James Cameron's Avatar (2009)

[Watashi]

Surprised by the lack of replies for these first official images.

Meg can safely say that this movie does indeed exist.

Apparently, the word is that a trailer should be coming out soon. Possibly with Harry Potter?

[Ivan Drago]

Meg can safely say that this movie does indeed exist.

As can I. Hooray for no more delays!


Apparently, the word is that a trailer should be coming out soon. Possibly with Harry Potter?

Duke said something about a teaser coming out with Transformers 2, but I didn't see it at my showing last night. Might've been just a rumor.

[Dukefrukem]

As can I. Hooray for no more delays!



Duke said something about a teaser coming out with Transformers 2, but I didn't see it at my showing last night. Might've been just a rumor.

Aint it Cool News mentioned it somewhere. That's dissapointing.

[Sycophant]

Those look pretty nifty. Obviously, those JPEGs are pretty small, but the detail in the renders looks pretty fantastic. The film should at least make for some some decent eye candy.

[Dukefrukem]

Aint it Cool News mentioned it somewhere. That's dissapointing.

Looks like it was a rumor.

And here's another pic I haven't seen yet.

http://thefilmstage.com/2009/01/12/new-photo-of-avatar-trailer-to-debut-w-transfomers-2/


the new rumor is Avatar: The Last Airbender.

http://movies.ign.com/articles/985/985385p1.html

So who knows.

[Wryan]

This is mostly WETA right?

[Watashi]

This is mostly WETA right?
It's all WETA.

There's a regular poster on RT who works with WETA and has seen the entire film already. Obviously, he can't reveal anything because of contract, but he slips hints here and there. No word on a trailer though.

[NickGlass]

Soon-to-be Oscar Best Picture nominee.

[number8]

My ejaculate just turned purple with awesome.

[Dead & Messed Up]

My ejaculate just turned purple with awesome.

This is an expression that should never have been.

[Wryan]

It's all WETA.

I'm gargantuanly happy for them. I hope they continue to deliver great work with great directors--and hopefully slapped themselves a few times for I Am Legend (altho I doubt the direction the effects went in was their fault).

WETA is like the Meg Ryan Quaint Bookshop Lady to ILM's Tom Hanks Corporate Suit in You've Got Mail.

[Sycophant]

I kind of want the likely-trainwreck adaptation of Neon Genesis Evangelion to finally happen just so I can see WETA do its thang.

[Dukefrukem]

whats WETA?

[Sycophant]

WETA is a special effects workshop that rose to prominence for its work on Jackson's Lord of the Rings films.

[[ETM]]

Also this:
http://www.mckellen.com/images/lotr/wetabug2.gif

[megladon8]

Gorgeous colours, but awful cartoon-y for something that's supposed to be photo-realistic.

[Winston*]

Gorgeous colours, but awful cartoon-y for something that's supposed to be photo-realistic.

That's concept art, no?

[Sycophant]

Gorgeous colours, but awful cartoon-y for something that's supposed to be photo-realistic.

I don't really think so. I've seen films (such as the films of Tetsuya Nakashima) that actually are photorealistic (being real images captured photographically on film and all) that look even more colorful/"cartoon-y".

[[ETM]]

That's concept art, no?

That was also my understanding.

[Morris Schæffer]

So how many of you will be determined to seek this out on IMAX?

I'm prepared to drive to Amsterdam (2 hours, 30 minutes) to catch it on an IMAX screen although I'll likely combine it with some sightseeing.

[Dukefrukem]

So how many of you will be determined to seek this out on IMAX?

I'm prepared to drive to Amsterdam (2 hours, 30 minutes) to catch it on an IMAX screen although I'll likely combine it with some sightseeing.

I live pretty close to IMAX and 3D theaters and I still find it an inconvenience and not worth the extra effort.

[Ezee E]

With Cameron boasting about it, I figure this will be the ONLY way to see it.

[Morris Schæffer]

I live pretty close to IMAX and 3D theaters and I still find it an inconvenience and not worth the extra effort.

I think you will eat your words. This isn't Monsters vs. Aliens. ;)

[Dukefrukem]

I think you will eat your words. This isn't Monsters vs. Aliens. ;)

I suppose I will wait for the preliminary word on whether or not this 3D experience is worth it or not. For the record, I did go see Cameron's Aliens of the Deep and Ghosts of the Abyss in 3D (the titles I found very humorous since they are spin offs of other movies Cameron has done) and didn't find either to be more interesting in 3D. I know this movie is supposed to go leaps above previous technology.. we will see.

[Lasse]

Yeah alright, I'm sold on this movie. Beautiful stills earlier in the thread, and none of the early praise seems like fanboy-ism and the like.

[Ivan Drago]

With Cameron boasting about it, I figure this will be the ONLY way to see it.

I will kill to see this in IMAX. But the closest one to me is in St. Louis. :evil:

[Bruce Wayne]

I sure hope this movie lives up to the hype! :)

[[ETM]]

I'm hoping the brand new Kolosej cinema in Belgrade, the first modern 3D multiplex in the entire region, is capable of delivering the full experience, minus the IMAX size.

[number8]

I'm hoping this movie will do my laundry for me.

[[ETM]]

I'm hoping this movie will do my laundry for me.

I'd do your laundry if it lives up to expectations.

[Morris Schæffer]

The comicon banner:

http://comingsoon.net/nextraimages/avatarcomiccon.jpg

http://comingsoon.net/nextraimages/avatarcomiccon2.jpg

[[ETM]]

So the Na'vi have extremely human-like faces? Interesting.

[Wryan]

The movie will be a really solid venture with great visuals. Ebert will devote half of his review and one blog entry to the Uncanny Valley (tho remain unconvinced about 3D). We will mostly like it.

Write it down.

[Morris Schæffer]

I dreamed about this movie last night. It aired on television. On fucking television! I turned to my mate and expressed my utter disbelief. It went like this: "IT PREMIERES ON FUCKING TELEVISION!!!"

It was anything but revolutionary.

[number8]

My impression of the 25 min I saw today.
(http://www.justpressplay.net/movies/movie-news/5647-comic-con-09-james-cameron-dubs-august-21st-qavatar-dayq.html)

[lovejuice]

My impression of the 25 min I saw today.
(http://www.justpressplay.net/movies/movie-news/5647-comic-con-09-james-cameron-dubs-august-21st-qavatar-dayq.html)
so you don't need any kinda glasses for 3D? how does that work out? also from the short clip that you see, is there some sense of story in this movie? or is it just a showcase for the technology?

[Amnesiac]

Most of us will get a chance to see that footage on August 21st for free:


Cameron announced at the end of the presentation that the rest of the world will have a chance to sample Avatar in a similar way on Friday, August 21, which he called "Avatar Day." On that day IMAX theatres coast to coast (and, I presume, in various foreign nations) will show about 15 minutes worth of 3-D IMAX footage of Avatar to the public for free. I guess the footage will be shown at successive shows all day and into the night, and that some kind of ticket reservations system will be set up.

[Morris Schæffer]

any trailer news?

[Dukefrukem]

Most of us will get a chance to see that footage on August 21st for free:

Why would anyone go to this? I'd rather wait for the final movie.

Nice recap 8. This is still my #1 anticipation of the year.

[Henry Gale]

Why would anyone go to this? I'd rather wait for the final movie.

As long as you have an IMAX theatre close to you it seems like the best way to ever be sold on a movie (especially one like this).

I doubt even a significant trailer will be out by summer's end and those 15 minutes definitely won't be released in any way until the whole thing is out in December. So being able to see that sort of chunk in advance in the best form possible, let alone four months in advance and for free? That's the kind of thing me and the film-loving people I know are already planning to check out.

[Morris Schæffer]

As long as you have an IMAX theatre close to you it seems like the best way to ever be sold on a movie (especially one like this).

I doubt even a significant trailer will be out by summer's end and those 15 minutes definitely won't be released in any way until the whole thing is out in December. So being able to see that sort of chunk in advance in the best form possible, let alone four months in advance and for free? That's the kind of thing me and the film-loving people I know are already planning to check out.

15 minutes is way too hefty a chunk of a movie. I'm sure you and many others will be incredibly tempted, but were I given the opportunity, I would pass.

[Ezee E]

I'll also pass. Granted, I've seen snippets of movies at Telluride and other places, but I'd rather see this one all at once.

[Morris Schæffer]

I'll also pass. Granted, I've seen snippets of movies at Telluride and other places, but I'd rather see this one all at once.

Yeah. In a way, I'm even hoping there won't be a trailer. I want to be overwhelmed come December 2009.

[D_Davis]

My impression of the 25 min I saw today.
(http://www.justpressplay.net/movies/movie-news/5647-comic-con-09-james-cameron-dubs-august-21st-qavatar-dayq.html)

Nice write up.

[Sxottlan]

I'm not really paying attention to the hype until I see a trailer.

[megladon8]

I'm not really paying attention to the hype until I see a trailer.


Likewise.

I'm getting tired of all this "oh, it's bigger than Jesus, better than sliced bread, the greatest thing you'll ever see...just trust us on this, because we ain't showin' you shit".

I've often complained that trailers and clips and the like show too much these days, but this is kind of lame.

[Dukefrukem]

That's how King Kong became such a letdown. People thought it was gonna break Titanic's record. It almost bombed.

[KK2.0]

I sure hope this movie lives up to the hype! :)

well, AICN´s Quint said that people expecting a game-changer with this movie will probably be disappointed.

that said, he was excited with what he saw, i´m more curious to check out Cameron´s own imagination and vision, much like Lucas did with his Star Wars universe back then, i´m looking for a fresh sci-fi fantasy universe, the technology will be a plus, not my main drive.

[megladon8]

well, AICN´s Quint said that people expecting a game-changer with this movie will probably be disappointed.

Then maybe Cameron and co. shouldn't have spent 2+ years pimping the movie as a game changer.

[[ETM]]

well, AICN´s Quint said that people expecting a game-changer with this movie will probably be disappointed.

It's all about what kind of game-changer people are expecting. In terms of scope, look, feel, it's gonna be nothing short of groundbreaking. If one's expecting 100% realism and total immersion - well, that's kinda silly to begin with.

[megladon8]

;188505']It's all about what kind of game-changer people are expecting. In terms of scope, look, feel, it's gonna be nothing short of groundbreaking. If one's expecting 100% realism and total immersion - well, that's kinda silly to begin with.


Not really. Cameron himself has been claiming that the CGI he has developed for the film is 100% photorealistic.

To say that, then act surprised when people are disappointed in it not being 100% photo-realistic, is pretty stupid.

They've hyped this movie so much, there's no way it'll be as good as they want us to think it will be.

[KK2.0]

Then maybe Cameron and co. shouldn't have spent 2+ years pimping the movie as a game changer.

thinking about this, it was Cameron that first started pimping the return of 3D and well... it´s happening.

[[ETM]]

They've hyped this movie so much, there's no way it'll be as good as they want us to think it will be.

The movie, or the technology?

[lovejuice]

i'm sure this movie'll become a game changer in term of technology. i'm more worried about cameron's aesthetic as a film maker. my prediction is that the technology will be adopted by michael bay. then we can witness the awesome of robot humping megan fox like we have ever seen before.

[KK2.0]

Didn't Michael Bay once said that 3D does not fit his filmmaking style?

By "filmmaking style" read: shake camera around and cut like a 7 year old on a sugar high.

[number8]

;188516']The movie, or the technology?

Definitely the tech.

[Dead & Messed Up]

thinking about this, it was Cameron that first started pimping the return of 3D and well... it´s happening.

Great, so now I know who to blame.

[Ivan Drago]

Great, so now I know who to blame.

I hope it doesn't become the standard. Seeing every movie in 3D would be cool at first but then it'd get tedious after a while.

[Mysterious Dude]

thinking about this, it was Cameron that first started pimping the return of 3D and well... it´s happening.
Is it really? Most of the movies released on 3D lately have been kid movies (Coraline, Journey to the Center of the Earth). I don't see the format ever being used in more than a tiny minority of films released.

[number8]

Is it really? Most of the movies released on 3D lately have been kid movies (Coraline, Journey to the Center of the Earth). I don't see the format ever being used in more than a tiny minority of films released.

But that minority happens to be the bigger movies. Pixar and Dreamworks are all about 3D now. You have Alice, Christmas Carol and the next Final Destination in 3D. They're starting to re-release beloved movies in 3D -- Titanic, Toy Story, Beauty & The Beast... Avatar will be the game changer because it's going to prove to others that the tech works in creating an experience that is not at all intrusive. Wait for the blockbusters that shoot after Avatar's release.

[[ETM]]

Definitely the tech.

I was always realistic, and what I'm hearing sounds better than I had ever hoped for.

I don't know why cost isn't put into consideration more often when this film is concerned - Cameron has managed to create a whole world and an epic story for the cost of a lower tier Bay production. For me, the possibility of making amazing (and increasingly realistic in future efforts) stories that were impossible to do without tremendous amount of effort, manpower, hardware and money just a few years ago is the real gamechanger.

[Watashi]

It's definitely game-changing in the realm of the technology used.

The 25 minutes I saw blew my fucking mind.

[Ezee E]

That's how King Kong became such a letdown. People thought it was gonna break Titanic's record. It almost bombed.
It initially started off as a disappointment, but ended up doing pretty great as it just stayed steady. Kind of like Titanic.

[Dukefrukem]

It initially started off as a disappointment, but ended up doing pretty great as it just stayed steady. Kind of like Titanic.

The stampede scene melted my brain.

[Watashi]

Teaser Poster:

http://photos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs185.snc1/6175_104628741138_35939786138_ 2287822_6827914_n.jpg

[Sycophant]

http://photos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs185.snc1/6175_104628741138_35939786138_ 2287822_6827914_n.jpg
I have been hiding under your porch because I love you.

.

[[ETM]]

Are those tentacle hair sketches correct?

[Watashi]

I don't get it.

[Sycophant]

I don't get it.

That... stare.

[megladon8]

Wow, it looks just like the promotional pictures of the N'Avi that we've all seen!

Man, I feel like my eyes have been opened to a whole new aspect of the movie!

[Watashi]

Wow, it looks just like the promotional pictures of the N'Avi that we've all seen!

Man, I feel like my eyes have been opened to a whole new aspect of the movie!
Just wait until August 21st.

[megladon8]

Just wait until August 21st.


Why? We'll get to see the other half of the face?

[Watashi]

Why? We'll get to see the other half of the face?
Um... I have actually seen a huge chunk of the film. You haven't.

I think the marketing so far has been brilliant.

August 21st is when the trailer comes out and when 15 minutes of footage will be screened for free to the public.

[megladon8]

Um... I have actually seen a huge chunk of the film. You haven't.

That's good for you.



I think the marketing so far has been brilliant.

What has been brilliant about it? There hasn't been any marketing.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Here's an odd complaint: I don't like the use of Papyrus font for that poster.

[Watashi]

That's good for you.

Okay. So stop acting like a fucking ass.


What has been brilliant about it? There hasn't been any marketing.

The film doesn't come out until December. Sometimes a director's name and pre-buzz hype over new technology alone can be more marketable than a poster or a trailer.

[megladon8]

Okay. So stop acting like a fucking ass.


Remember when you were Blue Bomber and you treated me like shit for no reason at all?

Yeah, stick it up your urethra shithead.

[Watashi]

Remember when you were Blue Bomber and you treated me like shit for no reason at all?

Yeah, stick it up your urethra shithead.
I treat everyone like shit on RT.

I'm sorry you couldn't handle it.

[megladon8]

I treat everyone like shit on RT.

I'm sorry you couldn't handle it.


No, you would constantly single me out and belittle me. Don't try to deny it.

[Watashi]

No, you would constantly single me out and belittle me. Don't try to deny it.
I'm not... but I did that to every single poster over there.

It's called an online persona.

[[ETM]]

Here's an odd complaint: I don't like the use of Papyrus font for that poster.

Papyrus should be banned altogether from posters, but that combination of letters looks decent.

[number8]

I think bringing up old RT feuds should be a ban-able offense.

In 3D.

[Watashi]

I think bringing up old RT feuds should be a ban-able offense.

In 3D.
You spoiled The Village for me you senile fuck.

[number8]

You spoiled The Village for me you senile fuck.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0420361/

[Ezee E]

The 15 minutes is really the first big thing about the movie, but as far as marketing goes, I think that's going to be an amazing tactic. 15 free minutes of a movie? As long as people know about it, I bet it'll be packed. I won't even have to consider the footage being bad, anyone could take 15 minutes of a movie and make it look awesome.

There's plenty of time until December. I think Cameron's better off waiting instead of building buzz over a ridiculously long time. The movie itself will do the talking.

Now both of you go stand in a corner.

[Skitch]

I feel special...Blue Bomber was nice to me. :)

*awaits bombardment of hate*

[Ivan Drago]

I'm not... but I did that to every single poster over there.

It's called an online persona.

Phew. I feel better now.

Anyway, everyone I talk to about this movie, even those who follow movies, reply to me with the question, "Oh, the movie based on the Nickelodeon TV show?" :frustrated:

But when the trailer comes out, people will know what this movie is. Speaking of which, is the trailer IMAX exclusive or will it be attached to Inglourious Basterds? Or Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs in September, even?

[KK2.0]

Is it really? Most of the movies released on 3D lately have been kid movies (Coraline, Journey to the Center of the Earth). I don't see the format ever being used in more than a tiny minority of films released.

Isn't 3D better this way? CGI-heavy spectacle movies only. I'd be surprised if any regular movie starts being shot in this format.

[transmogrifier]

Isn't 3D better this way? CGI-heavy spectacle movies only. I'd be surprised if any regular movie starts being shot in this format.

Yeah. Todd Solondz's Humanity is a Pudgy Disease, coming to you in 3D, 2012! Reach out and touch Jon Lovitz's naked, sweaty love handles!

[KK2.0]

Yeah. Todd Solondz's Humanity is a Pudgy Disease, coming to you in 3D, 2012! Reach out and touch Jon Lovitz's naked, sweaty love handles!

hopefully the world is destroyed by 2012 :lol:

[number8]

So, in case it wasn't really obvious... The previously mentioned Avatar Day is also when we'll get a trailer. IMAX and select 3D theaters get the 15 minute footage, everybody else get trailers. Which means it's playing before Basterds.

[Ivan Drago]

So, in case it wasn't really obvious... The previously mentioned Avatar Day is also when we'll get a trailer. IMAX and select 3D theaters get the 15 minute footage, everybody else get trailers. Which means it's playing before Basterds.

:crosses fingers for theaters in Decatur and Carbondale:

[megladon8]

Action figure of the Na'vi. (http://chud.com/articles/articles/20347/1/MEET-THE-NA039VI-AVATAR-ALIENS-REVEALED/Page1.html)

Do they actually wear trendy human clothes in the movie?

And if so, will there be a reason? Humans gave them clothes?

Maybe there's like a Na'vi Dolce and Gabbana outlet.

[Sycophant]

This thread is annoying.

[Qrazy]

This thread is annoying.

That's what happens when people don't release trailers for their F'ing movie. Speaking of which I wonder if Aleksei German has put out any action figures yet for the History of the Arkanar Massacre.

[Dukefrukem]

That's what happens when people don't release trailers for their F'ing movie. Speaking of which I wonder if Aleksei German has put out any action figures yet for the History of the Arkanar Massacre.

Or images, or movie posters....

[number8]

Action figure of the Na'vi. (http://chud.com/articles/articles/20347/1/MEET-THE-NA039VI-AVATAR-ALIENS-REVEALED/Page1.html)

Do they actually wear trendy human clothes in the movie?

And if so, will there be a reason? Humans gave them clothes?

Maybe there's like a Na'vi Dolce and Gabbana outlet.

That's an Avatar. That's Sam Worthington's character. He is human.

[Dukefrukem]

Or images, or movie posters....

hahaha, this thing is 12 feet tall somewhere.

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/2954/avatarposter.jpg

[Saya]

First real pic of Avatar:

http://i30.tinypic.com/e15kiu.jpg

[KK2.0]

Worthington looks hot with the jarhead look. :cool:

[Dead & Messed Up]

Worthington looks hot with the jarhead look. :cool:

He looks like Vinnie Jones Junior.

[Dukefrukem]

So what is the thing in the tank?

[Ezee E]

It looks like the next-gen video game system.

[Henry Gale]

So what is the thing in the tank?

His avatar, silly.

[megladon8]

OK, I heard a rumor from some movie-buff friends of mine, and I want to know if it's true. So if anyone has heard something different, please tell me.

Apparently the teaser-trailer that's debuting in a couple of days is only about 15 seconds long, and is simply a black screen and the words "James Cameron's Avatar" slowly fade in, followed by the release date.

If this is true...

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/8159/anger1v.jpg

[Acapelli]

anybody able to get the avatar ticketing site working?

[Ivan Drago]

OK, I heard a rumor from some movie-buff friends of mine, and I want to know if it's true. So if anyone has heard something different, please tell me.

Apparently the teaser-trailer that's debuting in a couple of days is only about 15 seconds long, and is simply a black screen and the words "James Cameron's Avatar" slowly fade in, followed by the release date.

Wouldn't surprise me if what your friends said is a joke about the movie's lack of advertising, like "Watch the trailer be just a 15-second long black screen."

But it'll still seem like a huge middle finger to those who can't see the 15 minutes of IMAX footage.

[Acapelli]

i'll be seeing the preview in a real imax theater on friday

i'm kind of excited

[eternity]

Trailer (http://postavant.com/2009/08/avatar-trailer-is-online/)

[Pop Trash]

Trailer (http://postavant.com/2009/08/avatar-trailer-is-online/)

"Never gunna give you up. Never gunna let you down..."

[megladon8]

That's probably a helluva lot better than what we'll get.

[Spun Lepton]

'Avatar' site crashes as fans seek tickets (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i3a7817078d0f6f03a5132f44816 b868b)

Anybody still doubting that this is going to be an ungodly smash hit?

[megladon8]

I'm quite sure it'll be a hit.

But after District 9, it's going to take a lot for this to really impress me.

I hope that it's not just pretty visuals wrapped around a shallow, empty movie.

[Spun Lepton]

I hope that it's not just pretty visuals wrapped around a shallow, empty movie.

Cameron probably knows better than that.

[Sycophant]

I hope it doesn't rely on creepy, whispering kids to give it a spooky atmosphere.

I hope it doesn't feature groups of characters or creatures that reek strongly of lazy real-world ethnic stereotypes.

[number8]

To me, it looked like if Peter Jackson birthed a baby from George Lucas' mindsperm, delivered by Terrence Malick.

[Morris Schæffer]

To me, it looked like if Peter Jackson birthed a baby from George Lucas' mindsperm, delivered by Terrence Malick.

Is that good or bad? The smart money says "good."

[Morris Schæffer]

I hope it doesn't feature groups of characters or creatures that reek strongly of lazy real-world ethnic stereotypes.

Well, I've got a feeling Michelle Rodriguez won't be playing a Norwegian chick.

[Dukefrukem]

Trailer (http://postavant.com/2009/08/avatar-trailer-is-online/)

beat me to it.

[Watashi]

The trailer is only 10 hours away, so here are some official photos/screenshots to tide you down until tomorrow morning.

http://media2.firstshowing.net/firstshowing/img/avatar-newphotosaug19-580-01.jpg

http://media2.firstshowing.net/firstshowing/img/avatar-newphotosaug19-580-02.jpg

http://media2.firstshowing.net/firstshowing/img/avatar-newphotosaug19-580-03.jpg

http://media2.firstshowing.net/firstshowing/img/avatar-newphotosaug19-580-04.jpg

http://media2.firstshowing.net/firstshowing/img/avatar-newphotosaug19-580-05.jpg

[Wryan]

trailer is up in hd at apple.

[B-side]

Pretty sweet.

[Ivan Drago]

trailer is up in hd at apple.

All I'm getting is the Quicktime logo with a question mark over it. :frustrated:

[B-side]

All I'm getting is the Quicktime logo with a question mark over it. :frustrated:

http://specials.divertissements.fr.ms n.com/cinema/avatar/default.aspx

[Kurosawa Fan]

Hm. Visuals are impressive. I have to admit though, I'm really only interested in this because of the technology. I'm not Cameron's biggest fan, and there's nothing about the story that I find particularly compelling.

[Wryan]

Looked good. I'm sure the final cgi will look a bit better and a little less cutscene. Hoping. I liked it though.

[Dukefrukem]

trailer doesnt work for me

[Kurosawa Fan]

trailer doesnt work for me

Use the link provided by Brightside.

[Dukefrukem]

Oh wow. ok. Yeh. Uh huh. This is fantastic.

[Amnesiac]

This is going to sound exceptionally banal and glib, but it looks really different.

[M.R.Yogi]

Hmm. Wow. I'm not sure what I think about that. It started out great but once it got to the Na'Vi in the forest it looked so ... video game cut scene. I'm sure within the context of the movie those scenes will seem much more fluid and natural, but within this context, they were a bit jarring. And also a bit "OMFG that looks awesome!!".

The CGI is very obviously CGI (I mean, c'mon, what'd you expect?), but, like, really frickin' good CGI.

Hopefully the story's good.

[D_Davis]

I, now, am officially ultra excited.

[megladon8]

Looks neat, but yeah, photo-realistic CGI isn't there.

[megladon8]

I like what this guy from Cinematical (http://www.cinematical.com/2009/08/20/discuss-did-the-avatar-trailer-ruin-the-buzz/) wrote about how the trailer underwhelmed a lot of people...


But god bless the French because they got their trailer up and running in time for most people to ... um, kinda trash it. Granted, Avatar supporters will try to reason with you, offering up several different explanations: 1) You need to watch it in HD, or 2) You can't watch it on your computer screen, or 3) You need to watch it in 3D, or 4) You need to watch it in 3D on an IMAX screen, or 5) You need to watch it on Pandora with a half-naked Na'vi chick lying in your lap feeding you glowing blue goo.

In my opinion, though, a trailer is a trailer -- and no matter how we watch it or where we watch it, a potential paying customer should be able to evaluate it without having to add a bunch of junk to the viewing experience. I personally thought it looked pretty cool and different and original, which right off the bat makes it more worthwhile than practically every film that came out this past summer. Does it look like it will change the way we watch movies forever? No. Does it look like a fun moviegoing experience? Definitely.


Pretty much agree with him completely.

Looks like it could be a great movie. Going to make people think they've re-experienced movies for the first time? Doubt it.

[D_Davis]

I think it looks awesome. Today is the first day that I am officially excited for this movie.

[Ivan Drago]

Looks awesome, but needs to be seen in 3D.

[megladon8]

Don't get me wrong, it looks good and I'll certainly see it.

I just think Cameron shot himself in the foot a bit by promising all this ridiculously incredible stuff that would make us re-think the way we look at movies, CGI, alien worlds, etc.

And it just kinda looks like a sci-fi movie with a big budget.

And I agree with the guy I quoted above. Supporters of the movie will say that you need to see it in HD, 3D, IMAX, whatever...but no, sorry. Not everyone has access to that, and if that just happens to be the case, I have a very hard time wanting to financially support a film which itself supports some kind of twisted "upper class" of moviegoers.

[Dukefrukem]

He didn't "promise" anything. Most of the hype around this is from other directors seeing the sets and finished CGI. Go back to the earlier pages where all the interviews are. Like here (http://www.match-cut.org/showpost.php?p=138064&postcount=72).

[megladon8]

He didn't "promise" anything. Most of the hype around this is from other directors seeing the sets and finished CGI. Go back to the earlier pages where all the interviews are. Like here (http://www.match-cut.org/showpost.php?p=138064&postcount=72).


Yes he did. Cameron, himself, has said on more than one occasion that the CGI would be photorealistic, that the N'Avi would look like real people, that people watching the movie wouldn't be able to tell what was CGI and what wasn't.

Going on the assumption that the trailer we have now seen contained the finished effects, I could tell very easily what was CGI and what wasn't. It still has that overly glossy, doesn't-quite-move-right look.

[Dukefrukem]

Yes he did. Cameron, himself, has said on more than one occasion that the CGI would be photorealistic, that the N'Avi would look like real people, that people watching the movie wouldn't be able to tell what was CGI and what wasn't.

Going on the assumption that the trailer we have now seen contained the finished effects, I could tell very easily what was CGI and what wasn't. It still has that overly glossy, doesn't-quite-move-right look.

What if what you think is CGI is makeup? Hmmmm? ;)

[D_Davis]

Do you think part of that might be because giant blue people who ride dragons on a planet with floating islands while fighting mechs and spaceships is something that you don't really see in real life?

I mean, what do those things look like when they are "photo-realistic?" We have nothing to base this on.

Sure, they look made up. They look fantastic. Because they are.

I'm just having a hard time believing that my mind would think that something it knows is fake looks real. I think that no matter how realistic it looked, my mind would say "That's fake," because I don't see those kinds of things in real life.

I'm not 'defending' the trailer or anything. I have no stake in this. I'm not a shareholder in a JC venture or anything, nor do I care either way. Just wondering.

[Qrazy]

Yes he did. Cameron, himself, has said on more than one occasion that the CGI would be photorealistic, that the N'Avi would look like real people, that people watching the movie wouldn't be able to tell what was CGI and what wasn't.

Going on the assumption that the trailer we have now seen contained the finished effects, I could tell very easily what was CGI and what wasn't. It still has that overly glossy, doesn't-quite-move-right look.

Link to these statements?

[Sycophant]

Almost every movie's marketing promises me something that's beyond the scope of my own imagination or makes me promise to feel love or see war in a way I never have before.

That's all pretty much bullshit. So whatever. Hype is hype. I wanna see this movie.

James Cameron, meet Internet backlash.

[Qrazy]

Do you think part of that might be because giant blue people who ride dragons on a planet with floating islands while fighting mechs and spaceships is something that you don't really see in real life?

I mean, what do those things look like when they are "photo-realistic?" We have nothing to base this on.

Sure, they look made up. They look fantastic. Because they are.

I'm just having a hard time believing that my mind would think that something it knows is fake looks real. I think that no matter how realistic it looked, my mind would say "That's fake," because I don't see those kinds of things in real life.

I'm not 'defending' the trailer or anything. I have no stake in this. I'm not a shareholder in a JC venture or anything, nor do I care either way. Just wondering.

I don't think it's so much that they look made up as that they do not look real... that is to say they do not look like they are actually existing in the world they are being filmed in nor (in the shots that need work) does the world look like it actually exists. This isn't because of it's fantastical quality. I've seen lots of strange animals and locations on Discover that I've never witnessed before... it's primarily the tactility of the objects but also just general rendering, a glossy sheen.

[Qrazy]

As to the trailer, well it's no History of the Arkanar Massacre, but I guess it'll do.

[D_Davis]

I don't think it's so much that they look made up as that they do not look real... that is to say they do not look like they are actually existing in the world they are being filmed in nor (in the shots that need work) does the world look like it actually exists. This isn't because of it's fantastical quality. I've seen lots of strange animals and locations on Discover that I've never witnessed before... it's primarily the tactility of the objects but also just general rendering, a glossy sheen.

I understand this. The hardest thing to do with CG is to convey weight.

However, in regards to the Discovery comment: your mind knows those things are real. So even though you've never seen them IRL, you know that they actually exist.

What I'm saying is this: even if those crazy things in that trailer looked totally real, I don't think ours minds would accept it because we know that they are fake.

No matter how real something looks, if we know that it is a fantastic creation, would we be be able to perceive it as photo-realistic?

Is this even possible?

[megladon8]

I disagree, D.

See District 9 for a great example. I know the aliens are fake. I know that I am probably not ever going to encounter a giant "prawn" in real life.

But the textures, the way that - as you say - the "weight" of their bodies interacts with the environment. They quite often looked real.

Or the original Jurassic Park, which still has some of the very best CGI ever. I know dinosaurs aren't something I'll ever encounter. I know that they're being done with special effects. But they still looked real.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I'm with Meg on this. It has nothing to do with those things not existing in real life. It's that they look like they were created on a computer (or something similar). The examples Meg brought up are valid, as are other examples like the alien in the first Alien. Basically, there's a noticeable difference between something that is entirely CG and something that was created by a makeup department and consists of real materials. This doesn't look any better than the giant elephants in LOTR or countless other CG creatures and beings in films prior.

[Dukefrukem]

Even Star Wars Episode One was pretty believable. That CGI technology is 10 years old!

[D_Davis]

I'll need to see D9.

I just rewatched JP, and the only time I was ever really convinced was when the animatronics were used.

I don't know - it's just something to think about.

Less than stellar F/X have never really bothered me. Many of the HK flicks I like so much have terrible F/X. Boxer's Omen comes to mind...heh.

So long as the movie as a whole is good, then it's all good.

CGI may never be able to truly convince - but that's okay. Clay animation and guys in rubber suites aren't really convincing either. But that's okay. I can appreciate them all for what they are, limitations included.

I think my favorite F/X are still the Lord of the Rings films. The cave trolls had great weight, and Golum is still a marvel.

[Qrazy]

I understand this. The hardest thing to do with CG is to convey weight.

However, in regards to the Discovery comment: your mind knows those things are real. So even though you've never seen them IRL, you know that they actually exist.

What I'm saying is this: even if those crazy things in that trailer looked totally real, I don't think ours minds would accept it because we know that they are fake.

No matter how real something looks, if we know that it is a fantastic creation, would we be be able to perceive it as photo-realistic?

Is this even possible?

Well yeah we probably wouldn't think they're real, but we would think they look more realistic. For instance a lot of puppet/robot work I would say looks photo-realistic because they are real objects. Sometimes the movement of the objects appears a bit rigid, but the objects themselves look real... for example Jurassic Park (non-CGI scenes) or Jaws.

On a related note let's say that we're creating a CGI human being, so we're dealing with something that is not fantastical. I don't think we're at the point where people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a CGI human and a real one... but I think we will be there some day.

Even if something is fantastical I think we'd still be able to perceive it as photorealistic. That is to say that we would feel that if the creature did exist, if it were filmed in real life it would look much the same as it would in the fictional film. You raise a good point because you question if our mind could accept things that are obviously fake... but what about things that are only potentially fake? For instance if someone made a fake Discovery channel program about new creatures discovered on the sea floor and these creatures were entirely fabricated CGI creations.

[D_Davis]

I guess ultimately what I am saying is that I don't really need to believe it to enjoy it.

I'll just take it for what it is - CGI, a rubber suit, stop-motion, or bad animation on film (ala Zu Warriors).

In Zu Warriors, I don't really believe that a guy has a multiplying sword strapped to his back that is able to shoot out thousands of blades. Nor does the bad hand drawn animation do anything to convince me. It's all fake, and looks as fake as can be. And yet I still love the move.

Hmmm...maybe I'm just really super easy to please.

:)

[megladon8]

Link to these statements?

Here's a whole bunch about it. (http://blogs.indiewire.com/thompsononhollywood/category/james_cameron/)

Here's one of the quotes where he addresses the photo-realistic characters.


“It’s going to be interesting,” Cameron said on CBC’s The Hour back in October 2008. The director is talking about “Avatar,” a movie that has already eaten up two years of his life, and has one more to go. “We finished with the actors,” he says. “We’re in CG hell. We’re trying to create a world from scratch. It’s like trench warfare. We’re working with computer-generated characters that are photo-realistic. That’s tough. We set the bar high. We’re just now getting confidence that it’s going to work.”

[megladon8]

I guess ultimately what I am saying is that I don't really need to believe it to enjoy it.

I'll just take it for what it is - CGI, a rubber suit, stop-motion, or bad animation on film (ala Zu Warriors).

In Zu Warriors, I don't really believe that a guy has a multiplying sword strapped to his back that is able to shoot out thousands of blades. Nor does the bad hand drawn animation do anything to convince me. It's all fake, and looks as fake as can be. And yet I still love the move.

Hmmm...maybe I'm just really super easy to please.

:)


I'm not talking about liking it, though. Ray Harryhausen's effects work is still among my favorite stuff of all time, but I would never venture to say it was realistic.

It's a case of Cameron stating that the characters and worlds would look photo-realistic, and they don't.

It still looks neat and will - I'm sure - be exhilirating to watch. But realistic to the point where I can't tell it's CGI? Nope.

[D_Davis]

I guess I'm glad that I had realistic expectations - or none at all really.

I charted my anticipation in this thread.

In my first post I said I was excited. I then became more sarcastic and glib, and my interest fell off completely. Basically, I was in anti-hype mode.

But now after seeing this trailer, with my nonexistent expectations, I'm really, really excited.

I'm still hoping for a compelling SF story though. So we'll see.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I'm not saying I can't enjoy a film if the CG doesn't look totally lifelike. Never said that at all, nor implied it. But to tout your new technology like Cameron has been doing and saying it's photo-realistic and then to have it look like it does in that trailer, it's certainly a disappointment.

[Qrazy]

Here's a whole bunch about it. (http://blogs.indiewire.com/thompsononhollywood/category/james_cameron/)

Here's one of the quotes where he addresses the photo-realistic characters.

To be fair he may just be referring to the style as much as anything. I remember when Myst and Riven were described as photo-realistic. So he may include things like Gollum, Hulk, etc into his definition of photo-realism. He never says that everything that came before was not photo-realistic, this film will finally break that barrier.

I think we also have to bear in mind that it's a trailer and we've seen in the past how far effects can come from trailer to finished films.

[D_Davis]

But realistic to the point where I can't tell it's CGI? Nope.

Does this really matter though? Or does it only matter because JC stated that it would? If he had said they are trying to get as close as possible, and then that trailer is what was delivered, would that have made any difference?

[Ezee E]

I'm not saying I can't enjoy a film if the CG doesn't look totally lifelike. Never said that at all, nor implied it. But to tout your new technology like Cameron has been doing and saying it's photo-realistic and then to have it look like it does in that trailer, it's certainly a disappointment.
This.

To me, it looked no different than previews from Attack of the Clones as far as impressive CGI goes. Nothing that will set the bar for the future.

With that, the beginning was great, and the best effect is the Na'vi sleeping behind the glass. THAT looks impressive. I also like the use of music in this trailer a lot.

[megladon8]

To be fair he may just be referring to the style as much as anything. I remember when Myst and Riven were described as photo-realistic. So he may include things like Gollum, Hulk, etc into his definition of photo-realism. He never says that everything that came before was not photo-realistic, this film will finally break that barrier.


I think that's a bit of a stretch with his words.

He said the film would be something, and it doesn't look like he's delivered on that. That's all I'm saying.

It may very well be an ingenius work of science fiction, and maybe the 3D technology really will be something to behold. But he said plain as day that the characters they developed were photo-realistic...not photo-realistic "in the way Gollum was", or "what you've seen before, a little bit better". He said photo-realistic characters, and they're not.

Honestly I don't want to keep going on about this, because I'm not trying to be a hater. I am looking forward to the movie, I think it looks like one helluva wild ride and as D said I am hoping for a gripping sci-fi tale.

I'm just quoting Cameron's words, and saying that what we've been shown doesn't live up to what he said.

[megladon8]

Does this really matter though? Or does it only matter because JC stated that it would? If he had said they are trying to get as close as possible, and then that trailer is what was delivered, would that have made any difference?


:frustrated:

He didn't say he was trying to get as close as possible. He said photo-realistic characters, and they're not.

No, frankly, it doesn't matter when it comes to the enjoyment of the movie. That's why - in my post just before this - I said I'm giving up this discussion.

It could still very well be a masterpiece, a 10-rated movie.

But the characters are not photo-realistic as he said they were. That's all.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Does this really matter though? Or does it only matter because JC stated that it would? If he had said they are trying to get as close as possible, and then that trailer is what was delivered, would that have made any difference?

No, it wouldn't have made a difference, because judging by that trailer, he's no closer than movies that were released five years ago. Still would have been disappointing.

[D_Davis]

He didn't say he was trying to get as close as possible. He said photo-realistic characters, and they're not.
.

I said "If...."

[megladon8]

OK let me put this into words that relate to my own work.

A customer comes in wanting to brew beer that tastes like Stella Artois. I pimp a beer to them for an hour, telling them how it's exactly like Stella Artois. They won't even be able to tell the difference. It is a carbon copy, and they'll love it.

So they brew that one.

Two weeks later, they come in to bottle their beer and try it. It's CLOSE to Stella Artois. Pretty damn close. But it's not "EXACTLY like Stella Artois" as I had been telling them.

It's still a great, fantastic beer that they will enjoy very much, but it's not what I had told them it would be.

[D_Davis]

It's still kind of sad though....

Most of the talk in this thread is still on the tech.

I wish it was on the story, and the themes. If only these were things that could be hyped.

I think I said it earlier, but it would be awesome if JC had come out and said that the story and themes of this original SF film were going to blow you away, and then left us all to speculate on them.

But instead it's a like a video game thread with people discussing frame rate and collision detection.

Ya know?

[Kurosawa Fan]

Ya know?

Yep. And not only that, but on paper the synopsis sounds pretty vanilla.

[D_Davis]

With all that said, though, I thought the CGI looked pretty sweet.

[D_Davis]

Yep. And not only that, but on paper the synopsis sounds pretty vanilla.

Yep.

[Ezee E]

Ya know?

Partly Cameron's problem since he's being so secretive about the story, but very outgoing about the tech stuff.

And when I say partly, I mean entirely responsible.

[D_Davis]

Partly Cameron's problem since he's being so secretive about the story, but very outgoing about the tech stuff.

And when I say partly, I mean entirely responsible.

Yeah. And unfortunately this is leading me to believe that there really isn't much there at all.

Great.

I'm becoming glib again.

[number8]

I'm still glad that it's not photo-realistic, because the one thing I loved the most about the Comic-Con footage was the beauty moments, the Malick moments, where Cameron indulges and lingers on Pandora's flora and fauna. It's just so colorful, so beautiful. Like a really good, meditative animated film. And I like that.

[Grouchy]

The trailer has a definitive videogame quality to it, but it looks beautiful. On IMAX I bet my socks will be blown off.

I echo DD's sentiments about the lack of story hype. But Cameron (while a very good screenwriter) has always been more interested in technology than in anything else. Look at Titanic. Better yet, don't.

[transmogrifier]

I hate the character design of the blue alien things, and I'm not really all that into beastiality...so, we'll see, but it seems like just another action movie to me.

[Watashi]

I'm still glad that it's not photo-realistic, because the one thing I loved the most about the Comic-Con footage was the beauty moments, the Malick moments, where Cameron indulges and lingers on Pandora's flora and fauna. It's just so colorful, so beautiful. Like a really good, meditative animated film. And I like that.
This.

The comic con footage made the film look like this meditative study between these two worlds and cultures. There was some absolutely breath-taking images and CGI that couldn't be encompassed in a small teaser trailer.

That said, I thought the trailer could have been a lot better in selling what the movie is about.

[Watashi]

Just watched this trailer in HD.

Wow. That makes a HUGE difference.

[number8]

That said, I thought the trailer could have been a lot better in selling what the movie is about.

But what is it about? We saw 15 minutes and we're still not sure. We know it's about culture clash, about bio-armor, war, etc etc. But what's the plot? I don't think you can easily sell it from the point of a story. And why should they? The movie is selling a spectacle, an experience, a world-building. Sometimes you don't need to know what a movie is about.

[megladon8]

Hehe.

I just showed the HD trailer to a guy I work with.

Our dialogue after the trailer ended...

ME: So?

SCOTT: I didn't know it was an animated movie.

ME: It's not.

SCOTT: Oh.

[Watashi]

But what is it about? We saw 15 minutes and we're still not sure. We know it's about culture clash, about bio-armor, war, etc etc. But what's the plot? I don't think you can easily sell it from the point of a story. And why should they? The movie is selling a spectacle, an experience, a world-building. Sometimes you don't need to know what a movie is about.
Well, the film is basically a futuristic Pocohantas with a war over the natives' land as the backdrop.

I was expecting the trailer to explain WHY they are going to Pandora.

Of course it's just a teaser and teasers are just meant for pretty images.

[Watashi]

Hehe.

I just showed the HD trailer to a guy I work with.

Our dialogue after the trailer ended...

ME: So?

SCOTT: I didn't know it was an animated movie.

ME: It's not.

SCOTT: Oh.
Um... it is an animated movie.

Well... half of it.

[eternity]

Realism my ass, James.

My thoughts: (http://postavant.com/2009/08/avatars-trailer-is-out-and-it-looks-like-a-live-action-delgo/)

Well, I don’t even know what to think about this one. I was expecting something underwhelming in the way of not being nearly as revolutionary or different from the rest of the big-budget mold, and boy am I wrong. I’ve never seen anything like this before. However, what I saw in 1080p on my 20” monitor, looked like Robert Zemeckis remaking my own personal most infamous disaster of animation, Delgo, the ten year old film that released in theaters last year only to have the worst ultra-saturated wide release gross ever. I watched it in 1080p, and everything looked like I was watching Beowulf with aliens. There’s two things I can get from that, that on a big IMAX 3D screen, this will be the most amazing looking movie ever ever ever ever, or this thing is going to be one of the most catastrophic WTF moments to happen in my personal experiences. But seeing alien Sam Worthington in a room of humans was just…just weird. All the alien stuff just looked…bizarre. I’ve never seen anything like it, and Cameron definitely wasn’t shitting me there, but…this is hardly a live-action movie anymore. And this trailer certainly isn’t going to put asses in seats if they're watching it in a non-theater setting, and even then, I don't know if they will in the theater either, as I don't know what it looks like there.

[megladon8]

Um... it is an animated movie.

Well... half of it.


No it's not. It's as much of an animated movie as the Star Wars prequels were, or as Peter Jackson's King Kong.

[Watashi]

People are putting way too much thought on the whole "photorealistic" aspect of the trailer.

http://www.empireonline.com/images/features/avatar-teaser-trailer-breakdown/30.jpg

Photo-realistic or not, this still looks really damn good.

[megladon8]

It's hard not to put a lot of thought into it when that technology is what has been the main focus of James Cameron's talks on the movie.

Yes, it looks beautiful. Yes, it looks like a good movie. I'm not debating that at all.

As E said, it's Cameron's fault when he sets up the movie to be some revelation in the way we look at CGI, and it looks like what we had 4 years ago with Revenge of the Sith.

Whatever. I've had it with this discussion.

[number8]

I think Drew McSweeney nailed the point of origin of the hype.

Cameron got excited about the tech and sold it up. This is normal. Peter Jackson and Robert Zemeckis and the Wachowskis did all that too. What made it become talks of a "game changer" was when Cameron invited other directors to come on the set to check it out. They all got excited by the new toys that Cameron invented, they all started getting excited about trying them out, as well. Soderbergh was the first to call it a game changer, I believe, and the media/blogs followed suit. At Comic-Con, after the Avatar footage screening, the directors started talking about it at their own panels. "Did you guys see Avatar yesterday? That's gonna be big. That's going to be revolutionary."

[Watashi]

Yeah, I remember reading that Soderbergh interview. He was pretty much wetting his pants in excitement.

[megladon8]

It's awesome to see Stephen Lang in two big movies this year.

He was one of the special agents brought in to aid Bale and his team in Public Enemies, and here he's the guy with the three huge scars on his face.

He's a great actor.

[Watashi]

It's awesome to see Stephen Lang in two big movies this year.

He was one of the special agents brought in to aid Bale and his team in Public Enemies, and here he's the guy with the three huge scars on his face.

He's a great actor.
Yeah, he's the villain in the film.

I think he will be the most interesting character.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Regardless of how good it looks (and it looks good, if hardly the "game-changer" some presumed it to be), it's Cameron, so I'll be there. Him returning to the rah-rah militarism of Aliens, albeit from a different vantage point, also promises to be very interesting.

My hope is that the story's more than the usual nature-good-humans-bad bullshit.

[Sycophant]

I swear to God, the only thing that changes in this thread is the tense shifts every 5 pages or so.

[Watashi]

More pictures:

http://i390.photobucket.com/albums/oo342/monoursblanc/ava1.png

http://i390.photobucket.com/albums/oo342/monoursblanc/ava2.png

http://i390.photobucket.com/albums/oo342/monoursblanc/ava3.png

[Dead & Messed Up]

I swear to God, the only thing that changes in this thread is the tense shifts every 5 pages or so.

http://rortybomb.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/dr-manhattan.jpg

No, Sycophant, nothing ever changes. Nothing.

[Watashi]

According to imdb, 40% of the film is live-action, the rest is motion-captured and CGI.

[megladon8]

So are the N'Avi mo-capped?

I mean, did Sam Worthington motion capture for his Avatar character?

Because that shot of him roaring/screaming really looks a lot like him. Impressive.

[Watashi]

So are the N'Avi mo-capped?

I mean, did Sam Worthington motion capture for his Avatar character?

Because that shot of him roaring/screaming really looks a lot like him. Impressive.
Yes. Every non-human character is entirely mo-capped.

[Watashi]

Yes. Every non-human character is entirely mo-capped.
Also, according to Cameron at Comic Con, the CGI was only 40% done by that stage.

[Ezee E]

I wonder if Michelle Rodriguez is Vazquez.

[Morris Schæffer]

I hope the story is awesome because the second part of that trailer very nearly looks like CGI excess with more beasts than you can shake a stick at, the human element drowned out as a result. 10,000 BC and the finale of The Phantom Menace sprang to mind. That was never the case in Cameron movies where every little detail, every adversary, every action scene looked utterly tangible, completely real. True, for Avatar's premise, that is impossible, but I can't help but feel that the greatest action director of all time has, sadly, made the leap into CGI excess.

I hope that Jake Scully, in avatar form, is as captivating and wondrous as Smeagol was in The Lord of the Rings because otherwise I may loose interest in the characters.

There is trepidation suddenly. Don't let me down Jimbo.

[Grouchy]

I hate the character design of the blue alien things, and I'm not really all that into beastiality...so, we'll see, but it seems like just another action movie to me.
I'm so, so glad I'm not you.

[B-side]

I'm so, so glad I'm not you.

I know, right? I'm a huge proponent of bestiality.

[Acapelli]

that was fucking amazing

seriously, probably the best use of cgi i've seen in creating an entirely new world. can't say i've ever seen anything like it

[Watashi]

that was fucking amazing

seriously, probably the best use of cgi i've seen in creating an entirely new world. can't say i've ever seen anything like it
Avatar day, right?

[Acapelli]

Avatar day, right?
yup

also, imax screens are friggin HUGE

[Ezee E]

Much better if you see it on the big screen.

[Watashi]

Ary! Did you go to the San Fran Avatar Day screening?

Apparently, Brad Bird was there.

[number8]

I did not.

[BuffaloWilder]

People are putting way too much thought on the whole "photorealistic" aspect of the trailer.

http://www.empireonline.com/images/features/avatar-teaser-trailer-breakdown/30.jpg

Photo-realistic or not, this still looks really damn good.


I will say that furries are going to flip their collective shits over this film. And truthfully, I can't blame the guys.

[B-side]

Saw the footage in IMAX 3D. The 3D and CG are excellent. Like, perfectly realized. Worthington, however, is not. His character comes off about as interesting as a rock. Lame, cliche, grizzled military type. I'll save final judgments for the final product, though.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Visuals are nice, the effects are wonderful and the 3D is probably the best I've seen... besides that, it fails to grab me on any level. I don't particularly like the character design, and as far as I can tell, there is little on an emotional, character or story level that would make that a nitpick. It's nice and glossy, but from what I saw today, I'm afraid it'll be pretty empty

[Ezee E]

His smile as he sees the avatar is pretty creepy. I have no idea what it's about, but I love that shot.

[number8]

His smile as he sees the avatar is pretty creepy. I have no idea what it's about, but I love that shot.

He's paralyzed. The avatar is his chance to finally walk again.

[Raiders]

Meg, has it occurred to you that maybe all the press and directors who were going gonzo over this were thinking more on the other side of the screen? What I mean is, tech guys and filmmakers look at movie-making from a production standpoint and though I have hardly read or watched much of what has been said, it seems likely to me people like Soderbergh were praising the possibilities and innovations that the filming technology will create. It seems kind of absurd to expect the pioneer film to suddenly look like the pristine end-result. Just because Avatar isn't the final step doesn't mean that someday the creation and use of the techniques on this film won't be looked back on as revolutionary.

[Thirdmango]

I saw the trailer today, and it wasn't until I saw that trailer did I realize this movie existed. Every time I saw this thread I assumed "Avatar The Last Airbender". Only now do I know it is it's own movie.

[Pop Trash]

I saw the trailer before Basterds, and I hate to say it but my expectations are much lowered. Visually, it didn't look a whole much better than say Beowolf/300 and that ilk. We shall see, but if this isn't up to snuff, critics may treat this like its Phantom Menace Redux.

[megladon8]

Meg, has it occurred to you that maybe all the press and directors who were going gonzo over this were thinking more on the other side of the screen? What I mean is, tech guys and filmmakers look at movie-making from a production standpoint and though I have hardly read or watched much of what has been said, it seems likely to me people like Soderbergh were praising the possibilities and innovations that the filming technology will create. It seems kind of absurd to expect the pioneer film to suddenly look like the pristine end-result. Just because Avatar isn't the final step doesn't mean that someday the creation and use of the techniques on this film won't be looked back on as revolutionary.


No, because that's not the issue.

James Cameron : "...we're working with computer-generated characters that are photo-realistic."

And they're not photo-realistic.

End of discussion.

[Ezee E]

No, because that's not the issue.

James Cameron : "...we're working with computer-generated characters that are photo-realistic."

And they're not photo-realistic.

End of discussion.
Look at the preview in the theater Meg. While there are a few shots that still look heavy CGI, there's some that are extremely good. And that's not even the 70MM print yet.

[megladon8]

Look at the preview in the theater Meg. While there are a few shots that still look heavy CGI, there's some that are extremely good. And that's not even the 70MM print yet.


I watched it on my 52" hi-def TV. If that still doesn't look real, sorry, it's not going to look more real on a theatrical screen.

I really don't understand why this is even being discussed still.

The characters are not photo-realistic. They do not look inseparable from the real actors. I can tell watching it that it's CGI. Very good CGI, but nothing that's leagues better than anything we've seen.

Seriously guys. C'mon. I'm not trashing your beloved movie here. I've stated that it still looks great, like it could be a very good movie. But the CGI is not photo-realistic. IT IS NOT. End of story.

[Ezee E]

Now you're just lying to yourself Meg. You are lying. To yourself.

[megladon8]

Now you're just lying to yourself Meg. You are lying. To yourself.


:confused:

[EvilShoe]

:confused:
Let the healing begin.

[Mal]

It's pretty and creepy and weird and interesting...

I would go out of my way to see it in IMAX, fo sho.

[megladon8]

I do love that image Watashi posted, of the two N'Avi getting ready to kiss.

[Ezee E]

:confused:
Insert smiley for joking sake?

[Qrazy]

I watched it on my 52" hi-def TV. If that still doesn't look real, sorry, it's not going to look more real on a theatrical screen.

I really don't understand why this is even being discussed still.

The characters are not photo-realistic. They do not look inseparable from the real actors. I can tell watching it that it's CGI. Very good CGI, but nothing that's leagues better than anything we've seen.

Seriously guys. C'mon. I'm not trashing your beloved movie here. I've stated that it still looks great, like it could be a very good movie. But the CGI is not photo-realistic. IT IS NOT. End of story.

The trailer is not the same thing as the finished film. It probably still won't be photorealistic then, but you should still save this particular judgment until that juncture.

[Sven]

Um... it is an animated movie.

Well... half of it.

I do think it is strange that someone who is opposed to the concept of rotoscoping as a form of animation would not hold similarly motion-capture. Still, I guess the flying ships and dragons aren't really motion capture, so...

Anyway, I want a really awesome fantasy sci-fi epic and this looks like it could deliver. And the cartooniness is a plus. It looks vibrant and expressive. I'm thinking that with a few twists, this aesthetic would be perfect for an adaptation of Haldeman's The Forever War.

Still, compared to the other proxy-driven action extravaganza due out soon, Gamer looks better.

[Qrazy]

I do think it is strange that someone who is opposed to the concept of rotoscoping as a form of animation would not hold similarly motion-capture. Still, I guess the flying ships and dragons aren't really motion capture, so...

Anyway, I want a really awesome fantasy sci-fi epic and this looks like it could deliver. And the cartooniness is a plus. It looks vibrant and expressive. I'm thinking that with a few twists, this aesthetic would be perfect for an adaptation of Haldeman's The Forever War.

Still, compared to the other proxy-driven action extravaganza due out soon, Gamer looks better.

Gamer does not look better imo. The primary reason Cameron is excellent is because he's a master of crafting an action set piece. He also cares about the emotional journey his characters take and in well structured/paced narratives. I see nothing in The Gamer trailer which suggests that director cares about any of these things. Still, it could be enjoyable and it looks like it will have a couple cool explosions and some scenery chewing performances.

[Sven]

Gamer does not look better. The primary reason Cameron is excellent is because he's a master of crafting an action set piece. He also cares about the emotional journey his characters take and in well structured/paced narratives. I see nothing in The Gamer trailer which suggests that director cares about any of these things. It could be enjoyable and it looks like it will have a couple cool explosions and some scenery chewing performances but that's about it.

You didn't get a sense from the trailer that Neveldine/Taylor are excellent crafters of action set pieces and intriguing plot structures probably because it was a trailer and set pieces and narrative pace are not things one should try and look for in a trailer. Because they don't exist there.

[megladon8]

I think the cartoony aesthetic looks pretty cool, too.

I almost think they shouldn't have bothered with any live actors. It should have just been a fully animated movie.

[Qrazy]

You didn't get a sense from the trailer that Neveldine/Taylor are excellent crafters of action set pieces and intriguing plot structures probably because it was a trailer and set pieces and narrative pace are not things one should try and look for in a trailer. Because they don't exist there.

I can actually tell a great deal about a film's interests, general structure and aesthetic from the trailer. Pacing is only one element of a set piece. I would argue that composition and general use of space are just as important. But I've also seen Crank and I know these guys don't care much about character, plot, composition or well structured set pieces.

[Sven]

I can actually tell a great deal about a film's interests, general structure and aesthetic from the trailer.

Those aren't the things you mentioned before, though.


Pacing is only one element of a set piece. I would argue that composition and general use of space are just as important.

Yes, but compositions also have a tendency to alter with context. Don't get too confident with your divining powers.


But I've also seen Crank and I know these guys don't care much about character, plot, composition or well structured set pieces.

Oh, I see. You just don't know what you're talking about. Okay.

[Qrazy]

Those aren't the things you mentioned before, though.

They aren't the same words. But they are for my purposes, roughly the same things. I initially said well structured narratives, excellent set pieces, and the emotional journey. I then said the film's interests (I include the emotional journey in this), general structure (narrative structure), and aesthetic (a fundamental element of set piece construction).


Yes, but compositions also have a tendency to alter with context. Don't get too confident with your divining powers.

*shrug* My divining powers serve me well enough. I'm not saying I know how good a film will be on every level but I can usually get a general idea of the craftsmanship on display.


Oh, I see. You just don't know what you're talking about. Okay.

I'm not saying Crank doesn't have it's pleasures but an especially well rendered aesthetic, scene structure, composition and character aren't amongst those pleasures. Here's a scene (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dzYFmFFOv4). Sorry I can't find an action scene on the tube but it gives some sense of their general scene construction.

[Sven]

They aren't the same words. But they are for my purposes, roughly the same things. I initially said well structured narratives, excellent set pieces, and the emotional journey. I then said the film's interests (I include the emotional journey in this), general structure (narrative structure), and aesthetic (a fundamental element of set piece construction).

Using an element to describe a whole and suggesting you can get an idea of a film's narrative structure and emotional journeys from a trailer are not exactly great examples of sterling criticism. But we've strayed a bit, haven't we?


I'm not saying I know how good a film will be on every level but I can usually get a general idea of the craftsmanship on display.

Yes, I'm pretty sure everyone does this, only I think most aren't confident enough to the point that they feel they can gauge the aforementioned qualities of a film from its trailer. The point of this being: you still haven't explained a single thing about the Gamer trailer to back up your claims.


I'm not saying Crank doesn't have it's pleasures but an especially well rendered aesthetic, scene structure, composition and character aren't amongst those pleasures. Here's a scene (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dzYFmFFOv4).

Now you're just rambling off a list without discerning how each of those elements are represented in Crank. What's an aesthetic that is "well-rendered"? Does that just mean "good"? If you can't get down with the structure of such scenes as the shootout in the sewing factory, the shootout on top of the building at the end, the bit where he's driving through the mall, the elevator sequence with the Japanese man... I mean... those are some pretty well-structured scenes. Composition: there are some way exciting compositions in Crank. I believe the burden of proof is on you, as I am the defender in this case. And I heartily believe that Chev Chelios is in the running for the most dimensional character in the history of action films. He's very complex, his primary motivations color every move he makes, his adrenaline constantly barreling through anger, lust, confusion, confidence, and desperation. And I really love Amy Smart's performance. It's sly and unpredictable.

Perhaps if you're interested in responding (don't blame you if you're not), we could take this discussion to the Gamer thread.

[Morris Schæffer]

Here's a quote from RT poster Robert Gall:


Well I'm just back from my 15 mins of 3D footage and it was mighty impressive. Much more inticing than the teaser trailer, and the "breakthrough" technology really showed tonight, as it was completly faultless. Anyone who, after the trailer, complained that the CGI was unimpressive must wait to the see the actual film before they make their final judgement, as on the big screen the CGI looked incredible. And, dare i say it, photorealistic.

Why should you take Robert's word for it? I've no idea.

[EvilShoe]

I already like Gamer better, simply because it has a character called Rick Rape.

[Sycophant]

The colors in the trailer were pretty.

I keep forgetting Gamer is Neveldine/Taylor. Guess I'd better watch it.

[BuffaloWilder]

Maybe I'm just not a fan of their aesthetic, but I find myself agreeing with Qrazy, about Neveldine and Taylor.


And I heartily believe that Chev Chelios is in the running for the most dimensional character in the history of action films.

And - twah?

[Qrazy]

Using an element to describe a whole and suggesting you can get an idea of a film's narrative structure and emotional journeys from a trailer are not exactly great examples of sterling criticism. But we've strayed a bit, haven't we?

No we haven't really, we haven't strayed at all. You attempted a straw man, I elaborated my position, we are now back where we started. I can tell from The Gamer trailer (certainly as much as you are capable of making any kind of value judgment which allows you to say that you prefer one trailer to another) that these characters and their emotional journeys are not of particular importance to the film. I can tell from the Avatar trailer but more largely Cameron's work in general that the emotional journey is important. Now I don't know if his film will be entirely successful in this regard, but we are talking about what 'looks better'. We are talking about our educated guesses concerning how good these films will be. I'm not criticizing Gamer the film, I'm simply commenting on what I see in the trailer.

To clarify, when I say the emotional journey I simply mean how the characters are treated (are they fleshed out, have interesting dynamics with other characters0 and what we learn about their psychology/internal world/etc. Yes maybe I'm wrong and Gerard Butler will give an earth shattering performance defining forever after the true emotional journey of a convict being biomechanically abused in a videogame... but I doubt it.


Yes, I'm pretty sure everyone does this, only I think most aren't confident enough to the point that they feel they can gauge the aforementioned qualities of a film from its trailer. The point of this being: you still haven't explained a single thing about the Gamer trailer to back up your claims.

And you haven't said a thing about either the Gamer trailer or the Avatar trailer to back up your claims, but it's easier to put me on the defensive than to elaborate your own position. Funny that the burden is on me when you were the one who made the comparison in the first place. But alright I'll humor you. For starters, there's a lot of speed manipulation (fast/slow/fast :17, 1:36), middling framing (:13, :26, :37), dull lighting (1:15, 1:40), rapid cuts to superfluous content and inserts (as much from the trailer as from their earlier films... see: 1:00, 1:11, 1:51), a general assault on the senses with explosions and guns blazing everywhere rather than focused communication of action and event progression (1:04, 1:01, 2:09), but the poorly framed and lit close-ups are by far the worst (see: :10, :14, 1:09, 1:15, 1:43, 1:45).


Trailer. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3RfqAIGBLE)


Now you're just rambling off a list without discerning how each of those elements are represented in Crank. What's an aesthetic that is "well-rendered"? Does that just mean "good"? If you can't get down with the structure of such scenes as the shootout in the sewing factory, the shootout on top of the building at the end, the bit where he's driving through the mall, the elevator sequence with the Japanese man... I mean... those are some pretty well-structured scenes. Composition: there are some way exciting compositions in Crank. I believe the burden of proof is on you, as I am the defender in this case. And I heartily believe that Chev Chelios is in the running for the most dimensional character in the history of action films. He's very complex, his primary motivations color every move he makes, his adrenaline constantly barreling through anger, lust, confusion, confidence, and desperation. And I really love Amy Smart's performance. It's sly and unpredictable.

You are not the defender (we are discussing Avatar vs. Gamer trailers... we are in an Avatar thread, you say The Gamer trailer looks better, the burden is on you) and we are only tangentially talking about Crank. I am also not saying that the guys can't put together a semi-compelling action scene. But in terms of set piece construction/event progression they are nowhere close to Cameron, Spielberg, Leone, Tarantino, etc. I don't know what to say in relation to your praise for the handling of character/emotional journey in Crank. It does not compute.


Perhaps if you're interested in responding (don't blame you if you're not), we could take this discussion to the Gamer thread.

I think we should stay here because we're talking about the Avatar trailer in relation to the Crank trailer (as well as what we know about there plots and the histories of the directors).

[BuffaloWilder]

After watching the second Crank film, while I do feel the two things that Sven had written about the movies were valid to an extent, I feel turned off of anything Nevaldine and Taylor might put out in the near future.

[number8]

Come to think of it, I would have liked to see Cameron direct GAMER.

[Watashi]

Gamer has a musical number featuring Michael C. Hall.

That's all I need to know that I'm seeing it.

[eternity]

Gamer has a musical number featuring Michael C. Hall.

That's all I need to know that I'm seeing it.
I just noticed this last night when I saw the trailer on the big screen. Like, oh my god.

[Milky Joe]

Hey guys! This looks really cool!

[Sven]

No we haven't really, we haven't strayed at all. You attempted a straw man, I elaborated my position, we are now back where we started.

Where did I attempt a straw man?


I can tell from The Gamer trailer (certainly as much as you are capable of making any kind of value judgment which allows you to say that you prefer one trailer to another) that these characters and their emotional journeys are not of particular importance to the film.

No you cannot. Stating that emotional journeys are unimportant is very different from making a value judgment.


I can tell from the Avatar trailer but more largely Cameron's work in general that the emotional journey is important.

Ridiculous. The emotional journeys of Terminator and Terminator 2 amounted to large guns and people running and screaming. Sure, it was a heady sci-fi work with some humanistic touches, but to call the impetus of either film "emotional," or even to suggest that the emotional content is as important as the action, or more specifically, MORE important to the action than in a film like Crank, is devastating your case. Same goes for Aliens.


To clarify, when I say the emotional journey I simply mean how the characters are treated (are they fleshed out, have interesting dynamics with other characters0 and what we learn about their psychology/internal world/etc.

"interesting", "treated", "what we learn" are all things that are so open for interpretation that they mean very little. If I worked at it, I could give you a profound character reading of Batman and Robin. A film's emotional content is simply too malleable to comment upon authoritatively. Same goes for terms like "forgettable" and "exciting." You can tell me all you want that Crank is not a moving picture. I thought it was quite moving. Therefore, you lose.


Yes maybe I'm wrong and Gerard Butler will give an earth shattering performance defining forever after the true emotional journey of a convict being biomechanically abused in a videogame... but I doubt it.

You don't need to expect the world... a gesture will do.


And you haven't said a thing about either the Gamer trailer or the Avatar trailer to back up your claims, but it's easier to put me on the defensive than to elaborate your own position. Funny that the burden is on me when you were the one who made the comparison in the first place.

I said it looked better. You challenged that. Therefore, you are the prosecutor.


But alright I'll humor you. For starters, there's a lot of speed manipulation (fast/slow/fast :17, 1:36), middling framing (:13, :26, :37), dull lighting (1:15, 1:40), rapid cuts to superfluous content and inserts (as much from the trailer as from their earlier films... see: 1:00, 1:11, 1:51), a general assault on the senses with explosions and guns blazing everywhere rather than focused communication of action and event progression (1:04, 1:01, 2:09), but the poorly framed and lit close-ups are by far the worst (see: :10, :14, 1:09, 1:15, 1:43, 1:45).

Speed manipulation = not inherently bad, and of the two times you cite, the first one is almost certainly a trailer thing and I cannot see what you are talking about with the second shot. It looks like a series of cuts, is all.

Middling framing = I don't know what you mean by this term. Of the times you gave me, I found that the only similarity was projected images.

Dull lighting = Stale lighting is something frequently employed, particularly in films depicting futuristic societies, to communicate a loss of warmth, the obliteration of humanity. Of the two clips that you cite, I saw one where Ludacris was talking and the other during a fight sequence where Butler kicks a dude. How are these "dull"? How could they change to be "sharper"? This practice you have of decontextualizing is very foreign to me.

Superfluous contents and inserts = Ummm... hello? That's pretty much the M.O. of trailer editing. You're gonna have to illustrate how this is a symptomatic problem of their filmmaking.

Sensory assault in favor of focus and progressive action = see the aforementioned "M.O. of trailer editing" comment. Again, you will have to show how this is symptomatic of their work for it to hold water. Certainly more fluid trailers have been cut. This is not a fault of the film.

Poorly framed/lit close-ups = okay, now you're just flailing. As I mentioned before, without a grasp on the film's perspective and themes (which I'm convinced you only have a cursory impression of), one cannot begin to deconstruct its aesthetic. The close-up of Leguizamo seems fine. It's washed out. Big deal. What about that shot is inherently bad cinema? You're beginning to get all baby-doll/Armond-type snooty-stubborn up in here. Plus, are you really trying to analyze an aesthetic as brought to you by the super-compressed quality of youtube?

These are all very obvious things that one can discern, were one to have a good understanding of trailer language.


You are not the defender (we are discussing Avatar vs. Gamer trailers... we are in an Avatar thread, you say The Gamer trailer looks better, the burden is on you) and we are only tangentially talking about Crank.

I do think the Gamer trailer looks better, and that's all I need to say. I was not challenging anything. You were. And since you challenged that, it's up to you to tell me how it does not better. If, in the Gamer thread you said that Avatar looks better, it would be up to me to dissect the Avatar trailer on youtube to tell you how you are wrong.


I am also not saying that the guys can't put together a semi-compelling action scene. But in terms of set piece construction/event progression they are nowhere close to Cameron, Spielberg, Leone, Tarantino, etc.

Well, if we're gonna pull out every name in the book...

Let's see: Spielberg's first film: Duel. Hardly a kinetic picture, rather stale, visually, compared to later output. Cameron: Piranha 2. A joke. Tarantino: Reservoir Dogs. No real action to speak of and some sequences that draaaaaag (not to mention the structure of the 88 Leaves action in Kill Bill being a comparably terrible homage to martial arts cinema). Leone: A Fistful of Dollars (earliest film of his that I've seen). Pretty good, but a far, far cry from TGtBatU. I'd say that Neveldine/Taylor pretty much nailed it on their first go. Certainly more impressive than any of these other guys' firsts.


I don't know what to say in relation to your praise for the handling of character/emotional journey in Crank. It does not compute.

That's your bad, not mine. Perhaps it's time for another Pentium upgrade.

[BuffaloWilder]

I'd say that Neveldine/Taylor pretty much nailed it on their first go. Certainly more impressive than any of these other guys' firsts.

Well, sure - if sensory assault in lieu of careful orchestration is the wave of the future, maybe. While the second film does have moments here and there of visual clarity, a lot of it is basically the equivalent to "lets throw shit at the screen. Come on, more! More!"

And, goodness me, how I hate that film stock (it's digital, I realize) they used. It just never sits right with me.

I am of course referring to the second film, as it's the only one I have on hand, at the moment.

[Sven]

Well, sure - if sensory assault in lieu of careful orchestration is the wave of the future, maybe.

Dude, Crank is one of the most carefully constructed films I've ever seen.

[lovejuice]

Not everyone has access to that, and if that just happens to be the case, I have a very hard time wanting to financially support a film which itself supports some kind of twisted "upper class" of moviegoers.
i beg to differ. this is precisely what cinema nowadays needs. a theatre experience that cannot be easily emulated at home. going to theatre should not be just about seeing movies, but the experience itself should be cherishable.

[megladon8]

i beg to differ. this is precisely what cinema nowadays needs. a theatre experience that cannot be easily emulated at home. going to theatre should not be just about seeing movies, but the experience itself should be cherishable.


And I agree with this.

But, it should be something everyone can experience. Having like 5 theatres across North America (it's an exaggeration, I know, but I'm just making a point) able to show the movie in its "true form" is doing nothing but, as I said, promoting a sense of elitism among those who just happen to be able to get to these theatres.

I don't have an IMAX 3D theatre in my city. I'd need to drive nearly 5 hours to get to one, and I'm not going to do that. But apparently if I don't do that, I'm not really "seeing" the movie.

[Sycophant]

Fuck the plebs.

[megladon8]

Oh and I agree with Sven, here.

That shot of Chev Chelios falling, telling Eve that he loves her with "Miracles" playing in the background. It was definitely moving.

[Sycophant]

Meg, I thought you were in Ottawa? IMAX's website tells me there's a 3D IMAX screen at a Famous Players theater in Gloucester, ON? That seems to be less than 5 hours out of Ottawa.

At any rate, basically you're saying, there's this format out there that can provide a new and unique kind of cinematic experience, but nobody should use it for a major narrative project because it's... elitist? That doesn't really work for me.

[megladon8]

Meg, I thought you were in Ottawa? IMAX's website tells me there's a 3D IMAX screen at a Famous Players theater in Gloucester, ON? That seems to be less than 5 hours out of Ottawa.

It's not a true IMAX theatre. The screen is only slightly bigger than the screens at my local AMC. Also, it's in the French area of Ottawa, so just about every movie you see there has French subtitles.



At any rate, basically you're saying, there's this format out there that can provide a new and unique kind of cinematic experience, but nobody should use it for a major narrative project because it's... elitist? That doesn't really work for me.

Just look at this thread, or threads for any other movie released in IMAX/IMAX 3D. Hell, my reaction to the trailer. "Meg, you didn't see the 15 minutes at ComicCon like I did / Meg you didn't see the trailer on the big screen in 3D."

People saying "if you didn't see it on IMAX 3D, you didn't see it".

It's not the technology I have a problem with, but people and their inherent need to feel like they're better than everyone else. Having these theatres so sparse only promotes this.

Plus, factor in that these movies cost more to see. When I saw Coraline in 3D the tickets were $16 each. My friends went to see Beowulf on IMAX 3D (at that Gloucester theatre which, as I mentioned, isn't even a real IMAX theatre) and tickets were $20 each. That's fucking ridiculous.

It'd be cool if they held off on this a couple of years and built some more of these theatres. More people would have access to them, which would not only help more peopl experience this new technology, but also if you have many more of these theatres (or theatres with this capability) they would be able to cut the ticket prices down a bit.