James Cameron's Avatar

LOL. I'm interested to know whether the aliens genitals are always conveniently hidden behind leaves and such.

Yeah, I'm actually interested. I know that they're often wearing skimpy loin-cloths, but I remember seeing a teaser trailer in which they weren't and I imagine it may be laughable if they've been trying to find new ways to hide alien-dong.

hey even Jar-Jar had a penis

This is a great review...

  Quote

...but it was stressed to me that I should be as honest as possible in the review. So here goes.

 

All those worries are completely justified. There's hardly a single moment of truly original story telling up on the screen. The characters are developed exactly as you think they will be and key moments at the climax of the movie are sign posted clearly early on. If you think you've already seen James Cameron's Avatar then there's a good chance you're right.

 

And none of that matters.

 

I'm seeing it again on an IMAX screen in a few weeks and I can hardly wait.

http://twitchfilm.net/reviews/2009/12/avatar-review.php

  On 12/11/2009 at 2:55 AM, lumpenprol said:

As long as you're quoting all the gushing parts of the reviews, I'll take up the task of quoting the funny parts:

 

  Quote

but there’s a fair amount of unintentional laughter to be had from watching hundreds of Na’vi, swaying like extras from the Zion rave scene in The Matrix Reloaded, surrounding something called The Tree Of Souls and banging on about becoming one with Mother Eywo. If there’s one element of Avatar that the made-their-mind-up brigade will use to mercilessly beat the film with, even more so than the somewhat prosaic plot, it’s this.

i saw this in the HBO featurette, sounds accurate. So far none of the reviews i've seen have mentioned that the 3d glasses aspect of the film is game changing in and of itself. A little disappointing but what i was expecting after seeing the preview clip. In fact most of the reviews are saying that they don't utilize any of the gimmicky aspects of 3d (things flying out at you) and while i can understand why people think this is cliche these days i personally miss it and think it's a shame they don't take advantage of the depth of field more. I wish they did a combination of the two, things occasionally flying out at you as well as feeling 'inside' the screen.

after all this talk about how ground breaking Avatar is going to be, i think the filmmakers worked on the 3d immersive aspect of it last. but i am completely willing and ready to be proven wrong. I haven't seen a 3d movie that really blew me away since Polar Express, and i've pretty much seen all of them besides Monsters VS Aliens.

  On 12/11/2009 at 6:33 AM, Awepittance said:

  On 12/11/2009 at 2:55 AM, lumpenprol said:

As long as you're quoting all the gushing parts of the reviews, I'll take up the task of quoting the funny parts:

 

  Quote

but there’s a fair amount of unintentional laughter to be had from watching hundreds of Na’vi, swaying like extras from the Zion rave scene in The Matrix Reloaded, surrounding something called The Tree Of Souls and banging on about becoming one with Mother Eywo. If there’s one element of Avatar that the made-their-mind-up brigade will use to mercilessly beat the film with, even more so than the somewhat prosaic plot, it’s this.

 

i saw this in the HBO featurette, sounds accurate. So far none of the reviews i've seen have mentioned that the 3d glasses aspect of the film is game changing in and of itself. A little disappointing but what i was expecting after seeing the preview clip. In fact most of the reviews are saying that they don't utilize any of the gimmicky aspects of 3d (things flying out at you) and while i can understand why people think this is cliche these days i personally miss it and think it's a shame they don't take advantage of the depth of field more. I wish they did a combination of the two, things occasionally flying out at you as well as feeling 'inside' the screen.

after all this talk about how ground breaking Avatar is going to be, i think the filmmakers worked on the 3d immersive aspect of it last. but i am completely willing and ready to be proven wrong. I haven't seen a 3d movie that really blew me away since Polar Express, and i've pretty much seen all of them besides Monsters VS Aliens.

Theres definitely been a number of reviews which mention 3D (some are on rottentomatoes) and how this film will be seen as a benchmark years later. Also from one critic I spoke to, they said surprisingly (cause Cameron has been touting his "holy grail" camera) that the CG parts of the film work much more flawlessly with the 3D then the human/live action parts.

Until they get digital projectors to accept higher frame-rates and films start to move in that direction (48FPS) the more in your face 3D will really be a lot more effective, in my opinion. Theirs definitely some ghosting problems I have noticed when filmmakers try to pull off the more "cliche" 3D effects.

that's a good point, and frankly Weta has always been weak at compositing. Not to mention that in every shot I've seen the solution they came up with for the "glass" on the cockpit of the mechs and the flying vehicle is weak sauce. They tried to have their cake and eat it too, by minimizing reflections so that you can see the driver's face going "grr" and "ooh and aah" at all times, and the result is that it looks nothing like plexiglass and is glaringly fake.

im going to get so stoned before i see this (edibles+ massive smoke combo) that it wont even matter if it's cheesy as all fuck

and you're right lumpenprol , the fact that they'd want to show such 'hyperreal' (i use that term because it literally falls into this category) reflections that don't look realistic shows me that this whole CGI revolution has gone beyond or isnt even about right now trying to fully mimic realism , it's gone to a point where it's all about showing as much detail as possible in a single shot.

i have to actually show a hyperreal painting here to get my point across

this one is by David Kassan. I can see the merit in this type of art, but if you are looking for full realism things like Avatar and King Kong are not for you. They have small and fleeting elements that look 100% realistic to me, but they are brief.

  On 12/11/2009 at 6:57 AM, karmakramer said:

Until they get digital projectors to accept higher frame-rates and films start to move in that direction (48FPS) the more in your face 3D will really be a lot more effective, in my opinion. Theirs definitely some ghosting problems I have noticed when filmmakers try to pull off the more "cliche" 3D effects.

i saw you were reading the thread, hehe . Have you seen Captain Eo? Do you remember the part in the spaceship at the beginning where the little flying dude comes out of the screen and appears to fly into the audience? It could be an exaggerated childhood memory but i remember almost everyone in the theatre ducking to dodge that shit, there wasn't a noticeable ghosting effect. BUT this could be because George Lucas + Francis Ford Copolla = the most expensive film made per minute ( i tink this record hasnt been broken) and that they worked extra hard to get that shot right on the disney projector.

Reviewers specifically one I talked to about the uncanny valley and such said "everything feels completely real" ... I agree with some of the critiques in this thread, the glass reflection etc... but overall with the added 3D element and build up/pacing of the almost 3 hour film, I see myself completely getting absorbed in the universe, basically to the point that I accept the characters and the environments as real people/places. Gollum certainly looks like a CG character because his emotions and bone structure couldn't possibly be human/animatronics... but you still buy into the character because his emotions come across as genuine. This mainly has to do with the motion capture/performance capture that has been advancing over the years... and if the Wired article from Novermber's issue is accurate in portraying Cameron's new tech for performance capture, then I can see the Na'Vi becoming the most believable CG humonoids to exist. Sure you can look at the trailer and find flaws here and there... but I really think there is a difference in seeing a montage versus experiencing the movie and scenes.

I honestly thought the Christmas Carol CG looked atrocious before I saw the film in 3D, and I was blown away by how real the CG became. Not photoreal, well there were some parts... but the emotions as I said felt genuine, I bought into it and accepted most of it.

  On 12/11/2009 at 10:28 AM, Awepittance said:

  On 12/11/2009 at 6:57 AM, karmakramer said:

Until they get digital projectors to accept higher frame-rates and films start to move in that direction (48FPS) the more in your face 3D will really be a lot more effective, in my opinion. Theirs definitely some ghosting problems I have noticed when filmmakers try to pull off the more "cliche" 3D effects.

 

i saw you were reading the thread, hehe . Have you seen Captain Eo? Do you remember the part in the spaceship at the beginning where the little flying dude comes out of the screen and appears to fly into the audience? It could be an exaggerated childhood memory but i remember almost everyone in the theatre ducking to dodge that shit, there wasn't a noticeable ghosting effect. BUT this could be because George Lucas + Francis Ford Copolla = the most expensive film made per minute ( i tink this record hasnt been broken) and that they worked extra hard to get that shot right on the disney projector.

Na haven't seen it... but was dude coming out at the screen quickly or slowly? Cause the 24FPS ghosting effect usually occurs when something is panning across (horizontally or vertically) the screen quickly.

--

http://incontention.com/?p=18957

""This is the most amazing cinematic experience I’ve ever had.""

http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2009/12/a_fine_madness.php

"This is too much of an adrenalized eye-popper not to see it as soon as possible, and absolutely in 3D and most desirably in 3D IMAX. "

Awe-

"The 3D is absolutely spectacular. The seats in front of me melted away: I was in the action. Pandoran bugs, critters, Na'vi, and avatars surrounded me. Cameron makes masterful use of the stereospace. From the scene where Jake leaves cryo to a woodsprite landing on Neytiri's arrow, the 3D enevelops you. The quality of the 3D cinematography is lightyears beyond that of any other 3D movie I've ever seen."

-http://marketsaw.blogspot.com/2009/12/avatar-my-first-thoughts.html

sounds alright

yeah man, sounds pretty cool right?

i guess

radical dude

*shrugs*

My nearest cinema is showing this in 3D. I guess I have no excuse.

I watched Judge Dredd last night, Avatar can't live up to that.

I'm just worried that the 3D version won't come to shanghai :-(

  On 12/11/2009 at 2:07 PM, Dan C said:

I watched Judge Dredd last night, Avatar can't live up to that.

I watched Rocky III on Tuesday and instantly wanted to watch Judge Dredd when Rocky threw his helmet at the statue.

I rocked some Demolition Man action too, it seemed like the right thing to do.

Chuffed that they did the premiere for this in London. I wonder why they did that?

It was totally freezing cold in London last night.

Euro cred, it's more cool to get all your first reviews from non american people

a few negative reviews starting to come in...have to say it sounds about exactly as I imagined, impressive spectacle but otherwise pretty paint-by-numbers.