Hm. There wasn't a thread for this. Whatever, I will be quick.
James made a new movie. James has made great movies before. James likes 3D. Yoska is casually curious, albeit sceptical but still hopeful. Yoska hasn't seen a 3D movie before so this might take Yoska's 3D virginity.
Trailer:
aVdO-cx-McA
Looks pretty cool from the trailer. It's supposed to be similar to Dances With Wolves though right? Does that mean it's going to be 4 hours long? There've been some good sci-fi movies out this year (though the only one that comes to mind right now is D9 
) so hopefully this one is good as well.
Smurfs .
Seen a few clips & previews on TV of this. Seems very hyped and looks to be quite good.
Smurfs .
I was thinking "Andalites" myself.
But yesh, weird looking aliens who are also humaoid.
I suspect cross-breeding potential. :/
I can't help but feel I have seen a plot line like this somewhere before. Douchebag humans discovering a new world only to find it inhabited by some other native humanoids. As the humans try to fight the natives to take the land, one man on the side of the humans falls in love with one of the natives…
Wait a minute!
Yup. Pocahontas. James Cameron literally just took the exact same plotline and added science fiction elements and aliens instead of native americans. Congratulations James Cameron on ripping off other peoples ideas and selling them as your own.
Originality (or lack there of) aside, this movie doesn't look awful. The story of Pocahontas isn't a bad one by any means-but to me it seems they are focusing more on the CGI and special effects than actual story or character development. Hopefully, the man who wrote the Terminator series will prove me wrong.
There's only like, 6 stories in all of human telling when you boil them down to basics anyway. Its about the details and execution. Clashing of culture romance was done at least as far back as Greek myth, in any story involving an amazon tribe.
The fact that the only movies anyone pull up are Dances with Wolves or Pocahontas, from 14 and 20 years ago respectivley, says to me, its NOT a theme thats been overplayed recently.
I know everyone keeps making the comparison mockingly, but Dances with Wolves was an excellent movie, award winner, and it came out in 1990. The comparison is a hopeful one, rather than a negative, in my book. Most people that disparage DwW offhand just don't have the patience for a 3 hour movie or have never actually watched it in full. The ending with Socks gets me every time. And heck, its probably an older movie than some of the people in this forum.
Yeah, it's more like Pocahontas than Dance with Wolves. Although I doubt those movies were first to tell this archetype story. Terminator was basicly just a slasher movie rip-off with sci-fi twist, too.
Edit: And, yeah, Dances with Wolves was a damn excellent film. So let's hope Avatar can be even half as good. Well, at least it is going to be an almost 3 hour movie. That's a start 
.
Lawrence of Arabia is also a flik that had a "man goes to another culture and adopts their ways" sort of thing that turned into a total war picture, and its typically considered one of the best movies of all time.
Of course, no one is pulling up THAT reference, because that movie is, you know… 40 years old.
Or hey, Princess Mononoke has a guy leaving his home and meeting up with a bunch of natives and hanging out with beasts, and falling in love ith a wild girl, in a jungle even, and its not even remotely the same movie as Dances with Wolves.
Avatar isn't out yet, no one but the people that worked on it knows exactly what its going to be, just what a couple minutes of previews give away.
The 3 hour run time make me hopeful, rather than scared. And Cameron's track record of Terminator, T2, True Lies, Abyss, Alien, Aliens, Titanic, etc. means he gets the credibility and benefit of the doubt.
Seriously, if you're going to insult a movie that no one has yet seen, based on 30 seconds of promotional material because you absolutley MUST scorn it, don't compare it to the 1990 academy award winner for best picture, and don't just rehash the easy South Park joke. Pick something stupid and insipid that has the same theme.
Like Ferngully.
Saw half of Lawrence of Arabia and thought it was pretty good up to the part I got to. Never seen Dances With Wolves but that's what this movie is mostly compared with. I hope it's good, it looks really good.
Looks preachy as hell
The trailer looked terrible. If this wasn't a James Cameron film, there's no chance I'd watch it.
Will wait for reviews.
The film looks great. The plot sounds boring. Pass.
the visuals are amazing
everything else is shit.
Looks great visually but I doubt the plot can keep up.
I'll probably end up watching it just to see the cross species mating…
@Bad-Beat:
the visuals are amazing
Half a billion dollars will do that.
Complicating things since 2009.
yes, yes it will.
But then it will probably make a billion in returns. so…
Reminds me of what Nostalgia Critic said about Batman and Robin. "Aren't you glad that so much money was spent on special effects for this piece of shit?" Then again, I highly doubt this will be Batman and Robin quality bad. That's pretty low.
Off-Topic: "What killed the dinosaur's? The Ice Age!" That had nothing to do with the conversation, Mr. Freeze! That makes as much sense as "I was frozen today!"
Anyway…
Everyone I know is getting this movie mixed up with the anime and movie based off of the anime, Avatar the Last Airbender.
I mean, they are obviously very different. But for those who have never seen a single second of ATLA, I suppose I can understand.
And of course, since I'm the anime/video game freak of the family, everyone comes to me asking "Do you want to see it/Does that seem like a good adaptation to the real show?".
@Bad-Beat:
But then it will probably make a billion in returns. so…
Possible, but it's hard to believe.
Films that have passed the billion dollar mark in a single release:
Titanic - Was the beneficiary of massive repeat business and also a year devoid of any real competition at the box office; it also helped that it was in theaters in the US for ten months.
Return of the King - Third in a series based on books that had been popular for half a century and that were generally very well received by fans of said books.
Pirates of the Carribbean: Dead Man's Chest - Sequel to one of the biggest surprise hits in film history.
The Dark Knight - Massively hyped sequel; had massive media coverage from tragic death of star during production.
Reputedly, it can turn a profit if it passes the 250 million mark because of how it was paid for, but I don't know it'll make it to even that level.
I don't really want this to pass a billion or think it deserves to. I went to Avatar day a couple months back and saw the 15 minute preview, in IMAX 3D. The visuals were great but everything else was just awful. The plot, the characters everything just awful.
I reckon it'll come close to the billion mark just because of the hype and marketing campiagn that is going on for this.
…please don't compare James Cameron's films to Lawrence of Arabia.
Either way, I'm a lot more interested than I was with the previous trailer. I just kind of like the idea of floating islands and will watch a movie solely for them.
I also compared it to Ferngully.
The trailer looked terrible. If this wasn't a James Cameron film, there's no chance I'd watch it.
Pretty much it. If i didnt know this guy had it in him to make great movie, i'd never even consider watching this.
@robbybevard:
I also compared it to Ferngully.
Meets the Smurfs.
So it is a crossover.
It being a Cameron movie is really the only reason why I got interested in first place.
I have been a fan of all of his movies. At least so far. Although it took a long time for me to start liking Titanic. But, hey, I was like 12 when it came out and I was a pretty darn snobby geek during my teenage years so… yeah. Emphasis on snobby. Popular big budget romantic Hollywood (God forbids! :shocked:) movies didn't exactly click with me. But now I can dig it with a good conscious.
I don't know, movie looks terrible. I know James Cameron did it and all, but still just doesn't look like it's going to be any good.
Oh fun fact about the movie and James Cameron's ego:
M. Night Shalayman is producing a movie called the Last Airbender, based off a tv show called "Avatar the Last Airbender". The title of the show was orginally going to be the name of the movie as well until JC stepped in and sued them for using the word Avatar in the movie as that was apprently know his. So they went to court and the Judge told M. Night kiss it and told him the word Avatar couldn't be used in the title of his movie.
What a douche.
"Wasn't the Internet made for scanlations in the first place?"- Simon Jones
Got talked into seeing it opening night AT THE WORLD'S BIGGEST SCREEN at the darling harbour IMAX on the 16th. Saw Up in 3D on it, so even if the story is a stinker I think I'll at least be treated to 2.5 hours of glorious eye candy, sorta like the spirits wihtin.
@The:
M. Night Shalayman is producing a movie called the Last Airbender, based off a tv show called "Avatar the Last Airbender". The title of the show was orginally going to be the name of the movie as well until JC stepped in and sued them for using the word Avatar in the movie as that was apprently know his. So they went to court and the Judge told M. Night kiss it and told him the word Avatar couldn't be used in the title of his movie. What a douche.
Well, Cameron did acquire the movie rights for the name "Avatar" over 10 years ago or something like that. Long before that cartoon even existed anyway. I think it's only good there won't be two movies with so similar names.
Well, Cameron did acquire the movie rights for the name "Avatar" over 10 years ago or something like that. Long before that cartoon even existed anyway. I think it's only good there won't be two movies with so similar names.
Considering how Avatar has turned out, I don't think having his movie confused with another movie (with a build in fan base to boot) would be a bad thing.
How it has turned out? I haven't yet seen a single review.
But, yeah, having two movies with similar names certainly wouldn't serve us the consumers. Mothers accidentally buying wrong DVDs for their sons and so on. And if somebody says he went to see Avatar at least I prefer to know which movie he or she meant without asking. But then again that's just me.
Alright, so I've also been keeping an eye on this since I saw the wiki article a year ago.
I've seen both teaser and theatrical trailers, and so far it looks.. okay.
But after I saw the "chase scene" clip (available on RottenTomatoes), it sort of became obvious that this won't be as "revolutionary" as hyped. Predictable plot aside, the CG looks, well, like CG.
The motion-capture looks nice, but it doesn't scream "photorealistic" as promised. Maybe we're supposed to watch this in HD, but if it's supposed to simulate live action, we shouldn't be able to tell the difference whether its high-def or not. The 2005 King Kong looks just as good and it came out 4 years ago.
Technicalities aside, I think I'll wait for the reviews to come in before I go to the theaters. James Cameron may have an amazing track record, but so did Spielberg, and look what happened with Crystal Skull.
The 2005 King Kong looks just as good and it came out 4 years ago.
I couldn't disagree with that more.
The chase scene with the T-Rex is the worst bit of CGI I've seen in a loooong time.
DUDE IM GONNA
have to disagree with you
But seriously how's Avatar's CG better? Granted I haven't seen the previews on IMAX, but I hope this won't be the kind of movie that only a few people might be able to enjoy.
I think Avatar will benefit from the 3D technology. Like I mentioned, I've seen clips with IMAX 3D and it definately adds greater definition to the picture and experience. 3D is definately the future in terms of High Definition so this will be a big step towards that.
It is just a shame the plot seems to be a load of donkey balls.
Well it'll be kind of sad if said donkey balls plot ultimately leads to a poor performance in the box office, which leads to studios not wanting to fund massive 3D projects like avatar again, which leads to NO MORE DEVELOPMENT IN 3D TECHNOLOGY.
Then again, that doesn't seem likely since Robert Zemeckis keeps getting budgets of over 100 mils for his movies anyway.
But two and a half hours of Pocahontas plot… either Cameron knows he needs time to develop his characters lest they became cliches, or he's an overindulgent bastard.
The best CGI I've seen has to be in District 9. Now this movie has about 10 times the budget and has around equivalent or worse CGI. I guess there's more but still.
@Kairouseki:
The best CGI I've seen has to be in District 9. Now this movie has about 10 times the budget and has around equivalent or worse CGI. I guess there's more but still.
I think 2012's was a lot better then the way this movie is looking.
The visuals in Avatar actually aren't bad at all; they're actually very good. I think it's the fact that they were hyped up so much and cost like half a billion dollars (and not actually being better than a lot of other movies) that making people unimpressed them.
Yeah, CGI in D-9 looked very very nice. Although I think that movie had it little easier. Or you could say they were smart with it. It had shorter running time, CGI was much more focused and limited in use, shaky hand-held camera effect probably helped to "cheat" in some scenes and so on. Avatar is pretty long it's running time, lotsa of scenes are done in CGI only, and formost it has these huge, lush, colourful and organic set pieces with lotsa going on. I think both looks great. But with different merits.
Hey, you know, D-9 actually uses the same archetype plot as Avatar. It has oppressors and a protagonist who at first is an oppressor too, because of not knowing better but once he becomes acquainted with the oppressed as he lives with them he ends up taking their side in an armed in conflict.
Yeah, CGI in D-9 looked very very nice. Although I think that movie had it little easier. Or you could say they were smart with it. It had shorter running time, CGI was much more focused and limited in use, shaky hand-held camera effect probably helped to "cheat" in some scenes and so on. Avatar is pretty long it's running time, lotsa of scenes are done in CGI only, and formost it has these huge, lush, colourful and organic set pieces with lotsa going on. I think both looks great. But with different merits.
Hey, you know, D-9 actually uses the same archetype plot as Avatar. It has oppressors and a protagonist who at first is an oppressor too, because of not knowing better but once he becomes acquainted with the oppressed as he lives with them he ends up taking their side in an armed in conflict.
That's pretty much a general story plot used since the dawn of literacy. The point is the execution of the story as well as how the story elements are handled (characterization, lack of deus ex machinas etc.)
Reviews are starting to emerge:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/avatar/
(ignore the stupidity of comments under the "bad" reviews, RT is full of fags)
Roger Ebert gave it four stars, BUT he's sometimes such a twit anyway.
As expected, most are dissing the plot/characters, but at least the effects are getting raves.
I didn't expect much from the plot/characters anyways. The antagonist seems like a pretty shallow character.
Nevertheless, I am still excited to see this movie. I think the visuals are going to be able to make me forget about the rest of the flaws. Maybe I should go to IMAX for this one.
<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="
"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></object>I'll go in this movie on Wednesday … I am pretty sure the story sucks but the images look just awesome and I wanna see that shit in 3D.
It disturbs me that people would see a movie just for the visuals, even if the story sucks.
So many people in the world. And so many bullets. Lots and lots of bullets.
It disturbs me that people would see a movie just for the visuals, even if the story sucks.
I always looked at that like how people can admire the brush technique and technical skill of a painting even if the subject is something retarded or boring.
Most early reviews are saying that it's good (Tomatometer at 91%, 45 reviews in). I'm starting to be hopeful.
It disturbs me that people would see a movie just for the visuals, even if the story sucks.
Might as well get used to it. Stuff like Transformers and 2012 make money anyway. (2012 was fun though, even with its weak story you can't deny that the destruction of California was epic. Transformers gave me AIDS.)
It disturbs me that people would see a movie just for the visuals, even if the story sucks.
Normally I would agree but people say this movie introduces new technology and leads in a new age regarding movie visuals.
I don't know if this is true but I just try. And if true, I want to see this movie in cinema and not on DVD/Blu Ray at home.
Besides, I wasn't at cinema for ages anyway so why not
@Thousand:
That's pretty much a general story plot used since the dawn of literacy. The point is the execution of the story as well as how the story elements are handled (characterization, lack of deus ex machinas etc.)
And that was kinda like my whole point. :happy:
Anyway, seems like the movie is getting a pretty positive reception from critics. Of course there are those who don't like it, that's normal, but overall the movie is doing surprisingly well. Better than I dared to expect, at least. And Cameron wants to make Avatar sequals: http://movies.ign.com/articles/105/1053904p1.html
Hey, the man has made perhaps some of the best movie sequals ever so why not. But I suppose this movie needs to bring in lotsa hard cash before that is going to happen.
