Avatar - James Cameron Returns! (Spoilers in thread, obviously!)

I would never eat popcorn with ball juice all over it .. i almost threw up when i read that




Avatar dec 18 cant wait... and any else realize how hard it would be to track the actor in those mech suits but its all cg right so easier but we would not see that from live action not now ..not for a while

it looks pretty wild ...im sold
 
Doubtless it's already formulated, and patent applied for. Jim's too sharp a businessman to miss an opportunity like that.
 
Sad Max said:
Not even James Cameron's ball juice?

What kind of cinephile *are*you?
Click to expand...



The screen is BLACK.

SUPER: December 18, 2009.

FADE IN:


EXT. CINEPLEX - NIGHT

An enormous theater sits in a seemingly endless parking lot. The marquee reads AVATAR, in big bold letters. A line of patrons extends out the doors and to the horizon.


INT. CINEPLEX LOBBY

Throngs of giddy fanboys push and shove each other. The lobby is a cacaphony of shouting, farting, and the occasional outburst of giggly laughter.

Another long line leads to the concessions stand. Some of those waiting are dressed up as blue Na'vi creatures.


INT. CONCESSIONS COUNTER

A slightly overweight twenty-something DUDE steps up to the counter and slaps down some Washingtons.

DUDE
I'd like the biggest tub-o-poppin' corn you got poindexter.​

The not-old-enough-to-drive-yet CONCESSIONS CLERK (whose last name actually is Poindexter) punches the order in on the cash register.

POINDEXTER
How did you know my name was Poindexter?

DUDE
Lucky guess.​

Poindexter takes the wad of cash from the Dude.

POINDEXTER
Now, would you like plain old butter, or some of
Iron Jim's extra concentrated ball juice on your popcorn?

DUDE
Hmmm...​

The Dude scratches his scraggly beard. His beady eyes squint and his brow furrows.

DUDE
Normally I'd go with extra butter and an overdose of salt, but for a
James Cameron flick, I'll take a double dose of ball juice.​
 
Last edited:
Pudgy-ass fanboys costumed as Navi (meaning blue body paint and skimpy little rawhide banana-hammocks).

I'm going to go boil my mind's eye in bleach, now.
 
Last edited:
Man, if *I'm* not interested in rushing to the theatre to see this movie, I think Avartar may be in trouble. 400 million dollar budget and you can't even get a sci-fi nut clamboring for advanced tickets?

Maybe home theatres have just gotten too awesome.

We'll see what the critics say next week. It better be some outstanding reviews because the previews just aren't getting me there.

And, for context, I did go to the theatre this year to see Wolverine, Terminator and Harry Potter. And I will be first in line for the OTHER Avatar.
 
Chamber005 said:
Man, if *I'm* not interested in rushing to the theatre to see this movie, I think Avartar may be in trouble. 400 million dollar budget and you can't even get a sci-fi nut clamboring for advanced tickets?

Maybe home theatres have just gotten too awesome.

We'll see what the critics say next week. It better be some outstanding reviews because the previews just aren't getting me there.

And, for context, I did go to the theatre this year to see Wolverine, Terminator and Harry Potter. And I will be first in line for the OTHER Avatar.
Click to expand...

Dude, check out the previous page. I posted tons of reviews which were all gushing.
 
Does anyone know what type of glasses will be used for the 3D screenings of Avatar?
When I saw Ghosts of the Abyss, they were very sophisticated, almost like goggles if
I remember correctly, and produced good results. Any ideas what we can expect?

I'm not a fan of 3D movies. Always feels distracting. I do trust Cameron, and if his vision
is for everyone to see it in 3D, I'll do that. But every time I've seen a 3D movie it always
seems like an after thought. The last example was Coraline, it gave me a headache in
3D. The 2D version, which I saw after, was much better.

For me, 3D works for those "The Wonders of Everest" type films, but for narrative its just
terrible. Are we expecting this to be different?

If this question has been posted before, please forgive me. I tried to read all the previous
posts by it was a little daunting.

Thanks.

.
 
Batutta said:
Dude, check out the previous page. I posted tons of reviews which were all gushing.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't know. I might just stay home and watch Aliens.

Regardless of when or how I see this movie (2D, 3D, theatre, home), I refuse to get my hopes up about a fantasy movie that doesn't have at least decades of mythology behind it.

I mean can you imagine getting off-the-wall nuts about Spiderman? And that was born in the 60s. Titanic's mythology had decades upon decades in which to build its mythology. Lord of the Rings? And how long did it take to get a really great vampire movie since Nasferatu premiered?

I'm not saying an original mythology movie can't be great. Star Wars comes to mind, obviously. But the smartest thing Star Wars did was not bank on computers for its imagery the way Cameron is banking on it with Avatar.

If there is a single solitary moment in the film where we are disconnected because of the heavy lean on effects, the movie, to me, essentially becomes Clash of the Titans in hindsight (which, again, has centuries of mythology behind it which saves it from being unwatchable).

I'm sure I'll see it. But certainly not with my hopes high as I doubt I will find it much more moving than something like The Iron Giant that doesn't need to hide behind a mix of reality and effects to have emotional impact.

In the end I see movies for STORY and CHARACTERS. From the reviews I've read there is a lot of idol worshipping for the effects whereas the talk about the story and the characters is average and sometimes even leaning toward the negative.

That's awesome that their eyes look real. They're supposed to look real. If they didn't look realy you'd be making an animated film or a CGI film which is also fine. In this case he's choosing to make a live action film with special effects so, surprise, the effects should look real. That's a given and should have very little to do with the reviews regarding the story and the characters in the movie (which, at least as the reviews go, seem to be almost an afterthought).
 
Last edited:
Chamber005 said:
Regardless of when or how I see this movie (2D, 3D, theatre, home), I refuse to get my hopes up about a fantasy movie that doesn't have at least decades of mythology behind it.

I mean can you imagine getting off-the-wall nuts about Spiderman?
Click to expand...

I don't get off the wall nuts about any movie before i see it, mythology or not. Mythology has no bearing on whether a movie is good or not. It might increase its chances of people seeing it, but it does not guarantee a quality film in the least. You said you were going to wait for the reviews, and if they were great then you'd see the movie. The reviews had already been out and are pretty great. It's at 91 percent on Rotten Tomatoes. That is what I was addressing in my comment. And you are somewhat wrong with regards to Star Wars. It did bank on computers for its imagery. They had to invent an entirely new computer controlled camera just to get the effects George wanted on screen.
 
Batutta said:
I don't get off the wall nuts about any movie before i see it, mythology or not. Mythology has no bearing on whether a movie is good or not. It might increase its chances of people seeing it, but it does not guarantee a quality film in the least. You said you were going to wait for the reviews, and if they were great then you'd see the movie. The reviews had already been out and are pretty great. It's at 91 percent on Rotten Tomatoes. That is what I was addressing in my comment. And you are somewhat wrong with regards to Star Wars. It did bank on computers for its imagery. They had to invent an entirely new computer controlled camera just to get the effects George wanted on screen.
Click to expand...

I personally didn't feel like the reviews were that great for the story and characters, which is the only reason I'd see the movie since, IMO, Final Fantasy already "broke the mold" for digital animation years ago. This looks to be a minor advancement on that.

And computer-controlled cameras isn't the same as computer generated imagery, at least in the way I'm meaning it.

Also, a mythology that has proven to stand the tests of time does inherently
give its story a given prominence (or at least a greater promise of its story being successful as it regards the human condition).

The Xmen were created as was Blade Runner and The Odyssey as were a million other stories that most people will never know of. It doesn't mean that the Xmen movie is better than Avatar, it just means that there is a justification for its STORY to be better (regardless of whether or not the storytellers failed at telling the story effectively).

If the critics would have come out in force telling me to forget about all the CGI stuff but that the story made it one of the greatest films of our time, that would be a review worth getting off-the-wall nuts about. But no amount of spectacle is going to get me to support a blah story or blah characterization. Having not seen the movie, though, I have no idea whether or not the latter is true. Thus my looking to see what other educated moviegoers are saying, because everytime someone buys a ticket for a movie that has no purpose other than being a spectacle, they're reinforcing Hollywood's bad behavior.

But I'm reserving any judgement I have. And right now I'm simply on the fence about seeing it in theatres.
 
I'm not drawing a point-for point comparison, but while Lawrence of Arabia can certainly stand on the merits of its story, script, and performances without any trouble, if you have not seen the film in its original theatrical format you have missed a substantial part of the intended experience.

If you choose to see Avatar on a small-screen and/or non-3d presentation, you will likewise be missing a substantial part of what we were working to present, there.
 
Sad Max said:
I'm not drawing a point-for point comparison, but while Lawrence of Arabia can certainly stand on the merits of its story, script, and performances without any trouble, if you have not seen the film in its original theatrical format you have missed a substantial part of the intended experience.

If you choose to see Avatar on a small-screen and/or non-3d presentation, you will likewise be missing a substantial part of what we were working to present, there.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but isn't that like saying "You haven't seen Shakespeare unless you've seen it performed at the Globe theatre?" Of course there is the intended original version of the piece, but the work has to be able to hold up after that vehicle of delivery has faded.

I only personally feel compelled to support films whose basis is in story, not spectacle. If I wanted a 3D rush I would go bungie jumping or play an interactive game with 3D affects. Films, which IMO should be a format primarily serving story not photography, should always have the greatest impact come from its story, its characters. Even Fantasia would be a hack piece of crap if the stories within the piece weren't the most entertaining thing about it.

Cameron has a history of putting story and character over spectacle, but I haven't read a review yet that said as much with regards Avatar. I've even read otherwise good reviews who talked about cardboard characters and a cliche storyline.

I'm not against seeing it in the theatre. I just want to make sure that I'm not supporting something being in theatres primarily for its spectacle.

And heck, just about the ONLY flicks I see in theatre are big blockbuster-type movies. But going in I either support the works from which its derived (Xmen, Watchmen, Spiderman, Batman, Harry Potter, Terminator) or I've heard from people or read reviews that spoke to the plight of the characters and the overall story as being the primary reason to see the movie.

The reviews for Avatar appear good on the surface, but for the types of movies that I choose to support in-theatre, I'm just not positive that this one has what I'm looking for.

See, but Sherlock Holmes? Gonna be there Christmas Day!! Because I support the works from which the movie was derived and the consensus seems to be that they kept true to the original story.
 
Chamber005 said:
Yeah, but isn't that like saying "You haven't seen Shakespeare unless you've seen it performed at the Globe theatre?" Of course there is the intended original version of the piece, but the work has to be able to hold up after that vehicle of delivery has faded.
Click to expand...

No, it's not like saying that, at all. Seeing a film in 3D on an IMAX screen, for example, is a qualitatively different experience that seeing it in a smaller, flat screen presentation. Like it or not film is a visual medium wherein people paying attention to what they're doing invest the visual aspect of the product with something more than the bare minimum necessary to convey the action of the story. And if you see that aspect of the show in a format other than that originally intended, you are still missing an essential portion of the experience, whether your appreciation of the story itself would remain the same in different formats, or not.

Chamber005 said:
I only personally feel compelled to support films whose basis is in story, not spectacle.
Click to expand...

I don't think that anyone meant to suggest that you should feel compelled to see Avatar, on a big screen or anyplace else...

...for my part when reading the script I found the story and characters engaging - without having to see it visually, since of course we were in the middle of making it. Since story tastes are idiosyncratic, YMMV.

Chamber005 said:
Cameron has a history of putting story and character over spectacle, but I haven't read a review yet that said as much with regards Avatar. I've even read otherwise good reviews who talked about cardboard characters and a cliche storyline.
Click to expand...

*shrug* Those who can't do, teach, those who can't teach, teach gym, and those who can't teach gym become critics. I would have missed a great many enjoyable and perhaps even important films, if I paid attention to what critics have to say about anything. On the other hand, if you find that there are critics whose tastes and perceptions match yours well enough to take their word for gospel, I guess that you can save a lot of time that way.

Chamber005 said:
I'm not against seeing it in the theatre. I just want to make sure that I'm not supporting something being in theatres primarily for its spectacle.
Click to expand...

In the general scheme of things, I wouldn't worry about whether or not you're 'supporting' this film or that: I assure you that the price of your individual admission doesn't amount to one electron's worth of blip, when it comes to whether the film is perceived as enjoying public 'support.' Now, if it's simply a matter of wanting to conserve your hard-earned $$$, I can certainly understand that...

Chamber005 said:
The reviews for Avatar appear good on the surface, but for the types of movies that I choose to support in-theatre, I'm just not positive that this one has what I'm looking for.
Click to expand...

Well, maybe best to steer clear of Avatar, then. It seems that lending or not-lending 'support' to a given film is important to you, and 'supporting' a film that you feel doesn't merit it is probably not a happy thing.

Chamber005 said:
See, but Sherlock Holmes? Gonna be there Christmas Day!! Because I support the works from which the movie was derived and the consensus seems to be that they kept true to the original story.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I'm avoiding the Holmes movie because it's obvious that it has virtually nothing to do with the original stories, aside from the names and occupations of the principal characters. We probably read different Holmes stories, or something. Well, and by the look of it so far it just doesn't interest me. I think by 'supporting' this one - if I saw it that way - I'd be offering an insult to the memory of the author, more than I'd be doing anything else.
 
Chamber005 said:
I'm not against seeing it in the theatre. I just want to make sure that I'm not supporting something being in theatres primarily for its spectacle.
Click to expand...

Come on, man! You should see it in the theater just to support your dvxuser brother Sad Max. His hard work deserves to be seen as intended.
 
Batutta said:
Come on, man! You should see it in the theater just to support your dvxuser brother Sad Max. His hard work deserves to be seen as intended.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I thought about that. It does make it more difficult when things get all personal. We'll see. Doesn't he have a charity or something that I can donate to, though? I'm sure the Boys and Girls club could use my 10 bucks more than the movie studio.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top