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

Jim Klatt said:
It blows my mind how much time is spent in dark rooms on computers trying to make things look like real life.
Click to expand...

What's kind of silly is in movies like Polar Express, where they spend all this time and money and technology to make Tom Hanks look like...Tom Hanks again.
 
By the way I had my first 'Avatard' sighting today. Some nerd in blue paint was in the lineup as I was coming out.
 
Jim Klatt said:
It blows my mind how much time is spent in dark rooms on computers trying to make things look like real life.
Click to expand...

ROFL!

And I think that's part of my problem with this flick. I am an AVID Final Fantasy supporter for what it did for CGI animation. I thought it was beautiful, and although the script wasn't the best (because of the translation issues, I think), the film indeed did have a soul.

I would have been far more excited about this movie if the creatures were real. I'm all for computer generated effects and landscapes and robots, etc. But when you create living things with pixels...you're making animation. I love animation, but that means that Avatar is just an animated movie mixed with live action.

But it is largely an animated movie by every definition of the phrase.

I could be proven wrong on this, but if the numbers on Final Fantasy are any indication, this movie might not be (percentage-wise) the kind of hit people are thinking it's going to be.

We won't know until the numbers come back, but when I checked the IMAX theatre here at Navy Pier for tickets this afternoon there were a lot of seats still open. They literally did NOT sell out the opening day of the IMAX. In Chicago?

Like most people, I love live action films. Like SOME people I love animation. I'm a lesser fan of blending the two than I am of either one of them separately, and I think there are a lot of people out there that feel the same way.

Regardless, this movie cost 500 million. If it doesn't beat friggin BATMAN, I say this movie is a bomb. If it doesn't beat SPIDERMAN, it is literally going to be a disaster.
 
Batutta said:
What's kind of silly is in movies like Polar Express, where they spend all this time and money and technology to make Tom Hanks look like...Tom Hanks again.
Click to expand...

I don't think there's anything wrong with that at all. It's animation, not live action -- it is it's own specific type of art form. Whether hand drawn, 2D animation or Polar Express-style animation, it's still all animation, and often times I give more respect to animation than I do live action films. At least in animation they don't have to blow things up and destroy landscapes and wreck vehicles and aircraft to tell a story.
 
Jim Klatt said:
It blows my mind how much time is spent in dark rooms on computers trying to make things look like real life.
Click to expand...

The offices weren't that dark. Everyone had to be able to see the design materials they were working from.

It's interesting that several people have noted the importance of the characters' eyes: one innovation in the Avatar motion-capture rigs is a separate sensor set tracking the actors' eye movements. It paid off.

Nektonic said:
I think there is potential for a sequel to Avatar, but I don't know if I would want one because it felt complete enough for me as is. Although, Cameron is one of the few masters of the sequel, so who knows, maybe he could pull off an amazing one for the world of Pandora.
Click to expand...

Jim's next big thing is more likely to be Battle Angel, which was already in the pretty-pictures phase while Avatar was in production.
 
Last edited:
Chamber005 said:
I don't think there's anything wrong with that at all. It's animation, not live action -- it is it's own specific type of art form. Whether hand drawn, 2D animation or Polar Express-style animation, it's still all animation, and often times I give more respect to animation than I do live action films. At least in animation they don't have to blow things up and destroy landscapes and wreck vehicles and aircraft to tell a story.
Click to expand...

Hi Chamber.

Do you plan on seeing the movie? I know you've posted quite a lot about it, but I'm unclear
if you're actually going to see it. Seems the best way of answering all questions about it.
 
^ I'm finding Chamber's posts a little bit perplexing, too. I can't tell if they represent opinions based upon having seen the actual film, or not.
 
Me Myself & I said:
Hi Chamber.

Do you plan on seeing the movie? I know you've posted quite a lot about it, but I'm unclear
if you're actually going to see it. Seems the best way of answering all questions about it.
Click to expand...

I've pretty much decided not to support the movie by doing what I would usually do for a film I'm supporting (e.g. see it opening weekend). I'd be remiss, though, to not see it just because I do not necessarily support it. So I'll probably see it in the new year at the IMAX 3D theatre.
 
Chamber005 said:
I've pretty much decided not to support the movie by doing what I would usually do for a film I'm supporting (e.g. see it opening weekend). I'd be remiss, though, to not see it just because I do not necessarily support it. So I'll probably see it in the new year at the IMAX 3D theatre.
Click to expand...

I don't see what moral victory is made by not seeing it opening weekend. What's the difference? You seem to have invested quite a bit of thought into something you seem pre-determined not to like. It'd be one thing if you just didn't like these kinds of movies. But it seems like you do. Just go see it and then you can make an informed opinion. If you don't, you just sound like a guy with an axe to grind.
 
I saw the full trailer for this last night before "Transylmania" (see other thread :D).

As I asked in my previous post, do we think this film has a "soul?"

By which I mean I find most of Cameron's work to be technical to the point of being almost clinical. I'd say the original Terminator, T2 and perhaps The Abyss come closest to being imbued with real feeling, meaning and story impact at their core. I've always had a hard time connecting with characters in his films, and it's not because they're always set in other worlds. In "The Abyss," I could really connect with Ed Harris' character and the conflict between him and his wife. Many of the other relationships felt authentic, and this, to me, gave the movie a soul.

So, how do people feel about the characters in "Avatar"? Do we care about them in any meaningful way?
 
I care about the Na'vi. They're individually attractive and evocative. They're like beautiful exotic sapient animals but also identifiably human. I guess what I like about them is that they represent an expanded definition of 'human.' They're obviously not-us. But of course they're also us. They embody the tragedies of the conquests of the Americas and Africa, and if you wonder how can they be treated like this? you're left wondering at the treatment of the real people who weren't just kind-of human but who really were.

I care about the human characters, too . For reasons that are spoilery.

Anyway, this is just about purely subjective territory. For my part The Terminator didn't come close to evoking real feeling, it moved me in ways that are doubtless very personal to me. And I share your appreciation of The Abyss, for much the same reason that you connect with it - although to me their love was as important as - well, part of - their conflict.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the feedback, Max.

And yes, it certainly is subjective. But I ask because I respect the subjective opinions of Users like you (and others), and though I would never make a viewing decision based on them entirely, they certainly help prioritize some of my choices.

I'm definitely going to see this one, but probably early next week when I can easily slip out of the office without my boss noticing.

Cheers!
 
stephenmick said:
Thanks for the feedback, Max.

And yes, it certainly is subjective. But I ask because I respect the subjective opinions of Users like you (and others), and though I would never make a viewing decision based on them entirely, they certainly help prioritize some of my choices.

I'm definitely going to see this one, but probably early next week when I can easily slip out of the office without my boss noticing.

Cheers!
Click to expand...

Thinking about this seriously, I think the characters are drawn with about as much depth as the characters in Titanic. Jim gives you enough to hang your heart on, but they aren't very dimensional. They are rendered in pretty broad strokes. The actors all do good jobs though and there isn't any dialogue that grates, unlike Titanic which had some ham-fisted cheese in it.
 
My wife got angry at the "Saxons" in King Arthur. She curled up her face and said "who ARE those people?" When I said "uh, you're a Saxon," she pressed her lips together and sat there silently. Then I said "well, they're the good guys in Robin Hood."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top