Ain't It Cool News (www.aintitcool.com)
Movie News

UPDATED!! Dedicated Talkback: Today Is AVATAR Day!! How Is That 16 Minutes Of Footage?? + More!!

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!

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Aug. 21, 2009, 9:51 a.m. CST

    Eyeballs = Fucked

    by Baron Karza

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 9:53 a.m. CST

    CG vs CGI

    by theneonsamurai

    Forgive me, but what the fuck is CGI?

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 9:54 a.m. CST

    The cinematic equivalent of blue balls

    by jonoblake

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 9:54 a.m. CST

    I'm Going At 6

    by Crow3711

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 9:55 a.m. CST

    theneonsamurai

    by Merrick

    Computer Generated Imagery

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 9:55 a.m. CST

    Doesn't CGI stand for "computer generated image"

    by turketron_2

    ?

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 9:55 a.m. CST

    Also, the trailer looked good.

    by theneonsamurai

    I don't give a shit if it looks like a cartoon. I happen to like cartoons.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 9:56 a.m. CST

    CG vs CGI Samurai

    by Crow3711

    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

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 9:56 a.m. CST

    It looks great in 3D

    by TheManWhoCan

    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!

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 9:56 a.m. CST

    Merrick

    by theneonsamurai

    Thanks buddy.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 9:58 a.m. CST

    Trailer looked great

    by SpiceMonkey27

    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..

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 9:58 a.m. CST

    Crow3711

    by theneonsamurai

    Thanks mate

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 9:59 a.m. CST

    SpiceMonkey27

    by theneonsamurai

    India?

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 9:59 a.m. CST

    My eye balls were raped

    by psion

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:01 a.m. CST

    yeah, that's crazy the 3-D is really the best

    by just pillow talk

    way to view. How many people get to watch it in 3-D then?

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:02 a.m. CST

    It Was Dumb To Post This So Early

    by Crow3711

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:03 a.m. CST

    no way this is shitty CG

    by psion

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:04 a.m. CST

    SpiceMonkey27

    by TheManWhoCan

    What shitty country are you from?Im from Shitty Ireland!

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:05 a.m. CST

    saw it

    by Colonel_Blimp

    The plot seems a bit cliched and cheesy as hell, and Sam comes across as a bit unsympathetic.<P>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. <P>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. <P>Definitely gonna see this, but not sure if I'm gonna see it in 3D.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:07 a.m. CST

    sad part, no one gave a shit in Japan

    by psion

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:07 a.m. CST

    Crow3711

    by Merrick

    We're already getting reports from overseas, so...

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:09 a.m. CST

    just got back

    by red_weed

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:10 a.m. CST

    Colonel_Blimp

    by just pillow talk

    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. <p>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?

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:10 a.m. CST

    3D was good.

    by RSGumby

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:11 a.m. CST

    to Colonel_Blimp

    by psion

    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 a.m. CST

    Who cares about Delgo 2 - Tarantino just delivered a masterpiece

    by powersofi

    Where is the Inglourious Basterds thread?

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:13 a.m. CST

    I'm Sorry, I Thought This Was America!

    by Crow3711

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:14 a.m. CST

    btw i saw it in australia

    by red_weed

    so yes people have definitely already seen it.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:14 a.m. CST

    Saw it at Imax London earlier today

    by Crashbang

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:15 a.m. CST

    Sorry, but...

    by Wes_Reviews_

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:15 a.m. CST

    question for those who have seen it

    by phoenixmagida5th

    Do I have to get there extra early. Is it first come first serve or does my email confirmation guarantee me a seat?

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:16 a.m. CST

    plot?

    by psion

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:16 a.m. CST

    Wonder if all the HATE will get transferred to this board

    by rotgut1

    Now that people get to see 16 minutes of the dang thing.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:17 a.m. CST

    psion

    by red_weed

    you can remove trees in a forest when they all exist in weta computers.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:18 a.m. CST

    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!

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:19 a.m. CST

    Wes_Reviews_ you will be proven

    by psion

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:20 a.m. CST

    I thought it was Post Grad day?

    by kikuchiyoboy

    Anyways, I can't wait till 6pm.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:20 a.m. CST

    red_weed

    by psion

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:22 a.m. CST

    Dances With Thundersmurfs!

    by fiester

    Now in Three-Deeeeeeee!

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:24 a.m. CST

    i need to see this again...

    by psion

    freaking 3D sensory overload from the stereo presentation.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:25 a.m. CST

    About the "raping" of eyeballs

    by godhelpus

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:26 a.m. CST

    fiester

    by psion

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:27 a.m. CST

    Ok, people who have seen it:

    by YackBacker

    What did you see? How about a description of the scenes, etc?

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:27 a.m. CST

    sorry GOD, but my eye balls were not raped

    by psion

    BUT GANG RAPED multiple times by stunning VISUALS. is a metaphor, get it?

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:28 a.m. CST

    nah, cant ruin it

    by psion

    it is a bunch of clips not connected with each other. Same stuff from comic-con.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:29 a.m. CST

    Got tickets, can't make it because of work.

    by antonphd

    But the trailer looked stunning to me, so, I can watch that while I wait for Dec.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:31 a.m. CST

    psion, is it honestly worth going to it?

    by YackBacker

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:31 a.m. CST

    anyone got footage yet?

    by rartus

    for the million of us who want to see it recorded off a cell-phone?

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:32 a.m. CST

    YackBacker dude is worth it.

    by psion

    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

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:32 a.m. CST

    Psion

    by godhelpus

    I get your ignorance loud and clear.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:34 a.m. CST

    Cameron is smart, 3D cant be recorded

    by psion

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:34 a.m. CST

    godhelpus you are welcome

    by psion

    I will use the word "violated" instead from now on.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:36 a.m. CST

    YackBacker

    by Crashbang

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:37 a.m. CST

    Psion

    by godhelpus

    Peace.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:40 a.m. CST

    Can eyeballs be 'Plunger Raped'?

    by Baron Karza

    As in 'violated' with a plunger handle?

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:41 a.m. CST

    What about those who don't live anywhere near an IMAX theater?

    by Mr. Pricklepants

    What about those, Jim? Because most people will only be seeing the underwhelming teaser trailer and not the 16-minute IMAX 3D preview.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:41 a.m. CST

    So the game is

    by master_of_realty

    for PS2?

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:42 a.m. CST

    I know right

    by Series7

    The Christmas Carol train was FUCKING AMAZING! <P> Yeah I live in a state the went that route instead.

  • I'm lazy.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:42 a.m. CST

    James Cameron's MYST

    by AlienDragQueen

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:42 a.m. CST

    that went*

    by Series7

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:43 a.m. CST

    people, hold judgement until december

    by psion

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:43 a.m. CST

    in front of the lens

    by rartus

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:43 a.m. CST

    Triple Bill

    by steveholt

    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!!!!!!!

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:43 a.m. CST

    It's still just CGI. Reminds me of the Final Fantasy movie.

    by V'Shael

    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. <p> Ironically, it may look better on the small screen, which will cover up the flaws.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:43 a.m. CST

    MY RESPECT for Cameron as a marketing film guru

    by idrinkyourmilkshake

    WAS RAPED! Nothing else.Sorry James, your film looks like garbage.It looks like a film for ten year old girls.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:44 a.m. CST

    Snorks

    by Series7

    The movie!

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:44 a.m. CST

    the cgi was flawless

    by Colonel_Blimp

    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. <P>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 a.m. CST

    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)!!

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:45 a.m. CST

    No Bill Paxton

    by Series7

    = No money from Series7.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:47 a.m. CST

    Yackbacker

    by SpawnofAchilles

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:50 a.m. CST

    Colonel_Blimp, Cameron is a cliched storyteller

    by YackBacker

    He breaks out his Mad-Libs book to start a screenplay, I bet. Still, I'm very much looking forward to Dec. 18th.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:50 a.m. CST

    steveholt

    by SpawnofAchilles

    hold on to your butt man, that's quite a lineup.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:50 a.m. CST

    Game over, Jim! Game over!

    by Mr. Pricklepants

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:51 a.m. CST

    SpawnofAchilles, FINE! I'm going! I promise!

    by YackBacker

    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...

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:52 a.m. CST

    Funny Article Featuring Bill Paxton

    by SpawnofAchilles

    http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-way-of-the-barbarian-infusing-your-spiritual-life-with-conan/

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:53 a.m. CST

    Yack

    by SpawnofAchilles

    atta boy. enjoy it for those of us who cannot!

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:54 a.m. CST

    disagree, yack

    by Colonel_Blimp

    Except for Titanic of course.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:55 a.m. CST

    I will be honored to report

    by KevinMuller

    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?

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:55 a.m. CST

    and the abyss,

    by Colonel_Blimp

    to some extent

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:58 a.m. CST

    THUNDERSMURFS, THUNDERSMURFS, THUNDERSMURFS HOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

    by CarlThorMark1978

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11:01 a.m. CST

    More I see the trailer.

    by knowthyself

    The more I really dig it.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11:02 a.m. CST

    Where's Mumrah?

    by PessimusGrime

    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!)

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11:03 a.m. CST

    Harry

    by dancetothebeatofthelivingdead

    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?

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11:07 a.m. CST

    Really excited to see this in Nashville!

    by dixieflyer

    On our glorious full size IMAX screen. Anyone else in the Nashville area going tonight?

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11:15 a.m. CST

    So this is like Ferngully in 3-D right?

    by OBESE_WAN_KENOBI

    With a few space battles thrown in? Just going completly by the trailer here, don't judge me.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11:25 a.m. CST

    3D makes my eyeballs ache. Not horny...they just ache.

    by FlickaPoo

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11:29 a.m. CST

    1997???

    by Series7

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11:30 a.m. CST

    Damn Titanic could have never come out in America

    by Series7

    And it would still be the highest grossing movie ever.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11:31 a.m. CST

    Makes the SW prequels look like Citizen Kane

    by Sithdan

    Nuff said.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11:33 a.m. CST

    I'm willing to reserve judgment on the plot and CGI

    by Carragia

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11:36 a.m. CST

    Dark Knight failed in Japan?

    by ufoclub1977

    really? Stats? comparisons? interesting.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11:38 a.m. CST

    I thought M.NightShamalama was doing AVATAR

    by Squashua

    The last Airbenderover.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11:38 a.m. CST

    Mr_Incredible

    by lukasman

    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!

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11:40 a.m. CST

    CGI looks best...

    by Baryonyx

    ...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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11:42 a.m. CST

    Saw it in IMAX in Sydney.

    by hallmitchell

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11:42 a.m. CST

    I predict a two year run at Imax

    by hallmitchell

    It's going to THAT booked.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11:45 a.m. CST

    Guys - wait until you see the....

    by hallmitchell

    Jungle. Amazing. This is a 3D film. As soon as tickets are on sale at IMAX. Book!

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11:46 a.m. CST

    Here's the bottom line

    by Jawa 007

    It may not be as revolutionary as Cameron boldly suggested - but this is an epic sci-fi flick... can you ask for anything more?

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11:46 a.m. CST

    People so eager to hate

    by ZombieHeathLedger

    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?

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11:48 a.m. CST

    But is the 3D....

    by knowthyself

    ...Just the same old 3D we've been seeing the past two years? What could possibly be NEW in 3D?

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11:49 a.m. CST

    again i have to go back to Meet the Robinsons

    by rben

    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?

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11:50 a.m. CST

    I just saw the preview, its better than the trailer

    by zarl

    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 ...

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11:51 a.m. CST

    My Eyes! My Fucking Eyes!!!!

    by zanemn

    Completely overated.....

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11:52 a.m. CST

    World of Warcarft: Rise of the Nightelves

    by zanemn

    Just cut off the tails.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11:52 a.m. CST

    rben

    by master_of_realty

    It's blurry without having had lasix. 2D is the way to go if you ask me.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11:57 a.m. CST

    MOST PEOPLE HAVE NO IMAX

    by vadakinX

    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. <p> 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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11:58 a.m. CST

    Shawn Bradley Monstar from Space Jam

    by TuskDude

    That's what the Navi look like: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_0rKA1cgjjVw/RjGmvDClocI/AAAAAAAAAAk/cBP5JN8m4tE/s320/monstar.gif

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11:59 a.m. CST

    Complaining that the Na'vi look "CG" is like...

    by Karl Hungus

    ...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?

  • Aug. 21, 2009, noon CST

    Sat back row in Manchester, UK

    by Beejus

    One minute until showtime! So excited!

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 12:02 p.m. CST

    karl

    by vadakinX

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 12:11 p.m. CST

    Knowthyself

    by hallmitchell

    Hi. It's 3D. It's just so well shot. This film comes alive.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 12:13 p.m. CST

    Spielberg and Lucas

    by hallmitchell

    Are going to have heart attacks when they see this.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 12:14 p.m. CST

    Vadakin...

    by Karl Hungus

    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 p.m. CST

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 12:15 p.m. CST

    About The 3D Glasses?

    by Crow3711

    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?

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 12:15 p.m. CST

    TuskDude

    by rartus

    nice. I was thinking how the table scene was storyboarded on how an nba player sits while getting taped up,

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 12:16 p.m. CST

    My impressions from Comic-Con

    by aceattorney

    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).<p> 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.<p> 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?<p> 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.<p> Just my humble opinion. I am now donning my flamesuit - carry on!

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 12:20 p.m. CST

    vadakinX

    by toadkillerdog

    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. <p> 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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 12:20 p.m. CST

    WETA vs ILM

    by Titus05

    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

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 12:21 p.m. CST

    EDIT

    by Titus05

    EDIT: Cameron 'should' have went with ILM

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 12:22 p.m. CST

    i saw no difference in imax and the teaser

    by alienindisguise

    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 p.m. CST

    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...

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 12:25 p.m. CST

    cg vs photorealism

    by alienindisguise

    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 p.m. CST

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 12:27 p.m. CST

    Prawns looked great....but not perfect.

    by drewlicious

    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 p.m. CST

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 12:27 p.m. CST

    Trailer looked like shit

    by medster101

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 12:32 p.m. CST

    hallmitchell???? two years? Really?

    by Series7

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 12:34 p.m. CST

    I seriously doubt this movie will 'tank'

    by toadkillerdog

    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. <p> 2) Nothing else will be competing with it at the time. <p> 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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 12:34 p.m. CST

    sorry but after the trailer.....

    by Bobman46

    who gives a fuck?

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 12:41 p.m. CST

    Trailer

    by MandrakeRoot

    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. <p> 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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 12:42 p.m. CST

    Too hard to predict its box office yet, but

    by YackBacker

    If I had to venture a guess, I'd say $250-280 million domestic. We're talking HARRY POTTER numbers here.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 12:45 p.m. CST

    Bobman

    by MandrakeRoot

    It appears you do, or you wouldn't be wasting your time posting here, you fucking wank.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 12:48 p.m. CST

    WTF?

    by medster101

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 12:51 p.m. CST

    Hey TKD

    by DrMorbius

    Can you imagine what it would have been like, if the AICN TBers were around when FP came out?

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 12:52 p.m. CST

    by rastuso

    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!

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 12:54 p.m. CST

    YackBacker

    by 9000rpm

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 12:54 p.m. CST

    Here's a Thought: Save Your Money and Don't Go

    by WriteFromLeft

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 12:54 p.m. CST

    ILM's talent pool is much stronger than WETA.

    by TooWhippy

    I agree Cameron should have hired ILM. They have never let him down before. BTW CGI is an outdated term. It's CG now.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 12:55 p.m. CST

    Good news from Holland

    by Magerebrug

    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 p.m. CST

    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'.<p>You know it too, don't you Jimbo?

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 12:58 p.m. CST

    The reason I think this movie will not be huge

    by Series7

    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. <P> The fact that the trailer is released barley got noticed out side of geek sites. <P> 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. <P> 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. <P> Unless the reviews are amazing for it. If it gets great reviews it'll probably be pretty big.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 1:01 p.m. CST

    ALIVE 3: Island of the Alive

    by turketron_2

    Don't mind me, the comment "the Na'vi are actually ALIVE" made me do it.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 1:01 p.m. CST

    that should have read "It's Alive 3: Island of the Alive"

    by turketron_2

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 1:02 p.m. CST

    Morbius

    by toadkillerdog

    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!* <p>

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 1:11 p.m. CST

    I think Envy is driving a lot of this

    by toadkillerdog

    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. <p>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. <p> 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. <p> But it does not lessen my enjoyment for the talent that shows up on-screen. <p> 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?

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 1:13 p.m. CST

    Looks really bad - lots of animated crap

    by sott68

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 1:16 p.m. CST

    It looks like Final Fantasy 2

    by Jack Burton

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 1:21 p.m. CST

    I think this will lead to

    by Series7

    Wife number six.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 1:26 p.m. CST

    I'm with Series 7

    by Ray Garraty #47

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 1:29 p.m. CST

    I think the real problem is....

    by Han Cholo

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 1:32 p.m. CST

    Alive VII: the final chapter

    by Magerebrug

    ...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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 1:32 p.m. CST

    WETA blows away ILM

    by awepittance

    anybody who says otherwise must be partially blind

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 1:32 p.m. CST

    CGI is not killing movies. That's Bull****

    by blakindigo

    Examples of exceptional CGI in movies? "Zodiac" a film where the CGI enhanced the movie and helped transport the viewer into the period.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 1:34 p.m. CST

    And this idiocy of Weta vs ILM vs Digital Domain

    by blakindigo

    is embarrassingly shallow. You can't tell from watching the movie which effects house worked on individual shots. Give it a rest.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 1:35 p.m. CST

    CNN.com

    by Ray Garraty #47

    does have an article about it today, ironically. So I stand corrected there. Took five minutes.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 1:36 p.m. CST

    3D is the future ... if we don't have to wear 3D glasses.

    by riskebiz

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 1:38 p.m. CST

    Hey, how about: 'I've got a fucking job Day'

    by AzulTool

    Should've done this on Labor Day...

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 1:39 p.m. CST

    blakindigo you can tell that ILM did not do King Kong

    by awepittance

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 1:45 p.m. CST

    AvATARRR DAYYYY!!!

    by lockesbrokenleg

    Going in a few hours. Please don't suck. At least its free.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 1:48 p.m. CST

    I JUST WATCHED THE TRAILOR...

    by uberman

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 1:50 p.m. CST

    Hehehe, 9000rpm- by that logic 500 DAYS OF SUMMER

    by YackBacker

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 1:52 p.m. CST

    WHAT IS A "TRAILOR"?

    by LittleCJ

    Can we go home now?

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 1:53 p.m. CST

    The 3D is the best so far...

    by CENOBITE

    the Dolby 3d is pretty spiffy... transforms the movie quite a bit!

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 1:54 p.m. CST

    Pissed Off And Bitter

    by DrMorbius

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 1:54 p.m. CST

    Don't comment unless you saw IMAX

    by CENOBITE

    If you just saw the trailer, post in that talkback.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 1:57 p.m. CST

    can't wait for the advertising to go mainstream

    by mithrandir16

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 1:57 p.m. CST

    You know what's funny?

    by Traumnovelle

    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. <P> Right? <P> If not just to prove a point about how accurate your foreshadowing was. You're all going to pay money to see it. <P> 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. <P> I gotta tell ya, I'm kinda convinced this movie will make shitloads of money. Just kinda funny, is all.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 2 p.m. CST

    Saw it in South Africa!

    by standundermyumbrella

    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!

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 2:01 p.m. CST

    i wanted to see the game footage yesterday at...

    by DerLanghaarige

    ...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)

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 2:02 p.m. CST

    Same reaction for me

    by twogunjames

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 2:06 p.m. CST

    Iceage 3: Worldwide: $792,714,749

    by Trannyformers_Apologist

    That means it just as AWESOME as Transformers 2 ! But ICE AGE 3 only had a 90 million dollar budget LMAO

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 2:06 p.m. CST

    Very impressive

    by Rogue Trooper

    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 :-)

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 2:08 p.m. CST

    Doubters be silent - Avatar is cinematic magic!

    by TurdontheRun

    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. <p>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. <p>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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 2:08 p.m. CST

    IF IT LOOKS REALISTIC IN A TRAILER...

    by uberman

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 2:11 p.m. CST

    What I mean is..

    by Traumnovelle

    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. <P> 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. <P> I'd think you'd just stay home. Somebody said above 'If you don't like it, save your money.' <P> 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? <P> Flash of lightning. Nevermind. I just realized I'm questioning the entire concept of the internet now. <P> Forget everything I said. <P> 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. <P> Fuck an Avatar Day though. I don't want to see anymore until December.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 2:11 p.m. CST

    Germany - Dortmund Screening - Review

    by celsus

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 2:11 p.m. CST

    CG does not make or brake a film

    by lockesbrokenleg

    It's always been story.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 2:12 p.m. CST

    400M for World of Warcraft characters

    by clever_screen_name

    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!

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 2:15 p.m. CST

    AWESOME

    by conbarba

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 2:15 p.m. CST

    HOLY SHIT! CAMERON TO DIRECT GREAT SPACE COASTER!!

    by lockesbrokenleg

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 2:16 p.m. CST

    CENOBITE

    by just pillow talk

    You can't make me!

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 2:16 p.m. CST

    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. <P> <P>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. <P> 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. <P> 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. <P> "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. <P> 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. <P> "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." <P>

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 2:19 p.m. CST

    Avatar is opthamologist APPROVED-

    by ToMonicker

    to fuck you eyes!!!<br /> ZOIDBERG: "Ah, what am I saying?" <br /> 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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 2:22 p.m. CST

    ILM is working on AVATAR

    by cliffy99

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 2:25 p.m. CST

    Hallmitchell and redweed,

    by white_vader

    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?

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 2:25 p.m. CST

    "In 3D, any problems you may have had disappear. "

    by ToMonicker

    Oh god, do I wish that was true, TurdOnTheRun!!!

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 2:27 p.m. CST

    Majority of people who see the film in a 2-D environment

    by Trannyformers_Apologist

    Cameron quote:<P>"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." <P>

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 2:28 p.m. CST

    Traumnovelle

    by Franco Begbie

    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 p.m. CST

    IF ONLY THEY WOULD REMAKE THE BABYSITTER'S CLUB IN 3-D....

    by gruemanlives

    All I got.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 2:28 p.m. CST

    Mandrake

    by Bobman46

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 2:29 p.m. CST

    TRAILER SHIT. IMAX FOOTAGE A.MAY.ZING!!

    by Mister McClane

    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!

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 2:31 p.m. CST

    Oh and Mandrake

    by Bobman46

    Are you James Cameron ? Go play outside.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 2:31 p.m. CST

    wake me up when the eye ball fucking starts

    by DangerDave

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 2:33 p.m. CST

    What does 3D TV need to take off? NFL 3D.

    by AzulTool

    Talk about a game-changer.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 2:36 p.m. CST

    give it a chance

    by Bizzywhizzyjimmerjams

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 2:38 p.m. CST

    DangerDave...

    by BiggusDickus

    Sleep on, sweet prince...

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 2:40 p.m. CST

    just seen the footage :)

    by pjvader

    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!

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 2:44 p.m. CST

    I saw UP in 2D, didn't miss that Third D-

    by ToMonicker

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 2:47 p.m. CST

    Re: The CGI

    by ArmageddonProductions

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 2:49 p.m. CST

    Cellphone recording...

    by Toonol

    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...<p> You'd then have to re-compose the images together, probably with traditional red-blue method. It would look TERRIBLE, but theoretically possible.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 2:56 p.m. CST

    teaser

    by Jared

    Saw the Avatar teaser before "Inglorious Basterds" this morning. Looked worse on a big screen then it did on my MacBook.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 3:03 p.m. CST

    where's the CGI revolution?

    by Mel_Gibsons_BahMitzvah

    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

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 3:06 p.m. CST

    THIS JUST IN: CGI MAKES OR BREAKS A FILM

    by uberman

    Why, yes. It truly does.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 3:09 p.m. CST

    Franco Begbie.

    by Traumnovelle

    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. <P> You may not be one of these people.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 3:09 p.m. CST

    And anyway...

    by Traumnovelle

    ..I don't have a point. I just think it's funny.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 3:12 p.m. CST

    seriously you guys

    by phoenixmagida5th

    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

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 3:13 p.m. CST

    I'll go and see it but

    by Bobman46

    just not as excited after the trailer. Perhaps my comments were misunderstood earlier but some idiot

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 3:13 p.m. CST

    Avatar Politely Courted My Eyeballs!

    by MediaGold

    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!<p> Is that better, godhelpus?

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 3:14 p.m. CST

    See it?

    by Rogue Trooper

    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 p.m. CST

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 3:16 p.m. CST

    Good for you Bobman!

    by MandrakeRoot

    You can make jokes, your really cool. Give yourself a round of applause. <p> 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. <p> 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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 3:16 p.m. CST

    I don't understand a lot of people

    by MJDeViant

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 3:18 p.m. CST

    Relax people! It is good!

    by JohnRyder

    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!

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 3:18 p.m. CST

    Wrong traumknowville

    by medster101

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 3:22 p.m. CST

    Back from a screening: it's a JAW DROPPER!

    by aphextwin

    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

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 3:24 p.m. CST

    MandrakeRoot!

    by Traumnovelle

    Testify brotha! Medster101: Wow. Okay. I'm not sure if you were joking or not, but alright. I am clear on your stance. Thanks.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 3:24 p.m. CST

    Speilburg and Lucas can f*ck themselves for all I care...

    by mrRiddle

    Cameron owns the world and Tim Burton is his Vice Over-ruler.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 3:26 p.m. CST

    Armageddon Productions

    by Shaner Jedi

    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. :)

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 3:26 p.m. CST

    "Space Smurfs -vs- Colonial Marines"

    by REVENGE_of_FETT

    <p>Dude that rocked, ha ha!</p><p>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.<p><p>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.</p>

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 3:29 p.m. CST

    Looks too much like a cartoon!!

    by MajorFrontbum

    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!

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 3:30 p.m. CST

    aphextwin

    by JohnRyder

    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

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 3:30 p.m. CST

    Not using my

    by ShiftyEyedDog2

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 3:31 p.m. CST

    Not using my "+1" at South Barrington (Chicago)

    by ShiftyEyedDog2

    Anybody that couldnt get a ticket that wants in? (maybe buy me a nice big popcorn! lol)

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 3:31 p.m. CST

    MajorFrontbum

    by JohnRyder

    if you think CG needs 20 years i tell you, you need 4 months and your mind will be changed. enjoy!

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 3:32 p.m. CST

    Shit, why can't I get it on itunes?

    by lockesbrokenleg

    itunes has it up, but I still can't fucking download it.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 3:33 p.m. CST

    JohnRyder

    by aphextwin

    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

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 3:34 p.m. CST

    Do we get to see any Sigourney?

    by mrRiddle

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 3:36 p.m. CST

    CAMERON 1. AICN RETARDS 0.

    by --- Emperor ---

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 3:37 p.m. CST

    this chiq says.....

    by Meadowe

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 3:41 p.m. CST

    Thanks MadnrakeRoot

    by Bobman46

    You're awesome

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 3:41 p.m. CST

    mrRiddle

    by JohnRyder

    yes. here red hair is kinda funny but she is still hot.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 3:41 p.m. CST

    Emperor

    by Shaner Jedi

    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 p.m. CST

    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 p.m. CST

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 3:43 p.m. CST

    WAY TO GO EMPEROR

    by theplant

    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

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 3:44 p.m. CST

    report from london.

    by gomez33

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 3:45 p.m. CST

    Impressed...

    by wildphantom07

    Just got back from the 16 minute preview. <p> Lol at the cinema manager who told us all to put our 3D glasses on - duh <p> I liked the trailer yesterday, but wasn't blown away like I expected. <p> 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? <p> 3D definitely made a huge difference and was the best I've seen to date.<p> Expectations for this - a top notch blockbuster ride for everyone. No more, no less. Excited

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 3:50 p.m. CST

    EMPEROR YOU RULE!!!!

    by masteroftheuniverse

    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

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 3:51 p.m. CST

    Tarantino gives us what might be his best film to date...

    by JackLucas

    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 p.m. CST

    Everybody bitches about not getting tix and now I cant GIVE one

    by ShiftyEyedDog2

    seriously folks... make up your minds

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 3:53 p.m. CST

    WAIT ONE FUCKING MINUTE

    by reflecto

    30 mins before the show, reservations are cancelled?? Does this mean I can get in to one in NY today?

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 3:53 p.m. CST

    thats ."..cant GIVE one away"

    by ShiftyEyedDog2

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 3:54 p.m. CST

    The Haters are slowly crawling back in their Caves

    by aphextwin

    ...on all fours...hissing and grinding their teeth

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 3:54 p.m. CST

    I have tickets... not sure if I want to go

    by Heckles

    Is it worth it? 16 minutes of footage? Fucking line, showing up an hour early...

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 3:56 p.m. CST

    Emperor... you're kinda like the reverse troll...

    by JackLucas

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 3:57 p.m. CST

    TWO MORE HOURS! CAN MY EYEBALLS STAND IT?!!

    by lockesbrokenleg

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 3:58 p.m. CST

    Seriously

    by OceanWang

    Could the whole eyeball raping and fucking thing be any more played?

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 3:58 p.m. CST

    Yeah, Cocknasty... um... Buttstank (*sigh*)...

    by JackLucas

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 3:59 p.m. CST

    Avatar will rock

    by technotranceporter

    Deal with it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9P_St-sOWY

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 4:01 p.m. CST

    I'm not going to complain to much though...

    by OceanWang

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 4:01 p.m. CST

    OceanWang - are you ready for some EYBEALL FUCKING!!

    by lockesbrokenleg

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 4:02 p.m. CST

    Hey mrRiddle

    by DrMorbius

    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!

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 4:02 p.m. CST

    Re: The Footage

    by ArmageddonProductions

    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.</p><p> 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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 4:03 p.m. CST

    I really do want this to blow me away...

    by JackLucas

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 4:04 p.m. CST

    MY EYEBALLS WILL BE FUCKED when Brett Favre

    by lockesbrokenleg

    comes out on the field in fucking Minnesota.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 4:05 p.m. CST

    Who do I have to blow for a NY ticket

    by reflecto

    Let's just get down to brass tacks.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 4:07 p.m. CST

    So, by your logic Armageddon(really?)Productions...

    by JackLucas

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 4:08 p.m. CST

    GAME CHANGER

    by JohnRyder

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 4:09 p.m. CST

    OF COURSE DEAN FARACCI IS NOW OFFICIALLY AN IDIOT

    by theplant

    PROBABLY BLIND BUT DOESN'T KNOW IT

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 4:09 p.m. CST

    And my eyeballs will be fucked when Brett Favre...

    by JackLucas

    Gets his fucking arms or legs broken and ends up on IR within the first four weeks of the season. :)

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 4:09 p.m. CST

    THE AVATAR TRAILER CURED MY CANCER

    by lockesbrokenleg

    But it gave me blindness

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 4:10 p.m. CST

    Can you transfer tickest?

    by JackLucas

    Because I have four to the KC screening tonight I have no use for.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 4:10 p.m. CST

    Re: JackLucas

    by ArmageddonProductions

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 4:11 p.m. CST

    COCKNASTY_BUTTSTANK is in deep shit

    by theplant

    the tide is turning, so fuck you, we"re going to Avatar Day Hollywood

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 4:13 p.m. CST

    THIS WILL BE A DAY LONG REMBERED

    by lockesbrokenleg

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 4:14 p.m. CST

    Thr trailer in front of Inglourious Basterds

    by ebolamonkey

    looked a hell of a lot better than the Apple trailer.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 4:15 p.m. CST

    it was wise to release the trailer before the avatar day

    by JohnRyder

    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, 4:15 p.m. CST

    AILF

    by JohnRyder

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 4:19 p.m. CST

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 4:20 p.m. CST

    Re: Intended Format

    by ArmageddonProductions

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 4:23 p.m. CST

    Intended viewing format

    by Trannyformers_Apologist

    Cameron SAYS:<P>"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." <P> 400 million dollar Fury Anime: The Movie "Fucking your Wallet in 2009"

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 4:25 p.m. CST

    So the 16 minute 3D 'Dances With Thundersmurfs' cartoon...

    by BiggusDickus

    looks slightly better than the 2 minute 2D 'Dances With Thundersmurfs' cartoon.<p>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.<p>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...

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 4:27 p.m. CST

    Brainwashing your mind in 3-D

    by Trannyformers_Apologist

    Epic Masterpiece<P> Game-Changer <P>Revolutionary <P>This generation's Star Wars<P> Amazing like dreaming with your eyes open <P> Like an addictive drug<P>Lawrence of Arabia <P> Matrix and Dances With Wolfs

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 4:29 p.m. CST

    I'm looking forward to this...

    by TinSpider

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 4:30 p.m. CST

    ....even though the trailer looks like a cut scene from a final

    by TinSpider

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 4:30 p.m. CST

    You got it wrong mandrakeroot

    by medster101

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 4:31 p.m. CST

    Re: Bobman46

    by ArmageddonProductions

    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.</p><p> 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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 4:35 p.m. CST

    My point of view...

    by SiNUS82

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 4:40 p.m. CST

    Re: Effects

    by ArmageddonProductions

    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!

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 4:41 p.m. CST

    Jacklucas

    by force_fed

    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).

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 4:42 p.m. CST

    Re:moviegoing experience- Feel-O-Round!

    by ToMonicker

    I think that's what it was called in KentuckyFriedMovie... LOL!

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 4:43 p.m. CST

    WOW Now it's 400 million.........<P>Do I hear 5........

    by DrMorbius

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 4:44 p.m. CST

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 4:46 p.m. CST

    Re: SiNUS82

    by ArmageddonProductions

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 4:47 p.m. CST

    Benchmark

    by jleft

    It should be , and it is , a new benchmark for this mainstream CGI stuff . We could be in far worse hands !

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 4:48 p.m. CST

    Do not take Magic mushrooms before

    by hallmitchell

    going to see this film. You will understand why.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 4:51 p.m. CST

    Re: hallmitchell

    by ArmageddonProductions

    Wow, that hadn't even occurred to me! If nothing else, this may well be the ultimate stoner movie. Sorry, WIZARDS!

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 4:51 p.m. CST

    It looks like that Final Fantasy movie from 10 years ago

    by dcut75

    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!

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 4:53 p.m. CST

    Breaking news!!

    by dcut75

    A terrorist in Iraq just ran into a crowded market place with this movie strapped to his chest!

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 4:56 p.m. CST

    Sitting in the theater...

    by Atomica

    5 mins to go!

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 4:57 p.m. CST

    White VADER

    by hallmitchell

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 5:02 p.m. CST

    Atomica

    by BiggusDickus

    Cunts like you should be shot. Turn your fucking phone off, you antisocial little knob.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 5:03 p.m. CST

    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.<P> Poor Brainwashed fangirls have got their work cut out for them trying to justify this 500 million dollar cartoony shitfest

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 5:06 p.m. CST

    3-d display for home is already here..

    by mr dark

    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!!!

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 5:06 p.m. CST

    Re: ArmageddonProductions

    by SiNUS82

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 5:14 p.m. CST

    THINGS THAT (MIGHT) SPELL EPIC FAIL:

    by uberman

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 5:17 p.m. CST

    UK London IMAX review

    by Diablo77

    http://clockworkshorts.com/2009/08/21/avatar-day-movie-preview

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 5:17 p.m. CST

    In the end, all that will matter is the STORY.

    by odysseus

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 5:17 p.m. CST

    Hey, where's the Final Destination Love?

    by ToMonicker

    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. ;-)

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 5:21 p.m. CST

    Guillerimo's most successful creatures only CG enhanced.

    by ToMonicker

    The complete CGI ones are kind of... cartoony? LOL!

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 5:22 p.m. CST

    Bobman and Medster

    by MandrakeRoot

    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. <p> 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. <p> 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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 5:26 p.m. CST

    COCKNASTY_BUTTSTANK

    by jching

    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 p.m. CST

    Saying it looks better in 3D is like saying it looks better drun

    by felwithe

    Except I actually watch movies while drunk.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 5:29 p.m. CST

    Mandrake

    by Bobman46

    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

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 5:31 p.m. CST

    Just got out...

    by force_fed

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 5:31 p.m. CST

    If you want this to fail......

    by SminkyPinky

    ...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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 5:31 p.m. CST

    LONDON IMAX REVIEW - FROM A VFX ARTIST

    by James Roberts

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 5:32 p.m. CST

    MandrakeRoot, calm down

    by medster101

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 5:33 p.m. CST

    Teaser quote "this is great"

    by SiNUS82

    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?

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 5:33 p.m. CST

    Just saw the 16 min clips

    by the_one_that_says_BADMUTHAFUCKER

    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.."

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 5:40 p.m. CST

    Re: COCKNASTY_BUTTSTANK

    by SiNUS82

    I just watched every frame on that Mech sequence. There was no clipping. So stop the bullshiting.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 5:41 p.m. CST

    "...gun CLIPPING THROUGH ITS FOREARM..."

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    Wha?! Are you talking about the ammo feed?!

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 5:41 p.m. CST

    Score

    by SiNUS82

    Does anyone know who is responsible for the score in the teaser? I doubt it is Horner.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 5:42 p.m. CST

    This cost eleventy billion dollars?????

    by pdennett316

    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? <p> 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. <p> 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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 5:43 p.m. CST

    I see the clipping..

    by kendragon

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 5:43 p.m. CST

    Please kill the 3d

    by theycallmemrglass

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 5:45 p.m. CST

    COCKNASTY_BUTTSTANK

    by jching

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 5:46 p.m. CST

    HOW DARE CAMERON NOT REGURGITATE...

    by pdennett316

    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!!!! <p> 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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 5:49 p.m. CST

    COCKNASTY....bullshit!

    by pdennett316

    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. <p> 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??

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 5:52 p.m. CST

    There's a dichotomy here.

    by Papalazeru

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 5:53 p.m. CST

    RE: It's clipping through his forearm.

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 5:54 p.m. CST

    Spirits Within...Advent Children...

    by ToMonicker

    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. <br /> 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?

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 5:54 p.m. CST

    Twitter folk LOVE the 16 min preview

    by aceattorney

    Use the #avatar in the search.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 5:55 p.m. CST

    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

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 5:55 p.m. CST

    James Cameron is the ultimate TROLL

    by Trannyformers_Apologist

    Along with MarketSaw.com they single handily RICK ROLLED the entire internet movie community with all that outrageous hype and fanboy brainwashing horseshit.<P> <P>Good job Cameron you sir are a Professional Troll<P> Make Michael Bay's trolling antics seem benign in comparison. <P> Revolutionary, Photo-real,game-changing, mind blowing, this generation's Star Wars indeed.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 5:57 p.m. CST

    Trannyformers_Apologist

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    Once again, you prove you are nothing but a worthless, one-note, trolling pile of hot mess.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 5:57 p.m. CST

    "Avatar trailer debuts to mixed response"...

    by JackRabbitSlim

    Me and my damn concern for non-Amuricuhn furrener readers...

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 5:58 p.m. CST

    Sinus...are you mad??

    by pdennett316

    It's hardly subliminal is it??? <p> 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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 6:01 p.m. CST

    There's so much to praise....

    by Papalazeru

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 6:06 p.m. CST

    just saw 3D preview

    by illegaltouching

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 6:10 p.m. CST

    TWITTER

    by jching

    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"

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 6:11 p.m. CST

    Kind of sucks if 3D makes it worth seeing

    by drewlicious

    Doesn't work on me and to be honest I hope the whole trend fails. I hate missing out on things.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 6:15 p.m. CST

    Avatar

    by khaosmatrix

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 6:16 p.m. CST

    CB

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    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.)<P>I suppose there are stupider details to debate but I don't see a clipping issue.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 6:18 p.m. CST

    HEY HATERS!

    by JohnRyder

    say goodby to your nickname, cos soon you all will be too ashamed to use it here.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 6:18 p.m. CST

    Not all responses were so glowing...

    by JackRabbitSlim

    quoted from npr story <p> Not all the early reactions were laudatory. <p> In Tel Aviv, Shay Ringel tweeted after a screening: "What was THAT?! ... Everyone walked out (scratching) their heads saying, `Why are we here?'"

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 6:23 p.m. CST

    So did anyone film it?

    by CharyouTree

    So us proles can see it ourselves.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 6:23 p.m. CST

    CB

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    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.<P>Anyway, yes I agree. I would like to see Cameron return with a great film.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 6:26 p.m. CST

    Avatar preview

    by George Costanza

    just saw it at 68th and broadway in NYC......This is going to be a monster.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 6:26 p.m. CST

    my brother got 2 tix for us for the 6:30 show

    by My best friend

    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?

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 6:26 p.m. CST

    Geeks With CGI Gripes can FUCK OFF

    by VaderSabre

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 6:27 p.m. CST

    on taping it with cellphone

    by illegaltouching

    without the glasses, it's blurry and shadowy, so if anyone does try it's not going to look great.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 6:28 p.m. CST

    Bobman

    by MandrakeRoot

    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 p.m. CST

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 6:31 p.m. CST

    all haters are racist

    by JohnRyder

    they don't look real because their skin is colored

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 6:38 p.m. CST

    Clipping issue

    by savagedave

    Seen people comment on this on youtube, looks like a non-issue to me.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 6:41 p.m. CST

    Those 'clipping images'

    by savagedave

    are pictures of fucking toys?! Make sure you take out the spaces in the link.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 6:42 p.m. CST

    Cameron should've kept his mouth shut

    by KevinMuller

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 6:42 p.m. CST

    Cameron should've kept his mouth shut

    by KevinMuller

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 6:42 p.m. CST

    Cameron should've kept his mouth shut

    by KevinMuller

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 6:43 p.m. CST

    Let's be honest, if you went to Avatar today-

    by ToMonicker

    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. ;-)

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 6:43 p.m. CST

    sorry about the reposts

    by KevinMuller

    hit the enter button 3 times

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 6:43 p.m. CST

    Hype is real

    by bobjustbob

    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.)

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 6:45 p.m. CST

    I'm sorry...

    by Baryonyx

    ...but Jurassic Park did it better in 1993!

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 6:47 p.m. CST

    HATERS!

    by uberman

    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.

  • 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)

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 6:54 p.m. CST

    Lincoln Square 6pm show

    by Gusterlove

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 6:54 p.m. CST

    EXACTLY JOHNRYDER

    by StarchildAD

    design an alien you would fuck.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 6:55 p.m. CST

    James Cameron RICKED ROLLED all of you...

    by Trannyformers_Apologist

    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 <P>James Cameron "KING OF THE TROLLS"! <P>Get the fuck out of here... brainwashed fanboys<P>LMAO

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 6:56 p.m. CST

    Neutral opinion...

    by Galvanick_Lucifer

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 6:57 p.m. CST

    Miami Florida Screening

    by dvdsequels

    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!

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 7:03 p.m. CST

    more impressed w/the Tron 2 trailer..

    by darthwaz1

    Although this does look cool, the animated characters don't seem anymore "realistic" to me than Jar Jar.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 7:04 p.m. CST

    uberman...

    by Baryonyx

    ...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'.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 7:08 p.m. CST

    Footage: I bow down to you James! (spoilers)

    by MandrakeRoot

    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. <p> 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. <p> 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. <p> 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. <p> 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

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 7:15 p.m. CST

    I probably should of cut that down

    by MandrakeRoot

    But this film has got me really stoked, so whatever. But I really can't fathom the videogame comparisons...it's ridiculous.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 7:16 p.m. CST

    My take

    by greenhorn1

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 7:17 p.m. CST

    Trailer on internet = no comparison to big screen

    by Hamish

    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!!

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 7:17 p.m. CST

    The avatars kind of looked dumb

    by abovo

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 7:17 p.m. CST

    The avatars kind of looked dumb

    by abovo

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 7:18 p.m. CST

    cameron's a tech director which means

    by alienindisguise

    the acting in this will be piss as this 16 minutes of bullshit demonstrated.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 7:18 p.m. CST

    A good film maker...

    by Baryonyx

    ...knows when NOT to use CG: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jdx_zQLtme4&feature=related

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 7:19 p.m. CST

    How long until this gets spun into an Anti-American

    by krullboyisback

    movie? I can see it now. . .Navi=Freedom Fighters= minutemen=patriots= Al Aqaeda

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 7:21 p.m. CST

    Okay...

    by Baryonyx

    ...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

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 7:22 p.m. CST

    hey James Roberts...

    by alienindisguise

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 7:23 p.m. CST

    STOP!!!!!!!!!!

    by davelvfx

    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...

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 7:26 p.m. CST

    2009's Cloverfield

    by TheManCalledFlane

    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. <br><br> 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. <br><br> 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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 7:29 p.m. CST

    I LOVED IT

    by SeXX ED

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 7:30 p.m. CST

    Today's screening

    by Tony_le_Stephanois

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 7:32 p.m. CST

    Re:" The 2D trailer is a joke "?

    by ToMonicker

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 7:33 p.m. CST

    Awesome!!!!!

    by anthonymek

    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.....

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 7:35 p.m. CST

    If it's the same as Comic-Con footage

    by Bobba Phat

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 7:37 p.m. CST

    3D great, but what about story?

    by Bobba Phat

    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?!"

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 7:37 p.m. CST

    He should just make Battle Angel!!

    by darthwaz1

    I've been waiting forever for him to make that movie! It has the potential to be 10 times what Avatar is!

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 7:41 p.m. CST

    TheManCalledFlane, regarding HYPE

    by ToMonicker

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 7:43 p.m. CST

    Nice to see all the haters running away

    by jsscript2007

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 7:43 p.m. CST

    if you are disappointed that it's not "photoreal",

    by Rupee88

    then you are stupider than I thought.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 7:44 p.m. CST

    and 3D can kick ass

    by Rupee88

    Beowulf proved that

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 7:47 p.m. CST

    "then you are stupider than I thought"

    by Baryonyx

    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?

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 7:48 p.m. CST

    Sold Out?

    by littleskippy

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 7:49 p.m. CST

    Where the fuck are the big blue dicks?

    by AzulTool

    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!

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 7:49 p.m. CST

    To all the sensetive ass bitches

    by medster101

    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?

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 7:49 p.m. CST

    hey alienindisguise

    by James Roberts

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 7:57 p.m. CST

    Take a screen-grab...

    by Baryonyx

    ...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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 7:58 p.m. CST

    hymens still firmly intact

    by virgin_eyeballs

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 8:01 p.m. CST

    Suspension of disbelief

    by TheManCalledFlane

    A big key to fantasy or science fiction films is suspension of disbelief. <br><br> 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. <br><br> 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. <br><br> 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!" <br><br> 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? <br><br> 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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 8:02 p.m. CST

    Baryonyx

    by Rupee88

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 8:02 p.m. CST

    It looks amazing! Photo real backgrounds amazing

    by DamianVonBarone

    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

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 8:05 p.m. CST

    The CGI was flawed

    by aversiontherapy2

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 8:06 p.m. CST

    Avatar is...

    by palpster

    ...Heaven's Gate in space. It will be a cosmic flop.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 8:07 p.m. CST

    Rupee88

    by Baryonyx

    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 p.m. CST

    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. <p> 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. <p> 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 p.m. CST

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 8:29 p.m. CST

    Would negative reaction be different...

    by Bobba Phat

    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?

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 8:36 p.m. CST

    Teaser trailer doesn't do it justice!

    by eickhry

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 8:36 p.m. CST

    Saw it tonight. Lower those expectations

    by TakeItEasyMon

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 8:37 p.m. CST

    that's eyeball rape, Moose

    by virgin_eyeballs

    If it didn't hurt, it would hardly be rape now, would it?

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 8:43 p.m. CST

    The leaked Footage is here http://tinyurl.com/mjk4lt

    by Dalgo54321

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 8:43 p.m. CST

    The leaked Footage is here http://tinyurl.com/mjk4lt

    by Dalgo54321

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 8:43 p.m. CST

    Saw it today

    by WYLD STALLYNS RULES

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 8:44 p.m. CST

    Dances with Aliens

    by zacdilone

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 8:46 p.m. CST

    MandrakeRoot

    by Kief_Ledger

    I agree wholeheartedly. Thought the footage was amazing. Can't wait for December 18th

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 8:49 p.m. CST

    Mr. Waturi has it right

    by TakeItEasyMon

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 8:57 p.m. CST

    Good...but with reservations!!

    by steveholt

    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!!

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 8:58 p.m. CST

    Trailer Dont do justice

    by loc420

    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

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 8:59 p.m. CST

    ABSOLUTELY. STUNNING.

    by jackknifed_juggernaut

    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.<p> 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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 9:02 p.m. CST

    My Impressions!

    by Johnno

    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... <br><br> 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! <br><br> 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. <br><br> 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! <br><br> 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!

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 9:02 p.m. CST

    I LOVED IT!!

    by lockesbrokenleg

    Saw it. Pretty much blown away. This is the best 3D I've seen. Wow.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 9:06 p.m. CST

    Uncomparable!!

    by loc420

    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

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 9:07 p.m. CST

    Saw the footage and...

    by Sin86a

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 9:09 p.m. CST

    Oh and it's a fucking amazing looking movie too!!!

    by Sin86a

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 9:13 p.m. CST

    I want Muppets

    by eliotalenwalnut

    Dark Crystal is totally more photorealisitic 3D CGI when you cross your eyes looking at it. Come on, she had lobe plugs, m'geh.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 9:15 p.m. CST

    This was phenomenal.

    by Jiggleman

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 9:24 p.m. CST

    exactly, Jiggle

    by jackknifed_juggernaut

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 9:26 p.m. CST

    Reminds me of a good video game plot

    by ParagonComplex

    Yeah, it'd make a good video game. Maybe that's their plan. o_O It was gorgeous, at least.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 9:28 p.m. CST

    Does it look like ‘Delgo’ YES or NO?

    by Dalgo54321

    http://tinyurl.com/mjk4lt

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 9:29 p.m. CST

    Here are pics of ‘Delgo’ http://tinyurl.com/mjk4lt

    by Dalgo54321

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 9:31 p.m. CST

    It feels like a sideshow

    by palimpsest

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 9:36 p.m. CST

    he shoots...

    by Six Demon Bag

    he scores on your bitch asses.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 9:39 p.m. CST

    This time, its true!

    by cyeoh

    You could say that it was as if you were literally there! This 3D preview just put all other 3D movies to shame!

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 9:41 p.m. CST

    loc420

    by MrDexter

    will send telegram when uncomparable becomes a word.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 9:44 p.m. CST

    Eyeball Cherry was Popped

    by vw86gti

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 9:48 p.m. CST

    Who Gives A Shit About 3-D Technology

    by MANNZILLA

    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....

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 9:50 p.m. CST

    MY EYEBALLS WERE FUCKED!

    by lockesbrokenleg

    I turned to my friend and I said, "My eyeballs hurt!"

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 9:55 p.m. CST

    A lovely taste...wanted more.

    by Kamaji

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 9:57 p.m. CST

    Set that $20 aside

    by interneti

    We're going to see Avatar in December!

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 9:57 p.m. CST

    AVATAR Rocks

    by mphholland

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:02 p.m. CST

    Manzilla

    by Sin86a

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:02 p.m. CST

    Was 2 rows in front of CAPONE at the Chicago screening!

    by bumbleward

    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 p.m. CST

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:10 p.m. CST

    T-Rex/Gollum/Davey Jones>Na'vi

    by Thanos0145

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:12 p.m. CST

    Pixar better nail that 'Mars' story...

    by sanzaru

    ...'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!

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:13 p.m. CST

    I loved it!

    by ur-vile

    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?

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:16 p.m. CST

    You can buy Avatar on DVD ...RIGHT NOW!!!

    by decypher44

    http://tinyurl.com/kmexed <br> <br> See the preview screenshots here!!! <br> http://tinyurl.com/n8bv28

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:16 p.m. CST

    Just got back from AVATAR Day screening

    by one9deuce

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:18 p.m. CST

    Eh...Jar Jar looked just as real.

    by darthwaz1

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:19 p.m. CST

    Dialogue sounds like shit

    by Trannyformers_Apologist

    The dialogue in Avatar reminds me of George Lucas and the prequels. <P> Maybe Lucas helped out with the script. <P> Revolutionary! Mind-blowing!

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:24 p.m. CST

    trannyformers apologist

    by Kief_Ledger

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:29 p.m. CST

    3D Avatar = The Eye Fucking we were promised!

    by Mr. Moe

    The 2D teaser has lame as fuck CGI, but the 3D 16 minutes was AMAZING. Never seen anything like it before.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:34 p.m. CST

    Avatar Screening

    by spykerdtc

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:36 p.m. CST

    Hey Tranny Fuckhead...

    by DoctorWho?

    You gonna plunk down your 16 clams to see it in IMAX 3-D ?<p> Or are you gonna insist it's just Beowolf 2? Step up bitch.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:40 p.m. CST

    Brilliant choice of clips

    by sanzaru

    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...

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:42 p.m. CST

    Zemicks, eat your eyeballs out

    by lockesbrokenleg

    Your Beowulf stuff looks like shit compared to this.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:43 p.m. CST

    Delgo was going to be revolutionary too

    by FluffyUnbound

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:44 p.m. CST

    Remember the first Gollum clips...

    by ReportAbuse

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:49 p.m. CST

    People thought Gollum was a real guy?

    by lockesbrokenleg

    Fuck, that is hilarious.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:50 p.m. CST

    I respect Cameron for believing in his work

    by MandrakeRoot

    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. <p> 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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:50 p.m. CST

    Oh and..

    by MandrakeRoot

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:53 p.m. CST

    Sorry...one more thought

    by MandrakeRoot

    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 p.m. CST

    THUNDERSMURFS, THUNDERSMURFS, THUNDERSMURFS HOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

    by CarlThorMark1978

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:58 p.m. CST

    Wow... the game is underwhelming as wel...

    by kjmad25

    fuck

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11 p.m. CST

    I miss Aliens...

    by kjmad25

    ... time to re-watch it.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11:01 p.m. CST

    SIGOURNEY WEAVER AS A CAT PERSON FREAKED ME OUT

    by lockesbrokenleg

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11:04 p.m. CST

    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 p.m. CST

    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, 11:06 p.m. CST

    IT WAS FREE DIPSHIT!!

    by lockesbrokenleg

    I guess some Talkbackers have terrible reading skills.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11:09 p.m. CST

    lockesbrokenleg

    by IHaveSeenEveryEpisodeOfPrisonBreak

    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!

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11:11 p.m. CST

    Must fucking watch this in IMAX 3D... NO OTHER WAY!

    by Kampbell-Kid

    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!

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11:14 p.m. CST

    SCALPERS? IT'S NOT A FUCKING NFL GAME!!

    by lockesbrokenleg

    It's just 20 min of a movie I'll see all of in a few months.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11:15 p.m. CST

    The Summer of Disappointment Continues. . .

    by krullboyisback

    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

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11:16 p.m. CST

    IT;S A SAD SUMMER WHEN TREK AND 20 MIN OF THIS

    by lockesbrokenleg

    are the bes I've seen.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11:17 p.m. CST

    Fluffy

    by toadkillerdog

    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

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11:23 p.m. CST

    Amen lockesbrokenleg, Amen

    by krullboyisback

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11:30 p.m. CST

    lockesbrokenleg

    by IHaveSeenEveryEpisodeOfPrisonBreak

    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!

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11:31 p.m. CST

    It was more FETISHISTIC than I anticipated... Read on

    by Proman1984

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11:31 p.m. CST

    It's not supposed to be "photo real"

    by Cartman86

    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.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11:34 p.m. CST

    SIGOURNEY WEAVER AS A CAT PERSON TURNED ME ON

    by Finding Forrestal

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11:36 p.m. CST

    I had a one night stand with AVATAR

    by hallmitchell

    For fifteen minutes, i've got the number and i'm coming back for more.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11:36 p.m. CST

    Moon, District 9, The Hurt Locker, Up ...

    by ReportAbuse

    & maybe Brothers Bloom .... not so disappointing a summer.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11:37 p.m. CST

    If I could put a ticket value.

    by hallmitchell

    ON how blown away i was. $160.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11:39 p.m. CST

    I loved it! It was much better than CATS.

    by Dingbatty

    I will it see it again and again.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11:44 p.m. CST

    Want to see Hurt Locke, but live in BFE Indiana

    by krullboyisback

    and they are not showing it here

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11:46 p.m. CST

    CarlThorMark1978, "Dances with Thundersmurfs" that's funny.

    by Stereotypical Evil Archer

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11:50 p.m. CST

    weaver's avatar was hot

    by illegaltouching

    too bad she probably gets eaten by the wildlife

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11:52 p.m. CST

    Imax footage was fucking awesome

    by Flying Spaghetti Monster

    In 3D, Avatar will rock your world. Footage got a standing ovation at the theater in Charlotte.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 12:04 a.m. CST

    My faith is shaken.

    by CarolinaProjectionist2005

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 12:09 a.m. CST

    Zoe at PR screening..

    by walterivan

    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...

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 12:10 a.m. CST

    SF Metreon screening...

    by Zardoz

    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...

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 12:19 a.m. CST

    Fuck the 3D

    by Wrecks

    3D SCHmeeDee... But the world they've created looks insanely badass, and pure Cameron. Best 16 minutes I've had all week.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 12:25 a.m. CST

    Also...

    by Zardoz

    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...

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 12:28 a.m. CST

    BUSTED MY EYEMEN

    by gotilk

    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. <br> <br> 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.<br><br> 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".<br><br> But my biggest gripe is that I have to wait until DECEMBER to go back there again. <br><br> 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. <br><br> 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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 12:31 a.m. CST

    And also...

    by Zardoz

    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... ;-)

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 12:37 a.m. CST

    Count me in with the "Awesome" camp

    by Gseif7

    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 a.m. CST

    I never said I went to Avatar Day did I?......NO

    by Trannyformers_Apologist

    @Kief_Ledger <P> <P> I didn't have to be there to hear the dialogue. <P><P> I didn't have to be there to hear the dialogue. <P><P> I didn't have to be there to hear the dialogue. <P><P> I didn't have to be there to hear the dialogue. <P><P> I didn't have to be there to hear the dialogue. <P><P> I didn't have to be there to hear the dialogue. <P><P> I didn't have to be there to hear the dialogue. <P><P> I didn't have to be there to hear the dialogue. <P><P> I didn't have to be there to hear the dialogue. <P><P> I didn't have to be there to hear the dialogue. <P><P> I didn't have to be there to hear the dialogue. <P><P> I didn't have to be there to hear the dialogue. <P><P> I didn't have to be there to hear the dialogue. <P><P> I didn't have to be there to hear the dialogue. <P><P> I didn't have to be there to hear the dialogue. <P><P> I didn't have to be there to hear the dialogue. <P><P> I didn't have to be there to hear the dialogue. <P>Understand that... I hope.<P> I never said I WATCHED the footage ...did I ...NO.<P> Nice try though....lmao <P>"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.<P> <P> Keep up the good work you're doing great!

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 12:38 a.m. CST

    Fuck the 3d?

    by gotilk

    Why, yes. I'd love to. Thanks. Twice if possible.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 12:39 a.m. CST

    Saw it in Real IMAX 3D in NYC

    by erikbryan

    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!

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 12:39 a.m. CST

    Here's the 'Avatar’ FOOTAGE http://tinyurl.com/n8bv28

    by Dalgo54321

    http://tinyurl.com/n8bv28

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 12:40 a.m. CST

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 12:40 a.m. CST

    LEAKED FOOTAGE HERE http://tinyurl.com/n8bv28

    by Dalgo54321

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 12:41 a.m. CST

    by Todaysfate

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 12:48 a.m. CST

    why

    by happyboy

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 12:49 a.m. CST

    by Todaysfate

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 12:50 a.m. CST

    Leaked footage?

    by gotilk

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 12:51 a.m. CST

    by Todaysfate

    Right ... what Happy boy said .. apparently at the same time I was saying it.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 12:53 a.m. CST

    Happy boy

    by Flying Spaghetti Monster

    wonderfully put

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 12:58 a.m. CST

    Merely OK

    by DarthDooku

    The 3D was nice, but the story look generic and dull. I am completely unexcited now.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 12:58 a.m. CST

    Most Quality

    by chainlinkspiral

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 1 a.m. CST

    Dalgo54321...

    by Finding Forrestal

    Enough already. DELGO is for five-year-olds. AVATAR is for adults.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 1:05 a.m. CST

    by Todaysfate

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 1:06 a.m. CST

    maybe example clears it up for you noobs

    by happyboy

    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

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 1:17 a.m. CST

    by Todaysfate

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 1:18 a.m. CST

    i hate fake imaxi fucking hate fake imax

    by phoenixmagida5th

    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

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 1:19 a.m. CST

    by Todaysfate

    Again ... What Happy said. Bravo. I think we have our advocacy Boy.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 1:23 a.m. CST

    The problem is...

    by Human_Bean_Juice_

    no-one in the 'real' world knows about this movie! Only geeks give a fuck!

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 1:24 a.m. CST

    by Todaysfate

    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?

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 1:26 a.m. CST

    happy, todaysfate

    by Flying Spaghetti Monster

    I'm glad someone could express with words, because I could not.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 1:26 a.m. CST

    by Todaysfate

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 1:27 a.m. CST

    by Todaysfate

    Correction ... only geeks give a fuck now. Check back in January.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 1:29 a.m. CST

    Roger Ebert was underwhelmed by the 15 min of footage

    by Trannyformers_Apologist

    Roger Ebert was underwhelmed by the 15 minutes of Avatar footage. <P>No how can this be?... HUH ? <P>Ebert saw it twice and is underwhelmed .....NOW HOW CAN THIS BE? <P>http://tinyurl.com/ncu639 <P>Oh it be.<P>

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 1:30 a.m. CST

    I saw it in a Lie max theater

    by mr dark

    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,

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 1:32 a.m. CST

    by Todaysfate

    She speaks english because she was raised by humans then sent back into the wild. Like ... duh. Ok I made that up.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 1:32 a.m. CST

    Today is D.A.D.W.T.D.!

    by BiggusDickus

    'Day After Dances With Thundersmurfs Day.'<p>All hail Jimbo's Mighty Hype Machine!

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 1:35 a.m. CST

    Lipstick on a Pig

    by scoville

    It's still a James Cameron movie after all. Most overrated director ever.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 1:37 a.m. CST

    you will al be in lline and loving it

    by mr dark

    trust me ... I don't give a shit what you all think but you will eat this with a spoon and ask for seconds

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 1:42 a.m. CST

    Photorealism

    by sanzaru

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 1:46 a.m. CST

    Wow, What a Difference

    by ass clown

    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.”

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 1:46 a.m. CST

    A V A T A R - Fucking your eyeballs in December!

    by Motoko Kusanagi

    Nothing. Else. Matters.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 1:48 a.m. CST

    T H U N D E R S M U R F S - Underwhelming your eyeballs in Dece

    by BiggusDickus

    Convincing. CGI. Matters.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 1:49 a.m. CST

    HATER-ADE

    by Torgo2020

    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 a.m. CST

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 1:50 a.m. CST

    Sanzaru

    by mr dark

    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

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 1:51 a.m. CST

    Amazing Sight To Behold ... by Sanzaru

    by Todaysfate

    End of story. Photo-real, hyper-real, surreal or not. Isn't amazing all we really want at the end of the day?

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 1:54 a.m. CST

    Torgo2020...

    by BiggusDickus

    Such passion in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Original material? It's 'Dances With Thundersmurfs', ffs!<p>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 a.m. CST

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 1:54 a.m. CST

    Faith Restored.

    by Candied

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 2 a.m. CST

    by Todaysfate

    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

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 2:03 a.m. CST

    Exhilarating, Breathtaking, and Game-Changing...

    by Rindain

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 2:05 a.m. CST

    Clipping image proof

    by estacado1

    Here's a link: http://tiny.cc/nvTUJ. Mirror: http://tiny.cc/df1uZ or http://tiny.cc/2jYGd. <p>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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 2:06 a.m. CST

    dear mandrakeroot

    by davelvfx

    "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

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 2:07 a.m. CST

    by Todaysfate

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 2:08 a.m. CST

    there is no excuse for lie max ever

    by phoenixmagida5th

    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 a.m. CST

    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

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 2:10 a.m. CST

    Biggusdickus and Haters

    by Torgo2020

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 2:13 a.m. CST

    by Todaysfate

    Dont forget Arnald telling Jammie Lee to dance on his lap.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 2:14 a.m. CST

    sorry for typosypos

    by phoenixmagida5th

    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?

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 2:15 a.m. CST

    todaysfate

    by Torgo2020

    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?

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 2:15 a.m. CST

    sorry for typos

    by phoenixmagida5th

    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?

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 2:20 a.m. CST

    Alright, now I can give my full opinions

    by Atomica

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 2:21 a.m. CST

    by Todaysfate

    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..

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 2:23 a.m. CST

    Bad grammar and Typos abound

    by Atomica

    in my prev post. so what it's 3 am and i'm fucking tired.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 2:24 a.m. CST

    todaysfate

    by Torgo2020

    that is a very good point...lol.. kudos

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 2:25 a.m. CST

    Ebert gives the preview 0 stars.

    by lockesbrokenleg

    Fuck you Ebert.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 2:26 a.m. CST

    EBERT lost his way a looong time ago

    by Torgo2020

    nuff said

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 2:27 a.m. CST

    Fuck Yeah! I'm IN!

    by FilmFan311

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 2:29 a.m. CST

    Torgo2020

    by BiggusDickus

    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.<p>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. <p>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.<p>Oh, and I'm more Elder Scrolls than WoW, by the way...

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 2:40 a.m. CST

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 2:43 a.m. CST

    BiggusDickus

    by Torgo2020

    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!

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 2:55 a.m. CST

    by spainO

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 2:55 a.m. CST

    Looks like a toilet of a movie...

    by MajorFrontbum

    ..but will probably make a great video game.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 3:01 a.m. CST

    You people...

    by Fist_O_Salmon

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 3:09 a.m. CST

    You people...

    by Fist_O_Salmon

    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?

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 3:18 a.m. CST

    So the ThunderSmurfs looked better in 3-D?

    by ganymede3010

    I hope surely hope so.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 3:22 a.m. CST

    It's perty, but the 3d is still not there

    by ivanemoore

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 3:24 a.m. CST

    The 3-D was amazing.

    by Zardoz5

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 3:36 a.m. CST

    CG realism

    by Zardoz5

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 3:41 a.m. CST

    to all those saying all those saying

    by phoenixmagida5th

    ' 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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 3:55 a.m. CST

    Hey the Matrix Nerd from GRANDMA'S BOY is in it!!!

    by JeffManSixtyFo

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 4:19 a.m. CST

    Saw the 19-minute preview, and then watched DISTRICT 9.

    by 3D-Man

    It was an incredible night of cinema.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 4:24 a.m. CST

    Saw the 6pm in the UK yesterday

    by presevil

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 4:26 a.m. CST

    And...

    by presevil

    ...did this remind anybody else of Ferngully: The Last Rainforest?

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 4:28 a.m. CST

    Unimpressed

    by CHRISTIAN_BALE_TRASHED_MY_LIGHTS

    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.<p>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 a.m. CST

    I WISH LUC BESSON WOULD MAKE HIS 5TH ELEMENT SEQUEL MR. SHADOW..

    by CarlThorMark1978

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 4:30 a.m. CST

    The 3d was mind blowing but only in parts

    by awepittance

    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 a.m. CST

    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. <BR><BR>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??? <BR><BR>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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 4:46 a.m. CST

    Wait a minute...

    by Samplelord

    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..

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 4:56 a.m. CST

    'How are blue aliens ever going to look "real"?'

    by quantize

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 4:58 a.m. CST

    Media Messiah....King of the World!

    by quantize

    A buffoon and obviously almost as full full of himself as Cameron..only much less talented <p> obviously.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 5:08 a.m. CST

    Quantize: Don't Blame Me For Avatar

    by Media Messiah

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 5:10 a.m. CST

    PS: And, I Am More Full Of Myself Than James Cameron

    by Media Messiah

    I shouldn't be working for him, he should be working for me!!! I'm the King of the Universe, and beyond, media wise!!!!!

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 5:42 a.m. CST

    I agree with James Roberts

    by Orionsangels

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 5:45 a.m. CST

    Orionsangels: No It Can't

    by Media Messiah

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 5:46 a.m. CST

    That's Subject Line

    by Media Messiah

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 5:48 a.m. CST

    How can anyone say the CG is bad?

    by Orionsangels

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 5:51 a.m. CST

    James Cameron considers them photo-realistic...

    by Orionsangels

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 5:52 a.m. CST

    It's another Titan AE.

    by Papalazeru

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 6:21 a.m. CST

    A million times better than the trailer

    by henrydalton

    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 a.m. CST

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 6:43 a.m. CST

    Gah, I meant curt

    by IndustryKiller!

    not Kurt, its 5am and Im tired

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 6:46 a.m. CST

    IndustryKiller!

    by JohnRyder

    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)

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 6:46 a.m. CST

    This plot rips off a Poul Anderson short story

    by Bill Clay

    "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.<p> Although I read the story years ago, I immediately recognized the similarities in the story.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 7:11 a.m. CST

    Bill Clay

    by savagedave

    Likely. I think Cameron was quoted as saying that h's basically pouring every sci-fi story he's ever read into this film.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 7:37 a.m. CST

    The 3-D was indeed the best part...

    by Fa_Tass_DinoMolester

    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...

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 8:14 a.m. CST

    Here's the 'Avatar’ FOOTAGE http://tinyurl.com/n8bv28

    by Dalgo54321

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 8:20 a.m. CST

    That Delgo/Thundersmurf shit is getting old quickly

    by savagedave

    Particulary when the people shouting it the loudest didn't even think of it.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 8:24 a.m. CST

    Jim Vejvoda at IGN gives opinion on footage...

    by rubberyoda

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 8:36 a.m. CST

    Avatar

    by spacedragon1964

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 9:06 a.m. CST

    My eyeballs were merely fondled without permission.

    by rbatty024

    I was really hoping for a rape. <p> 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."

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 9:11 a.m. CST

    Please correct me

    by jsscript2007

    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?

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 9:19 a.m. CST

    Loved it

    by garumphul

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 9:24 a.m. CST

    The footage was "Daddy-O"

    by SinclairZX_81

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 9:28 a.m. CST

    The footage was "Daddy-O"

    by SinclairZX_81

    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

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 9:29 a.m. CST

    Here's the problem

    by James_Camera_On

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 9:31 a.m. CST

    the most postiseses ever...

    by a_terradactyl

    Wait till this movie comes out, see it on shrooms and then a post. bitch cock ass balls

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 9:34 a.m. CST

    Image Metrics created this technology, not Cameron

    by filmmad

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 9:37 a.m. CST

    This site needs URL links

    by filmmad

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 9:37 a.m. CST

    This is groundbreaking

    by MandrakeRoot

    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. <p> 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. <p> 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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 9:40 a.m. CST

    Goggle Image Metrics

    by filmmad

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 9:47 a.m. CST

    Unfortunately...

    by rxse7en

    I saw Inglorious Basterds after the Avatar screening and forgot all about Avatar. :D

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 9:48 a.m. CST

    davevfx...please explain

    by MandrakeRoot

    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?

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 9:53 a.m. CST

    jsscript2007

    by one_guy_from_andromeda_

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 9:54 a.m. CST

    Some more on Image Metrics and Avatar

    by filmmad

    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

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 9:57 a.m. CST

    Burbank 6pm screening...

    by mad_dax

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 10 a.m. CST

    It Was Fucking Awesome.

    by Crow3711

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 10:14 a.m. CST

    Please answer me my question about 3D cinema

    by ominus

    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. <p>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. <p>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. <p>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. <p>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. <p>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. <p>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? <p>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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 10:16 a.m. CST

    Sam Worthington = Early career Ewan McGregor

    by The_Warrior_Poet

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 10:23 a.m. CST

    Media Messiah: Beast in X-men real looked REAL????

    by Atomica

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 10:23 a.m. CST

    One last comment regarding the preview.u should read it.

    by ominus

    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. <p>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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 10:26 a.m. CST

    Ominus

    by Crow3711

    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. <p> Personally, I just think you are missing the point.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 10:26 a.m. CST

    Todaysfate

    by FluffyUnbound

    "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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 10:32 a.m. CST

    I work near a very large theater in Los Angeles...

    by Kirbymanly

    ...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 a.m. CST

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 10:46 a.m. CST

    Deer Park NY 6:45

    by MightyHogweed

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 10:49 a.m. CST

    Crows3711

    by jsscript2007

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 10:53 a.m. CST

    Saw it at Navy Pier

    by GeneralJackCosmo

    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."

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 10:58 a.m. CST

    This film desperately needs

    by 420 Boylston St

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 11:08 a.m. CST

    ominus

    by Johnno

    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...

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 11:24 a.m. CST

    Dug it, but

    by RipVanMarlowe

    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 a.m. CST

    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!<P> The far reaching conspiracy against Cameron's Avatar must be stopped at all cost. <P> Be sure to never say anything negative about Avatar ever again. Avatar in 3-D is critic proof.<P> Roger Ebert and everybody else who was underwhelmed by Avatar Day is the devil and a troll.<P> THE CONSPIRACY OF HATE MUST BE PUT TO AN END! <P>Groundbreaking <P>Revolutionary<P> Mind-blowing <P>Like dreaming with your eyes open<P> Amazing <P> Overwhelming <P>This generation's Star Wars<P> Photo-real <P> Breathtaking <P>Like an addictive drug <P>Game-changer<P>Cameron's Lawrence of Arabia <P> Epic masterpiece<P> The greatest movie ever made<P> Fucking your eyeballs <P> Jaw-dropping <P> The best CGIever made <P> An original story that DOES NOT resemble anything you ever seen before<P> Cameron has never made a bad movie and is a God<P> State of the art 3-D experience like nothing you have ever seen before<P> Does not even remotely looks like "shit"<P> Unlike regular movies, Avatar 3-D taps into unused regions of the brain for ultimate BRAINWASHING experience!<P>

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 11:33 a.m. CST

    Wasn't it right about this time of year in 1997

    by SifoDyasJr.

    that people were predicting Titanic would be a massive failure?

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 11:34 a.m. CST

    The facts speak for themselves

    by jsscript2007

    Most people are loving it.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 11:36 a.m. CST

    Saw it last night, enjoyed it very much

    by D.Vader

    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. <p> And that shot of the jungle collapsing around them? FUCKING EPIC.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 11:42 a.m. CST

    Avatar trailer / King Kong trailer

    by talkbackers_are_gay

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 11:44 a.m. CST

    Uh-oh, the "Delgo" meme is taking off

    by FluffyUnbound

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 11:46 a.m. CST

    Trannyformers

    by D.Vader

    Are you trying to convince everyone who liked the footage that they shouldn't like the footage?

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 11:53 a.m. CST

    To the haters

    by rastuso

    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!

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 11:54 a.m. CST

    D.Vader

    by GeneralJackCosmo

    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'".

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 12:01 p.m. CST

    @KirbyManly

    by vw86gti

    Only 40 tickets were handed out per theatre per showing.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 12:08 p.m. CST

    Cameron Delivers

    by BittaCynic

    "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

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 12:14 p.m. CST

    I think Jim has been working toward this since

    by jsscript2007

    he looked into his first VIEWMASTER BACK IN THE 60'S.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 12:14 p.m. CST

    Why does your personal happiness depend on the gross of a movie?

    by Lesbianna_Winterlude

    You know who you are.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 12:18 p.m. CST

    TheManWhoCan

    by Zeke2517

    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 p.m. CST

    fianlly a 3-dimensional performance by Sam Worthington...

    by Six Demon Bag

    been waiting all summer!

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 12:18 p.m. CST

    time to invest in this technology

    by My best friend

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 12:23 p.m. CST

    FluffyUnbound

    by MandrakeRoot

    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. <p> 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. <p> 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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 12:48 p.m. CST

    3D Questions

    by codymr

    Lets put the "CG looks great!/the CG looks like crap!" debate aside for a second. <P> I did not get to see the IMAX screening due to work commitments, but I have a few questions for those who did: <P> 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? <P> 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? <P> I am curious to hear people's opinions who are "in the know" on this type of thing.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 12:51 p.m. CST

    Ebert likes post Grad........

    by Series7

    So that's where his mind is at right now. I think he's gotten summer block buster over load.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 1:04 p.m. CST

    codymr

    by GeneralJackCosmo

    <p>To address your two main questions, and it is really the same answer for both:</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p>

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 1:07 p.m. CST

    Codymr, I'd say yes

    by D.Vader

    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. <p> 3D films in the past relied on sticking things toward you, putting the foreground in your face, as you suggested. <p> 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. <p> 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. <p> 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?

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 1:12 p.m. CST

    It just didn't grab me

    by shitstorm23

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 1:16 p.m. CST

    Thx D Vader & GeneralJackCosmo

    by codymr

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 1:20 p.m. CST

    codymr and d.vader

    by mr dark

    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

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 1:20 p.m. CST

    Trailer Park Boys

    by relden10

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 1:27 p.m. CST

    MY JOB IS TO KEEP YOU ALIVE AND I WILL FAIL YOU

    by ass clown

    These fucking Na vi are hard to fucking kill.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 1:28 p.m. CST

    shitstorm23

    by mr dark

    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

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 1:30 p.m. CST

    2D trailer vs. 3D preview presentation

    by GeneralJackCosmo

    <p>I wouldn’t quite go as far as Mr. Dark does in his analogy, but here is what I would say:</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p>

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 1:30 p.m. CST

    Here in Canada

    by jsscript2007

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 1:33 p.m. CST

    shitstorm23

    by GeneralJackCosmo

    I think action on the Imax screen tends to look blurry even in 2D, depending on where I am sitting in the auditorium.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 1:45 p.m. CST

    You guys must have shitty IMAX screens

    by lockesbrokenleg

    I've never seen a movie look blurry on an IMAX screen. Now regular theaters on the other hand.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 1:47 p.m. CST

    The Delgo thing...

    by BeatsMe

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 1:54 p.m. CST

    GeneralJackCosmo

    by mr dark

    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

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 1:59 p.m. CST

    JAMES CAMERON'S JURASSIC PARK IV!!

    by lockesbrokenleg

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 2:01 p.m. CST

    By the way everyone that saw the 3-d presentation

    by mr dark

    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..

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 2:05 p.m. CST

    GeneralJackCosmo

    by Orbots Commander

    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. <p> AVATAR will stand or full on the strength of its 2D quality.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 2:30 p.m. CST

    Orbots Commander

    by mr dark

    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..

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 2:33 p.m. CST

    As for people who

    by codymr

    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?" <P> 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?

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 2:42 p.m. CST

    codymr

    by mr dark

    you are correct sir take the new republic star wars game..In some cases it looks better than the films..

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 2:48 p.m. CST

    2D vs. 3D

    by Orbots Commander

    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. <p> 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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 2:53 p.m. CST

    Atomica: Real As In...At Least He Had Weight To Him

    by Media Messiah

    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 p.m. CST

    I'd see 20 Avatars before I'd suffer through another PIXAR

    by lockesbrokenleg

    overrated fuckfest.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 2:56 p.m. CST

    Ace of Wands: I Have

    by Media Messiah

    They are not handing-out movie deals like ice cream anymore--they give them almost exclusively to their friends, lovers, and family members now!!!

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 2:59 p.m. CST

    jsscript2007

    by codymr

    The irony is that IMAX technology (and the modern multiplex for that matter) was invented in Canada during the 60s & 70s. <P> We may have to take the ski-doo to the a film, but our actual theatres are second to none.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 3:04 p.m. CST

    lockesbrokenleg

    by Orbots Commander

    The rest of the world disagrees with you about Pixar.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 3:04 p.m. CST

    mr dark and codymr

    by CharyouTree

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 3:06 p.m. CST

    Re: COCKNASTY

    by ArmageddonProductions

    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.</p><p> 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?

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 3:07 p.m. CST

    Orbots Commander, yeah, I know

    by lockesbrokenleg

    That's why shit like CARS is fucking popular.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 3:16 p.m. CST

    It may not be your cup of tea, dude...

    by Orbots Commander

    ...but CARS plays like gangbusters to little kids. They're its target audience. <p> 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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 3:18 p.m. CST

    Re: How The Mighty Fall Around Here

    by ArmageddonProductions

    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.</p><p> 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?

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 3:18 p.m. CST

    No, everyone eats Pixar up

    by lockesbrokenleg

    Pixar is a good brainwashing company. The high gloss movies with the cute cars and animals. Everyone eats that shit up.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 3:24 p.m. CST

    ArmageddonProductions

    by Orbots Commander

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 3:28 p.m. CST

    Blind Love/Faith and Haters

    by Godzookys_Dead

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 3:39 p.m. CST

    TENNIS BALLS GET MORE WORK THAN ACTORS

    by lockesbrokenleg

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 3:43 p.m. CST

    Mandrakeroot (like a lot of you) is a moron

    by SuperFinn

    "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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 3:45 p.m. CST

    The Point of Adult Animation

    by Anthrax

    Is the same as adult live action. <P> 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. <P> 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?

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 3:46 p.m. CST

    I swear I saw side boob on that female Na'vi.

    by 3D-Man

    Was I imagining things??

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 3:49 p.m. CST

    I disagree Godzooky's Dead

    by D.Vader

    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?

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 3:55 p.m. CST

    3-d man

    by mr dark

    you were not imagining things it was there and it was spectacular..

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 3:57 p.m. CST

    What Anthrax said, totally agreed...

    by Orbots Commander

    ...except for the part about adult animation.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 3:59 p.m. CST

    good point d.vader

    by mr dark

    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...

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 4:03 p.m. CST

    It reminded me of The Dark Crystal.

    by lockesbrokenleg

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 4:11 p.m. CST

    AVATAR is awesome!

    by Sackratte

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 4:12 p.m. CST

    D.Vader & mr dark & Anthrax

    by Godzookys_Dead

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 4:12 p.m. CST

    I think FluffyUnbound is right...

    by DocPazuzu

    ...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. <p> 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. <p> And no, I'm not a hater -- I can't wait to see the movie.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 4:21 p.m. CST

    This was in SELECT THEATERS

    by lockesbrokenleg

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 4:22 p.m. CST

    It'd be easier

    by kwisatzhaderach

    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 p.m. CST

    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. <P>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. <P> 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. <P>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. <P>Oooohhhh Ok must be epic then.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 4:28 p.m. CST

    Codymr

    by jsscript2007

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 4:28 p.m. CST

    kwisatzhaderach

    by GeneralJackCosmo

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 4:31 p.m. CST

    Best 3D So Far

    by KatoTown

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 4:33 p.m. CST

    GeneralJackCosmo

    by kwisatzhaderach

    Thank you sir! OK, general reaction to acting, cinematography, editing? Did it use the Horner score or temp music?

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 4:36 p.m. CST

    lockesbrokenleg

    by blakindigo

    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.<br><br>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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 4:41 p.m. CST

    blakindigo

    by lockesbrokenleg

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 4:45 p.m. CST

    Eyeline IS essential, Godzookys

    by D.Vader

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 4:46 p.m. CST

    Trannyformers

    by D.Vader

    You really are an asshole sometimes.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 4:46 p.m. CST

    The dust has settled

    by jsscript2007

    and an overwhelming majority loved what they saw. The question has been answered.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 4:47 p.m. CST

    D. Vader

    by kwisatzhaderach

    Only sometimes?

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 4:50 p.m. CST

    I'm trying to be polite, kwisatzhaderach

    by D.Vader

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 4:52 p.m. CST

    D.Vader

    by kwisatzhaderach

    I wish I had your patience.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 4:56 p.m. CST

    There are no cute animals in "The Incredibles" dude

    by blakindigo

    Just saying.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 4:58 p.m. CST

    Yeah well...

    by D.Vader

    It comes and goes =).

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 5:01 p.m. CST

    "There are no cute animals in "The Incredibles" dude"

    by D.Vader

    Unless you count an animated and extremely pliable Holly Hunter. Hubba, hubba.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 5:02 p.m. CST

    D.Vader

    by aphextwin

    repeat: Only...sometimes?

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 5:06 p.m. CST

    The Incrediibles is Incredibly overrated

    by lockesbrokenleg

    Rip off Superman and James Bond, and family sitcoms. Mix them together. That's what you get. Shit.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 5:16 p.m. CST

    It was freaking.....

    by Mex_Nexus

    ...awesome. I was so glad I got to see the special preview.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 5:16 p.m. CST

    Good movies have good stories

    by Mr. Neutron

    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. <p> Humans (Americans) bad. Noble aliens good. Can't we all just get along? <p> Pass.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 5:18 p.m. CST

    I thought AQUAMAN was better

    by WineAndDine

    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?

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 5:21 p.m. CST

    Plus...

    by WineAndDine

    Aquaman held box office record for opening weekend for a couple years (till Dark Knight beat it). Doubt AVATAR will do that.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 5:29 p.m. CST

    Um, Aquman? WHAT THE FUCK?

    by lockesbrokenleg

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 5:32 p.m. CST

    Avatar is a 3D trojan horse....

    by meltendo

    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???

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 5:35 p.m. CST

    by Todaysfate

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 5:38 p.m. CST

    uh.. it's not really imax

    by MrTaste

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 5:42 p.m. CST

    by Todaysfate

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 5:42 p.m. CST

    kwisatzhaderach

    by GeneralJackCosmo

    <p>"Thank you sir! OK, general reaction to acting, cinematography, editing? Did it use the Horner score or temp music?"</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.<p> <p>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.</p>

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 5:45 p.m. CST

    I recognized the music used in the opening sequence

    by D.Vader

    But right now, for the life of me, I can't recall which film it was from. It was NOT James Horner, though.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 5:50 p.m. CST

    BIGGEST IMAX IN THE WORLD

    by smackaddictfromhell

    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

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 5:50 p.m. CST

    re: LocksBrokenLeg

    by WineAndDine

    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 p.m. CST

    Oh, I love people on the net that live in ther own fantasy

    by lockesbrokenleg

    worlds. Utter bullshit.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 5:52 p.m. CST

    WineAndDine

    by Jarek

    Was sad when Vinnie's Smokejumper's flick got canned, wasn't it? Luckily he did Scorcese's Gatsby, so all is well.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 5:52 p.m. CST

    I just watched Moon and it sucked ass

    by Chakraborty

    Moon made Solaris seem like an action adventure. You geek motherfuckers have the worst taste in movies.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 5:55 p.m. CST

    by Todaysfate

    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".

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 5:56 p.m. CST

    re: Jarex

    by WineAndDine

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 5:58 p.m. CST

    Re: Orbots

    by ArmageddonProductions

    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!!".</p><p> 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.</p><p> 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.</p><p> 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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 5:58 p.m. CST

    they already....

    by Jarek

    ....did that Benji flick. Vinnie mentioned it recently at the golf course. I'm personally waiting for Drama to get his big break.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 6:01 p.m. CST

    SUNSHINE - God what a fuckfest of a movie

    by lockesbrokenleg

    You crapheads loving that shit. Ugh.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 6:02 p.m. CST

    RE 3D Torjan horse

    by relden10

    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?

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 6:03 p.m. CST

    i repeat cameron is making this film FOR GIANT SCREENS

    by slappy jones

    HE DOES NOT GIVE A FUCK ABOUT QUICKTIME.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 6:03 p.m. CST

    I don't mind 10 foot tall blue aliens....

    by Cervantes

    ....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'!

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 6:03 p.m. CST

    Chakraborty, Moon was awesome.

    by kjmad25

    Go pop transformers into your ghetto dvd player.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 6:04 p.m. CST

    by Todaysfate

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 6:05 p.m. CST

    THERES TRAILER PARK BOYS 2 COMING????

    by slappy jones

    HOLY SHIT ..thats awesome news. how did i miss that....

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 6:05 p.m. CST

    and i repeat, this is NOT imax

    by MrTaste

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 6:05 p.m. CST

    WineandDine

    by Crow3711

    You are gay. Entourage is not cool. It's the same show every single half hour. Get a life.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 6:05 p.m. CST

    Cameron blew it!

    by AlienDragQueen

    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!

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 6:07 p.m. CST

    ArmageddonProductions

    by D.Vader

    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 ". <p> 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. <p> 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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 6:08 p.m. CST

    MrTaste

    by GeneralJackCosmo

    You seem upset.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 6:09 p.m. CST

    re: Crow3711

    by WineAndDine

    What the hell is Entourage?

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 6:09 p.m. CST

    slappy jones

    by Orbots Commander

    Then that is going to be a major problem when the DVD roll out time comes around. <p> 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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 6:12 p.m. CST

    ArmageddonProductions

    by D.Vader

    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." <p> Like you said, its cheaper. And as we all know, money is what the studios are most concerned with.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 6:13 p.m. CST

    Re: 3-D

    by ArmageddonProductions

    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".</p><p> 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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 6:13 p.m. CST

    Cameron Documentary explains a lot...

    by WineAndDine

    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

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 6:13 p.m. CST

    Wow, that videogame footage DOES look bad

    by lockesbrokenleg

    Yikes. Reminds me why I stopped buying those things.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 6:14 p.m. CST

    by Todaysfate

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 6:17 p.m. CST

    If you like watching paint dry, you'll love Moon

    by Chakraborty

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 6:18 p.m. CST

    Todaysfate....

    by Cervantes

    ....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 p.m. CST

    Lol, if you like sleeping through a movie rent Solaris

    by lockesbrokenleg

    It's peaceful.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 6:26 p.m. CST

    Needs more jive-talkin' robots and Linkin Park...

    by TheJokesOnUs

    until then, big snooze.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 6:26 p.m. CST

    Re: D.Vader

    by ArmageddonProductions

    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.</P><p> 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.</p><p> 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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 6:27 p.m. CST

    Ignorance

    by Koyaanisqatsi

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 6:31 p.m. CST

    Ooops, AmageddonProductions

    by D.Vader

    I didn't notice you had answered your own question in the last paragraph as I typed my response on the subject. <p> 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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 6:32 p.m. CST

    by Todaysfate

    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.

  • And I think most pple are still on the fence over whether or not that was a better choice than ging full CGI.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 6:35 p.m. CST

    I don't think most people even REMEMBER League

    by lockesbrokenleg

    of Extraordinary Gentlemen, cause wow that movie blew.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 6:36 p.m. CST

    Same Post with Corrections.

    by Todaysfate

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 6:36 p.m. CST

    Re: Making 237 Million Dollars back...

    by oogles

    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?

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 6:43 p.m. CST

    Oogles

    by Orbots Commander

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 6:45 p.m. CST

    Re: MOON

    by ArmageddonProductions

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 6:46 p.m. CST

    Moon looks like Space 1999

    by lockesbrokenleg

    Right down to the Bubble Moon cars.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 6:51 p.m. CST

    Cervantus

    by Todaysfate

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 6:54 p.m. CST

    I'd like to watch Silent Running with David Bowie

    by kjmad25

    while he ate fistfuls of acid. Would be a trip.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 6:58 p.m. CST

    Re: Cinefex/Cameron

    by ArmageddonProductions

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 7:05 p.m. CST

    My Eyes Were Dry Humped

    by Tallyrand

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 7:05 p.m. CST

    Thundercats!

    by armando

    Anyone else get the feeling James Cameron would be the perfect guy to helm a live action Thundercats after seeing this preview?

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 7:06 p.m. CST

    Thats all that needs to be said.

    by Todaysfate

    Koyaanisqatsi - "a damn sight better than anything we've gotten from CG yet"

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 7:07 p.m. CST

    GeneralJackCosmo

    by kwisatzhaderach

    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. <p> 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. <p> More than anything I just want a classical sci-fi film with plot, theme and characters. Thanks again, appreciate it!

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 7:11 p.m. CST

    Tallyrand

    by Todaysfate

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 7:14 p.m. CST

    I just don't understand why they turn into blue cats

    by lockesbrokenleg

    and then they get hunted by the military. Why? Wouldn't Jake and the Doctors know the military is coming? Makes no sense.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 7:21 p.m. CST

    by Todaysfate

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 7:43 p.m. CST

    D. Vader... Music from Opening Sequence...

    by Godzookys_Dead

    ...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 p.m. CST

    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.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 8:25 p.m. CST

    Thin Red Line! That was it!

    by D.Vader