"Avatar," with a screenplay by Cameron, will mark the director's return to the sci-fi action-adventure genre. He first wrote an 80-page treatment 11 years ago. The film centers on a wounded ex-Marine who is unwillingly sent to settle and exploit the faraway planet Pandora. He gets caught up in a battle for survival by the planet's inhabitants, called Na'vis, and falls in love with one of them. "Not only is this groundbreaking technologically, but it's an intimate story set against an epic canvas," Rothman said. "That's what Jim does. You can't compare it to anything out there. Its biggest upside, besides its revolutionary technology, is its newness. It's not a sequel to anything."
Cameron had been developing another sci-fi adventure, the comic book adaptation "Battle Angel Alita," but when Laeta Kalogridis' script for that project didn't come together after many drafts, he dusted off "Avatar," which he hadn't touched for five years. He started designing the movie in May 2005, he said.
...
For the film's lead role, the 22-year-old planetary adventurer Jack Sully, Cameron sought a new face. After global screen tests to satisfy the studio, he selected his first choice, Australian actor Sam Worthington, who has starred in "Somersault" and "Dirty Deeds" and had been considered to play James Bond. "He's got the weight, he's a tough guy -- a young Russell Crowe. They grow them differently over there," Cameron said.
Zoe Saldana, who appeared in "The Terminal" and "Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl," will portray Sully's love interest, one of the planet's primitive aliens. She will be a CG character, while Sully will exist in human (live action) and biological "avatar" (CG) form. As an avatar, the human Sully is able to project his consciousness into an alien body.
Both actors have signed on for possible future installments as well because Cameron and Fox see "Avatar" as a potential franchise. "If we make money, I guarantee there will be more," Cameron said. "If we don't, we'll pretend it never happened." Other casting will be announced shortly.
Hrm.
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 13:52 (6 years ago) Permalink
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 13:53 (6 years ago) Permalink
― Tuomas (Tuomas), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 13:54 (6 years ago) Permalink
― Nathalie (stevie nixed), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 14:01 (6 years ago) Permalink
the man knows how to write a strapline.
― the original hauntology blogging crew (Enrique), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 14:03 (6 years ago) Permalink
We chose this planet because you indicated you like planets with varied inhabitants, a consistent temperature, rocky terrain, and sci-fi influences.
― and what (ooo), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 14:12 (6 years ago) Permalink
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 15:30 (6 years ago) Permalink
― Stone Monkey (Stone Monkey), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 15:34 (6 years ago) Permalink
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 15:35 (6 years ago) Permalink
― Adam Beales (Pye Poudre), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 15:42 (6 years ago) Permalink
― chap (chap), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 15:46 (6 years ago) Permalink
Earth Girls Are Easy...? Anyone...?
― If you fuck with Jimmy Mod, you call down the thunder (The Famous Jimmy Mod), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 15:47 (6 years ago) Permalink
― Stone Monkey (Stone Monkey), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 15:48 (6 years ago) Permalink
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 15:48 (6 years ago) Permalink
Wait is this about Avatar or The Fountain, and which one will history smile on more?
― stoked for the madness (nickalicious), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 15:57 (6 years ago) Permalink
― stoked for the madness (nickalicious), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 15:58 (6 years ago) Permalink
― Eazy (Eazy), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 16:03 (6 years ago) Permalink
― s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 18:12 (6 years ago) Permalink
― stoked for the madness (nickalicious), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 18:27 (6 years ago) Permalink
― stoked for the madness (nickalicious), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 18:28 (6 years ago) Permalink
― stoked for the madness (nickalicious), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 18:29 (6 years ago) Permalink
― milo z (mlp), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 18:31 (6 years ago) Permalink
That said, it's still better than Emnacht fucking up the only TV show I can think of that I actually like. (Not that I ever watch it or anything, but the point still stands.)
― Adam Beales (Pye Poudre), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 18:40 (6 years ago) Permalink
― rock and roll for the rock and roll soul (nate_patrin), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 18:51 (6 years ago) Permalink
I look forward to a highlander stylee battle between Cameron and Shymalan.
― N.i.c.o.l.e (Ex Leon), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 18:58 (6 years ago) Permalink
― stoked for the madness (nickalicious), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 19:03 (6 years ago) Permalink
― stoked for the madness (nickalicious), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 19:04 (6 years ago) Permalink
I would pay money.
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 19:11 (6 years ago) Permalink
― stoked for the madness (nickalicious), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 19:25 (6 years ago) Permalink
Avatar... the Nickelodeon show has been on since Feb 05. Dibs.
― stoked for the madness (nickalicious), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 19:30 (6 years ago) Permalink
We can do better than that.
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 19:34 (6 years ago) Permalink
I had forgotten I'd started this thread. Which article of ultrahype/'will change movies forever!' has amused you most?
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 19 June 2009 16:21 (3 years ago) Permalink
― Eazy, Friday, 26 June 2009 04:02 (3 years ago) Permalink
This movie will change the way I view 3-D James Cameron movies entitled Avatar, that I'm sure of.
― dorkus malorkus (latebloomer), Friday, 26 June 2009 04:05 (3 years ago) Permalink
i'm off the Sam Worthington train if this is terrible
― wilter, Friday, 26 June 2009 04:25 (3 years ago) Permalink
Comic-Con bits:
The audience, many of whom camped alongside the “Twilight” fans for the privilege, were treated to a sequence of scenes condensing the tale: Jake Sully is a paralyzed Marine who volunteers to become an Avatar -- a genetically engineered human/Na’vi hybrid. He suffers several brushes with some dinosaur-types, a violent flirtation with a Na’vi princess, and an even more violent Na’vi rite of initiation. Cameron will get to test-run the film on an even bigger crowd on Aug. 21, which he’s declared "Avatar Day." The filmmaker announced he’ll be taking over IMAX and 3-D theaters around the world to screen 15 minutes of the film for moviegoers for free.In introducing the film, Cameron said it was made “for the 14-year-old boy that is very alive and well in the back of my mind.”But don’t expect a film for kids. In fact, I'd wager “Avatar” is going to be kind of heavy.“I don’t want to say it’s important, because then it sounds like you’re making a documentary,” Cameron said. But it’s “something with a conscience. In the enjoying of [the film], it maybe makes you think about the way you interact with nature and your fellow man.”After the screening, it was clear cast members Sigourney Weaver, Zoe Saldana and Stephen Lang had become as immersed and invested in Pandora as the filmmaker himself, speaking of the Na’vi as though they were a historical fact.A professor at USC worked two years on develop their language, and Saldana said all the actors had to take movement classes to “de-humanize” themselves. She also trained in Wushu, horseback riding, archery and weightlifting to play Na’vi princess Neytiri.Said Cameron: “We know the oncology and composition of the atmosphere, the geography and species of plants, the culture and the history of the Na’vi people.”
Cameron will get to test-run the film on an even bigger crowd on Aug. 21, which he’s declared "Avatar Day." The filmmaker announced he’ll be taking over IMAX and 3-D theaters around the world to screen 15 minutes of the film for moviegoers for free.
In introducing the film, Cameron said it was made “for the 14-year-old boy that is very alive and well in the back of my mind.”
But don’t expect a film for kids. In fact, I'd wager “Avatar” is going to be kind of heavy.
“I don’t want to say it’s important, because then it sounds like you’re making a documentary,” Cameron said. But it’s “something with a conscience. In the enjoying of [the film], it maybe makes you think about the way you interact with nature and your fellow man.”
After the screening, it was clear cast members Sigourney Weaver, Zoe Saldana and Stephen Lang had become as immersed and invested in Pandora as the filmmaker himself, speaking of the Na’vi as though they were a historical fact.
A professor at USC worked two years on develop their language, and Saldana said all the actors had to take movement classes to “de-humanize” themselves. She also trained in Wushu, horseback riding, archery and weightlifting to play Na’vi princess Neytiri.
Said Cameron: “We know the oncology and composition of the atmosphere, the geography and species of plants, the culture and the history of the Na’vi people.”
Dehumanize yourself, via all these human activities.
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 24 July 2009 04:42 (3 years ago) Permalink
Plus more geekery via Nikki Finke's cohorts.
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 24 July 2009 04:54 (3 years ago) Permalink
― Nate Carson, Friday, 24 July 2009 08:46 (3 years ago) Permalink
TRAILER
― Alba, Tuesday, 18 August 2009 19:20 (3 years ago) Permalink
I'd go.
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 18 August 2009 19:30 (3 years ago) Permalink
Avatard
― velko, Tuesday, 18 August 2009 19:31 (3 years ago) Permalink
A bit disappointing, really.
― J4mi3 H4rl3y (Snowballing), Tuesday, 18 August 2009 19:31 (3 years ago) Permalink
Lulz at "Avetar"...
― Bill A, Tuesday, 18 August 2009 19:36 (3 years ago) Permalink
http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/avatar/hd/
maybe corny
― Spencer Chow, Thursday, 20 August 2009 18:25 (3 years ago) Permalink
the cgi blue "people" look pretty cgi
― i have the new brutal truth if you want it (latebloomer), Thursday, 20 August 2009 18:27 (3 years ago) Permalink
duh i guess. some nice visuals otherwise.
funny how District 9 which cost maybe a 10th of what this cost still has better looking cgi characters.
― i have the new brutal truth if you want it (latebloomer), Thursday, 20 August 2009 18:29 (3 years ago) Permalink
cgi cgi cgi
― i have the new brutal truth if you want it (latebloomer), Thursday, 20 August 2009 18:47 (3 years ago) Permalink
So much for the "revolutionary" CGI. Looks like one big video game cut-scene
― Number None, Thursday, 20 August 2009 20:28 (3 years ago) Permalink
AVATAR takes us to a spectacular new world beyond our imagination, where a reluctant hero embarks on a journey of redemption and discovery, as he leads a heroic battle to save a civilization. The film was first conceived by Cameron 14 years ago, when the means to realize his vision did not yet exist. Now, after four years of actual production work, AVATAR delivers a fully immersive cinematic experience of a new kind, where the revolutionary technology invented to make the film, disappears into the emotion of the characters and the sweep of the story.
― velko, Thursday, 20 August 2009 20:31 (3 years ago) Permalink
Every time I see this title I think it's that Bruce Willis Second Life spoof.
― Dom J. Palladino (Noodle Vague), Thursday, 20 August 2009 20:34 (3 years ago) Permalink
cue ishtar joke?
wow does this ever (unexpectedly) look like one of those cheap direct-to-video super-scifi cheap CGI thingies.
no sign of the "whole new world of real-feeling characters thing". seems way more Polar Express than gollum...
― sean gramophone, Thursday, 20 August 2009 20:35 (3 years ago) Permalink
will the .1 of 5.1 be used to immerse us in this bold, new vision???
― Fox Force Five Punchline (sexyDancer), Thursday, 20 August 2009 20:38 (3 years ago) Permalink
Kind of gives off a Matrix sequels vibe too. Maybe it's the dreadlocks
― Number None, Thursday, 20 August 2009 20:41 (3 years ago) Permalink
― i have the new brutal truth if you want it (latebloomer), Thursday, 20 August 2009 21:53 (3 years ago) Permalink
http://cache-foo-02.gawkerassets.com/gawker/assets/images/8/2009/08/504x_Avatar-48.jpg
this looks so fruity
― i have the new brutal truth if you want it (latebloomer), Thursday, 20 August 2009 22:24 (3 years ago) Permalink
― a being that goes on two legs and is ungrateful (dyao), Friday, 21 August 2009 02:16 (3 years ago) Permalink
lol roger dean
― velko, Friday, 21 August 2009 03:00 (3 years ago) Permalink
Best summary of the trailer I've read so far: "Ferngully with guns."
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 21 August 2009 03:05 (3 years ago) Permalink
hahahaha otm
― i have the new brutal truth if you want it (latebloomer), Friday, 21 August 2009 03:13 (3 years ago) Permalink
Preview reminds me of the slow build-up that worked so well in Aliens and (yes) Titanic. Second half looks like a '69 Nam hookah trip.
― Q. Tarantino Presents: Popeye (Eazy), Friday, 21 August 2009 05:38 (3 years ago) Permalink
This ... looks terrible.
― irreconcilable aesthetic criteria (Eric H.), Friday, 21 August 2009 05:44 (3 years ago) Permalink
The preview is unpromising, but I wouldn't mind being proved wrong. At least it seems ambitious, which after a long summer of nothing-but-sequels as far as mainstream Hollywood big budget, high concept stuff goes, is kind of refreshing.
― ken tynan's spanking buddy (sciolism), Friday, 21 August 2009 05:55 (3 years ago) Permalink
I'm with you on that, sciolism - watched the trailer quite a few times and I've gone from initial "meh", to thinking this might actually be pretty cool. It also feels a bit premature to dismiss it from a 2 minute trailer on a 19" computer monitor when it's been made to be watched in IMAX 3D.
― Bill A, Friday, 21 August 2009 07:36 (3 years ago) Permalink
i just hate the quasi-furry design of the characters..gross gross gross
― i have the new brutal truth if you want it (latebloomer), Friday, 21 August 2009 07:39 (3 years ago) Permalink
like the part where the main dude is grinning in the lab says "this is great"...it's ugh ugh ugh uncanny valley creepy to the max (plus mongoloid eyes and stupid fantasy kangaroo ears)
― i have the new brutal truth if you want it (latebloomer), Friday, 21 August 2009 07:47 (3 years ago) Permalink
amazing how far we have progressed since this
― a being that goes on two legs and is ungrateful (dyao), Friday, 21 August 2009 07:49 (3 years ago) Permalink
I mean, I could easily torrent some old shitty Thundercats episodes if I had some burning need to see anthropomorphic tiger-people shoot bows and arrows at each other.
― i have the new brutal truth if you want it (latebloomer), Friday, 21 August 2009 07:55 (3 years ago) Permalink
Cameron's done some cool stuff with creatures...the aliens in The Abyss were neat!
Why does this shit have to look so much like a lame-ass fantasy novel cover?
Bleaurgh.
― i have the new brutal truth if you want it (latebloomer), Friday, 21 August 2009 08:02 (3 years ago) Permalink
― i have the new brutal truth if you want it (latebloomer), Friday, 21 August 2009 08:07 (3 years ago) Permalink
Bleaurgh!
"If we make money, I guarantee there will be more," Cameron said. "If we don't, we'll pretend it never happened."
it may be two years old, but I still love this touching display of pride in yr work.
― Akon/Family (Merdeyeux), Friday, 21 August 2009 09:31 (3 years ago) Permalink
http://img.denihilation.com/delgovatar.html
― Tracer Hand, Friday, 21 August 2009 09:39 (3 years ago) Permalink
what the hell is delgo
― a narwhal done gored my sister nell (cankles), Friday, 21 August 2009 09:42 (3 years ago) Permalink
i think your question answers your question
― i have the new brutal truth if you want it (latebloomer), Friday, 21 August 2009 09:45 (3 years ago) Permalink
they do reminds me of the Mission To Mars alien a bit :[
― unban dictionary (blueski), Friday, 21 August 2009 11:08 (3 years ago) Permalink
the second half of the trailer looks like an ad for herbal tea
― fleetwood (max), Friday, 21 August 2009 13:10 (3 years ago) Permalink
Worst thing imo is the font, absolutely hideous.
― J4mi3 H4rl3y (Snowballing), Friday, 21 August 2009 13:27 (3 years ago) Permalink
thought they would write it
/\ \/ /\ + /\ R
― unban dictionary (blueski), Friday, 21 August 2009 13:34 (3 years ago) Permalink
And this didn't look cheesy?
― Q. Tarantino Presents: Popeye (Eazy), Friday, 21 August 2009 13:55 (3 years ago) Permalink
Avatar isn't a kids film tho
― unban dictionary (blueski), Friday, 21 August 2009 14:01 (3 years ago) Permalink
Well hey, they already released the videogame tie-in:
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 21 August 2009 17:11 (3 years ago) Permalink
http://www.avclub.com/articles/floppiest-flop-case-file-126-delgo,16751/
― abanana, Friday, 21 August 2009 17:25 (3 years ago) Permalink
Bender the Magnificent23 Dec. 2008 | 5:04 PM CSTYou're a mindless idiot.
23 Dec. 2008 | 5:04 PM CST
You're a mindless idiot.
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 21 August 2009 17:27 (3 years ago) Permalink
The steadily mounting reactions from an apparent Israeli screening of some "Avatar" footage has been resoundingly negative. FWIW:
https://twitter.com/cinemascopian
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 21 August 2009 20:31 (3 years ago) Permalink
^from that "we might have another Speed Racer on our hands here".
I AM NOW PSYCHED!
― DavidM, Friday, 21 August 2009 20:41 (3 years ago) Permalink
Looks stupid.
― Alex in SF, Friday, 21 August 2009 20:53 (3 years ago) Permalink
That looks JUST A BIT Kincade in space.
― gossip and complaints (suzy), Friday, 21 August 2009 21:16 (3 years ago) Permalink
what a horrifying reveal. The guy who made such cold, dark science fiction is now making a garish, tacky fantasy starring furries.
― Matt Armstrong, Friday, 21 August 2009 22:30 (3 years ago) Permalink
How come there are giant rocks that can hover but the guy is stuck in a wheelchair?
Also, Papyrus font has been a no no for at least ten years now.
― Nate Carson, Saturday, 22 August 2009 01:52 (3 years ago) Permalink
― Nate Carson, Saturday, August 22, 2009 1:52 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
How can we can we take someone's mind and put it in the body of an alien, but the guy is stuck in a wheelchair?
― Matt Armstrong, Saturday, 22 August 2009 02:57 (3 years ago) Permalink
Okay, so I saw the preview before Inglourious Basterds earlier tonight..still looks kinda dopey and the blue tiger people look awful but overall it definitely makes more sense and looks better on the big screen.
― i have the new brutal truth if you want it (latebloomer), Saturday, 22 August 2009 03:04 (3 years ago) Permalink
dude... lb... i feel u on wanting this to be good so bad but...
no.
just... no.
― fleetwood (max), Saturday, 22 August 2009 03:05 (3 years ago) Permalink
i just meant it looked better on the big screen! didn't say it was gonna be good!
― i have the new brutal truth if you want it (latebloomer), Saturday, 22 August 2009 03:09 (3 years ago) Permalink
yeah and i meant
― fleetwood (max), Saturday, 22 August 2009 03:10 (3 years ago) Permalink
hey, max is giving us permission to hate something, it's been a while so let's savor the moment
― velko, Saturday, 22 August 2009 03:14 (3 years ago) Permalink
fwiw I thought Waterworld worked ok on the big screen what do I know hahaha
― i have the new brutal truth if you want it (latebloomer), Saturday, 22 August 2009 03:19 (3 years ago) Permalink
I sincerely hope Avatar opens with the Terminator guy pissing into a filter and drinking it...in 3D
― i have the new brutal truth if you want it (latebloomer), Saturday, 22 August 2009 03:24 (3 years ago) Permalink
waterworld's trailer was way better.
― Matt Armstrong, Saturday, 22 August 2009 04:05 (3 years ago) Permalink
i agree
― i have the new brutal truth if you want it (latebloomer), Saturday, 22 August 2009 04:16 (3 years ago) Permalink
so was the trailer for the new john travolta/robin williams abortion
― i have the new brutal truth if you want it (latebloomer), Saturday, 22 August 2009 04:39 (3 years ago) Permalink
no mechs though
why is robin williams still getting starring roles
― abanana, Saturday, 22 August 2009 04:42 (3 years ago) Permalink
he's a genie!
― i have the new brutal truth if you want it (latebloomer), Saturday, 22 August 2009 04:52 (3 years ago) Permalink
The trailer looks like it's cutting back and forth between 2 different movies altogether.
― WARS OF ARMAGEDDON (Karaoke Version) (Sparkle Motion), Saturday, 22 August 2009 07:48 (3 years ago) Permalink
this shit is for furries imo
― Whiney G. Weingarten, Saturday, 22 August 2009 08:26 (3 years ago) Permalink
it's like blue tiger ppl fuck this
― Whiney G. Weingarten, Saturday, 22 August 2009 08:27 (3 years ago) Permalink
― Whiney G. Weingarten, Saturday, 22 August 2009 08:29 (3 years ago) Permalink
avatar story board exclusive
― Whiney G. Weingarten, Saturday, 22 August 2009 08:30 (3 years ago) Permalink
― i have the new brutal truth if you want it (latebloomer), Saturday, 22 August 2009 10:07 (3 years ago) Permalink
― a being that goes on two legs and is ungrateful (dyao), Saturday, 22 August 2009 10:16 (3 years ago) Permalink
I haven't managed to watch the trailer, but saw a bit on TV. First thoughts were "ugh/lol, furries" and "roger dean/patrick woodroffe should sue" but WTF I imagine on a big screen, in 3D, it would be an entertaining enough spectacle. I agree w/whoever it was who said it looks like a game cutscene.
― \/*|_*/-\*|) (Pashmina), Saturday, 22 August 2009 10:20 (3 years ago) Permalink
The 7 Eeriest Parallels Between Avatar and Delgo
― depressed is a hugoholic (sciolism), Saturday, 22 August 2009 11:27 (3 years ago) Permalink
Damage Control via io9:
Avatar Day has come and gone, poised to convert people disappointed by the trailer or confirm their worst fears. Make no mistake, though, Avatar will be a unique visual experience, but one that should probably only be experienced in 3D.I will admit that I was thrown off by the negative reactions to the trailer. I was blown away by the footage I saw at Comic Con, but I was beginning to worry that I hadn't seen the movie I thought I'd seen. But after seeing the footage again and watching the trailer a dozen more times, I'm convinced that Avatar is an evil plot by James Cameron to force people to watch their movies in the theater if they want to enjoy the full experience.The Avatar Day footage is more or less the same footage shown at Comic Con, although some scenes were truncated and a brief moment was added. They give you a taste of the immersive experience Avatar is. When a creature chases Sully in his Avatar form through the jungle, it's a visceral experience that simply wouldn't be the same in two dimensions. And when we get to stand still and really look at the background, there's the sense that you're really a visitor to Pandora, drinking in all the details of a fantastical world. Cameron and his fellows have infused these clips with an incredible amount of detail, from the way the Na'Vi ears twitch and move to a few stray moths in the background. Especially in the bioluminescent scene, Pandora feels like a real and breathing world, one with all the natural chaos of fluttering leaves and errant insects.There are certainly design choices that could attract criticism from CG enthusiasts. Na'Vi skin is opaque, rather than slightly translucent like human skin, and of the animals we've seen so far, none have fur (there are also some wearying instances of Zack Snyder-style slowed-down action). But where Cameron chooses to focus his attention, the detail is remarkable. Rocks on Pandora look like rocks; hair comes in individual strands (though it is often bound up in braids) and falls naturally; and, while the animals don't have fur, their muscles pump and pulse beneath their flesh. Even the colors are richer when seen inside the theater.All of the footage shown comes from the first half of the movie, so we don't get a very good sense of how the story will unfold. But the method behind Avatar's marketing madness is becoming clearer; no footage on your computer or TV can live up to the experience of seeing it in the theater, and Fox is hoping that Avatar Day word of mouth can sell tickets to the movie in a way no promo clips or trailer ever could.
I will admit that I was thrown off by the negative reactions to the trailer. I was blown away by the footage I saw at Comic Con, but I was beginning to worry that I hadn't seen the movie I thought I'd seen. But after seeing the footage again and watching the trailer a dozen more times, I'm convinced that Avatar is an evil plot by James Cameron to force people to watch their movies in the theater if they want to enjoy the full experience.
The Avatar Day footage is more or less the same footage shown at Comic Con, although some scenes were truncated and a brief moment was added. They give you a taste of the immersive experience Avatar is. When a creature chases Sully in his Avatar form through the jungle, it's a visceral experience that simply wouldn't be the same in two dimensions. And when we get to stand still and really look at the background, there's the sense that you're really a visitor to Pandora, drinking in all the details of a fantastical world. Cameron and his fellows have infused these clips with an incredible amount of detail, from the way the Na'Vi ears twitch and move to a few stray moths in the background. Especially in the bioluminescent scene, Pandora feels like a real and breathing world, one with all the natural chaos of fluttering leaves and errant insects.
There are certainly design choices that could attract criticism from CG enthusiasts. Na'Vi skin is opaque, rather than slightly translucent like human skin, and of the animals we've seen so far, none have fur (there are also some wearying instances of Zack Snyder-style slowed-down action). But where Cameron chooses to focus his attention, the detail is remarkable. Rocks on Pandora look like rocks; hair comes in individual strands (though it is often bound up in braids) and falls naturally; and, while the animals don't have fur, their muscles pump and pulse beneath their flesh. Even the colors are richer when seen inside the theater.
All of the footage shown comes from the first half of the movie, so we don't get a very good sense of how the story will unfold. But the method behind Avatar's marketing madness is becoming clearer; no footage on your computer or TV can live up to the experience of seeing it in the theater, and Fox is hoping that Avatar Day word of mouth can sell tickets to the movie in a way no promo clips or trailer ever could.
― Id rather dig ditches than pull another dudes string (Pancakes Hackman), Saturday, 22 August 2009 12:02 (3 years ago) Permalink
― fleetwood (max), Saturday, 22 August 2009 12:03 (3 years ago) Permalink
Cameron stans beginning to pedal hard.
Hey, hopefully it will live up to all this big talk - if only on the cinema screen. From here though it looks like the "revolution" is off.
― DavidM, Saturday, 22 August 2009 12:59 (3 years ago) Permalink
― Josh in Chicago, Saturday, 22 August 2009 13:46 (3 years ago) Permalink
this looks like something i would have drawn in my notebook during history class
― chip dumstorf, Saturday, 22 August 2009 14:15 (3 years ago) Permalink
but with smaller boobs
pics or we don't believe you.
― DavidM, Saturday, 22 August 2009 14:16 (3 years ago) Permalink
i stopped drawing that shit after a girl sitting next to me saw it and asked to be moved to a different assigned seat.
story of my life.
― chip dumstorf, Saturday, 22 August 2009 14:19 (3 years ago) Permalink
I'm convinced that Avatar is an evil plot by James Cameron to force people to watch their movies in the theater if they want to enjoy the full experience
What is with this crap. If the story looks stupid then it ain't gonna fly.
― Ned Raggett, Saturday, 22 August 2009 14:34 (3 years ago) Permalink
James Cameron...Freemason?
― i have the new brutal truth if you want it (latebloomer), Saturday, 22 August 2009 14:38 (3 years ago) Permalink
― Id rather dig ditches than pull another dudes string (Pancakes Hackman), Saturday, 22 August 2009 14:47 (3 years ago) Permalink
that might as well be a documentary, just replace boobs with spikey nipples for dicks
― chip dumstorf, Saturday, 22 August 2009 20:54 (3 years ago) Permalink
How long ago did Final Fantasy come out? This trailer really defines 'meh'.
― Adam Bruneau, Sunday, 23 August 2009 17:11 (3 years ago) Permalink
Shit, there was a Magic Roundabout movie?
― When two tribes go to war, he always gets picked last (James Morrison), Monday, 24 August 2009 00:55 (3 years ago) Permalink
With Whoopi Goldberg doing a voice? What the fucking fuck?
― When two tribes go to war, he always gets picked last (James Morrison), Monday, 24 August 2009 00:57 (3 years ago) Permalink
Please do yourself a favor and read the Avatar article in the new Entertainment Weekly. They're discussing the likelihood of the movie's success based on near-universal praise from the fan community. Choice quote:
While some naysayers called the dialogue cheesy, other audience members were blown away: "My eyeballs were raped" was a common sentiment on Ain't It Cool News. (In fanboy-speak, that's a good thing.)
Uh.
― I HEART CREEPY MENS (Deric W. Haircare), Tuesday, 1 September 2009 14:38 (3 years ago) Permalink
hahahahahaha talk about spin
― crappy, use her name (latebloomer), Tuesday, 1 September 2009 14:50 (3 years ago) Permalink
preliminary digging on AICN (which btw: gross) shows that EW did actually get that correct
― a fact-checker with The New Yorker magazine (HI DERE), Tuesday, 1 September 2009 14:53 (3 years ago) Permalink
EWw
― crappy, use her name (latebloomer), Tuesday, 1 September 2009 14:55 (3 years ago) Permalink
Seeing the trailer the other day waiting for Inglourious Basterds did it no favors on the big screen.
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 1 September 2009 15:07 (3 years ago) Permalink
it's weird to me how dead the blue people's eyes look...you get the feeling that the character designers purposely made their eyes almost anime-size to try to get a more lifelike effect, but it just doesn't work
― tony dayo (dyao), Tuesday, 1 September 2009 15:10 (3 years ago) Permalink
James Cameron is a weird dude:
http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2009/10/the_truth_about_james_cameron.html
― Your heartbeat soun like sasquatch feet (polyphonic), Monday, 19 October 2009 19:32 (3 years ago) Permalink
According to Titanic star Bill Paxton, the word "no" gives James Cameron an erection.
Many things about this sentence raise questions.
― Ned Raggett, Monday, 19 October 2009 19:32 (3 years ago) Permalink
But where Cameron chooses to focus his attention, the detail is remarkable. Rocks on Pandora look like rocks; hair comes in individual strands (though it is often bound up in braids) and falls naturally; and, while the animals don't have fur, their muscles pump and pulse beneath their flesh. Even the colors are richer when seen inside the theater.
― banned, on the run (s1ocki), Monday, 19 October 2009 19:46 (3 years ago) Permalink
i cant wait to see a movie where rocks look like rocks... FINALLY
and hair. HAIR!
― access flap (omar little), Monday, 19 October 2009 19:52 (3 years ago) Permalink
Rocks and Hair, coming this holiday season.
― Ned Raggett, Monday, 19 October 2009 19:52 (3 years ago) Permalink
hair that comes in individual strands... what would the lumiere brothers think
― banned, on the run (s1ocki), Monday, 19 October 2009 20:01 (3 years ago) Permalink
• Something James Cameron actually shouted to Arnold Schwarzenegger on the set of True Lies: "Do you want Paul Verhoeven to finish this motherfucker?"
― well pull down my pants and call me swamp thing (latebloomer), Monday, 19 October 2009 20:48 (3 years ago) Permalink
god, true lies would have been an awesome verhoeven.
― Matt Armstrong, Monday, 19 October 2009 21:31 (3 years ago) Permalink
yeah totally
― well pull down my pants and call me swamp thing (latebloomer), Monday, 19 October 2009 21:34 (3 years ago) Permalink
Paul Verhoeven's Titanic
― Ned Raggett, Monday, 19 October 2009 22:32 (3 years ago) Permalink
Rocks and Hair, coming this holiday season.― Ned Raggett, Monday, October 19, 2009 12:52 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
― Ned Raggett, Monday, October 19, 2009 12:52 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
lol.
― schwantz, Monday, 19 October 2009 22:42 (3 years ago) Permalink
The NY article makes you admire Cameron, and really, really wish he had decided to make something other than Avatar.
― Matt Armstrong, Tuesday, 20 October 2009 00:57 (3 years ago) Permalink
thats it exactly isnt it
― banned, on the run (s1ocki), Tuesday, 20 October 2009 02:06 (3 years ago) Permalink
its like you're dedicating decades and millions of dollars and your genius to...
THIS??
― banned, on the run (s1ocki), Tuesday, 20 October 2009 02:07 (3 years ago) Permalink
That New Yorker article is amazing. I've only read the first paragraph!
“Watching him light is like watching two monkeys fuck a football.”
― Adam Bruneau, Tuesday, 20 October 2009 03:42 (3 years ago) Permalink
in their pursuit of a precious superconductor called Unobtanium, are beginning to do the same to Pandora.
wait is James Cameron aiming to make a serious movie involving a material called Unobtanium?
― dyao, Tuesday, 20 October 2009 06:37 (3 years ago) Permalink
that is Lucas-level bullshit right there
― well pull down my pants and call me swamp thing (latebloomer), Tuesday, 20 October 2009 06:43 (3 years ago) Permalink
"It’s a two-fingered inverted draw past the head, like a Samurai,” he said, tracing the shape in the air over his left shoulder. “The archery instructor came and said, ‘Do you want me to teach them archery or do you want me to teach them this? This would never work.’ I said, ‘See that bush?’ It was a hundred and fifty feet away. I nailed it.”
James Cameron = the IT guy from The Office
― dyao, Tuesday, 20 October 2009 07:08 (3 years ago) Permalink
I love this bit:
After he finished making “True Lies,” Cameron called Kubrick, by then a recluse, and invited himself over. They spent a day, in the basement of Kubrick’s house in the English countryside, watching “True Lies” at Kubrick’s flatbed editing station. Cameron went over the shots—Schwarzenegger in a Harrier jet firing a missile, with the villain attached to it, through an office building and into a helicopter: boom!—so that Kubrick could learn how the effects were done.
Sounds like the best friend from hell.
― surfing on hokusine waves (ledge), Tuesday, 20 October 2009 09:06 (3 years ago) Permalink
i like that he apparently went over to kubrick's house with a 16mm or even 35mm print of his own movie.
― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 20 October 2009 09:32 (3 years ago) Permalink
Kubrick was thinking "Man, I wish we were watching the new Verhoeven instead."
― Matt Armstrong, Tuesday, 20 October 2009 09:42 (3 years ago) Permalink
“We made it in the papers once, for a U.F.O. sighting over a hot-air balloon that we built and launched at night that was powered by candles.”
loooooooooool
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Tuesday, 20 October 2009 15:58 (3 years ago) Permalink
Right, screw Avatar, I want to read his memoirs!
― Adam Bruneau, Tuesday, 20 October 2009 21:41 (3 years ago) Permalink
My friend has funny stories about James Cameron's - such as his band of ex Mossad commandos coming the rescue of his boss' house during some Malibu wildfires. Also has an anecdote about Cameron comparing the budget of Avatar to the budget of the Manhattan Project.
― mayor jingleberries, Tuesday, 20 October 2009 23:33 (3 years ago) Permalink
Sam Worthington: not a cartoon (he says)
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 28 October 2009 15:41 (3 years ago) Permalink
the new yorker article is so amazing.
this paragraph is incredible:
The meeting ended on a boisterous note. “That fuckin’ rocks!” Cameron called out in response to an image of a snarling maw of thin blue-veined tissue, the mouth of the pterodactyl-like banshee that Jake’s avatar domesticates for his ride. “Look at the gill-like membrane on the side of the mouth, its transmission of light, all the secondary color saturation on the tongue, and that maxilla bone. I love what you did with the translucence on the teeth, and the way the quadrate bone racks the teeth forward. It’s a sharky thing. As wacky as this creature is, it looks completely real. Maybe I’m getting high on my own supply.” He was practically out of breath. “The banshee lives! He’s a fierce-looking sonuvabitch.”
― banned, on the run (s1ocki), Wednesday, 28 October 2009 16:10 (3 years ago) Permalink
saw the preview for this before paranormal activity and some guy a few rows back said "that looks terrible"
― am0n, Wednesday, 28 October 2009 16:15 (3 years ago) Permalink
If Paranormal Activity ends up being a bigger success than Avatar I am so going to laugh. (In terms of budget vs. return it's already the winner of the decade.)
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 28 October 2009 16:16 (3 years ago) Permalink
I basically don't know a single thing about this movie other than what's in that New Yorker profile (hadn't heard of it before), but the article did make me want to see it.
― M. Grissom/DeShields (jaymc), Wednesday, 28 October 2009 16:22 (3 years ago) Permalink
― am0n, Wednesday, 28 October 2009 16:22 (3 years ago) Permalink
― banned, on the run (s1ocki), Wednesday, 28 October 2009 16:23 (3 years ago) Permalink
trailer i saw had a lot more (awful) dialogue
― am0n, Wednesday, 28 October 2009 16:24 (3 years ago) Permalink
john why did that article make you interested? this seems like the exact opposite of the types of movies you usually like
― congratulations (n/a), Wednesday, 28 October 2009 16:26 (3 years ago) Permalink
welcome to pandora!
― am0n, Wednesday, 28 October 2009 16:26 (3 years ago) Permalink
I didn't know someone made a stage version of Thundercats!
― Tuomas, Wednesday, 28 October 2009 16:31 (3 years ago) Permalink
Well, I'll admit I was greatly put off by this: "The third act of “Avatar” contains what Jon Landau, the producer, calls “the mother of all movie battles.”" But I think the movie seems like it could be a visual wonderland, especially in 3D. And I like high-concept sci-fi like A.I.
― M. Grissom/DeShields (jaymc), Wednesday, 28 October 2009 16:32 (3 years ago) Permalink
Yeah I loved that article but did not come away feeling like i would want to be in proximity to james cameron under any circumstances.
― Durian Durian (Jon Lewis), Wednesday, 28 October 2009 16:41 (3 years ago) Permalink
Maybe I’m getting high on my own supply.” He was practically out of breath. “The banshee lives! He’s a fierce-looking sonuvabitch.”
― banned, on the run (s1ocki), Wednesday, October 28, 2009 12:10 PM
ahaha fuck lol
― am0n, Wednesday, 28 October 2009 16:42 (3 years ago) Permalink
"Maybe I’m getting high on my own supply.” He was practically out of breath. “The banshee lives! I am the reason LARPERS sing 'The goddess wears a thong!'"
― Dynamic Leia Dress (kingkongvsgodzilla), Wednesday, 28 October 2009 16:44 (3 years ago) Permalink
― am0n, Wednesday, 28 October 2009 16:50 (3 years ago) Permalink
“the mother of all movie battles.”"
CGI-driven gigantic battle scenes are usually pretty boring IMHO.
― Adam Bruneau, Wednesday, 28 October 2009 18:55 (3 years ago) Permalink
Exactly.
― M. Grissom/DeShields (jaymc), Wednesday, 28 October 2009 19:30 (3 years ago) Permalink
New trailer
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 30 October 2009 17:51 (3 years ago) Permalink
And various reactions to same.
Everything about that just makes me think Cameron woke up one morning and decided "You know I liked the technology in the forest bits in The Phantom Menace and Revenge of the Sith, why didn't George make a full movie out of it?"
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 30 October 2009 17:56 (3 years ago) Permalink
it's pretty amazing how a guy who was once, like, the toughest mfer when it came to writing and directing action films has turned into such a weirdo furry.
― jØrdån (omar little), Friday, 30 October 2009 18:03 (3 years ago) Permalink
Creatures and "jungle wonders" still look cheezy as hell, and the sawed-off jarhead dialogue sounds worse, but the new trailer does make it look like an entertaining (and perhaps even moving) Aliens/Abyss-style military adventure flick. In, yeah, a weirdo furry kinda way.
― from alcoholism to fleshly concerns (contenderizer), Friday, 30 October 2009 18:09 (3 years ago) Permalink
CGI-driven gigantic battle scenes are usually pretty boring IMHO
― modescalator (blueski), Friday, 30 October 2009 18:11 (3 years ago) Permalink
xxp Well it was always there. See the The Abyss.
― We call them "meat hemorrhoids" (Alex in SF), Friday, 30 October 2009 18:11 (3 years ago) Permalink
at least i think i got tired of it after 2003 xp
― modescalator (blueski), Friday, 30 October 2009 18:12 (3 years ago) Permalink
It would be so, so awesome if everything we've seen/heard about "Avatar" was actually restricted to the first 30 minutes of the movie, and the rest was all, like, talk. Sort of like the opposite of "Aliens."
I say with tongue obviously in cheek, because a) this would never happen and b) Cameron is actually a pretty weak writer, classic line-or two and bits of "The Abyss" aside. "Avatar" just seems like such an obviously, well, obvious allegory - and lo and beyond, the primitive other has lessons to teach us all! - that it would take a really clever, perceptive screenwriter to transform it from spectacle to anything substantive. Giant blue Thunder-Ewoks don't help matters.
That author of that b.s. "New Yorker" profile, by the way, clearly had seen little to no more of the film than any of us plebes have. Either that or he was legally obligated to keep it confidential.
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 30 October 2009 18:27 (3 years ago) Permalink
"Should I talk about the bit where they -- "
"Shut up, you."
"Sorry."
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 30 October 2009 18:28 (3 years ago) Permalink
Oh, by the way - what fucking bureaucrat would call the planet Pandora? That's just asking for trouble! What were the runner-ups? Pompeii? Krakatoa? Hades?
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 30 October 2009 18:29 (3 years ago) Permalink
Titanic, Hindenburg and Lusitania were also under consideration.
― (oh PORRIDGE) (HI DERE), Friday, 30 October 2009 18:31 (3 years ago) Permalink
Also, Last.fm.
(ba dum bump)
― Bears Are Alive! (Pancakes Hackman), Friday, 30 October 2009 18:32 (3 years ago) Permalink
"we're headin' to the planet warsaw ghetto..."
― jØrdån (omar little), Friday, 30 October 2009 18:32 (3 years ago) Permalink
― Ned Raggett, Friday, October 30, 2009 1:51 PM
ha yeah thats the one i saw
― am0n, Friday, 30 October 2009 18:59 (3 years ago) Permalink
lol giovanni ribisi
― am0n, Friday, 30 October 2009 19:00 (3 years ago) Permalink
That’s a great trailer. Anyone who H8s on this is dead inside and should move on to another career.Comment by Movie Fan — October 29, 2009 @ 12:03 pm Reply to this post
Okay, is it me or does this sound like a James Cameron sock-puppet? Comment by G. Lira — October 29, 2009 @ 2:13 pm Reply to this post
― am0n, Friday, 30 October 2009 19:05 (3 years ago) Permalink
i'm the king of the world woo
― da croupier, Friday, 30 October 2009 19:06 (3 years ago) Permalink
The design of this whole thing, right down to the title font is just atrocious. It's like his aesthetics just woke up from cryosleep.
― WARS OF ARMAGEDDON (Karaoke Version) (Sparkle Motion), Friday, 30 October 2009 19:21 (3 years ago) Permalink
district 9 meets ferngully
― am0n, Friday, 30 October 2009 19:31 (3 years ago) Permalink
I read that thing in the New Yorker last week. His hyper-detailed approach to everything (getting special cameras made, special underwater techniques on The Abyss, etc. etc.) EXCEPT the actual writing is quite astonishing. "We can hire an entire division of an aeronautics company to make us a special camera plane but we can't hire ONE. SINGLE. FUCKING. ACTUAL. WRITER. Nor do we think writers actually do their jobs very well or we would have hired one."
Cunt.
― fields of salmon, Friday, 30 October 2009 21:03 (3 years ago) Permalink
uhh, that's because he writes.
Would you prefer he hire dozens of script doctors like they did for the first Charlie's Angels movie?
― Matt Armstrong, Friday, 30 October 2009 22:07 (3 years ago) Permalink
ANd what's with that Woody Allen not passing along work to some screenwriters anyway?
― Bears Are Alive! (Pancakes Hackman), Friday, 30 October 2009 22:18 (3 years ago) Permalink
James Cameron's Interiors
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 30 October 2009 22:30 (3 years ago) Permalink
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, October 30, 2009 2:27 PM (4 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
what's your point?
― banned, on the run (s1ocki), Friday, 30 October 2009 22:32 (3 years ago) Permalink
it's a great fuckin' profile!!
this looks sorta awesome u_u
― ice cr?m, Friday, 30 October 2009 22:46 (3 years ago) Permalink
I think a lot of folks are failing to view this trailer/film thru the eyes of a naive 11-year-old sci-fi geek. Seems like that's who it's aimed squarely at, and on that level, carping about the font seems ridiculous. "The Little Mermaid was charming, but that font!"
― from alcoholism to fleshly concerns (contenderizer), Friday, 30 October 2009 22:54 (3 years ago) Permalink
but this doesn't look charming at all
― da croupier, Friday, 30 October 2009 23:17 (3 years ago) Permalink
Aye, this just looks gash.
― krakow, Friday, 30 October 2009 23:30 (3 years ago) Permalink
is this a sudan allegory btw
― ice cr?m, Friday, 30 October 2009 23:32 (3 years ago) Permalink
nah brazil
― am0n, Friday, 30 October 2009 23:42 (3 years ago) Permalink
the movie or
― banned, on the run (s1ocki), Saturday, 31 October 2009 00:46 (3 years ago) Permalink
or?
― am0n, Saturday, 31 October 2009 00:59 (3 years ago) Permalink
so this has nothing to do with airbending right
― how rad bandit (gbx), Saturday, 31 October 2009 01:59 (3 years ago) Permalink
― This revisionist bible is delicious (reddening), Saturday, 31 October 2009 03:59 (3 years ago) Permalink
I wasn't carping about the font inasmuch as it seems to punctuate the awful look of this movie's design and overall aesthetics--as far as looking at it from the POV of an 11 year old... I was 11 when Terminator came out--that shit looked scary and cool.
― WARS OF ARMAGEDDON (Karaoke Version) (Sparkle Motion), Saturday, 31 October 2009 06:44 (3 years ago) Permalink
could see this being a movie where a surprisingly wide range of non nerds are all that was cool
― ice cr?m, Saturday, 31 October 2009 06:47 (3 years ago) Permalink
all that was cool in an effed up world.
― banned, on the run (s1ocki), Saturday, 31 October 2009 07:17 (3 years ago) Permalink
... in 3D!!!
― ice cr?m, Saturday, 31 October 2009 16:12 (3 years ago) Permalink
x-post It's totally a great profile. My point was that all the audacity on display in the piece perhaps needed a bit more counterbalance than the single graf related to the negative reaction to the teaser.
― Josh in Chicago, Saturday, 31 October 2009 16:33 (3 years ago) Permalink
I mean, Cameron=jerk is not news.
he lets him hang himself with his own rope dude... what did you want, an anti-james-cameron expert to give the opposing view?
― banned, on the run (s1ocki), Saturday, 31 October 2009 16:58 (3 years ago) Permalink
won't be as good as 2012 fuiud
― coz (webinar), Saturday, 31 October 2009 18:07 (3 years ago) Permalink
someone needs to take cameron's $$$ away and force him to work with a small budget again, like with Aliens and the Terminator.
also bring back michael biehn and lance henrikson.
― i ain't no daggum son of a gun (latebloomer), Saturday, 31 October 2009 18:20 (3 years ago) Permalink
I really think lower budgets force people like Cameron or George Lucas to be more inventive.
― i ain't no daggum son of a gun (latebloomer), Saturday, 31 October 2009 18:23 (3 years ago) Permalink
hard to say, cuz the only time they had them was so long ago...
― banned, on the run (s1ocki), Saturday, 31 October 2009 18:27 (3 years ago) Permalink
I'm not sure Aliens counts as low budget. $20 mil in 1986? That's about twice as much as "RoboCop" the next year.
x-post If Avatar is a huge hit and every bit as technologically successful as he's promised, then we're all the dupes. He's arrogant, that's for sure, but it's only hang-yourself hubris if he's wrong. It would have been nice had the author been privy to a bit more and been able to come to some conclusions, but my guess is at the time of the piece's filing the movie wasn't anywhere close to done, at least not enough to really show off.
Personally, I would have rather read a balanced Michael Bay profile in the New Yorker a la the Michael Savage piece. At least we know what Bay's been up to. Cameron, on the other hand, has been more or less off the grid for a decade, so the piece doesn't advance his particular story very well; there's simply too much of his reputation riding on "Avatar" for them to have given the author the access he needed to transform the profile into more than a on-the-go with James Cameron behind the scenes piece. Brody's Wes Anderson profile (and the Haneke piece - lots of directors in the New Yorker these days!) parallels the Cameron one, but took a firmer critical stance and made room for more analysis.
― Josh in Chicago, Saturday, 31 October 2009 18:28 (3 years ago) Permalink
Invention isn't the goal. Making the most money you can is the goal. Telling a story is merely the means to that end.
― Aimless, Saturday, 31 October 2009 18:32 (3 years ago) Permalink
Except that Cameron himself has called "Avatar" a game-changer, so unless he means he expects it to make more money than "Titanic," surely he has a different goal in mind.
― Josh in Chicago, Saturday, 31 October 2009 18:34 (3 years ago) Permalink
― Aimless, Saturday, 31 October 2009 18:36 (3 years ago) Permalink
― Josh in Chicago, Saturday, October 31, 2009 2:28 PM (12 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
having the author weigh in on the movie itself would have made it a very different KIND of story... this was a process piece and i found it pretty fascinating. it will of course be easy to draw conclusions once we all see the movie.
― banned, on the run (s1ocki), Saturday, 31 October 2009 18:43 (3 years ago) Permalink
i mean if the movie sucks it would be a LOL james cameron piece and if it's great it would be james cameron is a genius piece... not sure who really needs that.
― banned, on the run (s1ocki), Saturday, 31 October 2009 18:44 (3 years ago) Permalink
i actually think it's a lot like the michael savage story... an interested and slightly detached look at a huge and contradictory personality.
― Aimless, Saturday, October 31, 2009 2:32 PM (11 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
do you really think, after reading that piece, that james cameron thinks of himself purely as a businessman?
― banned, on the run (s1ocki), Saturday, 31 October 2009 18:45 (3 years ago) Permalink
i mean congratulations on realizing that HOLLYWOOD LIKES MONEY but there's more to it than that which is why we're still talking about this dude
― banned, on the run (s1ocki), Saturday, 31 October 2009 18:46 (3 years ago) Permalink
Cameron is playing with other people's money. He is not in sole charge of the project. However he may think of himself, he is a businessman among businessmen. He will always sell his project on the basis of anticipated profits, and his backers will view his inventiveness or lack of it, and not coincidentally set the size of his budget, in terms of anticipated profits.
That is why Cameron's personal goals are only tangentially related to the goal of the movie. An inventive artist who makes money is a Hollywood success story. One who loses money is a loser, pure and simple.
― Aimless, Saturday, 31 October 2009 19:05 (3 years ago) Permalink
yes and?
― banned, on the run (s1ocki), Saturday, 31 October 2009 19:14 (3 years ago) Permalink
dont u see the system maaaan
― ice cr?m, Saturday, 31 October 2009 19:16 (3 years ago) Permalink
and so... "Invention isn't the goal. Making the most money you can is the goal. Telling a story is merely the means to that end"... still stands as correct.
― Aimless, Saturday, 31 October 2009 19:19 (3 years ago) Permalink
and so the statement stands, another ilx story told in the service of cynical reductionism. THE END
― ice cr?m, Saturday, 31 October 2009 19:25 (3 years ago) Permalink
so you're saying hollywood designs its products to make money? hmm, never thought of it that way before
― banned, on the run (s1ocki), Saturday, 31 October 2009 19:27 (3 years ago) Permalink
As a theory for explaining what appears on 99% of movie screens worldwide, it has powerful elucidary qualities which the auteur theory lacks. However, when a simplifying theory comes along which undermines the importance of what critics, fanboys and other groupies all love to chatter about, it meets brutal resistance.
― Aimless, Saturday, 31 October 2009 19:33 (3 years ago) Permalink
it true, i just brutally suggest bannd u
― ice cr?m, Saturday, 31 October 2009 19:36 (3 years ago) Permalink
**bows cynically to the right and left, exits stage**
― Aimless, Saturday, 31 October 2009 19:37 (3 years ago) Permalink
"technologically successful"?
― luol deng (am0n), Saturday, 31 October 2009 19:41 (3 years ago) Permalink
sweet fx bra
― ice cr?m, Saturday, 31 October 2009 19:45 (3 years ago) Permalink
oh right if the efx are really cool then we are the dupes. the efx will have duped us into liking a shitty film
― luol deng (am0n), Saturday, 31 October 2009 19:47 (3 years ago) Permalink
"bows cynically" ?
― luol deng (am0n), Saturday, 31 October 2009 19:48 (3 years ago) Permalink
yes if the effects are well executed and convincing you are an asshole
― ice cr?m, Saturday, 31 October 2009 19:52 (3 years ago) Permalink
my entire profession was just undermined brutally and i do not know what to do
― banned, on the run (s1ocki), Saturday, 31 October 2009 20:04 (3 years ago) Permalink
all critical discourse around movies has been debunked for all time :(
Starring The Guy Who Didn't Get To Be James Bond!
― StanM, Saturday, 31 October 2009 20:05 (3 years ago) Permalink
x-post Um, Cameron has stated specifically that the effects will be groundbreaking, "a game changer." He has not called the script a game changer, or the amount of money the movie will make a game changer. Pretty obvious that if he delivers on the FX front, then the former's deficiencies will be negated and the $$$ will be massive enough to justify the bravado. Whether people will be dressed as these blue things next Halloween is another matter.
― Josh in Chicago, Saturday, 31 October 2009 20:47 (3 years ago) Permalink
uhh just saw trailer (thx world series!) and this looks like a trailer for halo and the font for the movie's name looks like papyrus.
― call all destroyer, Monday, 2 November 2009 02:58 (3 years ago) Permalink
seeing the trailer for this on tv while not paying much attention makes it look just like some dippy video game. digital effects very much included. tho obviously my tv is not 3-d.
xpost! haha
― STRATE IN2 DAKRNESS (tipsy mothra), Monday, 2 November 2009 03:15 (3 years ago) Permalink
Pretty obvious that if he delivers on the FX front, then the former's deficiencies will be negated and the $$$ will be massive enough to justify the bravado
If anything, it'll scrub the memory of Transformers 2 out of our brains.
Ugh, I still hate that fucking Papyrus font.
― Elvis Telecom, Tuesday, 3 November 2009 09:29 (3 years ago) Permalink
real talk
― modescalator (blueski), Tuesday, 3 November 2009 11:38 (3 years ago) Permalink
True fax.
― Chewshabadoo, Tuesday, 3 November 2009 11:51 (3 years ago) Permalink
nothing will scrub t2
― banned, on the run (s1ocki), Tuesday, 3 November 2009 14:53 (3 years ago) Permalink
Saw the trailer at the cinema, blimey, it looks a bit ropey.
― hey it's (jel --), Saturday, 7 November 2009 16:02 (3 years ago) Permalink
PLAYBOY: We seem to need fantasy icons like Lara Croft and Wonder Woman, despite knowing they mess with our heads.CAMERON: Most of men's problems with women probably have to do with realizing women are real and most of them don't look or act like Vampirella. A big recalibration happens when we're forced to deal with real women, and there's a certain geek population that would much rather deal with fantasy women than real women. Let's face it: Real women are complicated. You can try your whole life and not understand them.PLAYBOY: How much did you get into calibrating your movie heroine's hotness?CAMERON: Right from the beginning I said, "She's got to have tits," even though that makes no sense because her race, the Na'vi, aren't placental mammals. I designed her costumes based on a taparrabo, a loincloth thing worn by Mayan Indians. We go to another planet in this movie, so it would be stupid if she ran around in a Brazilian thong or a fur bikini like Raquel Welch in One Million Years B.C.PLAYBOY: Are her breasts on view?CAMERON: I came up with this free-floating, lion's-mane-like array of feathers, and we strategically lit and angled shots to not draw attention to her breasts, but they're right there. The animation uses a physics-based sim that takes into consideration gravity, air movement and the momentum of her hair, her top. We had a shot in which Neytiri falls into a specific position, and because she is lit by orange firelight, it lights up the nipples. That was good, except we're going for a PG-13 rating, so we wound up having to fix it. We'll have to put it on the special edition DVD; it will be a collector's item. A Neytiri Playboy Centerfold would have been a good idea.PLAYBOY: So you're okay with arousing PG-13 chubbies?CAMERON: If such a thing should happen—and I'm not saying it will—that would be fine.
PLAYBOY: How much did you get into calibrating your movie heroine's hotness?CAMERON: Right from the beginning I said, "She's got to have tits," even though that makes no sense because her race, the Na'vi, aren't placental mammals. I designed her costumes based on a taparrabo, a loincloth thing worn by Mayan Indians. We go to another planet in this movie, so it would be stupid if she ran around in a Brazilian thong or a fur bikini like Raquel Welch in One Million Years B.C.
PLAYBOY: Are her breasts on view?CAMERON: I came up with this free-floating, lion's-mane-like array of feathers, and we strategically lit and angled shots to not draw attention to her breasts, but they're right there. The animation uses a physics-based sim that takes into consideration gravity, air movement and the momentum of her hair, her top. We had a shot in which Neytiri falls into a specific position, and because she is lit by orange firelight, it lights up the nipples. That was good, except we're going for a PG-13 rating, so we wound up having to fix it. We'll have to put it on the special edition DVD; it will be a collector's item. A Neytiri Playboy Centerfold would have been a good idea.
PLAYBOY: So you're okay with arousing PG-13 chubbies?CAMERON: If such a thing should happen—and I'm not saying it will—that would be fine.
― windy = white, carl = black (polyphonic), Thursday, 12 November 2009 22:52 (3 years ago) Permalink
okay so that is just wrong
― a Barbie-like nub where he provates should be (HI DERE), Thursday, 12 November 2009 22:53 (3 years ago) Permalink
When did this thread have sex with the Idolator one?
― Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 12 November 2009 22:54 (3 years ago) Permalink
god gross
― goole, Thursday, 12 November 2009 22:54 (3 years ago) Permalink
We had a shot in which Neytiri falls into a specific position, and because she is lit by orange firelight, it lights up the nipples.
well okay then
― a Barbie-like nub where he provates should be (HI DERE), Thursday, 12 November 2009 22:55 (3 years ago) Permalink
Guys, this was how Von Sternberg shot Marlene Dietrich.
― Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 12 November 2009 22:58 (3 years ago) Permalink
shot her with light-up nipples
― a Barbie-like nub where he provates should be (HI DERE), Thursday, 12 November 2009 22:59 (3 years ago) Permalink
Most of men's problems with women probably have to do with realizing women are real and most of them don't look or act like Vampirella. A big recalibration happens when we're forced to deal with real women, and there's a certain geek population that would much rather deal with fantasy women than real women. Right from the beginning I said, "She's got to have tits," even though that makes no sense because her race, the Na'vi, aren't placental mammals.
― goole, Thursday, 12 November 2009 23:05 (3 years ago) Permalink
<3
― caek, Thursday, 12 November 2009 23:06 (3 years ago) Permalink
Now imagine the AvaTwilight crossover slashfic. Being made by somebody, somewhere, right now.
― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 12 November 2009 23:17 (3 years ago) Permalink
Right from the beginning I said, "She's got to have tits,"
great quote
― WARS OF ARMAGEDDON (Karaoke Version) (Sparkle Motion), Thursday, 12 November 2009 23:19 (3 years ago) Permalink
he is amazing.
― If Planes Could Fly This Place Would Be an Airport (s1ocki), Thursday, 12 November 2009 23:22 (3 years ago) Permalink
― Fox Force Five Punchline (sexyDancer), Thursday, 12 November 2009 23:23 (3 years ago) Permalink
that makes no sense because her race, the Na'vi, aren't placental mammals.
^^ man, no pill worries or anything
― goole, Thursday, 12 November 2009 23:23 (3 years ago) Permalink
it makes sense on another planet to be dressed like 12th century mayan but not like a 21st century brazilian
― bitter about emo (Hunt3r), Thursday, 12 November 2009 23:26 (3 years ago) Permalink
kinda lol mostly sad
― mdskltr (blueski), Thursday, 12 November 2009 23:28 (3 years ago) Permalink
megalolz at this useless fuckwad's quest for "realism"
― hoth as fuck (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 12 November 2009 23:28 (3 years ago) Permalink
a non-placental mammal having tits = hey that's okay, but wearing a brazilian thong?!?! THAT'S CRAZY
― hoth as fuck (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 12 November 2009 23:29 (3 years ago) Permalink
it makes sense to be a tall blue person
― ice cr?m, Thursday, 12 November 2009 23:29 (3 years ago) Permalink
megalolz at everything to do with this film.
― mu-mu (Pashmina), Thursday, 12 November 2009 23:32 (3 years ago) Permalink
I think I want this to be a huge embarrassment now. Except it will still rake in the cash.
― George Mucus (ledge), Thursday, 12 November 2009 23:43 (3 years ago) Permalink
i saw on the quidities thread that he watches cgi blue alien mayan-style pr0n on his iphone in public
― bitter about emo (Hunt3r), Friday, 13 November 2009 00:02 (3 years ago) Permalink
i am actually doing that right now
― lots of jerks (gbx), Friday, 13 November 2009 00:04 (3 years ago) Permalink
― Matt Armstrong, Friday, 13 November 2009 00:58 (3 years ago) Permalink
"chubbies"
― Matt Armstrong, Friday, 13 November 2009 00:59 (3 years ago) Permalink
Yet another sneak peek story? Yeah they're getting nervous:
Inside a dark mixing stage at 20th Century Fox a few weeks ago, writer-director James Cameron, surrounded by nearly a dozen colleagues, stared at a clip from his upcoming movie, "Avatar," unhappy with the look of the precipitous peaks on the horizon.Circling the summits with a red laser pointer and speaking to his computer-effects team at Weta Digital in New Zealand via videoconference, Cameron came up with a Muhammad-like solution: Shift the mountains to the left."Moving a mountain," the 55-year-old filmmaker said, laughing, "is nothing."...As part of his research and development, Cameron directed the 3-D documentaries "Aliens of the Deep" and "Ghosts of the Abyss," which visited the Titanic's underwater wreckage. To overcome what many critics regard as the great flaw of motion-capture animation, the "dead-eye" appearance of characters, Cameron mounted tiny cameras above the faces of his "Avatar" actors, recording their smallest facial expressions and most intimate eye movements."What had been missing in motion capture was the 'E' -- the emotion," said "Avatar" producer Jon Landau.The real test of this hybrid technology, the filmmakers acknowledge, will not be in the 3-D illusion of sending a rocket hurtling toward the audience, but in whether it enhances the tale's emotional resonance.
Circling the summits with a red laser pointer and speaking to his computer-effects team at Weta Digital in New Zealand via videoconference, Cameron came up with a Muhammad-like solution: Shift the mountains to the left.
"Moving a mountain," the 55-year-old filmmaker said, laughing, "is nothing."
As part of his research and development, Cameron directed the 3-D documentaries "Aliens of the Deep" and "Ghosts of the Abyss," which visited the Titanic's underwater wreckage. To overcome what many critics regard as the great flaw of motion-capture animation, the "dead-eye" appearance of characters, Cameron mounted tiny cameras above the faces of his "Avatar" actors, recording their smallest facial expressions and most intimate eye movements.
"What had been missing in motion capture was the 'E' -- the emotion," said "Avatar" producer Jon Landau.
The real test of this hybrid technology, the filmmakers acknowledge, will not be in the 3-D illusion of sending a rocket hurtling toward the audience, but in whether it enhances the tale's emotional resonance.
Hath not a blue alien lifelike eyes?
― Ned Raggett, Sunday, 15 November 2009 15:19 (3 years ago) Permalink
Oh and:
In August, the studio declared "Avatar Day," showing 16 minutes of the movie for free at 130 IMAX theaters around the globe, seen by 50,000 to 60,000 people, according to Fox estimates. Initial fanboy reaction wasn't all positive. "If Cameron thinks a film that looks like an Xbox game is the future of cinema . . . then he's mental," said one Web critic."I thought anyone who saw the early footage would be a convert," Cameron said of the IMAX previews. "It just seemed that everyone who had seen the footage wanted more."
"I thought anyone who saw the early footage would be a convert," Cameron said of the IMAX previews. "It just seemed that everyone who had seen the footage wanted more."
Dude...
― Ned Raggett, Sunday, 15 November 2009 15:20 (3 years ago) Permalink
What had been missing in motion capture was the 'E'
aha
― Alf, Lord Melmacsyn (s1ocki), Sunday, 15 November 2009 17:57 (3 years ago) Permalink
motion captur?
― hellzapoppa (tipsy mothra), Sunday, 15 November 2009 17:58 (3 years ago) Permalink
if you give audiences the 'E' -- the drug ecstasy -- before screening the response is overwhelmingly positive
― ice cr?m, Sunday, 15 November 2009 18:01 (3 years ago) Permalink
They have shirts of this movie for sale at Hot Topic, but only in the girls' section.
― milliband (Abbott), Sunday, 15 November 2009 18:03 (3 years ago) Permalink
didn't you read in that new yorker profile how cameron only shops for clothes in the girl's section of hot topic?
― Alf, Lord Melmacsyn (s1ocki), Sunday, 15 November 2009 18:10 (3 years ago) Permalink
South Park offers some anticipatory criticism
― Ned Raggett, Monday, 16 November 2009 19:51 (3 years ago) Permalink
that was actually kind of hilarious, something this season of South Park has not had too much of
― a Barbie-like nub where he provates should be (HI DERE), Monday, 16 November 2009 19:52 (3 years ago) Permalink
he "dead-eye" appearance of characters
it's funny cause his models have some of the deadest looking eyes in computer animation - hint you don't compensate for this by making their eyes bigger
― 囧 (dyao), Tuesday, 17 November 2009 04:54 (3 years ago) Permalink
Oh boy, the game!
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 17 November 2009 22:57 (3 years ago) Permalink
gotta say the film might actually be reasonably okay looking if he simply chose to have these aliens be something other than aggressive smurfs
― jØrdån (omar little), Tuesday, 17 November 2009 23:11 (3 years ago) Permalink
sexy smurvs
― SMH (ice cr?m), Tuesday, 17 November 2009 23:24 (3 years ago) Permalink
i played the game in 3D.
it kinda gave me a headache/eye twitchy feeling
― mr. que, covering up the vital parts, lest he embarrass the ladi (M@tt He1ges0n), Wednesday, 18 November 2009 00:35 (3 years ago) Permalink
That's called a 'boner' in smurf world M@tt.
― five minutes of iguana time (Jon Lewis), Wednesday, 18 November 2009 00:38 (3 years ago) Permalink
james cameron gargameled my boner for life
― mr. que, covering up the vital parts, lest he embarrass the ladi (M@tt He1ges0n), Wednesday, 18 November 2009 00:43 (3 years ago) Permalink
the disney smurfiness feels especially grating and out of date after District 9
― da croupier, Wednesday, 18 November 2009 02:46 (3 years ago) Permalink
maybe the smurfs get all pukey tho
― SMH (ice cr?m), Wednesday, 18 November 2009 02:47 (3 years ago) Permalink
Soundtrack tracklisting revealed plot spoilers blah blah. The "My Heart Will Go On" of this thing is called "I See You." Uh.
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 18 November 2009 20:11 (3 years ago) Permalink
last track:
"death of all the avatars and our lead villain"
― jØrdån (omar little), Wednesday, 18 November 2009 20:13 (3 years ago) Permalink
remember when the "single" from the attack of the clones soundtrack was "qui-gon's funeral"
― max, Wednesday, 18 November 2009 20:14 (3 years ago) Permalink
NICE PLAY SHAKESPEARE
Gotta love the titles of the first seven bits:
1. “You Don’t Dream in Cryo…”2. Jake Enters His Avatar World3. Pure Spirits of the Forest4. The Bioluminescence of the Night5. Becoming One of “The People”Becoming One With Neytiri6. Climbing Up – “Iknimaya – The Path to Heaven”
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 18 November 2009 20:14 (3 years ago) Permalink
Six bits, seven bits, WHATEVER.
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 18 November 2009 20:15 (3 years ago) Permalink
"Tell me of your homeworld, Jake."
The "My Heart Will Go On" of this thing is called "I See You."
If it's the Juliana Hatfield song that might be kind of fun.
― james cameron gargameled my boner for life (Pancakes Hackman), Wednesday, 18 November 2009 20:20 (3 years ago) Permalink
I was hoping it was short for this:
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 18 November 2009 20:21 (3 years ago) Permalink
Becoming One With Neytiri = sexin smurfette
― SMH (ice cr?m), Wednesday, 18 November 2009 20:23 (3 years ago) Permalink
You know, this will be totally ridiculous, but I still wanna see it.
― YOUR MOMS SPOT HERON WITH NO HANDS I'M SMACKIN HER (Beatrix Kiddo), Wednesday, 18 November 2009 21:44 (3 years ago) Permalink
probably best to treat it like Cameron made it ten years ago but you never got around to seeing it. "smurfs, wtf, well it was 1999."
― da croupier, Wednesday, 18 November 2009 21:46 (3 years ago) Permalink
probably best to not see it at all
― Jack Kirby's Orangutan Surfing Civilization (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 November 2009 21:48 (3 years ago) Permalink
obv i'm referring to the titanic fans who can't resist
― da croupier, Wednesday, 18 November 2009 21:57 (3 years ago) Permalink
I don't know if it's just the smurfiness of it or what but it just seems like th most horrible movie ever made to me. I would sit through a Uwe Bolle film festival before I'd watch this.
― ô_o (Nicole), Wednesday, 18 November 2009 21:59 (3 years ago) Permalink
this makes me want to see it more than ever
half of these ought to have ": sounds of the rainforest" appended to the end
― itdn put butt in the display name (gbx), Thursday, 19 November 2009 02:48 (3 years ago) Permalink
― da croupier, Wednesday, November 18, 2009 2:46 AM (Yesterday) Bookmark
otm.
― fel (latebloomer), Thursday, 19 November 2009 22:25 (3 years ago) Permalink
(not that district 9 was a perfect masterpiece or anything)
Guys I gotta put in that James Horner did turn out some k-awes film scores back in the day (not so much since he got fat off Titanic though). Wrath Of Khan, Brainstorm, Something Wicked This Way Comes, Land Before Time, Sneakers, those were all awesome scores.
That said, my intuition tells me this isn't gonna be his most inspired music.
― five minutes of iguana time (Jon Lewis), Thursday, 19 November 2009 22:31 (3 years ago) Permalink
this is gonna be such a trainwreck on so many many levels
― fifteen minutes of iguana time famous (forksclovetofu), Thursday, 19 November 2009 22:35 (3 years ago) Permalink
i wanna see james cameron's house if he has a wax pope under his stairs
― luol deng (am0n), Thursday, 19 November 2009 22:45 (3 years ago) Permalink
No way is his house as cool as Emmerich's, let's be real.
― windy = white, carl = black (polyphonic), Thursday, 19 November 2009 22:46 (3 years ago) Permalink
seriously.
― fel (latebloomer), Thursday, 19 November 2009 22:47 (3 years ago) Permalink
it could be if its a smurf cottage
― luol deng (am0n), Thursday, 19 November 2009 22:50 (3 years ago) Permalink
if cameron really lived up to his persona he would be living in a submarine
― fel (latebloomer), Thursday, 19 November 2009 22:55 (3 years ago) Permalink
I wonder if Avatar is about smurf frottage.
― windy = white, carl = black (polyphonic), Thursday, 19 November 2009 22:56 (3 years ago) Permalink
cameron has the prop machine guns from aliens mounted on the walls of his house that shoots foam in case of fire. true story.
― mayor jingleberries, Thursday, 19 November 2009 23:00 (3 years ago) Permalink
has the avatar downfall/hitler rant thingy been posted in here? that's kind of lol.
― wilter, Friday, 20 November 2009 02:28 (3 years ago) Permalink
http://uk.movies.ign.com/dor/objects/800318/avatar/videos/avatar_hardware.html
― DavidM, Saturday, 21 November 2009 10:52 (3 years ago) Permalink
This is very Aliens - except this time the aliens are the good guys!
― DavidM, Saturday, 21 November 2009 10:57 (3 years ago) Permalink
60 Minutes has a piece on Avatar tonight, fyi.
― windy = white, carl = black (polyphonic), Sunday, 22 November 2009 23:21 (3 years ago) Permalink
Pushing this so hard at the cinema tonight. They've had plastic credit card-like Avatar gift cards printed up so you can "give the gift of Avatar" tickets as Christmas presents, too.
― stet, Monday, 23 November 2009 04:47 (3 years ago) Permalink
saw the 60 minutes piece on a nice HDTV at a restaurant tonight.... and I kind of enjoyed just zoning out and watching the scenery.
I imagine it will be 2 hours of "that looks kinda cool" that will be quickly forgotten and never watched again.
― Matt Armstrong, Monday, 23 November 2009 08:47 (3 years ago) Permalink
And now it's the interactive trailer! (As proudly linked on the bottom of the page.) And it's important, see:
The "Avatar" Interactive trailer is actually more of a program or application than your usual run-of-the-mill teaser. With Cameron's film taking years to complete, the trailer even took a while to develop, too, with a four-month creation time."We kind of look at it as the next generation of movie trailers because it allows users to interact and delve deeper into the content of the movie," says Fox's Jeffrey Godsick, executive vice president of marketing and digital content.Built on Adobe AIR software, the application not only plays trailers, but also helps you keep track of news about "Avatar" through all kinds of social media. Like the Virtual Echo desktop for "Dollhouse" (RIP), AIR also can be made portable and not browser-based. Twitter, Facebook, Flickr and YouTube all contribute to the feed that will fill up your entire screen if you choose.With all of that, the trailer is the centerpiece, and with it are other video pieces that give the user more insight into the creation of the movie. "Hot spots" during the trailer allow users to see vignettes about creature and technological designs and hear character profiles from many of the film's stars.It can be a bit overwhelming when you first see it cover your whole screen, and for fans who are really anticipating the movie, the officialavatar tweeter pops up with updates even when the program is minimized. It's all a cool interaction, but I wondered how much input Cameron, the tech godling, had in the program's development."The incorporation of technology has always been really important to (Cameron). He's really been supportive of the idea because it's cool, but also because it really does allow people to get involved in this world. He and Lightstorm have actually been involved in the creation of some of the content pieces," says Godsick.The program will continue to be updated as the movie nears. It was also mentioned that Cameron's Lightstorm is developing a Pandorapedia to launch in December that will give an even more in-depth look at the world "Avatar" has created.
"We kind of look at it as the next generation of movie trailers because it allows users to interact and delve deeper into the content of the movie," says Fox's Jeffrey Godsick, executive vice president of marketing and digital content.
Built on Adobe AIR software, the application not only plays trailers, but also helps you keep track of news about "Avatar" through all kinds of social media. Like the Virtual Echo desktop for "Dollhouse" (RIP), AIR also can be made portable and not browser-based. Twitter, Facebook, Flickr and YouTube all contribute to the feed that will fill up your entire screen if you choose.
With all of that, the trailer is the centerpiece, and with it are other video pieces that give the user more insight into the creation of the movie. "Hot spots" during the trailer allow users to see vignettes about creature and technological designs and hear character profiles from many of the film's stars.
It can be a bit overwhelming when you first see it cover your whole screen, and for fans who are really anticipating the movie, the officialavatar tweeter pops up with updates even when the program is minimized. It's all a cool interaction, but I wondered how much input Cameron, the tech godling, had in the program's development.
"The incorporation of technology has always been really important to (Cameron). He's really been supportive of the idea because it's cool, but also because it really does allow people to get involved in this world. He and Lightstorm have actually been involved in the creation of some of the content pieces," says Godsick.
The program will continue to be updated as the movie nears. It was also mentioned that Cameron's Lightstorm is developing a Pandorapedia to launch in December that will give an even more in-depth look at the world "Avatar" has created.
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 24 November 2009 18:57 (3 years ago) Permalink
I'm seriously waiting for the interactive MMS from Cameron himself to everyone in the world telling us to go see it or he'll cry.
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 24 November 2009 18:58 (3 years ago) Permalink
^^^^^ on this. I want to see it, but I'm not in any particular hurry.
― Elvis Telecom, Wednesday, 25 November 2009 02:07 (3 years ago) Permalink
― tidal wave comin' cross the rogermexican border (Whiney G. Weingarten), Wednesday, 25 November 2009 02:11 (3 years ago) Permalink
yeah but in 3-D
― fel (latebloomer), Wednesday, 25 November 2009 02:11 (3 years ago) Permalink
Wired has a series of stories out:http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/11/ff_avatar_cameron/all/1http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/11/ff_avatar_5steps/
― Elvis Telecom, Wednesday, 25 November 2009 02:13 (3 years ago) Permalink
The future of movie-making. Yes indeed.
― Attention please, a child has been lost in the tunnel of goats. (James Morrison), Wednesday, 25 November 2009 03:15 (3 years ago) Permalink
"Godsick" : what a great surname. love to know the history on how that came about.
― mark e, Wednesday, 25 November 2009 15:56 (3 years ago) Permalink
Yeah I was thinking, "Okay how did a nu-metal band miss that one."
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 25 November 2009 16:14 (3 years ago) Permalink
Cameron kept a razor blade on his editing desk with a note: Use only if film sucks.
― moullet, Wednesday, 25 November 2009 18:07 (3 years ago) Permalink
I realise this makes me a disgusting savage, but I tried to book advance tickets for this at local IMAX and the first week is already *completely* sold out. Looks like it's going to make mad loot.
― Bill A, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 18:52 (3 years ago) Permalink
maybe at imax, people will watch any goddamn thing on those screens. this is like captain eo 2 and perfect for that format.i dunno about normal theaters.
― Drama Mama's and Papa's too! (forksclovetofu), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 18:57 (3 years ago) Permalink
aren't most new imax releases sold out for the first week way before hand? this is before the first reviews/ the first week of people who actually seeing it saying how bad it is to their friends.
― mascara and pies (a hoy hoy), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 18:59 (3 years ago) Permalink
PROCTOLOGIST: A Journey through Jim CameronAN IMAX EXCLUSIVE
― Drama Mama's and Papa's too! (forksclovetofu), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 19:02 (3 years ago) Permalink
My kid is getting psyched up for this. We were at the movies the other day and he spent a minute or two staring at the Avatar poster, which is lenticular.
― kingkongvsgodzilla, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 19:02 (3 years ago) Permalink
i doubt this will make its money back ($500 million!) but just because us snarky internet types think it's gonna be this huge gigantic flop doesn't mean a lot of people aren't gonna go see this.
― tectonic p (latebloomer), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 19:08 (3 years ago) Permalink
its not just snarky internet types though. plenty of people i know have commented on how fucking stupid it looks. the other day i was walking through whsmiths with my nan and even she commented on 'why are they putting the smurfs in a film' when she saw the cover of empire/other-film-mag/whatever-had-it-on-the-cover. know absolutely no-one who is excited about it (although ok i don't know any 7 year olds). just looks dull.
― mascara and pies (a hoy hoy), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 19:11 (3 years ago) Permalink
ok it will still make at least 100m and open pretty big but after the initial impact it doesn't look good. and the longer people talk about how bad it looks/will flop, the more likely its gonna be.
― mascara and pies (a hoy hoy), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 19:12 (3 years ago) Permalink
it's probably going to explode internationally, here i'd expect the numbers to be "underwhelming" but not catastrophic. the real shocker would be if it shows a quarter of the legs that Titanic did.
xpost
― da croupier, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 19:13 (3 years ago) Permalink
if it bombs, get ready for Terminator Vs. Aliens.
― da croupier, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 19:14 (3 years ago) Permalink
straight to video shocker
― bitter about emo (Hunt3r), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 19:15 (3 years ago) Permalink
don't underestimate the secret furry demographic.
― tectonic p (latebloomer), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 19:15 (3 years ago) Permalink
vs. predator vs friday the 13 vs freddy vs
― Drama Mama's and Papa's too! (forksclovetofu), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 19:15 (3 years ago) Permalink
straight to six flags would be cooler. "fuck it, let's just make it a ride."
― da croupier, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 19:15 (3 years ago) Permalink
yeah, it will make bank internationally, and probably recoup loads in DVD sales, etc.
like wouldn't be surprised if it was the sort of thing that got bundled into blu-ray/tv deals at best buy or w/e (it's just so *visual*)
― crazy farting throwback jersey (gbx), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 19:15 (3 years ago) Permalink
planet 'tar
― super sexy psycho fantasy world (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 19:17 (3 years ago) Permalink
― da croupier, Wednesday, December 2, 2009 7:15 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark
― tectonic p (latebloomer), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 19:19 (3 years ago) Permalink
“Yes,” Cameron said flatly. “They have to have tails.”
― Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 19:19 (3 years ago) Permalink
― tectonic p (latebloomer), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 19:24 (3 years ago) Permalink
I dunno, dog, this movie reportedly cost $500 mil, which is about equal to the Dark Knight's domestic gross
― ess-tee-oh-pee (some dude), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 20:34 (3 years ago) Permalink
"YEAH!"
*barf sounds*
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 20:37 (3 years ago) Permalink
no lie, if someone took me to an amusement park where the rollercoaster cars looked like the flying things from the "Avatar" previews, I would never leave
― Huckabee Jesus lifeline (HI DERE), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 20:39 (3 years ago) Permalink
this is like captain eo 2 and perfect for that format.
I really wish Cameron had made a sequel to Captain Eo instead of this.
― ô_o (Nicole), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 20:39 (3 years ago) Permalink
Fox apparently just did a big promo image dump. Scrounge for laughs.
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 20:40 (3 years ago) Permalink
"So your mission is to CLIMB THIS TREE, MAGGOT."
Is the whole movie going to be the scenes from Endor? I don't know if these smurf wannabes are preferable to the ewoks.
― ô_o (Nicole), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 20:43 (3 years ago) Permalink
ewoks are great.
― tectonic p (latebloomer), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 20:44 (3 years ago) Permalink
on rye
― Huckabee Jesus lifeline (HI DERE), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 20:45 (3 years ago) Permalink
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 20:45 (3 years ago) Permalink
I like the ewoks, but they seem to be almost universally hated.
― ô_o (Nicole), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 20:46 (3 years ago) Permalink
"Tell me of your homewor--"
"I already DID."
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 20:46 (3 years ago) Permalink
Meanwhile on the set of CSI: Pandora:
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 20:47 (3 years ago) Permalink
"Tsu'tey"
see this is why I sometimes hate fantasy
― Huckabee Jesus lifeline (HI DERE), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 20:47 (3 years ago) Permalink
A mishap in the teleporter spliced together Marilyn Manson's backing band, a couple of Thundercats, and the Blue Man group and sent them to Skull Island
― tectonic p (latebloomer), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 20:48 (3 years ago) Permalink
Star Trek's future has the Beastie Boys, Avatar's got Harleys:
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 20:49 (3 years ago) Permalink
Okay this one, all you need's the actual caption:
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 20:50 (3 years ago) Permalink
"epic battle" is just like "romantic comedy" for me now
― mdskltr (blueski), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 20:50 (3 years ago) Permalink
this looks like the precursor to an anime pr0n scene
xp: Ned the first thing that came to mind with that pic was "... and pull your knees in tiiiight"
― Huckabee Jesus lifeline (HI DERE), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 20:51 (3 years ago) Permalink
Hahahah nice.
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 20:52 (3 years ago) Permalink
Why is Sam Worthington? He seems like a big charisma vacuum.
― ô_o (Nicole), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 20:52 (3 years ago) Permalink
Why is movie
― mdskltr (blueski), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 20:52 (3 years ago) Permalink
JAKE SULLY
― jØrdån (omar little), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 20:53 (3 years ago) Permalink
― tectonic p (latebloomer), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 20:48 (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
^^^sounds like a great film i'd enjoy and pay to see, unlike avatar
― mascara and pies (a hoy hoy), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 20:53 (3 years ago) Permalink
OMG Michele Rodriguez is in this...she is my personal stamp of C-grade entertainment that works in spite of itself ever since "Blue Crush."
― mascara and ties (Abbott), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 20:55 (3 years ago) Permalink
U know, they should have made the aliens disgusting jellyfish creatures who live in clouds of methane. Wouldn't that be awesome?
― tectonic p (latebloomer), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 20:56 (3 years ago) Permalink
See, look, tails!
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 20:56 (3 years ago) Permalink
Plus rocks and hair.
So I assume Giovanni Ribisi:Avatar::Paul Reiser:Aliens.
― james cameron gargameled my boner for life (Pancakes Hackman), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 20:57 (3 years ago) Permalink
"So Sigourney, your motivation in this scene is--"
"Yeah, thanks, got it."
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 20:57 (3 years ago) Permalink
"He Poos Blue"
― Huckabee Jesus lifeline (HI DERE), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 20:58 (3 years ago) Permalink
Maybe there's some secret scene at the end and Arnie comes in in Terminator drag and kills everyone.
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 20:58 (3 years ago) Permalink
Cameron would still be adamant that they had to have breasts
― mdskltr (blueski), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 20:58 (3 years ago) Permalink
Ender's Nowhere Near as Interesting War
I wish this was the theme song:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/102975/saturday-night-live-what-up-with-that
― ô_o (Nicole), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 20:58 (3 years ago) Permalink
Which makes me wonder why the hell he didn't just get Paul Reiser. I imagine he's just sitting at home watching Food Network or something.
― james cameron gargameled my boner for life (Pancakes Hackman), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 20:59 (3 years ago) Permalink
Imagine how awesome this movie would be if they replaced Sam Worthington with Kenan Thompson.
― ô_o (Nicole), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 20:59 (3 years ago) Permalink
Isn't Paul Reiser now bald and fat? From what I recall, that pretty much precludes him from ever being in a James Cameron movie again.
― Huckabee Jesus lifeline (HI DERE), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:00 (3 years ago) Permalink
this really looks like Aliens and Titanic's secret deformed lovechild that was hidden away for ten years then finally was allowed to see daylight
― tectonic p (latebloomer), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:00 (3 years ago) Permalink
they should have made the aliens disgusting jellyfish creatures who live in clouds of methane
U really shouldn't talk about Andy Sturmer that way.
― james cameron gargameled my boner for life (Pancakes Hackman), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:00 (3 years ago) Permalink
Paul Reiser in 2005:
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:00 (3 years ago) Permalink
For the 'unusual details' thread:
Atlanta (Centers on a man and a woman who meet at a funeral and can't seem to stay away from each other)
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:02 (3 years ago) Permalink
― twice boiled cabbage is death, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:03 (3 years ago) Permalink
James Horner is not out to unground the film
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:04 (3 years ago) Permalink
Paul Reiser had an inexplicable cameo in Funny People; why didn't Apatow ask him to reprise Burke?
― Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:04 (3 years ago) Permalink
xpost is it me or is there a slight similarity in the proportions / width of the eyes / between Jake-tard and Pattinson?
― twice boiled cabbage is death, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:05 (3 years ago) Permalink
Hahah how appropriate:
'Avatar' to close Dubai film festival
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:05 (3 years ago) Permalink
Maybe this whole thing is a plot just to wrap this decade up in one convenient place and sink it in the bottom of the ocean.
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:06 (3 years ago) Permalink
You know, the game cover image is ten thousand times better than the actual stills because this really DOES look like a cover of a game from 1986 or something:
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:09 (3 years ago) Permalink
All I ask schadenfreude-wise is that this movie make less (at least in the US) than Alvin & The Chipmunks 2: The Squeakel.
― da croupier, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:09 (3 years ago) Permalink
James Cameron's JOUST: THE MOVIE
― james cameron gargameled my boner for life (Pancakes Hackman), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:10 (3 years ago) Permalink
...actually why hasn't that been done yet? Seems a logical choice these days.
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:14 (3 years ago) Permalink
― da croupier, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:15 (3 years ago) Permalink
surely it should be The Squeakening
― mdskltr (blueski), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:16 (3 years ago) Permalink
'Munkment Day
― da croupier, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:16 (3 years ago) Permalink
Revenge of the Alvin
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:17 (3 years ago) Permalink
Tailiens
― tectonic p (latebloomer), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:17 (3 years ago) Permalink
― da croupier, Wednesday, December 2, 2009 4:09 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
just what we need, another unnecessary squeakquel
― ankles (s1ocki), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:18 (3 years ago) Permalink
2 Alvin 2 Chipmunks
― james cameron gargameled my boner for life (Pancakes Hackman), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:18 (3 years ago) Permalink
A Chip Off The Old Munk
― mdskltr (blueski), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:19 (3 years ago) Permalink
28 Squeaks Later
― tectonic p (latebloomer), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:19 (3 years ago) Permalink
Actually, going back to my first post on this whole thing:
Both actors have signed on for possible future installments as well because Cameron and Fox see "Avatar" as a potential franchise.
Fear.
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:19 (3 years ago) Permalink
Alvatar
― da croupier, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:19 (3 years ago) Permalink
Avatar 2: Avatarly
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:20 (3 years ago) Permalink
more like AVATARDED
― da croupier, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:21 (3 years ago) Permalink
Avaturd
― mdskltr (blueski), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:21 (3 years ago) Permalink
Avatars On Vacation
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:21 (3 years ago) Permalink
Avatar 2: Avatarder
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:21 (3 years ago) Permalink
Weekend At Na'vis
― mdskltr (blueski), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:22 (3 years ago) Permalink
Flight of the Na'vigator
― tectonic p (latebloomer), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:24 (3 years ago) Permalink
The Avartark Knight
― ô_o (Nicole), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:25 (3 years ago) Permalink
"Na'vi 5 is alive."
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:25 (3 years ago) Permalink
Avatarmageddon -- directed by Michael Bay
― ô_o (Nicole), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:26 (3 years ago) Permalink
Pearl Avatar
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:27 (3 years ago) Permalink
"Sir we've seen the breasts. They're the size of Texas." xp
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:27 (3 years ago) Permalink
Another old quote from way up near the start:
...and all we got were these lousy furries.
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:29 (3 years ago) Permalink
Ishavatar
xpost i can always tell when directors haven't figured out the oncology in a sci-fi movie
― da croupier, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:30 (3 years ago) Permalink
“Yes,” Cameron said flatly. “The atmosphere has to have an appropriate mix of nitrogen and oxygen in the troposphere to ensure that vertebrates who don't have gills can develop via accepted evolution-based theories.”
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:34 (3 years ago) Permalink
also i'm guesssssing he meant ecology unless there's a cancer subplot
― da croupier, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:34 (3 years ago) Permalink
are they only showing one type of terrain (jungle+floating rocks) of this planet? presumably there would also be ice wastes, deserts etc. if no reason to show them
― mdskltr (blueski), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:35 (3 years ago) Permalink
"We also know, like on earth, that there's only one intelligent species, and that they all look and talk alike and possess the same language."
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:36 (3 years ago) Permalink
$50 million was spent on Na'Vi research
― da croupier, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:37 (3 years ago) Permalink
Can't wait for that DVD extra.
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:38 (3 years ago) Permalink
and about 1 million on ontological research; bad prioritites
― Drama Mama's and Papa's too! (forksclovetofu), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:38 (3 years ago) Permalink
Oh hey, read the book!:
A field guide to Pandora—the mesmerizing world of James Cameron's Avatar.Four years in the making—and 15 years since its conception—Avatar is a live action film with a new generation of special effects, delivering a fully immersive cinematic experience of a new kind, where the revolutionary technology invented to make the film disappears into the emotion of the characters and the sweep of the story.In Avatar: A Confidential Report on the Biological and Social History of Pandora we are introduced to Pandora—a pristine and beautiful moon in a distant solar system—its exotic ecosystems, and the indigenous race called the Na'vi. By piecing together photographs, scientific field notes, and research data, citizens on Earth have collected the information in this field guide as a way to highlight the lessons Pandora can teach the people of Earth, who have struggled to survive as their planet's critical resources are depleted.Though Pandora has proven to be an exceedingly profitable source of natural resources, the environment—from its gravity-defying floating mountains to the small but venomous hellfire wasps and the gigantic carnivorous thanator—poses continual dangers to RDA. Catalogued with unparalleled precision and access, this field guide provides highly detailed descriptions of the unique creatures and plants found on Pandora, the culture, language, and physiology of the native population, as well as RDA technology and weapons.Eager to save the Earth, the activists have culled this information in hopes to expose the corporate greed and disregard for the native inhabitants and their environment that governs RDA's presence on the foreign moon.This is the evidence in their case to save Pandora—and themselves.
Four years in the making—and 15 years since its conception—Avatar is a live action film with a new generation of special effects, delivering a fully immersive cinematic experience of a new kind, where the revolutionary technology invented to make the film disappears into the emotion of the characters and the sweep of the story.
In Avatar: A Confidential Report on the Biological and Social History of Pandora we are introduced to Pandora—a pristine and beautiful moon in a distant solar system—its exotic ecosystems, and the indigenous race called the Na'vi. By piecing together photographs, scientific field notes, and research data, citizens on Earth have collected the information in this field guide as a way to highlight the lessons Pandora can teach the people of Earth, who have struggled to survive as their planet's critical resources are depleted.
Though Pandora has proven to be an exceedingly profitable source of natural resources, the environment—from its gravity-defying floating mountains to the small but venomous hellfire wasps and the gigantic carnivorous thanator—poses continual dangers to RDA. Catalogued with unparalleled precision and access, this field guide provides highly detailed descriptions of the unique creatures and plants found on Pandora, the culture, language, and physiology of the native population, as well as RDA technology and weapons.
Eager to save the Earth, the activists have culled this information in hopes to expose the corporate greed and disregard for the native inhabitants and their environment that governs RDA's presence on the foreign moon.
This is the evidence in their case to save Pandora—and themselves.
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:49 (3 years ago) Permalink
You can kinda hear the "DUN-DUN-DUNNNNNN!" after that conclusion.
if only they had the board lawyer power of ILX
― Drama Mama's and Papa's too! (forksclovetofu), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:49 (3 years ago) Permalink
Wait:
Pandora—a pristine and beautiful moon
It IS Endor!
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:50 (3 years ago) Permalink
Kinda appreciate how the aliens are giving us the finger here:
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:51 (3 years ago) Permalink
David Lynch had like 5 movies in the 90s for which he couldn't drum up enough money (10-20m).
but 500m for 3d furry porn is doable.
― Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 22:38 (3 years ago) Permalink
"When the monkeyfurrycatpeople die, everybody gonna cry."
― twice boiled cabbage is death, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 22:43 (3 years ago) Permalink
and that they all look and talk alike and possess the same language
arrrgh fuck off
― mdskltr (blueski), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 22:46 (3 years ago) Permalink
:-D
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 22:48 (3 years ago) Permalink
Hey look what I found at Target:
― james cameron gargameled my boner for life (Pancakes Hackman), Thursday, 3 December 2009 00:02 (3 years ago) Permalink
it looks like they are in the big womb things that keanu wakes up in during teh matrix
― mascara and pies (a hoy hoy), Thursday, 3 December 2009 00:03 (3 years ago) Permalink
hate this movie solely for ruining my ability to appreciate this shade of blue ever again
― 囧 (dyao), Thursday, 3 December 2009 01:00 (3 years ago) Permalink
Future bargain bin finds xp
― Meatcat (Jimmy The Mod Awaits The Return Of His Beloved), Thursday, 3 December 2009 02:00 (3 years ago) Permalink
So is the audience meant to take the side of nine foot tall furries over humans?
― Cosmic Ugg (S-), Thursday, 3 December 2009 04:42 (3 years ago) Permalink
Let's see, it's been 24 hours, there should be a slew of stupid new quotes and behold:
Cameron, whose filmmaking has always been notable for its technological innovations, explained it simply: “I basically sat down and put everything in this that I ever wanted to see in a movie – and that’s why it’s such a grab-bag of visual concepts.”With a cup of coffee in hand and looking relaxed and in a pair of jeans and casual shirt, he was talking in his private projection room after screening 30 minutes of Avatar to a small invited group. It is impossible not to be fascinated and enthralled by his action-filled 3D vision of adventure and battles in an iridescent jungle on an alien planet, where hideous, dragon-like creatures appear to leap off the screen, flora and fauna wave in the air and a heroic avatar does battle with a pterodactyl-like beast before subduing it and soaring off on its back.“It came from all the science-fiction books I read when I was a kid and it just gestated over time,” he said. “I did a lot of fantasy art and I had drawers full of drawings of creatures, characters, robots, spaceships and all that sort of thing. So for me I was just going back to my roots.”
With a cup of coffee in hand and looking relaxed and in a pair of jeans and casual shirt, he was talking in his private projection room after screening 30 minutes of Avatar to a small invited group. It is impossible not to be fascinated and enthralled by his action-filled 3D vision of adventure and battles in an iridescent jungle on an alien planet, where hideous, dragon-like creatures appear to leap off the screen, flora and fauna wave in the air and a heroic avatar does battle with a pterodactyl-like beast before subduing it and soaring off on its back.
“It came from all the science-fiction books I read when I was a kid and it just gestated over time,” he said. “I did a lot of fantasy art and I had drawers full of drawings of creatures, characters, robots, spaceships and all that sort of thing. So for me I was just going back to my roots.”
― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 3 December 2009 20:13 (3 years ago) Permalink
And what's today, kids?!?!
The time is here folks. Stop reading and proceed directly to the MTV Movies home page. Why? Don't you know by now?!!?!?!? "Avatar" director James Cameron, along with stars Sam Worthington and Zoe Saldana are answering questions from fans -- submitted on MTV.com or via the Facebook event page -- about the movie in a special MTV live stream event.What are you still doing here? Go watch (starting at 3pm EST/12pm PST)!!
What are you still doing here? Go watch (starting at 3pm EST/12pm PST)!!
― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 3 December 2009 20:15 (3 years ago) Permalink
― kingkongvsgodzilla, Thursday, 3 December 2009 20:17 (3 years ago) Permalink
for someone whos hair is on fire, she doesn't seem fazed. she does have boobs tho
― mascara and pies (a hoy hoy), Thursday, 3 December 2009 20:19 (3 years ago) Permalink
Oh wait, another one from that first link:
“We’re telling the story of what happens when a technologically superior culture comes into a place with a technologically inferior indigenous culture and there are resources there that they want,” said Cameron. “It never ends well.“It’s also a love story about an awakening of perception through the other person. That person must teach him something and there has to be a greater reason for him to be in love with her other than she’s a hot blue alien chick.”
“It’s also a love story about an awakening of perception through the other person. That person must teach him something and there has to be a greater reason for him to be in love with her other than she’s a hot blue alien chick.”
― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 3 December 2009 20:25 (3 years ago) Permalink
I hope this means an introductory scene where they tell Sam Worthington's character they picked him because of his hot blue chick fetish.
― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 3 December 2009 20:26 (3 years ago) Permalink
If you have such an unfortunate fetish, this movie must be a godsend. "Finally, something for ME."
― mascara and ties (Abbott), Thursday, 3 December 2009 20:52 (3 years ago) Permalink
Results 1 - 10 of about 2,390,000 for smurf fetish. (0.55 seconds)
― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 3 December 2009 20:57 (3 years ago) Permalink
oh god no
― Huckabee Jesus lifeline (HI DERE), Thursday, 3 December 2009 20:57 (3 years ago) Permalink
Hey, we had the corner on blue-skin fetishes first!
― Elvis Telecom, Thursday, 3 December 2009 21:07 (3 years ago) Permalink
bonus points to whoever can rustle up the first porn cartoons of these smug blue motherfuckers
― max, Thursday, 3 December 2009 21:08 (3 years ago) Permalink
Based on that quote from Cameron, he already did those cartoons when he was 15.
― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 3 December 2009 21:08 (3 years ago) Permalink
andorians?
― mascara and pies (a hoy hoy), Thursday, 3 December 2009 21:08 (3 years ago) Permalink
The more you know... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andorian
In the Deep Space Nine relaunch novels, four-person Andorian marriages were extrapolated into four sexes--the two roughly male thaan and chan, and the two female-like shen and zhen. The novels imply that the rarity of compatible foursomes produced extremely low reproduction rates which, in tandem with genetic weaknesses, led to the species' near extinction.
― Elvis Telecom, Thursday, 3 December 2009 21:10 (3 years ago) Permalink
"That person must teach him something and there has to be a greater reason for him to be in love with her other than she’s a hot blue alien chick"
You are one sick puppy, Mr. Cameron.
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 3 December 2009 21:46 (3 years ago) Permalink
Is there really a race of blue people?
― 囧 (dyao), Friday, 4 December 2009 01:23 (3 years ago) Permalink
You think for the amount of money Cameron has to play with he could afford something a bit nicer than a friggin' Behringer Eurorack mixer.
― Cosmic Ugg (S-), Friday, 4 December 2009 01:50 (3 years ago) Permalink
Sigourney doesn't look all that into 3d smurfs.
― Matt Armstrong, Friday, 4 December 2009 03:19 (3 years ago) Permalink
A clip of Sigourney and Giovanni that will make your brain bleed:
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/rorschachsrants/news/?a=12414
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 4 December 2009 03:21 (3 years ago) Permalink
omg i want this to fail so badlyi normally don't have these feelingsbut i'm going to say i want this to failthat clip is so bad
― Drama Mama's and Papa's too! (forksclovetofu), Friday, 4 December 2009 03:56 (3 years ago) Permalink
so you can pick up unobtainium, but you can't sit it on a desk, it has to hover on a special levitation coaster?
― Matt Armstrong, Friday, 4 December 2009 05:09 (3 years ago) Permalink
and who the fuck calls them oral hygienists? Isn't the term dental hygienist?
Or is it different in the FUTURE?
― Matt Armstrong, Friday, 4 December 2009 05:10 (3 years ago) Permalink
really can't get over him saying 'unobtainium' with a straight face
― 囧 (dyao), Friday, 4 December 2009 06:36 (3 years ago) Permalink
omg i want this to fail so badlyi normally don't have these feelingsbut i'm going to say i want this to fail
^^ this! I have been actively wishing for this film's complete crash and burn ever since I saw the first trailer, and the feeling only gets stronger every day.
― Johnny Fever, Friday, 4 December 2009 06:42 (3 years ago) Permalink
unobtainium
― omar little, Friday, 4 December 2009 06:51 (3 years ago) Permalink
People have been gunning so hard for this to fail that it almost makes me want to see it succeed.
But then I glance back at those screen shots and I'm all "fuck this shit"
― unified theory of objectionable thoughts (latebloomer), Friday, 4 December 2009 07:01 (3 years ago) Permalink
To be fair that is EXACTLY what this movie looks like: a bored 6th grade kid's notebook doodlings.
― unified theory of objectionable thoughts (latebloomer), Friday, 4 December 2009 07:03 (3 years ago) Permalink
I seriously want someone to ask Cameron about the unobtainium hover coasters, since every element of this film is so painstakingly reasoned and all.
― Matt Armstrong, Friday, 4 December 2009 09:43 (3 years ago) Permalink
Why did the aliens all go to the English language school if they don't get on with the humans?
― Disco Stfu (Raw Patrick), Friday, 4 December 2009 13:25 (3 years ago) Permalink
why did indians go to the English language school if they didn't like the colonialists?
― Wee xx (a hoy hoy), Friday, 4 December 2009 13:31 (3 years ago) Permalink
this is just gonna be a hardcore cliché snoozefest once i stop laffing at how bad it is (in 10 years time when it is telly, as i will refuse to pay to see it)
― Wee xx (a hoy hoy), Friday, 4 December 2009 13:32 (3 years ago) Permalink
it's been dubbed obviously
― mdskltr (blueski), Friday, 4 December 2009 13:38 (3 years ago) Permalink
avatat
― SKATAAAAAAAAAAA (cozwn), Friday, 4 December 2009 13:50 (3 years ago) Permalink
SPOILERS, if anyone cares
Over time, Jake integrates himself into the Na'vi clan, and begins to fall in love with Neytiri. As a result, Jake finds himself caught between the military-industrial forces of Earth and the Na’vi, forcing him to choose sides in an epic battle that will decide the fate of Pandora and the Na'vi.
Which side will he choose, I REALLY CANNOT GUESS.
― Communi-Bear Silo State (chap), Friday, 4 December 2009 13:52 (3 years ago) Permalink
his best friend is a talking pie
― mdskltr (blueski), Friday, 4 December 2009 13:53 (3 years ago) Permalink
wow there are some moments in that clip that almost reach dr. tongue levels of 3d-shown-in-2d posing
― da croupier, Friday, 4 December 2009 14:10 (3 years ago) Permalink
when he held up the rock i was sure he'd start waving it back and forth
― da croupier, Friday, 4 December 2009 14:11 (3 years ago) Permalink
when the audience stands up and starts throwing toast at the midnight showings of this, you gonna be sorry you dissed it.
― bitter about emo (Hunt3r), Friday, 4 December 2009 14:21 (3 years ago) Permalink
They're more likely to initiate furry sex.
― ô_o (Nicole), Friday, 4 December 2009 14:25 (3 years ago) Permalink
The pelvic thrust really will drive them insane...
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 4 December 2009 15:23 (3 years ago) Permalink
*throws toast*
― mdskltr (blueski), Friday, 4 December 2009 15:26 (3 years ago) Permalink
― EZ Snappin, Friday, 4 December 2009 15:29 (3 years ago) Permalink
x-post -- Terrible euphemism.
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 4 December 2009 15:29 (3 years ago) Permalink
I just feel that needs repeating every ten post or so. Unobtainium - get some if you can.
I was thinking that there Cameron goes on about the atmosphere and culture and etc. and I'm thinking, "Okay sure it wasn't a setting you originally devised but in Aliens you just threw in some gunk about terraforming for two seconds and that's all anyone needed and anyone WANTED."
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 4 December 2009 15:30 (3 years ago) Permalink
WE HAVE THEME SONG:
http://www.popeater.com/2009/12/04/leona-lewis-avatar-theme-i-see-you/
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 4 December 2009 18:47 (3 years ago) Permalink
For the first few seconds I'm all "Imogen Heap?"
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 4 December 2009 18:48 (3 years ago) Permalink
"Okay sure it wasn't a setting you originally devised but in Aliens you just threw in some gunk about terraforming for two seconds and that's all anyone needed and anyone WANTED."
Patton Oswalt's "I don't want to know where the stuff I love comes from, I just want the stuff I love" re: the star wars prequels would seem to apply here
― da croupier, Friday, 4 December 2009 18:50 (3 years ago) Permalink
Yup.
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 4 December 2009 18:51 (3 years ago) Permalink
I cannot put my finger on who Leona Lewis sounds like on this song because it sounds like she's pastiching every single big solo female pop vocalist of the past 20 years.
― Huckabee Jesus lifeline (HI DERE), Friday, 4 December 2009 18:52 (3 years ago) Permalink
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobtainium
― omar little, Friday, 4 December 2009 18:52 (3 years ago) Permalink
(Sometimes referred to as "Unaffordium")
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 4 December 2009 18:54 (3 years ago) Permalink
As for song:
Of the creative process, Lewis says, "James and I spoke about the meaning and emotion of the song. He showed me clips from the film, which gave me insight into the characters and this whole other world that he had created. The song represents the feelings shared between Jake [Sam Worthington] and Neytiri [Zoe Saldana]; it's very powerful and beautiful."
Even the press release is a pastiche etc.
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 4 December 2009 18:55 (3 years ago) Permalink
tbh I want this film to be good. Not sure why, but there it is.
At the very least it could be the most WTF SF feature since Zardoz.
― Bring me Sanka or Tetley (Jon Lewis), Friday, 4 December 2009 19:03 (3 years ago) Permalink
Zardoz is a crap film with a lot of weird ideas in it. This is a crap film with no ideas.
― unobtaintium (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 4 December 2009 19:07 (3 years ago) Permalink
Haha now imagine James Cameron's bouncing head at the start of the film making fun of us all.
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 4 December 2009 19:07 (3 years ago) Permalink
Unobtainium also featured heavily in the movie The Core (the vessel they used to travel to the earth's core was made of it) so Jimmy is at least following in the footsteps of some great examples of hard sci fi.
― methanietanner, Friday, 4 December 2009 19:09 (3 years ago) Permalink
― methanietanner, Friday, 4 December 2009 19:10 (3 years ago) Permalink
id love for this film to be good. i want all films to be good. but when they so obviously arent and the people behind it act like confusing arseholes, then i can easily sit back and appreciate the lols when it flops
― Wee xx (a hoy hoy), Friday, 4 December 2009 20:37 (3 years ago) Permalink
Fuck you, synergy.
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 4 December 2009 21:09 (3 years ago) Permalink
wow
― unobtaintium (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 4 December 2009 21:11 (3 years ago) Permalink
looooooooool
― Wee xx (a hoy hoy), Friday, 4 December 2009 21:18 (3 years ago) Permalink
reminds me of the Three's Company episode where Jack keeps holding up a copy of I'm In You by Peter Frampton he bought for whichever blonde roommate was on at the time.
― da croupier, Friday, 4 December 2009 21:23 (3 years ago) Permalink
"Lance? Very phallic name you've got there."how can you NOT want this movie to fail
― Drama Mama's and Papa's too! (forksclovetofu), Friday, 4 December 2009 21:29 (3 years ago) Permalink
finally a sexy sci-fi movie for the sexing
― da croupier, Friday, 4 December 2009 21:29 (3 years ago) Permalink
it corrupts whatever it touches.Leona sounding very enya at first and then very bad tina after
ugh, then just bad leona
― Drama Mama's and Papa's too! (forksclovetofu), Friday, 4 December 2009 21:30 (3 years ago) Permalink
mcguffinanium
― Drama Mama's and Papa's too! (forksclovetofu), Friday, 4 December 2009 21:53 (3 years ago) Permalink
http://kotaku.com/5419824/conan-obrien-now-picking-on-60+metascore-games
― unified theory of objectionable thoughts (latebloomer), Sunday, 6 December 2009 08:46 (3 years ago) Permalink
For Abbott -- Michelle Rodriguez talks about things.
― Ned Raggett, Monday, 7 December 2009 20:50 (3 years ago) Permalink
The only reason I might ever watch this is for Michelle Rodriguez, but I doubt that's enough.
― Johnny Fever, Monday, 7 December 2009 21:14 (3 years ago) Permalink
Only if Michael shows up and shoots her.
― ô_o (Nicole), Monday, 7 December 2009 21:22 (3 years ago) Permalink
we can only hope that the movie is at least funny
― I'm losing my Vitamin C (CaptainLorax), Monday, 7 December 2009 21:28 (3 years ago) Permalink
Oh man Ned thanking you so much.
― mascara and ties (Abbott), Monday, 7 December 2009 23:34 (3 years ago) Permalink
Eckhart gives a slight chuckle of disbelief upon hearing the name Unobtanium. There will be no such chuckles in Avatar. I have a feeling it will be filled with chuckles of a whole other nature (a gimme for the 30 Rock fans in our audience).
― Pooping And Crying (Deric W. Haircare), Tuesday, 8 December 2009 00:50 (3 years ago) Permalink
And in today's news:
'Coke Zero hopes to ride ‘Avatar' hype':
“Our Coke Zero drinkers go to the movies all of the time,” York said.
Mm.
More amusing, though, is this. Consider:
What is 20th Century Fox thinking? Have you seen the marketing for Avatar? As one colleague recently ruminated, “Fox has never known how to sell a good movie.” Sad but true. They do know how to sell the living hell out of bad ones like this summer’s remake of Universal Soldier, titled X-Men Origins: Wolverine. Their tactic is simple: Oversaturate the market so people cannot possibly miss knowing when the opening weekend is, then cross your fingers and pray the negative buzz doesn’t overwhelm the advertising. But this time around, someone has set a bunch of monkeys with typewriters loose in the staff room, turning out incredibly terrible ideas like rebranding a popular soda can with the name "AVTR" and running embarrassing, completely nonsensical pieces of footage at highly questionable times.
Well then.
Later on in this, ah, interesting piece:
After all, this is this year’s Lord of the Rings, the season’s Harry Potter; its Star Wars. A ton of money went into this thing, regardless of which estimate you believe, and the film lacks the one component all of those properties have in common: brand recognition. People know what Lord of the Rings is. They know Harry Potter. They don’t know what the heck an Avatar is supposed to be. They have no idea what to expect – unless, of course, Fox rams the ideas down their throat so hard that once it is in theaters people need to run and see it just to find out what all the fuss is about, like they did in droves for Harry Potter, The Dark Knight and Twilight. Once there, the film can speak for itself, and on that front I am acutely aware that the studio is confident.Fox, well known for keeping the Internet press at arm’s length, this time is giving the the full court press. For years I have been on a banned list from seeing their films at screenings, but now I’m receiving invites for interviews and an invite to an early, press-only, no-friends screening. Studios only hold “no +1” screenings when they are very, very confident that everyone will want to pay to see it and that press will pay to see it again with friends and family.So is the bad advertising indicative of a bad film? I think not. The studio isn't worried about what the alpha filmgoers think about their advertising. They know your ticket is as good as sold, especially once you hear positive reviews. This is for a different crowd entirely. And since those filmgoers are beginning to ask us critics “Will this be any good?” I’m starting to question whether it is really bad advertising at all.
Fox, well known for keeping the Internet press at arm’s length, this time is giving the the full court press. For years I have been on a banned list from seeing their films at screenings, but now I’m receiving invites for interviews and an invite to an early, press-only, no-friends screening. Studios only hold “no +1” screenings when they are very, very confident that everyone will want to pay to see it and that press will pay to see it again with friends and family.
So is the bad advertising indicative of a bad film? I think not. The studio isn't worried about what the alpha filmgoers think about their advertising. They know your ticket is as good as sold, especially once you hear positive reviews. This is for a different crowd entirely. And since those filmgoers are beginning to ask us critics “Will this be any good?” I’m starting to question whether it is really bad advertising at all.
Perhaps.
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 8 December 2009 19:28 (3 years ago) Permalink
all of the time!!!
― what u think i steen for to push a crawfish? (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Tuesday, 8 December 2009 20:10 (3 years ago) Permalink
― unobtaintium (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, December 4, 2009 2:07 PM (4 days ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
when did u see it shakey??
― mod only knows who i'd ban without u (s1ocki), Tuesday, 8 December 2009 20:12 (3 years ago) Permalink
I am fairly certain "I wanna bone blue chicks" is going to be a central theme to this movie.
― Huckabee Jesus lifeline (HI DERE), Tuesday, 8 December 2009 20:12 (3 years ago) Permalink
But will it play in Peoria Sheboygan?
Advance ticket sales for the midnight shows were pulled sometime over the weekend, and the Sheboygan Marcus Theater confirmed Tuesday the midnight shows have been canceled.No reason was immediately given for the cancellation.
No reason was immediately given for the cancellation.
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 8 December 2009 20:14 (3 years ago) Permalink
"Not enough Coke Zero drinkers in this town, sir."
"Ah, screw 'em."
― Wee xx (a hoy hoy), Friday, December 4, 2009 3:37 PM (4 days ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
this, kinda. i mean, this movie looks terrible. but i'm like, not excited about how bad it's gonna be. i'd always rather something turn out good... and i'll wait till i see it before i judge it (or pronounce that it has "no ideas")
― mod only knows who i'd ban without u (s1ocki), Tuesday, 8 December 2009 20:15 (3 years ago) Permalink
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, December 8, 2009 3:14 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
ned u are following this story way too closely
'Coke Zero hopes to ride ‘Avatar' hype'
I think of Avatar as the Crystal Pepsi of film.
― ô_o (Nicole), Tuesday, 8 December 2009 20:15 (3 years ago) Permalink
Well, yes. But I'm just amused at what comes up in Google News.
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 8 December 2009 20:17 (3 years ago) Permalink
Oftentimes a film can be very bad but, if it meets my expectations of what I am looking for in terms of entertainment, I will enjoy it immensely (see: "Catwoman", "Ultraviolet").
― Huckabee Jesus lifeline (HI DERE), Tuesday, 8 December 2009 20:17 (3 years ago) Permalink
Sigourney Weaver as Dr. Grace Augustine, a botanist who mentors Jake Sully.[13] Weaver dyed her hair red for the part.[14] Her character was named "Shipley" at one point.
― omar little, Tuesday, 8 December 2009 20:18 (3 years ago) Permalink
ned is taking the bullet for us, so we can just come here and lol with him
― adorable cheese inscription (a hoy hoy), Tuesday, 8 December 2009 20:18 (3 years ago) Permalink
n'avi nude
― da croupier, Tuesday, 8 December 2009 20:18 (3 years ago) Permalink
― omar little, Tuesday, December 8, 2009 3:18 PM (12 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
OH MAN... THIS IS GONNA BE ROUGH
― mod only knows who i'd ban without u (s1ocki), Tuesday, 8 December 2009 20:19 (3 years ago) Permalink
too much time on ilx
― omar little, Tuesday, 8 December 2009 20:21 (3 years ago) Permalink
The movie was named "Shitanic" at one point
― da croupier, Tuesday, 8 December 2009 20:21 (3 years ago) Permalink
some ripley
― Drama Mama's and Papa's too! (forksclovetofu), Tuesday, 8 December 2009 20:21 (3 years ago) Permalink
good to see stephen lang getting a good or at least sizable role
― omar little, Tuesday, 8 December 2009 20:22 (3 years ago) Permalink
"What are the differences that we can deal with, without it becoming a barrier? Skin color is great, and it's also great thematically, because skin color is obviously such a big issue on our planet. All the warm tones — from pallid Canadian pink, to beautiful warm browns, and, well, pallid Australian pink — were all taken. So, we were down to blue and green basically — and green had been taken by all those Martian movies with the little green men. So, we have big blue women, not little green men." —James Cameron on why Avatar aliens are blue
― ice cr?m, Tuesday, 8 December 2009 20:22 (3 years ago) Permalink
― da croupier, Tuesday, December 8, 2009 3:21 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
lol
― mod only knows who i'd ban without u (s1ocki), Tuesday, 8 December 2009 20:22 (3 years ago) Permalink
pallid Australian pink
Worst Crayola color ever.
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 8 December 2009 20:27 (3 years ago) Permalink
seeing this tomorrow morning and am stupid excited abt it tbh, like, excited enough to wake up early and walk through over a foot of new snow excited
lol it's true, cameron is pallid canadian pink
― paragon of incalescence (rrrobyn), Wednesday, 9 December 2009 18:38 (3 years ago) Permalink
So, we were down to blue and green basically — and green had been taken by all those Martian movies with the little green men. So, we have big blue women, not little green men
is this his keen scientific mind in action
― mr. strawman spotter (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 9 December 2009 18:44 (3 years ago) Permalink
I would be more excited about seeing this movie if it featured Zoe Saldana in a tight costume as opposed to a gangly blue cat creature voiced by Zoe Saldana.
― wtf?!? just randomly started crying! (HI DERE), Wednesday, 9 December 2009 18:46 (3 years ago) Permalink
for someone who is seemingly driven by the "SHOW EM THE TITTIES!" rule of filmmaking, dude seems remarkably hell-bent on bogarting all the titties
― wtf?!? just randomly started crying! (HI DERE), Wednesday, 9 December 2009 18:47 (3 years ago) Permalink
― paragon of incalescence (rrrobyn), Wednesday, December 9, 2009 1:38 PM (11 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
see u there :D
― sharty is a shit (s1ocki), Wednesday, 9 December 2009 18:50 (3 years ago) Permalink
whoo! btw i am going to cry for sure. and laugh, obv.
― paragon of incalescence (rrrobyn), Wednesday, 9 December 2009 18:53 (3 years ago) Permalink
― james cameron gargameled my boner for life (Pancakes Hackman), Wednesday, 9 December 2009 23:27 (3 years ago) Permalink
fu mtl insiders
― Simon H., Wednesday, 9 December 2009 23:29 (3 years ago) Permalink
(And I'm going to the London premiere; such is the nature of my job, I've now seen it multiple times, but not yet on a big bloody screen in 3D. This thread has been hugely entertaining).
― Michael Jones, Wednesday, 9 December 2009 23:35 (3 years ago) Permalink
Holding out on us! So is it any good?
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 9 December 2009 23:37 (3 years ago) Permalink
is it a triumph in high-tech nipple obfuscation
― wtf?!? just randomly started crying! (HI DERE), Wednesday, 9 December 2009 23:39 (3 years ago) Permalink
did it change blue people porn forever
― what u think i steen for to push a crawfish? (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Wednesday, 9 December 2009 23:43 (3 years ago) Permalink
we're not actually "allowed" to say anything directly/publicly about it until Dec 18 (at least in canada)xposts
― paragon of incalescence (rrrobyn), Wednesday, 9 December 2009 23:44 (3 years ago) Permalink
but we're not in Canada!
― wtf?!? just randomly started crying! (HI DERE), Wednesday, 9 December 2009 23:44 (3 years ago) Permalink
Non-disclosure agreement, guys. It's like the Dr Who threads - I just have to sit on my hands, shaking my head slowly.
Everything everyone has said upthread is factually correct.
― Michael Jones, Wednesday, 9 December 2009 23:44 (3 years ago) Permalink
this, my dears, is the internet!
― what u think i steen for to push a crawfish? (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Wednesday, 9 December 2009 23:45 (3 years ago) Permalink
Rrrobyn, take a boat to the middle of Lake Ontario and broadcast the news in the great land of freedom of speech.
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 9 December 2009 23:45 (3 years ago) Permalink
I shall report back on the Prem, yeah? Without mentioning the xxxmin we spend all facing the same way.
(xxx = I'm probably not even allowed to say how long it is).
― Michael Jones, Wednesday, 9 December 2009 23:47 (3 years ago) Permalink
I would just like to point out that this question was posted before MJones's penultimate post:
so I am assuming the answer is an emphatic "YES"
― wtf?!? just randomly started crying! (HI DERE), Wednesday, 9 December 2009 23:48 (3 years ago) Permalink
james cameron is watching the internetAND he's canadian! ooooeeeooo
xpostit is the americans who make these embargos re: hollywood movies in the first place!
― paragon of incalescence (rrrobyn), Wednesday, 9 December 2009 23:49 (3 years ago) Permalink
Fine, blame us.
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 9 December 2009 23:51 (3 years ago) Permalink
then TELL US
― wtf?!? just randomly started crying! (HI DERE), Wednesday, 9 December 2009 23:52 (3 years ago) Permalink
You know it sucks.
― really senile old crap shit (Eric H.), Wednesday, 9 December 2009 23:52 (3 years ago) Permalink
well yes, but precisely HOW does it suck
― wtf?!? just randomly started crying! (HI DERE), Wednesday, 9 December 2009 23:54 (3 years ago) Permalink
thanking youuuuu Dan
― a triumph in high-tech nipple obfuscation (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 9 December 2009 23:56 (3 years ago) Permalink
Yes, we want to count the ways. xp
― ô_o (Nicole), Wednesday, 9 December 2009 23:56 (3 years ago) Permalink
shall i compare thee to a miserable day
― what u think i steen for to push a crawfish? (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Thursday, 10 December 2009 00:01 (3 years ago) Permalink
Actually, not being able to contribute to this thread in any substantial way has been nothing like as excruciating as last summer's The Happening thread. Oh, boy. I really was bursting to tell people about that.
― Michael Jones, Thursday, 10 December 2009 00:01 (3 years ago) Permalink
So it doesn't suck but isn't very good.
― really senile old crap shit (Eric H.), Thursday, 10 December 2009 00:02 (3 years ago) Permalink
wink twice if it sucks
― real bears playing hockey (polyphonic), Thursday, 10 December 2009 00:05 (3 years ago) Permalink
xpost once if it doesn't
― really senile old crap shit (Eric H.), Thursday, 10 December 2009 00:06 (3 years ago) Permalink
― leave garbage snickers eat snickers leave garbage (jeff), Thursday, 10 December 2009 00:07 (3 years ago) Permalink
You should go see it when it comes out. You all should.
― Michael Jones, Thursday, 10 December 2009 00:08 (3 years ago) Permalink
Maybe it's a movie that plays better in French.
― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 10 December 2009 00:09 (3 years ago) Permalink
oh come on I'm not giving James Cameron any of my money
x-post
― a triumph in high-tech nipple obfuscation (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 10 December 2009 00:10 (3 years ago) Permalink
Don't you see, the embargo WANTS you to say things like this!
― really senile old crap shit (Eric H.), Thursday, 10 December 2009 00:10 (3 years ago) Permalink
what happens if you do have an opinion btw? hunted down by a terminator? someone blows up goodison park? all your friends and family are subjected to torture via blue furry porno?
― adorable cheese inscription (a hoy hoy), Thursday, 10 December 2009 00:12 (3 years ago) Permalink
Shot thru a building on the end of a missile IIRC
― james cameron gargameled my boner for life (Pancakes Hackman), Thursday, 10 December 2009 00:14 (3 years ago) Permalink
i'm pretty sure that movie publicists are in fact terminators
― paragon of incalescence (rrrobyn), Thursday, 10 December 2009 00:44 (3 years ago) Permalink
i'm download this because floating rocks and blue tits look better at low bitrate - more left to the imagination. hopefully i'll find a foreign language version with english subtitles to really enhance the magic.
― mdskltr (blueski), Thursday, 10 December 2009 00:46 (3 years ago) Permalink
Can you say if it's better than Delgo?
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 10 December 2009 01:06 (3 years ago) Permalink
i saw this.and feel a need to share that completely neutral fact delivered in an emotion-free and criticism-devoid tone.back dec 18.
― paragon of incalescence (rrrobyn), Thursday, 10 December 2009 22:46 (3 years ago) Permalink
LOL i signed a non-disclosure thing once before a test screening of Natural Born Criminals in Seattle but I hated it so goddamn much I wrote a review in The Stranger the next week...
― vadnais heights is cougartown (Jon Lewis), Thursday, 10 December 2009 22:50 (3 years ago) Permalink
Obv I had no plans to be a movie reviewer tho
Various Twitter responses posted here.
― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 10 December 2009 22:51 (3 years ago) Permalink
Sorry, Natural Born Killers, duh
fucking piece of shit.
― vadnais heights is cougartown (Jon Lewis), Thursday, 10 December 2009 22:51 (3 years ago) Permalink
well, unless those are all socks I guess my optimism was at least a wee bit justified?
― vadnais heights is cougartown (Jon Lewis), Thursday, 10 December 2009 23:02 (3 years ago) Permalink
thanks for making my hollywoodlaw-abiding ways even more painful to me, ned
― paragon of incalescence (rrrobyn), Thursday, 10 December 2009 23:03 (3 years ago) Permalink
i dont think they mind when you effusively OMFG!!!! yr twitter, right?
wanna draft an agreement that you can positively review avatar whenever, otherwise u gotta stfu forever.
― bitter about emo (Hunt3r), Thursday, 10 December 2009 23:08 (3 years ago) Permalink
"You have officially been to your last Con in which blue people, spoken Navi and the word "hometree" were absent."
― you are wrong I'm bone thugs in harmon (omar little), Thursday, 10 December 2009 23:11 (3 years ago) Permalink
there's this bullshit on the guardian tonight: http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/dec/10/james-cameron-avatar-preview
i assume most of the british tabloids will have a 100 words on the film itself in their celeb section report of the premiere tomorrow too. the sun already has some stuff, i think.
― caek, Thursday, 10 December 2009 23:12 (3 years ago) Permalink
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/film/2765598/We-get-first-look-at-3D-blockbuster-Avatar.html
― caek, Thursday, 10 December 2009 23:16 (3 years ago) Permalink
haha yeah i guess in the age of the internet they totally expect a breach tbh
― paragon of incalescence (rrrobyn), Thursday, 10 December 2009 23:18 (3 years ago) Permalink
'You have officially been to your last Con in which blue people, spoken Navi and the word "hometree" were absent.'
This is extremely useful because it clearly demarcate who will want to see this movie.
― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 10 December 2009 23:30 (3 years ago) Permalink
The near-impossibility of faithfully bootlegging a 3D polarized movie must have been a huge selling point for the movie execs.
― Adam Bruneau, Thursday, 10 December 2009 23:30 (3 years ago) Permalink
I hope 'hometree' is Avatar's attempt at inventing hipster slang.
― Adam Bruneau, Thursday, 10 December 2009 23:36 (3 years ago) Permalink
All I can is, when they all lined up on stage, Ms Weaver was tallest. Then we watched a film.
― Michael Jones, Thursday, 10 December 2009 23:58 (3 years ago) Permalink
Ms Weaver is so awesomei mean, generally, obv
― paragon of incalescence (rrrobyn), Friday, 11 December 2009 02:40 (3 years ago) Permalink
lol embargo
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/film-reviews/avatar-film-review-1004052868.story
― caek, Friday, 11 December 2009 07:51 (3 years ago) Permalink
161 minutes...
― Simon H., Friday, 11 December 2009 07:56 (3 years ago) Permalink
It's every fairy tale about flying dragons, magic plants, weirdly hypnotic creepy-crawlies and feral dogs rolled up into a rain forest with a highly advanced spiritual design.
― James Mitchell, Friday, 11 December 2009 08:50 (3 years ago) Permalink
Should be on the poster, that.
Ned, is there an IMAX in Irvine?
― caek, Friday, 11 December 2009 09:50 (3 years ago) Permalink
How long until we have AI-CGI, generative movies that essentially make themselves? That seems to be where we're heading.
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 11 December 2009 13:04 (3 years ago) Permalink
but who would be there to tell the computer that the characters need boobs, and if they already have them, they should be bigger?
― adorable cheese inscription (a hoy hoy), Friday, 11 December 2009 13:07 (3 years ago) Permalink
are the trade papers powerful enough to where the studios won't enforce an embargo on them? Variety
― The Devil's Avocado (Gukbe), Friday, 11 December 2009 13:09 (3 years ago) Permalink
we already have that; it's called world of warcraft xxp
― 囧 (dyao), Friday, 11 December 2009 13:12 (3 years ago) Permalink
i totally saw this already but i'm a class act and won't break the embargo even after it's released.
― Smokey and the S'Banned It (history mayne), Friday, 11 December 2009 13:23 (3 years ago) Permalink
I didn't realize so many ILXors are film critics!
― Tuomas, Friday, 11 December 2009 13:24 (3 years ago) Permalink
Read a film thread and see.
― really senile old crap shit (Eric H.), Friday, 11 December 2009 13:34 (3 years ago) Permalink
Yup, down at the Spectrum.
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 11 December 2009 13:35 (3 years ago) Permalink
I've read them, but I thought people were just enthusiastic about movies.
― Tuomas, Friday, 11 December 2009 13:35 (3 years ago) Permalink
no they are film critics
― mdskltr (blueski), Friday, 11 December 2009 13:43 (3 years ago) Permalink
Violating an embargo will *at most* earn you a nuisance lawsuit that gets thrown out but leaves you with a legal bill for having to go that far (not against the law, tbh), and will *at least* get you blackballed by an annoyed publicist who has already negotiated exclusives across the media. For some publications/people, a flout is a snide way of saying 'actually we don't need you or your cheesy clients'.
― special vixens unit (suzy), Friday, 11 December 2009 14:14 (3 years ago) Permalink
In his months with the Na'vi, Jake experiences their life as the "true world" and that inside his crippled body locked in a coffin-like transponding device, where he can control his avatar, is as the "dream." The switch to the other side is gradual for his body remains with the human colony while his consciousness is sometimes elsewhere.
^^^^^ review written by cameron's groundbreakin ProlixRobotix AI movie reviewing technology. no humans or writers necessary.
― bitter about emo (Hunt3r), Friday, 11 December 2009 15:35 (3 years ago) Permalink
Really looking forward to this tbh. Today I bought tickets for two showings.
The word is good:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/6786507/Avatar-The-first-reviews.html
5 stars from both Empire and Total Film as well, which was to be expected really. Even so...
― DavidM, Friday, 11 December 2009 15:42 (3 years ago) Permalink
So, this is like The Matrix, right?
― NotEnough, Friday, 11 December 2009 15:49 (3 years ago) Permalink
I'm not a critic, I just have a very low status job within the film & TV industry, somewhere between mucking out Trigger's stables and ironing Gok Wan's shirts. I worked pretty hard (in my own tiny way) on this film, hence the prem invite.
― Michael Jones, Friday, 11 December 2009 15:57 (3 years ago) Permalink
interesting on the reviews...two dudes i work with saw about 1/2 hour of it at E3 and were raving about it, but i have been arguing with them ever since saying they were just being fan boys and shit cuzza the 3D and all. but who knows? maybe it is good.
― eight woofers in the trunk sb'n down the block (M@tt He1ges0n), Friday, 11 December 2009 16:23 (3 years ago) Permalink
mmmmMMRFMFFFMmmm.
― donde está mia farrow, fa la la la la, la la la la (s1ocki), Friday, 11 December 2009 16:25 (3 years ago) Permalink
Play some loud evil music, s1ocki. It'll distract you.
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 11 December 2009 16:26 (3 years ago) Permalink
i feel like sigourney weaver in aliens where she's trapped in the lab by burke and she's banging on the glass and nobody can hear her tbh
― donde está mia farrow, fa la la la la, la la la la (s1ocki), Friday, 11 December 2009 16:29 (3 years ago) Permalink
Rupert Murdoch turns off the monitor...
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 11 December 2009 16:30 (3 years ago) Permalink
bang 'em on the glass
(sorry)
― wtf?!? just randomly started crying! (HI DERE), Friday, 11 December 2009 16:31 (3 years ago) Permalink
in a 3d IMAX theater noone can hear you scream iirc
― 囧 (dyao), Friday, 11 December 2009 16:32 (3 years ago) Permalink
Pardon my dubiousness at suggestions I "...make sure you can say you were there when the future of cinema began." The real game-changers - from "Jaws" and "Star Wars" to "The Matrix" and even "Terminator 2" and "Titanic," to some degree - arrived without this kind of carefully managed hype.
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 11 December 2009 17:42 (3 years ago) Permalink
Haters to the rear!
― Action Orientation (Eazy), Friday, 11 December 2009 17:42 (3 years ago) Permalink
Haha, "Star Wars" started the whole practice of selling your event movie at sci-fi/comic conventions!
― james cameron gargameled my boner for life (Pancakes Hackman), Friday, 11 December 2009 17:48 (3 years ago) Permalink
The real game-changers - from "Jaws" and "Star Wars" to "The Matrix" and even "Terminator 2" and "Titanic," to some degree - arrived without this kind of carefully managed hype.
i wasn't alive for "jaws" or "star wars", though i know that they had near-unprecedentedly large simultaneous releases (oi-oi), but dude you have got to be shitting me on the last three. they had the shit hyped outta them. if they felt "less present" it's mainly because they were pre-mass-uptake-of-the-internet so you didn't have them in your face at your work-station. but "titanic" was the most expensive film of all time (inflation possibly not adjusted) and "the matrix" was hailed *as a gamechanger* and so, really, was "terminator 2" for its effects work.
― Smokey and the S'Banned It (history mayne), Friday, 11 December 2009 17:50 (3 years ago) Permalink
ya it's not like titanic quietly slipped into theaters and modestly blew everyone's minds
― donde está mia farrow, fa la la la la, la la la la (s1ocki), Friday, 11 December 2009 17:51 (3 years ago) Permalink
T2 was EVERYWHERE for awhile; I remember seeing it in the theaters on opening and then like six times more and the place was always packed^HS SFX nerd
― that is a whole discussion within itself that is worth debating (forksclovetofu), Friday, 11 December 2009 17:54 (3 years ago) Permalink
3 of those 5 movies are horrible
― a triumph in high-tech nipple obfuscation (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 11 December 2009 17:55 (3 years ago) Permalink
avatar more like ashitr
― super sexy psycho fantasy world (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Friday, 11 December 2009 18:02 (3 years ago) Permalink
I'm too young to really remember the ad hype around "Jaws" or "Star Wars" but I do remember taking them as given facets of existence, like kitchens and driveways, so I infer from that that there was a significant amount of hype around both of them if it could reach through the consciousness of a 2/4-year-old living off of a gravel road out in the country.
― wtf?!? just randomly started crying! (HI DERE), Friday, 11 December 2009 18:02 (3 years ago) Permalink
can't believe your parents made you eat gravel
― a triumph in high-tech nipple obfuscation (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 11 December 2009 18:04 (3 years ago) Permalink
times were tough, we (literally) scraped by
― wtf?!? just randomly started crying! (HI DERE), Friday, 11 December 2009 18:04 (3 years ago) Permalink
what a rockin post
― super sexy psycho fantasy world (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Friday, 11 December 2009 18:05 (3 years ago) Permalink
it made me grit my teeth
― super sexy psycho fantasy world (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Friday, 11 December 2009 18:06 (3 years ago) Permalink
I hate my job
pebble
― that is a whole discussion within itself that is worth debating (forksclovetofu), Friday, 11 December 2009 18:09 (3 years ago) Permalink
I was gonna make a joke about drinking a mr. pibb in france but then I just couldn't do it
― super sexy psycho fantasy world (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Friday, 11 December 2009 18:10 (3 years ago) Permalink
"joke"
there's a pile of reviews on AICN now, so I'd say the embargo is effectively over.
― Simon H., Friday, 11 December 2009 18:16 (3 years ago) Permalink
wonderfully formed embargo
― that is a whole discussion within itself that is worth debating (forksclovetofu), Friday, 11 December 2009 18:17 (3 years ago) Permalink
reviews are everywhere now
― krampus activities (latebloomer), Friday, 11 December 2009 18:47 (3 years ago) Permalink
might as well spill the beans
It's like being one of Tiger's mistresses and not talking to the media.
― ô_o (Nicole), Friday, 11 December 2009 18:50 (3 years ago) Permalink
I know sexy
― krampus activities (latebloomer), Friday, 11 December 2009 18:54 (3 years ago) Permalink
xposts - i'm technically an 'arts & culture' critic but have done my fair share of film stuff. glad not to be a full-on film critic tbh. yeah lol embargoin my unprofessional opinion: i am going to see this again next week just to make sure i wasn't high because it was AWESOME (and yet some things abt it could've been better)
― paragon of incalescence (rrrobyn), Friday, 11 December 2009 18:56 (3 years ago) Permalink
The thing I keep forgetting re: this movie is that I tend to really really really like James Cameron movies (although some, like "Titanic", have the shine wear off of them really really quickly).
― wtf?!? just randomly started crying! (HI DERE), Friday, 11 December 2009 18:59 (3 years ago) Permalink
You'll laugh, you'll cry etc.
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 11 December 2009 19:01 (3 years ago) Permalink
while watching you're really not gonna be thinking abt the shine wearing off
― paragon of incalescence (rrrobyn), Friday, 11 December 2009 19:01 (3 years ago) Permalink
Wonder what the first film will be where its embargo just trundles on forever, never to end?
― James Mitchell, Friday, 11 December 2009 19:07 (3 years ago) Permalink
x-post to a bunch of people
No one talked about the game-changing special effects of "T2" for months in advance. Same with "The Matrix," which, like "Titanic," actually only did modestly at the box office when it first opened ($37 million opening for "The Matrix," $28 million opening weekend for "Titanic" - for some scale, albeit not totally analogous, "Spider-Man" opened with $115 mil; maybe more illustrative, Tim Burton's Batman" opened around $43 million ten years before "The Matrix"). As for "Star Wars" and "Jaws," no one knew what they had until they had it. They were all "game-changers" in retrospect. Cameron called "Avatar" a game-changer MONTHS ago.
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 11 December 2009 19:18 (3 years ago) Permalink
game changer = Phrases I Never Want to Hear Uttered by Talking Heads/Press/Politicians Ever Again
― a triumph in high-tech nipple obfuscation (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 11 December 2009 19:20 (3 years ago) Permalink
Let's see some! I don't know where to look..
― Adam Bruneau, Friday, 11 December 2009 19:21 (3 years ago) Permalink
to start with:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/avatar/
― krampus activities (latebloomer), Friday, 11 December 2009 19:24 (3 years ago) Permalink
I have no idea what you are talking about re: "The Matrix" considering that entire half hours of entertainment news television programs were dedicated to talking about the filming techniques and wire work that went into the making of it.
― wtf?!? just randomly started crying! (HI DERE), Friday, 11 December 2009 19:28 (3 years ago) Permalink
My memory could be wrong, but (and I saw the movie opening night, mostly by chance) I don't recall months of anticipation for and lead-up to "The Matrix" and do recall it taking a lot of people by surprise, which in turn lead to all the making-of features. That's why I cited its opening box office - it was no out-of-the-gate hype-baby hit. Sites like aintitcool were up and running back then, weren't they? Were they going nuts? (Honest question; I've been trying to dig up that site's contemporaneous reviews).
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 11 December 2009 19:39 (3 years ago) Permalink
the matrix was one of those films that once the commercials hit people were like "whoa" (lol), but unlike some of these other flicks it wasn't something that was hotly anticipated. i mean keanu reeves/laurence fishburne sci-fi from the directors of 'bound' could have been anticipated as 'johnny mnemonic 2'
― you are wrong I'm bone thugs in harmon (omar little), Friday, 11 December 2009 19:41 (3 years ago) Permalink
I recall nothing but mountains of hype aimed mostly at sci-fi/comic book geeks in the months leading up to its release.
― wtf?!? just randomly started crying! (HI DERE), Friday, 11 December 2009 19:41 (3 years ago) Permalink
*anticipated before people started to see the ads, i mean
Original AICN "Matrix" review (for reference): http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=3353
Doesn't read like something he'd been looking forward to for months, seems like it sort of took him by surprise, too, etc.
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 11 December 2009 19:44 (3 years ago) Permalink
Wow, the Matrix. I remember downloading my first ever cam of that. After I saw it in the theaters, of course! It took a couple weeks I think....
Matrix definitely took me by surprise, and I was a pretty big scifi movie nerd in HS.
― Adam Bruneau, Friday, 11 December 2009 19:45 (3 years ago) Permalink
The Matrix was not in anyway overly hyped when it came out. It was shunted off into a spring release because there wasn't much faith in it from the studio. There adverts for it, but not really any media saturation. It surprised a lot of people, both in its qualities and in its financial success.
― The Devil's Avocado (Gukbe), Friday, 11 December 2009 19:57 (3 years ago) Permalink
pretty sure T2 was hyped to all hell though.
― The Devil's Avocado (Gukbe), Friday, 11 December 2009 19:58 (3 years ago) Permalink
^^^yep. see: GnR video
― a triumph in high-tech nipple obfuscation (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 11 December 2009 19:58 (3 years ago) Permalink
yeah, but of all the films I mentioned, it was also the only sequel. And sequels, by definition, get hyped and anticipated. But c. that GNR video, no one knew T2 would change movies and make "morph" a household word.
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 11 December 2009 20:01 (3 years ago) Permalink
i did! and i tried to tell everyone! and i got shoved into a toilet for my troubles....
― that is a whole discussion within itself that is worth debating (forksclovetofu), Friday, 11 December 2009 20:24 (3 years ago) Permalink
Well, I mean, I did, too, but I was under embargo at the time.
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 11 December 2009 20:25 (3 years ago) Permalink
T2 et al didn't have special effects in every single frame, though.
― Action Orientation (Eazy), Friday, 11 December 2009 20:38 (3 years ago) Permalink
I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 11 December 2009 20:50 (3 years ago) Permalink
I mean, those movies were absolutely packed with effects, regardless. Heck, half of "The Hangover" appears to have been shot against green screen. As far as all-effects arbiters go, "Phantom Menace" was all FX, all the time, and that was ten years ago.
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 11 December 2009 20:52 (3 years ago) Permalink
four stars from rog:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091211/REVIEWS/912119998
― real bears playing hockey (polyphonic), Saturday, 12 December 2009 02:32 (3 years ago) Permalink
And Cameron and his artists succeed at the difficult challenge of making Neytiri a blue-skinned giantess with golden eyes and a long, supple tail, and yet--I'll be damned. Sexy.
― krampus activities (latebloomer), Saturday, 12 December 2009 04:30 (3 years ago) Permalink
Glenn Kenny
RIP Embargo I guess
― The Devil's Avocado (Gukbe), Saturday, 12 December 2009 13:45 (3 years ago) Permalink
yeah all the cool kids are saying PWN.
― Smokey and the S'Banned It (history mayne), Saturday, 12 December 2009 13:51 (3 years ago) Permalink
i think he's joking?
― The Devil's Avocado (Gukbe), Saturday, 12 December 2009 13:55 (3 years ago) Permalink
feeling more and more like i'm gonna be a lonely voice in the wilderness on this one.
um, not that i'm expressing any of my reactions to this movie.
― donde está mia farrow, fa la la la la, la la la la (s1ocki), Saturday, 12 December 2009 18:12 (3 years ago) Permalink
Titanic was hailed by a huge number of critics as a masterpiece when it came out, and I'd like to see how many have changed their minds. I think people are just wrapped up in it. Or, more likely, once the embargo is officially lifted, there will be a healthy number of naysayers.
― The Devil's Avocado (Gukbe), Saturday, 12 December 2009 18:44 (3 years ago) Permalink
i mean, it ain't the phantom menace, but this is getting ridiculous.
― donde está mia farrow, fa la la la la, la la la la (s1ocki), Saturday, 12 December 2009 19:07 (3 years ago) Permalink
Cameron's Twitter is terrible. Decrying 'best of decade' lists before people have seen Avatar.
― The Devil's Avocado (Gukbe), Saturday, 12 December 2009 19:20 (3 years ago) Permalink
yeah even i think these initial reactions are kinda over the top, and i'm on board
― paragon of incalescence (rrrobyn), Saturday, 12 December 2009 19:38 (3 years ago) Permalink
never underestimate the super geekdom of film critics i guess
but damn if i'm not seeing this again asap
― paragon of incalescence (rrrobyn), Saturday, 12 December 2009 19:39 (3 years ago) Permalink
i think these initial reactions are kinda over the top
Yeah, it makes the months of internet chucklehead snarking look sober by comparison. What am I saying, no it doesn't.
― DavidM, Saturday, 12 December 2009 19:45 (3 years ago) Permalink
i think the embargo is in place bcuz avatar marketing ppl will know that the only people to break the embargo are the people w/ positive reviews bcuz those people know they won't get bitchslapped in the future by said marketing team. therefore early word of mouf is all positive and momentum builds, etc...
someone up thread may have already suggested this.
― Astronaut Mike Dexter (Jimmy The Mod Awaits The Return Of His Beloved), Saturday, 12 December 2009 20:50 (3 years ago) Permalink
http://io9.com/5424663/the-public-explains-the-plot-of-james-camerons-avatar
― StanM, Sunday, 13 December 2009 14:08 (3 years ago) Permalink
great punchline
― adorable cheese inscription (a hoy hoy), Sunday, 13 December 2009 14:25 (3 years ago) Permalink
So the embargo is lifted today, right? Can those who have seen it here give us their thoughts?
― The Devil's Avocado (Gukbe), Monday, 14 December 2009 18:43 (3 years ago) Permalink
not till thursday im afraid
― donde está mia farrow, fa la la la la, la la la la (s1ocki), Monday, 14 December 2009 18:46 (3 years ago) Permalink
― you are wrong I'm bone thugs in harmon (omar little), Monday, 14 December 2009 18:51 (3 years ago) Permalink
Gah. Thursday daytime is the only time I can go see it before next week. Can anyone at least signal whether I should bother to make the effort or just wait until next week?
― The Devil's Avocado (Gukbe), Monday, 14 December 2009 18:52 (3 years ago) Permalink
interest for this film (712 posts) is as bemusing to me as the tiger woods story is confusing; shrug.gif
― (9/9/8/9) (cozwn), Monday, 14 December 2009 18:58 (3 years ago) Permalink
― that is a whole discussion within itself that is worth debating (forksclovetofu), Monday, 14 December 2009 18:59 (3 years ago) Permalink
Avatar is the corniest movie ever made about the white man’s need to lose his identity and assuage racial, political, sexual and historical guilt.Only children—including adult-children—will see Avatar as simply an adventure film; their own love of technology has co-opted their ability to comprehend narrative detail. Cameron offers sci-fi dazzle, yet bungles the good part: the meaning. His undeniably pretty Pandora—a phosphorescent Maxfield Parrish paradise with bird-like lizards, moving plant life and floating mountains—distracts from the inherent contradiction of a reported $300-$500 million Hollywood enterprise that casually berates America’s industrial complex.
Only children—including adult-children—will see Avatar as simply an adventure film; their own love of technology has co-opted their ability to comprehend narrative detail. Cameron offers sci-fi dazzle, yet bungles the good part: the meaning. His undeniably pretty Pandora—a phosphorescent Maxfield Parrish paradise with bird-like lizards, moving plant life and floating mountains—distracts from the inherent contradiction of a reported $300-$500 million Hollywood enterprise that casually berates America’s industrial complex.
http://www.nypress.com/article-20710-blue-in-the-face.html
― Adam Bruneau, Tuesday, 15 December 2009 17:18 (3 years ago) Permalink
Leave it to Armond to attack this from the "boo white people abandoning their culture" angle
― I am a big question mark (HI DERE), Tuesday, 15 December 2009 17:19 (3 years ago) Permalink
Cameron emulates the boy-plus-car symbiosis of Transformers—but with pulsing loins, veins and orifices.
luv ya Armond don't ever change
― Magnolia Caboose Babyfinger (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 15 December 2009 17:22 (3 years ago) Permalink
While technically impressive, Avatar’s basically a daft version of the Transformer movies’ sci-fi, techno fantasy.
I mean, this is way more of an indictment of the movie than the "contradiction" that his central thesis or the "white man's guilt" sidestep.
― I am a big question mark (HI DERE), Tuesday, 15 December 2009 17:23 (3 years ago) Permalink
always lolsome when he brings out Transformers 2, but he's really upped the stakes with his 'Gamer is avant-garde' claims.
― moron oil (Gukbe), Tuesday, 15 December 2009 17:25 (3 years ago) Permalink
i feel free breaking the embargo to say that this movie is a shitty dumb piece of shit
― max, Tuesday, 15 December 2009 17:25 (3 years ago) Permalink
nb i havent seen it
Avatar, however, invents an alternate world to make the airy-fairy pronouncement: “There’s a network of energy that flows through all living things.” Alien-girl Neytiri (Zoe Saldana) teaches Sully how to bond with a tie-dyed, eagle-like creature by docking his wriggly tail into it.
wait, waht
― I am a big question mark (HI DERE), Tuesday, 15 December 2009 17:26 (3 years ago) Permalink
no doubts now. seeing this on Thursday.
― moron oil (Gukbe), Tuesday, 15 December 2009 17:27 (3 years ago) Permalink
bond with a tie-dyed, eagle-like creature by docking his wriggly tail into it.
Cronenberg should've made this movie
― Magnolia Caboose Babyfinger (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 15 December 2009 17:28 (3 years ago) Permalink
lololololololololol of course there's also a positive Joseph Conrad reference in there
― I am a big question mark (HI DERE), Tuesday, 15 December 2009 17:31 (3 years ago) Permalink
man the space ghost ad for this!
― the terius of a goon (forksclovetofu), Tuesday, 15 December 2009 17:37 (3 years ago) Permalink
lol gawker w/the mea culpa http://gawker.com/5427160/apologia--avatar-amazingly-does-not-suck
― ice cr?m, Tuesday, 15 December 2009 20:52 (3 years ago) Permalink
btw was i the 1st on this to predict the awesomeness of avatar
― ice cr?m, Tuesday, 15 December 2009 20:53 (3 years ago) Permalink
you and i are now locked in an eternal death struggle over whether or not this movie is good
― max, Tuesday, 15 December 2009 20:56 (3 years ago) Permalink
i recommend that neither of us actually see it--that will be the best way to continue our blood feud
s1ocki's rapturously positive review is what will end up making me see this
― you are wrong I'm bone thugs in harmon (omar little), Tuesday, 15 December 2009 20:57 (3 years ago) Permalink
wouldve thought youd already have yr imax tickets xp
― ice cr?m, Tuesday, 15 December 2009 20:59 (3 years ago) Permalink
i object to this movie on moral grounds
― max, Tuesday, 15 December 2009 20:59 (3 years ago) Permalink
"i, max object to this movie on moral grounds"
― ice cr?m, Tuesday, 15 December 2009 21:00 (3 years ago) Permalink
Cameron's going to spend twenty more years making a film just to win you over and he's going to call it "2 THE MAX"
― the terius of a goon (forksclovetofu), Tuesday, 15 December 2009 21:02 (3 years ago) Permalink
2 the max in imax this fall
― just a moonful of sugar (Abbott), Tuesday, 15 December 2009 21:03 (3 years ago) Permalink
tbf this is a year where 2012 got some critical props
― da croupier, Tuesday, 15 December 2009 21:03 (3 years ago) Permalink
you max, me blue box office killing alien
― ice cr?m, Tuesday, 15 December 2009 21:04 (3 years ago) Permalink
gotta admit, after seeing Nine I'm a little more invested in seeing that fail miserably
― da croupier, Tuesday, 15 December 2009 21:06 (3 years ago) Permalink
Guido guido guido!
― ô_o (Nicole), Tuesday, 15 December 2009 21:07 (3 years ago) Permalink
starring Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson as MAX; the common man who could take no more
― the terius of a goon (forksclovetofu), Tuesday, 15 December 2009 21:07 (3 years ago) Permalink
a friend saw yesterday and said it is easily the worst film of the decade, fwiw
― akm, Tuesday, 15 December 2009 21:33 (3 years ago) Permalink
gawker apologia is so pathetic ("all that stuff you thought was gonna suck about it is um in there, but its AWESOME TRUST US!" = yeah, whatever)
― Magnolia Caboose Babyfinger (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 15 December 2009 21:40 (3 years ago) Permalink
unfortunately the hype for this has been so carefully and exquisitely managed no way is this going to bomb
These are the schmucks who spoiled the Top Chef finale, so I hope the whole gawker office has an orgy with Joe Lieberman and they all die from some slow painful std.
― ô_o (Nicole), Tuesday, 15 December 2009 21:42 (3 years ago) Permalink
oh armond
― what u think i steen for to push a crawfish? (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Tuesday, 15 December 2009 22:00 (3 years ago) Permalink
i am seeing this tonight - worried
― .81818181818181818181818181 changed everything (jjjusten), Tuesday, 15 December 2009 22:13 (3 years ago) Permalink
do you have a phone you can liveblog from?
― "can´t you be just normal?? be normal just once!" (a hoy hoy), Tuesday, 15 December 2009 22:14 (3 years ago) Permalink
John Justen and Fluffy Bear will watch it.
― that sex version of "blue thunder." (Mr. Que), Tuesday, 15 December 2009 22:14 (3 years ago) Permalink
― akm, Tuesday, December 15, 2009 9:33 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark
no way this is worse than transformers 2
― krampus activities (latebloomer), Tuesday, 15 December 2009 23:28 (3 years ago) Permalink
you'd pray, but turning megan fox into a cgi smurf seems a step further into the dark side and I can imagine missing Bay's crudity (when not in its presence).
― da croupier, Wednesday, 16 December 2009 00:24 (3 years ago) Permalink
ok so this was way way better than expected
― .81818181818181818181818181 changed everything (jjjusten), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 05:18 (3 years ago) Permalink
pro tip: see in 3d, see in imax or similar
i should clarify, the value of this film is not in the script, but yer eyes will prob fall out of your head a few times
― .81818181818181818181818181 changed everything (jjjusten), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 05:28 (3 years ago) Permalink
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 16 December 2009 05:38 (3 years ago) Permalink
― krampus activities (latebloomer), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 05:42 (3 years ago) Permalink
wanna say anything more about it? was the dialogue not as stiff as expected? the reverse colonialism cliche plot not as cliche as initially assumed? the furry porn not as blatent as the hype makes it seem? or does it just look really cool and thats enough?
― "can´t you be just normal?? be normal just once!" (a hoy hoy), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 09:28 (3 years ago) Permalink
― caek, Wednesday, 16 December 2009 12:38 (3 years ago) Permalink
if the film works at least on a laserium level (which everybody's saying it does) then I kind of want it to do better than the star wars prequels, even if i can't muster much enthusiasm to see it myself
― da croupier, Wednesday, 16 December 2009 12:45 (3 years ago) Permalink
wait why would anyone see this *not* in 3D? that shouldn't even be an option. glasses go on at start and stay on until a quarter through credits.
― dragon movies (rrrobyn), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 14:13 (3 years ago) Permalink
-------wait why would anyone see this
there you go!
― The reverse TARDIS of pasta (Niles Caulder), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 14:30 (3 years ago) Permalink
very uninterested in a film that's sole virtue is that it "looks pretty"
― Magnolia Caboose Babyfinger (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 17:28 (3 years ago) Permalink
that's nice
― Restless Genital Syndrome (HI DERE), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 17:29 (3 years ago) Permalink
dude its so far beyond "looks pretty" its srsly a fucking quantum leap in CGI and 3d. tbh they should never have shown previews, because they look like crap but the real thing is just O_O
― .81818181818181818181818181 changed everything (jjjusten), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 17:31 (3 years ago) Permalink
totally do not give a shit about technological advances, remember how "awesome" the Star Wars prequels or the Matrix or whatever were advertised as and those films suck because they have no ideas. I like ideas and acting and dialogue and content and stuff like that. call me crazy!
― Magnolia Caboose Babyfinger (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 17:33 (3 years ago) Permalink
and also the script is prob on par with or better than your usual BIG ACTION MOVIE, which is still to say not a good script, but it has only a few howlingly bad moments, which compared to most of the blockbuster shit shoveled out there is pretty good.
― .81818181818181818181818181 changed everything (jjjusten), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 17:34 (3 years ago) Permalink
dont know that crazy is what id call you
― ice cr?m, Wednesday, 16 December 2009 17:34 (3 years ago) Permalink
its srsly a fucking quantum leap in CGI and 3d
I'm all fine with this being the ultimate demo reel for Weta, since they're going to be working with Guillermo del Toro for The Hobbit -- and Smaug will be spectacular.
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 16 December 2009 17:34 (3 years ago) Permalink
yeah, think i'm just going to wait till a film takes the new technology and actually does something good with it.
good storytelling >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technical innovation.
if we were still in b&w but making films as good as the third man, i wouldn't give a toss about how i'd have to use my own imagination to imagine smurf porn.
― "can´t you be just normal?? be normal just once!" (a hoy hoy), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 17:38 (3 years ago) Permalink
whole lot of morbsin' going on in this thread
― .81818181818181818181818181 changed everything (jjjusten), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 17:40 (3 years ago) Permalink
hmm, yes, like the _the hobbit_, that's obviously not going to suck.
― Dean Gaffney's December (history mayne), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 17:41 (3 years ago) Permalink
(tbf I guess the Matrix has ideas, just a lot of stolen ones badly smashed together)
― Magnolia Caboose Babyfinger (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 17:42 (3 years ago) Permalink
Ha, I meant in like 10 years time when I can finally afford a blu ray player.
― "can´t you be just normal?? be normal just once!" (a hoy hoy), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 17:43 (3 years ago) Permalink
because they have no ideas
they clearly have fucking ideas, just not particularly interesting ones.
― mdskltr (blueski), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 17:44 (3 years ago) Permalink
lotta first year film studenting going on in this thread morelike
― moron oil (Gukbe), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 17:44 (3 years ago) Permalink
ya srsly let yr mindspace percolate fools, movies is not just one thing
― ice cr?m, Wednesday, 16 December 2009 17:46 (3 years ago) Permalink
hmm, yes, like the _the hobbit_, that's obviously not going to suck
Haha. Was gonna say - ppl hatin on this are sitting on their thumbs waiting for THE HOBBIT??
― DavidM, Wednesday, 16 December 2009 17:47 (3 years ago) Permalink
hee hee hee
― akira goldsman (s1ocki), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 17:47 (3 years ago) Permalink
james cameron has really soldout since his dogme start
― nostragaaaawddamnus (Hunt3r), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 17:48 (3 years ago) Permalink
i am surprised to not hear more comparisons with district 9 in the reviews i've been reading - both are about evil corporations mistreating aliens and the unlikely humans who go native and basically turn into aliens themselves, then turn against their former corporate masters
― akira goldsman (s1ocki), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 17:50 (3 years ago) Permalink
and both feature dudes in robo-suits
I have no problem seeing this movie for its visuals. Of course it would be great if it had a good script too, but a not-so-crappy script is fine by me, if it looks cool enough to make me forget the flaws in it. Movies are an visual medium, "good storytelling" is only half of the equation. None of the classic movies are classic only because of their story.
― Tuomas, Wednesday, 16 December 2009 17:50 (3 years ago) Permalink
district 9, no boobs
― ice cr?m, Wednesday, 16 December 2009 17:51 (3 years ago) Permalink
robo-suits are likely to paper over a certain amount of bad script tbh
― moron oil (Gukbe), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 17:52 (3 years ago) Permalink
Cameron should've cut a boobs included version too, so's we can really judge the tech
― You treat your step-mother with respect, Pantera (Noodle Vague), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 17:52 (3 years ago) Permalink
tuomas- ok but name 5 classic movies that dont depend on a great story
its ok, i'm gonna stop morbzin soon.
― "can´t you be just normal?? be normal just once!" (a hoy hoy), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 17:53 (3 years ago) Permalink
ya just stop it plz
― akira goldsman (s1ocki), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 17:54 (3 years ago) Permalink
you need both.
The End
Who's to say he hasn't?
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 16 December 2009 17:55 (3 years ago) Permalink
Oh I'm sure it's out there
― You treat your step-mother with respect, Pantera (Noodle Vague), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 17:55 (3 years ago) Permalink
gentlemen, calm down, there are moments of sideboob.
― .81818181818181818181818181 changed everything (jjjusten), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 17:56 (3 years ago) Permalink
Avatar (American Pie Unrated Edition)
― super sexy psycho fantasy world (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 17:56 (3 years ago) Permalink
Special edition Caligula-style DVD
― You treat your step-mother with respect, Pantera (Noodle Vague), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 17:56 (3 years ago) Permalink
That's why I said "only because of their stories" - most classic movies both look good and have a good story. I'm not expecting Avatar to be a classic movie, but if it's visuals have the sort of sense of wonder and awe I expect them to have, I think I'll be satisfied enough. If you expect every movie to have both great visuals and a great script, you're gonna get disappointed often.
― Tuomas, Wednesday, 16 December 2009 17:57 (3 years ago) Permalink
My boy is gonna see this tonight, I will query him on his return
― You treat your step-mother with respect, Pantera (Noodle Vague), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 17:57 (3 years ago) Permalink
"This one time, on Pandora..."
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 16 December 2009 17:58 (3 years ago) Permalink
s1ocki OTM
― Magnolia Caboose Babyfinger (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 17:58 (3 years ago) Permalink
this is reminding me that I never had my "pretty looking movies with terrible stories" film festival (centered around "Sky Captain" and "The Spirit")
― Restless Genital Syndrome (HI DERE), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 17:58 (3 years ago) Permalink
yeah basically what tuoma said movies achieve their potency through crazy technology - tho it often takes a narrative to activate their power movies are not people sitting around a campfire telling each other stories - so while pedantic message bord posters and non tv owners everywhere can be all im interested in believable characterization movies are using science to fuck w/their tiny minds
― ice cr?m, Wednesday, 16 December 2009 17:58 (3 years ago) Permalink
Wait, did you actually see The Spirit, Dan?
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 16 December 2009 17:59 (3 years ago) Permalink
ice cr?m droppin cgi
― super sexy psycho fantasy world (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 17:59 (3 years ago) Permalink
― Restless Genital Syndrome (HI DERE), Wednesday, December 16, 2009 12:58 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
WTF was pretty about THE SPIRIT
― akira goldsman (s1ocki), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 18:00 (3 years ago) Permalink
Knowing Dan I think the answer will have something to do with airbrushed cleavage.
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 16 December 2009 18:00 (3 years ago) Permalink
maybe i'm just blinded by how spectacularly shitty that movie was
― akira goldsman (s1ocki), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 18:02 (3 years ago) Permalink
I really like look of plastic all-CGI movies that look more like cartoons with people walking through them than actual movies.
― Restless Genital Syndrome (HI DERE), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 18:03 (3 years ago) Permalink
i think i would rather see avatar before i see the spiritsky captain is in my netflix queue at like 179.these days, when i want to watch escapist power trip eye candy, i just play video games
― fictional, homosexual, Baltimore hoodlum (forksclovetofu), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 18:03 (3 years ago) Permalink
intrigued by all the 'next-level fx wau' talk. previews look a bit meh cgi-wise, save that shot of the heli-things blowing the shit out of that floating island.
― moron oil (Gukbe), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 18:04 (3 years ago) Permalink
Of course if Avatar truly had a terrible script, that might distract from watching the pretty visuals. But I think Cameron is competent enough as a filmmaker that he can make this sort of clichéd story run smoothly enough not to distract from getting sucked into the world of the movie.
Take Titanic, for example: of course the script in it is kinda clichéd, but it's the sort of clichéd script that works well enough that when bad things start to happen, you still care about the characters, even they're not particularly original as characters.
― Tuomas, Wednesday, 16 December 2009 18:05 (3 years ago) Permalink
Titanic is kind of unwatchable last time i checked in on it.
― moron oil (Gukbe), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 18:06 (3 years ago) Permalink
Also tits
― You treat your step-mother with respect, Pantera (Noodle Vague), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 18:07 (3 years ago) Permalink
Okay, if you think Titanic is unwatchable, then you probably shouldn't see Avatar. I thought it did what it set out to do very well: it's not a particularly original movie, but it's a great spectacle.
― Tuomas, Wednesday, 16 December 2009 18:09 (3 years ago) Permalink
I don't think I've ever sat through more than 15 minutes of Titanic. excruciating.
― Magnolia Caboose Babyfinger (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 18:11 (3 years ago) Permalink
― Tuomas, Wednesday, December 16, 2009 1:05 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
^^
also as far as a purely visual experience the imax theater at the boston museum of science had a trailer that theyd show before every movie when i was a kid that had a helicopter shot flying over the city that was always so much better than anything in whatever animal/space doc they were screening - you were flying over beacon hill and then the camera tilts forward and u feel like youre gonna fall out yr seat - amazing
― ice cr?m, Wednesday, 16 December 2009 18:11 (3 years ago) Permalink
I called Titanic a Diet Coke movie in that I spent 3.5 hours watching it totally enthralled and left the movie theater raving about how great it was, but as I remembered scenes they became more and more irritating until, within an hour and a half, I pretty much hated the entire thing. It's almost as if the movie was designed to be watched but not remembered.
― Restless Genital Syndrome (HI DERE), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 18:12 (3 years ago) Permalink
the whole sinking sequence is pretty rad imo
― ice cr?m, Wednesday, 16 December 2009 18:13 (3 years ago) Permalink
and by that i mean the feeling u get when u realize u just praised titanic in print
― ice cr?m, Wednesday, 16 December 2009 18:14 (3 years ago) Permalink
haha
― Magnolia Caboose Babyfinger (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 18:14 (3 years ago) Permalink
hahaha
― Restless Genital Syndrome (HI DERE), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 18:14 (3 years ago) Permalink
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 16 December 2009 18:16 (3 years ago) Permalink
"BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOBS!"
― Magnolia Caboose Babyfinger (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 18:17 (3 years ago) Permalink
Kathryn Bigelow, James Cameron, Lee Daniels, Peter Jackson, Jason Reitman, and Quentin Tarantino sit down together
Tarantino: The only time I ever had a situation like that -- and it worked out fantastic -- was on "Kill Bill" because we were trying to do some action sequences that really had never been done before. I was trying to do them Hong Kong-style, not the American style of shooting, and -- these guys can tell you -- to do some of the best action you're ever going to see, it takes time. It just takes time. You need to be there. It takes days. And you don't know you're done until you're done. You can try and put it on a schedule, but if you ain't done you ain't fucking done! If it's not getting you off, it ain't done, so that means it just takes time. You can make up time with story points but on the action it's going to take it's own rhythm.Cameron: Don't get worked up about it. I've been wrong by more than that entire budget. (Laughs.)Reitman: That's the line of the morning.
Cameron: Don't get worked up about it. I've been wrong by more than that entire budget. (Laughs.)
Reitman: That's the line of the morning.
― Elvis Telecom, Wednesday, 16 December 2009 19:23 (3 years ago) Permalink
at least one of those things is not like the others...
― akira goldsman (s1ocki), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 19:36 (3 years ago) Permalink
THR: The director Renoir made a lot of films and then stopped to write novels. Is there anything you'd consider doing instead of directing?Tarantino: I intend to quit at 60. And I'm going to do exactly what he did. I'm going to write novels and cinema literature, stuff like that. Bigelow: You have a plan?Daniels: And he's very serious about it. Tarantino: Well, she brought up exactly what I plan to do.Cameron: I want to die directing. But I took my hiatus already because I figured I can still be directing when I'm 80 but I can't be doing the deep ocean expeditions, riding around in a zodiac on a 20-foot sea when I'm 80, I'll break my neck. Tarantino: I would add more to that. If it actually gets to the place where you can't show 35mm film in theaters any more and everything is digital projection, I won't even make it to 60. Cameron: Oh. Nobody's told you? (Reaches out hand.)
Tarantino: I intend to quit at 60. And I'm going to do exactly what he did. I'm going to write novels and cinema literature, stuff like that.
Bigelow: You have a plan?
Daniels: And he's very serious about it.
Tarantino: Well, she brought up exactly what I plan to do.
Cameron: I want to die directing. But I took my hiatus already because I figured I can still be directing when I'm 80 but I can't be doing the deep ocean expeditions, riding around in a zodiac on a 20-foot sea when I'm 80, I'll break my neck.
Tarantino: I would add more to that. If it actually gets to the place where you can't show 35mm film in theaters any more and everything is digital projection, I won't even make it to 60.
Cameron: Oh. Nobody's told you? (Reaches out hand.)
― Elvis Telecom, Wednesday, 16 December 2009 19:45 (3 years ago) Permalink
lols
― dragon movies (rrrobyn), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 19:51 (3 years ago) Permalink
Hahahah. I can sense Morbs not knowing who to back there.
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 16 December 2009 19:52 (3 years ago) Permalink
Cameron: I'd like to answer his question for him.
responses very much in character
― max, Wednesday, 16 December 2009 20:13 (3 years ago) Permalink
― krampus activities (latebloomer), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 20:16 (3 years ago) Permalink
tbh i find reitman more annoying than cameron
― dragon movies (rrrobyn), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 20:24 (3 years ago) Permalink
sky captain is in my netflix queue at like 179.
No, bump it up, it's a trip. If only to hear Angelina Jolie wearing an eyepatch say "Alert the amphibious squadron!"
― Adam Bruneau, Wednesday, 16 December 2009 20:25 (3 years ago) Permalink
yeah skipped over the multi-paragraph conversation the two of them had about "instinct" thx guys
― max, Wednesday, 16 December 2009 20:25 (3 years ago) Permalink
xp
rather have digital smurfs rape my retina than sit through juno again that's for sure
― krampus activities (latebloomer), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 20:26 (3 years ago) Permalink
also lol @ tarantino having like perfect memory of the abyss
― max, Wednesday, 16 December 2009 20:26 (3 years ago) Permalink
knowing the exact differences btw the LASERDISC and the THEATRICAL versions of the abyss
― max, Wednesday, 16 December 2009 20:27 (3 years ago) Permalink
what a NERD
Everything Reitman said made me me want him to stfu, way more annoying than Cameron.
― ô_o (Nicole), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 20:28 (3 years ago) Permalink
yeah really
― you are wrong I'm bone thugs in harmon (omar little), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 20:29 (3 years ago) Permalink
watching that vid i thought tarantino was going to accidentally nail bigelow in the face with one of his cocaine hand shapes
― you are wrong I'm bone thugs in harmon (omar little), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 20:31 (3 years ago) Permalink
― ice cr?m, Wednesday, December 16, 2009 1:11 PM
the imax @ dc air and space museum has a movie thats pretty much that all the way through. saw it so many times
http://www.nasm.si.edu/visit/theaters/shows.cfm#tofly
Watch the Earth drop away beneath you on an 1800s balloon ascent; rocket across the Arizona skies with the U.S. Navy's Blue Angels; soar on a hang glider off the coast of Hawaii; and blast off into space on a Saturn rocket.
― shartin jort (am0n), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 20:38 (3 years ago) Permalink
haven't seen the vid but the interview reads like Reitman is young and intimidated. Almost as though he's the youngest dude in the room.
― Simon H., Wednesday, 16 December 2009 20:41 (3 years ago) Permalink
reitman is a fucking terrible douche and tarantino as gasbag hasbeen.
cameron is a funny guy tho, even though he hasn't done a decent movie in twenty years. i sort of warm to anyone who wears a HMFIC baseball cap.
― Dean Gaffney's December (history mayne), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 20:49 (3 years ago) Permalink
whatevs i heard him on the radio last week and was like stfu stfumade me not want to see 'up in the air', though people seem to like it... that said, to quote cameron:"I'd just as soon not meet people and talk about the movie. And I don't mean that in some disdainful way, it's just the movie should be the movie."
― dragon movies (rrrobyn), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 20:50 (3 years ago) Permalink
that was an xpost, my 'whatevs'
― shartin jort (am0n), Wednesday, December 16, 2009 3:38 PM (21 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
WANT
― ice cr?m, Wednesday, 16 December 2009 21:02 (3 years ago) Permalink
love that 100+ years later, the state of the art is still just a variation on the U R THERE thrills of
― fictional, homosexual, Baltimore hoodlum (forksclovetofu), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 21:24 (3 years ago) Permalink
Hahaha I mentioned that movie when I was explaining Avatar to my Dad tonight
― You treat your step-mother with respect, Pantera (Noodle Vague), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 21:25 (3 years ago) Permalink
EVRBODY RUN THE FKIN TRAINS COMIN OUTTTA THE SCSREEEEEN!!!!!
― Thulsa Doob (Jon Lewis), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 21:43 (3 years ago) Permalink
I didn't see the setup for this when I saw it on TV, and as I result I TRIPPED BALLS
― Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, 16 December 2009 21:47 (3 years ago) Permalink
lol u thought terry was up in avatar
― ice cr?m, Wednesday, 16 December 2009 21:51 (3 years ago) Permalink
me too! only lived in DC for abt 4 years as a kid, but i saw "to fly" as many times as i possibly could over that period. remember getting a weird intimation of age the first time my stomach didn't flip on the big drops.
― a dimension that can only be accessed through self-immolation (contenderizer), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 21:56 (3 years ago) Permalink
Philly IMAX had a scene where you bungee jumped off a skyscraper; was awesome
― 囧 (dyao), Thursday, 17 December 2009 00:43 (3 years ago) Permalink
speaking of pretty films with shitty stories, is this better looking than that final fantasy movie? cause that's kinda like my baseline reference point for what I will tolerate to see some awesome cgi boobs
― 囧 (dyao), Thursday, 17 December 2009 00:44 (3 years ago) Permalink
A-MAZING!
― moullet, Thursday, 17 December 2009 05:09 (3 years ago) Permalink
lindy west @ the stranger, who's an dependably bullshit-free appreciator of cheap pop trash, loved the blue furry dogshit out it. which may or may not be worth a ten-penny damn, but i'm encouraged.
― a dimension that can only be accessed through self-immolation (contenderizer), Thursday, 17 December 2009 05:57 (3 years ago) Permalink
My boy went straight to bed when he got home last night but he said it was the greatest film ever on the way thru. This applies to 12 year-old boys only, obv.
― Challop You Face (Noodle Vague), Thursday, 17 December 2009 08:35 (3 years ago) Permalink
James who? You remember -- unassuming chap, made a modest flick about the Titanic 12 years ago. His new movie, Avatar, is a computer-generated 3-D science-fiction eco-tract which arrives with marginally more fanfare than Christmas. It's also the first veiled critique of the West's foreign policy to cost almost as much as the US defence budget. (Plus you get Leona Lewis singing over the end credits. At least I think she was singing. The possibility remains that she caught her foot in the car door and the composer James Horner merely set her distress to music.)
― James Mitchell, Thursday, 17 December 2009 12:01 (3 years ago) Permalink
It's also the first veiled critique of the West's foreign policy to cost almost as much as the US defence budget.
Ha! But to tell you the truth, after months of hating I'm actually looking forward to this. I can't remember the last "event" movie that felt like an actual event. I suppose "Lord of the Rings?"
― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 17 December 2009 15:07 (3 years ago) Permalink
W this amt of controlled publicity Waterworld would've worked. Dunno if that's good or bad, tho.
― The reverse TARDIS of pasta (Niles Caulder), Thursday, 17 December 2009 15:10 (3 years ago) Permalink
Fern Gully meets Warhammer 40k.
― exploding angel vagina (Scik Mouthy), Thursday, 17 December 2009 15:16 (3 years ago) Permalink
but was it any good?
― stop grieving, it's only a chicken (darraghmac), Thursday, 17 December 2009 15:21 (3 years ago) Permalink
Watchmen seemed like the last big film with a ton of publicity that made up for the fact that noone knew the comic, the actors and it was a 3 hour long piece of bullshit... oh.
― "can´t you be just normal?? be normal just once!" (a hoy hoy), Thursday, 17 December 2009 15:22 (3 years ago) Permalink
Doesn't matter anymore man, it's Chinatown
― The reverse TARDIS of pasta (Niles Caulder), Thursday, 17 December 2009 15:23 (3 years ago) Permalink
daaaaaaaaaaamn@this movie
― cozwn, Thursday, 17 December 2009 15:52 (3 years ago) Permalink
WHY ARE SMART PEOPLE GOING TO IT
― The reverse TARDIS of pasta (Niles Caulder), Thursday, 17 December 2009 15:53 (3 years ago) Permalink
to piss you off
― Restless Genital Syndrome (HI DERE), Thursday, 17 December 2009 15:59 (3 years ago) Permalink
the tech is phenomenal; this is the first 3D movie I've seen so I dunno if this is new stuff or what but it's pretty mindblowingly good
it is a bit tiring tho and hard to focus in places but worth it
― cozwn, Thursday, 17 December 2009 16:05 (3 years ago) Permalink
big female ferngully had some natty oakleys for rollin' in her banshee
― cozwn, Thursday, 17 December 2009 16:09 (3 years ago) Permalink
avatar is real y'all - http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1947868,00.html?xid=rss-topstories
― fictional, homosexual, Baltimore hoodlum (forksclovetofu), Thursday, 17 December 2009 16:30 (3 years ago) Permalink
Imagine how much money it cost Cameron to create a well-timed promotional planet.
― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 17 December 2009 16:54 (3 years ago) Permalink
ayo my review is up so
http://www.montrealmirror.com/2009/121709/film2.html
― akira goldsman (s1ocki), Thursday, 17 December 2009 17:29 (3 years ago) Permalink
IOW looked pretty cool but i hated the blue dudes and its way too long imo
― akira goldsman (s1ocki), Thursday, 17 December 2009 17:30 (3 years ago) Permalink
and some of the eco-fantasy "the planet is a giant wikipedia page" shit is unbearable. there's a scene where they like hook into the master gaia forest computer and you can hear like soft echoes of children laughing and shit
― akira goldsman (s1ocki), Thursday, 17 December 2009 17:31 (3 years ago) Permalink
I love this line:
The Na’Vi are remarkably lifelike, but to me that doesn’t change the fact that they look like big, blue dorks.
― ô_o (Nicole), Thursday, 17 December 2009 17:34 (3 years ago) Permalink
i can't say i hated it, but i was rollin my damn eyes at a lot of it and the rapturous praise it's getting from all quarters is kinda baffling to me
― akira goldsman (s1ocki), Thursday, 17 December 2009 17:34 (3 years ago) Permalink
"the planet is a giant wikipedia page" lol why wasn't this in ur (very fair) review?
― cozwn, Thursday, 17 December 2009 17:35 (3 years ago) Permalink
haha i thought of it after deadline :(
another thing i didnt have space for = sam worthington is so effing boring, esp compared to previous cameron heroes and heroines
kinda wish he had just let sigourney weaver be the actual star again
― akira goldsman (s1ocki), Thursday, 17 December 2009 17:35 (3 years ago) Permalink
He was so boring in the Terminator movie, I am sort of scratching my head over how he is suddenly being cast in a lot of movies.
― ô_o (Nicole), Thursday, 17 December 2009 17:37 (3 years ago) Permalink
thought sig. weaver's final act was pretty demeaning for one of america's greatest living actresses
― cozwn, Thursday, 17 December 2009 17:37 (3 years ago) Permalink
"As for the 3D, it’s neat enough, although not really necessary—to me, it would play about the same without it (Michelle Rodriguez’s tank top is the best reason for it, to be honest)."
i am surprised you have not posted this to WS
― fictional, homosexual, Baltimore hoodlum (forksclovetofu), Thursday, 17 December 2009 17:43 (3 years ago) Permalink
she is really insanely foxy in this movie's final act
― akira goldsman (s1ocki), Thursday, 17 December 2009 17:45 (3 years ago) Permalink
3-D pix or it didn't happen
― fictional, homosexual, Baltimore hoodlum (forksclovetofu), Thursday, 17 December 2009 17:46 (3 years ago) Permalink
What was the audience reaction like at the showings you've seen? I mean, mine was the premiere and half the audience were involved in the making of the film in some way (people whooping as certain sections of the credit crawl scrolled past), so it was hardly a good sample - but people were cheering. But when I saw Titanic at a cinema in Baltimore shortly after it came out, people stood and applauded at the end. As Dan said upthread, that film was pretty engrossing for its duration on the big screen, but withered quickly in the memory. This one has a similar trajectory, I think. But I can't tell whether people are going queue round the block for this in the way they seemed to for the Yosser Hughes vs the Iceberg.
Pretty much all that was left for me by the time I did see it was the 3D high-def fireworks, as I'd seen it several times at various qualities (low-contrast, heavily-spoilered rough cut with no music/effects audio track, low bit-rate encrypted 15fps, then a decent telecined MPEG), read the script, blah blah blah. So I knew all its shortcomings.
― Michael Jones, Thursday, 17 December 2009 18:12 (3 years ago) Permalink
Cameron in setting out to create giant 3-D spectacle and achieving it shockah!
― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 17 December 2009 18:19 (3 years ago) Permalink
has no one ever seen a 3-D film before? this technology has been around forever, I'm surprised at people getting all SUPERJAZZED about it all of a sudden. oh, but its 3-D CGI this time!?! whoopdefuckindoo
― Magnolia Caboose Babyfinger (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 17 December 2009 18:20 (3 years ago) Permalink
there, there.
― Dean Gaffney's December (history mayne), Thursday, 17 December 2009 18:22 (3 years ago) Permalink
ya i dunno, i can take it or leave it w/r/t 3D
― akira goldsman (s1ocki), Thursday, 17 December 2009 18:23 (3 years ago) Permalink
oh so you're a CUTE FUCKING kitten? LAH DE DAH with your whiskers and pretty grey fur. FUCK YOU
― fictional, homosexual, Baltimore hoodlum (forksclovetofu), Thursday, 17 December 2009 18:23 (3 years ago) Permalink
remember Jaws 3-D that was so awesome when the dude's arm was like floating right in front of your face. or Captain Eo, dude that was so mindblowing
― Magnolia Caboose Babyfinger (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 17 December 2009 18:25 (3 years ago) Permalink
I remember "Metalstorm: The Destruction of Jared Sin" (or however you spell it short of me looking it up).
― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 17 December 2009 18:28 (3 years ago) Permalink
^^^arrgh was totally trying to remember the title of that meself!
― Magnolia Caboose Babyfinger (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 17 December 2009 18:32 (3 years ago) Permalink
pretty sure it's jared-syn and if I'm right I feel deep shame
― 鬼の手 (Edward III), Thursday, 17 December 2009 18:34 (3 years ago) Permalink
deep shame ensues
― 鬼の手 (Edward III), Thursday, 17 December 2009 18:35 (3 years ago) Permalink
movie anthologists are the art of pretend contrition
― like having an eternal kazoo in your underwear (acoleuthic), Thursday, 17 December 2009 18:36 (3 years ago) Permalink
ts: metalstorm the destruction of jared-syn vs. megaforce
― 鬼の手 (Edward III), Thursday, 17 December 2009 18:38 (3 years ago) Permalink
has no one ever seen a 3-D film before? this technology has been around forever, I'm surprised at people getting all SUPERJAZZED about it all of a sudden. oh, but its 3-D CGI this time!?! whoopdefuckindoo― Magnolia Caboose Babyfinger (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, December 17, 2009 6:20 PM (21 minutes ago)
― Magnolia Caboose Babyfinger (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, December 17, 2009 6:20 PM (21 minutes ago)
yeah dude ive seen plenty of 3d in various forms and the point you are missing is that the 3d in this movie works like a bagazillion times better and looks immersive, not gimmicky.
― .81818181818181818181818181 changed everything (jjjusten), Thursday, 17 December 2009 18:44 (3 years ago) Permalink
shakey mo thought the wire ws like the movie traffic
― cozwn, Thursday, 17 December 2009 18:46 (3 years ago) Permalink
sorry
srsly tho the 3D is pretty good
― cozwn, Thursday, 17 December 2009 18:51 (3 years ago) Permalink
in the wire or
― akira goldsman (s1ocki), Thursday, 17 December 2009 18:52 (3 years ago) Permalink
wd pay $$$$ for wire remastered w/THX & 3D
― cozwn, Thursday, 17 December 2009 18:53 (3 years ago) Permalink
and mcnulty as a tall blue dood
― akira goldsman (s1ocki), Thursday, 17 December 2009 18:54 (3 years ago) Permalink
― you are wrong I'm bone thugs in harmon (omar little), Thursday, 17 December 2009 18:57 (3 years ago) Permalink
CAMERON: Right from the beginning I said, "McNulty's got to have tits"
― 鬼の手 (Edward III), Thursday, 17 December 2009 18:58 (3 years ago) Permalink
oh come on you have to admit there are some superficial similarities.
by contrast, jj thought Inglorious Basterds was "horrible" but stans for this bullshit
― Magnolia Caboose Babyfinger (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 17 December 2009 19:03 (3 years ago) Permalink
vs. Warriors Of The Wasteland
― Thulsa Doob (Jon Lewis), Thursday, 17 December 2009 19:05 (3 years ago) Permalink
the problem here is that i have actually seen both movies which makes that whole opinion having mechanic work a lot better
― .81818181818181818181818181 changed everything (jjjusten), Thursday, 17 December 2009 19:08 (3 years ago) Permalink
― Restless Genital Syndrome (HI DERE), Thursday, 17 December 2009 19:09 (3 years ago) Permalink
fair enough but I don't have to jump off a cliff to know it's not a good idea
― Magnolia Caboose Babyfinger (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 17 December 2009 19:14 (3 years ago) Permalink
also you should get a new mechanic
can't talk for jj obv (and I thought inglorious basts ws great) but I didn't think he was stanning; merely pointing out tht the 3D in this is v.v.good, which it is, and difft from what's come before
ribisi doing his best j.piven impersonation throughout this btw
― cozwn, Thursday, 17 December 2009 19:17 (3 years ago) Permalink
you know, if there are two activities that are directly analogous, it's going to a movie and jumping off of a cliff
― Restless Genital Syndrome (HI DERE), Thursday, 17 December 2009 19:18 (3 years ago) Permalink
you can now do both in 3D
― cozwn, Thursday, 17 December 2009 19:19 (3 years ago) Permalink
hang on, u could always go see a movie in 3D
― cozwn, Thursday, 17 December 2009 19:20 (3 years ago) Permalink
but cliff-jumping is so much better than it used to be
― This part of the sentence is even dumber. (lukas), Thursday, 17 December 2009 19:22 (3 years ago) Permalink
jesus shakey, stop being such a morbs.
― akira goldsman (s1ocki), Thursday, 17 December 2009 19:22 (3 years ago) Permalink
i mean seriously, i'm hardly this movie's #1 defender, but if you're going to have an opinion—a strong one that you're going to spend your time pompously trotting out and defending—on a movie you might as well fucking see it.
― akira goldsman (s1ocki), Thursday, 17 December 2009 19:23 (3 years ago) Permalink
maybe he's afraid he'll like it ;-)
― you are wrong I'm bone thugs in harmon (omar little), Thursday, 17 December 2009 19:24 (3 years ago) Permalink
I saw "Avatar"And I liked itThe flash of the pyrotechnicsI saw "Avatar"Just to try itHope my film friends don't mind itIt felt so wrongIt felt so rightDon't mean I'll missForeign Film NightI saw "Avatar"And I liked itI liked it
― Restless Genital Syndrome (HI DERE), Thursday, 17 December 2009 19:28 (3 years ago) Permalink
(if all I've done is get Katy Perry stuck in people's heads, I'll consider that a success)
a stanning that dare not speak its name
― you are wrong I'm bone thugs in harmon (omar little), Thursday, 17 December 2009 19:29 (3 years ago) Permalink
oh u dick xpost
― .81818181818181818181818181 changed everything (jjjusten), Thursday, 17 December 2009 19:29 (3 years ago) Permalink
SUCCESS
― Restless Genital Syndrome (HI DERE), Thursday, 17 December 2009 19:31 (3 years ago) Permalink
I can see Shatner reciting that.
― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 17 December 2009 19:31 (3 years ago) Permalink
London just spat out its dinner. >_<
― special vixens unit (suzy), Thursday, 17 December 2009 19:32 (3 years ago) Permalink
sheep's heart, liver, and lungs all over the keyboard
― you are wrong I'm bone thugs in harmon (omar little), Thursday, 17 December 2009 19:34 (3 years ago) Permalink
― akira goldsman (s1ocki), Thursday, 17 December 2009 19:36 (3 years ago) Permalink
http://www.chronicart.com/cinema/chronique.php?id=11577
«Vingt ans qui déboucheront sur ce space-opera écolo un film-monstre où le rapport de force humain / digital se renverse en un plan, celui du premier contact : en 1989, c'est l'alien qui se reflétait sur le casque du plongeur ; en 2009, c'est le visage du soldat qui se réfléchit sur le corps de son avatar. Un signe des temps.»
― moullet, Thursday, 17 December 2009 20:01 (3 years ago) Permalink
The only film I've ever been to where the audience stood up and applauded (normal cinema goers) was, ummm, Fahrenheit 9/11... I was well confused when it happened, even if I did enjoy it.
xpost.
― "can´t you be just normal?? be normal just once!" (a hoy hoy), Thursday, 17 December 2009 21:05 (3 years ago) Permalink
la dargis:
He hasn’t changed cinema, but with blue people and pink blooms he has confirmed its wonder.
― hellzapoppa (tipsy mothra), Friday, 18 December 2009 01:42 (3 years ago) Permalink
how does this compare to, say, Beowulf 3D
― 囧 (dyao), Friday, 18 December 2009 03:04 (3 years ago) Permalink
Angelina Jolie's boobs weren't nearly as immersive.
― Zoo Snickers (Deric W. Haircare), Friday, 18 December 2009 03:20 (3 years ago) Permalink
This "confirming cinema's wonder" type argument really STICKS IN MY CRAW. Go on a fuckin motionmaster or something if you want ooh wow it looks so cool type crap, man. Or take some drugs, I dunno. I could be entirely wrong, it just seems silly to think that the wonder of cinema consists of special effects w no decent context (haven't heard anyone standing up for the plot etc so far, after all)
― The reverse TARDIS of pasta (Niles Caulder), Friday, 18 December 2009 03:40 (3 years ago) Permalink
Most of the positive reviews I've read are basically 'eh the movie mostly sucks but FUCKIN A 3-D'
― mayor jingleberries, Friday, 18 December 2009 04:00 (3 years ago) Permalink
yes, this makes sense, the future of hollywood should be 300 million dollar productions
― avatar brothers (Tape Store), Friday, 18 December 2009 04:12 (3 years ago) Permalink
the "confirming cinema's wonder" argument depends on more than just eye appeal. it depends on the film's ability to immerse (that word) you in the its universe and moment, so the eye candy becomes real to you, becomes a better-than-real world. it works best on kids, and that's why people who were kids in the late 70s will always be the biggest star wars fans. the measure of avatar probably isn't how adult critics react to it in the here and now, but how young adults remember it a decade or two down the line.
― a dimension that can only be accessed through self-immolation (contenderizer), Friday, 18 December 2009 04:29 (3 years ago) Permalink
Like the way kids who are 26 now think fondly of Titanic?
― Astronaut Mike Dexter (Jimmy The Mod Awaits The Return Of His Beloved), Friday, 18 December 2009 04:32 (3 years ago) Permalink
I wasn't born when Star Wars came out and I love it, tho
― The reverse TARDIS of pasta (Niles Caulder), Friday, 18 December 2009 04:38 (3 years ago) Permalink
in terms of pure escapism video games have had movies beat for the past 10 years or so
― 囧 (dyao), Friday, 18 December 2009 04:40 (3 years ago) Permalink
uhhh
― avatar brothers (Tape Store), Friday, 18 December 2009 04:40 (3 years ago) Permalink
Dude, that's the thing! Why're movies competing w a medium they can't beat? Unless you can tell the characters what to do etc, this is a stupid principle to be acting off
xopost
― The reverse TARDIS of pasta (Niles Caulder), Friday, 18 December 2009 04:41 (3 years ago) Permalink
except, most ppl don't play video games on cinema screens, with cinema sound systems.
― jabba hands, Friday, 18 December 2009 04:55 (3 years ago) Permalink
immersiveness is a false grail imo
any good art should be immersive
― akira goldsman (s1ocki), Friday, 18 December 2009 05:03 (3 years ago) Permalink
yeah, when i want this kind of jolt, i just play a game
― fictional, homosexual, Baltimore hoodlum (forksclovetofu), Friday, 18 December 2009 06:06 (3 years ago) Permalink
― ice cr?m, Friday, 18 December 2009 06:06 (3 years ago) Permalink
^^^think this is going to be indicative of the HARD JOURNALISM directed at this for the next 48 hours
― fictional, homosexual, Baltimore hoodlum (forksclovetofu), Friday, 18 December 2009 06:08 (3 years ago) Permalink
really cannot believe in this day and age people are still talking abt movies and video games as if they do the same things
― ice cr?m, Friday, 18 December 2009 06:12 (3 years ago) Permalink
seems silly to think that the wonder of cinema consists of special effects w no decent context
Kinda agree there, but on the second hand I also think a lot of movies these days hinge wholly on plots that are so unbelievable and half-assed the suspension of disbelief is getting worn out. Maybe some big budget eye candy with no narrative would be a cool future for cinema.
― Adam Bruneau, Friday, 18 December 2009 06:20 (3 years ago) Permalink
pretty sure this movie would do roughly the same thing for me as playing uncharted 2
― fictional, homosexual, Baltimore hoodlum (forksclovetofu), Friday, 18 December 2009 06:24 (3 years ago) Permalink
just not in all EYEPOPPING 3-D but i will trade you that for being in a theater on opening night any day
I might be more receptive to the idea of "all spectacle" if the spectacle wasn't so blandly unimaginative.
I'm sure it'll be a fun 3 hours and whatnot, but it still looks like Delgo with a bigger budget. Which is really just removing half of what was lame about Delgo.
― Matt Armstrong, Friday, 18 December 2009 06:26 (3 years ago) Permalink
yeah cause movies are always filled w/scenes of u trying to jump over a pit and falling on spikes repeatedly for two hours - movies and video games are less similar than wikipedia and a novel - they both compete for yr entertainment time but past that xp
― ice cr?m, Friday, 18 December 2009 06:29 (3 years ago) Permalink
That's a terribly poor point
― The reverse TARDIS of pasta (Niles Caulder), Friday, 18 December 2009 07:01 (3 years ago) Permalink
yeah cause movies are always filled w/scenes of u trying to jump over a pit and falling on spikes repeatedly for two hours
don't give lars von trier any ideas.
― hellzapoppa (tipsy mothra), Friday, 18 December 2009 07:12 (3 years ago) Permalink
as someone who's done his fair share of both, movies and video games do NOTHING like the same thing to me... even so-called cinematic ones like uncharted. i've never, ever been emotionally invested in anything that happens in a video game (or any character), never wondered how the story was going to develop... they are barely in the same universe for me
― akira goldsman (s1ocki), Friday, 18 December 2009 08:00 (3 years ago) Permalink
i saw this today. i won't say much 'til people have had a chance to download it or wahtever, but it was better than i thought it would be.
― richie aprile (rockapads), Friday, 18 December 2009 08:10 (3 years ago) Permalink
i just came back from it. basically slocki otm BUT
― krampus activities (latebloomer), Friday, 18 December 2009 08:12 (3 years ago) Permalink
― akira goldsman (s1ocki), Friday, 18 December 2009 08:14 (3 years ago) Permalink
yeah i agreed with slocki's review, though the blue people didn't bother me as much. thing about them that i admired was that i it really didn't take too long for me to think of them as "people". there was no uncanny valley distraction (which is good because this movie would have failed utterly if it had, since the movie depends on the audience empathizing with them to work on any level).
― richie aprile (rockapads), Friday, 18 December 2009 08:16 (3 years ago) Permalink
it is TOTALLY ferngully with guns btw
― krampus activities (latebloomer), Friday, 18 December 2009 08:18 (3 years ago) Permalink
...in a good way, mostly!
the earth mother gaia hooey does get to be a bit much after a while
― krampus activities (latebloomer), Friday, 18 December 2009 08:21 (3 years ago) Permalink
yeah, and some of the more sentimental scenes sort of made me cringe. the two things i found the most annoying were the music and the accents. just this sort of generic indistinct ethnic otherness.
― richie aprile (rockapads), Friday, 18 December 2009 08:25 (3 years ago) Permalink
thing about them that i admired was that i it really didn't take too long for me to think of them as "people". there was no uncanny valley distraction
yeah, i was impressed the most by this. overall the f/x were great. they generally had a nice tangible, physical feel to them despite not being 100% photoreal.
also nice to see action sequences that had clear geography and were easy to follow. don't know why that's so rare in modern movies.
― krampus activities (latebloomer), Friday, 18 December 2009 08:41 (3 years ago) Permalink
anyway that's not to excuse the film's flaws, just to say that it does the spectacle part very very well.
― krampus activities (latebloomer), Friday, 18 December 2009 09:05 (3 years ago) Permalink
i will paste this everywhere
― moullet, Friday, 18 December 2009 10:25 (3 years ago) Permalink
― akira goldsman (s1ocki), Friday, 18 December 2009 08:00 (2 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
^yes
― cozwn, Friday, 18 December 2009 10:41 (3 years ago) Permalink
well, see, no in my case. I've had some emotional involvement and intellectual curiosity about plot development with games and it feels about as properly placed as if I had same with a cameron film.obvs this is personal so i don't feel the need to really argue a point here, but I will say that I don't need to see a big visual spectacular with no plot anymore and it ain't that I'm above it or something; it's just less likely to leave me really engaged. I've seen a gazillion lush gorgeous films and i'd rather do yimou than bay i guess; I gotta have some meat in the plot and characterizations OR i gotta be able to have physical control of the characters themselves or my mind wanders.
― fictional, homosexual, Baltimore hoodlum (forksclovetofu), Friday, 18 December 2009 11:31 (3 years ago) Permalink
lol I'm not saying games = movies; I'm just saying in terms of spectacle/worldbuilding games do it better, and so far avatars big draw is how much of a spectacle it presents
― 囧 (dyao), Friday, 18 December 2009 11:58 (3 years ago) Permalink
I'll also freely admit that the last game I played was modern warfare 2 so that probably colors my viewpoint
― 囧 (dyao), Friday, 18 December 2009 12:02 (3 years ago) Permalink
as an aside, I see the PS3 can handle 3D apparently but we'll all need another telly upgrade or alternatively expensive glasses to use it
― cozwn, Friday, 18 December 2009 12:03 (3 years ago) Permalink
Flick was fun. Definitely some Starcraft moments (a friend said it was Terrans + Night Elves, so a cross-property Blizzard affair).
― Mordy, Friday, 18 December 2009 12:06 (3 years ago) Permalink
desplechin = video gamescameron = cinema
― moullet, Friday, 18 December 2009 12:47 (3 years ago) Permalink
cameron = cinemadesplechin = video games life
― queen frostine (Eric H.), Friday, 18 December 2009 12:59 (3 years ago) Permalink
I don't need to see a big visual spectacular with no plot anymore and it ain't that I'm above it or something; it's just less likely to leave me really engaged.
^This, basically. And the thing is, that isn't really how Cameron used to be. The reason why his older stuff (Aliens, The Abyss, the Terminators) worked is because it wasn't all spectacle. There was also an engaging (if somewhat facile) featuring characters you cared about somewhat. From everything that's been said about Avatar thus far, the story appears to be pretty weak, so if it's all just Arnie rampin' off an overpass in 3-D, I can prolly just wait for the home theater showroom demo at the Best Buy.
― Zoo Snickers (Deric W. Haircare), Friday, 18 December 2009 13:56 (3 years ago) Permalink
"engaging (if somewhat facile) story", I meant.
Deric otm! It's so disappointing because we have proof the guy was a great storyteller; he just didn't seem to care anymore when he could instead be playing with 3d blue titties.
― "can´t you be just normal?? be normal just once!" (a hoy hoy), Friday, 18 December 2009 14:04 (3 years ago) Permalink
― krampus activities (latebloomer), Friday, December 18, 2009 7:41 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark
this line alone makes me want to see it! we should do a thread on 00s action sequences that manage this
― jabba hands, Friday, 18 December 2009 14:09 (3 years ago) Permalink
― ice cr?m, Friday, December 18, 2009 1:29 AM (8 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
― The reverse TARDIS of pasta (Niles Caulder), Friday, December 18, 2009 2:01 AM (7 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
you are a terribly poor point
― ice cr?m, Friday, 18 December 2009 14:51 (3 years ago) Permalink
this guy
― what u think i steen for to push a crawfish? (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Friday, 18 December 2009 14:57 (3 years ago) Permalink
but I will say that I don't need to see a big visual spectacular with no plot anymore
the movie's problem is not lack of a story or plot. it's that the story is disappointingly conventional.
― krampus activities (latebloomer), Friday, 18 December 2009 14:59 (3 years ago) Permalink
sub "no plot" with "no interesting plot" then.bottom line is that if I'm going to spend two hours plus watching grandeur and neat-o shit i can totally get down with that, but i can more or less do that hanging out in times square. it's just colder. just as many furries tho
― fictional, homosexual, Baltimore hoodlum (forksclovetofu), Friday, 18 December 2009 15:59 (3 years ago) Permalink
the worst moment in this movie is when they hook up to the forest internet and you can hear the sound of children laughing faintly in the distance as they experience all the na'vi's memories
― akira goldsman (s1ocki), Friday, 18 December 2009 16:13 (3 years ago) Permalink
from the local mpls paper review lol:
The Na'vi use a kind of organic USB cord to hook into the minds of their steeds, controlling them by mental osmosis. Watching "Avatar," I felt that Cameron had hooked into my mental circuitry, downloading gigabytes of pure moviegoing bliss.
― jealous ones sb (M@tt He1ges0n), Friday, 18 December 2009 16:24 (3 years ago) Permalink
item!
― Dean Gaffney's December (history mayne), Friday, 18 December 2009 16:27 (3 years ago) Permalink
wait, so cameron was downloading gigs of pure moviegoing bliss from this guy? does he mean uploading?
― fictional, homosexual, Baltimore hoodlum (forksclovetofu), Friday, 18 December 2009 16:29 (3 years ago) Permalink
― akira goldsman (s1ocki), Friday, 18 December 2009 16:31 (3 years ago) Permalink
gimme back my bliss maaan
― ice cr?m, Friday, 18 December 2009 16:31 (3 years ago) Permalink
this really IS a new sort of moviegoing
― fictional, homosexual, Baltimore hoodlum (forksclovetofu), Friday, 18 December 2009 16:33 (3 years ago) Permalink
anyway its obvs forks et al will eventually see this and be all it was pretty rad in its own way and no one will really care anymore
― ice cr?m, Friday, 18 December 2009 16:34 (3 years ago) Permalink
Has Ursula Le Guin complained about how the plot of this is very similar to The Word for World Is Forest? She did have the better title.
― with hidden noise, Friday, 18 December 2009 16:44 (3 years ago) Permalink
i'm actually gonna completely abstain, but in essence I agree with you mr cram
― fictional, homosexual, Baltimore hoodlum (forksclovetofu), Friday, 18 December 2009 16:49 (3 years ago) Permalink
*~that is a terribly poor point~~~~*
― you are wrong I'm bone thugs in harmon (omar little), Friday, 18 December 2009 16:51 (3 years ago) Permalink
i must be a sap, but i have to say that even though i cringed at the whole children laughing thing, afterward i was like "noooo don't let them bulldoze the ancestor internet hub!"
on another subject, is this the most unabashedly liberal big budget sci-fi action flick of all time, or did i miss the point?
― richie aprile (rockapads), Friday, 18 December 2009 17:32 (3 years ago) Permalink
ya in a sense, i guess, though it is basically a "let's save the community center from the mean developer" movie and that's not really a huge breakthrough iirc
― akira goldsman (s1ocki), Friday, 18 December 2009 17:34 (3 years ago) Permalink
this is our time down here
― ice cr?m, Friday, 18 December 2009 17:35 (3 years ago) Permalink
so this is an incredibly expensive remake of Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo with an azure color code?
― fictional, homosexual, Baltimore hoodlum (forksclovetofu), Friday, 18 December 2009 17:38 (3 years ago) Permalink
reboot
― akira goldsman (s1ocki), Friday, 18 December 2009 17:39 (3 years ago) Permalink
reloaded
― ice cr?m, Friday, 18 December 2009 17:40 (3 years ago) Permalink
xp well i saw it as more of a 'indigenous people in the way of massive fossil fuel reserve' (saved by a community organizer!).
i mean you probably could have made a historical fiction drama from the same screenplay, with Native Americans (or any other type of aboriginal populations) as stand-ins for the Na'vi, but nobody would have wanted to see it. the environmental message of the movie was not subtle, either. i wouldn't be surprised to read conservatives bitching about the liberal brainwashing in the next few days.
― richie aprile (rockapads), Friday, 18 December 2009 17:46 (3 years ago) Permalink
Does Pandora have legal, readily-available abortions?
― Thulsa Doob (Jon Lewis), Friday, 18 December 2009 17:48 (3 years ago) Permalink
― richie aprile (rockapads), Friday, December 18, 2009 12:46 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
wasnt that called dances with wolves and everybody wanted to see it?
― akira goldsman (s1ocki), Friday, 18 December 2009 17:50 (3 years ago) Permalink
it honestly kind of reminded me of that 90s tv special where bette midler played the ailing mother earth
― akira goldsman (s1ocki), Friday, 18 December 2009 17:51 (3 years ago) Permalink
xxp
Human-to-Na'vi avatars made possible by stem cells.
― James Mitchell, Friday, 18 December 2009 17:52 (3 years ago) Permalink
so this is like fern gully
― super sexy psycho fantasy world (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Friday, 18 December 2009 17:57 (3 years ago) Permalink
slocks, i remember that! Bette was all like "i will survive.. but you... you the humans... it is YOU who will die... and i weep for you"
― fictional, homosexual, Baltimore hoodlum (forksclovetofu), Friday, 18 December 2009 18:00 (3 years ago) Permalink
dunno. never saw it.
― richie aprile (rockapads), Friday, 18 December 2009 18:01 (3 years ago) Permalink
point taken, though.
― richie aprile (rockapads), Friday, 18 December 2009 18:04 (3 years ago) Permalink
i guess someone's already made/quoted "world's largest screensaver" zing
― Rage, Resentment, Spleen (Dr Morbius), Friday, 18 December 2009 18:40 (3 years ago) Permalink
Is watching this movie in 3-D Imax pretty much the same as sitting onstage in the midst of an ecologically-themed Blue Man Group/Cirque du Soliel mashup?
― Zoo Snickers (Deric W. Haircare), Friday, 18 December 2009 19:01 (3 years ago) Permalink
Has anyone linked to this New Yorker Cameron profile yet:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/10/26/091026fa_fact_goodyear
From this I learned the surprising (to me) fact that Cameron and Kathryn Bigelow used to be married.
― o. nate, Friday, 18 December 2009 19:17 (3 years ago) Permalink
from what i have seen of the two of them in interviews, it kinda doesn't make any sense.
― you are wrong I'm bone thugs in harmon (omar little), Friday, 18 December 2009 19:22 (3 years ago) Permalink
James Cameron always seems like a good idea at the time. It's only upon reflection that we begin to see the error of our ways.
― Zoo Snickers (Deric W. Haircare), Friday, 18 December 2009 19:28 (3 years ago) Permalink
to be fair he has married a lot of ladies.
― Dean Gaffney's December (history mayne), Friday, 18 December 2009 19:30 (3 years ago) Permalink
he is the king of the world so
― ice cr?m, Friday, 18 December 2009 19:31 (3 years ago) Permalink
From that roundtable above, it seems that pretty much all directors are insufferable egotists, but Cameron more than most.
― o. nate, Friday, 18 December 2009 19:34 (3 years ago) Permalink
near, far, wherever he are
― Rage, Resentment, Spleen (Dr Morbius), Friday, 18 December 2009 20:13 (3 years ago) Permalink
Thinking of going to catch this in a few minutes, since I haven't really been able to do anything today yet and I could use massive visual and caffeine-based stimulation
― kingfish, Friday, 18 December 2009 20:16 (3 years ago) Permalink
it seems that pretty much all directors are insufferable egotists, but Cameron more than most.
He'd still be more fun to talk to than Reitman, though.
― ô_o (Nicole), Friday, 18 December 2009 20:21 (3 years ago) Permalink
That probably falls into the "faint praise" category, but still.
Who is the TONE LOC of Avatar?
― just a moonful of sugar (Abbott), Friday, 18 December 2009 20:22 (3 years ago) Permalink
cameron is a hilarious cartoon egomaniac, at least from a distance
― ice cr?m, Friday, 18 December 2009 20:22 (3 years ago) Permalink
Fern Gully had a lot of questionable rapping, incl. from Robin Williams.
― just a moonful of sugar (Abbott), Friday, 18 December 2009 20:24 (3 years ago) Permalink
― Restless Genital Syndrome (HI DERE), Friday, 18 December 2009 20:28 (3 years ago) Permalink
― just a moonful of sugar (Abbott), Friday, 18 December 2009 20:30 (3 years ago) Permalink
"Batty Rap"
― Restless Genital Syndrome (HI DERE), Friday, 18 December 2009 20:31 (3 years ago) Permalink
From the grand tradition of putting the word "rap" in the title so you know they are, in fact, rapping.
― just a moonful of sugar (Abbott), Friday, 18 December 2009 20:32 (3 years ago) Permalink
Whereas Tone Loc's song in the same movie does not have the word "rap" in the title (otoh it is not good (otooh if is frigging Fern Gully)).
― just a moonful of sugar (Abbott), Friday, 18 December 2009 20:33 (3 years ago) Permalink
what the
― Restless Genital Syndrome (HI DERE), Friday, 18 December 2009 20:34 (3 years ago) Permalink
― fictional, homosexual, Baltimore hoodlum (forksclovetofu), Friday, 18 December 2009 20:35 (3 years ago) Permalink
okay I am going back to listening to songs based on WoW samples
― Restless Genital Syndrome (HI DERE), Friday, 18 December 2009 20:36 (3 years ago) Permalink
wow the lead chick in fern gully totally anticipates zooey deschanel
― Simon H., Friday, 18 December 2009 20:39 (3 years ago) Permalink
"This movie makes me emo. Thinking about it makes my nose do that chloriney thing you get right before you start crying. I am SO GAY for this movie that I can’t stand it. And you know what? Having finally seen it, I don't even care what the haters have to say. I am a happy meniscus that your spite sauce slides off of. I'm lifted."http://www.theawl.com/2009/12/flicked-off-with-mary-hk-choi-avatar(kinda digging the awl lately)comments are fun too
― fictional, homosexual, Baltimore hoodlum (forksclovetofu), Friday, 18 December 2009 20:39 (3 years ago) Permalink
xp drowned in a gulley
― fictional, homosexual, Baltimore hoodlum (forksclovetofu), Friday, 18 December 2009 20:40 (3 years ago) Permalink
Ha Simon I was thinking Fairuza Balk.
― just a moonful of sugar (Abbott), Friday, 18 December 2009 20:41 (3 years ago) Permalink
that review i just posted was the first one that made me actually want to see this thing
― fictional, homosexual, Baltimore hoodlum (forksclovetofu), Friday, 18 December 2009 20:42 (3 years ago) Permalink
"Avatar" is staggering. It’s seismic. Evolutionarily speaking it is cladogenesis in a thunderclap. Punctuating the balls outta equilibrium. Think about it: You can’t bit torrent this shit. And even if some very industrious pillager cops the glasses and figures out how to do it in the way it was intended to be seen, that person is a hope rapist that should be shot in the face for dream treason because James Cameron and a gang of wizards made this beautiful, beautiful thing for us—in 2009 of all years. We should ALL hold hands about it.
is this lady brent dicrescenzo?
― cozwn, Friday, 18 December 2009 20:52 (3 years ago) Permalink
Hahah
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 18 December 2009 20:55 (3 years ago) Permalink
dream treason
― larry craig memorial gloryhole (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 18 December 2009 21:01 (3 years ago) Permalink
hope rapise!!
― what u think i steen for to push a crawfish? (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Friday, 18 December 2009 21:02 (3 years ago) Permalink
t
the planet's gone mad.
― akira goldsman (s1ocki), Friday, 18 December 2009 21:33 (3 years ago) Permalink
i kind of want to see this dumb thing now
― akm, Friday, 18 December 2009 23:20 (3 years ago) Permalink
― krampus activities (latebloomer), Friday, 18 December 2009 23:53 (3 years ago) Permalink
@coryischaki: 10 word Avatar review: Space marines vs Roger Dean painting set to Enya.
― Elvis Telecom, Friday, 18 December 2009 23:53 (3 years ago) Permalink
pretty much. whether that's a bad thing depends on you.
― krampus activities (latebloomer), Saturday, 19 December 2009 00:04 (3 years ago) Permalink
I liked this.
― kingfish, Saturday, 19 December 2009 00:50 (3 years ago) Permalink
I watched this at an IMAX theater and thought it was very good. If I happened to be 8, I think it might have fucking blown my mind.
― real bears playing hockey (polyphonic), Saturday, 19 December 2009 01:38 (3 years ago) Permalink
I'm still learning how to read 3d. There are bits where the depth of field is v. shallow, and my eyes are roaming, trying to focus on things that will never come into focus. Recipe for watery eyes, that.
― stet, Saturday, 19 December 2009 02:15 (3 years ago) Permalink
If I happened to be 8, I think it might have fucking blown my mind.
This is how I feel about Kung Fu Shuffle, and that's far from an insult.
― kenan, Saturday, 19 December 2009 02:24 (3 years ago) Permalink
Somehow I doubt this is the same level of awesome, tho.
stet - when u do can u code ilx in 3d - shd only take u 10 mins
― dyao know what i mean (acoleuthic), Saturday, 19 December 2009 02:30 (3 years ago) Permalink
birthday sundae in 3d, it's what we've all been waiting for
― 囧 (dyao), Saturday, 19 December 2009 02:34 (3 years ago) Permalink
The valuing of the tech over the art is a bit of problem, no?
― kenan, Saturday, 19 December 2009 02:48 (3 years ago) Permalink
― tiger's wood (latebloomer), Saturday, 19 December 2009 07:16 (3 years ago) Permalink
oops wrong pic
― tiger's wood (latebloomer), Saturday, 19 December 2009 07:22 (3 years ago) Permalink
is it just me or was the other avatar driver totally shaggy from scooby doo
― akira goldsman (s1ocki), Saturday, 19 December 2009 07:23 (3 years ago) Permalink
that's not very flattering to sigourney
― tiger's wood (latebloomer), Saturday, 19 December 2009 07:31 (3 years ago) Permalink
other avatar guy was from the exact same hampshire college hacky sack matthew lillard care bear cousins family as the sidekick driver from speed racer, just another way in which this shit failed to live up to my beloved gold standard of long dumb cgi action epics
― A B C, Saturday, 19 December 2009 08:11 (3 years ago) Permalink
well i guess tbf i have no serious preference between the two scrawny doofs except that i don't think the guy in speed racer had a hacky sack goatee and also that archetype becomes more annoying the further away we move from 2000, however:
lead guy: that shitty guy <<<< emile hirschthe girl: i like saldana & i guess she had more character but i grew up w/xtina ricci in the 90s, socolor palette: blacklight posters, lisa frank, money grab nature museum rainforest exhibits from 1994 < photoshop color selector, paper rad, seizures, dumb shitslimy corporate villain: 'go' star giovanni ribisi < that guy who looks like chris hitchensold lady crush: sigourney > sarandon (this is like mentioning that God the Creator could outrun usain bolt or some shit though)was john goodman in it: no < yesdid anyone say 'get that weak sh*t off my track' in it: no <<<< yesu r sexually attractive but god as my witness i will never watch another episode of lost: michelle williams = matthew foxquestionable stylistic bugaboo: papyrus <<<<<<<<<<<<< rotating head wipes
avatar sux
― A B C, Saturday, 19 December 2009 08:20 (3 years ago) Permalink
i saw this at 3:30 pm & went for happy meals at 1230 am and could not accurately identify my toy's character
― A B C, Saturday, 19 December 2009 08:21 (3 years ago) Permalink
'go' star giovanni ribisi
if you mean the film with tom cruise's wife and tail diggs, then ribisi wasn't in it.
speed racer is the nuts. avatar doesn't look like it comes close.
that said, with a lot of you guys being all cptn save-a-smurf, i'm now starting to ponder whether to see this...
― "can´t you be just normal?? be normal just once!" (a hoy hoy), Saturday, 19 December 2009 08:24 (3 years ago) Permalink
don't post your review until you've had the happy meal and taken that into account
― tiger's wood (latebloomer), Saturday, 19 December 2009 08:28 (3 years ago) Permalink
oh weird, i have no idea what i confused go with other than 1999 in general
i was surprised by how much i liked ribisi though! when he first showed up i was wondering what kind of weirdo scientology challenge he completed to get put in a wide release movie at the end of this decade but he was p enjoyable
― A B C, Saturday, 19 December 2009 08:29 (3 years ago) Permalink
i got cat zoe saldana but i thought it was supposed to be her dad. her face lights up when you wave your head in front of it, sometimes
this reminds me that i still thought the alien romance was kind of weird
― A B C, Saturday, 19 December 2009 08:30 (3 years ago) Permalink
do they do a vege happy meal these days?
― "can´t you be just normal?? be normal just once!" (a hoy hoy), Saturday, 19 December 2009 08:30 (3 years ago) Permalink
who will mint more furries per capita between cat saldana and kristofferson the fox
whoever said ribisi is playing jeremy piven was otm
― tiger's wood (latebloomer), Saturday, 19 December 2009 08:36 (3 years ago) Permalink
i was thinking chibi vince vaughn but pivs is way closer
― A B C, Saturday, 19 December 2009 08:36 (3 years ago) Permalink
― =皿= (dyao), Saturday, 19 December 2009 09:07 (3 years ago) Permalink
XD
― tiger's wood (latebloomer), Saturday, 19 December 2009 09:09 (3 years ago) Permalink
― kenan, Saturday, 19 December 2009 09:19 (3 years ago) Permalink
Saw this at the IMAX - PHENOMENAL.
I thoroughly enjoyed this. Sorry.
Okay, on a technical level, Cameron has been completely vindicated imo - this really is some next next next level stuff. I was fucking agog at how beautiful some of this was.
Story wise, it did the job. It is such a nuts-and-bolts, A->B job though. Rigidly 3-act structure, hitting every beat (er, inciting incident - half commitment - midpoint reversal - enemy closes in - darkest decision - confrontation). I was gonna say screenwriting 101 but it doesn't even have any subplots.It really could have done with something to shake things up a bit. A betrayal, a character reveal, anything. But no. Saying that, though it was all terribly predictable I was drawn in, I went along. It was cornballs but I didn't much care, it still got me rooting for the big blue guys.
The Na'vi are yer basic noble savage, it's true. Apart from sexy alien girl who is sexy, none of them had fleshed out characters. Though I did like how they looked, the design of them w/ev. I know some had a problem with the Na'vi for some reason. I thought they looked good.
Cameron's dialogue is still Cameron's dialogue. You know. His strength has always been memorable one-liners, even when they were examples of how cheesy his writing can be ("Hasta la Vista, baby"?). I don't think there was anything particularly memorable here though. Maybe in time.
Did I say how much I really, really enjoyed this as a moviegoing experience? Such a good thing to be carried away by on a bitterly cold, dark winter's night. This is my favourite sci-fi film of the year - and this year, that's actually saying something! - and I can't wait till I go and see it again next Wednesday. So there.
i09 have some good articles about Avatar. Their review of the film is fair imo: http://io9.com/5427555/avatar-wont-make-you-go-native
― DavidM, Saturday, 19 December 2009 09:36 (3 years ago) Permalink
Bit of a ramble, that.
― DavidM, Saturday, 19 December 2009 09:37 (3 years ago) Permalink
Rigidly 3-act structure, hitting every beat
Rigid or not, this still sounds like praise to me. Think: "Alien3".
Ok, shit. I guess I'll see it. Or else stop bitching.
― kenan, Saturday, 19 December 2009 09:39 (3 years ago) Permalink
Have managed to avoid all hype for this and got to see it tonight. I'm always against justifying a lame story with pretty visuals, LOTR did nothing for me - but this is on another level. You can really lose yourself in it. Don't even think about watching it on a computer screen.
The story is decent, I suppose, although once you've seen half of it you can predict every element of the rest of it (sadly - can't they throw in a few surprises once in a while?). I expected it to be fairly snappy from the opening - I had no idea how fantasy-like it was going to be; and thought the premise could have delivered a better story with a few less cliches - maybe from the science side of things - but this just fizzled out.
If anything spoiled it, it was the dialogue. It could have been a great movie, but man. OK, it was fine in places, but when it was bad, it was really bad. It absolutely baffles me how movies this expensive can just get away with this kind of writing. Disclaimer: I've mainly been watching the Wire and not much else these past few weeks, so have been completely spoiled, writing-wise.
xpost - above review pretty much OTM, particularly about how it could have done with a shake-up somewhere.
― Not the real Village People, Saturday, 19 December 2009 09:42 (3 years ago) Permalink
This is my favourite sci-fi film of the year - and this year, that's actually saying something!
Was this a watershed sci-fi year and I just slept through it or something?
― kenan, Saturday, 19 December 2009 09:45 (3 years ago) Permalink
Ok, Moon was good. I'll give it that.
― kenan, Saturday, 19 December 2009 09:46 (3 years ago) Permalink
moon star trek and district 9 were well received by sci-fi movie fans
― tiger's wood (latebloomer), Saturday, 19 December 2009 09:53 (3 years ago) Permalink
generally speaking
― tiger's wood (latebloomer), Saturday, 19 December 2009 09:54 (3 years ago) Permalink
Star Trek was awesome. But if that's sci-fi... ok, I don't mean to sound sanctimonious, at least not more than usual, but you see where I'm going here.
― kenan, Saturday, 19 December 2009 10:13 (3 years ago) Permalink
Isn't Avatar pretty solidly in the fantasy genre, anyway?
― kenan, Saturday, 19 December 2009 10:15 (3 years ago) Permalink
it's sci-fi fantasy. i mean there's some quasi-scientific explanations for stuff. no actual magic or anything like that. but yeah, humanoid aliens, etc.
― tiger's wood (latebloomer), Saturday, 19 December 2009 10:26 (3 years ago) Permalink
So I went and saw it tonight too.... And yeah, the technical achievement is a game-changer. I'm sure every single nut, bolt, tree, leaf, computer display, cloud, floating jellyfish-looking thing, spaceship, etc. was blueprinted and argued over for weeks, but in the end it looks like Cameron and crew flew out to some weird Gaia planet and simply filmed on location. There's a few self-referential "look at me I'm 3D!" moments towards the beginning, but the 3D was never intrusive and in the way. Seeing this in a theater is an absolute requirement.
The movie itself is straight-up Edgar Rice Burroughs with a little Harry Harrison thrown in (esp. the first Deathworld book). Totally ridiculous and heavy-handed but no worse than, say, the original Stargate movie or The Fifth Element. My only wish that the supporting cast wasn't quite so anonymous. Unlike Aliens, where you knew every single marine and had some emotional investment with them, the rest of the Avatar cast were just kinda there.
Certainly not the best movie I've seen this year, but well-worth seeing.
― Elvis Telecom, Saturday, 19 December 2009 10:42 (3 years ago) Permalink
Also, I think several dozen new xeno-prefixed words need to be coined now. Xenophile, xenophobe, and xenomorph don't seem adequate enough to describe this thing.
― Elvis Telecom, Saturday, 19 December 2009 10:44 (3 years ago) Permalink
a b c's review is a++++++++++++++++++
― max, Saturday, 19 December 2009 11:03 (3 years ago) Permalink
reserved tickets for an imax showing on monday - can't wait
― =皿= (dyao), Saturday, 19 December 2009 11:19 (3 years ago) Permalink
There's a few self-referential "look at me I'm 3D!" moments towards the beginning...
yeah, the golf ball rolling into the cup, the coffin being slid into the drawer... if anything I thought these obviously gimmicky shots were the ones which least showed off the impressiveness of the tech
I agree with stet tho tht it can be hard to read the 3D a lot of the time and can be v.tiring to watch
― cozwn, Saturday, 19 December 2009 12:12 (3 years ago) Permalink
dunno where my nearest imax is. probably that london.
― Dean Gaffney's December (history mayne), Saturday, 19 December 2009 12:57 (3 years ago) Permalink
whoever said ribisi is playing jeremy piven was otm― tiger's wood (latebloomer), Saturday, 19 December 2009 08:36 (4 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
even had more hair thn normal I though
― cozwn, Saturday, 19 December 2009 13:05 (3 years ago) Permalink
I gotta admit, every time I read another 'game-changer/will change the way you think about movies' bit, no matter how qualified otherwise...it kinda makes me want to hit someone. (Not you guys, that'd be rude.)
― Ned Raggett, Saturday, 19 December 2009 13:18 (3 years ago) Permalink
yeah i still haven't seen anything that looks above and beyond a final fantasy cutscene (it was ff10 that had the blue warrior types right?)
― "can´t you be just normal?? be normal just once!" (a hoy hoy), Saturday, 19 December 2009 13:20 (3 years ago) Permalink
voiced by bender! :) the more you know
― "can´t you be just normal?? be normal just once!" (a hoy hoy), Saturday, 19 December 2009 13:22 (3 years ago) Permalink
man this movie was pretty bad
― unicorn strapped with a unabomb (deej), Saturday, 19 December 2009 20:34 (3 years ago) Permalink
Avatar: came close to losing my shit. Happy to join the crowd and clap in appreciation after our collective minds were blown away (somewhat).
Yeah the plot and dialogue are rudimentary, shit was GREAT!!!! to look at at, and the action was good enough.
― Tannenbaum Schmidt, Saturday, 19 December 2009 20:41 (3 years ago) Permalink
i think the impressive visuals did a really good job of making me feel like my time watching this was worthwhile, but they didnt really make up for some pretty hilariously bad parts
SPOILERZ!!!!!!
.......
ok so fern gully: the next generation has some pretty crappy cameron-style dialogue, that i can deal with. im willing to put up w/ cardboard bad guys -- some of the best movies have these things, & it COULD be, like part & parcel of the film's style. i dont demand complex bad dudes per se.
but as a statement about, like, life and stuff? pretty awful. the deus ex machina resolution??
what is he saying about our current problems today -- that the corporations tearing down the rainforest are bad? umm well duh ... apparently the solution is that mother nature has to go hitchcock's the birds on everybody, because thats the only thing that will help noble savages fight the oncoming tide of modernization. the fact that the main character basically throws this entire race of ppl into the path of oncoming guns was so gross ....
and its not even that creative a movie when it needs to be!! like ... when they were like "our people know these mountains well ... the oncoming invaders just have guns and explosives" i was expecting the people to use some clever traps or something design out of wildlife, i.e. ensnaring these guys in vines or setting up traps w/ boulders, something clever & creative ... instead they somehow find a few guns themselves, and just go for straight-up violence? Just throw themselves into the path of a bunch of dudes with machine guns? then they get torn to shit. then, luckily, mother earth (or whatever) heard this dude praying through his hair & sends a bunch of wildlife to overwhelm them w/ sheer numbers? is that the lesson here, that if only mother earth was a cognizant being everything would work out?
also, i cant believe they used that LOL romcom cliche where the guy is forced into the situation, doesnt love the chick at first but grows to love her over time, she discovers they were forced to be together & gets mad, then forgives him. soooo lazy!!
he sets up this plot like obvious past historical brutalities, but he has nothing to say about any of it ... like, bad people r bad? ok.
i dont get how this is a 'future of cinema' type film. my bro mentioned how in 'alien' apparently ridley scott couldn't afford a full sized ship so he got creative & put his kids in kid-sized space suits to make the ship look larger on camera ... there is none of that kind of innovative thinking here, cameron's response to a problem like that is "throw more money at it till we CAN do it" --- ooh, floating islands? really? thats the best he comes up with? fake rhinos? pterodactyls still exist? so totally unimaginative.
― unicorn strapped with a unabomb (deej), Saturday, 19 December 2009 20:48 (3 years ago) Permalink
that said, parts of it look really beautiful & i do enjoy that almost puff daddy level of "if i throw enough money around, it'll at least be impressive if nothing else"
― unicorn strapped with a unabomb (deej), Saturday, 19 December 2009 20:50 (3 years ago) Permalink
SPOILERZ FURTHER
even if u take it as being about, like, the title, about falling in love thru an avatar or whatever ... even that is philosophically undercut by the fact that he can turn into the avatar with the right prayers to god!! its so afraid to actually confront the ethical scenarios that he sets up on an honest level, everything is cheat saved by divine intervention
― unicorn strapped with a unabomb (deej), Saturday, 19 December 2009 20:51 (3 years ago) Permalink
*is a cheat
― unicorn strapped with a unabomb (deej), Saturday, 19 December 2009 20:52 (3 years ago) Permalink
Deej, i agree with all of that. And in some small way, yes paying to see this will give only give creedance to bolster Cameron's "cause" / counter your arguements (at least in a $$$ = justified film experience).... but if he can do a Terminator quality idea/ploy/script with Avatar quality techology as his next project, I figure its worth getting behind Avatar.
― Tannenbaum Schmidt, Saturday, 19 December 2009 20:57 (3 years ago) Permalink
plus I entered the cinema intending not too think too deeply about the "Message", just gawp at pretty things and allow myself to flinch / recoil at shit being blown up in my augmented "direction"
― Tannenbaum Schmidt, Saturday, 19 December 2009 20:59 (3 years ago) Permalink
the other thing that had me rolling my eyes was when that one pilot chick was all "this is not what i signed up for!!!" & stops firing missiles ... what?? do you really think theyd get wishy-washy ppl like that on a mission like this in the military?? i mean think of how much effort the right wing went into in this country to get ppl on board for iraq ... you have to have some kind of propaganda thing where ppl are convinced about the justness of their cause, or the righteousness of their victory, if she's that easily swayed ... at least district 9 show the dehumanizing elements to justify ppl's cruelty towards the aliens, know what i mean?
― unicorn strapped with a unabomb (deej), Saturday, 19 December 2009 21:01 (3 years ago) Permalink
― Tannenbaum Schmidt, Saturday, December 19, 2009 2:59 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
its not like i was looking to criticize this stuff!! it was pretty surface-level obvious
xpost: not specifically aimed my post at you, deej.
― Tannenbaum Schmidt, Saturday, 19 December 2009 21:14 (3 years ago) Permalink
xp deej i agree with you about the lack of military tactics - i was also disappointed by that. though the nature's revenge angle was ok with me, i was hoping for some guerilla style stuff.
the other thing that had me rolling my eyes was when that one pilot chick was all "this is not what i signed up for!!!" & stops firing missiles ... what?? do you really think theyd get wishy-washy ppl like that on a mission like this in the military?? i mean think of how much effort the right wing went into in this country to get ppl on board for iraq ...
there were plenty of conscientious objectors in Iraq. plus, this wasn't the military, it was a Blackwater-like security company working for a corporation which is a big distinction in terms of loyalty imo. my main problem with that scene was that her character wasn't really fleshed out at all prior to that, so it was really out of the blue. and wouldn't she have done that the first time they attack the na'vi? i think maybe it would have been better if they had taken a few minutes to show how disgusted she was after that first attack (i don't recall them even showing her during the first major attack), but there were just too many characters in the movie to flesh anyone out very much. maybe in the inevitable 4-hour special blu-ray edition...
― richie aprile (rockapads), Saturday, 19 December 2009 21:27 (3 years ago) Permalink
yeah i guess i mean that it seemed like the only reason to have her do that was so she could rescue them from prison later on & get the main character moved to the tree. so they were like, uhhhh i guess she'll have a crisis of confidence in the mission? lets throw that in.
― unicorn strapped with a unabomb (deej), Saturday, 19 December 2009 21:32 (3 years ago) Permalink
deej thank you for helping me decide to not ever pay to see this film.
― zombie bobby 4 mod (a hoy hoy), Saturday, 19 December 2009 21:41 (3 years ago) Permalink
<3 u deej
― akira goldsman (s1ocki), Saturday, 19 December 2009 21:54 (3 years ago) Permalink
also
― Ned Raggett, Saturday, December 19, 2009 8:18 AM (8 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
totally agree with this. everybody needs to just CALM THE FUCK DOWN about this movie for a minute.
― akira goldsman (s1ocki), Saturday, 19 December 2009 21:55 (3 years ago) Permalink
camera can go eat a brick for all I care, put this tech that he's developed in someone actually capable's hands and then we're talking
― cozwn, Saturday, 19 December 2009 22:03 (3 years ago) Permalink
cameron
― cozwn, Saturday, 19 December 2009 22:04 (3 years ago) Permalink
like who?
― akira goldsman (s1ocki), Saturday, 19 December 2009 22:06 (3 years ago) Permalink
xpost: I vote Ridley Scott
― Tannenbaum Schmidt, Saturday, 19 December 2009 22:07 (3 years ago) Permalink
werner
― cozwn, Saturday, 19 December 2009 22:08 (3 years ago) Permalink
Coens
― Tannenbaum Schmidt, Saturday, 19 December 2009 22:09 (3 years ago) Permalink
neveldine/taylor
CRANK 3D!!
― cozwn, Saturday, 19 December 2009 22:10 (3 years ago) Permalink
as spectacle, enjoyable, as cinema, offensive to yr intelligence.
― unicorn strapped with a unabomb (deej), Saturday, 19 December 2009 22:10 (3 years ago) Permalink
yeah, not to discredit cameron's achievement here: it would have been so easy for the spectacle to fall flat but he carried it off very well, and it was nice to have some action shots that weren't shot ultra-close and ultra-quick for once but I can't wait till someone marries the spectacle and the cinema a bit more capably
― cozwn, Saturday, 19 December 2009 22:12 (3 years ago) Permalink
^agree.
― Tannenbaum Schmidt, Saturday, 19 December 2009 22:13 (3 years ago) Permalink
ebert's star wars comparison is way off -- there is nothing here nearly as iconic as the characters from that
― unicorn strapped with a unabomb (deej), Saturday, 19 December 2009 22:13 (3 years ago) Permalink
― Tannenbaum Schmidt, Saturday, December 19, 2009 5:07 PM (9 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
are you shitting me, have you seen what that dude has done lately
― akira goldsman (s1ocki), Saturday, 19 December 2009 22:17 (3 years ago) Permalink
haha so im reading this thread for the first time now:
district 9 meets ferngully― am0n, Friday, October 30, 2009 2:31 PM (1 month ago) Bookmark
― am0n, Friday, October 30, 2009 2:31 PM (1 month ago) Bookmark
otm
― unicorn strapped with a unabomb (deej), Saturday, 19 December 2009 22:17 (3 years ago) Permalink
― unicorn strapped with a unabomb (deej), Saturday, December 19, 2009 5:13 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
seriously. main character here is such a dud - i mean luke was too but he was surrounded by pretty great characters and he was a believable hick kid, not a muscly hollywood action lookin dude
i think i said it upthread, but it is really the exact same plot as d9
― akira goldsman (s1ocki), Saturday, 19 December 2009 22:18 (3 years ago) Permalink
Avatar is the corniest movie ever made about the white man’s need to lose his identity and assuage racial, political, sexual and historical guilt.
haha this is pretty otm
― unicorn strapped with a unabomb (deej), Saturday, 19 December 2009 22:22 (3 years ago) Permalink
― akira goldsman (s1ocki), Saturday, December 19, 2009 4:17 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark
A Good Year 2: The IMAX Experience
― Dif Juz Guys (Deric W. Haircare), Saturday, 19 December 2009 22:24 (3 years ago) Permalink
as cinema, offensive to yr intelligence.
didn't offend mine. i liked this movie the way i like a lot of Pixar & Pixar-type movies. i guess i feel like the movie was intended for a slightly younger, slightly less jaded audience than i belong to, and i can find very few things wrong with it that wasn't a matter of aesthetic preference. for the type of movie it was, it succeeded. i doubt that i will go out of my way to watch it again, but i know several people who will and they aren't people anyone would consider dumb.
― richie aprile (rockapads), Saturday, 19 December 2009 22:27 (3 years ago) Permalink
― Thulsa Doob (Jon Lewis), Friday, December 18, 2009 11:48 AM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
this is the kind of ethical dilemma that could never exist on pandora -- pretty sure god wouldnt enforce premarital celibacy but once you've gotten laid by god's tree im pretty sure its shotgun wedding time
― unicorn strapped with a unabomb (deej), Saturday, 19 December 2009 22:35 (3 years ago) Permalink
for the type of movie it was, it succeeded. i doubt that i will go out of my way to watch it again, but i know several people who will and they aren't people anyone would consider dumb.
― richie aprile (rockapads), Saturday, December 19, 2009 4:27 PM (7 minutes ago) Bookmark
i dont see how anyone could think there's anything remotely interesting being said in this film
rockapads: are you saying that pixar films don't show intelligent storytelling as its main selling point? i personally couldn't give a toss how they look when there are stories as good as wall-e and finding nemo.
― zombie bobby 4 mod (a hoy hoy), Saturday, 19 December 2009 22:40 (3 years ago) Permalink
yeah i mean i loved wall e, it was sorta borderline w/ the hollywood liberal environmentalism stuff but it never overwhelmed the love story or anything. you cared more about the characters
― unicorn strapped with a unabomb (deej), Saturday, 19 December 2009 22:43 (3 years ago) Permalink
wall e the floating ipod is more iconic than the blue dorks (c)s1ocki of avatar
seriously this movie could have been saved if the main char. used his knowledge of humans to figure out how to use the natural world to defeat the humans. instead he just martyred a bunch of them, then god saved everybody. ughguhgugh
― unicorn strapped with a unabomb (deej), Saturday, 19 December 2009 22:46 (3 years ago) Permalink
"spoilers"^^^
― unicorn strapped with a unabomb (deej), Saturday, 19 December 2009 22:47 (3 years ago) Permalink
pretty sure the solution to environmental catastrophe is praying, then. james cameron is the dude on a street corner w/ a 'world is ending' sign & a bigger bank account
character and plotting go hand in hand
/mckee
― zombie bobby 4 mod (a hoy hoy), Saturday, 19 December 2009 22:53 (3 years ago) Permalink
I think I gotta see this just to have a justified opinion.
― poster x (ledge), Saturday, 19 December 2009 22:53 (3 years ago) Permalink
its almost like he thinks he can buy creativity.
― unicorn strapped with a unabomb (deej), Saturday, 19 December 2009 22:57 (3 years ago) Permalink
xpost: I vote Ridley Scott― Tannenbaum Schmidt, Saturday, December 19, 2009 5:07 PM (9 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalinkare you shitting me, have you seen what that dude has done lately― akira goldsman (s1ocki), Saturday, December 19, 2009 4:17 PM (4 minutes ago) BookmarkA Good Year 2: The IMAX Experience― Dif Juz Guys (Deric W. Haircare), Saturday, 19 December 2009 22:24 (16 minutes ago) Bookmark
― Dif Juz Guys (Deric W. Haircare), Saturday, 19 December 2009 22:24 (16 minutes ago) Bookmark
was thinking more of Alien and Bladerunner Ridley Scott w/ a dash of Gladiator
― Tannenbaum Schmidt, Saturday, 19 December 2009 23:02 (3 years ago) Permalink
why don't you just wish cameron handed the technology off to aliens james cameron while we're in time travel land
― akira goldsman (s1ocki), Saturday, 19 December 2009 23:09 (3 years ago) Permalink
Terrence Malick
― Matt Armstrong, Saturday, 19 December 2009 23:11 (3 years ago) Permalink
Agree with most criticisms but the stuff about the 'God' is explained (a bit) as being not religious per se but physically tangible (or at least as 'mystical' as the Force in Star Wars).
They want to protect the physical properties of the planet (which are the basis of their culture) rather than defending a "religion" based on faith. So the criticisms of them praying to God to save them or whatever don't really hold up. (Yeah I hated the swaying scenes too).
― Not the real Village People, Saturday, 19 December 2009 23:35 (3 years ago) Permalink
no, they still hold up. is it science in the ten commandments because in the universe of the movie god is provably real??
― akira goldsman (s1ocki), Saturday, 19 December 2009 23:40 (3 years ago) Permalink
they describe the planet as being a nervous system. not very religious imo.
― richie aprile (rockapads), Sunday, 20 December 2009 01:04 (3 years ago) Permalink
so the movie hinges on a character so huge as to make other plot developments irrelevant ... sweet
― unicorn strapped with a unabomb (deej), Sunday, 20 December 2009 01:06 (3 years ago) Permalink
Deej's concerns encapsulate my misgivings. However, even though I only saw this in 2-D, I was pretty stunned.
Awesome bits:
Final battle is simply a feast for the eyes, pwns LOTR, man in robot-suit fighting with a knife = XDReally, really blunt about Iraq war parallels = XDReally, really blunt about global warming parallels = XD
It's a really blunt film. Everything is hyperrealised then turned up a few notches. The dialogue made me roll my eyes about 40-50 times at a conservative estimate and the characterisation wasn't strong (not to mention the story being rote and yes overly militaristic, although I think maybe the point was that they lost with war, but won with nature?) but I found myself absorbed by the scale and swoop of it all. Also, too many near-misses w.r.t. death for it to be anything other than a fantastical allegory.
Monogamy-only society = dud
― dyao know what i mean (acoleuthic), Sunday, 20 December 2009 01:08 (3 years ago) Permalink
rockapads: are you saying that pixar films don't show intelligent storytelling as its main selling point?
i'm saying some of the Pixar movies have really basic, unsurprising, crowdpleasing plots and i like them in spite of/because of that. wasn't meant to be negative about Pixar movies, since i liked Avatar. i was careful not to say "all" Pixar movies - Toy Story 1 & 2 and Wall-e were fairly unconventional, i thought. i went into Avatar expecting a movie meant to appeal to kids and adults alike, and that's what i got. i'm not saying it couldn't have been a little bit more nuanced and still appealed to kids, either, though.
― richie aprile (rockapads), Sunday, 20 December 2009 01:09 (3 years ago) Permalink
I mean, I don't think I'll still be thinking about this film in 2 days hours, but it was a pretty rad experience. Shame it cost all that money.
― dyao know what i mean (acoleuthic), Sunday, 20 December 2009 01:09 (3 years ago) Permalink
yeah i had fun watching it, but i can't imagine that i'll be buying it or anything.
― richie aprile (rockapads), Sunday, 20 December 2009 01:12 (3 years ago) Permalink
The huge battle worked because it combined the fantasy grace of the Na'vi with some genuinely lo-fi grungy gunplay. I think this is what Cameron is best at. Floating islands and swaying prayer scenes were p-ridiculous. When they say 'I see you' to each other in that climactic man-on-smurf romance scene at the end I had 'shake a little ass' in my head immediately.
― dyao know what i mean (acoleuthic), Sunday, 20 December 2009 01:19 (3 years ago) Permalink
hahah yeah. every time they did the swaying thing with the lion king music playing, i wanted to crawl headfirst into my theater seat with my hands over my ears.
― richie aprile (rockapads), Sunday, 20 December 2009 01:21 (3 years ago) Permalink
i haven't covered my eyes for a love-scene in YEARS but when they first got together it was unbearable
― dyao know what i mean (acoleuthic), Sunday, 20 December 2009 01:22 (3 years ago) Permalink
Also, I hate pan-pipes.
― dyao know what i mean (acoleuthic), Sunday, 20 December 2009 01:23 (3 years ago) Permalink
OH, and the characterisation of that corporate rat driving everything on from the safety of the control-room was utterly ludicrous. I know he started to show signs of remorse towards the end (you could see it in his face - oh the stories of regret he'd have to tell to the folks back home!) but given how totally evil he'd been he probably deserved to suffer more. He was pretty much written out of the story once the battles began! I guess that might have been a good thing given how bad he was.
― dyao know what i mean (acoleuthic), Sunday, 20 December 2009 01:25 (3 years ago) Permalink
James Horner is Cameron's biggest liability.
― queen frostine (Eric H.), Sunday, 20 December 2009 01:26 (3 years ago) Permalink
Well, of the external ones, I mean.
HOWEVER, none of these things were the worst thing about the film.
Oh no.
The worst thing about the film was Noah.
I knew I'd seen Noah before, somewhere.
Then it dawned on me. The horror became manifest.
I'd last seen him playing the single most repulsive male lead in cinema history in a certain Paris Hilton vehicle. A movie regularly trumpeted as one of the worst movies ever. With good reason. And a movie in which, amazingly, he'd been the most abject character. Yeah, he even made Paris seem merely terrible.
Joel Moore, why do they cast thee?
― dyao know what i mean (acoleuthic), Sunday, 20 December 2009 01:28 (3 years ago) Permalink
― queen frostine (Eric H.), Saturday, December 19, 2009 8:26 PM (18 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
treat the disease not the symptom dude.
― akira goldsman (s1ocki), Sunday, 20 December 2009 01:46 (3 years ago) Permalink
If loving Titanic is wrong, I don't wanna be right, et al.
― queen frostine (Eric H.), Sunday, 20 December 2009 01:56 (3 years ago) Permalink
Cozwn otm. Now that this isn't a flop will be gd to see where this tech can take properly good stories.
I think the plot of this lost a ton in the cutting though.
SPOILERS
Sigourney said on radio 4 that her whole romance subplot had been cut, along with a big science substrand. There's no sign of the former. There's only a hint of the latter in the really weird scene jammed in after they've sent the bulldozers in and she's stomping about going "but that was their router! You killed their file server ... you monster!"
I think if that stuff had been given additional time it might have seemed less ludicrously gaia ex machina at the end. But if the cut dialogue was more of that stuff, it's probably best that it went.
― stet, Sunday, 20 December 2009 02:37 (3 years ago) Permalink
also weird gun-in-the-first-act when she puts him in the taped-up pod and goes "this is the least glitchy". In a movie so rigidly plotted the line might as well have been "this will break at an inopportune moment and you will fall from lazerbeak and bruise yr tail" but then it just didn't happen.
It's almost like a plot twist, that, in this film.
― stet, Sunday, 20 December 2009 02:40 (3 years ago) Permalink
was sigourney going to hook up w/tsu'tey?
― cozwn, Sunday, 20 December 2009 02:45 (3 years ago) Permalink
She didn't say bt that was my guess
― stet, Sunday, 20 December 2009 03:05 (3 years ago) Permalink
Hi everyone, long time reader, first time poster
I liked how there was a point in this thread where the consensus became "this is going to be the shittiest movie ever". Then after the reviews started coming in, there is 1 or 2 people who claim the movie to be shit and the rest all thought it was okay, good or better.
Before I went to the movie my sister was complaining that she didn't want to go but we had already bought her a ticket. She said something like "they are all dumb looking blue people". I told her she was being prejudiced and racist. She also said something like the movie is just going to look like a video game and that kind of animation is just going to be stupid.
After the movie everyone in my family said it was B- or B+. And yes, the animation was probably the biggest asset.
Here is my brief review:
SPOILERS: The plot was better in the first half. I would have liked a huge twist at the end. A couple of the sensual moments made turn in my seat ("I see you" (which was okay the first time I heard it) and the human navi touch scene near the end (even though I realize that it probably did need to be in the movie). Overall, whenever there was scenes that explored new scenery or showed creatures - those were the coolest parts. Whenever the big action scenes started I was pumped for them. As they we're ending I was getting halfway bored with them even though all the action scenes were cool in their own right. I think the suspense just sort of died off near the end of the movie (there was no more exploration for one) and a lot of the plot was predictable. Overall I give the movie a Balso I hate the Titanic.
― the not as great, lesser known gatsby (CaptainLorax), Sunday, 20 December 2009 05:35 (3 years ago) Permalink
i'm kinda more interested in the gross for this in a purely sportsmanlike way: http://boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=2631&p=.htm27 mill opening day puts it at "about the same as Star Trek from earlier this year" which i guess is good for a new IP but not quite worldbeater status
― fictional, homosexual, Baltimore hoodlum (forksclovetofu), Sunday, 20 December 2009 06:18 (3 years ago) Permalink
About half the audience in my theater either busted out laughing or giggled during this.
― Elvis Telecom, Sunday, 20 December 2009 06:25 (3 years ago) Permalink
I got turned on
― born loser (CaptainLorax), Sunday, 20 December 2009 06:27 (3 years ago) Permalink
posts v much in character
― unicorn strapped with a unabomb (deej), Sunday, 20 December 2009 10:09 (3 years ago) Permalink
saw this tonight. fucking GREAT movie. one of only a few front-to-back great movies i've seen this year, and of those, by far the most consistent in tone and skillful in storytelling.
there's been a lot of negative talk on this thread about the breakthrough effects and their relationship to cinematic "wonder". and about the relationship of effects-driven wonder to real cinematic storytelling. i was surprised, therefore, by how solid the (very basic) story was and how well cameron controlled the potentially unwieldy narrative. it was exciting, moving, romantic and awe-inspiring - and not in a cheap, michael bay-style, action overdose sense. the film develops its setting, characters, themes and story arcs in a careful, thoughtful and intuitively satisfying manner. whatever i think of cameron as a person/professional doofus, he's a brilliant cinematic tale-spinner. avatar doesn't use its visuals as crutch to cover narrative weakness any more than, say, star wars or finding nemo. and it holds up just fine to such comparison.
when i say "storytelling" i'm not talking about the plot itself, which was childishly simple and sentimental. i'm talking about the way that plot becomes a tale, an act of human communication. most myths and family-appropriate adventure stories are, after all, rather simple in their conflicts, themes and plotting. simplicity allows mythic exaggeration to resonate with human experience. and cameron is clearly trying here, in the manner of star wars, to create an explicatory myth for humans in our era. i think he succeeds marvelously. i loved the depiction of the na'vi and their spiritual culture, the "don't mess with mother nature" theme & conclusion, and the brutally clear gulf war parallels.
that's not to say that it's without faults. the acting was mostly fine, but as others have said, a bit flat (though i totally stand up for sam worthington as sully - he's excellent). it felt a little long in the transition from the 2nd to 3rd act. and the rather one-dimensional portrayal of military madness and evil was, well, rather one-dimensional. but none of this bothered me much. the movie as a whole is far to good to be undone by a handful of minor missteps.
wanna say so much more, but i'll cut myself off. it's four in the fucking morning! one closing thought is that i see this movie as an invitation as much as anything else. an invitation to other filmmakers to come play with the toys offered, to make movies that in the past would have been all but impossible. fucking ringworld, dude.
― a dimension that can only be accessed through self-immolation (contenderizer), Sunday, 20 December 2009 12:00 (3 years ago) Permalink
― fictional, homosexual, Baltimore hoodlum (forksclovetofu), Sunday, December 20, 2009 6:18 AM (5 hours ago) Bookmark
it's longer than 'star trek' and also it's winter. otoh, 3d tickets are more expensive than 2d.
i doubt this cost 1/2 a billi like the nyt said. it still cost A LOT, but i really would not be surprised if it does open the door to 3d -- for blockbusters anyway -- which is a win of a different kind for hollywood.
― Dean Gaffney's December (history mayne), Sunday, 20 December 2009 12:12 (3 years ago) Permalink
also, i didn't see it in 3D. so the gee-whiz factor was probably significantly diminished. and i still loved it to death.
― a dimension that can only be accessed through self-immolation (contenderizer), Sunday, 20 December 2009 12:15 (3 years ago) Permalink
― Dean Gaffney's December (history mayne), Sunday, December 20, 2009 4:12 AM (27 minutes ago) Bookmark
even if it did, given the investment of time & tech development resources, i imagine that a lot of that cost is overhead not for this film specifically, but for films of this type going forward. would guess that a comparable follow-up could be produced much more cheaply and quickly.
― a dimension that can only be accessed through self-immolation (contenderizer), Sunday, 20 December 2009 12:44 (3 years ago) Permalink
avatar 2: in the na'vi
― Dean Gaffney's December (history mayne), Sunday, 20 December 2009 12:45 (3 years ago) Permalink
avatar 2: gaia harder
― a dimension that can only be accessed through self-immolation (contenderizer), Sunday, 20 December 2009 12:49 (3 years ago) Permalink
anyone wanna actually say another about the 'game changing effects' other than 'no uncanny valley feel'?
― zombie bobby 4 mod (a hoy hoy), Sunday, 20 December 2009 13:13 (3 years ago) Permalink
avatar 2: tsu'tey call
― cozwn, Sunday, 20 December 2009 13:25 (3 years ago) Permalink
s1ock I finally saw this yesterday and I am totally with you on it.
Hopefully this helps to kill off the multi-hundred-million-dollar behemoth and usher in the age of the tighter, leaner blockbuster ([eg District 9, which is not a great movie but makes mincemeat of this one.)
― Simon H., Sunday, 20 December 2009 18:27 (3 years ago) Permalink
any of youse who really liked this movie, would you say you really connected with the characters? is jake sully now like a classic all-time character for you? or neytiri?
― akira goldsman (s1ocki), Sunday, 20 December 2009 18:44 (3 years ago) Permalink
looooooooooooool after all my posting last night this movie has actually left my head, as predicted
― dyao know what i mean (acoleuthic), Sunday, 20 December 2009 18:46 (3 years ago) Permalink
i empathized with the rhino things
― tiger's wood (latebloomer), Sunday, 20 December 2009 18:46 (3 years ago) Permalink
if there's one thing i can't get over it's the casting of that menk from the hottie and the nottie
― dyao know what i mean (acoleuthic), Sunday, 20 December 2009 18:47 (3 years ago) Permalink
nobody waits til the second weekend, huh
― Rage, Resentment, Spleen (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 20 December 2009 18:48 (3 years ago) Permalink
― dyao know what i mean (acoleuthic), Sunday, December 20, 2009 6:47 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark
i think this says more about anyone who saw the hottie and the nottie than it does about the casting of said dude
― tiger's wood (latebloomer), Sunday, 20 December 2009 18:51 (3 years ago) Permalink
yeah seriously.
― Dean Gaffney's December (history mayne), Sunday, 20 December 2009 18:52 (3 years ago) Permalink
the hottie and the bluie
― fictional, homosexual, Baltimore hoodlum (forksclovetofu), Sunday, 20 December 2009 18:52 (3 years ago) Permalink
― Rage, Resentment, Spleen (Dr Morbius), Sunday, December 20, 2009 1:48 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
i have no idea what you're complaining about any more
― akira goldsman (s1ocki), Sunday, 20 December 2009 18:54 (3 years ago) Permalink
morbs it's ok this movie was enjoyable but it wasn't so much a movie experience as a cinema experience - it was valid (even pretty rad) as cinema but a bit lacking as a movie, hence not dwelling deeply on it any longer than it took for the cinema buzz to lessen
latebloomer it was late and my best friend and i found a cable tv channel showing it and it really was of noteworthy awfulness - but in all seriousness it was the worst and most repulsive acting performance i've ever seen and now he is in avatar o_O but i find it more amusing than anything so let's chill tbh
― dyao know what i mean (acoleuthic), Sunday, 20 December 2009 18:54 (3 years ago) Permalink
yeah as someone who has seen tiptoes more than once, watching shitty movies for the lols isn't really the worst thing ever.
― SORRY ASS IMPRESSIONS (a hoy hoy), Sunday, 20 December 2009 19:03 (3 years ago) Permalink
Joel David Moore starred in Hatchet, therefore he blows.
― Simon H., Sunday, 20 December 2009 19:06 (3 years ago) Permalink
no they weren't classic characters or anything but they were sympathetic enough. i thought worthington carried the movie ok. certainly more than in the terminator movie.
― tiger's wood (latebloomer), Sunday, 20 December 2009 19:21 (3 years ago) Permalink
i can't really think of any movies i think of as "classics" where the characters aren't the most memorable thing, or at least in the top tier of memorability.
― akira goldsman (s1ocki), Sunday, 20 December 2009 19:24 (3 years ago) Permalink
i didnt even see this movie and i know that it sucks i cant believe that people who actually spent twelve bucks on it are still defending it
― max, Sunday, 20 December 2009 19:27 (3 years ago) Permalink
oh jeez
― tiger's wood (latebloomer), Sunday, 20 December 2009 19:29 (3 years ago) Permalink
$15.50 cdn in digital, non-IMAX 3d!
― Simon H., Sunday, 20 December 2009 19:32 (3 years ago) Permalink
― akira goldsman (s1ocki), Sunday, December 20, 2009 7:24 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark
don't know if anyone here is arguing that it's a classic. i'm not.
― tiger's wood (latebloomer), Sunday, 20 December 2009 19:32 (3 years ago) Permalink
yes u are
― akira goldsman (s1ocki), Sunday, 20 December 2009 19:34 (3 years ago) Permalink
jk
― akira goldsman (s1ocki), Sunday, 20 December 2009 19:35 (3 years ago) Permalink
$18 is pretty steep
― leave garbage snickers eat snickers leave garbage (jeff), Sunday, 20 December 2009 19:48 (3 years ago) Permalink
This avoids all the old I-love-the-smell-of-Napalm-in-the-morning tropes and instead takes an approach that's far, far more relevant to the era of drone warfare.
― The Hood Won't Jump (Eazy), Monday, 21 December 2009 03:44 (3 years ago) Permalink
It's not about character any more than The Thin Red Line is. It's about bugs and birds and animals and civilization and war.
― The Hood Won't Jump (Eazy), Monday, 21 December 2009 03:45 (3 years ago) Permalink
I mean, folks in Langley dropping bombs on tribal weddings in Pakistan aren't thinking about the personalities of the people on the ground.
― The Hood Won't Jump (Eazy), Monday, 21 December 2009 03:46 (3 years ago) Permalink
I mean, that's what I took "I see you" to mean at the end.
― The Hood Won't Jump (Eazy), Monday, 21 December 2009 03:53 (3 years ago) Permalink
even after my critical-yet-generous assessment of this, the deadpan consensus among majority of everyone i know is 'yeah i'm going to see this hiiigh'avatar in takin us all back win i guess
― dragon movies (rrrobyn), Monday, 21 December 2009 04:13 (3 years ago) Permalink
lol that's exactly what i said to some ilxors irl last night iirc
― jabba hands, Monday, 21 December 2009 04:15 (3 years ago) Permalink
― The Hood Won't Jump (Eazy), Monday, 21 December 2009 03:45 (55 minutes ago) Permalink
TTRL is very character-driven. I don't follow you here.
― Matt Armstrong, Monday, 21 December 2009 04:42 (3 years ago) Permalink
the problem is that this film's ideas about animals and civilization & war are dishonest & juvenile & not well considered
― deej, Monday, 21 December 2009 04:43 (3 years ago) Permalink
seriously with all the animals six-legged the na'vi happen to be the only tetrapods? i call bullshit!
― tiger's wood (latebloomer), Monday, 21 December 2009 04:45 (3 years ago) Permalink
;-)
I'm amused when I run across (not here fortunately) editorials gushing about how District 9 was so much superior to this. Umm guys, *both* movies are obvious, hamfisted, and regressive.
― Elvis Telecom, Monday, 21 December 2009 04:53 (3 years ago) Permalink
District 9 seemed to be way more confused as to what it was about. But of course that makes it a much more interesting movie.
― tiger's wood (latebloomer), Monday, 21 December 2009 05:09 (3 years ago) Permalink
To be clear: I meant that D9 is interesting because it is more contradictory and complex, not because being confused is interesting in itself.
― tiger's wood (latebloomer), Monday, 21 December 2009 06:14 (3 years ago) Permalink
― deej, Sunday, December 20, 2009 8:43 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark
i don't think so, no more so than star wars is "dishonest & juvenile" about good & evil & the harmonies of the cosmos. it presents a fair portrait of certain realities, and also a fantasy about how things ought to be, how evil might be defeated. the fundamental messages about the sanctity of life & the value of a compassionate sense of interconnection - and about the way humans excuse their own greed & arrogance - were, i thought, right on. i'd go so far as to consider it an honest and thoughtful adventure film, though one intentionally aimed at young people & a "family audience".
― a dimension that can only be accessed through self-immolation (contenderizer), Monday, 21 December 2009 06:53 (3 years ago) Permalink
i'll defend the characters, too. stephen lang as quaritch & zoe saldana as smurfette were especially vivid & memorable, and it's true that these were the film's most colorful and exaggerated characters - and that the rest were relatively bland. but i don't see that as a fault. though he was not an especially colorful presence, sam worthington was excellent as sully. i empathized with and liked the character, and would call it a quietly soulful performance rather than a bland one. human-sully's low presence, emotional fragility and weakness/disability became extremely poignant in the film's final act. (thinking of the emphasis of the physical differences between quaritch and sully in sully's "dark night of the soul" moment, and on neytiri's cradling of sully's tiny body.)
― a dimension that can only be accessed through self-immolation (contenderizer), Monday, 21 December 2009 07:05 (3 years ago) Permalink
― deej, Monday, 21 December 2009 08:42 (3 years ago) Permalink
― a dimension that can only be accessed through self-immolation (contenderizer), Monday, 21 December 2009 08:48 (3 years ago) Permalink
― cozwn, Monday, 21 December 2009 08:50 (3 years ago) Permalink
― a dimension that can only be accessed through self-immolation (contenderizer), Monday, December 21, 2009 12:53 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
it doesnt present a fair portrait at all:
1) its not 'fair' to draw parallels w/ this world, as if you're saying something about the state of this world, and then have those dilemmas resolved by 'god.'
2) i think its pretty dishonest to set up a framework w/ an ostensible nature/tradition vs. technology/progress fight, then undercut any meaning it could have or significance by giving the guys on the side of 'nature' a bunch of guns and not allowing them to use nature to fight. how are you gonna give the na'vi guns?? if this is a grand dramatic battle between two opposing philosophies you cant have the forces of 'nature' cheating like that! those guns were developed by the forces of progress & industrialization & mining. the na'vi should have fought w/ the tools at their disposal -- im not just mad that they dont explain how they even get these guns in the first place, but that by using them the story undercuts the idea that these are not just two warring groups randomly thrown together, but that there are philosophies underlining this battle.
3) why does the main character become their leader & convince them to martyr themselves? what did he think he was doing for them, and what was the purpose of their fight? its set up like hes got some grand plan, and instead he throws them all at a bunch of guys armed with missiles and guns, where they're torn to shreds (the only way the ending could be 'happy' was that god had to interfere!)
4) He displays this battle in a dishonest fashion -- suddenly, arrows are piercing cockpit windows, and theres a point at which the battle shows one person getting arrowed for everyone one person getting shot, as if the pitched battle is 'close' at first, and despite bravery they are barely overcome ... this is so manipulative considering the framework the film sets up. i dont care if theyre eight feet tall riding six-legged horses, a bunch of dudes with machine guns are going to just annihilate them.
5) why is any parallel w/ 'differences' between groups of people undercut by allowing the main character to fully transform into a na'vi person at the end? this is a CHEAT to let the audience feel like we have a happy ending that once again undercuts any dilemma the film sets up -- its yet another dishonest resolution.
― deej, Monday, 21 December 2009 08:55 (3 years ago) Permalink
why does the main character become their leader & convince them to martyr themselves?
because he nails his INSANE MOVE
tbh i feel bad for his o.g. dragon thing, fancy getting dumped like that, barely even got to know the guy
― dyao know what i mean (acoleuthic), Monday, 21 December 2009 08:57 (3 years ago) Permalink
the reason star wars works is it sets up a system where the dark side appears more powerful & is more alluring, but ends up corrupting the person who tries to use it. this isnt undercut because luke refuses to kill his father in the end; the philosophies presented in a consistent (albeit simplistic) way, and the characters' behavior reflects these philosophies.
― deej, Monday, 21 December 2009 09:01 (3 years ago) Permalink
im not even dealing w/ the second paragraph because your argument seems to be "they are memorable because they are memorable" & i just dont agree i think they are the opposite of iconic. even your writing seems pretty sheepishly defensive ("hes not bland! hes ... 'quietly soulful'!")
― deej, Monday, 21 December 2009 09:11 (3 years ago) Permalink
various deej points:
1) i don't see how the deus-ex-machina was "unfair". actually, it was set up & executed pretty honorably as such things go. and i don't see why we should be troubled that the film draws parallels to but does not exactly match real world situations. as far as i'm concerned, cameron made his socio-political points, but allowed the story to develop & conclude on its own, fantastical terms. and that's fair play.
2) i was a bit surprised by the na'vi's recourse to guns, but it made sense in character. their home had been annihilated and they were being driven to exile & possibly worse. why wouldn't they use whatever tools they had at their disposal? and i think it's pretty reasonable to assume that what few guns they did have were provided by sully @ co, from what was available in the chopper & the remote base. after all, that's who was shown using the guns for the most part - the scientists in avatar form. didn't think that the use of guns compromised the basic clash of philosophies, anyway. the two groups' philosopical/spiritual differences seemed to run much deeper than that.
3) sully became the leader because he had to, and because he's the hero protagonist. and he threw them into hopeless battle because it was all he could think to do - as it turns out he thought wrong. perhaps he hoped that more na'vi would arrive in time to overwhelm the soldiers (something the soldiers themselves seemed to fear, regardless of their seemingly superior killing tech).
4) i'm with you on the arrows-piercing-windows bit. we'd been shown previously that this was impossible, laughable. maybe range was the issue, but this should have been handled better, i'll give you that. agree also that the film "changes the frame" with regard to the power balance between the na'vi and the soldiers. early in the film, it is made clear that the na'vi are viewed by the soldiers as dangerous but eradicable. suddenly at the end, the battle is presented as an open question. this shift, however, was better explained than the suddenly pregnable cockpit glass: the "toruk makto" unified\s the local tribes, suddenly altering the balance of power.
― a dimension that can only be accessed through self-immolation (contenderizer), Monday, 21 December 2009 09:21 (3 years ago) Permalink
― deej, Monday, December 21, 2009 1:01 AM (19 minutes ago) Bookmark
i actually thought that avatar did a much better job than star wars when it came to honestly communicating the appeal of the "dark side" - and in hinging an emotional payoff on the hero's choice between darkness and light. the opening of the film very effectively conveys quaritch's POV and appeal to sully. his strength and capability in comparison to sully's disability. his appeal to sully's honor, loyalty and calling, as well as to the memory of sully's more accomplished older brother. his ability to offer a return to full physical capacity, etc.
in both films, of course, we never really doubt the hero's dedication to the side of good, but i thought avatar did a great job with the appeal of darkness.
― a dimension that can only be accessed through self-immolation (contenderizer), Monday, 21 December 2009 09:31 (3 years ago) Permalink
can you tell me what those points are.
― deej, Monday, 21 December 2009 09:42 (3 years ago) Permalink
im sorry dude i just tend not to enjoy 'fantastical worlds' where the consequences don't hinge in any way on the characters' actions
― deej, Monday, 21 December 2009 09:43 (3 years ago) Permalink
the real problem with the oncoming onslaught of modernization/industrialization/white dudes taking over worlds thing is that the natural world is not a match for it. when the europeans invaded north america, guns vs. bows and arrows, they conquered. they might have lost a few battles early on, but the reality of modernization/industrialization is a dilemma of 'how do you deal with this expanding, invasive population without killing the native people or damaging the natural environment.' the film's answer to this question was, 'fight back, die, then have god save you.' it set up a huge conflict & has to cheat to resolve it in a way that makes people feel good when they leave the theater -- if it wanted to be about how invading humans are assholes, it needed to deal with the solution in a way that felt true & honest ... and it failed at this
― deej, Monday, 21 December 2009 10:08 (3 years ago) Permalink
wHICH IS SOMETHING THAT dISTRICT 9 oops caps does, despite having a different dynamic set-up.
― exploding angel vagina (Scik Mouthy), Monday, 21 December 2009 11:33 (3 years ago) Permalink
i think yr misconstruing the film's intent & methods, deej. and i don't accept that it needs to conclude with a real-world solution to or consequence of imperialist conquest/capitalist exploitation in order to be satisfying and "true" wr2 the issues it raises. for me, the conclusion was all the more poignant and powerful for its wish-fulfillment UNreality - because in our world, native peoples have no all-powerful gaia spirit to summon for aid, and thus are all-too-easily displaced if not slaughtered outright. we know this, and the contrast between the improbably happy ending offered in the film's fantasy world and the tragic ending that so often ensues in our own is, imo, quite moving.
suspect that we're just never gonna see eye-to-eye on this...
― a dimension that can only be accessed through self-immolation (contenderizer), Monday, 21 December 2009 12:18 (3 years ago) Permalink
i don't think so, no more so than star wars is "dishonest & juvenile" about good & evil
i must admit: lol
― Tracer Hand, Monday, 21 December 2009 12:26 (3 years ago) Permalink
district 9's not a fair comparison either, as it doesn't really conclude, but simply pauses in media res. we don't know in that film's case what the ultimate resolution will be. it's perhaps implied that a big ol deus ex machina is waiting out there in space to come and rain some retributive (and, wr2 the real-world parallels raised, quite improbable) revenge down on the human overseers. but i guess we have to wait and see.
main difference i see between the two is that avatar is basically a kid's flick, and it aims to inspire (while raising some very troubling and difficult issues), while district 9 is a rather grim, brutal and despairing film made for an adult audience. therefore, there's bound to be a bit more sugar in the former, but i don't think there's anything wrong with that.
― a dimension that can only be accessed through self-immolation (contenderizer), Monday, 21 December 2009 12:28 (3 years ago) Permalink
x-post ha ;)
well of course it is, but not in a contemptible way
― a dimension that can only be accessed through self-immolation (contenderizer), Monday, December 21, 2009 6:18 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
argh dude i wasnt saying it needs to have a 'real world solution' but just that if you're going to set up a system, u have to have things behave w/in that system in an honest way & i dont think this film was remotely close to doing that. i guess if yr cool with films about wish fulfillment alternate realities you can dig this, but to me it rang entirely false. i dont buy the "its powerful because instead of being tragic, it made us happy" & it feels like yr writing paragraphs of exposition to explain fairly simple ideas as if you can write your way into believing it yourself
― deej, Monday, 21 December 2009 14:51 (3 years ago) Permalink
the real problem with the oncoming onslaught of modernization/industrialization/white dudes taking over worlds thing is that the natural world is not a match for it.
Boxcutters, though...
― The Hood Won't Jump (Eazy), Monday, 21 December 2009 15:30 (3 years ago) Permalink
http://www.deadline.com/hollywood/johnny-knoxville-promises-avatar-technology-in-2010-jackass-3d/
― fictional, homosexual, Baltimore hoodlum (forksclovetofu), Monday, 21 December 2009 15:54 (3 years ago) Permalink
oh man a 3D Jackass might cause fainting
― Rage, Resentment, Spleen (Dr Morbius), Monday, 21 December 2009 15:56 (3 years ago) Permalink
"We're going to take the same 3D technology James Cameron used in AVATAR and stick it up Steve O's butt."
― fictional, homosexual, Baltimore hoodlum (forksclovetofu), Monday, 21 December 2009 15:58 (3 years ago) Permalink
I bet within a few years there'll be a Ronin/Bourne-type movie with this technology. Maybe the next Bond?
― The Hood Won't Jump (Eazy), Monday, 21 December 2009 16:00 (3 years ago) Permalink
i hate 3d
― max, Monday, 21 December 2009 16:05 (3 years ago) Permalink
btw can anyone confirm there are battle scenes in this scored to CARMINA BURANA? If true, how original!
― Rage, Resentment, Spleen (Dr Morbius), Monday, 21 December 2009 16:10 (3 years ago) Permalink
So, is this worth going to in 2D? My wife insists 3D movies make her nauseated.
― Thulsa Doob (Jon Lewis), Monday, 21 December 2009 16:17 (3 years ago) Permalink
Nah, the first assault on Hometree is accompanied by Takemitsu's "A Flock Descends Into The Pentagonal Garden" and the climactic battle is some kinda Meredith Monk / Laurie Anderson mash-up.
― Michael Jones, Monday, 21 December 2009 16:20 (3 years ago) Permalink
man this movie was awesome
― =皿= (dyao), Monday, 21 December 2009 17:00 (3 years ago) Permalink
― dyao know what i mean (acoleuthic), Monday, December 21, 2009 3:57 AM (8 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
A+
― akira goldsman (s1ocki), Monday, 21 December 2009 17:33 (3 years ago) Permalink
I will have more to say tomorrow but I gotta lol at people attacking this from the perch of the morals and ethics of star wars
― =皿= (dyao), Monday, 21 December 2009 17:34 (3 years ago) Permalink
han silo saving the day certainly feels more honest than rhinos, yes
― =皿= (dyao), Monday, 21 December 2009 17:36 (3 years ago) Permalink
this movie shouldn't be surprising at all to anyone who has seen the abyss
― =皿= (dyao), Monday, 21 December 2009 17:40 (3 years ago) Permalink
i hear the fifth avatar is love
― fictional, homosexual, Baltimore hoodlum (forksclovetofu), Monday, 21 December 2009 17:42 (3 years ago) Permalink
general 3-d discussion thred:
3D
― Dean Gaffney's December (history mayne), Monday, 21 December 2009 17:47 (3 years ago) Permalink
is the thread in 3d?
― akira goldsman (s1ocki), Monday, 21 December 2009 17:49 (3 years ago) Permalink
― akira goldsman (s1ocki), Monday, 21 December 2009 17:33 (28 minutes ago)
oh yeah totally that was sad. you know homeboy probably found a sweet lady dragon (or boy dragon, if that's his thing) soon after though.
― tiger's wood (latebloomer), Monday, 21 December 2009 18:04 (3 years ago) Permalink
― fictional, homosexual, Baltimore hoodlum (forksclovetofu), Monday, December 21, 2009 5:42 PM (21 minutes ago) Bookmark
^ lol
― tiger's wood (latebloomer), Monday, 21 December 2009 18:05 (3 years ago) Permalink
due to weird eye problems, i can't see 3D. i still enjoyed the movie (and actually did manage to see a tiny bit of the 3D which really tripped me out because it's never worked for me in my life)
this 3D is different from any 3D i've seen. even the glasses aren't those cheap red and blue things.
― richie aprile (rockapads), Monday, 21 December 2009 18:08 (3 years ago) Permalink
how do the new 3d glasses work if you *already wear glasses*?
― Dean Gaffney's December (history mayne), Monday, 21 December 2009 18:11 (3 years ago) Permalink
they act as an avatar for your old glasses
― =皿= (dyao), Monday, 21 December 2009 18:13 (3 years ago) Permalink
they were big, i just put them over mine. if i would have known the movie was going to be in 3D i would have put my contacts in, but i wasn't paying enough attention to the hype.
― richie aprile (rockapads), Monday, 21 December 2009 18:13 (3 years ago) Permalink
― Dean Gaffney's December (history mayne), Monday, December 21, 2009 1:11 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
somewhere james cameron realizes this and his head explodes
― the finest of display name homies (s1ocki), Monday, 21 December 2009 18:17 (3 years ago) Permalink
i just wore the 3d glasses over my regular glasses
― tiger's wood (latebloomer), Monday, 21 December 2009 18:18 (3 years ago) Permalink
*head explodes*
― that sex version of "blue thunder." (Mr. Que), Monday, 21 December 2009 18:18 (3 years ago) Permalink
If you put 3-D glasses over regular glasses, is the movie in 4-D?
I thought this flick was a blast. Couple of questions, for the spoiler set:
1) Who was underfunding this whole expedition? They make a point of saying it's not military, strictly mercenary, but then again, there's an awful lot of Marine talk/talk of Marines. Who's giving the orders? The government? Which government? The Company? Under whose jurisdiction? Giovanni Ribisi? It's totally unclear. There's motivation out the wazoo, but it's unclear who exactly is the one being motivated back on earth.
2) Why go through even the pretense/expense of making nice to the natives when they were clearly going to steamroll it from the very start? (I mean, don't people in the movies ever watch movies?)
3) If it takes five years to get to Pandora from Earth, how was unobtainium (heh) ever discovered on Pandora in the first place?
4) Michelle Rodriguez totally deserts/breaks ranks/disobeys orders in plain sight, then pops up on the base ship a few scenes later to free the good guys, as if nothing happened. What's up with that?
5) Where, exactly, were the vast riches of unobtainium? Under the home tree or under the fiber optics tree? I'm unclear why they bulldozed the tree.
6) Not a question, but I thought the OG dragon totally got the shaft, too, especially after they made such a point of him and it being BFF. Poor dragon! :(
― Josh in Chicago, Monday, 21 December 2009 18:22 (3 years ago) Permalink
― DavidM, Monday, 21 December 2009 18:24 (3 years ago) Permalink
I always suspected the guy from Faith No More could see in 4-D.
― Josh in Chicago, Monday, 21 December 2009 18:25 (3 years ago) Permalink
u want it avatar but u can't have it
― fictional, homosexual, Baltimore hoodlum (forksclovetofu), Monday, 21 December 2009 18:25 (3 years ago) Permalink
I like how every animal on this planet has a USB cable
― =皿= (dyao), Monday, 21 December 2009 18:31 (3 years ago) Permalink
xp to Josh
more spoilers etc
1) my understanding is that it was like a Chevron type corporation with Ribisi as its Pandora representative. the 'military' was a Blackwater type private security company staffed with a bunch of ex-Marines. i sort of cringed reading Ebert's review that he got this wrong and assumed it was the government.
2) it's standard procedure in the third world, isn't it? try to buy them first, keep it all on the d-low and all that. not sure why they were so worried, though; i didn't see any media on the planet.
3) who knows?
4) maybe she was waiting for her article 15. i have no idea - you make a good point. how did they not know she was going to steal a ship and all that.
5) seemed to be under the home tree. they were trying to destroy the network hub to demoralize them and disrupt their communications or something - as more of a shock and awe reaction against the huge massing of troops from around the planet. made sense to me, i guess.
6) well he let the big dragon go at the end, so maybe he brought old dragon some flowers and candy and apologized like hell.
― richie aprile (rockapads), Monday, 21 December 2009 18:36 (3 years ago) Permalink
he probably fed the old dragon to the new one
― =皿= (dyao), Monday, 21 December 2009 18:41 (3 years ago) Permalink
the circle of life!
― tiger's wood (latebloomer), Monday, 21 December 2009 18:41 (3 years ago) Permalink
the one plot point that REALLY bugs me is the fact that sully was the only one to break thru to the navis because of a mystical prophecy type shit - ie the bugs landing on him - rather than any of his actions. i hate that stuff.
also did u find that the movie sort of tipped that shaggy would be jealous of him and go bad or betray him somehow but it never happened?
― the finest of display name homies (s1ocki), Monday, 21 December 2009 18:46 (3 years ago) Permalink
i agree about the bug things landing on him. that was lame. every other 'mystical' thing i can remember was explained by physical shit.
i was glad that the jealous prince storyline didn't go anywhere. there were enough rehashed clichés in the movie - it didn't need another.
― richie aprile (rockapads), Monday, 21 December 2009 18:55 (3 years ago) Permalink
I did notice that tech-head Cameron couldn't resist tossing in not one, not two but I think three gags where head jarhead holds his breath rather than grabs an oxygen mask to save time in asskicking. Clearly Cameron's deep sea diving gave him some ideas (and not just because Pandora looks like a big aquarium).
Also, I wonder if the $300 mil spent on the movie could have built him one of those giant robot exoskeletons he so clearly fetishizes? I think by now everyone knows what to chip in and buy Jim for Christmas.
― Josh in Chicago, Monday, 21 December 2009 19:13 (3 years ago) Permalink
ya i didnt want that but i found it weird it was sort of implied xp
― the finest of display name homies (s1ocki), Monday, 21 December 2009 19:13 (3 years ago) Permalink
it feels like yr writing paragraphs of exposition to explain fairly simple ideas as if you can write your way into believing it yourself
― deej, Monday, December 21, 2009 6:51 AM (6 hours ago) Bookmark
i just write the way i think, deej. wandering, convoluted, whatever. at this point i'm happy just agreeing to disagree.
― a dimension that can only be accessed through self-immolation (contenderizer), Monday, 21 December 2009 21:38 (3 years ago) Permalink
im not actually as down on this as i sound in this thread, but the imbalanced amount of "wow this film is the new star wars"-consensus-stuff really pushes the obvious kajlueanfekunflaeiunflaiud aspects out yknow??
― deej, Monday, 21 December 2009 21:40 (3 years ago) Permalink
ya deej i'm kind of the same way, the sheer fucking insanity of the praise this is getting (and the way it's being pushed like an agenda) is gonna end up radicalizing me
― the finest of display name homies (s1ocki), Monday, 21 December 2009 21:43 (3 years ago) Permalink
liked the way the final fight inverted the end of aliens, wr2 the character in an robo-suit/mini gundam.
― Josh in Chicago, Monday, December 21, 2009 11:13 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark
this reminded me of the abyss in a lot of ways (aliens, too - the dropship scene in the beginning was almost shot-for-shot aliens), especially in the breath-holding and immersion imagery. cameron's auteurist tics.
― a dimension that can only be accessed through self-immolation (contenderizer), Monday, 21 December 2009 21:43 (3 years ago) Permalink
also re: the abandoned first dragon
don't we assume that he want back to his original ride after releasing the toruk at the end?
― a dimension that can only be accessed through self-immolation (contenderizer), Monday, 21 December 2009 21:45 (3 years ago) Permalink
original ride was like oh hell no
― the finest of display name homies (s1ocki), Monday, 21 December 2009 21:47 (3 years ago) Permalink
the movie this reminds me of the most is 300, where its an impressive technical feat marred by objectionable philosophies
― deej, Monday, 21 December 2009 21:53 (3 years ago) Permalink
to me it's a technical feat marred by doofy aesthetic choices
― the finest of display name homies (s1ocki), Monday, 21 December 2009 21:55 (3 years ago) Permalink
and poor writing
― Simon H., Monday, 21 December 2009 21:55 (3 years ago) Permalink
I mean, shit, hundreds of millions and they couldn't throw in a Darabont or something to polish 'er up a bit?
― Simon H., Monday, 21 December 2009 21:56 (3 years ago) Permalink
― the finest of display name homies (s1ocki), Monday, December 21, 2009 10:46 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark
sully mentions this in his video log, said he was glad that the tension between himself and spellman was abating (or words to that effect). thought this was a nice if underdeveloped bit of character business. it was probably extraneous, but added a tiny bit of depth to spellman. did expect it to lead to something more dramatic, though.
― a dimension that can only be accessed through self-immolation (contenderizer), Monday, 21 December 2009 21:56 (3 years ago) Permalink
didn't lucas hire darabont to polish up ep 1 x[
― the finest of display name homies (s1ocki), Monday, 21 December 2009 21:57 (3 years ago) Permalink
oh god i forgot about the video blogging
― the finest of display name homies (s1ocki), Monday, 21 December 2009 21:58 (3 years ago) Permalink
well ok not Darabont nec. but you know what I mean.
― Simon H., Monday, 21 December 2009 21:59 (3 years ago) Permalink
This thread got a whole heap less fun once people started seeing and enjoying the film.
― Attention please, a child has been lost in the tunnel of goats. (James Morrison), Monday, 21 December 2009 22:27 (3 years ago) Permalink
oh it's pretty fun if you haven't seen the movie and have no plans to do so
― congratulations (n/a), Monday, 21 December 2009 22:28 (3 years ago) Permalink
hahahah, it's true!
― fictional, homosexual, Baltimore hoodlum (forksclovetofu), Monday, 21 December 2009 22:34 (3 years ago) Permalink
I actually didn't have much problem with the script/dialogue. Considering all Cameron had to get across, I thought the number of groan inducing "I'm going to jam as much exposition into this spare five seconds as I can" moments were pretty minimal, as far as these kinds of things go. If you think about the sheer amount of info (visual or otherwise) crammed into here, it's pretty impressive. I mean, writing has always been Cameron's weakest link, but the groaners in "Avatar" are <<<<< the groaners in "Titanic," and he was also working with top notch leads in that one.
― Josh in Chicago, Monday, 21 December 2009 22:37 (3 years ago) Permalink
well if there's one thing i value in storytelling, it's the ability to cram as much information as possible into a short period of time
― the finest of display name homies (s1ocki), Monday, 21 December 2009 22:57 (3 years ago) Permalink
actually, that would have made more sense if this movie wasn't 3 hours long
I actually didn't have much problem with the script/dialogue. Considering all Cameron had to get across, I thought the number of groan inducing "I'm going to jam as much exposition into this spare five seconds as I can" moments were pretty minimal, as far as these kinds of things go.
― Josh in Chicago, Monday, December 21, 2009 2:37 PM (19 minutes ago) Bookmark
^^^^ this
and a lot of the most blatant groaners, as quoted by critics mocking the film's dialogue ("you're not in kansas anymore; you're on pandora!"), were ludicrous in character. most were delivered by quaritch, to emphasize his goonish, action-movie manliness.
― a dimension that can only be accessed through self-immolation (contenderizer), Monday, 21 December 2009 23:04 (3 years ago) Permalink
ludicrous as it might be, i could totally imagine dudes like him saying those types of things. there was so much clichéd dialog in basic training...
― richie aprile (rockapads), Monday, 21 December 2009 23:06 (3 years ago) Permalink
― The Hood Won't Jump (Eazy), Monday, 21 December 2009 23:27 (3 years ago) Permalink
― a dimension that can only be accessed through self-immolation (contenderizer), Monday, December 21, 2009 5:04 PM (59 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
― deej, Tuesday, 22 December 2009 00:04 (3 years ago) Permalink
wham i always apologizin for these nazis?
― a dimension that can only be accessed through self-immolation (contenderizer), Tuesday, 22 December 2009 00:13 (3 years ago) Permalink
its set up like hes got some grand plan, and instead he throws them all at a bunch of guys armed with missiles and gunstie fighters, where they're torn to shreds (the only way the ending could be 'happy' was that godhan solo had to interfere!)
― =皿= (dyao), Tuesday, 22 December 2009 02:21 (3 years ago) Permalink
The worst thing about this is that you KNOW Michael Bay is going to use this 3D tech on whatever abortion he has planned next.
― Elvis Telecom, Tuesday, 22 December 2009 02:29 (3 years ago) Permalink
And now you too can truly know what it's like to be right under a pair of giant robot balls.
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 22 December 2009 02:33 (3 years ago) Permalink
^^^But they still can't show us how they taste
― .gif of the magpie (Jon Lewis), Tuesday, 22 December 2009 02:34 (3 years ago) Permalink
ok guise by this time wednesday ill be an avatar imax 3d vet!
― ice cr?m, Tuesday, 22 December 2009 02:39 (3 years ago) Permalink
be back to share my important impressions!
― ice cr?m, Tuesday, 22 December 2009 02:40 (3 years ago) Permalink
preview: *_*
― ice cr?m, Tuesday, 22 December 2009 02:41 (3 years ago) Permalink
By this time wednesday I will only be a 2D vet.
I have prepared myself by watchin Waterworld on Netflix Watch Instantly last night o_O
― .gif of the magpie (Jon Lewis), Tuesday, 22 December 2009 02:44 (3 years ago) Permalink
― =皿= (dyao), Tuesday, 22 December 2009 02:44 (3 years ago)