Avatar

[Biter]

I'm thinking too much time spent on visuals and not enough spent on story = not gonna be one of the all time great sci-fi movies. District 9 on the other hand, with a much lower budget, looks like it's gonna stand the test of time much better.

So you've already decided Avatar isn't worth watching? Or just that it can't possibly be a great movie?

Well, that's just like... your opinion, man.

Personally, I plan to see this on opening day. Sure, it's been overhyped, but it looks good to me.

[polishgenius]

Can someone explain to me again why this is supposed to be the end all be all?

It's the 3D that's meant to be special, turning it into a genuine filmmaking step forward rather than the gimmick it currently is. We obviously can't tell that from a trailer.

I am a bit sceptical though. And a bit worried, because my eyesight problems could lead to problems with 3D (my left eye is weaker than my right, and that affected me watching Coraline in 3D) which this won't be immune to, and I really hope 3D in this form doesn't totally push out normal films.

[Myrddin]

If you look at individual frames, it's all so well done that they avoid the uncanny valley. But when the scenes flip back and forth between looking like a live-action movie and looking like an animated movie, the result is rather unsettling and fake-looking.

It accentuates how the CG heavy-scenes are CG rather than blending the two together well.

I believe it's 100% green screen...

Not positive, but I remember reading that a while back.

[Crazydog7]

Well so far it looks OK of course with Previews that doesn't mean much but at least it doesn't look as hashed and predictable as Doom and the Resident Evils. It could work we will just have to wait until December to see.

[Cuellar]

Never heard of this movie, and based no the trailer I'm not THAT impressed. Reminds me of Halo version of Star Wars actually. We'll see on the story....

[polishgenius]

I believe it's 100% green screen...

Not positive, but I remember reading that a while back.

The planet is, but I don't think the indoor scenes are. Also, he may be referring to the fact that the people are real and the avatars/aliens aren't.

Well so far it looks OK of course with Previews that doesn't mean much but at least it doesn't look as hashed and predictable as Doom and the Resident Evils. It could work we will just have to wait until December to see.

Why bring those up? It's not a game spinoff movie... As an original sci-fi movie with view to franchise, only Star Wars and the Matrix are comparable, and I'm pretty sure both of those were fairly surprising when they first appeared, as opposed to this which is fairly unkown outside film fans but as hyped up as probably any film ever within film-geek circles.

[cseresz]

Erm, what are your critera for this division? In what universe is A Clockwork Orange more similar to E.T. than to, say, Children of Men?

Who cares about Sunshine, Cloverfield, CoM nowadays? When I'm talking with my friends about sci-fi films or browsing in forums, I almost never bump into these movies. People "always" give Solaris (1972), Alien/Aliens, Blade Runner etc. as references.

[cseresz]

Can someone explain to me again why this is supposed to be the end all be all?

"I can say with absolute certainty that you will see stuff you've never imagined"

"Of course the final standard of photoreal animation will be consistent throughout the film"

"People should not be thinking that was live action and that was CG."

"The cut is shaping up nicely and the stuff coming in from Weta Digital is astonishing. Every once in a while, as we are absorbed in some intensely detailed discussion about sub-surface scattering or the way a tail is moving in the animation, I'll just stop and have this moment of clarity, as if seeing it for the first time. And I realize that's what the lunar astronauts must have felt like. They'd be in the middle of some complex set of procedures and they'd look out the window and go "Oh, yeah. That's the frickin' moon!" It feels like that."

James Francis Cameron

[Werthead]

Who cares about Sunshine, Cloverfield, CoM nowadays? When I'm talking with my friends about sci-fi films or browsing in forums, I almost never bump into these movies. People "always" give Solaris (1972), Alien/Aliens, Blade Runner etc. as references.

Those three films come up a lot in discussions and recs on this board. They've also only been out for a very short space of time, and it's unsurprising they haven't made it onto a list of universally-recognised classics, and I don't think Cloverfield, which is decent and entertaining movie but no more, ever will. Sunshine also doesn't look like it's going to make it, although for my money for sheer visual power it's the best SF film since Blade Runner (although narratively it's knocked into a ditch by the Terminators, Aliens and a few others). Children of Men I suspect is going to be much more widely-regarded as a classic in years to come though.

[antisocial]

k, I'm totally clueless. That trailer is the first Ive ever heard about this.

So fill me in people.

Is it based off a book? A game? Or what?

Why the negativity? It looks pretty damn impressive to me.

And special effects can be just as engaging as a good story. Star Was is a great example of that. Its about as weak on the story telling as you can get, but it has influenced movies and fired the imagination of people for...fuck 30 years now.

I just think people are too jaded nowadays.

[Mike]

Those three films come up a lot in discussions and recs on this board. They've also only been out for a very short space of time, and it's unsurprising they haven't made it onto a list of universally-recognised classics, and I don't think Cloverfield, which is decent and entertaining movie but no more, ever will. Sunshine also doesn't look like it's going to make it, although for my money for sheer visual power it's the best SF film since Blade Runner (although narratively it's knocked into a ditch by the Terminators, Aliens and a few others). Children of Men I suspect is going to be much more widely-regarded as a classic in years to come though.

Agreed. Whenever I'm discussing the best films of the decade, Children of Men always makes it into the conversation. Rightfully so. It is a great film, not just a great sci-fi film.

So as not to hijack the thread: Avatar has a great look to it in HD, and it is a movie that I'll drive to an IMAX theater to see.

[Brude]

Okay, I saw the 15 minute teaser, gonna respond to James Cameron's quotes that were posted above by csercez:

"I can say with absolute certainty that you will see stuff you've never imagined"

Um, I dunno. It looks VERY lush, but it also looks a lot like some of the better video game cut scenes and teasers I've seen, albeit in higher resolution. Mix a little of Blizzard aesthetic and color palette, with the Crysis Engine and some creatures from Star Wars Eps. 1-3 and you get the idea, I think

"Of course the final standard of photoreal animation will be consistent throughout the film"

It wasn't - so long as the action of the actors was from motion capture, it looked great, but they still had some problems animating the wilder stunts which don't always contain what appear to be realistic movements. It's still obviously animation, IMO. Really great animation, but I still felt it looked like it wasn't a real world.

"People should not be thinking that was live action and that was CG."

Sorry, still not there. Like Gollum, when they do close-ups of the faces, it looks pretty perfect, but as soon as they pull back I think they get a bit sloppy (no doubt due to time constraints). If the story is good enough, I won't care because I'll just be watching a very good animated flick, if not it might bug me more.

I think they probably worked overtime in the scenes where humans were interacting directly with the Night Elves because in those scenes it looked great, but I don't think the all CGI sequences were 100% realistic. More like 95% there, but that little bit matters and is always noticable.

The last quote I can't respond to, except to say it sounds like he's having fun making this movie.

[polishgenius]

Bear in mind that the effects are (a) probably not fully finished yet and (b) designed to be seen on a big screen, preferably in 3D - so it might be better in that context.

I'm still cynical, but don't judge Cameron's comments by the trailer.

[The Anti-Targ]

So you've already decided Avatar isn't worth watching? Or just that it can't possibly be a great movie?

Well, that's just like... your opinion, man.

Personally, I plan to see this on opening day. Sure, it's been overhyped, but it looks good to me.

Since when does "not gonna be one of the all time great sci-fi movies" turn into "not worth watching"? Are you saying the only sci-fi movies worth watching are the all time greats? I certainly wouldn't go along with that sort of assertion. I went to see both Transformers movies, all the Star Trek Movies, all 3 Matrix movies (the original Matrix is one of the all time greats, the other 2 not so much), and many other non-all time great sci-fi movies besides.

So no, I haven't decided Avatar's not worth watching. I have decided it's not gonna live up to the hype.

Will it usher in a new standard in movie-making: high quality 3D CGI? Well we already have high quality CGI, and high quality 3D. So combining the 2 isn't exactly a bolt out of the blue.

[Brude]

Bear in mind that the effects are (a) probably not fully finished yet and (b) designed to be seen on a big screen, preferably in 3D - so it might be better in that context.

I'm still cynical, but don't judge Cameron's comments by the trailer.

(a) Possible, but I believe what I saw are finished effects

(b) I saw this on the big screen, and in 3D IMAX, 15 minutes worth.

I'd like to also add something about the 3D technology - it's not anything new. It's the same 3D technology that was invented in the 1950's using simple polarized glasses and is nowhere near as perfect looking as the Sony system that was developed in the 1990's that used computerized LED polarized goggles, but seems to have fallen out of use. The Sony system was superior because the quality of the 3D image was perfect, with wholly rounded images and realistic depth. If a scene was shot right, you actually felt you were inside the space with the people on the screen. The old fashioned, system here creates very flat images, so there is a feeling that you are viewing a series a planes on the screen, not rounded objects in space.

Also, with the Sony system one did not get the annoying sense of dark and light patches you do with the simple system, which I find constantly distracting. The LED goggles somehow compensated for that, too.

I have a feeling the Sony system, though superior, proved unworkable with goggles breaking and people complaining too much - that's my guess. While it's a vastly superior technology in terms of image quality, it might not make as much commercial sense.

[Biter]

I have decided it's not gonna live up to the hype.

That I can understand, but hype isn't the best way to judge a movie. Nor are trailers, that's why I had a problem with you ranking District 9 above Avatar this early.

[cseresz]

k, I'm totally clueless. That trailer is the first Ive ever heard about this.

So fill me in people.

Is it based off a book? A game? Or what?

Why the negativity? It looks pretty damn impressive to me.

And special effects can be just as engaging as a good story. Star Was is a great example of that. Its about as weak on the story telling as you can get, but it has influenced movies and fired the imagination of people for...fuck 30 years now.

SPOILER: Very big spoiler! Careful!

The script (http://www.mediafire.com/file/maz4yuded5z/Avatar.pdf) is very weak. Just another Pocahontas, Dances with wolfes etc. And when someone spends on a film 195/350 million dollars, I expect him to deliver me a script above average. And as you say, SW was 30 years ago, meanwhile we grew accustomed to special effects.

I just think people are too jaded nowadays.

It seems there are no new fields in filmmaking. We have seen everything. The situation is similar to what we get in epic fantasy. The last big explosion was GRRM. That was 13 years ago!

Where is the new Rear window, Roman holiday, High Noon, True lies, Three colours, Ninotchka, Bullitt, Die hard, The 400 blows, Delicatessen, Philadelphia, Family nest etc. etc. ? I just find remakes after remakes. Of course sometimes a remake can be very good: The thing.

from latimes: (ok, I know about King Kong :))

"GB: Certainly, it's a place to introduce the new and celebrate the past, but I suppose what I was suggesting is that these days it seems difficult to make a big special-effects film unless it's based on some pre-existing, known quantity in pop-culture, such as a novel, comic book, video game, TV show, toy line or previous movie. You look at the Harry Potter films, "Iron Man," "Star Trek," "Transformers"...

PJ:I mean, personally I think that’s one of the most depressing things about the film industry generally today. The writers and directors should be blamed just as much as the studios because really everything seems to be a remake or adapting a 1970s TV show that was never particularly good. Why anyone thinks that it would be a good feature film now, you know, goodness knows why. And I guess it’s easy to say it's security that you know a studio is only prepared to put $150 million or $200 million into something if it’s a known quantity. But at the same time I’m also aware that audiences are getting fed up with the lack of original ideas and original stories. And if you look back to the great days of "Star Wars" and "Indiana Jones" and those sorts of movies, they weren’t based on TV shows, they weren’t based on comics. They were inspired by them and they had DNA in them which came from years of Flash Gordon and various things in the past but nonetheless they were original. And yet we seem to be incapable as a general industry, which includes not just the studios but the filmmakers and writers and directors, we seem to be incapable of doing that now for some reason. It’s a little bit depressing. But hopefully it’s a cycle. Everything in the film business tends to be cyclic and hopefully this all drains itself out in a couple years and we’ll be back into original stories again."

And a little bit from a review about The Decalogue:

"But here's something that few have mentioned: This set of films was MADE FOR and SHOWN on Polish television. Polish TV! Good Morning! We get "Friends", they get "The Decalogue". Wait a minute, weren't we the open society that promoted free speech, creativity and genius? And weren't they the totalitarian state that censored the creative and spoon fed the party line to the public? Watch TV here for ten hours (the length of "The Decalogue") and tell me what we're getting spoon fed. Sewage, to put it nicely."

Sorry for the long post.

[The Anti-Targ]

That I can understand, but hype isn't the best way to judge a movie. Nor are trailers, that's why I had a problem with you ranking District 9 above Avatar this early.

Yes and no. If the movie is being hyped by its makers as the greatest thing in movies since colour (maybe I'm hyping the hype there, but Cameron certainly seems to be saying that movies will never be the same again). Then the people making and promoting the movie are telling us to expect something monumental. I think it is quite legitimate to judge a movie by that sort of hype. The producers/studio are setting things up for potential widespread disappointment, and it will be all on them if that is the outcome. I fully expect people who buy in to Cameron's hyperbole to be let down. I won't be let down because I'm not buying in to the outrageous claims of greatness. Hopefully it means I will like it more than I expect.

Now if it's fan hype, that's an entirely different matter. One should not judge a movie based on fan hype.

[Brude]

I guess

, that being said I think it's one of the better ones of these I've seen so far. It made me laugh.

[Calibandar]

Hehe. That was funny.