Avatar time!!!

[Jeff Kilgroe]

SIDE BY SIDE AVATAR-DELGO COMPARISONS. CLICK HERE....pretty damn funny and damning.

Couldn't get tickets for Avatar day. Bummed, still have faith in ole' JC though.

That's pretty damn funny. And I couldn't round up tickets for Avatar day either.

The blue aliens rule has yet to be successfully challenged.

Case in point:

I like your rules, I'm very much inclined to agree with the accordions. As for blue aliens, I agree 100%. I'll probably make some enemies by saying this, but the 5th Element is a fine example of blue alien suckage. It also had Chris Tucker's motor mouth for the double-whammy of suck. :thumbup:

On that note, I will say that I have a lot of faith in Cameron. However, I wonder just how much of the film is really still his vision and how much is being dictated by all the other producers and collaborators. I'm sure the 3D adds a lot visually, but I can overlook the cartoony CGI if a good movie is there. Story is king... We'll see what happens.

 

[Ruairi Robinson]

That's pretty damn funny. And I couldn't round up tickets for Avatar day either.



I like your rules, I'm very much inclined to agree with the accordions. As for blue aliens, I agree 100%. I'll probably make some enemies by saying this, but the 5th Element is a fine example of blue alien suckage. It also had Chris Tucker's motor mouth for the double-whammy of suck. :thumbup:

On that note, I will say that I have a lot of faith in Cameron. However, I wonder just how much of the film is really still his vision and how much is being dictated by all the other producers and collaborators. I'm sure the 3D adds a lot visually, but I can overlook the cartoony CGI if a good movie is there. Story is king... We'll see what happens.

I would be inclined to assume that what Cameron wants, Cameron gets. He has earned it.

And I really really want my blue aliens rule to be demolished by this film. I really do.

R.

 

[Rudi Herbert]

On to the technical side of things now, for a hopefully more enlightened discussion:

I've always been an unabashed fan of Cameron, the Terminator is one of the most singularly original (and as far the first two films, perfectly realized) concepts of film making in the 20th century, Aliens is a hard core, no holds barred action science fiction tour de force that has yet to be equaled, The Abyss is an mazing technological achievement (especially for those who know how hard it is to shoot underwater) and even Titanic is an effortless classic, simple in its majesty and beautifully elegant in its execution. And let's just pretend True Lies never happened And though I feel Avatar will mark a new turn in the history of film making, it is not without its blatant technical flaws.

First off, the image quality is STRANGE, not bad, not "videoish" but certainly strange. Cameron is one of the few people that understands that 3D is hampered by the obvious fact that when you put on dark sunglasses over your eyes, the image will darken accordingly, and it always baffled me how almost nobody seemed to take that fact into consideration. 99% of all 3D movies I've ever seen look and feel dark, but not Cameron's, he knows you need to lighten your images to compensate. But with that commendable effort comes a weird lack of dark areas in the images, a lack of contrast, an absence of black, a flattened curve that keeps images thankfully bright but devoid of the needed s-curve we've grown accustomed to. His images seem to reside in the middle part of the range, with blacks that are never black and highlights that are not blown up, but milky and weird. Add to that the fact that he shoots with Sony F-950's in his rig, and this digital acquisition complicates, or perhaps causes, this disturbing lack of contrast and severely limited tonal range. The images in the lab in Pandora feel like crappy footage, the same as his Terminator 3D ride at Universal, with plastic looking skin tones and just a painfully odd, turn of the 20th century, experimental 2-strip look to images that are otherwise, perfectly lit and impeccably sharp (you ever seen an out of focus frame in a Cameron film?). So, in all fairness, he should have figured out a way to eliminate this problem, and if not, dare I say it, shoot on film, where celluloid would have forced its inherent contrast onto the screen. Perhaps shooting on RED would have made this much better, as RED can keep detail in most parts of the frame, but is capable of nice, saturated blacks.

As for whatever is not shot through a camera, which is easily 90% of the film, the CG is great, but in their aim for perfection, these artists have made one very simple, but drastic blunder. How do you know how "realistic" an alien, never before seen world truly is? You don't, but with that lack of a frame of reference comes the uneasy realization that you don't know whether to commend the images in their realism or scoff at their cartoonish nature. Mountains and rocks that float in the air are OK, as long as they look like the mountains and rocks we're used to. But when the foliage, the shape of the trees, the texture of the vegetation, all feel different than what we're used to, then they feel fake. And that's how many of the things feel in the world of Pandora, fake. I'm certain that in a true different universe will of course feel fake, but we don't have that point of comparison just yet. Remember how detailed the jungles in Skull Island were in Peter Jackson's King Kong? And yet, you had the unwavering feeling they felt "wrong"? That's because, in their efforts to give these locations a primordial, ancient look, they overlooked certain laws of nature, like the fact that most leaves are triangular and not round, or that due to gravity, trees grow in a certain way, and on and on. Well, the same applies to Pandora, it looks awesome, but it feels fake because subconciously, we are certain that trees behave the same whether on earth or Pandora. So, he should have taken care to make his world blue, all kinds or iridescent colors, unaffected by gravity and utterly different, BUT still respect the laws of nature that govern the shapes, look and feel of objects that are way too familiar to us. Cameron and WETA didn't quite achieve that, yet, this film will leave you convinced that this is something that has never done before, because simply put, it hasn't.

Yes, the film feels like an all-out video game, but wait a second now, what is truly wrong about that? How many times have all of us marveled at a video game and wished the state of the art was advanced enough to turn it into a believable film? Well, this is that type of effort, the first time somebody had the balls, the vision, and obviously the clout, to go for it. And Cameron went for it. And the film is still undeniably his. Although brought to life by the wizards of WETA, you'll feel a huge difference between the look and feel of Avatar and the Rings trilogy or King Kong, which is not good or bad in itself, just the proof that Cameron persevered in his vision. Is this the most photo realistic CG film ever made? Not really. Is it the one with most awesome universe, and one sharply rendered at that? Yes, without a doubt. Will it break box office records and become a sensation? I hope so but I doubt it. Will it be an experience that will drastically feel like nothing you've seen before, will it immerse you in its universe and story and not let you go until the lights come back on, will it leave you with the satisfaction that despite its obvious flaws, this is something you're really happy and grateful you got to see? YES, YES and YES. And honestly now, what else can you ask for? Avatar reminds me of another little movie that premiered in 1977 that showed us never before seen worlds in a bravado of new technology, the images, the story and the characters were pretty good too, not perfect, but good enough to make you like them and cherish them, and to revisit the film and its sequels many times. And look at what happen with Star Wars 32 years later....

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I have a simple rule:

Blue aliens suck.

[...]

The blue aliens rule has yet to be successfully challenged.

R.

To be clear... this rule is limited to film and not television right? Then again... she was probalby the worst character on the show...

 

[Tom Lowe]

I'm with you, Rudi.

IMO, it's been DECADES since we've seen a good sci-fi film about outer space and alien worlds, unless maybe you count Revenge of the Sith. We are long overdue!

 

[Joseph Ward]

Just seeing this apple trailer is not as good as I was expecting. Then again I was trying to not expect to much so I can be Blown Out when it arrives!

A moment of Zen from Mr. Lynch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKiIroiCvZ0

 

[REDneck]

I hope this tanks massively at the box office, killing the tentpole movie concept and opening the doors for more smaller productions, as well as dealing a death blow to 3D before it gets out of its infancy. Sorry James Cameron, but that would be my preferred outcome.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I hope this tanks massively at the box office, killing the tentpole movie concept and opening the doors for more smaller productions, as well as dealing a death blow to 3D before it gets out of its infancy. Sorry James Cameron, but that would be my preferred outcome.

Yeah... who wants the studios to make millions and millions of dollars in profit when they could be burning it on smaller productions which might only make a few hundred thousand. What pays for the smaller productions are films like titanic which make the studio billions of dollars in profit.

And if they stop making tentpole films then all I'll have to watch are indie dramas-- which are fine... but so are steamed carrots and sometimes you want a cupcake.

 

[Michael Bravin]

And if they stop making tentpole films then all I'll have to watch are indie dramas-- which are fine... but so are steamed carrots and sometimes you want a cupcake.

HAHAHAHA I haven't laughed so hard in a long time...also so true

 

[REDneck]

Yeah... who wants the studios to make millions and millions of dollars in profit when they could be burning it on smaller productions which might only make a few hundred thousand. What pays for the smaller productions are films like titanic which make the studio billions of dollars in profit.

And if they stop making tentpole films then all I'll have to watch are indie dramas-- which are fine... but so are steamed carrots and sometimes you want a cupcake.

That's great that you sort of know how to use sarcasm, but there's no logic to your idea that it takes big budget blockbusters to prop up the rest of the slate.

District 9: budget $30, gross $60+ in just the first week, probably $200 by the end of its run
Superbad: budget $20, gross $170
Gran Torino: budget $33, gross $270
The Devil Wears Prada: budget $35, gross $326
That Fat Greek Wedding Movie: budget $5, gross $369
Slumdog Millionaire: budget $15, gross $377
Borat: budget $18, gross $261
Juno: budget $8, gross $231
The Hangover: budget $35, gross $403

All figures in millions. These are just a few examples of films that are not dour navelgazing indie dramas, but were made for pennies (relatively) and raked in huge profits. How? I don't know, catchy ideas? Something a little different from the usual slick tentpole bullshit? Avatar could fund a dozen like these. Many wouldn't hit, but if one did it would pay for all. But most importantly, with the lower budgets, writers and directors would have permission to be more daring. It would be good for people who enjoy seeing good movies.

There's room for big budget spectacles, but I think the sweet spot would be about 20% of the current number per year. Let's have some movies that don't just go for the opening weekend cash grab, but are actually good enough to have legs. As you probably know, Jaws is the "original blockbuster" and took in $470 million worldwide. But do you know how much it made in its opening weekend? $7 million. And that was its budget, too. There's no mystery why it had such a good run.

It's sad that the biz today is about taking a bland, generic chunk of movie and ramming it into our faces with a marketing sledgehammer so that we're curious enough to see what the fuss is about for about 4 days until the next one comes along. I wish it were different, but that's how it is, and it will take the epic failing of a safe, polished, fussed-over-to-the-nth-degree tentpole like Avatar to change things even a little.

 

[Craig Ryan]

Eh, I wouldn't wish a flop on any movie I hadn't seen yet; for all we know it could very well be a cinematic masterpiece, but; that's an interesting point. I personally could do with less blockbusters these days; I don't think anyone will deny that many of them continue to be major let downs year after year. I'd actually like to see some of the "big boy" directors work with less money to be honest; see if they still have that creative edge. I'm still waiting for those "movies nobody wants to see" that Lucas mentioned before...oh wait...:leaving:

 

[Jeff Bruno]

I went to the Avatar IMAX 3D preview yesterday, and anyone who only saw the trailer online has no idea what they are in for.

 

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

Maybe the 3D aspect rocks but boy... That trailer makes the film look lame.

Multi-million dollar lameness.

 

[Joe G.]

"How many times have all of us marveled at a video game and wished the state of the art was advanced enough to turn it into a believable film?"

Never.

 

[Jim Klatt]

In order for me to be tempted to watch a sci-fi/fantasy film, my imagination has to be stoked. I mentioned in another forum how Where the Wild Things Are absolutely does that for me. This looks mathematical and weightless with all of the cgi.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Yeah but where are the district 9 toys? (They don't exist. I looked--and wanted some. )

If you just count box office yields you're missing the big picture. The studio makes gangbusters on their merchandising. Also many of those films are popular in the US but don't do nearly as well internationally so you have to look at international box office results as well.

Also you have to take into account that people have very limited time and spend a limited amount on movies. It's easier to market a single movie than it is to try and sell 20 movies. So you have to factor in the savings of promoting a big blockbuster to dozen movies.

Lastly... a $35m comedy is about as high budget as a comedy can possibly go so that's just a question of genre not budget. I'm sorry but some of us actually like spectacle movies which can't really be told with $30m. Good movies can be made with $30m. District 9 was a fantastic movie. But they'll be limited in scope and ambition.

What your list would tell me is not that they need to make more low budget films, it's that they need to make more big budget comedies.

 

[Michael Schmitt]

Does have a game quality about it, but I want to see it anyway. Hope there are no icebergs.

 

[Mark Pedersen]

I went to the Avatar IMAX 3D preview yesterday, and anyone who only saw the trailer online has no idea what they are in for.

I saw the IMAX 3D preview yesterday in San Francisco. I attended Cameron's presentation about the movie at a PGA event a couple of months ago so I was stoked to see it.

I have to say that I was disappointed in the 3D IMAX experience. Maybe the projection was off (it did seem too dim) but the environments looked too much like multiplane black light paintings. Fast motion sequences were hard to follow and at times disorienting.

The creature animations and Avatars looked great. But the backgrounds and environments looked too much like matte paintings with forced 3D effects at times. Kind of a plastic quality to foliage...

I saw Up! as well in a standard 3D projection and I thought it was wonderful. Within a couple of minutes I forgot I was watching 3D. Not so with Avatar in IMAX 3D. I found it hard to just relax into the movie.

Of course Up is clearly presented as an animated film and not intended to look realistic. Cameron had a much greater challenge in this film.

My thinking is that the combination of image scale in IMAX and 3D is not a good thing.

When it comes out, I'm going to see this in standard 3D rather than IMAX to see how it compares.

M

 

[Jeff Bruno]

The 3D is still not perfect. Cameron has acknowledged that in order to offer smooth seamless 3D it must be projected in 48fps instead of 24fps.

Aside from some strobing, I thought the 3D was mixed very well. I can't compare it to much. I saw Coraline in 3D and it didn't do anything for me.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Having kids, I've seen a lot of the new 3D movies this year. IMO, the two best so far have been UP and Monsters vs. Aliens. Both used 3D to great effect, it wasn't a gimmick, just an extension of the screen to add more depth. In some ways it was very subtle, they weren't sticking things out at you like most other 3D fils do, pretty easy to not even consciously notice the effect, but it's there in every frame and adds more than you realize.

I enjoyed Coraline and my daughter thought it was "like the best movie ever". But the 3D aspect of it was nothing special.

...Saw G-Force. what a pile of poop. The 3D was just a lame attempt at polishing a soggy turd.

Avatar looks interesting and I'm still very exited to see it. I think the biggest thing that caught me off-guard with the teaser is the overly colorful, cartoony look. I don't care how many more render passes and compositing layers they still need to put on there, the style itself is very "cartoony". Not that this is a bad thing, but it has a very "Star Wars" look to most of the CG, especially the characters. Once again, not necessarily a bad that. It's just that all the hype over the past couple years was telling is it would be something different.

As a real Sci-Fi geek, I still wish that Hollywood would go back to the golden days of Sci-Fi and give us something good, something that isn't a popcorn-munching action film, but something that requires some coherent thought. District 9 took a very large step in this direction, with the character development and the actual action-film portion being relatively short.

I think at times, Hollywood is too afraid to push a lot of genre boundaries as they try to predict what will sell. It's a business after all and it's very difficult to gamble with hundreds of millions of $$$. Hollywood learned in the early '80s that true Sci-Fi no longer sells the way it did in the 50's and 60's. So they stopped producing it. Sure there has been the Star Trek franchise, but that has remained somewhat popular for a multitude of reasons, Star Wars is not really Sci-Fi, more just fantasy / action. It seems to me that Hollywood is trying to get back into the Sci-Fi game, but they're unwilling to commit fully to it. A perfect example is "The Day the Earth Stood Still"... They remade this, but totally missed the essence and point of the original film so badly, that we ended up with a complete piece of garbage. I often wonder if there's anyone in Hollywood that even understands what Sci-Fi is and what about the genre has been mostly abscent from Hollywood films now for over 30 years...