Super Bowl Sunday, was the theater deserted?
James Cameron's "Avatar" (grading and discussion)
- Thread starter chrisspringob
- Start date
Like all films, I'm sure there was a big drop. We'll know how much tomorrow when the final numbers come out.
In addition to Superbowl Sunday, the Washington area was hit this weekend by the biggest snowstorm in decades. While it doesn't look like it's shut things down to quite the degree that a smaller blizzard did back in 1996, I'll say that this all of this evening's shows at the Majestic were pretty close to private screenings. 
I just saw it in Imax 3D. While I appreciated the larger screen, and the additional detail of a second viewing (the Scorpions all have individual 'nose art', which I thought was a neat touch), the 3d wasn't as good as the Alamo Drafthouse's (a very nice theater chain in Austin). My glasses seemed to throw off the effect some, leading to double-vision on out-of-focus elements, something I don't recall from the Alamo viewing. *shrug*
Still absolutely gorgeous, though.
Still absolutely gorgeous, though.
Finally saw it yesterday. The cinema was packed despite the film having been on for weeks on end. I enjoyed it. I enjoyed the 3D of the real world more than the forest world, myself. I enjoyed looking at the tech in 3D. The forest world was well realised in ways, but there is something about cgi that is "dead" for me. There is a lifelessness or something to it that I can't describe and depresses me to look at. On the whole, I'd rate the film "excellent". The plot and themes are not new but I feel they bear re-telling, to be honest. There were a lot of kids and young people in the cinema when I saw the film, and to them the story and the themes are probably not hackneyed. It it raises awareness in young people of what's happening in the world, that's all good with me.
Isn't that where they had the unofficial premier of Star Trek?In addition to Superbowl Sunday, the Washington area was hit this weekend by the biggest snowstorm in decades. While it doesn't look like it's shut things down to quite the degree that a smaller blizzard did back in 1996, I'll say that this all of this evening's shows at the Majestic were pretty close to private screenings.
Exactly. That's what matters. I'm afraid that I sat through the original Star Wars and while I enjoyed it I was unimpressed by how derivative and simplistic the script and story were - much more so, in fact, than Avatar is. My co-author at the time tried to explain to me why that didn't matter and how I was missing the point, but I must admit that it took me some years to appreciate just that.
Avatar's script is actually quite good and complex, which I think people who see it several times must see and which will be more discussed as the years go by. Certainly you'll notice already that people who make films are not speaking of the movie dismissively in any way.
Really? Is that where you felt you needed to go? So anyone who isn't in the filmmaking business can't say anything bad about Avatar? By that same standard, they can't say anything good about it either.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
The Cinefex article says that Grace's avatar lost all resemblance to Weaver with the 'usual' Na'vi facial features, especially with the nose.
Apparently it just didn't 'work' with Weavers face. That's why it was decided to give her avatar a more human face.
Of course it isn't. I wrote what I actually wrote, and what I wrote is true.
But Zoe Saldana's sure as hell didn't look like her, either.
Not wanting to put words in the GP's mouth, but here we go:
Yes. Apparently. No.
The operative word in the GP's post was dismissively. By filmmakers, the movie will not be dismissed. They will not speak about it dismissively. They will, instead, regard it for what it was - a textbook example of three act story structure. The will look to it as a how-to manual for worldbuilding. They will mimic it for how it takes a story, that is, on the surface, very simple, yet manages to have a great deal of rewatchability, mainly due to it's structure and worldbuilding. They will study it for its state of the art. They will copy its casting. They will plagiarize its story.
It made bank. They won't dismiss it.
Exactly. They understand the range of the accomplishments here, and that no part of the film's success is the accidental byproduct of laziness, inattention or some simple pandering to an audience presumed to be somehow less demanding or perceptive than the critic.
You know what I'm sorry probably will not be widely imitated? The considerable risk in supporting a production which had no branding other than the director's name. There are very few - Spielberg, certainly, and Cameron - who the studios will stand behind in pouring such extraordinary resources into an idea and a production that isn't directly derived from some familiar source and preferably one that's demonstrated recent popular success in another medium.
Look around this very forum - a lot of people piss and moan about how Hollywood has "run out of ideas" and "does nothing original" but the vast majority of topics are devoted to anticipation (positive and negative) of movies and tv shows to come that are lifted from comic books, old tv shows, video games and book series. A lot of fans seem to be dying to see these things, whether in hope of being thrilled or because they're steeling themselves to create websites and Internet campaigns devoted to how the producers fucked "the real fans" over.
These are the would-be "tentpoles" that will make the bucks and suck up all the air at the box office come spring and summer, these are the movies that people care about before a single moving image is recorded. That we're all gibbering about Green Lantern and Captain America and The Last Airbender and Star Trek and even stuff like The A Team or Battleship is, if you choose to look at it in a certain way, rather sickening. There are not infinite resources in the film industry, believe it or not, and every penny spent developing Harry Potter or Viewmaster: The Motion Picture is money that won't be risked on the visions of directors and writers and artists doing something of their own.
A lot of that stuff is pretty damn good, but it's also pre-chewed.
But this year, the most successful film in history is not a remake or a sequel or an adaptation. It had no widely-recognized trademarks or presold audience or core fandom other than those folks familiar with the work and reputation of a talented guy whose last movie was a mega-hit in another genre twelve years ago. So if anyone wants to bleat about how "unoriginal" Cameron's movie is while they wait on tenterhooks for the chance to buy tickets to Batman III or Spider-Man: A New Beginning, Again...let 'em.
But there was no requirement for the Na'vi to look like their actors - since we never see them. For example, the character design for Neytiri was virtually done before Zoe Saldana was cast - Although they did tweak in some of her features once she had been cast. The same goes for the rest of the Na'vi characters.
I thought she looked somewhat like Zoe, but I imagine that's because the entire performance was Zoe's.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
If you hang out at any pro-tech forums, you'll see plenty of divided opinion, more than I expected anyway. Cinematography.com in particular, though they have tons of digital proponents, seems to have lots less AVATAR love than this place. CGTALK's threads often seem to detour from CG to hang up on the story weaknesses, real or implied.
Part of the issue with cinematography has to do with whether the DP on AVATAR should have even qualified for a nom. I guess he came onto the project a year or two after motion capture of actors began, so that sort of screams for a different kind of cinematography nom subcategory, since so much is already settled before this guy came on, which is WAY outside the box for the way DPs typically work films, since their pre-shooting vision usually is a considerable influence.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
Going by the Cinefex article it seems that Cameron did a lot of camera work himself.
Perhaps the DP's work was more concentrated on lighting scenes and shots.
Or there is, perhaps, a Hollywood-requirement (unions and all that) that demands that each motion picture production has to have a DP...
trevanian
Rear Admiral
The main 3D guy on the show, Vince Pace, was credited as second unit DP, I guess for the stuff shot in L.A. Pace is a real shooter, he has done tons of underwater stuff and he may even be an ASC member by now.
While there have been directors who act as their own DP (hack-types like Peter Hyams, plus maestros like Soderbergh), they are few and far between, and really have to be credited on film as such. Even directors who COULD have acted as their own DPs, like Kubrick and Ridley Scott, never did ... in fact, it is significant to note that Kubrick often employed world-class cinematographers, though his later films did use a promote-from-within style that was more in keeping with the Bond films.
As far as I know, the really heavy-duty AVATAR tech coverage in print sources has been limited to just AmCin and Cinefex, mainly because production and studio agreed to minimize tech coverage until the movie had been out awhile ... a strategy that meant other interested mags wound up dropping AVATAR because interviews and publication wouldn't have taken place till months after its release. So I guess to get serious info on the film, you've got to go to online interviews or just those two mags, at least until the dvd arrives. Kind of confuses the issue with respect to nominations and such, since a complete b-t-s picture might not emerge till AFTER the Oscars.
While there have been directors who act as their own DP (hack-types like Peter Hyams, plus maestros like Soderbergh), they are few and far between, and really have to be credited on film as such. Even directors who COULD have acted as their own DPs, like Kubrick and Ridley Scott, never did ... in fact, it is significant to note that Kubrick often employed world-class cinematographers, though his later films did use a promote-from-within style that was more in keeping with the Bond films.
As far as I know, the really heavy-duty AVATAR tech coverage in print sources has been limited to just AmCin and Cinefex, mainly because production and studio agreed to minimize tech coverage until the movie had been out awhile ... a strategy that meant other interested mags wound up dropping AVATAR because interviews and publication wouldn't have taken place till months after its release. So I guess to get serious info on the film, you've got to go to online interviews or just those two mags, at least until the dvd arrives. Kind of confuses the issue with respect to nominations and such, since a complete b-t-s picture might not emerge till AFTER the Oscars.