AVATAR - See it in 3D if you haven't! #1 Movie All-Time Domestic & Worldwide!

[3 Justin 3]

Why are people calling the story/plot crap already, we haven't even seen the movie.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

I wasn't impressed by the original preview, and now hearing that it's going to be in 3D I'm even less impressed.
3D is to movies what autotune is the music. Quit with the gimmicks, and make a good film!

The stereoscopic 3D in Avatar is not a gimmick or an afterthought. It will be the first movie that was designed and filmed using a camera that mimmicks the way human vision uses perspective and focus. It will look many times better than any 3D movie so far.

Originally Posted by Dirty Mr. Clean

The animation looks worse then Star Wars Ep 1 and 3D in its current form will not help this movie. The only saving grace this movie could have is a great story.... and that would be shocking.

Wow, you should go back and watch Ep1 again. Either that or have your vision closely checked out. Also, Avatar does not use 3D "in its current form" it is using a totally new technology.

[Nehkara]

Originally Posted by zamler

The stereoscopic 3D in Avatar is not a gimmick or an afterthought. It will be the first movie that was designed and filmed using a camera that mimmicks the way human vision uses perspective and focus. It will look many times better than any 3D movie so far.

Wow, you should go back and watch Ep1 again. Either that or have your vision closely checked out. Also, Avatar does not use 3D "in its current form" it is using a totally new technology.

Thanks for posting this. I did not know the details so did not know how to articulate it.

I am looking forward to a new generation of CGI, a new generation of 3D and another fantastic film from James Cameron.

AVATAR also clocks in at 2 hr 46 mins so the story should be fully fleshed out and the characters well rounded. (A complaint I have with many movies these days.)

[Pastiche]

What story is there to flesh out? Looks utterly predictable.

As someone said it's the Pocahontas storyline. Guy infiltrates group of bad guys, finds out his side is the actual bad guys, works to sabotage his side and his evil boss. All of the cliches will be there.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

What story is there to flesh out? Looks utterly predictable.

As someone said it's the Pocahontas storyline. Guy infiltrates group of bad guys, finds out his side is the actual bad guys, works to sabotage his side and his evil boss. All of the cliches will be there.

Show me a movie without cliches. Hell, Slumdog Millionare had all of them, including the cultural cliches and it won Best Picture.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

Show me a movie without cliches. Hell, Slumdog Millionare had all of them, including the cultural cliches and it won Best Picture.

Dude, it had a giant Bollywood dance number at the end! How could they not give it the best picture award?

[flip]

Yikes, the reaction to this on CP is weird. Pretty much everywhere in the known universe people are totally stoked for this movie. Groundbreaking special effects (as Zamler already detailed in post 62), movie from one of the best directors of all time (Cameron) and a classic story.

The reaction to this movie is like the exact opposite of the reaction to Snakes on a Plane.

It is almost like it has become "cool" on CP to hate Avatar just because it might be an amazing movie. Personally I think it is a good thing. Less people in line for when I see it at midnight on opening day.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by flip

It is almost like it has become "cool" on CP to hate Avatar just because it might be an amazing movie. Personally I think it is a good thing. Less people in line for when I see it at midnight on opening day.

Not really, it just doesn't look good, plain and simple.
No one is saying it "won't" be good for sure, and if it turns out to be amazing, I'm sure those of us with doubts right now will change our tune. Hopefully that happens, no one here is hoping it's a terrible movie.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by flip

Pretty much everywhere in the known universe people are totally stoked for this movie.

I have not met one person interested in this movie.

However, it is the most anticipated movie at RT:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/avatar/

[ShaolinFlame]

So is this supposed to get my white mans guilt on or what?

MANIFEST DESTINY FTW!!!

[Pastiche]

Originally Posted by flip

Yikes, the reaction to this on CP is weird. Pretty much everywhere in the known universe people are totally stoked for this movie. Groundbreaking special effects (as Zamler already detailed in post 62), movie from one of the best directors of all time (Cameron) and a classic story.

The reaction to this movie is like the exact opposite of the reaction to Snakes on a Plane.

It is almost like it has become "cool" on CP to hate Avatar just because it might be an amazing movie. Personally I think it is a good thing. Less people in line for when I see it at midnight on opening day.

My reply to this post is simple. 3D, special effects, computer graphics do not make a movie good. The core components that decide if a movie is good or not have not changed and will not change. Those are story, timing, acting, editing and cinematography. You can't excel at just one of those components and have a good movie. Special effects can enhance those core components but they cannot replace them.

My adverse reaction to the movie is an adverse reaction to the sentiment that technology, computer graphics and camera gimmicks are now reasons to believe that a movie will be good.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

My adverse reaction to the movie is an adverse reaction to the sentiment that technology, computer graphics and camera gimmicks are now reasons to believe that a movie will be good.

No offense, but it sounds like you don't know much about James Cameron or his movies. He takes story telling very seriously, and has always said that a movie must stand on its own and not on the visual effects. And he has always delivered. He's not perfect, some of this writing is corn ball, but all of his movies pack an emotional punch intermixed with a great spectacle, I don't expect Avatar to be any different.

Calling the stereoscopic 3D technology "camera gimmicks" is laughable, an entirely new way of filming was used, right down the cameras themselves as they are a new invention in their own right, and were co-designed and invented by Cameron. In fact the tech has impressed such directors as Spielberg and he will be using it for his films in the future.

If you are not interested in ground breaking stereoscopic 3D, or visuals that push the envelope beyond what has been done before and just want to engage in a compelling story, read a book.

[CMPunk]

Originally Posted by zamler

If you are not interested in ground breaking stereoscopic 3D, or visuals that push the envelope beyond what has been done before and just want to engage in a compelling story, read a book.

Ok

But seriously, so what if the filming is groundbreaking, it still doesn't look like an interesting movie to some of us

[zamler]

Originally Posted by CMPunk

But seriously, so what if the filming is groundbreaking, it still doesn't look like an interesting movie to some of us

That's cool, I absolutely have no desire to see some types of movies others love.

But slagging off Avatar as using gimmicks is way off.

[Stumptown]

Originally Posted by zamler

Calling the stereoscopic 3D technology "camera gimmicks" is laughable, an entirely new way of filming was used, right down the cameras themselves as they are a new invention in their own right, and were co-designed and invented by Cameron. In fact the tech has impressed such directors as Spielberg and he will be using it for his films in the future.

Well Stanley Kubrick worked with NASA to develop the cameras to use in the low-light scenes in Barry Lyndon and you don't hear very much about that anymore. I wouldn't say it was a gimmick, it got Kubrick what he needed to make the movie he wanted. But what he wanted was to show the scene the way it really looked, not some fabricated digital fantasy.

Originally Posted by zamler

If you are not interested in ground breaking stereoscopic 3D, or visuals that push the envelope beyond what has been done before and just want to engage in a compelling story, read a book.

Actually, I'm not interested. I love movies, I love fantasy, sci-fi, horror, all kinds of movies. Maybe I'm just too old, but CGI, no matter how "advanced" it is will always look fake to me. I'd honestly rather see a guy in a rubber suit, it will always look more real. I think too many directors start out with good intentions of using digital effects to tell the story, then get too bogged down in post production and the effects take over. And the rest of them are just lazy. Technology should a tool, not the result.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by zamler

But slagging off Avatar as using gimmicks is way off.

How do you know? have you already seen it?

[flip]

T2, Titanic, True Lies, The Abyss, Aliens, Terminator.


If that isn't reason enough to want to see this movie, trailer or not, I don't know what is.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Stumptown

Maybe I'm just too old, but CGI, no matter how "advanced" it is will always look fake to me. I'd honestly rather see a guy in a rubber suit, it will always look more real. I think too many directors start out with good intentions of using digital effects to tell the story, then get too bogged down in post production and the effects take over. And the rest of them are just lazy. Technology should a tool, not the result.

You've likely watched many movies and saw digital effects but did not even realize they were there. And to say that "a guy in a rubber suit, it will always look more real" is interesting, because unless you want to always see a character that can be played by a guy in a rubber suit, other methods are necessary. Movie making is about advancing, moving forward with new ways to tell a story. You can tell a bad story using special effects, you can tell a bad story using visual effects. Or you can tell a great story using whatever is available to you. James Cameron falls into the category of using technology as a vehicle to tell a great story.

And you also have to realize that without digital effects, it would be impossible to make many of the best movies released in the last decade. The Lord Of The Rings trilogy comes to mind. Some of the visuals in that movie are suspect, but it doesn't matter. Take Gollum for example. The look is not the greatest, especially in some scenes. But the character is unforgettable, and would have been absolutely impossible to pull off by someone in makeup.

And remember with Gollum, the acting you see in the character is the performance of Andy Serkis, the digital imagery is not there just for the sake of using digital effects. The tech that was jused to capture the performance for Gollum has been taken about 20 steps further in Avatar. The digital characters are an extremely accurate representation of the actual performances by the actors. So even if the digital images are not perfect, the performances will be true to the original actors.

But there are always detractors and haters of new technology.

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

How do you know? have you already seen it?

Have you? My opinion is just as valid when I say it will be great as you saying it won't.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by zamler

Have you? My opinion is just as valid when I say it will be great as you saying it won't.

No, but you were writing as if you had.
"But slagging off Avatar as using gimmicks is way off."
That's a strong statement of fact, not opinion.
Slagging off Avatar as using gimmicks could actually be bang on, you just don't think it will be.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

No, but you were writing as if you had.
"But slagging off Avatar as using gimmicks is way off."
That's a strong statement of fact, not opinion.
Slagging off Avatar as using gimmicks could actually be bang on, you just don't think it will be.

I suppose if one defines technological innovation as gimmicky. Which one totally could.