Avatar - A great movie or a great waste of 200 mill

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DanDroiD

Galvanizer
There has been a lot of hype about James Cameron's Avatar, and I am one of the many excited people looking forward to seeing this movie.

I have been reading up on it lately and as usual there is enough discordant points of view to confuse me. There are comments and articles that say it is everything from revolutionary to revelationary, but everyone seems to agree that in some way it will change the face of CGI as we are familiar with it.

avatarheadernew1.jpg


Here are two points of view and their sources, see for your self and make up your own minds and feel free to tell us all what you think in the poll too. :)

By now we would expect that if you’re a savvy lover of movies who browses through the halls of the interwebs, you’ve seen that James Cameron showed up in San Diego a little while ago to treat Comic-Con attendees to 24-minutes of footage from his upcoming opus Avatar, a film that brings with it the promise of taking 3D cinema to the next level. And while we didn’t have anyone in Hall H at the time due to some unforeseen circumstances, we did want to bring you some additional details and reactions from our friends and neighbors around the movie blogosphere.

To kick things off, here are some facts that we’ve gleaned from the various reports around the web:

  • Cameron showed off 24-minutes of footage, 6 scenes in all.
  • The story revolves around a precious resource that exists on the planet Pandora, which cannot be mined by humans due to the native inhabitants (the Na’vi) and dangerous landscape of the planet.
  • The audience got looks at the Na’vi, as well as human-created Na’vi that are piloted by soldiers in an attempt to infiltrate the Na’vi civilization.
  • The audience also got a few immersive looks at the world of Pandora, which has a luminescent quality to it, the dense jungle actually lighting up the planet.
  • Audiences around the world will be treated to 15-minutes of footage on August 21st in important IMAX theaters, for free.

And now on to some of the reactions. First of all, it seems clear that James Cameron’s film is heavy on aesthetic innovations, with many attending journos citing the brilliant look of Pandora and the 3D. According to Garth Franklin at Dark Horizons, it “looks like one of the most ambitious projects ever made, and certainly in terms of CG photo realism no other film comes close thus far.” He also went on to say what this writer was specifically looking to hear, that Cameron’s use of CG is more than just a gimmick. “The 3D itself is utilized EXACTLY what the technology should be – never drawing attention to itself, immersing you in the world rather than distracting you with gimmicks,” he explains. “Can’t really recall one moment where someone throws or points something outward to deliberately show off that you’re watching 3D in action.

Avatar-MarketStreetV3But ambitious as the project may seem, there are still a few skeptics out there. Devin Faraci from CHUD applauded the advanced look of the film, but also shows some hesitation in calling it anything close to ‘revolutionary’. Faraci calls it an “evolutionary jump, not a revolutionary one.” He also noted the very-CGI look of Pandora, which sounds like it is in contrast to the detail seen in the faces of the Na’vi. “Avatar looks like a very advanced CGI toon,” he writes. “When CGI Navi are interacting with CGI monsters in CGI landscapes, it all looks very CGI. This is, frankly, not photoreal.”

Others are more hyperbolic, including Total Film’s commentary that calls Avatar “Too real to be animation, never exactly docu-style, Cameron’s film is unquestionably something entirely new.”

The rest of the article
Click to expand...
Another Point of View

James Cameron captained the biggest box-office smash of all time, his Titanic having grossed nearly $2 billion worldwide. But that was 12 years ago, long before the recession appeared on anyone's radar. Now, even Hollywood is feeling the pinch. Last Friday, hoping for another Titanic-size hit, 20th Century Fox took the unprecedented step of screening 16 minutes of Cameron's latest, the science-fiction epic Avatar, for those who scored free tickets on the Web. But will this odd strategy — luring sci-fi fans out of their basements once for a peak at what Fox hopes will be a longer, second engagement on December 18, the film's release date — make for smooth sailing?

"Avatar Day," which studio flacks hyperbolically described as a "global, history-making event," kicked off with the unveiling of the film's two-minute-long trailer (in both cinemas and on the Web) and culminated with evening showcases of the extended footage in IMAX 3-D theaters worldwide. History's not always kind, however. Within minutes of the trailer's online debut, frantic fanboy cries of "That's it?" were clogging message boards — quite an unexpected change from last month, when "King of the World" Cameron personally presented 24 minutes to an enthusiastic Comic-Con crowd in San Diego.

Locally, the college-aged viewers who filled the AMC/Loews Boston Common to capacity for the 12:01 am premiere of Quentin Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds were unmoved by this two-minute peek. Appearing as it did immediately after a teaser for Christopher Nolan's Inception didn't help. While The Dark Knight (the second-largest domestic moneymaker behind Titanic) auteur's name alone elicits rapturous applause, the words "from the director of Titanic" do not appear to resonate with this coveted demographic. The Avatar clip, which begins with futuristic military action involving marines in mech suits battling on the distant moon of Pandora, contained a single line of dialogue delivered by the cartoonishly CGI, 10-foot-tall title character: "This is great!" Based on their stone-faced silence, the audience didn't seem to agree.

The problem is, while Cameron created much of the aesthetic of modern sci-fi, his "game-changing" work here lacks wonder (at least from what he's revealed) and, ironically, appears derivative of the very properties he's inspired, from Halo to District 9.

Later in the day, I saw the extended 16-minute preview at the Jordan's Furniture IMAX in Reading in 3-D, which seemed slightly off-register at times, a quality that actually added to the artificiality of the images. The Zach Snyder–ish slow-down/speed-up style that Cameron has adopted disappoints, as do the lackluster designs of the "Na'vi," the blue-skinned creatures that I presume will occupy much of the film's running time and romantic subplot.

Fox should have been preaching to the choir here, but the pittance of polite applause that concluded each "sold-out" screening (empty seats remained) wasn't what I'd call "history-making."

Iceberg . . . dead ahead?

The source
Click to expand...
 
I read somewhere that Cameron wanted to make this movie several years ago, but had to wait until the technology was sufficiently developed.. With all that hype surrounding this movie, I just hope it is a decent enough watch. I'll wait for more reviews before I make up my mind.
 
^^ Nope, not at all. Air Bender's being directed by Shyamlan. This one looks to be cool though. Eagerly waiting for it! :D
 
I think it will be a failure. However I will definitely watch it just because it is a sci-fi. :P
 
The CGI in the trailer was pretty impressive. I would definitely watch it once just to know what all the hype is about.
 
Why people are getting too much inquisitive about a movie? Is it nature or show off?

As evident from reviews different people have different views. But majority agrees, me including, that this will be a another major hit. Most people i knew went to see titanic not for its story or script or anything. but they wanted to see how the most expensive film looks like. Cameron is cashing on the wow factor rather than the hype factor. People around the web is asking whether its a anime, maybe thats because we have to see it the way Cameron wants it. in Stereoscopic 3D. That reminds me, No HD/Blu-Ray rip for this then.. eh??.. :(

The film will be a success, no doubt about it. Its Cameron, it has to be :).
 
there's no option for "no comments"? :P

Ok my view is that, 3D films have a long way to go yet. The film wont be revolutionary most probably, and it will become obvious when we see monsters fighting against humans.

No matter how good the cgi is it will look cgi and not real. i think skin renders have a long way to go before they look almost real instead of plasticy or matte.

wonder when prices of 3d panels will drop.....
 
Actually, now that you mention is 6pack... there should be an option for neutral stance... something that says, "I'll watch this movie, but I'm not building any prejudice/pre-notion about it".

Cause, so far I've seen both type of comments about this... and this age of internet and connectivity, everybody can let out their opinion. So I would rather not make up my mind if this is going to good or bad and just watch it and decide. Sometimes looking a trailer you can tell if the movie is going to suck, but sometimes a good trailer can mask a really bad movie too.

I like the trailer of Avataar, but if the movie itself is good or bad, that's decided only after watching it.
 
I really don't care about what critics or media says - its all hype and their marketing gimmick(they need to sale their magazine or hits on their article/site/blog)- since someone has invested so much to create something - I will go to theater and spend around 300 bucks and have a good time and later download it (for a souvenir)
 
Saw the trailer of Avatar while watching District 9 and it is by far one of the most immersive and impressive CGI i've seen till date. Of the recent CGI flicks that have come out including D9 i don't think anything comes close. The CGI comes across as natural/immerisive rather than being superfluous. Eagerly looking forward to it. :)
 
^^ Actually, in general I thought D9 to be pretty seamless compared to many other CGI movies I have seen. I thought the aliens were rendered into the live footage very well. :)
 
^ +1 for that... IMO, D9 was one of best use of CGI... it was very seamless and realisitc. Hardly looked like CGI.
 
PiXeLpUsHeR said:
^^ Actually, in general I thought D9 to be pretty seamless compared to many other CGI movies I have seen. I thought the aliens were rendered into the live footage very well. :)
Click to expand...

Yes but the backdrop was South African slums and many of the scenes were "ZOMG! look here i am CGi". That itself drew a bit away from the immersion factor. In avatar the backdrop is itself "Pandora" a fantasy world. I don't remember any film in recent times where this scale of CGI has been replicated i.e. a whole planet filled with CGI creatures, humanoids (Na'vi), and plants(plants, fauna have not been focussed on at all in many films).In the Avatar trailer when one of the characters alights from a plane there are tons of Mecha-Suits all around him but that does not draw away the scene or the human character itself. All this if from a limited experience :P.

Ofcourse if the script is lacking then the movie is going to bomb no matter what but these days the hype itself manages to sell the film. :(
 
i dont plan to watch avatar unless i get to watch it in 3d (unless it has a good story), the big problem is there arent many theaters out there that can display this movie in 3d. and i have to agree d9's cgi was very impressive it never looked like cgi another cool cgi that comes to my mind is from this nic cage movie (knowing) i just watched.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom