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

[KTown]

I am a little late on this but I think i will be a good movie. Perhaps because I love my videogames and I love special effects.

Who knows but I will go to the theatre to watch this movie, and I haven't been to the theatre in around 4 years.

I haven't been this excited for a movie since LOTR.

[HOZ]

There is so much CGI that it is back to being a cartoon

[Bunk]

I'm afraid the CGI falls into the Uncanny Valley.

http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley

[Torture]

That is a really impressive video. This is the method of facial movement integration that made Incredible Hulk look so good. It was Brad Pitt and Edward Norton's performances imported into the movie. This is what is going to be happening with Avatar, and I expect that it will be every bit as impressive, if not more-so, than what we've seen already.

Hopefully Avatar isn't as boring as The Curious Case of Benjamin Button...

[flip]

Originally Posted by HOZ

There is so much CGI that it is back to being a cartoon

Not just responding to you specifically (you and numerous others have expressed that this movie is automatically dumb because there is a lot of CGI) but if so many people hate CGI how do you guys ever watch movies anymore?

I can't think of an action movie made in the last 10 years that didn't have tons of CGI. From Jurassic Park to Batman to LOTR to James Bond to Spiderman (pretty much any comic book movie for that matter) to Star Trek to Transformers to King Kong (Peter Jackson version) etc etc. I could pretty much go on forever.

Even non-action movies like Pan's Labyrinth are full of CGI these days. Hell, what about all the Disney/Pixar/Dreamworks movies that are CGI only like UP, Wall-E etc? Are those all stupid too? Yet Avatar seems to be the only movie since maybe Episode I that is getting hate for the CGI. Now Episode I deserved it because it was an awful awful movie and George Lucas is a piece of shiznat.

Still though, if you guys hate CGI so much then don't go see it, but CGI does not make a movie bad, it just means that you have a problem with current technology.

I'm sure when Star Wars (the originals) came out and movies like Terminator, Abyss and Star Trek came out people like you complained because they preferred the way special effects were done in "classic" movies like King Kong and the Creature from the Black Lagoon.

If people don't like CGI then fine it happens but the completely irrational thought that CGI makes movies bad isn't true. Just because Lucas and Michael Bay think using nothing but CGI makes a movie good doesn't mean they are right, or that all CGI movies are stupid.

[TheyCallMeBruce]

This movie reminds me of another CGI movie called Battle for Terra

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by flip

Not just responding to you specifically (you and numerous others have expressed that this movie is automatically dumb because there is a lot of CGI) but if so many people hate CGI how do you guys ever watch movies anymore?

I can't think of an action movie made in the last 10 years that didn't have tons of CGI. From Jurassic Park to Batman to LOTR to James Bond to Spiderman (pretty much any comic book movie for that matter) to Star Trek to Transformers to King Kong (Peter Jackson version) etc etc. I could pretty much go on forever.

Even non-action movies like Pan's Labyrinth are full of CGI these days. Hell, what about all the Disney/Pixar/Dreamworks movies that are CGI only like UP, Wall-E etc? Are those all stupid too? Yet Avatar seems to be the only movie since maybe Episode I that is getting hate for the CGI. Now Episode I deserved it because it was an awful awful movie and George Lucas is a piece of shiznat.

Still though, if you guys hate CGI so much then don't go see it, but CGI does not make a movie bad, it just means that you have a problem with current technology.

I'm sure when Star Wars (the originals) came out and movies like Terminator, Abyss and Star Trek came out people like you complained because they preferred the way special effects were done in "classic" movies like King Kong and the Creature from the Black Lagoon.

If people don't like CGI then fine it happens but the completely irrational thought that CGI makes movies bad isn't true. Just because Lucas and Michael Bay think using nothing but CGI makes a movie good doesn't mean they are right, or that all CGI movies are stupid.

Well you are talking to someone who really enjoys CGI when it enhances the movie and has a good friend who does the CGI on movies like Ironman. But there is a point when it becomes too much. CGI is a great enhancer. Once it becomes THE movie then were are back to cartoons. Nothing wrong with cartoons, I like them. But how about a story to go with it.

Beowulf was the first and it was painful to watch. I am sure this will be much the same. The WOW factor of CGI has rubbed off. A story about big, bad humans try to take over the world and blue (and bigger) ewoks (who are one with Gaia ) fight back and win story is really zzzzzzzzzzz. Time for a real story.

[flip]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Well you are talking to someone who really enjoys CGI when it enhances the movie and has a good friend who does the CGI on movies like Ironman. But there is a point when it becomes too much. CGI is a great enhancer. Once it becomes THE movie then were are back to cartoons. Nothing wrong with cartoons, I like them. But how about a story to go with it.

Beowulf was the first and it was painful to watch. I am sure this will be much the same. The WOW factor of CGI has rubbed off. A story about big, bad humans try to take over the world and blue (and bigger) ewoks (who are one with Gaia ) fight back and win story is really zzzzzzzzzzz. Time for a real story.

So can you please list the movies that you like and don't like? I'd like to be able to see what you think is the right amount of CGI and what exactly a good story is.

Take Iron Man for example. Sure it was an ok fun movie but it certainly wasn't an amazing film. Well compared to Transformers it was amazing and had a great story but compared to a movie like LOTR the story was seriously lacking.

I'm just not sure why you equate CGI with no story. Sure some movies have relied on excessive CGI and had no story but there are dozens of movies that don't have CGI and are still bad.

CGI and story may be correlated but as we all know that does not equal causation. There is no reason for anyone to believe, as you seem to, that lots of CGI equals bad story. CGI has nothing to do with it. Are you telling me Made of Honor and The Proposal were good movies just because they had no CGI?

Your viewpoint seems to suggest that. Since CGI automatically makes a movie bad then it follows that no CGI should make the story good. However we all know that isn't true.

[Mav]

JC is apparently on 60 minutes tonight talking about Avatar. FYI for those who still think that this movie will be awesome and for everyone else too I suppose...

[bugsy]

Just wanted to wade in here on the CGI thing. For me, there came to be a point, I think maybe around SW Episode 1, or even before, where computer generated effects really were wearing thin for me. To the point where If i saw Van Helsing fighting a CGI beast or a CGI Spiderman leaping onto a building, my interest just immediately took a hit; those sorts of moments (and there have been many, mostly in 'blockbuster' films) just totally took me out of the film. It seemed to get the point where it implied a lack of imagination on the part of film makers, ie. Oh, you mean "So and So movie" had an army of 6000 Mummies? Well, were gonna up the stakes and give 'em 10,000.".

Fast forward a bit and enter people like Jackson, Del Toro, and Gilliam. These sorts of film-makers have managed (imo) to blend in computer effects with traditional effects elements like animatronics, etc. And they've done it successfully, and married those with solid performances and good scripts.

I mean, maybe growing up with stuff like Jim Henson (Labyrinth, the Dark Crystal, Sesame Street) and the original Star Wars, etc, has something to do with it. Look at something like Hellboy 2's "Troll Market" sequence. For the most part, animatronics, puppetry, men-in-suits. And yet the movie had plenty of computer effects integrated into it as well. Same goes for LOTR, Pan's, The Imaginarium, etc.

For me its not a matter of computer effects vs. no computer effects, but entirely about how they are employed. I'd still prefer the old school methods if i had a choice, but they can do some seemless, amazing stuff these days with computers (ie. the Ship in District 9), and obviously teams like Pixar rely on it and its pretty magical what they can do. Look forward to what Cameron does with Avatar and to see if he can draw us into the world, story, detail and characters like only a few others have done this decade.

[simonsays]

I find that CGI is often bearable when it's used on real characters or real places, but when things get too far off the beaten track they trend towards cartoons. I want Avatar to be good, but I don't really want to watch a CGI heavy Dances With Wolves.

Bugsy has it right. Use the computers to augment suited/anamatronics/whatever, but pure CGI isn't there yet, and CGI landscapes rarely wow me outside of a few video games.

And I'm not anti-CGI, I'm just anti some of the shortcuts that people take with it and expect the suspension of disbelief to remain. Whether in the theaters or on DVD I'll watch this movie, but each preview I've seen has brought my excitement level down a significant notch.

[Flames0910]

i saw a christmas carole tonight. are they basically the same tech? because christmas carole was pretty effing impressive. a touch gimmicky at times but overall very impressive and well done.

this is no 'my bloody valentine in 3d' which was lame and only 3d some of the time. this is full on 3d for the length of the entire movie. really cool.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by Flames0910

i saw a christmas carole tonight. are they basically the same tech? because christmas carole was pretty effing impressive. a touch gimmicky at times but overall very impressive and well done.

this is no 'my bloody valentine in 3d' which was lame and only 3d some of the time. this is full on 3d for the length of the entire movie. really cool.

Yeah. A Christmas Carol was very good. Solid story telling, and great animation.

My only complaint about the movie was I thought the movie could have done without the swipe at the men of the cloth, using a very broad brush to paint a large group of people there. But that's a whole 'nother 50 page thread on it's own.

[Flames0910]

Originally Posted by Torture

Yeah. A Christmas Carol was very good. Solid story telling, and great animation.

My only complaint about the movie was I thought the movie could have done without the swipe at the men of the cloth, using a very broad brush to paint a large group of people there. But that's a whole 'nother 50 page thread on it's own.

agreed. but i thought it was more of a "don't judge by the mistakes of the few" in which case the men of the cloth could use the exact same argument.

not to derail the thread but the ghost of the past had a little too much jim carrey for me. (that said i liked the skeleton's landing as a reference to a classic jim expression)

at times it seemed tacky too like 'hey look we can do this'

overall feel good movie though and the tech behind it is just awesome. can't wait for every movie to be 3d and the $20 imax tix to be cheaper

[cmyden]

Anyone know where/when/if advance tickets will be on sale ?

[pylon]

I love my action / sci-fi movies, and when CGI is a component to enhance the effects I am OK with it. Like T2 and The Abyss where it was used a little more sparingly. But full on CGI movies I cant get into. They have no organic feel to them, and I can't get pulled into the story since it look so fake. The characters just don't move or interact right.

One of the best examples of a non CGI flick that the effects were just incredible, and kept the feel realism in the film was John Carpenters The Thing. If there ever was an argument for latex and puppetry for special effects, that movie was one of them. Also 'Aliens' to this day still looks awesome because the CGI was minimal in it.

[Knalus]

The issue of effects enhancing or overpowering the story is an old one. Take for example King Kong (the original). I understand it was groundbreaking in it's effects when it came out, yet when I watched it in the last year, I was struck by the fact I noticed the same thing happening in that movie as happens in movies like the Mummy, or LOTR, or Transformers (to a point). There was an interesting story going, and the suspense was building, and things were going well. The reveal of Skull Mountain was cool, and the wall pretty cool. Then the Ape was revealed, and it was fairly impressive, with his fight with the villagers at the door, ect. Then the Ape walks back to his lair with the chick,and the pursuers have a fight with a Stegosaurus, then a Brontosaurus, then a cool fight with Kong himself. Interrupting them all is another dinosaur, and now Kong has to fight a T Rex. The fight goes on and on, and eventually Kong is saved. But wait, it's not over. Now there's a fight with a snake thing, and then another one with a Pterodactyl. Finally, the woman is freed.

Now, there were things in this that were awesome - the fight between Kong, and the T-Rex, the fight between Kong and the pursuers, those were great. All the other "also ran" dinosaurs that had to have a fight put in, well, it really reminded me of Star Wars Episode 1, with the underwater trip. It is cool to encounter 1 or 2 big sea beasts, but did it really have to be 4 or 5? It's too many.

The thing with King Kong, is that the effects were remarkable for that time period, and the story bracketing the filmmaker's indulgence were great - which doesn't always happen. Still, I was struck by the fact that even back then, this is an issue filmmakers have had to deal with pretty much since film was made.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by flip

Not just responding to you specifically (you and numerous others have expressed that this movie is automatically dumb because there is a lot of CGI) but if so many people hate CGI how do you guys ever watch movies anymore?

I can't think of an action movie made in the last 10 years that didn't have tons of CGI. From Jurassic Park to Batman to LOTR to James Bond to Spiderman (pretty much any comic book movie for that matter) to Star Trek to Transformers to King Kong (Peter Jackson version) etc etc. I could pretty much go on forever.

I'm not disagreeing with you or anything, because I personally love CGI when it's done well. But what about Rambo? I don't remember much CGI in there, only sweet sweet Rambo ownage.

[Rhetts_the_Best]

Saw the trailer yesterday..looks very good
I think the huge deal about this though is that it's James camerons first film since titanic?!?

I think...

[drewboy12]

Originally Posted by Rhetts_the_Best

Saw the trailer yesterday..looks very good
I think the huge deal about this though is that it's James camerons first film since titanic?!?

I think...

ya, so it should = amazing