James Cameron's Avatar

  On 11/16/2009 at 1:38 PM, lumpenprol said:

avator will be pretty good.

 

avator will do good boxoffice, and have legs as word spreads.

Avator is bluesband

  On 11/16/2009 at 3:34 PM, mcbpete said:

  On 11/16/2009 at 1:38 PM, lumpenprol said:

avator will be pretty good.

 

avator will do good boxoffice, and have legs as word spreads.

dombass

I saw the newest trailer in the Theater yesterday in front of 2012 (which, in terms of CG, was awesome, and in terms of plot was . . . well, an Emmerich film). The one thing that made me cringe, which I will likely have a hard time getting behind, was

edit: Oh and, I can't believe they stole the idea for "Dances with Smurfs" for this movie

  On 11/16/2009 at 4:31 PM, T35513R said:

 

 

edit: Oh and, I can't believe they stole the idea for "Dances with Smurfs" for this movie

yeah it's pretty much the same premise.

  On 11/16/2009 at 12:17 AM, karmakramer said:

Cameron has never really written a story that I would call inventive or original... at least in terms of the basic premise... but its how he tells the story that makes his movies so special. I mean think about the Terminator for a second... its about a robot killer sent back from the future to kill the mother of the main human leader.

 

Sounds like some stoner came up with that. The movie kickass though cause Cameron knows how to cast, direct, and pace his stories.

Exactly, that has never changed the fact that T1/T2/Abyss/True Lies/Aliens are fucking kick-ass movies. I don't care if it's Dances with Smurf in space, it's a JAMES CAMERON movie. He knows how to direct even the simplistic stories (Titanic) into great Hollywood movies that aren't just standard Bruckheimer explosion-fest.

He is an auteur.

But hatters gotta hate...

autor

he made the worst movie of all time as well.

  On 11/16/2009 at 12:44 PM, Hoodie said:

it's rather uncreative to make a bipedal mammal with a slightly odd skin tone when you have "infinite" space at your disposal.

The alien race has to communicate humanity to the average viewer, which narrows it down a bit.

  On 11/16/2009 at 11:27 AM, lumpenprol said:

yeah, it's just an impossible task to make a flawless looking all-cgi movie. The amount of man-hours it takes to get everything looking right is prohibitive.

It's a technological issue. Wait 5 years. Also, add another 5 years and it will look better than reality. I'm not sure how our senses will react to that.

  Quote

Sounds like some stoner came up with that.

Like that's a bad thing. ;) The funny thing is that yes, looking at Terminator (for instance) from a shallow level, it looks ridiculously dumb. It's the treatise behind the philosophy of it, the emotions around it, that makes it a magical story.

If it's one thing Cameron does perfect, it's the actions and reactions of the characters in his stories.

  On 11/16/2009 at 5:34 PM, GORDO said:

he made the worst movie of all time as well.

LOL

Watching Titanic from the part when the ship starts to sink forward is some of Cinema's finest moments imo. There are over 200 hundred gruesome death sequences and all the cinematography of the water fucking everything up on the ship is simply stunning.

Yes the love story is lame and is for chicks... but did you ever go into that movie thinking otherwise? Clearly he did something right by getting middle-aged women to see the 3 hour film 4-5 times in theaters.

  On 11/16/2009 at 5:45 PM, chimera slot mom said:

  On 11/16/2009 at 12:44 PM, Hoodie said:

it's rather uncreative to make a bipedal mammal with a slightly odd skin tone when you have "infinite" space at your disposal.

 

The alien race has to communicate humanity to the average viewer, which narrows it down a bit.

lies. plenty of movies, tv shows and books have used strange alien forms of life and still managed to have the viewer possess empathy for them. district 9 did it well, i think, although the original version of the aliens seemed much more interesting than the final product in the movies.

i don't want to argue about this anymore. i just think everything about the story and the characters seems terribly immature, like what a fifteen year old shut-in would write, and i hate it that a huge amount of effort is being put into conveying such a poor story.

  On 11/16/2009 at 9:57 PM, Hoodie said:

  On 11/16/2009 at 5:45 PM, chimera slot mom said:

  On 11/16/2009 at 12:44 PM, Hoodie said:

it's rather uncreative to make a bipedal mammal with a slightly odd skin tone when you have "infinite" space at your disposal.

 

The alien race has to communicate humanity to the average viewer, which narrows it down a bit.

 

lies. plenty of movies, tv shows and books have used strange alien forms of life and still managed to have the viewer possess empathy for them. district 9 did it well, i think, although the original version of the aliens seemed much more interesting than the final product in the movies.

 

i don't want to argue about this anymore. i just think everything about the story and the characters seems terribly immature, like what a fifteen year old shut-in would write, and i hate it that a huge amount of effort is being put into conveying such a poor story.

Hey when did you see the movie!?

  On 11/16/2009 at 9:44 PM, karmakramer said:

  On 11/16/2009 at 5:34 PM, GORDO said:

he made the worst movie of all time as well.

 

LOL

 

Watching Titanic from the part when the ship starts to sink forward is some of Cinema's finest moments imo. There are over 200 hundred gruesome death sequences and all the cinematography of the water fucking everything up on the ship is simply stunning.

 

Yes the love story is lame and is for chicks... but did you ever go into that movie thinking otherwise? Clearly he did something right by getting middle-aged women to see the 3 hour film 4-5 times in theaters.

titanic is a waste of film.

what did he do right? he put pretty-boy leo chick sensation of the moment and millions of dollars into marketing.

Most publications thought it was going to bomb hard going into it.... Pretty much all his films (like we are seeing with Avatar) get doom and gloom predictions before release.

I don't think anyone here doubts this is going to be a success.

I dunno. I get the feeling of Final Fantasy about it. I know, it's the most obvious comparison and I'm supposed to differentiate between the two because this one has been made 'in the right way'.

But I mean that, who really cares? Final Fantasy failed not simply because was it a bad, boring, film, but because the cinema-going public weren't interested in seeing a cgi attempt at realism.

It looks and sounds nerdy, and I think that puts popcorn-people off.

I imagine that the film is a treat in '3D' (or whatever they're calling it now), but have enough cinemas bought into the new technology for it yet? In 2D, this film will fail.

*prepares for greatest film ever*

you all will see this... especially if you have access to a nice 3D theater.

here's a 4 minute clip from the movie - the Thanator chase scene.

Its a bad quality camcord rip of something playing on an xbox for some reason, but it gives a good sense of how the Avatars move. Check out Sigourney.

edit: old link is down. new link:

http://www.aceshowbiz.com/video/download/00010849/

they showed a shorter version of this scene in Imax 3D on 'Avatar Day'

yes of course... i only want to see the much hyped 3d.

where have I seen that scene before?

i hope the 20 minute preview i saw had very rough implementation of 3d. If the movie was rated on it's 3d filmmaking techniques alone, the live action shots blow away anything else out there, the depth is pretty impressive. I was a little disappointed when Pandora is full CGI with how 'deep' the 3d looked in certain parts. Like the scene they keep showing on the trailer of them getting on the back of that dragon, it;s like a 100mph drop straight down. In 'A Christmas Carol' for example the opening credits were just an arial view flying over the city felt a lot more 3d and tactile than that scene i watched in Avatar. In a Christmas carol you almost feel as if you are floating because of how fast the acceleration is, in avatar i didn't get the same effect during the massive fly over shots. I even noticed distinct 2d planes being positioned to create the illusion of 3d. For example a bunch of grass and trees in the background with the 3d glasses on looked more like a cardboard cutout than an actual object in front of you. I'm going to go with the theory that SOME of the 3d implementation is not finished. I do remember one amazing looking 3d CGI shot though of jake being chased through the jungle by a giant creature, there were definitely fleeting moments while i was watching that part thinking 'ok he's right this is really groundbreaking'

  On 11/18/2009 at 1:54 AM, Awepittance said:

i hope the 20 minute preview i saw had very rough implementation of 3d. If the movie was rated on it's 3d filmmaking techniques alone, the live action shots blow away anything else out there, the depth is pretty impressive. I was a little disappointed when Pandora is full CGI with how 'deep' the 3d looked in certain parts. Like the scene they keep showing on the trailer of them getting on the back of that dragon, it;s like a 100mph drop straight down. In 'A Christmas Carol' for example the opening credits were just an arial view flying over the city felt a lot more 3d and tactile than that scene i watched in Avatar. In a Christmas carol you almost feel as if you are floating because of how fast the acceleration is, in avatar i didn't get the same effect during the massive fly over shots. I even noticed distinct 2d planes being positioned to create the illusion of 3d. For example a bunch of grass and trees in the background with the 3d glasses on looked more like a cardboard cutout than an actual object in front of you. I'm going to go with the theory that SOME of the 3d implementation is not finished. I do remember one amazing looking 3d CGI shot though of jake being chased through the jungle by a giant creature, there were definitely fleeting moments while i was watching that part thinking 'ok he's right this is really groundbreaking'

I saw Christmas Carol last night and it was definitely extremely impressive in many scenes (the flying was awesome)... the one thing I have been noticing is that the more you see 3D the more it becomes more natural for your brain to process and therefore more real. The first time I saw Coraline in 3D some of the action sequences were a little glitchy and whatnot, but the second viewing those glitches were gone. My friend who saw Christmas Carol (was only his second time for 3D) said that he had more problems with it then I did... and he said when he saw Monster vs. Aliens it was basically impossible to tell what was going on. It might just be coincidental but it seems like every viewing gets your mind more and more accustom to the 3D effect.

The 3D previews before the movie are actually really there because it allows the audience to ease into the effects before the movie starts.

Overall even when things don't work perfectly with 3D I still think its just far more interesting and enjoyable then 2D.

All the kids in the film department at my school are wetting their pants over this trailer. they watch it all day on their HD monitors jizzing themselves.

  On 11/18/2009 at 2:07 AM, karmakramer said:

  On 11/18/2009 at 1:54 AM, Awepittance said:

i hope the 20 minute preview i saw had very rough implementation of 3d. If the movie was rated on it's 3d filmmaking techniques alone, the live action shots blow away anything else out there, the depth is pretty impressive. I was a little disappointed when Pandora is full CGI with how 'deep' the 3d looked in certain parts. Like the scene they keep showing on the trailer of them getting on the back of that dragon, it;s like a 100mph drop straight down. In 'A Christmas Carol' for example the opening credits were just an arial view flying over the city felt a lot more 3d and tactile than that scene i watched in Avatar. In a Christmas carol you almost feel as if you are floating because of how fast the acceleration is, in avatar i didn't get the same effect during the massive fly over shots. I even noticed distinct 2d planes being positioned to create the illusion of 3d. For example a bunch of grass and trees in the background with the 3d glasses on looked more like a cardboard cutout than an actual object in front of you. I'm going to go with the theory that SOME of the 3d implementation is not finished. I do remember one amazing looking 3d CGI shot though of jake being chased through the jungle by a giant creature, there were definitely fleeting moments while i was watching that part thinking 'ok he's right this is really groundbreaking'

 

I saw Christmas Carol last night and it was definitely extremely impressive in many scenes (the flying was awesome)... the one thing I have been noticing is that the more you see 3D the more it becomes more natural for your brain to process and therefore more real. The first time I saw Coraline in 3D some of the action sequences were a little glitchy and whatnot, but the second viewing those glitches were gone. My friend who saw Christmas Carol (was only his second time for 3D) said that he had more problems with it then I did... and he said when he saw Monster vs. Aliens it was basically impossible to tell what was going on. It might just be coincidental but it seems like every viewing gets your mind more and more accustom to the 3D effect.

 

The 3D previews before the movie are actually really there because it allows the audience to ease into the effects before the movie starts.

 

Overall even when things don't work perfectly with 3D I still think its just far more interesting and enjoyable then 2D.

nice, glad to hear you saw it. flying was probably the best use of 3d in the whole movie, although i got some crazy uncanny valley effects while watching. Did you feel like at any time , maybe 2-8 second bursts that you were actually watching a real human being? some of the parts with gary oldman and the ghost of christmas present (when he's decaying with the lighting flickering) really blew me away. I can't wait to see what Robert Zemeckis does next. My childhood mind has a fantasy where eventually he's going to bust out an epic Back to the future 4 done in motion capture with 3d using M.j fox and christopher loyd as the voices (of course he should only do it once the technology is basically perfec) .

edit: i've been watching the btf trilogy over and over recently, its been playing on encore HD pretty much daily. i know we all here are sick of getting our childhood's raped, but who here wouldn't want to see Doc Brown bust out that his steam punk time travel train from the end of part 3 for another adventure?!

i forgot to ask you karmakramer did you see any ridiculously 3d bumper graphics before the movie came on?

  On 11/17/2009 at 10:08 PM, karmakramer said:

 

you all will see this... especially if you have access to a nice 3D theater.

nice perky tits ;-D