an apology or explanation for their success, or the films they choose to make. Its really quite simple, if it offends your precious senssabilities so damn much, dont fucking watch it then. That way you can remain unspoiled, and continue to "support" only those "worthy" low budget films made by "true" artists....
-
Aww man I miss his comedic statements about how Disney's Up had horrible 3D and was a horrible movie. And someone posted earlier about how the CG vampires in I Am Legend looked photoreal!
-
opened up a can of worms lol. You know he's going to go into a ranting rage now, and pull a lot of shit out of his ass to "prove" you wrong dont you? Because Im sure he knows some conspiracy theory that lets him know what the actual budget is.....
-
The preview was amazing. I walked in with 2 skeptics and we were all sold. I think Cameron's talking this thing up as "revolutionary" is the issue here. You all expected the impossible. Have an imagination and lose yourself for a couple of hours and have fun with this. The preview truly was incredible. Everyone talks about "JP" setting the benchmark for awe-inspiring CG. Remember, that came out in 1993 when we weren't inundated with CG-laden spectacles every few weeks. It was so fresh back then. Now, we've all seen so much CG we're jaded and it's really showing here.
-
is excellent stuff.thank you very much for sharing it with us.and u r completely right,3d is just one more tool for the creator to help me tell his story the way he likes it.Ofc it will definitely used as eye candy to attract the audience,by hacks like bay and mcg,simply because thats the capabilities of such directors,and the easiest way to bring money.
Btw if i am not mistaken,one of the things that make Da Vinci Last Supper a revolution in painting,is the way he created the 3d feeling of the scene,which helped to heighten the emotion of isolation of Jesus from his students who were sitting in the same table. -
What I am is someone who dislikes being sold a "bill of goods." And that's precisely what has happened with AVATAR. All you need to do is look at the facts. According to Cameron's friends like George Lucas et al, the footage was some of the most stunning material they had ever seen, would change the FACE OF CINEMA, would be a real "gamechanger," etc.Jim never came out and said "Ok, ok, my friends are nice, but I'm just in this to make a movie." No, he said it was similar to the MOON LANDING in terms of its impact on the scene. He took what they said, agreed, backed it up and even went FARTHER with his assertions. He claimed this would be the equivalent of the moon landinh in terms of taking us as a people from 'x' to 'y.'About the only thing similar to the moon landing is that this movie is ONE SMALL STEP, and not even for man - and also in the wrong direction. The plane the aliens exist in is not the same as their backgrounds when the backgrounds are real (hospital shot as Mr. Na'vi leans forward pressin a hand to the glass before giving a silly grin and saying how "great" it all is.I guess, in a way, AVATAR trailer footage shows how this may very well ber like the moon landing. On the moon landing, we didn't find anything of substance there, either.
-
the waterfall scene when sam tries to tame the flying serpent,looked very real to me.and that was the cgi world of Pandora,not a real waterfall.
-
CGI doesn't work - it can't trick th eye. And I predicted this would happen, you know. I said a long time ago that when AVATAR came out, the general public would not react as if it was anything special, because only fil;m geeks think of frame-rate and bump-maps and that sort of thing. The average person simply wants to be entertained. Now, consider - do you honestly, honestly think that the majority of people out there in these deathly economic times are going to say "Honey, let's take the kids to that movie about the blue people in the jungle!" Or "Oh, WOW, that Sam Worthington is SO cute and dreamy!" (he's about as much of a leading man as Barry Pepper - remember him and Hollywood's near-constant effort for a brief time to make him an A-Lister by force? Didn't work then, doesn't work now, Hollywood - it's organic. Oh, and no offense to Barry Pepper - I think he's a great actor and should be an A-Lister, but you can't force it and Hollywood fails every single time it tries to do that) Do you honestly think that 10 year old boys will be sitting around and saying "Hey, dude. Want to see the movie with the blue alien guy and girl kissing and protecting the rain forest?" (why I refer to the movie as James Cameron's GAYLIENS) If you look at the action sequences, too, you'll notice that the blue aliens are clearly shown as the heroes from the angles and the intensity and the close-ups. The soldiers are clearly being portrayed as a mechanism, a metaphor, an idea - a whole-cut concept, not as brave soldiers protecting people from the dangers on the planet. They are going to be anonymous and villified. THAT'S THE WORST KIND OF THING TO DO here, because one of the worst complaints about CGI and one of the major reasons it doesn't work is that it's INHERENTLY INHUMAN, INHERENTLY EMOTIONLESS, INHERENTLY STERILE. No matter how many hairs they can put on a character's nose, no matter how detailed they can get in showing pores, the eyes of CGI characters are DEAD EYES. THAT'S TRUE HERE, AS MUCH AS IT WAS IN THE POLAR EXPRESS. When CGI can fully articulate a human face and not have the person look like they've a corpse with a puppet rod shoved up its ass, then we'll start seeing gamechangers. Honestly, there are CGI cut scenes in movies that are more convincing than these Na'Vi. I never believe when I'm looking at the Na'Vi that I'm looking at anyting real. Honestly, Dobby from HARRY POTTER had a more expressive face.
-
CGI doesn't work - it can't trick th eye. And I predicted this would happen, you know. I said a long time ago that when AVATAR came out, the general public would not react as if it was anything special, because only fil;m geeks think of frame-rate and bump-maps and that sort of thing. The average person simply wants to be entertained. Now, consider - do you honestly, honestly think that the majority of people out there in these deathly economic times are going to say "Honey, let's take the kids to that movie about the blue people in the jungle!" Or "Oh, WOW, that Sam Worthington is SO cute and dreamy!" (he's about as much of a leading man as Barry Pepper - remember him and Hollywood's near-constant effort for a brief time to make him an A-Lister by force? Didn't work then, doesn't work now, Hollywood - it's organic. Oh, and no offense to Barry Pepper - I think he's a great actor and should be an A-Lister, but you can't force it and Hollywood fails every single time it tries to do that) Do you honestly think that 10 year old boys will be sitting around and saying "Hey, dude. Want to see the movie with the blue alien guy and girl kissing and protecting the rain forest?" (why I refer to the movie as James Cameron's GAYLIENS) If you look at the action sequences, too, you'll notice that the blue aliens are clearly shown as the heroes from the angles and the intensity and the close-ups. The soldiers are clearly being portrayed as a mechanism, a metaphor, an idea - a whole-cut concept, not as brave soldiers protecting people from the dangers on the planet. They are going to be anonymous and villified. THAT'S THE WORST KIND OF THING TO DO here, because one of the worst complaints about CGI and one of the major reasons it doesn't work is that it's INHERENTLY INHUMAN, INHERENTLY EMOTIONLESS, INHERENTLY STERILE. No matter how many hairs they can put on a character's nose, no matter how detailed they can get in showing pores, the eyes of CGI characters are DEAD EYES. THAT'S TRUE HERE, AS MUCH AS IT WAS IN THE POLAR EXPRESS. When CGI can fully articulate a human face and not have the person look like they've a corpse with a puppet rod shoved up its ass, then we'll start seeing gamechangers. Honestly, there are CGI cut scenes in movies that are more convincing than these Na'Vi. I never believe when I'm looking at the Na'Vi that I'm looking at anyting real. Honestly, Dobby from HARRY POTTER had a more expressive face.
-
you really are an idiot. Cameron comment was in reference to he and the other people actually making the film. Not it's impact on the world at large. He was merely stating that they'd be in the middle of working on a scene and some detail would click and they'd all get that feeling of looking at something extraordinary.
-
Cameron may be spending hundreds of millions, but he is still supporting low-budget production too:
http://weblogs.variety.com/bfdealmemo/2009/08/cameron-goes-deep-with-3d-sanctum.html -
If you had seen the IMAX footage there is no possible way you could say Na'vi have dead eyes and are emotionless. In fact that was the one thing that was singularly impressive to me. They are real characters and when they speak you see emotion and feeling in their face and eyes. It's the same thing they achieved with Gollum but to a much higher standard.
-
"Honestly, Dobby from HARRY POTTER had a more expressive face."
That last sentence just destroyed any argument you were trying to make. -
Afghanistan and Iraq? right..
and hard economical times,promotes entertainment,does not restraints it.its a fact.I do agree about the eyes,current motion cgi still hasnt achieved to portray a perfect human eye,but saying Navis eye is lifeless,is stupider that saying that the films budget is 300m. -
Very few $30M are made that a huge amount of people want to see. That doesn’t mean there aren’t great movies or $30M or even less. There are lots, but I’m talking about audience mentality on a mass scale. The general public tends to think bigger is better. It’s hip to see the newest thing before everyone else. For $15 you can be cool all week, if the movie is a winner. Small movies are risky because audiences don’t trust them.
Even if you made three $100M movies, there is still a lot of money spent that doesn’t end up on screen. There’s a small fortune in set up costs for each individual movie, most of which remains in the hands of the suits organizing it, not to mention everything from airline tickets and hotel rooms, office space to photocopiers. And we know how execs like to hide one movies loss in another movie’s pockets. The more hands in the pie, the less there is to go around.
On Avatar there are only 7 producing credits, but the Visual Effects dept alone has over 400 names. The hundreds of millions that it cost to make Avatar is pumped the production crew and then back into the economy. Think about how many blue collar mouths that fed.
And by default, it forces the $30M filmmakers to pull up their socks. Audiences will no longer tolerate poorly written, cheap imitations. Better scripts are needed if they’re going to risk making something smaller and a direct result of that effort is D9.
-
Must disagree dude, with your big assertions - Worthington, families seeing movies, and ten year old boys, are all dead wrong. First up, Worthington. He is an unknown. But so was the entire cast of Star Wars and Alien. Yes, they were all working actors, but joe public could not identify them. If the movie is good, the audience will see it. Pepper was in Battlefield Earth. Families. So far the recession has not stopped families from seeing movies when they want to. They just pick and choose. And a movie directed by a proven talent like Cameron, will get attention. Ten year old boys. Maybe you have forgotten what it was like to want a sense of wonder, and to see something new and alien, but I guarantee that most ten year old have not. They will want to see this if for no other reason than that it has monsters or flying dinosaurs or whatever they are, who like to eat the blue people. Oh, yes, the ten year old's will flock to this.
-
When I was ten years old, I wouldn't have gone near this with a cattle prod. It just SCREAMS social suicide. It screams GHEY. Plus, ten-year-old boys don't HAVE that sense of wonder about which you are talking right now any more. They have a sense of iPod, a sense of JACKASS (though the show is now passe', the idiot stunts are the form of entertainment these kids want to watch and practice) and a sense of Stupid, but they don't have a sense of wonder any more. A life of thought-numbing video games where the principle goal is murder and ab existence of instant gratification have turned them into future bar-men, thoughtless droolers who can only stare straight ahead and can't conceive of ideas like the beauty of an alien world without a low chuckle and a head-shake. They're the low-laughing beasts of Hemmingway fiction, only it's come early to them now.
-
My assertion is that people in general still go by the rule that where there is smoke there is fire and Avatar is a mega-fire. The bigger the fire, the more people it will attract.
-
I read your story about the kids in the hardware store, and I had to laugh at you a little, because you were the one in that situation whose head wasn't screwed on right. If those were freshmen, they either live in a dorm or an apartment. A dorm is more likely, since you specified that the wall is cinder block. That makes it virtually certain that they were bound by the housing department's rules to ONLY use either sticky putty or doublefaced tape to put up posters or bulletin boards or what have you. If it's not directly in the rules, they probably correctly saw that they really shouldn't be launching home improvement projects in a dorm or a nine-month or one year rental unit, and as a result wanted to get the bulletin board up with the minimum investment possible in time, effort and equipment. So when you walked up to them to give them "advice" on how to drill holes in the wall and use screws or how to install some sort of giant velcro frame, they were probably thinking, "Who is this moron? Wait, he might be a professor, we should nod and act polite and wait for him to go away."
-
What do you think?
-
While I agree that ten year old's spend too much time in front of video games, I also remember that the argument when I was ten was that we spent too much time in front of TV - and no cable back then - at least not in my house. But I have faith that a ten year will still react the same way when presented with a motion picture on a big screen - in 3D no less, as opposed to his home tv - regardless the size. It is what makes movies so unique, they still draw us into a community. Humans are afterall, herd creatures.
-
I think you are quite correct.
-
stop linking to that shit, it's stupid and pointless.
-
All the negativity in the world can't stop a guy forking over his own money from his right to decide if he likes a movie or not. Cameron's track record with or without Titanic is reason enough to bring in a massive audience and those that have never heard of him are going to go and see it because they can take their kids to it and... it's going to be wall to wall media coverage like nothing ever before. It will be huge without a doubt. The average ticket buyer will judge their over-all experience, not any specific CGI moment. A flaw, as annoying as it may be to an expert isn't as big a deal to the untrained eye. And even if a flaw is picked up by a casual observer, it will be soon forgotten or at least over shadowed by the impact of the scene.
-
landing comment? Wow, they really are getting desperate and just throwing whatever they can onto the wall and seeing what sticks lol. The only thing thats funnier is how thusspake really did nt get that comment, and then proceeds to twist it to support his opinion. Ok thusspake you can stop repeating yourself ad nauseum (you and CTM for that matter) I think everyone gets that you decieded months ago to hate this film (you have both trashed it continually for as long as there have been avatar talkbacks just about). Please stop flogging a dead horse. We know you guys will latch onto any ridiculous shit to make a point (moon landing comment). As the other guy said, "dobby had a more expressive face" hahahahahahaha...ok man, whatever...Oh, one last thing about Avatar screaming "gay" to 10 year olds, you mean like they find films about British kids/tweens/teens that have magic wands, and speak in upper crust English accents gay? Yeah, because the inherent
'gayness" of HP really stopped all those 10 year olds from flocking to those films like flies to shit..... -
I've loved Alien since I saw it opening day. I still have the laser-disc with all the extra feature, the art mags, etc. I don't mind that the Alien chest burst looked like a puppet or was hillarious when it scooted away. Nor do I question how it grows so tall in a short period of time. And if the Alien is the big monster, what the hell was the face hugger? My point is...I don't really care because it doesn't matter. The movie was intense and has so many other outstanding qualities. Avatar will be fine.
-
probably is a failure so that's why he wishes fail on all of the people involved in Avatar.
-
the negative reaction are mainly from those people who didnt know what to expect from the movie.i know a guy who although he had heard of the movie,he thought that it was full cgi and not with real actors too.another guy thought that it was about the movie of the 'anime' series.
Generally from i what have seen in the net,and heard from my friends,the general consensus is that the movie is awesome and most of the people cant wait for December.
But i would like to comment something about the negative reaction from 'professional critics' (god i hate this phrase),like Ebert.I was expecting such negativity from them for 2 reasons:
the first is,as someone mentioned above,are against towards this 3d technology.they afraid that it willd do more harm to cinema than advance it (like when the sound came to cinema),and since Avatar is the most serious candiate as a game changer for the cinema industry,they will trash the film.
but there is a second reason,which i believe is more significant: after many years,they believe now ,that somehow Cameron cheated them with Titanic,that he somehow made them accept his film as a masterpiece (which is),that they were deceived to give him rave reviews and give him the 11 oscars.As a result,he somehow harmed their ego,their we-know-everything-about-movies status,and now they are here to take their revenge,to take their blookd back.and they are going to trash and bury the film when it premieres,despite if its great story and visual wise.
yes i know it sounds far-fetched but when u see people here who just hate someone,although he has never done anything wrong them,simply because he has accomplished something in his life in opposition to them,u can bet that the same psychological factor can apply to the movie critics. -
It's always a safer bet that something will fail. If it does, you can say I told you so, if it doesn't everybody wins.
-
you prove my point.....people like you on this website have no taste and steal thoughts said by other people all the time because your too stupid/blind to have your won opinion and if you did as all your previous posts show you make no sense...your love for cameron makes you the typical dipshit on this that argues " because it's cameron it's going to waseome" my penis has my talent then you. and knows more on this subject then you could ever wish you did......so sorry to be you
-
the 720p version PS3 ready trailer is online looks ace
http://tinyurl.com/mx5q8m
-
you prove my point.....people like you on this website have no taste and steal thoughts said by other people all the time because your too stupid/blind to have your won opinion and if you did as all your previous posts show you make no sense...your love for cameron makes you the typical dipshit on this site that argues " because it's cameron it's going to aweome" my penis has my talent then you. and knows more on this subject then you could ever wish you did......so sorry to be you
-
What's wrong with having faith in an established filmmaker? I'm not going to blindly say Avatar is gonna be awesome and mind-blowing but I do have faith that it won't be a complete and total piece of shit. Cameron's track record is after all pretty solid.
-
awsome. Now imagine that action in the film.....
-
in Cameron? because the guy loves what he does,he loves his stuff,he loves his movies,and he also respects the audience.
Spielberg and Lucas used to be like that,lovers of the art of storytelling.and look now how they have turned into: money hungers making Transfoerms,Indiana 4 and Star Wars prequels.
But Cameron,after the phenomenal success of Titanic,he didnt whore out his talent and his fame.Opposite to what u would expect to,he didnt start making movies the one after the other,caching them only using his name.He stayed out of the industry,pursuing his personal projects and waiting 13 years for the technology to mature in order to bring Avatar,that ambitious and favourite project of his.
Thats why we believe in him,he is a true artist,loyal to his art and his audience. -
You better lay the fuck off Spielberg. He's given us Munich, Catch Me If You Can, A.I., Minority Report, Saving Private Ryan, and War of the Worlds (excellent until the very very end). I'm certainly not going to begrudge him for Crystal Skull or The Terminal (both of which are decent though not great films) for all of that.
-
And all of those movies are in the last ten years (except Private Ryan that was '98). He's whored nothing out. He's produced a lot of sub par stuff but at least he's trying to help other filmmakers and not just himself.
-
AI,War of Worlds and Private Ryan are mediocre movies at its best.I dont have right now the time to write the reasons.i agree that munich and catch me if you can are the only bright moments of his descending career.but i am sure he is going to get one more oscar,thanks to the jewish lobby in the industry.
-
or when he changed E.T to make it PC?what about that? and i havent even mentioned his all american family and all american army points of view in his later films.at least Munich somewhow redeems that.
-
What's so mediocre about those movies? Because I can tell you exactly why they're not mediocre. A.I., when you look at it for what it is (a post-modern sci-fi fairytale) works perfectly. Brilliant acting, production design, great score from Williams. War of the Worlds (except for the super cheesy Spielberg ending) is intense and atmospheric and superbly directed. It's not particularly deep but it's a popcorn movie. And the only thing wrong with any part of Private Ryan is how the film's message abruptly switches sides for the last 20 minutes. And Minority Report is damn fun, you tell me what's wrong with Minority Report.
-
First of all, you have it completely backwards about CGI. Photorealistic humans are the holy grail of CGi, because it is almost impossible to do. Aliens are easier to do because we have no frame of reference.
-
Yeah okay, he changed E.T. oh no! I'll never be able to see the original version again! Wahh! It's not like both versions of the movie are on the dvd, oh wait they are!
-
It's not that "old=good, new = bad," the problem is that people equate techical innovation with artistic innovation. Cameron makes extremely conventional popcorn flicks, which is why I consider him the spiritual father of Michael Bay and McG (they are the ELO to his Beatles, if you will). What bothers me is that it seems like nowadays it has become "new= good, old= not worth my time." Old movies are available now more than ever, and yet most people's movie memories go back no further than Star Wars. (Except for those that Tarantino champions, which are, shall we say, not the best examples of classic cinema). Cameron is a great technical director, but as an artistic innovator he is way behind Scorsese,Lynch and even Spielberg. I won't even get into international film, which is even more out there.
-
dont play the ignorant in this.if thats not a whore out,then what is? regardless how u call,as sure as hell doesnt show an artist who respects his own work..
-
The ending of War of the Worlds is word-for-word from the original Wells book. I think Spielberg has gotten braver over the past decade. Munich was extremely powerful, although I thought the final scene with Bana and his wife was pretty unforgiveable.
-
If someone was the greatest pop music producer of all time, but then spent 13 years in a sub taking pictures of sea vents, and then came back up to produce more pop music, the outcome would not be good. And as I said when I saw the trailer, it seems as though about 13 years of movies and video games seem to have whooshed right over Cameron's head here. I'm seriously almost assuming now that Cameron has been so out of it with his personal projects that he's never even SEEN Attack of the Clones, for example. Sitting watching Clones, every time there's a scene change, Lucas switches to some wide angle CGI shot of a ship landing or of a cityscape or landscape, and every last time he does that you think "Video Game Cut Scene". Just seeing that one movie should have put every filmmaker completely OFF of using CGI wide shots FOREVER. I know it sounds crazy, but how else can we explain that virtually every lesson of the CGI era seems to have completely escaped Cameron, if we go by the trailer?
-
He's pissed at the fact that he can't properly admire a prettyboy like Sam Worthington the way he'd like to and so he's pissed at Cameron was covering him up with a blue anthropomorphic visage, and when he's not doing that he covering his face with a breathing apparatus and distorting Sam's prefect head:chest ratio that thusspake would like to lie on. Stop of that Sam's showing an interest in a natural hetero way towards a blue alien chick and Thusspake can't compete with that and it bothers him. He can't stand it and it doesn't match up to all the pictures of Sam on his wall that he wakes up to every morning which gives us insight on how he can foresee how 12 year old girls would react to Avatar in a way they didn't to Titanic. So now he's fretting and whining about the film's effects and budget because a cheaper one would've given us a more clearer looking Sam Worthington that he can gaze at amongst other macho shirtless men firing their guns off in a tropical paradise.
-
was that they made up a country while the original true story was about an Iranian. Having an Iranian as the hero would have been very gutsy, and I thought it was a copout to have Hanks play a Balki/Latka Gravas soundalike.
-
I came off like douche in that post but it just bugs me when people bring that up. At least Spielberg knows people prefer the older versions of his films and includes those on the dvds. He actually has a respect for the fans if he doesn't always listen to them. Fuck THX-1138 The George Lucas Director's Cut.
-
Cameron is one of the few guys who knows how to make a big movie while telling a story.he has nothing in common with bay or mcg.And noone compared him with Scorsese,well at least not me.Not even Spielberg is in the same league as Scorsese.
I dont know about the old versus new situation,but i do know that we need more people like Cameron and less people like Bay otherwise the good big spectacle cinema will die. -
I know the Morgan Freeman voice over is word for word (and I love that) I meant the bit where Cruise shows up in Boston and his son is magically alive when by all rights should be dead as fuck.
-
And I don’t mean that you should love watching actual 3D movies, because to each his own, but what you SHOULD love is the fact that this next generation of 3D and 3D films has come along. You know why? Because it just might save the movie theatre industry.
Back in the 1950s, television had come along and brought some real competition to the movies. People could see free original programming at home, and could even see old movies right there in the comfort of their living rooms. Hollywood was taking a pounding as a result, and needed to find a way to get asses back in theatre seats. Then along came Cinemascope. Cinemascope (and its competitors) promised an experience in the theatres that tv literally could not provide. It led to some of the biggest epics of all time, epics that made shitloads of cash and packed theatres full of people looking to experience the grand spectacle that only a big budget movie presented in Cinemascope could provide. The fact is, those epics very well might have saved the cinema-going experience. No theatre chain has ever added hundreds of screens nationwide in anticipation of upcoming art-house releases, even though those films might be a thousand times “better” than any high-concept epic. The fact is, theatre owners stay in business because of epics.
Now, with bootlegs, downloads, big-screen HD tvs, Blu-Ray, etc., not to mention a struggling economy, it is getting very hard to convince people that actually going to the movies is even worth it at all. Hell, why not wait a week and download the torrent and just watch it in the comfort and privacy of your own home, you know?
This is why “gimmicky” 3D is important: it is the Cinemescope of our time—the one thing that you cannot properly experience at home, no matter how great your set-up is, is the incredible spectacle of a movie like AVATAR shown in 3D. It is the one thing that Hollywood is banking on to put asses in seats, when other movies--even though they might be masterpieces that warrant repeat viewings, and very much deserve to be blockbusters because they are fantastic examples of cinema art and storytelling—can easily be viewed at home for MUCH less than a trip to the movies would cost. These big-budget, epic 3D spectacles are the movies that are going to keep the theatre chains in business, not movies like THE HURT LOCKER or PAN’S LABYRINTH, so if you enjoy seeing those types of films in the theatres, be thankful for the AVATARS of the world…because they very well might be the only thing keeping those theatres there for the smaller films to play in
You don’t have to like AVATAR, or other “spectacle” popcorn flicks like it, but if you love seeing movies in the theatre, you should be thankful that these huge movies are out there, because they are the ones that are keeping the theatre business alive.
-
You dumb cunt. Keep your fucking shit links off this site - quit trying to direct people to that completely faggoty 'fridge' site that literally no one but you and the 4 other 6th graders posting on it give a fuck about. Rather than trying to bait people to visit it with false promises , just create some content and relevance - or go eat a gun. I couldn't fucking care less which you do. Cunt.
-
Aug 24, 2009 12:31:57 PM CDT
I'd like to hear a good explanation for the images at that site.
by fluffyunbound
So you can be as mad at Dalgo as you want to be, but I find the content posted there pretty uncanny. Delgo was a 2008 release, but that was because it was a troubled indie production - they'd been working on it since 1999. How did so many Avatar design elements end up so similar to images in Delgo? I assume Avatar will be 100x as good as Delgo, even if I think Avatar is somewhat cartoony - but still, how did that happen?
-
..or maybe, like me, they cringed with Sam Worthington said, "Let's dance".
-
"Catch Me if You Can" and "Munich" were very strong films.
-
was sublime. "Minority Report" is a feat of direction, that is simply stunning—my fault with it is the last act. But, his films are bravura technique and they actually are ABOUT something.
-
was an excellent movie. AI was great until the Moon Ballon. It fell apart after that. SPR had an incredible opening sequence. IMO, the rest of his films over the last decade or so have ranged from bad to horrible. YMMV.I miss the old Spielberg.
-
I see a lot of criticism about how the Navi don't look real. So what are basing that comparison on? It's not like we can take a real Navi and put them side by side. Given that we don't have any actual live alien lifeforms to compare it too, how would we know if it looked real or not? :P
-
Aug 24, 2009 1:37:03 PM CDT
I JUST RECEIVED MY AVATAR DAY TICKETS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by trannyformers_apologist
Now how long till I get my confirmation email from Fox?
-
none of his films lost money...maybe the abyss but i blame that solely on the marketing of FOX...they knew fuck all to do with it...oh and by the way, TITANIC was PG13 CarlThor...his biggest money maker...so unitl his films start losing money, i'd bite my fucking tongue on his methods of filmmaking...he did return his director fee in order to finish Titanic because the suits got their panties in a bunch...i dont see ANY other director doing that!
-
No wonder it bombed.
-
cant wait til december.
-
"Up" is one of the worst and most disappointiing overhyped films I have ever seen, and let me tell you, the other movies, to a film that were shown as 3D trailer actually had better 3D in their short 2 minute each, than Up had in its entirely over long running time.
-
"Up" is one of the worst, and most disappointiing over-hyped films, that I have ever seen, and let me tell you, the other movies, to a film, that were shown as 3D trailers before the film played, actually had better 3D in their short 2 minutes each, than Up had in its entirely over-long running time???
-
The last 3D movie I saw in theaters, was that Superman Returns thing with 4 3D segments.
-
More like one of the absolute best films of the year. Just...wow
-
I didn't particularly like the 3D, but the movie itself was fucking wonderful.
-
No, there aren't any aliens to comapre them with. However, the eyes/movements just look off. We couldn't compare the Balrog to a real balrog, either, but it still was amazing.
-
No, the problem was that it was boring as hell.
-
No, the problem was that it was boring as hell.
-
3D may be the future of the movie *industry*, but I'm not convinced it's the future of the art form. I've seen movies that benefitted from 3D, but I have yet to see any in which the storytelling made 3D absolutely neccessary to enjoying the movie - I'm not even sure such a movie is possible. Personally, I think the future of movies as an art is more likely online. A great movie is a great movie, whether you see it in imax or an ipod (I didnt try to be alliterative there, it just happened), and a crappy movie is still a crappy movie. To put it as an aphorism, there's no screen small enough to make a good movie bad, and no screen big enough to make a bad movie good.
-
looks like shit...is this a commercial for a video game?
-
I don't understand how they can look fake to anyone. The movements were all mo/capped. They are actual physical movements that real people performed. And also guys, please help me out with these Media Messiah and lockesbrokenleg tools!
-
For some reason they forgot an action picture had to have action in it.
-
Just ignore the trolls.
-
I suggest we abandon this talkback and let these tools preach to their choirs. I'm certainly done. Up was horrible, indeed (derisive snort)
-
I dunno, the shots in the lab looked fake TO ME. (emphasis on the "to me" part). The battle scenes, I admit, were spectacular.
And you *are* being sarcastic about Up, right? -
I dunno, the shots in the lab looked fake TO ME. (emphasis on the "to me" part). The battle scenes, I admit, were spectacular.
And you *are* being sarcastic about Up, right? -
I dunno, the shots in the lab looked fake TO ME. (emphasis on the "to me" part). The battle scenes, I admit, were spectacular.
And you *are* being sarcastic about Up, right? -
I won’t even go so far as to say it is the future of the movie industry…just the future of the movie THEATRE industry.
My point was simply that if you love seeing movies at the theatre, you should be thankful for the big “spectacle” type films, because they are the ones that keep the theatres in business so there is a venue to show the smaller stuff…I like watching ALL movies in the theatre if I can, and I would hate for there to be a future where I can’t see an indie film in the theatre because theatres are an endangered species.
I don’t think Cinemascope did anything, in and of itself, to further storytelling or cinema art either—certainly in the right hands it allowed filmmakers to create some spectacular visuals—but what it DID to, by its very existence, is allow epic films to feel MORE epic…and there will always be a majority of moviegoers who are simply seeking escapism. These are the kinds of movies they like, and I am glad they are out there, if for no other reason than these people flock to theatres to see them.
-
I won’t even go so far as to say it is the future of the movie industry…just the future of the movie THEATRE industry.
My point was simply that if you love seeing movies at the theatre, you should be thankful for the big “spectacle” type films, because they are the ones that keep the theatres in business so there is a venue to show the smaller stuff…I like watching ALL movies in the theatre if I can, and I would hate for there to be a future where I can’t see an indie film in the theatre because theatres are an endangered species.
I don’t think Cinemascope did anything, in and of itself, to further storytelling or cinema art either—certainly in the right hands it allowed filmmakers to create some spectacular visuals—but what it DID to, by its very existence, is allow epic films to feel MORE epic…and there will always be a majority of moviegoers who are simply seeking escapism. These are the kinds of movies they like, and I am glad they are out there, if for no other reason than these people flock to theatres to see them.
-
Whether it be the Navi, or the winged dragons, or the other creators in the film, they look like computer effects, not real living creaures, or even close? If you look at "Enemy Mine" for instance, the aliens look material, as they are played by actors in make-up. Each has weight to their person as they move, because they are real human beings behind and inside those costumes and make-up, but you don't feel that with the Navi, which look like video game creations, or artifacts of lifeless clay-mation stop motion. The motion capture effects look cheap!!! As for the clumsy dragon like creature effects? I have seen imaginary winged creature brought to life in the "Harry Potter" films, the "Jurassic Park" films, and in "Pitch Black" all fulfilled the illusion of being weighty and having some life to them, even the film, "Dragonheart" I think it was...and most if not all were computer generated creations??? All this expense, with so little good results??? Really, as another poster stated earlier (Jsscript2007), would you rather one 300 million dollar movie, or 10 30 million dollar movies? There is no way in Heaven, hell, or on Earth, that "Avatar" should have cost 300 million dollar plus, other than the fact that James Cameron used the motion capture process to line his pockets with extra money (aggressively false over-charges)--a process BTW, that is the motion capture, which looks no better than motion capture from 16 years ago--one that cost infinitely less money??? Cameron simply promised Fox the world, knowing full well, that most of the execs, and investors, would be too ignorant to understand,that-- for what they were getting...with regard to their investment monies, no motion capture effects should have cost them this much money, not even close. This film at most should have cost 100 million dollars--the rest was just padding the budget with phony estimates, which went into somebody's pocket??? And I am not letting James Cameron off the hook because he knows better, after-all, he is an experience special effects man, and effects superviser, so he knows proper budgeting, as well as false budgeting, for effects...which tells me that he was simply fleecing the studio.
-
I felt like walking-out on it, but I stayed hoping it would get better, however it only got worse and more boring as it went along--and there were only very few instances were there was clear 3D??? This movie didn't even deserve to be in 3D. I suspect that it was turned into a 3D film after the fact when the filmmakers realized they had a dud on their hands, and needed a gimmick to sell it, and to create false hype, which they did--the reason why "Up" along with its bought good to raving reviews, was so successful!BTW, I saw a family with their little kid, a boy, walk-out on the movie, and several other people (20 somethings) walk-out, so I knew it wasn't just me.
-
fuck off with tthat noise...you want undewater "action" go see Deep Star 6...dont waste my time.abyss is a pretty intelligent piece that mass audiences brought up on mindless drivel cant comprehend..and you say you didnt like UP???!!?!
-
probably dont get it...dont worry planet 51 is coming to a theater near you!!!would have to say UP is probably one of pixars best!why do you fucks always have to bash popular and well crafted things...to be against the norm...you're guys are sooooo sophisticated!
-
this is rumor control--he-she was banned not because of criticism towards the cameron, but because she was being an ignorant racist cunt.that is all..
-
When you have to resort to personal attacks, it proves that you have no real argument to stand on. You must be a Pixar employee, or a relative of one to become that angry when forced to read the truth?
-
Saw it in 2D. Not Pixar's best, but very enjoyable...
-
i dont recall any personal attacks though...hmm
-
I'm pretty sure in that in not one of your posts have you actually listed reasons behind your arguments. And by that I mean reasons that withstand the basest scrutiny.
-
At this point I'm more willing to believe giant blue space-cats are real than someone who is as hateful and ignorant as you. Please grow up.
-
...personal attacks, one knows that you have no real argument to stand-on. You must work at Pixar, or are a family member, or friend of someone who does, judging by your anger? "Up" is Pixar's worst film to date, and you know it.
-
oh...i see your point know..I MUST KNOW IT...yeah you're right ..it is the worst film ever! ever ever! nope, not even close...im sorry if it didnt have enough fart jokes to hold your little minds attention, but it was good...we'll see in a few months when it wins award after award and how many top 10 lists its on...
-
Hilarious and very good use of 3d.But i need to express a fear i have,concerning 3d although my experience with it is only with the avatar party,ice age and partly journey to the center of the earth:
I noticed a common pattern between all those movies: in order to pinpoint the 3d experience,they use the same type of scene like chase/running/shooting scenes and the same camera angle like when there are several people who look at something or have a conversation,u will always see the scene like u r looking above the shoulders of some of the characters.
I hope thats not the case,that 3d is not limited in a way,that u will always need to have a chase scene or looking behind peoples backs,in every movie in order to showcase.
But if thats the case,then 3d is a tool only for big budget entertainment movies,and only masters of the art would find a way to use 3d as a tool to promote the art of their movies.i hope i am totally wrong with this. -
Aug 24, 2009 3:20:55 PM CDT
Six Demon Bag: Choclate Woman Was Being Clever A Satirist
by media messiah
You guys weren't smart enough to get the joke, it went right over you dumb heads. That wasn't racism, that was sharp comedy, and there is a fine line.
-
gimme valid reasons why UP didnt float your boat....
-
Aug 24, 2009 3:24:41 PM CDT
Amended-Six Demon Bag: Choclate Woman Was Being Clever A Satiris
by media messiah
You guys weren't smart enough to get the joke, it went right over your dumb heads. That wasn't racism, that was sharp comedy, and there is a fine line. Again, she was one of the best posters on this site in years, and to be tossed for being outrageously funny, is an outrage. In fact, in one of her final postings, she even told South African Guy not to take it personal, and that she was only joking.
-
but one thing...she didnt back up her claims..she trolled..and she made outrageous ignorant claims towards other people...im starting to see a slight similarity....
-
Maybe some audiences are so accustomed to visual spectacle that a movie that contains both spectacle and characterization make them feel bored. Bad exposition and character development are indeed boring, but when seeing a film that handles those same elements brilliantly, certain viewers may inadvertently, trigger the impression that the movie their watching is inferior. They immediately conclude it will be like what they were originally bored them in a similar but, inferior movie. So, once those feelings are in place, they discount everything good about the good movie and suddenly make ill-formed and lazy comparisons to an inferior film.
-
Maybe some audiences are so accustomed to visual spectacle that a movie that contains both spectacle and characterization make them feel bored. Bad exposition and character development are indeed boring, but when seeing a film that handles those same elements brilliantly, certain viewers may inadvertently trigger the impression that the movie their watching is inferior. They immediately conclude it will be like what they were originally bored them in a similar but, inferior movie. So, once those feelings are in place, they discount everything good about the good movie and suddenly make ill-formed and lazy comparisons to an inferior film.
-
Aug 24, 2009 3:33:07 PM CDT
This just in: Media Messiah & Chocolate Woman one in same
by toadkillerdog
Evidence: Only MM found Chocolate Woman to be in the least bit funny or a satirist of any sort other than juvenile troll.
-
First, the film starts out as largely a silent film, for well too long, but the story was pleasant, so I excused that, but then, we are taken to South America on a tree of balloons, and from there, the whole story crashed and degenerated into a dumb chase film with talking dogs--one, that went on, and on, and on??? I can't recall laughing while watching the film, not once, as it was attempting to be non offensive--I mean, if there ever was a film that called for smart dialogue from Seth McFarlene or Joss Whedon...this was the film. "Up" was neither entertaining for adults, or children, it was just white bread boring stuff--a one not gimmick with no place to go story wise. A very funny, and clever family film, however, is Mike Meyer's (spelling?) "Cat In The Hat". The movie was funny as hell, and was made on two levels, one for kids, and one for adults!!! The adult humor went right over the heads of the kids, but was biting, stinging, even sexy, and inappropriate, for adult ears--and that which was intended for the kids, and or, the whole family, was poppy, sassy, and very inventive. I was completely shocked, and surprised, as I avoided this movie for years. As for animated films, "Happy Feet"...yet another film that I avoided for some time, is a real classic, and puts "Up" entirely to shame!!!
-
everybody should watch it,if they havent done it already.
-
As I have pointed-out in the recent past, AICN.com can check your personal information in respect to what city, or country you are posting from, and what net service you are using. Every major web site has that capability. Trust me, they know that I am not Choclate Woman, or anyone else, for that matter! And yes...others did get her jokes...and if she wasn't banned, I suspect we would have heard some very interesting things from her??? Again, as I have said previously, I was very impressed by her technical knowledge of film. She is actually the smartest person that I have ever come across on the net in respect to knowing the technical ins, and outs, of film, from lighting to cameras, etc. She was a great resource for information, one that was lost in favor of the status quo--that being you guys, and your endless, and silly fights about whether Batman can beat Superman.
-
—TV requires constant chatter to avoid someone walking away, answering the phone or other distractions. Basically it's a piece of furniture that works by beaming into the home so to engage viewers it has to compete with everything in the home.So, Media Messiah, that sounds like an attention and focus conflict. I don't think it's wise to expect cinema to be like television (then again what do I know? I found "Transformers" one of the most unbearably boring movies I've ever seen. Although the kids seemed to dig it, even while texting their friend 3 rows down.)
-
...but some trolls are worth listening to, and if there was ever a case for one, a troll who should have been heard, it was her. I hope AICN.com contacts her at her email address, and restores her account.
-
and it's refreshing.
-
I thought this was "photo-realistic" CG!?! It looks like a really polished Pixar movie with Colonial Marines as guest stars! Cameron was talking as if he'd discovered the 4th dimension in filmmaking. Pure hype.
-
Aug 24, 2009 4:03:21 PM CDT
Blakindigo: As I Said, I Put Up With The Silent Parts...
by media messiah
...of the film, and I ultimately found them pleasant...as they were actually, the best parts of the film??? It was the rest of film that sucked!!! Cut-out the rest of the movie, and "Up" would amount to a 21 minute computer demo of a film, as it should have been.
-
That's actually a cool way of looking at it.
-
Aug 24, 2009 4:10:48 PM CDT
Mediah Messiah....'smart dialogue' from Joss Whedon????
by hint_of_smegma
Again, you prove you talk utter shit. A Pixar film that requires 'smart dialogue' would be better served by hiring any fucking Joe Blow off the street than that self-satisfied one note moron. The idea of a Pixar film needing either Whedon or McFarlane would mean the end of the studio. People love their movies, and let's face it, they don't go to a Pixar film to see comedy homages to other films, to hear contrived unrealistic 'sassy' dialogue - the kind people think of in the car after a confrontation or conversation as to what they SHOULD have said - or to just hear smut jokes. Some things shouldn't be combined. Like you and access to the internet.
-
It was not boring.
-
BwwOOOAAH-NNggUH SUMMER BwwOOOAAH-NNggUH 2010 BwwOOOAAH-NNggUH IN BwwOOOAAH-NNggUH CEP BwwOOOAAH-NNggUH TION BwwOOOAAH-NNggUH
-
Complete with crunchy little blue 'Na'Vi coated with ritalin.
-
Pity the poor editor that put that trailer together. He must hear BwwOOOAAH-NNggUH all the time.
-
Cameron fleecing the studio for the effects work on Avatar? That's possible, of course (and if he is more power to him), but Cameron was an FX guy before computer imagery was available. He's an old models, glue and optical printing kind of guy. He spends money like nobody's business, but it's all on the screen, friends.
-
Looks like Monsters Inc with Robots
-
That Seth McFarlane is capable of delivering smart dialogue?
... Oh dear.
-
Alright, but ask yourself, could you take the CG Balrog, and give him the lead role in a film and have him carry it for 2+ hours? Could that firey demon show us how to love and pick flower petals? Think about it...
-
Marginally more annoying than all the people spamming 'Delgo!', 'Thundersmurfs!' et al.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5LyXiFUSbI
(remove all spaces) -
WHAT. THE. FUCK.Regarding Choclate Woman, this is complete and utter bullshit:Quote: "...her technical knowledge of film. She is actually the smartest person that I have ever come across on the net in respect to knowing the technical ins, and outs, of film, from lighting to cameras, etc. She was a great resource for information..."There is NO WAY that useless excuse for a ghost-account Talkbacker did anything of the sort. In fact, not once did I ever see her/him talking about film. And the reason why she/he was banned was because of the over-the-top vulgarity that was put forth with every post (i.e. "fisting rights", etc.). The baseless racist accusations that she started flinging around were just the icing on the cake.Media Messiah, whoever that person(s) was, I suspect that you had a relationship with them outside of AICN. No one else...and I mean NO ONE ELSE...has rallied to her/his defence in the way that you have. It boggles the mind because there are dozens of Talkbackers who have contributed infinitely more valuable conversation to this site than that troll ever did. And when I say "troll", I mean it in the most unflattering sense.Don't even get me started on your, "She was just a performance artist" bullshit either.
-
Whatever. The Balrog looked real for that 5 minutes. I didn't mean it was better; my point was that CGI rendering of humans is still harder than CGI rendering of fantasy/sci fi creatures.
-
stupid and unpretentious, with a good villainous performance by Miguel Ferrer. No, it's not greast art, but I've seen worse.
-
Don't you know...he is amessiah?
-
The thing is that other than 10 Commandments I can't name one memorable "spectacle" movie from the 50s, but I can think of great other movies from that time period. Hitchcock (who admittedly tried 3D) was doing great work, as was Ford, but what people really remember from the era is that foreign films started to come out, most of them in black-and-white and much more exciting than any Cinemascope production.
-
What I really wish is for a second Nouvelle Vague, not neccessarily from France, but one thast shows that techical expertise is only impressive when it's subordinate to storytelling. (And, no, I'm not thinking of that mumblecore crap.)
-
Peter Weller ( Buckaroo Banzai )Amanda Pays
-
i just watched an X-Files with her in it. And Buckaroo Banzai is 100% brilliant. I rarely say this, but it was a movie that was too cool to be a smash it.
-
"too cool to be a smash hit."+
-
Laugh while you can.....MONKEY BOY!
-
OK, I'll tell you. UP was NOT made for children. At all. UP was made to please adults to make them think they were being sophisticated, in a way I refer to as "Taster's Choice International Coffees Movies" - fake sophistication veneer over a nasty actual product. UP is an animated movie that I would NEVER want to take a child to. Now, before you start yelling "IT'S FOR KIDS AND ADULTS," let me say, no, it's not. When your FIRST STORY BEAT is about a miscarriage ... WHAT. THE. FUCK? And the misery didn't stop there, from a bludgeoning that results in a bloody head to a sneering old man taking heart medicine to a little boy who was animated and talked like Corey from LIFE GOES ON (right down to his Downs Syndrome Eyebrows) to abused and tortured dogs to talk of mass murder by the old man's "hero" to broken bird legs to shotgunning children (that's what the hero wanted to do, and tried on several occasions) to murder by dog pack (another plan attempted by the hero character) to abandoned children to Russell's seperation anxiety from his parents' divorce (where neither his biological dad or his new mom want to even bother to see or talk to him) to the final act where the old man murders his hero - yrah, rock on, Pixar - you sure did take an innocent and joyful view on life in that one. I found UP to be insulting, angry, vicious, cruel and nasty. And you know what? It's not fit for children, but it's also not fit for adults. Its nihilistic view, coupled with UNNECESSARY violence, coupled with its nasty attitudes ... the whole thing was an experience in unpleasantness that made ME definitely want to walk out, but I stuck around wanting to see just how bad it could get. This is the primary Pixar model that has led to such critical success: take a kid's story, like talking cars, and inhabit it with all kinds of grown-up psychological malformations to try to make it seem more sophisticated than it really is. Between this, WALL-E's anti-humanist stance (remember, any attempt by society to create objects like bras or fire extinguishers is a symptom of humanity's unnatural waste and therefore should be regarded as evil - and PEOPLE ARE GETTIN' FAAAAAAAT because they're so gross and so bad! They'd better learn to go vegetarian and start eatin' their greens ONLY), Pixar has had a one-two punch of failure.
-
http://tinyurl.com/lpg2jw
2 minutes worth -
Let me also give you an example of part of the CGI problem. There are no HUMAN actors here to relate to, once he gets into the Na'Vi. We won't talk about the ridiculous "scarred so you know he's bad" as Bright Boy said military man. Once this movie gets into Na'Vi terrotiry, it quickly loses any sense of perspective. You can tell from the shots on the alien world. Things fly at other things, and there's nothing to latch on to, anywhere, except big blue furry aliens which, while hot as hell, look kinda cartoony and goofy. Now, as I said, I'm a furry, but I also recognize that I'm not the chief demographic. While I'd enjoy watching the Na'Vi move around and stretch out in the sun, that's kinda ghey, and not for everyone. Being a furry, I also know that the stuff I like is near-universally derided by the general public, and I like the Na'Vi. :) So, it's not a difficult stretch to think that the general population is going to take one look at these guys and think of them the same way they do about cosplay and dragon-shaped dildos - in other words, "WTF?" The Na'Vi have that SAME feel to them, that kind of weird vibe that makes people uncomfortable because it is different. And you're gonna sell this to the box-office necessity, Middle America? Not hardly. And ten-year-old boys? Not hardly. And girls who view even a single social faux pas as a reason to bar someone from happiness for life? Not hardly. No, you're going to appeal to sci-fi geeks only. Because you have nothing here that is human, nothing that registers with the heart of the viewer, nothing for the viewer to feel.In closing, let me point out an older movie that uses CGI to maximum effect: DEEP RISING. Watch the finale. Sure, the effects of the creature aren't as visually incorporated into the shot as they might be in AVATAR, but I don't think it matters - because the movie gives you a hero and heroine to root for in these scenes, gives you a sense of PLACE that exists and that can register in the mind of the viewer - the interior of the ship, gives you a clear idea of what is going on - a monster is chasing them down the halls, and most of all lays out the action in such a way as making it relatively easy for the mind's eye to follow. Not so AVATAR, with its giant wastelands of CGI fighting other CGI.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2hZ5M_KbEw
-
Interesting...
I was wondering if that shot of Jake's avatar hitting the glass in the medical lab was him getting his legs back - literally.
A few people have complained that shot looks "stiff" but it makes sense from a story standpoint. -
The problem with that shot is the same problem that plagues most CGI, and that's that it can't possibly exist in real space. The angle of the hand on the glass doesn't match the background for the character to be standing where he is standing. That's one of the biggest faults of CGI - nobody bothers with the physics. It's as real to the human eye as wire-fu in that scene, only this wire-fu cost $300m.
-
trying to walk. Soon after the scene of him moving his feet and toes while on the table. Then he says "This is great!" Cool scene. I can't fucking wait. Look how small the labs dudes are. The other avatar looks at Jake and slightly opens his mouth.
-
Is fucking so goddamn aweful bad. Just fucking horrible beyond words.
-
Actually, it was SHIT, wrapped in a TURD, and covered with FECES. It could have been worse, the creature could have been sitting on a STOOL!
-
That's a great way to see this movie for what it is, when you watch the blurry CAM footage of the two minutes of the main character getting his "legs" in the hospital room. Devoid of the so-called "flashy" CGI, the movie is embarassing. It's going for laughs in a sequence about a guy about to fall down and knock into things. ROCK, that's sophisticated use of CGI tech. And what's more, the Na'Vi face is, indeed, a dead-eyed mask, with no real expressiveness beyond cartoon movements of the face. I'M SOOOOOO HAPPPYYYYYYY! And a butt-shot! YEAH! Rock on, James Cameron. This IS like the Moon Landing; I can tell you put as much effort as the entire moon landing crew did to do a Man-Fall-Down scene with a dead-eyed protagonist that ends in a butt-shot for laughs. Great work. Basically, devoid of its supposed flashy CGI, the movie is a joke, and the Na'Vi look horrible.
-
God and R-rated movies. http://tiny.cc/rated
-
God and R-rated movies. http://tiny.cc/rated
-
God and R-rated movies. http://tiny.cc/rated
-
... was to show that even old CGI, with its weird coloration and its not-really-in-the-shot nature, can be used to maximum effect, to convey a scene, to move the action along and to give the viewer a better idea of what's going on - and DEEP RISING does that. Compare it with the CGI in AVATAR, where it's just all over the map and you have no idea where anyone is in relation to anyone else. Put aside your feelings about DEEP RISING itself, and see what I'm saying for what it is, DrMorbius et al. You watch the clip, and what you see is that the CGI is in service to human characters in a human situation - not the other way around. THAT is why I showed the clip.
-
So, roughly, how many times will you be seeing AVATAR?
-
85 million
-
Exactly zero. I can do without its eco message, its POCAHONTAS mentality of reverse-racism (here speciesism? Though, the soldiers will undoubtedly represent 'the white man' in contrast with the Blue Man taking the place of the Red Man), etc.As much as I'd like to grab a Na'vi by the hips, I can't handle the other stuff, and for my own sanity I'm steering clear in the theaters. When it's on tv, I'll give it a look - maybe - to see if I was wrong. And, if reviews come out enough that say it is NOT an eco-piece, I'll maybe go. The eco-terrorism theme is probably my biggest gripe against it. I hate luddites who use the most advanced tech in the world to create a piece saying why the most fndamental tech is bad.
-
Hard to predict. After word of mouth, I think most people will want to see it in 3-D, and a lot of theaters will be showing the new Christmas Carol IMAX 3-D.
-
But I think you are still kind of missing my point: the movies don't have to be good or memorable, and I am not saying that the "best" movies of the 1950s were in Cinemascope, nor am I saying that the "best" movies of the current era will be in 3D...what I am saying is, those Cinemascope spectacles, forgettable as they may have been, SOLD TONS OF TICKETS in the 1950s, and helped to save the movie biz from tv. These 3D movies will do the same. They can suck donkey balls, and many undoubtedly will, but as long as they pack theatres, theatres will STAY OPEN and we will be able to see good movies on the big screen, you dig?
-
You got tickets for the Dec 17th midnight showing didn't ya? I keed, I keed!
-
It was another one of those Pixar tear jerker type movies that kids get brainwashed by, Notice how bo one talks about it now?
-
Seen the teaser, not the 3D footage on the big screen. Looks like a 'best of Cameron' movie to me, and that's a good thing in my book. Strange creatures and eco message from the 'Abyss'? Check. Colonial marines from 'Aliens'? Check. Lovers from two different worlds like in 'Titanic'? Check. The theme of technology meddling with our fate from 'Terminator'? Check!!! I loved those films, so I guess there's no reason not to like 'Avatar'... except of a certain lack of innovation, for sure, but who cares for that these days when Viewmaster toys, Tic Tac Toe, Paper Stone Scissors and the phone book of L.A. are made into overpriced, overhyped tentpole pictures. As for the CG looking fake or not 'weighty' enough - dunno, can't judge this from the teaser, but the characters and sceneries are generally appealing and beautiful in design. The movie sure looks fascinating. I'll be there on opening day.
-
Like I said, the big thing for me will be to see if it's as much a screed on the evil of man as I think, because no amount of Na'vi sexiness could overcome that, and at this point hot Na'Vi is the only thing I can see this movie has going for it for me. And MAN, I'll admit for the non-haters out there, as goofy as they are, they are HOT!
-
no...thats what OSCAR BAIT is for...Pixar i think is making films for themselves and if they happen to entertain the audience, so be it...if im the only one to enjoy Up, whatever...MM--i WAS hearing you on the critique until you said that Cat in the Hat was funny...i'll have to take your word for it since Myers hasnt been funny since 54.
-
anything like ice age, shrek, transformers, madagasgar...
-
you are a master of self serving horseshit only paralleled by our dear Media Messiah and Asimov Lives..
reconsider breathing...please. -
I wouldn't waste my money on this infantile cartoon.
I feel bad for the poor people who have been duped, buying into the bullshit hype.
This is nothing more than a 2 hour cartoon/video game and they want you to believe this is a serious film. -
you have been noted...better not backpedal come december...
-
It had unnecessary slow mo shots. In the actual 3D preview I saw hardly any slo mo scenes.
-
Come on Jimmy Boy, you have got to do better than this!
-
In a world of spaceships and power suits, all they could give this poor crippled marine to get around in was a hand-propelled wheelchair like they had in the 1800's? They couldn't rig up some exoskeleton to let him at least walk across the floor? As soon as I saw him wheeling himself past that towering robot, I was like "What is this?" Maybe that's nitpicking, but it really took me out of things.
-
and im done with you.
-
Yeah, I get your point. However, I'm going to continue to supporting movies I like. i saw Moon and District 9 twice, not just because I wanted to but because I wanted to support them.
-
Aug 24, 2009 8:22:40 PM CDT
If you actually *hated up*, not just not like it but "hated* it
by wookie1972
YOu have no goddamn heart.
-
Not sure that was clear.
-
Not sure that was clear.
-
I did the same, saw all three that day:avatar,district9 and inglourious b, havent done taht since high school.
Loved the first half of avatar with the marines, felt like i was right there at the briefing. Although I felt completely immersed in Pandora, it was too CG. Aside from that, best 3D experience+excited to see the movie! -
Dogs don't talk.
-
Fools! All! I'm going to use 2 minutes of shitty 2D camera phone footage from 16 minutes of a 3D movie to prove my point! I am a genius! ThusSpakeSpyspunk is my name and I can do no wrong! I'll tell you about how generally-accepted-as-amazing-by-everyone movies are actually pieces of shit! Because I say so! I'm a CGI animator and I know everything about physics because I have a PhD in movieology! I make no sense and am blind to everything! I can objectively tell you about how art is not subjective at all that only what I say is good is actually good! My favorite movie is DEEP FUCKING RISING! Tremble!
-
Reconfirming my suspscions that movie companies and theaters are still clueless.
-
I take it you plan to never post on it again come December, since you won't really be qualified to comment on something that you haven't seen.
-
I will comment on whatever I want. I have no scruples nor common sense. I don't need to see something to know everything about it. I presume to know all that is knowable. I am called ThusSpakeSpyspunk. Look at my CGI testicles and notice how fake they look!
-
As an example of how to use CGI.
-
Aug 24, 2009 8:53:23 PM CDT
The anti-technology, anti-imperialism theme IS getting really ti
by fluffyunbound
It's like with CRASH and the anti-racism theme. It doesn't really matter if it's a good movie or not because the theme is so overdone and hackneyed, who gives a shit if it's good or not? We need a sci-fi film where humans encounter aliens, the aliens are fucking assholes, and we defeat them because "good guy" government officials, corporate executives, and scientists fuck the aliens up with perfect teamwork and rigorous honor. It wouldn't be all that realistic in terms of human nature, but it would be a palette cleanser. After that we could go back to "evil Umbrella corporation" movies for another three decades.
-
Once again, I am asking your stupid ass to fuck off with the spamming of your shitty fridge site. It's over....your site is shit, you have no content, no real advertisers and nothing interesting to say. Stop being a cunt and trying to force it on it.
-
Kneel before ThusSpakeSpyspunk! Dalgo54321 is a supreme being who only wishes to educate! His website is informative and truthful! Go now! I have spoken! CONGO is one of the greatest movies of the 1990's! Despair!
-
By all means. I am just saying that even those who don't like the big blockbuster type films should be thankful for them, in the sense that because droves of people go to see them, the theatre owners rake in cash. I wish that the DISTRICT 9s and MOONs of the world could support all the theatre chains without tripe like TRANSFORMERS 2, but that's just not the world we live in.
-
As interesting as it was ultimately I think it boils down to Rockwell's amazing performances. If the film had not had such a stellar actor it wouldn't have worked nearly as well. Not doggin' on the movie, I loved it! But you're right and it all started with Jurassic Park. Used to be movies were so cheap to make that even if they didn't blow up at the B.O. they were still profitable and led to more movies. Now that things are so damn expensive they have to make so much more. It's a chicken/egg (or gig/job if you prefer) situation. The blockbusters make a lot of money but you have to spend all that money to make the blockbusters.
-
Wow, and Media Messiah wonders why he can't sell his surefire blockbuster, gamechanging horror flick. Yeah, it's all who you know in Hollywood. That's why no one will hire you. That, and the drooling and the mouth-breathing.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5LyXiFUSbI
-
You get it. Thank you. Let's fuck up the PC bitches. In the immortal words of a Dr. Zin henchman, "AIiiieeeeEEE!"
-
...but, I stumbled into seeing "Cat In The Hat", and it was as funny as hell!!!
-
I wish I knew her, but she was banned before she could get to know me, or me, her. As far as myself, I grew-up in the industry, so it is easy for me to recognize when someone knows their stuff technically--and we got into some technical discussions, as she was blasting, and giving technical instruction to a newbie filmmaker on AICN. She really trashed the guy, but gave him good, no, great advice...about lighting, choice of shots, and so forth, even about cameras. I was shocked because, although I know my stuff to a point, I am not a tech head, and don't wish to be, as it gets in the way of the creative process for me, however, I know plenty of tech heads, and Choclate Woman was talking like a camera tech, a cinematographer, a director, or at least a seasoned film school graduate, if not a teacher, or independent film producer? I have no idea which one, but she was banned before I could ask her. Still, she was a wealth of information on affordable HD cameras...lighting, editing...etc., and then...bam, she was banned???So no, unfortunately for me, I don't know her, but I wish I did. Now, you...and the bulk of the AICN posters, can go back to arguing over whether Batman can beat Superman or not. Bye Gaius, my dearest old friend!
-
Aug 24, 2009 11:34:32 PM CDT
Hint_of_Smegma: Joss Whedon Wrote Much Of "Toy Story"...
by media messiah
...but the Writer's Guild and the officially credited writer for "Toy Story" stole Joss' film credits for the movie...using union laws to do it, but everyone in the industry knows that he is largely responsible for the script, and much of the dialogue, therein. In addition, he, Joss, wrote most of the great dialogue in "Speed"--and "Serenity" is also a great script. BTW, I am no loyal bitch of Joss Whedon...I am always battling people in the "Dollhouse" Talkbacks because I insist that Joss could have done better, and offered my frequent opinion on how the show could be fixed--and along the way, I am sure I pissed-off more than a few folks at Mutant Enemy, people, who I suspect, keep on attacking for my posts, in that very Talkback.Oh, and P.S.: Choclate Woman attacked me on another Talkback for pandering to her--something that I happily admit. I think she's hot, personality wise, as I have never seen her!!!
-
Yep, she/he was because she/he wasn't talking about all that feelgood stuff you just listed (see my previous post). But I have a feeling you already knew that.If that's the kind of conversation you expect to be having in every AICN TB, why don't you head to The Zone and start a thread there. There may even be one already established.And really MM, how can we be dear, old friends if I don't even know who you are...
-
You should try it--it is very freeing!!! And yes, "Up" sucked and "Cat In The Hat", surprisingly, even to me, was a riot!!!
-
About MM, you begin to understand why,Animals eat their young!
-
No, but it's becoming more and more clear why so many think he's off his rocker.
-
it's possible cameron did his homework and found out from his research that even decades into the future, wheelchair will just be wheelchair. we're living in a new century now, and can send robots to mars and jupiter, and yet, people still write with pen and paper like they've always done for centuries.
the amp suit(exo suit) in avatar already exist today. at least, the tech is already here(search "real" iron man on youtube). and if the worthington's character has NO legs, no doubt real looking enough prosthetics would be used on him, like we can already do with amputees today. but worthington still HAS both his legs. and it's entirely possible that in the future, plain old wheelchair is still the best viable option. -
... into the ... future?
Uh-huh. -
...tell you my last few posting names--and the reason I won't, is that you have sold-out to group speak, and group mind fueled peer pressure!!!
-
He lost his legs, so if you put him in a motorized wheelchair the muscles in the rest of his body would atrophy. He uses the wheelchair to get around, and keep his body as fit as possible.
-
How much did you get?Did you get the same amount from group speak, as you did from group mind?
-
You just don't realize it.
-
Where have I expressed anger? It seems to me that you're playing coy with your previous names as if it's some sort of game with you. Personally, I don't see what the big deal is with Talkbackers who are afraid to disclose their old names. It's like they're afraid of reprisals or something.As for selling out to "group speak and group mind fueled peer pressure", do you have any concrete examples of this? Even if you did, what would this have to do with your strange name-baiting?
-
Group speak had nothing left to give. It was wasted on various hate-filled TBs. Group mind, on the other hand, gave me everything. Money. Power. Women. You name it.
-
Is that how you're going to be?
-
Memories of MurderBladeRunnerUnit!
-
You use to be the most intellectual poster here, well, almost(we have to consider me being in the equation)...and you were the yin, to my yang...but now, you're willfully just one of the crowd, ranting, raving, bullying, and calling names--simply, a rebel, without a cause. The difference between us--that is, you and I, is that I am a rebel...one, with a cause--and that would be: Independent, and free, thinking.Come and join me here--if you dare.
-
I swear...some of you guys take these talkbacks way too seriously.
-
"I Double Dog Dare You."
-
that too. and this is a marine we're talking about. motorized shit is for lazy fat geeks, not marine.
-
What the fuck are you talking about?
-
...you don't know what (the fuck) I am talking about, and...that is why you fail.And you were this close to finding-out, the "Big Reveal!!!"
-
a.k.a. The Crying Game.
-
Yet, somehow, I don't believe you for a second.
-
I hope you're getting a kick out of this because it's starting to creep me out.
-
I think he/she is booking a room!
-
Aug 25, 2009 1:11:25 AM CDT
Too bad about the "Big Reveal". I guess MM just wasn't...
by mr. nice gaius
........................ bold enough.
-
What the fuck is going on here?
-
You just judged Avatar based on a blurry 3D clip from youtube. You are the living incarnation of everything James Cameron is against, which is cunts like you who think they are big, when they are just in front of a shitty computer screen with a shitty graphic card and shitty ram and shitty keyboard, not realising you are not worth more than Cameron's shit.
-
Aug 25, 2009 1:29:31 AM CDT
Gaius: You Just Said That You Don't Want To Know The Truth...
by media messiah
...you claimed to be, creeped- out??? Hence, I will give you exactly what you want--nothing. Ignorance...as they say, is bliss--...or, not?
-
Has officially taken a turn for the weird
-
Aug 25, 2009 1:33:19 AM CDT
Joss Whedon couldn't even fucking write a Wonder Woman script
by lockesbrokenleg
-
Avatar trailer looks like shit on purpose. How can this be....
Here is what Sam Worthington says about shit trailer:"'It has a hell of a lot of hype. I read what was said yesterday about the trailer, and I can see their point, but it's not built for an Apple Mac. It's built for IMAX. It's built for 3D. It's what he's designed it for, he's designed it to bring people back into the cinema.'"
Q:"So why the heck would he release that trailer first, Sam?" A: "'It's interesting that he's released that trailer, that Jim's gone and done that, and the next day he's releasing it on IMAX. From one extreme to the other - we get criticism and then we get rave reviews. That's obviously going to get people to think and go, 'Damn right, I'm going to see this at the cinema.' That's what Jim's always said to me, that he wanted to bring people back to the movies, and he's a smart enough man to be that tactical.'"
http://tinyurl.com/mflrdh
SO this is all part of some brainwashing scam to get the poor people pay higher ticket prices and waste gas by driving 2 or 3 hours to an IMAX because Avatar is supposed to look like shit in 2D?
What about what Cameron said on Aug 8th:
"You have to make a good film that would be a good film under any circumstances," he said. "You have to put the narrative first. The reality is no matter how many (3-D) screens we get, you are still going to have a large number of people -- possibly the majority of people -- who see the film in a 2-D environment." -
LOOKS FUCKING MIND-BLOWING!
-
talking about the movie. Fuckheads.
-
http://tinyurl.com/lrlva5
-
Aug 25, 2009 2:48:51 AM CDT
Lockesbrokenleg: As Far As WW--Apparently, Nobody Else Can Eithe
by media messiah
And Dollhouse sn't what it should be, all that proves is that a person, no matter how good they are may not be great at everything they try. I am certainly not, but I keep on trying to be the best that I can be!!!
-
Aug 25, 2009 2:50:37 AM CDT
Lockesbrokenleg: As Far As WW-Apparently, Nobody Else Can Either
by media messiah
And Dollhouse isn't what it should be, all that proves is that a person, no matter how good they are, may not be great at everything they try. I am certainly not, but I keep on trying to be the best that I can be!!!
-
...a turn for the weird, officially, and or, unofficially.
-
That was the biggest thing for me, as I have never seen a believable way to bring forth the Invisible Jet in a WW story, and have an audience buy it. I have had this idea for a while, just a little something in the greater picture of a Wonder Woman story. I have no interest in writing any such story, and no one is offering, but the Invisible Jet thing just always bothered me...and now I have a cool explanation for it that works.
-
The revealing of names is treated as seriously as revealing torture documents and secret spy stuff by the government, it's fucking HILARIOUS!
-
I love how people are attacking me right and left for having an opinion that differs from theirs, that is dismissive of a movie. You could make fun of me for being a furry or wanting to bone a Na'Vi, but instead you get angry at my choice to demean a little blurry clip on YouTube. Man, all thaat opportunity passed right over your head! Oh, well. I'm going to go back to having sex with people and hanging out outside instead of sitting behind my "keyboard' like you think I do all day. Just because I'm home with the flu doesn't mean that I spend ALL my time doing this.
-
So far, 3-D hasn't really done anything but distract me. Maybe this is just one man's opinion but the "depth" of 3-D films has always seemed phony. Not in the "Friday the 13th 3-D" way where people poke things at the camera but just in a phony "pay attention to THIS" way that removes me from the film. Certain things are close, some are far, they overlap, some are in focus, some are not. Until there is a day when you can actually focus on something in the foreground and then change the focus when you choose to look at background images none of it rings true to me. I understand a filmmaker can "guide" the focal point but that still doesn't mimic any sort of real world depth and how we experience it. Its like a fake looking special effect that takes you out of a movie but it last ALL movie.
I've preferred the more vibrant colors of 2-D films over the muted but "3-D" movies I've seen with those tinted glasses. Am I alone on this one? I know I'm a bit too finicky about certain things, so maybe I am.
-
And no, I was not Choclate Woman, but I could smell his testicles from miles away, so I would stop FAP FAP FAPPing over him.
-
And no, I was not Choclate Woman, but I could smell his testicles from miles away, so I would stop FAP FAP FAPPing over him.
-
The trailer isn't the 2D movie you moron, it's a trailer on the web.
-
minor infractions? I miss being able to call you all faggots.
-
more time here talking about it than anyone else. If the idea of Avatar (big budget, epic scale action sci-fi that uses lots of cgi and *gasp* 3D) offends their precious sensabilites so much, or if the film just flat out does nt interest them, then why the hell are they always here talking about it? I think thou doth protest too much.....
-
Are you really still here talking about this movie and it's CG? Seriously dude get a fucking life. You don't like it, we all get it, move on. No one who's gonna see this movie gives a fuck about your opinion, and your not changing any minds. The only thing your proving is what a complete twat you are, and that you have nothing better to do in life then post 24/7 about a movie you supposedly hate. You act like Cameron betrayed you personally. Your shtick is so fucking transparent everyone here knows your the guy who hated this movie the second you found out it existed. You'd be better off just screaming, "LOOK AT ME, I'M SO CONTROVERSIAL! GIVE ME ATTENTION". Go fucking get laid and get your mind off James Cameron for a few minutes.
Oh and anyone who is claiming UP was a shitty movie warrants no respect whatsoever. Just cause you retards have an opinion, does not mean it's a fact. -
Still awesome.
-
If its really bad, there's no hype, everyone will just want to bury it. If on the other hand, its OK, it entertains you, then people will quite happily plonk down their hard-earned money to watch it in the cinema. I really get the feeling with movie, that a lot of people will do that.
Despite all the lengthy feedback thus far (And a truckload more to come yet!) millions are to watch this movie.
The only question really is exactly how many millions... -
that Milf hasnt aged at all.She could easily play again Ripley in a new Alien Movie.
And i like the fact that her navi avatars face has the core characteristics of her real face.it made her avatar look like she was realy sigourney weaver with makeup,rather than a her voice over a cgi creature.thats quite an achievement,something that the haters here bypassed. -
....seems less 'artificial' looking than some of the shots during the high quality trailer released online! Maybe this is how we should have got our first proper glimpse of moving footage after all...since it all looks quite 'realistic' in the CAM when the 'CG sheen' is not noticeable...
-
....that I'd actually enjoy seeing a poor 'CAM'd' pirate version of, all the way through!
-
http://www.you tube.com/watch?v=t5LyXiFUSbI
For those of you who missed it.
Damn fine stuff. just delete the space -
This just in: Media Messiah and Spymunk are still nuts.
-
I didn't even know we were dating.
-
Yeah, it's only a matter of time that someone would lose interest when you continue to be intentionally obtuse. The fact that you keep bringing it up (i.e. "...my dearest old friend!) is what creeps me out.
-
SOrry I haven't gotten back to you sooner. Anyway, I think of the movie theater industry as kind of like the US auto industry - most of their problems are their own damn fault. People don't buy american cars because they don't want american cars. SImilarly, people don't like going to the movies because theaters charge way too much, show commercials before the features, don't have ushers who tell people to shut the fuck up during the movie, and hire incompetent amateurs for their projectionists. Cut ticket prices in half, get someone who knows what they're doing in the projection booth, and get rid of the damn commercials, and I guarantee you'd get more people in theaters.
-
If Media Messiah was Joss Whedon, every post he wrote on here would get cancelled.
-
What people here don't realize is that it's not the geeks seeking eyeball buggering who make a movie a colossal hit. As has been said before, the Dark Knight was successful because the great reviews told people who would never see a superhero movie that this was worth seeing. The casual moviegoers are also the ones least likely to download movies. I call it the Norah Jones Factor. Why does Norah Jones sell so many CDs? Because the people her music appeals to - aging baby boomers - are not likely to download music, but instead just buy the CD. It's also what made Mamma Mia and Julie and Julia (or, from the male side, Gran Torino hits. Such an audience is the LEAST likely to care about 3D.
-
I saw one with Public Enemies. It didn't bugger my eyeballs; it made them recoil in utter horror at a honey-glazed Jim Carrey. Seriously, I'm not a fan of Cameron, but Zemeckis is the goddamn antichrist of film.
-
Lot of hype for JC to live up to here, but based on trailer I think it's going to be classic Cameron. Everyone should go into seeing Avatar with the same open mind as the original Terminator and Aliens.... he loves to tell great stories (3D or not) enhanced by FX, not reliant of them.... PSYCHED!!!
-
Man I don't get folks who bitch about online trailer, since that's not how they're going to see the movie. I saw the IMAX footage and was blown away.
-
Zemeckis is indeed the antichrist of film. Hard to believe the guy once made Back to the Future. 24 long years ago...
-
http://img.denihilation.com/
-
idiocy just doesnt have limits,does it?
-
just wanted to keep the talkback going, is it a record length yet?
-
and nearby Hamilton where much of the last Hulk was shot. He's exec-producing an Alien Invasion made for TV movie. At least he took the time to travel to set for a first hand look see.
-
You finally outed me! Yes, I am... Joss (Bad Ass) Whedon!!! Yeah, I wish I had his money and access.
-
Since you aren't being Nice--okay, I won't!!!
-
Aren't you repeating yourself at this point?
-
when Firefly came out, and somehow he's a damn genius.
-
Aug 25, 2009 3:41:35 PM CDT
"The trailer isn't the 2D movie you moron, it's a trailer on the
by trannyformers_apologist
WOW really theplant did you come up with that all by yourself? Or did your mommy help you?hahahahahahahahaahaha Did Cameron make a shitty trailer that is completely different from the 2D movie? Even if the the CGI is not 100% the horrible designs and how far off the CGI is keep it from being a groundbreaking 2D movie that lives up to half of the horseshit hype. Let me spell this out for you ok...Worthington said basically the trailer is shit on purpose right??? Cameron wants people to see it in 3D Imax. Right? Cameron said earlier it has to be good in both 2D and 3D RIGHT? The trailer represents the 2D movie..... right? Why after 4 years would he release a trailer that is vastly inferior to the 2D movie? He wouldn't... sure it might not be as good as the 2D movie but the reason the trailer looks like shit is because NONE of it lives up to half of the outrageous hype that came out Cameron's own mouth not to mention the other god awful bullshit hype. CAMERON WOULD HAVE TO COMPLETELY redo the the CGI for the first half of the film assuming the latter half of the film is up to hype. I don't see how it could be. That would mean the 2D movie is shit and does not live up to the hype. Cameron's Master plan: trying to trick people go to IMAX 3D = Cameron saves the movie industry and can sell more 3D TVs and 3D Cameras . While RICKROLLING the public with his over-hyped 2D cartoon shitfest. Other than that Cameron can only hope for an epic cliche story with Pixar like CGI and terrible designs that turn people off. OH and how many of you praising Avatar enjoyed the Bay disaster shitfest that was Transformers 1 & 2? The people who enjoyed TF2 are the same people making this movie so popular. I don't give a fuck what they think. CLASSIC "I'm sick of these "HATERS" I can talk shit about movies I don't like but when you do it about a movie I like... you're a fuckhead, hater, troll, twat, moron."I love this place. It's worse than Superhero hype,Comingsoon.com, Comicbookmovie.com and IMDB combined. The power of Cameron compels you!hahahahahahaNEVER FORGET!AVATARWill reinvent the way movies are experienced Epic masterpiece mind-blowing Photo-realJaw-droppingCGI unlike anything you have seen before Like dreaming with your eyes open Revolutionary Cameron's Lawrence of ArabiaGame-changerThis generation's Stars Wars Unlike anything you have seen before Truly amazing Prepare to be blown away Breathtaking Like a highly addictive drug that had left my mind yearning for more Can't stop dreaming about it This movie had activated parts of my brain that were previously untouched by conventional, two-dimensional films
FUCKING YOUR EYEBALLS IN 2009
AICN funniest place on the net. -
You're issuing a clear invitation to the dance.
-
But this doesn't seem to be something I really can't wait for. I trust the helmer, explicitly, because he influenced so much of what I like about movies. This is so strange, but seeing this footage made me say, 'Meh'.I'm not stunned, and most folks around here know I'm a booster. I love movies. This just doesn't grip me like: http://tinyurl.com/t2clip did. And still does.Avatar's goofy blue aliens, which make me think it's going to be like Wizard of Oz...shit's real in the beginning, they step out of the house into Oz, and shit's all technicolor and stuff. But here, the modern equivalency is IMAX or 3-d, so he gets turned into a CGI version of himself (kinda neat, mostly goofy looking to me...as for photorealistic, I disagree. It looks cartoony...like ReBoot or something...the textures are all spot on but the animation looks like a cartoon.)Will I see it? Of fuckin' course. Is this the best trailer for something people have been cradling the balls of and sucking on since hearing rumors of its existence? No. In fact, given that people have been blowing load after load about this, this trailer wasn't what I was expecting...or what Cameron is capable of....Fucking marketing pricks.
-
If you think those Worthington quotes constitute him "trashing" the film then you're clearly reaching.
-
im not really that into avatar at all, but you are clearly a douche bag. your posts are a waste of space.
-
And, yes I am excited about "Avatar."
-
I also assume the AVATAR is not ripping off DELGO, because DELGO was the greatest failure in film history. But please, tell me what the hell is going on there. If I made a movie that had that much image overlap with Episode IV of Star Wars, the Lucas people would suck out every last drop of my blood. What's the deal with these screencaps?
-
I can't speak for Ominus, but in trying to look objectively at the "Avatar/Delgo" similarities, I noticed that it bears only a minor similarity. The ideas of floating mountains have been around for decades and the stills seem a convenient way to deride the work of "Avatar." The character designs aren't similar—look at the wide noses on the 'Delgo' characters, also, the body types seem more characteristic of a mesomorph, than the elongated and lean ectomorph-like bodies of the 'Avatar' Na'vi. Notice the pronounced forehead and brow ridges of the 'Delgo' characters. They seem more 'simian' influenced than the leaner, more human-like faces of the Na'vi.The clothing on the 'Delgo' characters is reminiscent of early 'Flash Gordon' comics; it's much more 'theatrical,' where 'Avatar' seems more tribal in design. 'Delgo' seems to be a culture inspired by medieval Europe.In 'Delgo' characters fly on butterfly wings, different types of animals inhabit the two rival kingdoms of 'Delgo' including bipedal, fox-like creatures. We've only seen the Na'vi as the intelligent life on Avatar and I don't know if there are any other bipedal races.As for story? I don't really know that much about 'Avatar,' or what may have changed from the early scriptment, but, I don't believe it uses a 'Romeo and Juliet' template as it's structure. That's a major difference. It seems that any similarities in the two films are greatly exaggerated, but, it makes great fodder for snarky, ridicule.I can't defend Cameron's design choices here. Then again, I've only seen 16 mins of scenes from a 2.5 hour movie.
-
going to bed now
-
But he gave credit to George Lucas, and openly admitted it, however, Lucas ripped-off "Space Cruiser Yamato"...and still, to this day, won't admit it!!!
-
Another when...for my Big Reveal...and maybe I'm the Big Bad, someone that you know, or just a fallen poster from the past.
-
ASAP
-
Lucas has always said he was a fan of sci fi. He loved Star Trek, and things like that. That's what inspired him.
-
x10. And thusspake wonders why he gets attacked so much and why almost everyone thinks he is an troll/idiot/sad person.....How many more times exactly does he want to flog a dead fucking horse?
-
Aug 26, 2009 12:58:15 AM CDT
Avatar is too late!!!! My eye balls have already been fucked..
by odo19
by Seagal along with my mind. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99E16w0PxCA&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Foutlawvern%2Ecom%2F&feature=player_embe dded#t=59
-
Most of the production design of Space Cruiser Yamato (Star Blazers) was stolen by George Lucas and crew. This is a fact...and the creator of Space Cruiser Yamato was involved in a lawsuit that Lucas filed against Galactica creator Glen Larson. In it, Lucas accused Larson of ripping him off with Galactica, prompting Larson to present a defense that he didn't rip-off Star Wars, rather, both he and Lucas ripped-off Yamato and he enlisted the creator of Yamato to testify on his behalf. In a interview Yamato's creator said that he recognized that both were inspired by his work but he would not sue as it is against a Japanese honor system. BTW...as a part of the lawsuit, it was mentioned that Lucas was scene in Japan in 1973-74 and it was thought that he was checking-out popular Japanese anime, including Yamato, which debuted in theaters in 1974...and was a huge phenomina akin to Star Wars, but three years prior--this would include huge toy sales, cross marketing, you name it. BTW, much of Lucas's financing for Star Wars came from Japanese investors, a little known fact. Perhaps the reason why he was in Japan...and the reason why the designs of space craft, laser fight, the guns, fighters, the dog fights in space, the gun turrets, the Deathstar laser that can destroy whole worlds (the planet destroying wave motion gun)...the Deathstar (aka the Comet Empire), and the Nazi like costumes of the Galactic Empire, mirrored that in Yamato (see the Gamalon Empire--spelling?). Maybe this occured deliberately not just at Lucas' hands, but that of others, as there is a good bet the Japanese investors were so impressed with Yamato being such a cultural success in Japan, that they may have insisted upon it? Lucas, needing the money, may have caved to their whims, and happily so, to get the funding.
-
Quote of the day there.
-
I've watched Yamato from beginning to end and it resembled Star Wars as much as Buck Rogers, Kurasawa films, Issac Asimovs' foundation series, EE Doc Smiths' Lensman series, comic books and ancient greek myths do. The man has been pretty open about the many influences of Star Wars and in response, everyone and his brother who had a similar idea sued him. Hell I was told a similar story revolving around the Lensman series and in it, Lucas went to EE Doc Smith and asked him for the rights but was turned down so he just altered names, planets, environments etc. and called it an original screenplay. So your doing nothing more than spouting your own highly detailed conspiracy theory. You sound like a nut, dude. If anything, Asimovs' widow should be suing Lucas over The Phantom Menace right now. That movie is the first Foundation Novel, right down to the City Planet and the invasion of the peaceful garden planet. Also, there's a little of Zelazneys' Amber Novels thrown in with the underwater Gungan shit.
-
being inspired/influenced by other things, and borrowing/stealing ideas/concepts from said things, then every living/working filmaker today would have to have lawsuits filed against them....Come on guys, its all about how you take all those awsome ideas and influences and combine and mix them up in an interesting and freshh way to hopefully create something "original". Imho that appears to be what Cameron has pulled off with Avatar. You can just see so many influences in there....
-
Did you see the 16 minute preview?
-
From the beginning I thought this character could possibly be entirely digital. Short hair, scars helping to disguise the fact that he is cgi, studied lighting, and way too cartoony aliens to draw the attention away from him. This way, all the geeks would be complaining for the Nav´i while the secret is kept until December.
And Empire mag readers start to think the same: http://www.surrealaward.com/avatar/index.shtml -
How pathetic can this guy be...Hmm let's put in a way he'll understand.
Not making valid points
So wildly obsessed with Avatar it's sad
Can't handle the fact that people like it
Raped by James Cameron as a child
Spouts his naive opinion like it's fact
(p>
Sad pathetic existence in which his life depends on a movies success
Says CGI is cartoony, despite what his eyes tell him
Weeps to Titanic every night
Cuts his wrists over betraying his idol JC to look cool
Talks like seeing 2min trailer on his 5x5 laptop equals whole film
Ignores facts, including overwhelming positive preview response
Jumps on bandwagon of every new half ass criticism
Can't think for himself, which explains previous fact
Hated Avatar before any knowledge of said movie
Despite this, first in line to see Avatar Dec 18th 12:01am
Blown away by movie, convinces himself otherwise
Buys 5 copies on DVD, all preordered from Amazon
Embodies all that this world hates
Embodies the AICN talkbacker who has sad existence
Embodies every 12 yr old in their parents basement
Laughing stock of the talkbacks, his town, the world
Right about one thing however...AICN is a funny place -
amen
-
OMG I blocked out my biggest complaint - that line the woman Nav'i said after she killed the wild creatures attacking the soldier-Nav'i. She gives him a rash of shit so he asks her then why did she save him. "You have a good heart" or strong heart, whatever - IT MADE ME CRINGE. TITANIC-DIALOGUE ALERT! Final-Draft FAIL! First Blood Part 2 had better dialogue.
-
stop that. Trannyformers_Apologist is right. I am not a 'hater' .I like movies, all kind of movies and think Cameron is one of the most talented people in Hollywood. However he is not above all criticism. He compared Avatar to the Apollo missions. It just doesn’t look as mind-boggling like he said it would. I personally think it looks like a cartoon, albeit a very expensive one. No, I haven’t seen the 16-minute preview in Imax. I generally do not require 16-minute previews to decide to see a movie or not. If it really is the case that the movie must absolutely be seen in Imax then so be it; I’ll see it in Imax. I will consider it a triumph of Cameron the Technologist but a failure of Cameron the Cineaste.
-
Get your comments right. Cameron's moon landing simply implied that for those of them making the movie it felt like it must have felt to the Apollo astronauts. They all felt like they were doing something that had never been done before. And as far as the technology they used to shoot the film he was right.
-
God forbid characters in a movie have lines containing real actual words that people in real life use. You know that shit made you cringe? Because you have no heart. That has to suck when a fictional CG character has something you don't, you cynical, jaded bastard
-
And, is mostly being a troll. He's making no valid points and adds nothing to this Talkback. I have to keep skimming through the nonsense in order to get to interesting comments.Also, Cameron is comparing THE TECHNOLOGY to the Apollo missions, NOT THE MOVIE. Let's stop confusing movie hyperbole to Cameron & Companies technological advances.My personal opinion is that the movie should be seen in IMAX-3D.
-
That was an eye-roller.
-
There's some awesome stills of the Aatars and Na'vi. I guess depending on what angle you're looking at them from, they look really cool or somewhat odd... Jake's Avatar looks impressive. Sigourney Weaver's Avatar is fucking hot! And so is one shot of Zoe's Neytiri! And those shots ARE Photorealistic! There's no debating that!
tinyurl.com/kmcs7z
-
I did have the feeling while watching that the whole thing was CGI. That the whole thing, actors included was computer generated. Taking it in that vein, HOLY COW. That's pretty damned cool. Color me interested. If not, then meh.
-
I feel a bit forced to see it in Imax 3D but I'll play along. However, if the movie itself (you know story, characters) turns out to be bad all the beautiful imagery will still not make it a pleasurable experience. That’s what I’m afraid of. Moreover, my personal opinion is that the way the Na'vi move as well as the whole jungle world looks unreal.
PS: comparing your technology to the Apollo program technology is still pretty arrogant. -
Saw the trailer in the theaters and it looks nothing out of the ordinary. Now with all this talk about it will look better in 3D (which was always used as gimmicky way to show a movie), I’m starting to really be hesitant about it. Many people already made the point that if the story sucks Titanic ass, the FX mean shit-no matter if they do fuck your eyeballs. But if Cameron is pushing this thing to be watched in 3D more than in just the thousands of standard theaters I’m seriously doubting that AVATAR will be everything that Cameron promised. Will it make bank? Probably, but I think it will be do from the curiosity factor, since many people don’t have a clue what this movie is about. But if the word is that this movie suck super ass, you know this movie will be gone in about 2 weeks after it opens. I really want it to work. I really do want this movie to work, but I have a bad feeling this is not going to work out well for Cameron and he will be categorized with Spielberg and Lucas as one-time “big dawgs” in H’wood who that went off the deep DEEP end.
-
apologist deserve all the shit they get. They come across like serioulsy childish twats that have no life. They have been hating this film for over a year now, have had nothing good to say long before they saw a single picture or even knew anything a bout it. Yet, yet..they seem to spend the most time here just repeating the same ol same ol shit they ve been saying for over a year now. How many more times exactly do we need to hear the same crap from them? We get it, everyone does....yeesh..
-
as there did not appear to be any held here in Korea where I live. So I guess I will just have to wait to see the whole shebang...
-
should be required to turn in their credibility card. Immediately.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAPyipuT-Jg
-
Don't know if it was posted here yet cos I'm not reading any of this since I didn't see the 16 minutes but Avatar tix on sale http://tinyurl.com/lsjdus
-
As a kid I saw it on local stations after 1977, so I thought (maybe it was around 1979?) it came after and was influenced by Star Wars...
I like the factoids of how it made more money than Star Wars and had the whole toy ancillary market idea in place...
Need to check this out. Also would love to research out that Galactica law suit for the details of the outcome. IT's good to see John Dykstras name on Inglorious Basterds -
I personally don't even like Cameron, am irritated by elements in Aliens, Terminator, The Abyss (rips my fav), etc...
But the 3D scenes of this movie were exhilarating. They brought on feelings of vertigo, and the actor's performances were captured so well, with so much natural personality, it was very engaging. Not so in the 2D trailer I saw only 15 minutes later before the fun Inglorious Basterds rolled. So 3D is essential for this movie because the point is to make you feel like you are there to get you into the narrative. Kind of like sound was added a while back and then color, and each time there were detractors... certainly the other elements have to be great too, but in this case the 3D IMAX effect made it remarkable and unlike anything I had felt in a narrative film. There were moments of spectacle in Beowulf, but this was more engaging even down to the faces and eyes. I think I might actually like this one... of course the story could ruin it... but I hope. -
You can do the same thing with Titanic and Somewhere in Time.
-
Almost a week now since I was at the AVATAR: 3-IMAX Preview and it hasn't left me yet. I haven't been this excited for a movie in a very long time. Cameron is the Man for Delivering a Spoiler Free 16-Minute Preview AND Showing Me Something I have never seen before in my life: Astonishing 3-D Images that has me excited for this "ride" that has the potential to be great! Keep raising the bar Cameron! You've got an excited one in me. The lonely and irate nerds here need to smoke a joint AND get laid. Twice. Perhaps then their sweaty and attached digits can be removed from their keyboards. December 18th Bitches!
-
sane voices here in the talkbacks. There is just such a sad, bitter, pathetic part of fandom thats only interested in how much it can hate something sight unseen, or who can tear something/someone down the most. And this automatic hatrewd of anyhting new (i.e 3D)No matter how ignorant they are of something. I just really dislike fandom now, and I hope Hollywood continues to cram shit like Facebook:the movie down fandom's throat. Or that they remake Jaws, Alien etc...or give yet another nostalgia blowjob from their youth, because its exactlly what fandom in all its whiny, negative, hate filled bloated ridiculous inflated sense of self importance deserves....
-
May I call you Sqatty? Movies are not real life. They are an experience. If movies talk with the same banality the vast majority of human speech does then that is a shame. I thought that line totally broke the experience and was just lazy. Sqatty, I feel sorry for your loyal puppy-dog defense of poor writing. Those CG characters might just have more taste than you do. And argue better.
-
and the vast majority of people have forgotten the primary function of cinema- to entertain you. The naysayers will be there along with everyone else come Decemberwith their humble pie tucked firmly in their laps as they realise that Cameron is doing what he does best- entertaining a bunch of people.
-
Aug 28, 2009 5:07:50 AM CDT
Amended: I Thought EW Lying About Fan Reaction To The Trailers..
by media messiah
...is an open indictment of 'Big Media', which has been bought, and bought-off, by the huge industrial and entertainment conglomerates, through endless monopolies. If you read the new EW article, you'd think there was almost zero fan backlash against "Avatar" or James Cameron...and that the status quo of a few months ago was still the same, when the film was getting nothing but good press and unquestioning fan approval--however, Avatar's short trailer, and the 16 minute trailer/preview has breeded a huge backlash against the film. Now, the movie has its defenders, I must admit, those who have, and are, raving wildly about the trailers, but it has just as many detractors...and that is what EW should have said--instead, however, they have chosen to lie to, and openly mislead, the public en masse, about the truth.
-
Aug 28, 2009 10:04:29 AM CDT
I woudln't say there is huge backlash caused by the trailer
by ufoclub1977
Out of about 10 people I saw it with (non aintitcooltypes numbered 8), they all made fun of it, are not big fans, but still said it was entertaining and that they wuld see it, and there were likable impressive aspects.
-
Yes...we have all seen the backlash on AICN, among at least haalf of the would be fans, but...although EW reported on the fan reaction to the "Avatar" trailers, and specifically on AICN, they failed to report about the split in difference of opinion about the film among AICN.com fans and posters which is to wide extremes. As well, those posting on Sci-Fi Wire are also reflecting this split, and posters on Empire Online are blasting the movie trailers, in addition to Roger Ebert and other media sources. EW is not legitimately or accurately reporting this information, and in fact, are hiding it, while claiming fan reaction is off the charts everywhere in the extreme positive. That just isn't true, and was not true as of the time of the authorship of the EW article as it is now openly known that there is a fan backlash, one that came as an immediate and loud reaction to the film trailers. Sure half the numbers are pro Avatar, and pro James Cameron...but half are anti Avatar and anti Cameron...solely due to the trailers, and the debate over the motion capture CGI appearing to be poor in the view of the many dissenters. Those are the facts, and EW, instead of presenting a rosy picture of things, which is a false one, should have been far less partisan in its reporting. The article reads like a publicist for the film wrote it.
-
Somebody enlighten me, the clones are used so humans can breathe normally, right? In the clip the the clone didn't have his sole painted blue. Is that a sloppy paint job? Are these clones supposed to fool the locals? Or the locals know they are aliens because they talk with an accent or something? In that case why do they have to look like the locals? They could look like chipmunks for example and scare the hell out of the locals. (I mean big chipmunks.). Does anybody actually know the story of this movie?
-
nuff said
-
feline appearance automatically = thundercats. And because Thundercats are the one and only (and first) depiction of an alien race with feline characteristics, thus allowing no other such depiction....*sarcasm mode* deactivated...
-
I never went to the preview either, would much rather see the scenes in context in the finished film.
-
Thundercats would have been awesome. Their storyline had a better premise than GIJOE.
Actually there is a really great faux trailer for a live action Thundercats on you tube...
http://tinyurl.com/7om6od -
The blue guys look too human in the face. That makes us associate human qualities with them, and then we become alot more judgmental about what they're *supposed* to look like. That dudes eyes are too big... they look like looney tunes, says the subconscious.
I wondered by the Distict 9 Aliens didn't look as bad to me as the blue Avatar guys, and that's what I came up with. Well, and also that they used alot of augmented physical masks and such as well.
Cameron really should be embarrassed about those Mechs though. They look only a step up from work he did 15 years ago. Whereas District 9's Mech was undeniably immersive and believable. -
Signorney weaver's still that is online *does* look alot more "photorealistic". To me that looks like a photo actually of her with makeup on, or augmented with CGI, but the point is, that I've not seen an actual film clip with her. I noticed her nose looks like her real nose, and that's one factor that looked "cartoony" in the other navi/navy,chevy novas. Again.... they look so human that I am applying human standards about what looks real.
-
dude, but we can not possibly judge how the mech armour comes across based on the quick glimpses we get of it in the trailer. I think thats a stretch, lets at least wait untill we see the damn film before making grand statements about their portrayal. As for your other point, quite possibly, but then one could argue that these aliens have to be somewhat human in appearance to make the love story work, and to get people to relate to them (and im talking about the average film goer here..)
-
dude, but we can not possibly judge how the mech armour comes across based on the quick glimpses we get of it in the trailer. I think thats a stretch, lets at least wait untill we see the damn film before making grand statements about their portrayal. As for your other point, quite possibly, but then one could argue that these aliens have to be somewhat human in appearance to make the love story work, and to get people to relate to them (and im talking about the average film goer here..)
-
in one go with everything in context. Im not interested in talking about this film anymore with idiots that are frothing at the mouth and ranting and raving about something they have not yet seen, or know very little about, or simply want to nit pick everything to death.
-
Perhaps Cameron wants to make the CGI look like...just that, a video game--as I suspect that he and other filmmakers have this screwed-up sense that if they make something (their movies) look like video games, then it will attract gamers (who support a 15 bilion dollar industry annually) to buy their product(s), meaning, movie tickets, DVDs...and related products like video game tie-ins, however--Cameron claimed that he would deliver a photo-realistic look for the motion capture rendered aliens in "Avatar", and if that was his true mission, as stated, he failed miserably?Whatever the matter, I believe your analysis is right, and is my same view--Cameron should have made his aliens more alien, and less human...and thus, it would have been easier for the public to separate the humanoid aliens...from appearing like human beings...but failing to really capture what it is to be human-something the human eye and brain can easily detect, and quickly reject as being just what it is--fake. That said, I think Cameron wanted them to look human to communicate a message, that being...these aliens are not unlike us, and yet we are cruel to them anyway? They are metaphor for Native Americans and Africans who were the victims of invasions by western European civilizations. It is simplier to communicate that message, in such a metaphor, if the beings that you are depicting, happen to look much like we do. Cameron could have had his motion capture aliens, but with a more convincing look, by mixing live action shots of actors in costume with the motion capture effects, but as he said, this film was made for R&D purposes...still, as we can see by the results, little in the way of advancements have been made with respect to motion capture technology, and or, CGI, though over 300 million dollar,s and 15 to 20 years, was spent making this film?The truth appears, that Cameron was simply trying to sell technologies to make money...and that is the real shame here. He sold-out like Lucas did. Lucas is selling toys, and video games, and THX sound systems, and Cameron is selling toys, video games, motion capture CGI, and 3D technologies--damn the films or their quality, as they are nothing but heartless, soulless, commercials for the (after) products they have spawned, or should I say, that have spawned them??? Which brings-up the time honored question--"Which (really) came first, the chicken, or the egg"...(Or were they created at the same time?). In this case however, you can bet, they were created for less than artistic, or altruistic reasons??? Somewhere along the way, both James Cameron and George Lucas forgot that they are both extremely rich men, and that they didn't need to sell-out, because they couldn't ever manage to spend the money they already had, or have, in ten lifetimes, or more, so why did they need to sell-out...in order to gain more money--money they can't possibly need??? The greed, and selfish pride...behind it all, is just shameful!!!
-
Lucas and Cameron as being the same as we have not seen Avatar yet? Lucas sold out with TPM, though you could argue that he did that already with ESB, as that film was made with the objective in mind of it funding ILM, and Skywalker ranch. So is it only selling out if the film is nt good? And if so, how exactly do we know this about Avatar yet? Its a simple reality that to make huge sci-fi films, you have to provide the studios with additional sources of revenue (toys, computer games etc..) But does that really matter if the films are good? What we hate as film fans surely is when the merchandising is put front and centre ove rthe film and the things that matter such as characters and story. And again, we dont yet know this about Avatar. So unless there is a ridiculous character like jar jar in Avatar with the express purpose of appealing to small children, and selling said small children toys, then I fail to see how you already know that Cameron has sold out. He has never yet made creative decesions to pander to children or the studio merchandising departments that I have ever seen. And judging by the old scriptment for Avatar, I would say that that is still the case....
-
There is nothing wrong with the quality of the CGI renderings, it is simply the design of the Navi that doesn't work for me. It would be fine if the entire movie (including the human characters) was completely computer generated. But the Navi are just too cartoony looking, especially the eyes, and don't look right alongside the live action characters. If the humans were also CG then everything would look groovy. Also, I think the Navi's limbs should have been more alien, feet and hands exactly like ours? Why?
-
James Cameron could not have made the Navi too alien in his eyes. If you think about it at the heart of this movie lies the story of a human being, albeit in an alien body, falling in love with a native alien. If the Navi were giant wavy tentacle gobbly mouthed monsters or some other totally far out entities then the thought of such a love affair would be kind of sick.
-
Japanese tentacle porn. And there are nt many people that will sit through that stuff (though it would probably be huge in Japan lol).....
-
have not yet been able to make up my mind about it. There are things AI like about it, but other things seem..."off" if that makes sense. However, I think im going to need to see them for longer periods of time, with them doing action, and well as them interacting, to really make a final judgement call....
-
I love the fact that Cameron puts the Avatar humanlike clothes on! :D
Jungle looks gorgeous
http://tiny.cc/Fe 5mX (space added) -
He started pandering to kids by placing a kid, who...BTW, could not act...right smack dab in the middle of the Terminator sequel, which featured a Terminator who was on orders not to kill by the kid--in order not to upset family audiences? Remember, because he was pandering to kids, the rating was no longer an R rating, as was the original film...which featured graphic violence, and an adult sex scene. Well, no more of that, "Terminator 2" was either PG...or PG-13. In regard to Lucas, his sell-out date, began with "Return of The Jedi"...when he exchanged the planned Wookie battle against storm troopers, with a battle fought between Ewoks (Teddy Bears so he could sell more toys)...and storm troopers? That so angered producer Gary Kurtz...and star Harrison Ford they had pitched arguments with Lucas, wo not only altered that part of the story, but he completely changed the Luke, Leia, and Han story arc. Leia was to pick Luke over Han Solo, and Solo and Chewie, were to die by heroically slamming the Millennium Falcon into the exposed center core of the new Deathstar in order to save the Rebels from the Imperial onslaught. Lucas compromised the story because Han Solo had become so popular with fans, and of course, he was thinking about toy sales. To this day, he and Gary Kurtz are enemies over this fact...as Kurtz dared to publically chastise Lucas for ruining the movie, by weakening the script at the last minute, with a horrible rewrite which gutted the emotional center out of the movie. As far as "Avatar" is concerned, all I can judge it by is the bad images of the film that I have seen, and James Cameron's promise that the images would be revolutionary, seamless to the eye and brain, that they would be photo-realistic, and fully immersive. Either he lied, or he believed that he was right, but if the latter is true, sadly, he was, and is...wrong???
-
Terminator 2 was rated R.
-
T2 was R rated so already there are huge cracks in your "theory". You realize that everything you are saying is completely subjective? I could just as well argue that all those deceisions regarding T2 were creative, and unless you have personally spoken to Cameron and he told you exactly what he was thinking when he wrote T2 then everything you say remains speculation or your subjective opinion.
-
just your subjective opinion, I, and many others judging by numerous blog posts about the preview footage, and many talkbackers, find the imagery to be quite startling. And if like me, you have read the old scriptment and know what you are looking at, its really exciting as I love what it is that Cameron is trying to pull off here. Basically a live action miziyaki film, with aliens that look like they came out of the pages of Heavy metal, with clear influences ranging from John Carter of Mars to Dune. For a huge sci-fi fan like me, and clearly many others, its an exciting prospect. Sorry it does nt interest you, or it does nt work for you. But then Im not sure what the hell you were expecting. Sounds like you listened to that stupid eyeball fucking shit too much....
-
I am more than happy to admit if I was wrong about the R rating relating to T2, but I think you'll all agree that the R Rating didn't appear to getting enforced by theater owners for that film--and big media wasn't complaining about it, nor were the politicians--when it came to kids attending T2. I don't think you would have gotten that same reaction, in respect to a film like that if it had a sex scene in it...ala the original Terminator. My focus is on how filmmakers often dumb down their films in order to accomodate children and family audiences.In regard, to "Avatar", if it is a good film, I'll admit it, but if it isn't, I'll trash it. With respect to my opinion of the first trailer, I stick by that. Cameron promised us photo-realism, and he did not deliver. As for the full immersion that he promised, I did not see the 16 minute preview, but others that did, including Roger Ebert, did not feel that this was the groundbreaking moment in cinema that we were all guaranteed by James Cameron...and that, along with Cameron admittedly saying that this film was made for R&D, and the fact that he is selling 3D cameras, and is now endorsing a 3D TV...proves that he has moved into the tech sales end of things--and that is my ultimate point, when other concerns come before the actual film, and the story within, that is a problem.
-
not enforcing the age limit Cameron's fault? Furthermore, how the hell is it selling out to have a child in the film. Then by that logic Aliens was selling out because of Newt. Neither aliens nor T2 used the kids to pander to children, if anything both kids acted somewhat adult. Compare both characters to say Anakin in TPM or Jeff Goldblums daughter (i know gymnastics) in the lost world. Now those are examples of pandering to children in the audiance. And both film were pg-13 if im not mistaken. Lastly, i dont get what dumbing a movie down has to do with selling out regarding this discussion. T2 is in no way a dumbing down of the first movie, if anything its thematically more complex, and has more characterization while the first film (great as it is) is basically just a horror/chase movie with great ideas.
-
the trailer may have gotten mixed reviews dude, but the previews were almost overwhelmingly positive. You happen to list one of the few examples of a naysayer, and frankly considering Ebert recent decoline into old fuddyduddy territory, His opinion does nt exactly hold much water anymore. He appears to have deceided to dislike anything that is technologically new. Geez, he even disliked D9 for fucks sake. Sorry mediamessiah, but you really seem to be looking for things to hate, and you seem to nitpick things, and focus on only those things that match your opinion (i.e useing Eberts reaction as proof, while ignoring the overwhelming positive reaction to the preview footage, even from many that were very hostile to the trailer). I would say its almost gauranteed that you will hate Avatar, as you seem to have already made up your mind. The very fact that you think Cameron has sold out (a man that gave up his fee when making Titanic so that he would not have to bow to studio pressures, thus maintaining his vision) and actually think he is in the same category as Lucas. Thus you will obviously go into it looking and just waiting to pounce on anything that you think fits with your preconceived ideas. So I dont expect you to admit anything...
-
The film plays like it is PG or PG-13, that, and the fact that it was packed with kids of all ages, at the theaters, left me with the false assumption that it was PG or PG-13 film? Certainly, it wasn't as hard as the first film, by leaps and bounds--hence, the dumbing down process that I talked about was in full effect. Add a kid to a movie...take out the sex, make the violence softer...and sell more toys, and other product-tie-ins aimed at kids. As far as the theaters not enforcing the age restrictions on a R Rated film, it's a wink, wink sort of situation. There is nothing R Rated about that movie. The Ratings Board's opinion was entirely subjective, those bastards obviously didn't even follow their own rules by imposng that rating...and Hollywood should have used the film as a poster child for bad Ratings Board decisions.
-
keptical of Avatar from day one, he has actually trashed the film for months now. And he had, like many, a very negative reaction to the trailer. But he went to the preview, and since then has only had good things to say. Now he actually defends it based on what he saw. He at least seems to have approached it all with an open mind, but some people here, and fandom at large, just want to hate it, and contrary to their claims certainly do not have open minds about it at all.....
-
, a guy getting a long blade through his head, another guy getting a sharp finger stabbed through his eyeball, people getting shot, people being disintergrated by a nuclear blast etc...ahhh good times for the whole family. Geez, are we still on this ridiculous argument about T2 s rating?? Look, then its just subjective, and clearly your views are very subjective. There is no way anyone with objectivity can look at several scenes in T2, and claim they are meant for children. Nevermind, that Cameron makes the best sequals precisely because he does nt make the same film. T1 is basically a horror movie for all its sci-fi trappings. Its a lean mean chase film that is meant to scare as much as anything else. T2 is an action film first and foremost, also the reason why the entire 2nd act is a break from the action to flesh out the characters and the story. And what does a lessening of violence have to do with dumbing down? That label refers to making ideas, themes, characters more simplistic/easy to understand. It has nothing to do with violence. Do you realize how hollow your "theories" come across as?
-
...that would get R ratings now. So, yes, I think the Ratings Board is full of it. BTW...I am not pro violence, rather, I'd enjoy seeing a lot more sex in films, and a lot less violence. The violence in T2, however, was more often implied graphic violence...as opposed to say, Final Destnation 4...which had extreme graphic violence, that far surpassed most of that in T2, as well, it had a graphic sex scene, and yet, both were rated R??? Same thing with the first Terminator film??? How could each of these films...all have R Ratings??? Right, it doesn't make any sense???
-
Question: Which is the better film, "Terminator", or "T2"? Answer: Terminator...though it only cost 6.5 million dollars...it is better than T2. Why? Because T2 was watered down...and dumbed down to accommodate kid, and family audiences.Don't worry, I am going to see "Avatar" and I hope Cameron proves everybody, all the naysayers, wrong, including me...and manages to rape our eyes--, no...gang bang, our eyes, into willfully compliant, and happy submission, but I doubt it.
-
This movie looks like shit. Seriously. I saw the footage at Comic-Con and was not thrilled at all. It looks like a fuckin' video game. And the blue people are dumb. Cinematography looked cool. Some of the 3D was cool, too. Overall? I'm just not subscribing to the hype. Sorry, Jim. But this might just be your Phantom Menace masterpiece of feces.
-
opinions, not fact. You could argue that "T2" was broader in scope and had a more appropriate moral subtext of (the evils of nuclear annihilation, the surrogate parent angle, etc). But, Cameron, for all his genre trappings and outrageous action scenes is, at heart, a romantic moralist.All of his films are love stories at their core. "The Abyss" is a reconciliation story between a divorced couple. "Aliens" is a pure expression of Agape, unconditional love between a surrogate mother and her "child." "True Lies" is a different kind of reconciliation story, but at it's core the movie is about the secrets couples keep from each other and how that can endanger a relationship. "Titanic" starts out as a story of Eros love, then moves to a Philos love story and ends with Agape love. And, yes "The Terminator" is at it's core a story of love-again, it's all three types of love surrounded by an action film that uses the tropes of a slasher movie.Cameron understands that the external stakes must be high enough so that the main character goes through a 'blood sacrifice' to succeed and conquer their internal demons. So, each film has an epic 'external conflict' that forces the protagonist to look inside and break through their limitations."Avatar" looks to be an extension of this theme and if it is a success, it will extend and continue the dominant theme in Cameron's oeuvre.Even if "Avatar" fails, that doesn't mean he's 'selling out,' or that he hasn't grown as an artist. By trying to push the technology and enhance the audience experience, he hopes to bring a more powerful p.o.v to the cinema. In the 21st Century—why not attempt to bring a new dimension (ahem) to the audience? Why believe that the cinematic experience is only relevant as it has been for the past 100 + years? Is there only one type of film genre? Is there only one type of subject matter? Why should steroscopic films ONLY be a gimmick? Didn't we learn that supposed gimmicks like stereo sound and cinemascope enhance the movie watching experience? Also, this film reportedly cost a $238 million dollars. Marketing tie-ins are the norm for films in that range. Notice that most films in the $100-$250 million dollar range are escapist fantasies or large scale action pictures. Well, the studios want to make that money back and Disney and Lucas provided the template for others to follow. Most films in that budget range have a marketing tie-in and don't think "Titanic" was exempt, the soundtrack to that movie sold over 29 million records worldwide (BTW, James Cameron wasn't responsible for those sales figures. That was the music licensing division of Fox.) So, no he's not 'selling out' by working within the constraints of mainstream commercial filmmaking for a major corporation. These companies work for profit. This isn't 'art for arts sake,' it's a cultural product in a consumerist society.
-
One of John Connor's PG lines.
-
J.J. Abrams' Sci-Fi action-adventure "Star Trek" tops the list with 17 nominations including The Ultimate Scream, Best Science Fiction Movie, Best Director, Best Ensemble, Holy Sh*t Scene of the Year and a nod in the all-new Fight-to-the-Death Scene of the Year category.
-
Despite the advanced bad press, I rooted for Cameron openly, back when most people didn't even know what "Titanic" was...in respect to the film even existing, or being a huge spectacle--but, I was partly loyal to Cameron because the previews for Titanic appeared to be great, yet Avatar, on the other hand...looks a mess, and is far, and wide...away, from being what Cameron promised us??? He told us to expect a watershed moment in regard to the cinematic experience, but has given us, instead, "The Muppets In Space"???
-
Let's call The Scream Awards, the "Whomever Pays Us The Most, Gets Nominated Awards"
-
I think the rule is one "fuck", per movie. I am not kidding.
-
points dude. But ive noticed that some on these talkbacks like mediamessiah, are these kind of art purist guys, that live in a dream world where all the merchandising exists because a director "sold out", as opposed to the economic realities of making big movies like this. But then even that is not allowed because apparantly T1 is better because it only cost 6.5 mil. Im not sure how to even begin to argue wich is better as they are two completely different films. Im not going to bother to repeat myself why that is, but Mediamessiah and his like should really grow up and realize that its just their subjective opinion which is better, it is not fact that T1 is better. In fact I would argue that they are both indispensible halves of a whole.
-
You're absolutely right. But my point was that it was a kid saying "fuck", hardly something you'd catch Spielberg or Lucas doing.
-
T2 dumbed down? It has more complex thematic content, and deeper characterization than T1. Thus how is it dumb compared to T1? Do you understand what dumbed down means mediamessiah? And really , at the end of the day, useing your absurd defintion of sell out, any director that has has had mass success is a sell out. I would love to know who you consider not to be a sellout. And im not interested in any art house farty directors that make small obscure films. I want names of popular/influential directors....Mediamessiah, you largely dont respond to my points, you just keep repeating the same thing without providing any actual fact beyond your opinion....
-
I mean when I say that all objective, rational and sane thinking is gone from fandom. Its just all kneejerk, first dumb thing that pops into our head extremism. Look, I think the Na'vi design is very subjective (like any for that matter), but how the fuck do they even begin to look like Muppets?? To quote Riply "have IQs just suddenly dropped while I was away?"....
-
Right, T2 is probably the most intelligent blockbuster out there. I would type more but there is a weird 10 second delay between me hitting the keys and the letters appearing on screen which is really starting to piss me off!
-
a relative few have seen a few minutes (though its telling that those that have not seen the preview are shouting the loudest). How exactly can anyone of us make grand proclamations about a film thats more than 4 months away from release still. And we all know they will still be rendering the shit out of this film untill then. So how exactly can we be talking about what this fil is, or isnt?
-
says Avatar is "amazing".
-
What time is it in your neck of the woods? And yup, T2 is still one of the best action films ever made, watched it last night (was on tv here in korea, so was Aliens, Abyss, Titanic, T1, Strange Days, Cameron's films get played a lot here in Asia) and man does it still hold up compared to stuff that they are making today...
-
impressed with it. But what gives me more hope for Avatar than anything is that Ridly Scott was so blown away by Avatar that it has inspired him to return to making sci-fi. And remember that he said he would never do sci-fi again becos he believed that it had all been done....
-
What about yourself? Good to see you're still the voice of reason here! 10am here in Edinburgh.
-
film, but Cameron wrote and produced it, and it does feel a lot like one of his films...
-
Korea. I try Kwis, I really do, I just figure someone needs to try and be reasonable amid all the "conspiracy theories" and whatnot...lol
-
Even down to the cinematography and the swinging lights during the fight scene.
-
I really hope it gets a proper re-release with exras and a commentry. Perhaps after Avatar is released, as I guess Cameron's films will get re-released afterwards...
-
That needs a commentary and anamorphic badly!
-
thoughts on the Na'vi design Kwis?
-
game? Because Holy shit dude! If they have been able to put action like that in the movie, then the action is going to be every bit as good as the old scriptment promised....
-
of "Strange Days." I'd dig that. Then I can stop watching this damn laserdisc.Thanks for the support southafricanguy. It's good to hear positive feedback on "Avatar."I saw the 16 min preview twice and although I'm not sure about the plot and some of the dialogue is a bit sketchy, I think it will be one of the most visually stunning movies yet.The scene that had my jaw drop was the when Worthington's avatar has to subdue his bird-thingie. From what I saw, it was tremendous; the staging was well thought out and really did immerse the audience. It 'felt' dangerous.
-
scriptment, some time ago actually, so I have always known what Cameron was going for. I love the john Carter of Mars/Dune influences. And I love that some of the designs appear influenced from everything ranging from Battlemech to Heavy Metal magazine. I really dont know what some people are smoking when referring to the trailer footage, It does nt look exactly like anything I have ever seen, but has many familiar influences. You know, kinda like Star Wars....
-
footage you saw? Its hard to get a good impression of them from the trailer....
-
actually seen a 3D movie yet, so I have no idea what the experiance is like...
-
...Sam Worthington bear a striking resemblance to the MCP in the computer world of TRON? The part where Bridges jumps down into the MCP..that whole super creepy wide set eyes and wall-biter looking face (as in, you can bite walls and tear down drywall with your teeth without needing a hammer or any prying instrument, etc).But then, maybe it's just me.
-
Sep 01, 2009 2:15:07 PM CDT
Raiders of the Lost Ark is one of the most intelligent
by lockesbrokenleg
blockbusters and a hell of a lot better than T2.
-
Strange days was alright... nothing spectacular once you get past the plot gimmick. Cute I guess.
The problem I have with the movie is that cameron's architype characters don't work well in that movie.... it works when you have a rag tage band of marines, or a ragtag band of marine biologists, or a rag tag band of immigrants on a steam ship ( ok I made that up ), but a ragtag band of druggies just didn't work.. you needed more depth. Cameron know exactly how to create caricatures. Really entertaining ones, but he really doesn't know how to make characters with depth that actually grow and change on camera ( With Ellen Ripley being one exception )
-
LOL. Classic. Good one.
-
When Indy sticks his hand in the light and the trap springs how did that work... I thought I was intelligent but I still do not know how blocking the light tripped the metal spikes in the wall. I could keep going but I get stuck here each time. I saw the AVATAR sneak peak. It was my first time at a Faux IMAX "digital" the digital clips looked good but I will be seeing this at a real Imax in December because the screen size is a joke. nothing at the start was to showy. The chase scenes were a little tight but I was sitting pretty close. the shot of the 3 riding across the log looked really smooth compared to how the same shot in the quicktime version seems jerky even in 1080P. I bet in December that shot were sam comes down the dropship ramp will be re-rendered as that shot was not shown in the 16 minute preview. I was hoping for a hat or T-shirt or poster... what a wasted PR chance to now have 1000's of people walking around with AVATAR logos.
-
like they were trying to hide the CGI to hard.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 209 total posts 207 posts
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 160 total posts 97 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 144 total posts 77 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 68 total posts 68 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 67 total posts 67 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 64 total posts 60 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 480 total posts 55 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 53 total posts 50 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 118 total posts 32 posts
- SPACE 2099!! -- 182 total posts 27 posts