James Cameron's Avatar (2009)

[Sycophant]

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.

I don't get this out of it. Like at all. But I'm done here.

[megladon8]

Good, I'm tired of explaining fairly straight forward concepts like this and the idea of "photo-realistic CGI".

[number8]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with creating something for a specific market. Sorry you can't participate, but that's nobody's fault.

If someone watches Lawrence of Arabia on a 5" black and white portable TV and tells you that the shots don't look that great to him, it behooves oneself to tell him that it looks phenomenal on an HDTV.

[megladon8]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with creating something for a specific market. Sorry you can't participate, but that's nobody's fault.

If someone watches Lawrence of Arabia on a 5" black and white portable TV and tells you that the shots don't look that great to him, it behooves oneself to tell him that it looks phenomenal on an HDTV.


That's an entirely different issue from what I'm talking about.

[EvilShoe]

Also, if a movie of this magnitude catches on it might actually help to get more Imax theaters built.
It's not the movie's fault there aren't more at the moment.

[megladon8]

Also, if a movie of this magnitude catches on it might actually help to get more Imax theaters built.
It's not the movie's fault there aren't more at the moment.


I didn't say it was, and again, it's not a problem inherent to the technology.

I think it's awesome, and I would love to see the movie in IMAX 3D.

Let's say I see the movie on a standard screen, and I'm not too taken with it.

I guarantee you there will be people here commenting on my review saying that "(I) didn't see it on IMAX 3D, so my opinion isn't valid".

That's the kind of crap that I don't like, and unfortunately will be extrapolated by the fact that only a select few moviegoers will get to see it that way.

Bottom line: the technology's cool. It's people that suck.

[number8]

That's an entirely different issue from what I'm talking about.

No, it's not. You're talking about the people who trump up the format that a certain movie is meant to be seen in and telling others that it should be seen in that regard. And you complain that not everybody has access to it so it should not be so. Well, it is so. It's a movie made for a specific format with a specific technology, only a sparse few are able to see it and they're the lucky ones, while the rest have to settle with downgraded compromise versions. They don't get to see the real thing. Sucks for them, but that doesn't change what the movie is.

[megladon8]

No, it's not. You're talking about the people who trump up the format that a certain movie is meant to be seen in and telling others that it should be seen in that regard. And you complain that not everybody has access to it so it should not be so. Well, it is so. It's a movie made for a specific format with a specific technology, only a sparse few are able to see it and they're the lucky ones, while the rest have to settle with downgraded compromise versions. They don't get to see the real thing. Sucks for them, but that doesn't change what the movie is.


No, that's not what I'm saying.

Honestly, I don't care that I'll probably only get to see the movie on a 2D movie screen. If it's a good movie, it'll be good regardless. If a movie uses its technology as a crutch, that's apparenty no matter what.

My problem is people who will brag and condescend towards those who don't get to see it in 3D, dismissing their opinions or views as invalid and worthless because they didn't see it the way they did. That's what I don't like, and I'm saying that is promoted by the fact that the theatres are so few and far between.

[number8]

Okay, what? How is that different from what I said, except you're saying it bitterly? The movie is meant to be 3D, the movie was made for 3D, hell, the movie was made to show off a new 3D camera/technology. Frankly, there's nothing wrong with saying that you didn't see the movie as it's meant to be seen, therefore not the way Cameron envisioned it to be. That doesn't mean we think we're better than you or that you're a shitbag for not living near a true IMAX 3D and not shilling out the money to see it. It just means, for whatever circumstances, you didn't get to see it the way it was meant to be seen, and that's nobody's fault. You can't change that fact.

And I don't even fully subscribe to that school of thought, since I think a truly great movie should play amazingly on a 5" black and white portable TV, but when you're working with visual arts, there is a lot to be said about presentation and spectacle. Especially on a very visual-heavy movie such as this.

Furthermore, I'm making this argument on the basis of your premise that people are being condescending when they said it needs to be seen on IMAX 3D. Which, as someone who didn't, doesn't think anyone did. So where's the beef?

[Qrazy]

Where did I attempt a straw man?

You said I was saying something which I was not.


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

Um? I'm not stating that emotional journeys are unimportant. I'm stating that the Gamer directors (based on their past work and this trailer) very likely will place little importance on character development/emotional journeys in Gamer. This is actually a much smaller inference than the one you're making which is that Gamer seems like it will be better than Avatar.


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.

No, it's really not devastating my case at all, because it's true. Cameron cares about developing his characters and fleshing out their interactions. For instance we care about Arnold and his relationship with the boy when he goes for a dip at the end of T2. Alternatively when a man talks about the future where he came from and why in T1, there's some emotional weight there. In The Abyss there's some genuine emotion and weight when two people need to make it back from a small ship which is filling up with water. There is a level of drama and interest in these characters rare for action films. Then we have Crank and Crank 2 (which I watched last night). The majority of the dialogue is full of sexist/racist one liners, and swearing. The majority of the action and general content consists of beating the shit out of every character in the film (including the protagonists).


"interesting", "treated", "what we learn" are all things that are so open for interpretation that they mean very little.

No, they aren't.


If I worked at it, I could give you a profound character reading of Batman and Robin.

No, you couldn't.


A film's emotional content is simply too malleable to comment upon authoritatively.

No, it isn't. You're simply lapsing into semi-relativistic nonsense to avoid actually getting to the point.


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.

Another straw man? When did I say forgettable or unexciting. I didn't. But I will bite with emotionally moving (not talking about kinetic excitement), it's not. And as I don't subscribe to the same nonsense semantic relativism that you do and the Crank films are not even aiming for fleshed out characterizations, than I lose nothing. Simply claiming you win is no way to genuinely win an argument.


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

And most likely will not be delivered given what these filmmakers are interested in.


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

Not really, but I already elaborated on this.


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.

Whether or not it's a trailer thing (it may or may not be) there's plenty of the fast/slow/fast bullshit in the Crank films so I see no reason there won't be more here. I didn't go through and cite every instance in the trailer either, there are many more. It's not inherently bad but it's usually used to sloppy, poor effect and it probably will be here too.


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.

If you have no capacity to differentiate weak compositions from strong compositions I can't help you.


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.

Dull as in flat and bland (not the blue or desaturated color techniques to communicate loss of warmth which you speak of).


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.

The trailer editor can't put in superfluous content and inserts unless they were shot. This trailer is full of that, the Avatar trailer is not. The crux of this argument is a comparison of the trailers if you'll recall.


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.

We're comparing the trailers. But OK, the bar fight in Crank 2. There's very little sense of geography. We get rapid images of a few people shooting and then some other people shooting or getting shot. This is a sensory assault. The action of the scene is not focused or clearly expressed.


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?

You really seem to need to repeatedly reiterate your 'winning' and my 'failing/flailing/decontextualizing/blah blah blah. I don't know if you're getting upset, desperate or what, but I would encourage you to stop this empty rhetoric. It certainly adds nothing to your argumentation, perhaps if you were running for political office someone somewhere would buy it, but I certainly don't.

Actually I don't need to know theme or content to analyze aesthetic. They have an important relationship but one can also analyze an aesthetic on it's own, just as one can analyze the quality of still photography. Yes a shot is more than it's still images but it is also composed of it's still images. And some framing/lighting is worse than other framing/lighting. If you can not acquiesce to this possibility than there's really no point in carrying on this conversation because you must then hold all art to be entirely relativistic in which case you should accept that my position is just as valid as yours.

For comparisons sake:

Here's a well shot close-up (http://themissingreel.com/Manhattan14.jpg).
Here's a poorly shot close-up (http://analogmedium.com/blog/2007/04/house%2Bof%2Bthe%2Bdead%2B2.jp g).

Back to the trailers:

The Navi's kissing > Leguizamo and co.


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

Well then I guess I'll work on that and you work on your understanding of aesthetic and photographic language and then we can talk.


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.

Not really, this is just you pushing me into the defensive again because it's easier for you to do so. You've still said very little about why you think one film looks better than the other.


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.

Duel was made for TV. I have not seen Piranha 2. So Sugarland Express, Reservoir Dogs and Fistful of Dollars... Nope, all infinitely more impressive than Crank or Crank 2 (and if we're talking Crank 2 than we're talking Terminator for Cameron, which is also more impressive).


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

I work on a Mac. But perhaps it's time for less nonsensical opinions. Praise the Crank films for what they achieve, not for what they don't achieve, for instance the construction of the most dimensional character in action films.

[BuffaloWilder]

You get a rep.

[Qrazy]

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.

Not as moving as when they have sex on the street, now that's true love. :rolleyes:

[D_Davis]

Duel was made for TV. I have not seen Piranha 2. So Sugarland Express, Reservoir Dogs and Fistful of Dollars... Nope, all infinitely more impressive than Crank or Crank 2 (and if we're talking Crank 2 than we're talking Terminator for Cameron, which is also more impressive).


Yeah - I like Duel, Reservoir Dogs and Fistful of Dollars a heck of a lot more than I like Crank. I think all three exist on a much higher level of competence and artistic maturity than Crank does.

[megladon8]

Furthermore, I'm making this argument on the basis of your premise that people are being condescending when they said it needs to be seen on IMAX 3D. Which, as someone who didn't, doesn't think anyone did. So where's the beef?


Dude, you're like one of the worst offenders here with this.

Remember when The Dark Knight came out? You practically claimed that if people didn't see it on IMAX, it wasn't worth seeing.

[Ezee E]

Dude, you're like one of the worst offenders here with this.

Remember when The Dark Knight came out? You practically claimed that if people didn't see it on IMAX, it wasn't worth seeing.
It had scenes that were shot in 70 MM. In order to see the movie properly, you'd have to see it on a film that projected it in 70MM. Simple as that.

Avatar is the same way.

Lawrence of Arabia, same thing, but most people will never get that chance, so they'll seek out the best possible DVD there is.

It comes down to this, do you want to watch the old, scratchy VHS edition or the restored, crystal-clear DVD? Easy decision if you get the chance. There's no condescending, it's just seeing the better edition.

People like to brag about seeing 2001 on the 70MM for a reason. Avatar is going to be the same way.

[megladon8]

I'm pretty sure that despite not having seen it on IMAX, I've still seen The Dark Knight.

[number8]

I'm pretty sure that despite not having seen it on IMAX, I've still seen The Dark Knight.

Not the way Nolan envisioned it and wanted to present it.

I mean, feel free to say you don't care, that's all good, but that doesn't change the situation any.

[Wryan]

The Gamer trailer is awful shit. I've caught it twice this weekend seeing District 9 and IG, and I'm fairly convinced that I didn't even see any real footage. Fucking terrible editing and visual work. Hall looks awesome though.

[transmogrifier]

Crank is an odious piece of crap.

[Grouchy]

Crank is an odious piece of crap.
For people with no fun cells, maybe.

[Ivan Drago]

For people with no fun cells, maybe.

You, me and Sven must be the only ones with fun cells here.

[megladon8]

You, me and Sven must be the only ones with fun cells here.


I love Crank too.

[Sven]

Qrazy: surely you can analyze an aesthetic on its own, but whether or not it works on its own does not indicate its ability to function within the trappings of a film. You can say it looks bad all you want, but you won't know until you've seen the film whether this "badness" is not a design. I do not do "art for art's sake."

Other than that, I'm not sure how to approach your response, because clearly we're not on the same page. I am neither frustrated nor desperate, but rather trying to have a conversation about the capacity one has to gauge a film's quality based on its trailer. But since you are more interested in trying to prove the correctness of your opinion rather than discuss possibilities, I will drop it. (So I guess I'm a little frustrated at not being on the same page.)

Also, racist, violent dialogue and action can be just as emotionally useful as dreamy, graceful meditative stuff. And this "semi-relativistic" accusation you thrust at me is hardly such. I think I just don't have a sense of how you use words. You're very assertive with things that are generally accepted as open for interpretation or impossible to objectively discern, like a filmmaker's intentions or one's emotional experience: you say "I will bite with emotionally moving, it's not... the Crank films are not even aiming for fleshed out characterizations." I was emotionally involved and moved by Crank, Qrazy. What does that mean? Am I wrong? If so, I'd much prefer being accused of being relativistic than of being a blowhard. And "fleshed out" is a prime example of what I was talking about when I said that I don't understand how you use words. Because "fleshed out" is a shorthand cliche that doesn't describe any schemes or methods to me. And you're inability to see how, semantically, my introduction of the quoted "forgettable" and "exciting" terms did not, in any way, suggest that you used those terms indicates to me that I am not using words in a way that you understand.

I praise and love the Crank films exactly for what they achieve and I'm pretty tired of being told I'm not. I'm smarter than that, by God, and of course I know how to differentiate between conventionally "good" and "bad" lighting and composition schemes. So, say what you will, I'm done.

[Ivan Drago]

I love Crank too.

Then you, too, have fun cells. Love the avatar, by the way.

All this talk of Crank made me want to rewatch it today - still nothing short of awesome. Can't wait for Crank 2 on DVD in 2 weeks, or the possible rumors of a 3rd movie...in 3D. :eek:

[number8]

Healthy cells > Fun cells.

And a healthy cell would certainly look at a movie like Crank, spits into a tin cup and say "Welllp. Sure is a powerfully shit-sandwich of a picture ya got there, no mistake about it."

[Philosophe_rouge]

I am also a fan of Crank

[Rowland]

I'll throw my hat in as another Crank lover. I didn't catch the sequel in theaters, so I'm looking forward to the DVD release.

[B-side]

I'll throw my hat in as another Crank lover. I didn't catch the sequel in theaters, so I'm looking forward to the DVD release.

This is what I was going to say exactly.

[Morris Schæffer]

Crank is an odious piece of crap.

It's pretty unbearable yeah.

[D_Davis]

I praise and love the Crank films exactly for what they achieve and I'm pretty tired of being told I'm not. I'm smarter than that, by God, and of course I know how to differentiate between conventionally "good" and "bad" lighting and composition schemes. So, say what you will, I'm done.


Shouldn't you say 'by time,' or 'by entropy,' or something?

;)

I like how passionately you defend and enjoy Crank - it's cool. And you present yourself quite well. Although you haven't convinced me that the film is anything but OK.

[Sven]

Shouldn't you say 'by time,' or 'by entropy,' or something?

;)

Hey, if Gould and Hawking and Einstein and Sagan can refer to universal operation as "God," then, by God, so can I!


I like how passionately you defend and enjoy Crank - it's cool. And you present yourself quite well. Although you haven't convinced me that the film is anything but OK.

Well, to be fair to myself, I have not here given any reasons to like the film. I was simply trying to defend it from slander. I've actually got, gestating, a piece on Crank that I was going to do for my college film department's miscarried journal experiment. When it is done, I will post it, I'm sure.

[number8]

Haha, Sam Worthington seems to think that Cameron underwhelmed people on purpose:


'I read what was said yesterday about the trailer, and I can see their point, but it's not built for an Apple Mac. It's built for IMAX. It's built for 3D. It's what he's designed it for, he's designed it to bring people back into the cinema.'

'It's interesting that he's released that trailer, that Jim's gone and done that, and the next day he's releasing it on IMAX. From one extreme to the other - we get criticism and then we get rave reviews. That's obviously going to get people to think and go, 'Damn right, I'm going to see this at the cinema.' That's what Jim's always said to me, that he wanted to bring people back to the movies, and he's a smart enough man to be that tactical.'

[Morris Schæffer]

http://www.empireonline.com/images/image_index/hw800/36059.jpg

[Morris Schæffer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5LyXiFUSbI

A blurry, though extended scene with Sam waking up at the operation table. Already looks way more promising than what was glimpsed in the trailer.

[Dukefrukem]

Wow..... i can't wait. i really cna't. I cna't believe I just watched that. I told myself no more trailers, videos, anything.

[Morris Schæffer]

Ebert on Avatar:


A preview of Cameron's "Avatar"--
we find life, and go to war with it


by Roger Ebert / August 21, 2009


Printer-friendly »
E-mail this to a friend »




I'm hoping that James Cameron's "Avatar," opening in December, will be a terrific film. But I was underwhelmed by about 15 minutes of preview footage I saw in 3-D on Friday night. The same footage has been widely shown around the country.

This is a film that Cameron has had in preparation in one form or another ever since he was filming "Titanic" in 1997. That became the top-grossing movie of all time, raising incredible hopes for "Avatar," reflected in its reputed $200 million budget. Cameron revealed his intention to use motion-capture animation to create several characters who would be entirely computer-generated, and others about whom you could never be quite sure.

The preview begins however, with actual human Marines being briefed for a tour of duty on an alien moon named Pandora, which is inhabited by humanoid beings named the Na'vi--and many other creatures, says a Marine sergeant, who want to rip them to pieces and "eat your eyeballs like jujubes." Humans cannot live on Pandora, but the paralyzed ex-Marine hero named Sully is given an avatar--a body that seems to be a native Na'vi--nine feet tall, skinny, blue, and with a tail.

In this body, Sully operates on Pandora, bonds with the Na'vi, and does battle with the savage creatures. Why he does this is not explained; the Na'vi apparently coexist peacefully with these denizens. Armed at first with a machine gun and later only with spears and knives, Sully faces monsters much taller, faster and stronger than he is. But he dodges them, outruns them, and in one case actually lassos a giant flying reptile and tames it to act as his steed. This may add up to a terrific story in the complete film. I hope so.

There is also footage of Marine helicopter gunships going into battle on Pandora. A trailer for the film informs us there are 70 million times 70 million stars in the universe, and suggests one of these may shed its light on a place with life. Since Pandora is the home of life, it seems a little odd to go to all the trouble of finding it and then going to war with its life forms. What is the human objective?

Stamp out all other life in the universe?

There's a brief shot of Sully's avatar and Neytira, a female Na'vi, about to kiss. The biology, physiology and mechanics of sex between a Na'vi and an avatar controlled by a human mind is intriguing. "Was it as good for you as I had the illusion that it was for me?"

After writing a blog entry months ago that was dubious about the future of 3-D, I was assured by countless pre-fans of "Avatar" that it would change the entire outlook for that technology. This is not the time to revisit the subject of 3-D. I will only react to what I actually saw.

3-D on the giant (original) IMAX screen, with their oversize and comfortable glasses, remains the best way to see 3-D. That's especially true because the IMAX process allows adequate light levels to be projected onto the screen, and I've never seen 3-D in a regular theater that wasn't dimmed.

I sat through the preview footage twice, the first time at the end of the back row. There was a subtle but noticeable lack of perfect registration between the dimensions. The second time I was smack dab in the center. This was the exact same seat from which I saw the IMAX 3-D presentations of "Beowulf' and "The Polar Express," the best two uses of the process I have ever seen. From that seat, the registration was perfect, and the 3-D illusion worked.

Cameron does, however, make the mistake common in recent action pictures, of cutting the action so quickly its placement in time and space is unclear. Much of the footage of Sully fighting the creatures is so close to the front of the picture and so rapidly cut that we never visually understand quite where Sully is in relationship to the position of the monster seemingly prepared to overwhelm him.

The flying reptiles present another challenge. How do you depict creatures that large (say, 25 feet long) that flap their wings quickly enough to fly? Cameron doesn't. They flap their wings far too slowly, and not particularly believably or smoothly; The effect reminded me of the flying horses in Ray Harryhausen's "Clash of the Titans" (1981).

One other detail. You'd expect every cut in this brief preview footage to be perfect. But when Sully almost falls into a vast chasm but grabs a tree root to save himself, he uses his strong arms to drag himself back up to the ledge. This action is completed in a shot from a higher POV that doesn't match, and amounts to a continuity error.

The complete film remains to be seen. Both groups I saw the preview with applauded. Cameron is reportedly still in post-production. He has made films I admired enormously ("Aliens," "Terminator 2," "The Abyss," "Titanic"). I hope he does it again.

[Dukefrukem]

Interesting first impressions. That's also good to know where to sit at IMAX. I had no idea the affects of 3D were different.

[MadMan]

I saw a preview for this last night when I went to see QT's latest. I'm not quite sure what to think of it all, aside from "Damn that was weird, and I'm strangely interested."

[number8]

As to be expected, Hitler ain't happy.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAPyipuT-Jg&feature=related)

[Sven]

As to be expected, Hitler ain't happy.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAPyipuT-Jg&feature=related)

Nice. Love that clip. Perfect example of a performance being much better than the film.

[Ezee E]

I doubt I could ever watch that scene normally now. I'm surprised at how many good versions of that scene there are though. Can't think of the funniest one I've seen.

[Scar]

As to be expected, Hitler ain't happy.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAPyipuT-Jg&feature=related)

I love a good Hitler.

[MadMan]

I doubt I could ever watch that scene normally now. I'm surprised at how many good versions of that scene there are though. Can't think of the funniest one I've seen.Same here. I'd probably burst out laughing the minute I saw it. The one they did with Hitler's negative reaction to the Cowboys losing to the Giants last season just might be my favorite.

[KK2.0]

recap of the current topics:

-Avatar Day had empty theaters? shit, tickets for the Sao Paulo screening vanished in seconds, i wonder if a lot of people gave up at the last minute and they were giving away tickets at the theater for anyone... i tryed to get one but couldn't.

-Yes, the 3D effect is better if you're seated at the middle of the theater or a bit closer to the screen, in order to fully wrap your field of vision.

-Crank was a blast.


Anyway, I want a really awesome fantasy sci-fi epic and this looks like it could deliver.

my thoughts exactly.

[Qrazy]

Qrazy: surely you can analyze an aesthetic on its own, but whether or not it works on its own does not indicate its ability to function within the trappings of a film. You can say it looks bad all you want, but you won't know until you've seen the film whether this "badness" is not a design. I do not do "art for art's sake."

The only films I can think of where poorly lit shots are an integral part of the design are Dogme films, but frankly I think those films could have been well lit and still been as successful (Festen for example). At least in so far as the filmmakers would be able to recapture the performances (not worrying about lighting perhaps aided in capturing certain characterizations).

But in general out of everything a film has to offer it's visual aesthetic is what interests me most (just because I really like cinematography not because I feel that everyone should value it as much as I do). You're absolutely right that an aesthetic changes in the juxtaposition of elements but where we disagree it seems is that I believe individual shots have their own aesthetic as well which can be evaluated (or at least approximated) even in trailer form.


Other than that, I'm not sure how to approach your response, because clearly we're not on the same page. I am neither frustrated nor desperate, but rather trying to have a conversation about the capacity one has to gauge a film's quality based on its trailer. But since you are more interested in trying to prove the correctness of your opinion rather than discuss possibilities, I will drop it. (So I guess I'm a little frustrated at not being on the same page.)

I agree that we're not on the same page (I think this is primarily an issue of how we judge aesthetic) but still I think it's silly to say I'm the one interested in trying to prove the correctness of my opinion when you spent most of the last post repeatedly asserting your correctness.


Also, racist, violent dialogue and action can be just as emotionally useful as dreamy, graceful meditative stuff. And this "semi-relativistic" accusation you thrust at me is hardly such. I think I just don't have a sense of how you use words. You're very assertive with things that are generally accepted as open for interpretation or impossible to objectively discern, like a filmmaker's intentions or one's emotional experience: you say "I will bite with emotionally moving, it's not... the Crank films are not even aiming for fleshed out characterizations." I was emotionally involved and moved by Crank, Qrazy. What does that mean? Am I wrong? If so, I'd much prefer being accused of being relativistic than of being a blowhard.

A filmmaker's intentions can be discerned. You frequently conflate wide and narrow scope definitions thereby lapsing into relativistic territory. You're right that one can not evaluate the wide scope definition of a filmmaker's 'intention'. We can't know every single element a filmmaker intended. However, we can make judgments about narrow scope definitions concerning their intention. For instance when Orson Welles writes a memorandum to a production company stating that they have cut his film improperly, and that he would like it to be cut differently, the memorandum is closer to his intentions than the way the film was actually cut.

Alternatively we can also say that it was not the intention of the directors of Crank to create a thematically deep film, with particularly nuanced characterizations. Their intention was to create an adrenaline rush of a film where much of the humor comes from treating characters as objects and the style functions as an (everything but the kitchen sink) hyperactive extension of a grand theft auto video game. Sure they put in a few character moments and imbue the hero's journey with a little emotion, but that is not the primary purpose of the film. You are not wrong to be emotionally involved or moved by Crank but I simply feel you are being disingenuous with your use of those terms and the degree to which you were moved/involved. Just as you are being disingenuous when you label Chev as an incredibly multi-dimensional character. In what ways is he this? I also know people who were moved by Bay's Pearl Harbor. I guess they're not wrong to feel that way per se, but it's worth pointing out to them that there are more moving films out there.


And "fleshed out" is a prime example of what I was talking about when I said that I don't understand how you use words. Because "fleshed out" is a shorthand cliche that doesn't describe any schemes or methods to me. And you're inability to see how, semantically, my introduction of the quoted "forgettable" and "exciting" terms did not, in any way, suggest that you used those terms indicates to me that I am not using words in a way that you understand.

'Fleshed out' were two words I used in a much larger block of text. Those two words had little importance in the greater scheme of the argument. I could further elaborate them here but I don't see that there would be much point, seeing as you've ignored most of my post and are merely focusing on minor pedantic quibbles.


I praise and love the Crank films exactly for what they achieve and I'm pretty tired of being told I'm not. I'm smarter than that, by God, and of course I know how to differentiate between conventionally "good" and "bad" lighting and composition schemes. So, say what you will, I'm done.

Right because we're primarily talking about the Crank films and not say The Gamer and Avatar trailers... both of which you've still said largely nothing about.

But by all means build those straw men and continue to divert the discussion if you feel you need company upon The Field of Irrelevant Points. Because now you're just playing the 'you can't/have no right to judge why I like something' card which has little to nothing to do with my central premise, which is that The Gamer trailer does not look better than The Avatar trailer.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I doubt I could ever watch that scene normally now. I'm surprised at how many good versions of that scene there are though. Can't think of the funniest one I've seen.

Best one I've seen has to be the one where he learns his HD-DVD has lost the war.

[Mysterious Dude]

Does this Crank discussion have anything to do with Avatar? If not, could we possibly take it outside?

[Sven]

Sorry everyone!


The only films I can think of where poorly lit shots are an integral part of the design are Dogme films, but frankly I think those films could have been well lit and still been as successful (Festen for example). At least in so far as the filmmakers would be able to recapture the performances (not worrying about lighting perhaps aided in capturing certain characterizations).

But in general out of everything a film has to offer it's visual aesthetic is what interests me most (just because I really like cinematography not because I feel that everyone should value it as much as I do). You're absolutely right that an aesthetic changes in the juxtaposition of elements but where we disagree it seems is that I believe individual shots have their own aesthetic as well which can be evaluated (or at least approximated) even in trailer form.

Okay. So you have an idea of what's good and regardless of semantic content or context are okay with judging a picture simply on its own. That is fair. Not my way of looking at it (I find the practice of gauging image for image sake, tone for tone sake, shape for shape sake, etc, to be terribly reductive).

How about this: Avatar looks conventionally better than Gamer. I will agree with that statement.


I agree that we're not on the same page (I think this is primarily an issue of how we judge aesthetic) but still I think it's silly to say I'm the one interested in trying to prove the correctness of my opinion when you spent most of the last post repeatedly asserting your correctness.

I am coming from a vantage point where I am correct. You are coming from one where you are. I am trying to defend my correctness against your accusations that I am not. I'm just responding to what is given me.


A filmmaker's intentions can be discerned. You frequently conflate wide and narrow scope definitions thereby lapsing into relativistic territory. You're right that one can not evaluate the wide scope definition of a filmmaker's 'intention'. We can't know every single element a filmmaker intended. However, we can make judgments about narrow scope definitions concerning their intention. For instance when Orson Welles writes a memorandum to a production company stating that they have cut his film improperly, and that he would like it to be cut differently, the memorandum is closer to his intentions than the way the film was actually cut.

Alternatively we can also say that it was not the intention of the directors of Crank to create a thematically deep film, with particularly nuanced characterizations. Their intention was to create an adrenaline rush of a film where much of the humor comes from treating characters as objects and the style functions as an (everything but the kitchen sink) hyperactive extension of a grand theft auto video game. Sure they put in a few character moments and imbue the hero's journey with a little emotion, but that is not the primary purpose of the film. You are not wrong to be emotionally involved or moved by Crank but I simply feel you are being disingenuous with your use of those terms and the degree to which you were moved/involved. Just as you are being disingenuous when you label Chev as an incredibly multi-dimensional character. In what ways is he this? I also know people who were moved by Bay's Pearl Harbor. I guess they're not wrong to feel that way per se, but it's worth pointing out to them that there are more moving films out there.

First of all, authors frequently speak about a text meaning more than what they want. They speak of characters "achieving lives of their own" and for spreading messages that they either do not intend or concede to the possibility of subconscious influence (this, too, is largely assuming the honesty of authors, which, because they craft fiction for a living, should always be largely questioned).

Secondly, surely a text speaks of its author's intentions, but the degree to which it does so successfully and the degrees to which we project those intentions onto the work are entirely subjective. Of course Neveldine/Taylor wanted to make an action film. Largely, their reason for making the film was an excuse to employ video experimentation. Does this mean that I don't mean it when I say I was "moved"? Clearly not. As I was. In terms that I have used. And it was their doing. So stop being presumptuous.

Third, could you not say that Pearl Harbor was made to be emotional? It is an epic romance as much as it is a war film. So your conflation of the incorrectness of emotional involvement in both Pearl Harbor and Crank is either being condescending or not properly engaging the metaphor. Your use of the phrase "more moving" is quite difficult to not gag at, because it assumes objective emotion, which, practically by definition, they are not.

Last thing, I see nothing wrong with a relativistic perception. It's not like I'm saying that hungry children shouldn't be fed. These are movies. You can like yours, I can like mine. There is too much intelligent tumult between opposing factions of aesthetic theory for me to take a concrete stand on whether or not John Leguizamo's washed out face is a plus or minus.


'Fleshed out' were two words I used in a much larger block of text. Those two words had little importance in the greater scheme of the argument. I could further elaborate them here but I don't see that there would be much point, seeing as you've ignored most of my post and are merely focusing on minor pedantic quibbles.

That you cannot discern that this was an illustrative aside and not the crux of my concern again speaks of same-page issues. I was trying to respond to your post as a whole and I used that bit to show why it was pointless for me to give you a point-by-point, which was my point. I'm sure only you and I are reading these exchanges, though if I've learned anything, it's that there is no end to Match Cut masochism.


Right because we're primarily talking about the Crank films and not say The Gamer and Avatar trailers... both of which you've still said largely nothing about.

I've said all I need to about them. Gamer looks better. That's all I have to say. I COULD build a case, but I never proposed to, and when prompted to, it was by someone historically unwilling to engage civilly with aesthetic concepts outside his narrow scope.


But by all means build those straw men and continue to divert the discussion if you feel you need company upon The Field of Irrelevant Points. Because now you're just playing the 'you can't/have no right to judge why I like something' card which has little to nothing to do with my central premise, which is that The Gamer trailer does not look better than The Avatar trailer.

I really don't know what these "straw men" are. I understand the concept, but I don't know how I'm doing this. Perhaps you can give me examples and tell me how I'm doing this so I can avoid it in the future.

And of course you do have a right to judge why I like something. But you DON'T have the right to insist that my feelings are not genuine. You can secretly suspect, that I have no problem with, but you cannot insist it.

I guess technically you have the right to do that. But don't. Because then people won't like you. Of course I like you, Q, otherwise I wouldn't talk to you (why would I talk to people I don't like?). Conversations with you are informative exercises in rhetoric. But I really don't like that it sometimes seems like you're talking down to people. This, much like your preference for conventional lighting, is terribly bourgeois, which I find contemptible, being a self-loathing middle-classer myself.

[Sven]

Does this Crank discussion have anything to do with Avatar? If not, could we possibly take it outside?

I offered to. Q would have none of it.

[megladon8]

I don't think Antoine has the proper qualifications for the title of "Forum Police".

[Sycophant]

I'm tempted to create a thread called "A Room" that Sven and Qrazy can get.

Insert winking smiley or whatever.

[Sven]

I don't think Antoine has the proper qualifications for the title of "Forum Police".

I don't think it's improper to suggest, though. Anyway, I do agree with him. I feel bad for all the furri..er, fans looking forward to this one having to weed through all these argumentatively-circular tome-sized posts that are only cursorily related to things having to do with something someone said in the same sentence as "Avatar" once.

[Sycophant]

Up to this point, the word "photorealism" hasn't been uttered on this page, so I'm just grateful for that.

[Qrazy]

Does this Crank discussion have anything to do with Avatar? If not, could we possibly take it outside?

The discussion shouldn't be especially about Crank at all really. If Sven would return to the Avatar trailer (perhaps he has in the post above, I haven't read it yet) than the discussion would be on topic.

[Sven]

The discussion shouldn't be especially about Crank at all really. If Sven would return to the Avatar trailer (perhaps he has in the post above, I haven't read it yet) than the discussion would be on topic.

I don't need to do anything. You're the one who brought Crank into it. I just said Gamer looked better.

[megladon8]

If I was told I could go see either Gamer or Avatar for free today, I'd probably pick Gamer.

[Sven]

If I was told I could go see either Gamer or Avatar for free today, I'd probably pick Gamer.

*fist pump

[Qrazy]

I don't need to do anything. You're the one who brought Crank into it. I just said Gamer looked better.

I brought Crank into it to expand on my position concerning the Gamer trailer. You expanded the Crank discussion and pushed aside the trailer discussion presumably because you have nothing to say about why you think one trailer looks better than the other.

[Sven]

presumably because you have nothing to say about why you think one trailer looks better than the other.

You don't actually presume this. If you do, so long, Q, and may we never speak again.

[megladon8]

I think Sven has given plenty of reason why he thinks the Gamer trailer looks better than Avatar.

Plus, add to it the fact that Sven is a huge fan of the Crank films, and if I remember correctly not so much a fan of James Cameron's stuff in the past, and it makes pretty good sense to me...

[Qrazy]

Third, could you not say that Pearl Harbor was made to be emotional? It is an epic romance as much as it is a war film. So your conflation of the incorrectness of emotional involvement in both Pearl Harbor and Crank is either being condescending or not properly engaging the metaphor. Your use of the phrase "more moving" is quite difficult to not gag at, because it assumes objective emotion, which, practically by definition, they are not.

I may be moved to tears by a pornographic film involving my grandmother, but that says nothing about the quality of that work. Again if you do not accept that there are any objective artistic qualities (which is not to say that taste is objective) and you insist that Pearl Harbor (and Crank) in relation to their construction and craftsmanship, are as emotionally involving pieces of cinema as the most emotionally nuanced films out there, than I see no point in continuing this discussion as we will constantly be talking across purposes.


I've said all I need to about them. Gamer looks better. That's all I have to say. I COULD build a case, but I never proposed to, and when prompted to, it was by someone historically unwilling to engage civilly with aesthetic concepts outside his narrow scope.

My aesthetic scope is quite broad actually (for instance I consider Al Ruban, Nykvist and Tarkovsky all interesting visualists) but it does have its limits.


I really don't know what these "straw men" are. I understand the concept, but I don't know how I'm doing this. Perhaps you can give me examples and tell me how I'm doing this so I can avoid it in the future.

I am not at your beck and call. Elaborate on your position in relation to the Gamer and Avatar trailers and I will clarify your straw men for you.


And of course you do have a right to judge why I like something. But you DON'T have the right to insist that my feelings are not genuine. You can secretly suspect, that I have no problem with, but you cannot insist it.

I am perfectly within my right to state that Chev is not an especially multidimensional figure and to question how moved you truly were. But you again skirt real answers and simply act as if you are being attacked. So when you say you were moved what does that mean? What moved you? All I suggested was that the degree to which you were implying you were moved was not as high as you were implying. So I guess you are now saying that I was wrong and it is that high. OK then, sorry I was wrong, you were truly, deeply moved by this film. So is this one of the most moving films you've seen? What especially moved you about these characters?


I guess technically you have the right to do that. But don't. Because then people won't like you. Of course I like you, Q, otherwise I wouldn't talk to you (why would I talk to people I don't like?). Conversations with you are informative exercises in rhetoric. But I really don't like that it sometimes seems like you're talking down to people. This, much like your preference for conventional lighting, is terribly bourgeois, which I find contemptible, being a self-loathing middle-classer myself.

I'll worry about who does and does not like me. You worry about trying to have an actual conversation where you discuss a topic without resorting to critiquing the character of the person you're speaking to. But I don't find your tactics bourgeois (in fact I find the notion of using bourgeois as a put down laughably archaic), I simply find your approach incredibly hollow and lazy.

[Qrazy]

I think Sven has given plenty of reason why he thinks the Gamer trailer looks better than Avatar.


Cite?

[Qrazy]

You don't actually presume this. If you do, so long, Q, and may we never speak again.

I can't think of any other reason why you'd skirt the issue.

[Sven]

I can't think of any other reason why you'd skirt the issue.

Then you have no imagination, nor are you willing to apply a historically tempered and well-reasoned voice (my own, sorry for the tacky self congratulation) to a simply stated opinion. I can no longer have dialogues with you. It is too maddening and time-consuming.

[megladon8]

Cite?


He's spent the whole time talking about everything from the framing and lighting of the action, to the adrenaline in Chelios constantly altering his current wants/needs/objectives so as to keep the film totally unpredictable and fresh at all times.

I really don't think he could say anymore. Clearly it's just a case of, Sven loves Crank and you don't. No one's going to change their positions here...you might as well be an Atheist and a Catholic Priest arguing about the existence of God. No one's convincing anyone of anything.

[Sven]

Again if you do not accept that there are any objective artistic qualities (which is not to say that taste is objective) and you insist that Pearl Harbor (and Crank) in relation to their construction and craftsmanship, are as emotionally involving pieces of cinema as the most emotionally nuanced films out there

Oh, I know, I know. THIS is a straw man, right?

[Ezee E]

If offered to see one for free, I'd see Avatar because the ticket would cost more, than I'd pay to see Gamer.

That should be a duh response.

[Qrazy]

He's spent the whole time talking about everything from the framing and lighting of the action, to the adrenaline in Chelios constantly altering his current wants/needs/objectives so as to keep the film totally unpredictable and fresh at all times.

I really don't think he could say anymore. Clearly it's just a case of, Sven loves Crank and you don't. No one's going to change their positions here...you might as well be an Atheist and a Catholic Priest arguing about the existence of God. No one's convincing anyone of anything.

I don't see what any of that has to do with the Gamer or Avatar trailers.

[Qrazy]

Oh, I know, I know. THIS is a straw man, right?

If that's not what you are saying, then yes it would be a straw man. But if it's not what you're saying, then what are you saying? Because it seemed to me that in an above post you were saying that Pearl Harbor could be viewed as very moving (by someone, neither of us presumably) and thus we would not be able to say anything about the qualities in the film which illicit that moving response or about the response itself. Anyway I do not wish to talk about being moved because it is too vague a term. I would prefer to discuss how dramatically successful something is (in terms of the performances, the writing and the direction)... and further refine that to how dramatically successful it is at illiciting a certain emotion which would in this case I guess be empathy.

[megladon8]

For someone who constantly throws the "straw man" label on peoples' arguments, you're probably the worst offender yourself.

Look at your own tendency to be totally dismissive of what people are saying in favor of continuing an already played-out argument before you start criticizing other peoples' posts.

[D_Davis]

I'd pay to see Avatar, while Gamer looks like something I'd enjoy as a free movie On Demand.

[number8]

I will most likely not pay for either Avatar or Gamer.

[D_Davis]

I would pay Number8 to watch Avatar, but I would not pay him to see Gamer.

[number8]

That's just because the film hits too close to home for you, gamer.

[Qrazy]

For someone who constantly throws the "straw man" label on peoples' arguments, you're probably the worst offender yourself.

Look at your own tendency to be totally dismissive of what people are saying in favor of continuing an already played-out argument before you start criticizing other peoples' posts.

I'm still waiting for you to say something that makes sense here.

I asked Sven to talk about the Gamer and Avatar trailers.

He didn't.

You said he did.

I said where.

You said he spoke about Crank.

I said that's not Gamer or Avatar.

And then you posted the above nonsense.

[megladon8]

I really wish we still had neg rep sometimes.

[Qrazy]

I really wish we still had neg rep sometimes.

I really wish you and Sven would try harder.

[megladon8]

I really wish you and Sven would try harder.


I still see nothing wrong with anything Sven wrote.

It's purely a difference of opinion that you are confusing with objective fact.

[Qrazy]

I still see nothing wrong with anything Sven wrote.

It's purely a difference of opinion that you are confusing with objective fact.

I'm not really confusing it with objective fact in the slightest. He said it looks better, I said I did not think it looks better and elaborated on why. He has not elaborated on his initial position except to rebuff my criticisms of The Gamer trailer. We agree to disagree as per a fundamental disagreement about the nature of evaluating aesthetics. We then spoke about Crank for a while, I did not particularly care to, but I did anyway. For the sake of clarity here's what I think about Crank. I think it's a relatively enjoyable action film frequently humorous and with a unique energy. On the flip side it's also jammed to the brim with a lot of ugliness, a number of scenes don't really work, most of the characters are one note, it's incredibly indulgent and there's nothing especially formally rigorous or emotionally mature about the film.

[D_Davis]

That's just because the film hits too close to home for you, gamer.

It's like watching me.

[lovejuice]

someone pm me when the tuxedo is brought into this discussion.

[number8]

I will most likely not pay for either Avatar or Gamer.

Scratch that. Just found out that there will be no press screening for GAMER.

Boo.

[Sven]

I really wish you and Sven would try harder.

In my estimation, the only thing I need to try harder at doing is being patient with the amount of time it takes to have a discourse online. I mean, yeah, I could try and point-by-point every post and give you all kinds of reasonings and postulates and stuff. But damn, son, that takes time. I've got guitars to play and languages to learn. We were arguing about different things using different models and both ought to try harder at maintaining civility. Maybe I should try harder at being patient and maybe you should try harder at not sounding like a caustic art snob.

Or better, let's stop telling other people where they are deficient. Because I don't agree to disagree, ever, let's agree on this, my reasoning for why I want to see Gamer more than Avatar:

Gamer looks like a crazier, less formally rigorous film than Avatar, with potentially highly problematic material that, given the history of its filmmakers, will probably leave much for the conventional audience to desire. Avatar looks like a sweeping, expensively made picture with lots of neat colors and special effects and potentially more human drama than Gamer, which looks like a vehicle for excessive action. Both appear to be high concept fantasies with intriguing elements surrounding the nature of autonomy and proxy control (which affect that perennial sci-fi concern: identity). It appears that the scenario of Gamer has more immediate relevance, given our society of second lives, reality television, and digital proliferation. Speaking strictly of artistic relevance, one could project Cameron's history onto the project and assume it will be more successful in its aims, given Cameron's critical successes, interest in technology, and reputation with those inclined to be interested in sci-fi. One could conversely cite the tremendous zeitgeist tapping talent of Neveldine/Taylor with their Crank films, which are demonstrative of music video aesthetics (consciously employing the familiar forms of expressing youthful kinetic tendencies - changing style, lenses, filters, shutter speeds, etc, depending on the focal point of the scene - as well as tying specific music to specific video - whereas someone like Cameron seems more comfortable with orthodox Hollywood scores), dynamic action set-ups frequently punctuated with form-based punchlines ("Whatchyumean'ding'? Whatchyumean'ding'?! Whatchyumean'ding'?!?!" being the perfect example of working a hilarious sight gag into a well-drawn geographical set-up that is used for action-oriented tension... see also Chelios's motorcycle ride set to Nilsson and the brilliant climax on top of the building where Statham's character, so collected, makes Verona cringe with a pointed finger), and, yes, a practically surrealist humanism that manages to be true to its grimy self (complaints about its ugliness are only making it stronger) while maintaining a democratic faith in every character. People do business, someone tries to cheat the company a little and the company tries to fire him. Fair is fair, everyone's doing their job as resourcefully as possible. What makes Crank and to a lesser extent in Crank 2, and thus the entirety of Neveldine/Taylor's body of features, truly special is how Statham's character's transgression is motivated by that poetic force that is said to be the fuel of all life: love. Right? So here is a character motivated by love impossibly moving his body through this system that, governed by the laws of human nature and capitalistic evolution, will normalize with him dead, all the while attempting to use his ingenuity to sustain his libido from moment to moment. To me, this is a very viable (and moving) model of literary social function and an appropriately philosophical basis for a modern approach to technological narratives and lifestyles, particularly given its extreme range of visual perspectives.

So with this brief appraisal of Neveldine/Taylor and Cameron's mutual artistic histories, my preference should not even be a question. An in depth appraisal would be a slaughter.

[Dukefrukem]

It's like watching me.

and me

[Qrazy]

I'm moving the part of your post and my response about Crank to the Crank 2 thread because I think you're right that it should be there I just didn't realize we were going to be spending so much time discussing Crank.


Because I don't agree to disagree, ever.

Weird.


Gamer looks like a crazier, less formally rigorous film than Avatar, with potentially highly problematic material that, given the history of its filmmakers, will probably leave much for the conventional audience to desire. Avatar looks like a sweeping, expensively made picture with lots of neat colors and special effects and potentially more human drama than Gamer, which looks like a vehicle for excessive action. Both appear to be high concept fantasies with intriguing elements surrounding the nature of autonomy and proxy control (which affect that perennial sci-fi concern: identity). It appears that the scenario of Gamer has more immediate relevance, given our society of second lives, reality television, and digital proliferation. Speaking strictly of artistic relevance, one could project Cameron's history onto the project and assume it will be more successful in its aims, given Cameron's critical successes, interest in technology, and reputation with those inclined to be interested in sci-fi. One could conversely cite the tremendous zeitgeist tapping talent of Neveldine/Taylor with their Crank films, which are demonstrative of music video aesthetics (consciously employing the familiar forms of expressing youthful kinetic tendencies - changing style, lenses, filters, shutter speeds, etc, depending on the focal point of the scene - as well as tying specific music to specific video - whereas someone like Cameron seems more comfortable with orthodox Hollywood scores), dynamic action set-ups frequently punctuated with form-based punchlines ("Whatchyumean'ding'? Whatchyumean'ding'?! Whatchyumean'ding'?!?!" being the perfect example of working a hilarious sight gag into a well-drawn geographical set-up that is used for action-oriented tension... see also Chelios's motorcycle ride set to Nilsson and the brilliant climax on top of the building where Statham's character, so collected, makes Verona cringe with a pointed finger).

I don't view labeling something traditional as a severe criticism. Although I'm not sure Avatar will even be especially traditional given what we know of the story and the nature of the production. Although it will probably be well shot (neat colors?), contain human drama, and an original score versus an assorted soundtrack (both of these work in different contexts?). I'm not quite sure what you find to be so inventively original about the Crank films though. They seem to me merely a less formally rigorous extension of the Tarantino/Guy Ritchie zeitgeist although pushed to further cartoony/videogamey extremes (perhaps indebted to Stephen Chow as well).


So with this brief appraisal of Neveldine/Taylor and Cameron's mutual artistic histories, my preference should not even be a question. An in depth appraisal would be a slaughter.

I never wished you to give a more in depth appraisal than what you posted above. Although I'm not sure what you are referring to with your final sentence... a subjective slaughter (?) in relation to your own tastes given your preference for action oriented humor, zeitgeist tapping, visual amalgamation and a surplus of kinetic violence over 'high budget', 'traditional' filmmaking?

[Sven]

Weird.

It's because I'm not interested in discussion concluding in oppositional spheres. Ideally, all discourse should end in a zone of mutual understanding. Agreeing to disagree is a redundant cop-out and leaves much to be desired.


I don't view labeling something traditional as a severe criticism. Although I'm not sure Avatar will even be especially traditional given what we know of the story and the nature of the production. Although it will probably be well shot (neat colors?), contain human drama, and an original score versus an assorted soundtrack (both of these work in different contexts?). I'm not quite sure what you find to be so inventively original about the Crank films though. They seem to me merely a less formally rigorous extension of the Tarantino/Guy Ritchie zeitgeist although pushed to further cartoony/videogamey extremes (perhaps indebted to Stephen Chow as well).

I don't view "traditional" as a severe criticism, though I do see its synonyms "orthodox" and "conventional" as close to severe critical considerations. And certainly what we know of Avatar's production doesn't speak of traditionalism, but the end product (as suggested by the trailer) did not look like a narrative peripheral to the conventions of standard science-fiction, and the visuals - the merit of which I find mostly in its strong palette - don't look particularly world-shattering (I'm thinking of Peter Jackson, mostly, who looks like he's constructed many of the same kind of creature shots). And while I am not opposed to the concept of standard scoring, I find that it is a rather simple element, whereas tying specific music to specific visuals (I'm talking moment for moment, not underscoring) is much more difficult to integrate into a narrative film. A well-written, well-applied score, the vast majority of the time, is generally used as a complement, but I appreciate it more when a film points to its score and addresses it as a part of the text.

And while I understand the Ritchie/Tarantino comparison, I think it's a pretty superficial connection (why not namedrop Letterier and Besson instead? The films' concerns are much more aligned with those influences, I think, even though I like them less than Ritchie and Tarantino). Ritchie and Tarantino are much more concerned with intertextuality, whereas they rarely dabble in what I feel to be Crank's primary impetus, being kinetic experimentation.


Although I'm not sure what you are referring to with your final sentence... a subjective slaughter (?) in relation to your own tastes given your preference for action oriented humor, zeitgeist tapping, visual amalgamation and a surplus of kinetic violence over 'high budget', 'traditional' filmmaking?

My use of "slaughter" was intended to mean that if I were to actually attempt to explicate, in-depth, my feelings, Cameron wouldn't stand a chance. As it stands, my preference is clear. In-depth, my preference would not only be clear, but would probably be violently unfair to Cameron given the tilt of my biases. As for "zeitgeist tapping," I rather regret pointing to that as a reasoning for my preference, because thinking about it, I really don't care about the zeitgeist, although I do find N/T's grappling of it admirable in its wittiness. I do think that those guys are more visually witty than Cameron. I don't think that's arguable, as I don't think visual wit is a concern of Cameron's, who appears more interested in grand spectacle than humor. Of course, I do think that N/T's idea of "spectacle" is preferable, too, as it finds what is large and awesome on a smaller scale. Without all the money.

[BuffaloWilder]

It's because I'm not interested in discussion concluding in oppositional spheres. Ideally, all discourse should end in a zone of mutual understanding. Agreeing to disagree is a redundant cop-out and leaves much to be desired.

But, that's just silly. Sometimes, it really is just a matter of personal preference - when it comes to that, it's pointless to continue. Thus, agreeing to disagree, you see.

[Sxottlan]

I had waited to see this before IB, but of course they didn't play it. So I had to watch it on my laptop even though I'd prefer to see it on the big screen first.

Now, eh. I don't know. I really don't care for the alien character design. I've just always found cat people goofy looking in fantasy and animation. Based on the trailer, although I never saw the movie, this just looks like that Battle for Terra film.

But I'm willing to wait and see more as obviously this isn't a lot.

[Sven]

But, that's just silly. Sometimes, it really is just a matter of personal preference - when it comes to that, it's pointless to continue. Thus, agreeing to disagree, you see.

But where does that preference come from? That's much more interesting than just saying "I like it."

Why?

Because of this.

Why do you like that?

When you agree to disagree, all you're doing is bringing it back to square one, where you both tacitly acknowledged disagreement. So what's the point then of having a dialogue? There would be none.

[transmogrifier]

But where does that preference come from? That's much more interesting than just saying "I like it."

Why?

Because of this.

Why do you like that?

When you agree to disagree, all you're doing is bringing it back to square one, where you both tacitly acknowledged disagreement. So what's the point then of having a dialogue? There would be none.

Weird. I would have thought the point of the dialogue was to see whether there was any point of connection between the two views. Just because none was found doesn't mean the search was a waste, does it?

[Kurosawa Fan]

Weird. I would have thought the point of the dialogue was to see whether there was any point of connection between the two views. Just because none was found doesn't mean the search was a waste, does it?

Yeah, I'm with trans on this one. You can't force what isn't there. Agree to disagree is the only option at times. The dialogue still served a purpose, even if that purpose was to see the greatness of the differing opinions. And you don't have to agree with someone to be able to see it from their perspective. You can understand where they're coming from, but still vehemently disagree with them.

[Qrazy]

It's because I'm not interested in discussion concluding in oppositional spheres. Ideally, all discourse should end in a zone of mutual understanding. Agreeing to disagree is a redundant cop-out and leaves much to be desired.

What everyone else said. Sometimes there's a fundamental ideological disagreement at the base of the specific disagreement and there's no point to continue the specific argument.


I don't view "traditional" as a severe criticism, though I do see its synonyms "orthodox" and "conventional" as close to severe critical considerations. And certainly what we know of Avatar's production doesn't speak of traditionalism, but the end product (as suggested by the trailer) did not look like a narrative peripheral to the conventions of standard science-fiction, and the visuals - the merit of which I find mostly in its strong palette - don't look particularly world-shattering (I'm thinking of Peter Jackson, mostly, who looks like he's constructed many of the same kind of creature shots). And while I am not opposed to the concept of standard scoring, I find that it is a rather simple element, whereas tying specific music to specific visuals (I'm talking moment for moment, not underscoring) is much more difficult to integrate into a narrative film. A well-written, well-applied score, the vast majority of the time, is generally used as a complement, but I appreciate it more when a film points to its score and addresses it as a part of the text.

OK, I don't agree with any of these perspectives, but OK.


And while I understand the Ritchie/Tarantino comparison, I think it's a pretty superficial connection (why not namedrop Letterier and Besson instead? The films' concerns are much more aligned with those influences, I think, even though I like them less than Ritchie and Tarantino). Ritchie and Tarantino are much more concerned with intertextuality, whereas they rarely dabble in what I feel to be Crank's primary impetus, being kinetic experimentation.

I have not seen any Letterier but he's much more of a contemporary so I doubt he informed their style that much. I could have mentioned Besson but I find him less similar frankly.

And no despite your statement suggesting otherwise I don't see it as a superficial connection in the slightest.

Also, how does Ritchie not dabble in kinetic experimentation?


My use of "slaughter" was intended to mean that if I were to actually attempt to explicate, in-depth, my feelings, Cameron wouldn't stand a chance. As it stands, my preference is clear. In-depth, my preference would not only be clear, but would probably be violently unfair to Cameron given the tilt of my biases. As for "zeitgeist tapping," I rather regret pointing to that as a reasoning for my preference, because thinking about it, I really don't care about the zeitgeist, although I do find N/T's grappling of it admirable in its wittiness. I do think that those guys are more visually witty than Cameron. I don't think that's arguable, as I don't think visual wit is a concern of Cameron's, who appears more interested in grand spectacle than humor. Of course, I do think that N/T's idea of "spectacle" is preferable, too, as it finds what is large and awesome on a smaller scale. Without all the money.

I don't see what budget has to do with quality. Although tangentially it is annoying when someone makes a 300 million dollar piece of trash because those resources could have been used for much better purposes.

[Sven]

What everyone else said. Sometimes there's a fundamental ideological disagreement at the base of the specific disagreement and there's no point to continue the specific argument.

Rather than terminating the argument, I prefer to attempt to locate this fundamental difference in ideology, so that I can sympathize with the argument.


Also, how does Ritchie not dabble in kinetic experimentation?

I guess he does, but a) not as I) much or II) effectively, and b) the impetus of his films does not appear to be such (he's more concerned with labyrinthine plotting and situating his films within traditions, gangster, heist, noir... playing with the format of the genre rather than the form of the film itself).


I don't see what budget has to do with quality. Although tangentially it is annoying when someone makes a 300 million dollar piece of trash because those resources could have been used for much better purposes.

Budget informs a film's value of production, which is seen on screen. It is maybe not correlative to quality, but it is certainly inextricable from what a film looks like. And since economical concern is so closely coded into that presentation, things take on a different reading. Say you're in a museum: you've got two paintings that are striped blue and red. One is 2'x2', the other is 20'x20'. One is bound to look at the gigantic one with a different mind than the smaller one.

Or: two mixed media works: statues made out of cash. One is made with $1s and $5s, the other is made with $100s and $1000s. You will look at at one differently than you will the other because you will have a knowledge of the financial investment in the work.

My original point was simply that my extratextual knowledge of the finances of both projects, and my own political leanings, informs my sympathies.

[Qrazy]

Rather than terminating the argument, I prefer to attempt to locate this fundamental difference in ideology, so that I can sympathize with the argument.

That's exactly the point. We did locate it, once it's located (the fundamental disagreement) there's not much more to discuss in terms of the specific disagreement.


I guess he does, but a) not as I) much or II) effectively, and b) the impetus of his films does not appear to be such (he's more concerned with labyrinthine plotting and situating his films within traditions, gangster, heist, noir... playing with the format of the genre rather than the form of the film itself).

Budget informs a film's value of production, which is seen on screen. It is maybe not correlative to quality, but it is certainly inextricable from what a film looks like. And since economical concern is so closely coded into that presentation, things take on a different reading. Say you're in a museum: you've got two paintings that are striped blue and red. One is 2'x2', the other is 20'x20'. One is bound to look at the gigantic one with a different mind than the smaller one.

Or: two mixed media works: statues made out of cash. One is made with $1s and $5s, the other is made with $100s and $1000s. You will look at at one differently than you will the other because you will have a knowledge of the financial investment in the work.

My original point was simply that my extratextual knowledge of the finances of both projects, and my own political leanings, informs my sympathies.

While perhaps evocative, I don't really see that your illustrative examples here sufficiently communicate a reason to prefer lower budget 'spectacles' in cinema. But if you're only trying to communicate your own preferences then I see where you're coming from.

[Raiders]

I see where you're coming from.

:pritch:

[Qrazy]

:pritch:

To be clear I understand that S holds those perspectives, I certainly don't endorse them (the traditional forms and budget discrepancy issues). All in all I just don't want to talk about it anymore.

I guess I"m agreeing (with myself?) to disagree to agree since S won't agree to disagree.

[Dukefrukem]

wow (http://spoilertv-movies.blogspot.com/2009/10/avatar-new-uhq-promotional-pics.html)

[Grouchy]

Well, we finally get to see some Sigourney Weaver.

[megladon8]

Zoe Saldana's Na'vi character has some pretty sweet guaged earrings.

I've wanted to get tunnels like that for a while. Just not that big.

[number8]

Those do not look like video games.

[Acapelli]

yeah, that looks incredible

[Watashi]

Bootleg of full trailer. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a47YvdYYYLQ)

It practically gives away everything, so proceed with caution.

[Morris Schæffer]

Bootleg of full trailer. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a47YvdYYYLQ)

It practically gives away everything, so proceed with caution.

Yeah, I didn't see the whole thing. From what I saw, it was far more epic than the teaser, but I suppose the trailer music - also used in Elizabeth 2 - was a huge contributor.

[Acapelli]

Bootleg of full trailer. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a47YvdYYYLQ)

It practically gives away everything, so proceed with caution.
can't wait to see this on the big screen

[[ETM]]

It does follow a familiar formula, but looks every bit as breathtaking as I expected.

[Wryan]

Don't have to worry about being that spoiled, can hardly see anything it's so dark. I'd devour the hq trailer tho. Looks good regardless.

[Mysterious Dude]

It still looks like FernGully 3.

[Raiders]

Am I to assume they are waiting until after 2012 and New Moon to start the marketing blitz to create this as the next "event" picture? 'Cuz it is only two months out and not a single person I know in the real world knows anything about this movie. For something with a $250 million price tag, they're putting a lot of faith into word-of-mouth at this point, and so far it is somewhat mixed.

[Dukefrukem]

Am I to assume they are waiting until after 2012 and New Moon to start the marketing blitz to create this as the next "event" picture? 'Cuz it is only two months out and not a single person I know in the real world knows anything about this movie. For something with a $250 million price tag, they're putting a lot of faith into word-of-mouth at this point, and so far it is somewhat mixed.

I see the same thing. I introduced this movie to everyone I know. No one at my work knew about this movie. No one in my family. Non of my friends.

[Qrazy]

Am I to assume they are waiting until after 2012 and New Moon to start the marketing blitz to create this as the next "event" picture? 'Cuz it is only two months out and not a single person I know in the real world knows anything about this movie. For something with a $250 million price tag, they're putting a lot of faith into word-of-mouth at this point, and so far it is somewhat mixed.

Perhaps they're banking on a shift in marketing strategy with the recent burst in activity of facebook and twitter. Maybe generating advanced buzz isn't as necessary now as it once was and they're just going to bury everything in ads just a little while before the film comes out. I don't really know, just a guess but with so much money at stake the studio may have done some now studies about marketing strategies.

[megladon8]

Is there a lot of money at stake for the studios?

I thought Cameron funded most (if not all) of the movie himself.

[Qrazy]

Is there a lot of money at stake for the studios?

I thought Cameron funded most (if not all) of the movie himself.

I don't know the figures but...

"But we never asked ourselves the question, What if people won't accept it? I think that's the huge advantage of actually being a geek/fan yourself, but you just don't ask yourself questions like that. I mean, the studio guys — god love 'em, they signed up to write a big check for this movie. They backed our play 100%, all the way down the line. They would ask questions like, "Do they need to be blue?" "Do they need to have a tail?" things like that. And I thought, "Well, yeah, course they do.""

http://io9.com/5322486/james-cameron-fought-the-studio-to-keep-his-aliens-weird-in-avatar

[[ETM]]

Spectacular spoilery behind the scenes featurette:
http://vimeo.com/7317881

Full trailer comes to Apple.com in HD tomorrow.

[Dukefrukem]

full trailer here (http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer/avatar/international-trailer)

it's over 3 min and 30 seconds long.... wow

[Wryan]

Lookin kinda Half-Lifey, or like any number of those video game types. But I'm sure it'll be a pleasant time at the cinema.

[Qrazy]

I feel like instead of trying to get rid of that CGI gloss, they decided to make the real world footage more glossier.

Still, looks pretty enjoyable. I am preemptively giving it a B.

[[ETM]]

I'm waiting for HD, but already the effects seem quite a lot better than that first trailer.

[Dukefrukem]

Lookin kinda Half-Lifey, or like any number of those video game types. But I'm sure it'll be a pleasant time at the cinema.

Where do you get Half-life out of that?

[number8]

It's on HD at Yahoo, not Apple.

I think I prefer the teaser.

[Watashi]

It's a very formulaic trailer, but it sure looks like a Cameron film.

Love the Stephen Lang.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I'm actually kind of hoping this ends up being another Waterworld.

[Henry Gale]

I gotta say, in 1080p HDTV, the Worthington and Saldana Na'avis move and emote so beautifully, it's like they were actually something captured on film in the most perfect of ways. Every "scenery" shot looks insanely realized and gorgeous, too.

Too bad most of the dialogue (and the parts fleshing out the human side of it all) makes me cringe a little. I'll just hope that we've already seen the worst bits here and by the time they show up in the final film I'll be too enamored with everything else to care.

Luv this trailer.

[Watashi]

I'm actually kind of hoping this ends up being another Waterworld.
Yeah. Not gonna happen.

Cameron is a bit more bankable than Kevin Costner.

[megladon8]

I don't think Waterworld flopping had to do with Kevin Costner. At the time it came out, he was pretty bankable.

It's just a case of a movie being terrible, and the audiences acknowledging it.

[Winston*]

People don't care who directs movies.

[Dukefrukem]

People don't care who directs movies.

wut?

when people see:

"from the director of Titanic, Terminator, Aliens..." yes they do.

There's a reason why they put, "the director of Dark Knight" in Chris Nolan's Inception teaser....

[Kurosawa Fan]

Yeah. Not gonna happen.

Cameron is a bit more bankable than Kevin Costner.

With that budget, it certainly could happen. If it makes less than 150 million, it's going to be looked at as a flop. That's a loss of 70 million without factoring in advertising.

And as has been said in this thread already, I don't know anyone who isn't a movie geek who knows anything about this movie. Maybe they've seen the teaser in theaters, but they don't know why it's important/special. I'm not convinced it is important/special. Either way, I think this has a fair chance of being considered a disaster, especially after that trailer. It may look gorgeous, but that was one underwhelming story synopsis.

[[ETM]]

I can't believe how quickly people start talking about a "flop". So it cost about 300 million. Transformers 2 was horrific, the critics and first watchers alike were screaming in unison that it's mind-numbingly bad, and it still cost 200 and made 800 million worldwide. I'm guessing AVATAR pays back what it cost abroad alone.
I know I'm seeing it in 3D opening day, and look where I live.

[number8]

This movie will go over extremely well in Japan.

[Watashi]

This movie will go over extremely well in Japan.
Hell, even if it does lukewarm here, it will make a killing overseas.

[megladon8]

With that budget, it certainly could happen. If it makes less than 150 million, it's going to be looked at as a flop. That's a loss of 70 million without factoring in advertising.

And as has been said in this thread already, I don't know anyone who isn't a movie geek who knows anything about this movie. Maybe they've seen the teaser in theaters, but they don't know why it's important/special. I'm not convinced it is important/special. Either way, I think this has a fair chance of being considered a disaster, especially after that trailer. It may look gorgeous, but that was one underwhelming story synopsis.


Rep for truth.

[Grouchy]

This movie will go over extremely well in Japan.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXPUkrz7Uow

[Watashi]

I know plenty of non-movie geeks who are pumped on this film based on Cameron's name alone.

We are going to get a bombardment of Avatar marketing these next two months. Expect this trailer to play in front of every single film until its release.

[Ezee E]

Most directors do not attract attention from most people.

However, Quentin Tarantino, Martin Scorsese, Steven Spielberg, James Cameron, Tim Burton, and now Christopher Nolan are exceptions. There's probably a couple more.

[Raiders]

;214378']I can't believe how quickly people start talking about a "flop". So it cost about 300 million. Transformers 2 was horrific, the critics and first watchers alike were screaming in unison that it's mind-numbingly bad, and it still cost 200 and made 800 million worldwide. I'm guessing AVATAR pays back what it cost abroad alone.
I know I'm seeing it in 3D opening day, and look where I live.

That has a HUGE built-in fan base and yes, there was a gigantic marketing blitz for that one starting many months before its release. For my part anyway, I'm not talking about quality here, and it is certainly possible if the film is mind-bendingly awesome and gets fantastic word of mouth it could be another Titanic-like success; I'm only referring to the fact that the film's release is eight weeks away and I don't personally know a single soul outside a couple movie geeks who has even heard of it.


We are going to get a bombardment of Avatar marketing these next two months. Expect this trailer to play in front of every single film until its release.

I expected this, but I'm just wondering how long they're going to wait to start.

[Ezee E]

Toys and video games to come as well. If it connects with the kids, it'll be huge.

[Kurosawa Fan]

That has a HUGE built-in fan base and yes, there was a gigantic marketing blitz for that one starting many months before its release. For my part anyway, I'm not talking about quality here, and it is certainly possible if the film is mind-bendingly awesome and gets fantastic word of mouth it could be another Titanic-like success; I'm only referring to the fact that the film's release is eight weeks away and I don't personally know a single soul outside a couple movie geeks who has even heard of it.


Exactly. Outside of message boards and film communities, no one is talking about this, and a large part of that is the lack of advertising. I'm not saying it's going to flop, I'm simply saying that to say it isn't possible is ridiculous.

And I'm rooting for it purely because I don't like Cameron, and the trailers aren't very impressive as far as I'm concerned.

[Qrazy]

Most directors do not attract attention from most people.

However, Quentin Tarantino, Martin Scorsese, Steven Spielberg, James Cameron, Tim Burton, and now Christopher Nolan are exceptions. There's probably a couple more.

Peter Jackson.

[Ezee E]

Peter Jackson.
Good one. We'll see with The Lovely Bones, his first project outside of a "geeky" universe.

[Watashi]

And I'm rooting for it purely because I don't like Cameron, and the trailers aren't very impressive as far as I'm concerned.

That makes sense. In an era of remakes, reboots, sequels, and obvious Hollywood franchise cash-ins, here comes a big Hollywood epic based on an original idea from Cameron that he's been working on for nearly 20 years and you want it to fail just because you don't happen to like the trailer or the director? Wow.

[Watashi]

The only times I ever want a filmmaker to fail is if it's someone like those guys behind the ____ Movie franchise or some plug-in Hollywood hack like Ratner.

[Morris Schæffer]

It's just a case of a movie being terrible, and the audiences acknowledging it.

Far worse movies (edit: Waterworld) have made tons more money at the BO. Perhaps the negative publicity killed it. Or perhaps the competition when it was released. Or perhaps the ideas as visualized on screen weren't crazy enough. Open ocean and jet skis! Yippie! But I do like some of the action towards the end.

How can anyone not like Cameron's output btw?

[Dukefrukem]

Toys and video games to come as well. If it connects with the kids, it'll be huge.

Speaking of which, does anyone know if the video game will follow the plot of the movie? or will it be something in addition to the movie, as extending the story or viewing from a different perspective? (something like Enter the Matrix did?)

I want to play the game, but I don't want the game to ruin the movie for me.

[Kurosawa Fan]

That makes sense. In an era of remakes, reboots, sequels, and obvious Hollywood franchise cash-ins, here comes a big Hollywood epic based on an original idea from Cameron that he's been working on for nearly 20 years and you want it to fail just because you don't happen to like the trailer or the director? Wow.

Oh, is this the only original idea this year? I hadn't realized.

I don't like his films, I don't like his arrogance, I don't think the film looks particularly good, and I'd love to see one of his films flop to knock him down a peg. That way, the next trailer for a Cameron film won't be five seconds longer so he can remind me that he made Avatar too.


The only times I ever want a filmmaker to fail is if it's someone like those guys behind the ____ Movie franchise or some plug-in Hollywood hack like Ratner.

Wow. You're so noble and wise. Good thing you're here to show me the error of my ways.

[Wryan]

Waterworld was bad?

[Grouchy]

Of all the possible targets one can pick in the movie industry, a guy who makes extremely good sci-fi blockbusters (well, except for Titanic) every few years seems like an odd choice.

[Watashi]

Not even going to bother, KF. I don't even care for Cameron that much, but wishing for one of his movies to flop so he can be "knocked down a peg" is the one being arrogant.

[Watashi]

http://imagehostbank.com/images/972_avatar1b.gif
http://imagehostbank.com/images/122_avatar2.gif

Whatever the story may lack, it will make up for in this.

I would say this is very photorealistic.

[NickGlass]

This doesn't have much to do with the film itself, but did anyone read the profile on James Cameron in the New Yorker? He's obviously not my kind of filmmaker, but the article makes him sound like such an asshole.

[number8]

Cameron's always been a cantankerous asshole. This is not new.

[Qrazy]

This doesn't have much to do with the film itself, but did anyone read the profile on James Cameron in the New Yorker? He's obviously not my kind of filmmaker, but the article makes him sound like such an asshole.

Link?

[Dukefrukem]

and I'd love to see one of his films flop to knock him down a peg. That way, the next trailer for a Cameron film won't be five seconds longer so he can remind me that he made Avatar too.


Yeh KF you're coming off pretty douchey right now... backin up Wats here. I know I say a lot of stupid things on these forums (mostly because I don't proof read or rationalize things) but this is pretty retarded.

[NickGlass]

Cameron's always been a cantankerous asshole. This is not new.

Yeah, I knew this, but he seemed even worse than his reputation--especially when considering the part where he imitates one of his fanboys very unfavorably. If I feel sympathetic for fanboys, you've gone way too far.



Link?

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/10/26/091026fa_fact_goodyear

[Watashi]

I remember at Comic Con, Cameron compared himself to David Lean and said that Avatar was his "Lawerence of Arabia" and it would change the medium of filmmaking forever.

He's completely in love with himself, but then again... so was Kubrick, Godard, Fellini, etc.

[lovejuice]

I don't like his films, I don't like his arrogance, I don't think the film looks particularly good, and I'd love to see one of his films flop to knock him down a peg.
can it be some later movies? cameron is like mj. he needs that comeback.

[number8]

After he finished making “True Lies,” Cameron called Kubrick, by then a recluse, and invited himself over. They spent a day, in the basement of Kubrick’s house in the English countryside, watching “True Lies” at Kubrick’s flatbed editing station. Cameron went over the shots—Schwarzenegger in a Harrier jet firing a missile, with the villain attached to it, through an office building and into a helicopter: boom!—so that Kubrick could learn how the effects were done.

That is just bizarre.

[Qrazy]

Haha yeah, I thought the same thing. I could be wrong but I really can't see Kubrick digging on True Lies.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Yeh KF you're coming off pretty douchey right now... backin up Wats here. I know I say a lot of stupid things on these forums (mostly because I don't proof read or rationalize things) but this is pretty retarded.

I'm just trying to match Cameron stride for stride. How am I doing?

[Qrazy]

I'm just trying to match Cameron stride for stride. How am I doing?

Both of you are succeeding at failing.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Both of you are succeeding at failing.

:pritch:

[Sven]

Unless anyone here has any personal investment in James Cameron's feelings, K. Fan's expressions concerning what he thinks about Cameron and pop culture should register as reasoned and fair. All this babyness is one of the reasons I frequent the board less. Which to some of you I guess is probably a reason to keep it up.

[Qrazy]

Unless anyone here has any personal investment in Armond White's feelings, Blank's expressions concerning what he thinks about White and pop culture should register as reasoned and fair.

I agree!

[Qrazy]

:pritch:

:pritch:

You dance so well K-Fan.

*blushes*

[Raiders]

I agree!

Gee, I wonder who Sven was referring to with his last sentence...

Sheesh.

[Qrazy]

Gee, I wonder who Sven was referring to with his last sentence...

Sheesh.

Your mother?

If not your mother than probably Dukefrukem or Wats since I made one joke about the issue to K-fan and that's all I said. Have a nice day!

[Kurosawa Fan]

:pritch:

You dance so well K-Fan.

*blushes*

I love you too cutie.

[Dukefrukem]

Your mother?

If not your mother than probably Dukefrukem or Wats since I made one joke about the issue to K-fan and that's all I said. Have a nice day!

I don't have anything against Sven. :confused:

[Sven]

I don't have anything against Sven. :confused:

And I got nothing against you! 'Cept you not thinking that Revolver is a masterpiece. :)

[Qrazy]

And I got nothing against you! 'Cept you not thinking that Revolver is a masterpiece. :)

Which of the films in your sig should I prioritize? I'm leaning towards The Seventh Victim.

[Watashi]

What babyness?

[number8]

All this babyness is one of the reasons I frequent the board less. Which to some of you I guess is probably a reason to keep it up.

I'm still dastardly cool. That should even things out.

[Kurosawa Fan]

What babyness?

The fact that you have to ask is staggering.

[Sven]

Which of the films in your sig should I prioritize? I'm leaning towards The Seventh Victim.

Yes. That one. You will like it, though you must gird yourself for a film that is not entirely sensical. It takes great leapin' logic liberties. Still, it is a fascinating and beautiful film.

[number8]

I was wondering which angle to write an article about the trailer I should take. This thread gave me a wealth of material.

[Watashi]

The fact that you have to ask is staggering.
Seriously?

You're the one who wants the film to fail because the director and trailer rubs you the wrong way. I've yet to call anyone names or even whined in trying to defend Cameron. I'm just literally flabbergasted why you care so much. If it makes you feel better in the morning, all the power to you, but when you say cutesy mockery stuff like this:


I don't like his films, I don't like his arrogance, I don't think the film looks particularly good, and I'd love to see one of his films flop to knock him down a peg. That way, the next trailer for a Cameron film won't be five seconds longer so he can remind me that he made Avatar too.


Wow. You're so noble and wise. Good thing you're here to show me the error of my ways.

I'm surprised I'm labeled the baby when I've kept my cool all this time. It's just a legitimate observation, dude.

[Sven]

I'm still dastardly cool. That should even things out.

Admittedly, I have neglected the 8 factor. This wouldn't be the first time. [/cryptic]

[Mysterious Dude]

This movie clearly brings out the worst in people.

[Watashi]

So Sven... did you ever see Gamer?

[Qrazy]

I think it looks very good but the lighting on the upper arms in the first pic and some slight irregularity in the movement in the second pic (amongst other things) keep it from photorealism for me. She should probably also blink a bit more.

[megladon8]

Those two shots are pretty impressive, yeah.

[Ezee E]

My favorite James Cameron story is him being late to a meeting. When he arrived, he called his Assistant to announce to everyone in the room that, "The man that has the same initials as Jesus Christ is now here."

I wonder if fireworks exploded and a theme song played when he walked in the room.

[Sycophant]

This movie clearly brings out the worst in people.
Yes.

[Morris Schæffer]

My favorite James Cameron story is him being late to a meeting. When he arrived, he called his Assistant to announce to everyone in the room that, "The man that has the same initials as Jesus Christ is now here."

I wonder if fireworks exploded and a theme song played when he walked in the room.

Or that story when he held a Fox executive over the precipice of The Abyss water tank and yelled "you don't tell me what to do." I think that is awesome. :)

[Fezzik]

Yes.

So does any movie where over-the-top fanboys co-mingle with semi-cynical cinephiles :D

[Fezzik]

Or that story when he held a Fox executive over the precipice of The Abyss water tank and yelled "you don't tell me what to do." I think that is awesome. :)

Is this a true story? If so, James Cameron just went up a few notches in my book (not that he needs my kudos).

Had he actually DROPPED the executive? He'd be an American hero.

(I kid. I kid.)

[Boner M]

This thread's gonna be hilarious to re-read when people actually see the film, upon which it'll likely get two more pages of discussion, with statements like "Instant blu-ray purchase, for sure!" representing the peak of discourse.

[[ETM]]

Where over-the-top fanboys co-mingle with semi-cynical cinephiles

This needs to be on a banner.

[Qrazy]

This thread's gonna be hilarious to re-read when people actually see the film, upon which it'll likely get two more pages of discussion, with statements like "Instant blu-ray purchase, for sure!" representing the peak of discourse.

Dunno man, given the hype behind it I'm guessing it will become closer to The Dark Knight in length... if the film sucks people will come here and bash it to smithereens. If it's good that will also generate a lot of discussion. Most likely like the Dark Knight before it, it will be divisive with the MC crowd which will generate the most possible discussion.

[Boner M]

Has there ever been a high-profile film discussed on match-cut wherein the "peak of the discourse" amounts to something as meager as its suitability for the Blu-ray format?
Once again, James Cameron has shown us the future.

[Dukefrukem]

Saw the new trailer during the Packers Vikings game commercial. Cool stuff.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Has there ever been a high-profile film discussed on match-cut wherein the "peak of the discourse" amounts to something as meager as its suitability for the Blu-ray format?

I kinda want to discuss the facile dialectic occurring between the two "sides" of the film, perpetuating once again, for cinemagoers, an inherent animosity between military-industrial invaders and environmentally-harmonious "natives;" such reductive notions of right and wrong pervade Cameron's oeuvre as a whole.

But I'm too tired right now.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Thinking back to Titantic and what we've seen of Avatar, this presumably facetious thesis just might hold some weight once the movie is released. Unless Cameron decided to offer a complex, ambivalent portrayal of both the military and the indigenous forces (without unequivocally assigning one or the other to a good/evil binary).

It's worth noting that the Terminator franchise constantly vilifies the military/industrial complex, as does Aliens, while the two most antagonistic forces in Titanic are upper-crust elite Hockley and White Star Line weasel J. Bruce Ismay.

I have boundless respect for James Cameron's action filmmaking and editing - in this regard, he's possibly the best director alive at producing coherent, exciting action sequences - but I find his conflicts to be mostly banal, trite dialogues between evil profiteers and virtuous salt-of-the-earthers.

[[ETM]]

I expect this from Avatar:

- seamless integration of real and animated, especially the performances... no Sky Captain "playing against tennis balls" acting.

- fully believable captured performances in 100% CGI characters

- a vivid, living and breathing alien world

- enough of a reason to give a damn about who wins in the conflict

The story and its mechanics are definitely nothing new, but is it wrong of me not to care? I've been waiting a long time for a film to carry me away visually, and if this ain't it, I don't know what it is.

[megladon8]

;214914']I expect this from Avatar:

- seamless integration of real and animated, especially the performances... no Sky Captain "playing against tennis balls" acting.

- fully believable captured performances in 100% CGI characters

...
...

*keeps mouth shut*




- a vivid, living and breathing alien world

- enough of a reason to give a damn about who wins in the conflict

The story and its mechanics are definitely nothing new, but is it wrong of me not to care? I've been waiting a long time for a film to carry me away visually, and if this ain't it, I don't know what it is.

I hope it delivers in these areas.

The trailer didn't give me much hope, though.

[[ETM]]

...
...

*keeps mouth shut*

Dude, if I didn't expect that, what would be the point, really?
The way I see it, Cameron set the bar himself. I'm not going to cut him any slack on this. When I go into that theatre, I'm not settling for "it was okay". And I think everyone's giving the trailers too much credit. What I saw worked for me so far, and I'm sure they'll be refining every scene up until the last possible minute.

[Dead & Messed Up]

;214916']The way I see it, Cameron set the bar himself. I'm not going to cut him any slack on this. When I go into that theatre, I'm not settling for "it was okay".

Paying for something without confirmation of return on investment is damn near the definition of "cutting slack." You're giving him money without any guarantee of entertainment, just a promise.

Unless "cutting slack" refers to your reaction to the film. By which point, he'll already have your money.

[[ETM]]

Paying for something without confirmation of return on investment is damn near the definition of "cutting slack." You're giving him money without any guarantee of entertainment, just a promise.

Unless "cutting slack" refers to your reaction to the film. By which point, he'll already have your money.

I'm going to get my money's worth, I'm certain of that. I was actually talking about the whole "Cinematic Messiah" thing Cameron's got going for years now.
He says he has a game-changer in his hands. Let's see what he's got.

[Dead & Messed Up]

;214920']I'm going to get my money's worth, I'm certain of that.

Well, you will or you won't. Cameron will definitely get your money's worth.

;)

[Qrazy]

Illegal downloading FTW.

[Sycophant]

I'm gonna send James Cameron a $2,000 check, and then sneak into his movie.

[lovejuice]

to be honest i have yet impressed aesthetically by anything related to this film. (storywise, it's look like an expensive remake of pocahontas.)

BUT, i am excited by the technology. i have a high hope that this will redefine theatre-going experience, and once again make it worth your while to go to theatre.

[Morris Schæffer]

Is this a true story? If so, James Cameron just went up a few notches in my book (not that he needs my kudos).


From the interview in The New Yorker:


Fox, worried that it had a runaway production on its hands, sent a veteran producer to the set. He arrived in a rented Cadillac, wearing a suit, to tell Cameron and Hurd that they had to scale back the shooting schedule and the budget. It didn’t go well. “There are two things about Jim,” Mikael Salomon, the cinematographer on “The Abyss,” told me. “You shouldn’t call him Jimmy, and you shouldn’t touch him if you don’t know him very well. He did both.”

:lol:

[Fezzik]

From the interview in The New Yorker:



:lol:

Hahaha...he's like the mafia Don of film directors. And all this time I thought that was Scorsese ;)

:pritch:

[megladon8]

OMFG! TWO NEW STILLS! HOLY SHIT,YO! (http://media.movies.ign.com/media/800/800318/imgs_1.html)

[Derek]

and once again make it worth your while to go to theatre.

:crazy:

[B-side]

I gotta say, I'm kinda indifferent to the whole project. It seems like it'll be fun, but the awful dialogue and Worthington's off-putting performance aren't doing it any favors. I'm judging based on the 15 min preview I watched in IMAX.

[lovejuice]

:crazy:
i'm not talking for myself, of course. but among general population, there seems to arise this nonspeaking concensus that theatre-going is obsolete. why go to theatre, when it's more fun to illegally download something?

Last Christmas we had a party, and my friend put on Kung Fu Panda which she downloaded from the net. The picture quality was fucking crap, but, guess what, no one noticed that. They might, but the difference was, for non-cinephiles, almost negligible. People just don't care anymore about watching a movie in "perfect" condition.

if Avatar is as Cameron promises it to be, it may change that. i don't think it'll. more likely the movie will open a new gate, and allow people to explore with the technology.

[Morris Schæffer]

http://moviesmedia.ign.com/movies/image/article/103/1039737/avatar-20091027050100149_640w.jpg

Anyone else getting a Metroid Prime from this?

[Dukefrukem]

So I was thinking about the plot a little last night. It appears from the trailer that Sam Worthington switches sides right? Falls in love with one of the Na'vi. Now, if he teams up with the Na'vi to defend their home on the planet, isn't his body still on a ship somewhere? Can't the marines just unplug him? Or is he trapped inside this new body forever? These questions will probably be answered in the movie but I'm trying to think of a way for them to get around this loophole. (Obviously I'm thinking more on the lines of Gamer and Surrogates)

[[ETM]]

The Avatar is not a surrogate, I think. He "transfers" into it. They can destroy his human body but it would have no effect on him. However, I wouldn't be surprised if there's a "failsafe" built into the Avatars, since they're genetically engineered. However - isn't there a scene in the trailer where he discusses helping the Na'vi with Rodriguez's character and someone else, while in human form?

[[ETM]]

Last Christmas we had a party, and my friend put on Kung Fu Panda which she downloaded from the net. The picture quality was fucking crap, but, guess what, no one noticed that. They might, but the difference was, for non-cinephiles, almost negligible. People just don't care anymore about watching a movie in "perfect" condition.

This is true. It almost killed all the theatres in the region, as well as the DVD rentals... however, with the rise in broadband speeds and the pirating "scene", almost everything is readily available in full HD for download now. I have a friend who downloads and accumulated EVERYTHING that comes out in 720p or 1080p. He has pretty much all the BluRays that ever came out on hard drives.

[[ETM]]

The idea that Sam Worthington's vacant body lies around like excess baggage for most of the movie is kind of creepy.

Creepier than the lab-grown adult Avatars in that liquid tank?

[Wryan]

There's no fun for me whatsoever in downloading movies, either ahead of time or after they are out. I'll watch DVDs on a nice setup, but going to the theatre is one of my all-time great pleasures. I just wish more people felt this way.

[Dukefrukem]

There's no fun for me whatsoever in downloading movies, either ahead of time or after they are out. I'll watch DVDs on a nice setup, but going to the theatre is one of my all-time great pleasures. I just wish more people felt this way.

I feel constantly annoyed at theaters in this day in age. Every movie I go to a cell phone goes off, or people are talking, or a cell phone may not go "off" but someone pulls it out and it lights up the whole theater and distracts me, or someone is getting up to go to the bathroom... or someone has a seizure... The list goes on. I remember being excited for opening day much more frequent in the past, and I prob WILL go to opening day of Avatar, but times have changed, and my desire to go to theaters has dwindled.

Seriously, the last movie I remember having a good time at was Snakes on a Plane.

[lovejuice]

I feel constantly annoyed at theaters in this day in age. Every movie I go to a cell phone goes off, or people are talking, or a cell phone may not go "off" but someone pulls it out and it lights up the whole theater and distracts me, or someone is getting up to go to the bathroom... or someone has a seizure... The list goes on.
i constantly hear people complaining about this. weirdly enough 10 years in los angeles, and it never happens to me. or at least, not to the degree that it distracts from the viewing experience. perhaps it's just where i live.

[Grouchy]

Last Christmas we had a party, and my friend put on Kung Fu Panda which she downloaded from the net. The picture quality was fucking crap, but, guess what, no one noticed that. They might, but the difference was, for non-cinephiles, almost negligible. People just don't care anymore about watching a movie in "perfect" condition.
Huh, like [ETM] says, you can now download everything in HD. Poor image quality has stopped being an excuse to use in those stupid anti-piracy ads.

[Wryan]

Poor image quality has stopped being an excuse to use in those stupid anti-piracy ads.

These ads are very 90s regardless; not sure if that's what they were going for, but if so, grats to them: you look/sound/feel as ineffectual as say-no-to-drugs ads.

[Dukefrukem]

Did you hear the latest report? People who pirate the most, also purchase the most.

[megladon8]

Did you hear the latest report? People who pirate the most, also purchase the most.


I could actually see this being true.

I download music and use it as a gauge to figure out what I want to buy.

If I like a few songs off an album, I'll buy the album.

If it's a case of one good song amidst 11 crappy ones, I don't bother.

If anything, the downloading scene (for music, anyways) should encourage artists to strive for an overall higher quality in their output, so that people will want to buy their albums.

[Qrazy]

;215192']The Avatar is not a surrogate, I think. He "transfers" into it. They can destroy his human body but it would have no effect on him. However, I wouldn't be surprised if there's a "failsafe" built into the Avatars, since they're genetically engineered. However - isn't there a scene in the trailer where he discusses helping the Na'vi with Rodriguez's character and someone else, while in human form?

I'm not getting this from the trailer. It seems to me he can plug in and unplug. The marine offers him his real legs back, this wouldn't be possible if he couldn't retain his human form. I'm guessing he just finds somewhere safe to plug in to help the Na'vi and/or someone else on the inside is helping him.

[number8]

The "waking up" scene I saw suggested that it's a surgical, biological transfer—not a plug-in-remote-control-body.

[Qrazy]

The "waking up" scene I saw suggested that it's a surgical, biological transfer—not a plug-in-remote-control-body.

OK (what happens in the scene to suggest that?), but is the surgical transfer one in which he can later go back to his old body? Because unless the trailer is intentionally misleading or I"m misunderstanding it, this is what it's suggesting to me.

[number8]

Just the fact that he wakes up on an operating table, wearing a hospital gown, surrounded by doctors, then when he tries to stand up he has trouble controlling his limbs, having to get used to a tail, adjusting his eyes, etc. It all came across very biological and not technological.

I don't know why you immediately assumed he can't go back to his own body? I'm just saying his consciousness is only in one body at all time, but it's not some kind of surrogate thing where he has a real body strapped onto something that controls his Na'Vi body. If they destroy his human body, all it would do is trap him as a Na'Vi—it wouldn't kill him. At least that's what I'm assuming.

[megladon8]

I have to admit I thought it was like The Surrogates in that his body was strapped somewhere as his mind controlled the Na'Vi avatar.

[Watashi]

None of us know anything until we see the damn thing.

[Qrazy]

Just the fact that he wakes up on an operating table, wearing a hospital gown, surrounded by doctors, then when he tries to stand up he has trouble controlling his limbs, having to get used to a tail, adjusting his eyes, etc. It all came across very biological and not technological.

I don't know why you immediately assumed he can't go back to his own body? I'm just saying his consciousness is only in one body at all time, but it's not some kind of surrogate thing where he has a real body strapped onto something that controls his Na'Vi body. If they destroy his human body, all it would do is trap him as a Na'Vi—it wouldn't kill him. At least that's what I'm assuming.

Well I agree that his consciousness is only in one body at a given time but when you said it was surgical I figured you meant a brain transplantation of some sort (which I don't think it is). It seems to me that he returns to his human body at some point in the film (hence the conversation with the military man about allegiances). By plugged in I don't mean technology rather than biology, only that he can go back from his avatar to his regular form presumably without an operation (just speculating). The waking up on the table just strikes me as the learning curve of being 'plugged' into a new body.

[Qrazy]

None of us know anything until we see the damn thing.

That won't stop us from arguing about it.

[megladon8]

Seeing the new trailer in HD (http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/avatar/hd/), I love the colour schemes of both the human ships and the world of Pandora, and how they both clash and meld together.

However, I still think it looks like a Pixar movie mixed with real actors.

And the plot/conflict leaves a lot to be desired. I hope there's more to it than "THIS IS OUR LAND!"

I hope the 3D is as mind-blowingly, testicle-gropingly awesome as its been built up to be.

[Wryan]

I hope the 3D is as mind-blowingly, testicle-gropingly awesome as its been built up to be.

I'm not worried about this. I was already planning on groping my own testicles for the duration.

[megladon8]

I'm not worried about this. I was already planning on groping my own testicles for the duration.


Well then I guess there's no reason for me to go to the movie with you anymore.

[megladon8]

New trailer for the game. (http://www.giantbomb.com/james-camerons-avatar-ignite-the-war/17-1606/)

Jesus, they were trying really hard to make that look like "Halo" for the first 30-40 seconds.

[Qrazy]

However, I still think it looks like a Pixar movie mixed with real actors.


So... Wall-E then? :D

[[ETM]]

People are either giving too much credit to Pixar, or severely underestimating the efforts of the Avatar people. How those environments look anything like Pixar films to anyone is beyond me.

[megladon8]

;216163']People are either giving too much credit to Pixar, or severely underestimating the efforts of the Avatar people. How those environments look anything like Pixar films to anyone is beyond me.


Not the environments.

The characters.

[Ezee E]

The ads are coming. A clueless friend of mine in Montana asked me, "What the heck is happening? Avatar this, avatar that? WHAT IS IT?"

Heh.

[[ETM]]

Not the environments.

The characters.

Even worse.

[megladon8]

;216170']Even worse.


Not really.

[[ETM]]

Not really.

I could understand the comparison of the environments, but the characters... no.

[megladon8]

;216175']I could understand the comparison of the environments, but the characters... no.


What?

You like, just said that the comparison for the enivronments was "beyond [you]".

[Watashi]

Not really.

http://joyhog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/toy-story-3-trailer.png

http://moviecultists.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/avatar-bow-arrow.jpg

Hmmm.....

[megladon8]

They both look like plastic.

[Watashi]

I can't even understand the environment comparison.

http://thefilmstage.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/avatartrailer_1.jpg

Looks nothing like Pixar.

[Watashi]

They both look like plastic.

.............................. ......

..................

.............................. ...............

[[ETM]]

I bet some people would complain about "unconvincing CGI" even if the image in question was photographed, not rendered.

[megladon8]

;216182']I bet some people would complain about "unconvincing CGI" even if the image in question was photographed, not rendered.


Not really.

And I think the environments look incredible. It's just the characters that, well, still look like CGI - plastic-y and without proper weight.

[Ezee E]

Yeah, the enviornments are completely believable. However, since it's impossible, we know we're looking at a special effect.

Consider Zodiac, where a good amount of the city is CGI. I didn't even know it until I saw that special effects special.

[Watashi]

No offense meg, but it seems your best counterargument comes down to "not really". I've watched this trailer dozens of times and the two gifs I posted a few pages back definitely do NOT look like plastic. You can see the marks in the skin, the veins pulsating through and all the attentive detail to make it seem like a believable creature. What exactly constitutes "proper weight" from you?

[Watashi]

Yeah, the enviornments are completely believable. However, since it's impossible, we know we're looking at a special effect.


This is the problem. People will complain about the use of CGI because they KNOW everything is CGI. If Cameron just let the movie talk for itself instead of hyping up the technology, he is bound to open doors for constant nitpicking.

[Adam]

The character designs do look absurdly silly, but maybe they'll be better in the right context

[number8]

At least they don't look like a SNES game, like District 9's CG.