James Cameron's Avatar: Discuss/Countdown

[Kegg]

For those who care, here is an interesting technical Cameron interview - about the Mocap breakthroughs that were made for the film, but also about CG lighting and 3D issues:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aao0YSITuxc

The interesting thing here for me is he identifies the technology he's developed as something he wants to use on Battle Angel, Avatar II (maybe) and a number of apparently undeveloped ideas, and part of the money he got originally has already went to the Battle Angel project (this is an adaption of a cyberpunk Japanese comic - I don't know much else but hey, cyberpunk, I'm game). Clearly, this new tech is going to get a workout real soon.

 

[Hyperspace05]

are all these reviews of the 3d version? I dont know if Ill ever get a chance to see it in 3d.

I think most critics have seen 3D screenings. But the 3D is not the "in your face" kind, its used more as an additional immersion factor. (an analogy might by HD compared to regular TV)

Many reviews note that it should play fine on 2D.

I'm fortunate to have a 3D capable theater in my town, but I assume it will play on 2D screens as well. (since my local theater only seems to have one 3D capable auditorium) My wife is nervous about 2.5+ hours of 3D (concerned about nausea), so I might go see it in 2D with her first. But perhaps I can still convince her to see it in 3D. But I will see this thing multiple time, that I am sure of...

 

[Trekker4747]

If the 3D is anything like it was for "Christmas Carol" then it should be pretty good. Christmas Carol's 3D was more "depth" looking into the screen than it was the stuff jumping out at you through the screen gimicky stuff.

 

[melancholymecha]

are all these reviews of the 3d version? I dont know if Ill ever get a chance to see it in 3d.

I think most critics have seen 3D screenings. But the 3D is not the "in your face" kind, its used more as an additional immersion factor. (an analogy might by HD compared to regular TV)

Many reviews note that it should play fine on 2D.

I'm fortunate to have a 3D capable theater in my town, but I assume it will play on 2D screens as well. (since my local theater only seems to have one 3D capable auditorium) My wife is nervous about 2.5+ hours of 3D (concerned about nausea), so I might go see it in 2D with her first. But perhaps I can still convince her to see it in 3D. But I will see this thing multiple time, that I am sure of...

yeah my worry isnt finding it in 3d, its that Ive never been a big fan of 3d & I dont think I could stomach a 3d fim for 2.5 + hours. I was wondering if the rave reviews so far are due to the fact that the 3d aspect was such an overwhelmingly positive & memorable experience that it outweighs any negatives they might have had when they finally sat down to write their reviews.

 

[Aragorn]

Roger Ebert gives Avatar **** out of four stars.

Watching "Avatar," I felt sort of the same as when I saw "Star Wars" in 1977. That was another movie I walked into with uncertain expectations. James Cameron's film has been the subject of relentlessly dubious advance buzz, just as his "Titanic" was. Once again, he has silenced the doubters by simply delivering an extraordinary film. There is still at least one man in Hollywood who knows how to spend $250 million, or was it $300 million, wisely.

 

[Trekker4747]

It really sounds like this movie will meet all expectations, -Ebert likening it to the original Star Wars is very promising- which, again, I'd expect nothing less from Cameron.

 

[Kegg]

Oh crap.

Just no. I can't remain cautiously optimistic a helluva lot longer. Not after Ebert; who I have disagreed with on occasion (minority view: 2046 is still a beloved film of mine), but who I still love very dearly - there isn't a movie reviewer I've seen writing today with a more wonderfully sharp wit.

 

[Harvey]

Eh, Ebert has been a lot less judicious with high praise in the past few years (at least when it comes to star ratings). Still, reading his review, I'm definitely looking forward to the film.

 

[Kegg]

Granted. So highly lauding Knowing was almost unforgivable, and an Ebert review on its own isn't enough to sell me anymore (this, admittedly, is true of all reviewers, but I do depend on RT like a loyal crutch at this pont).

Still, this comes on the heels of a current Tomatometer of 90%, so Ebert may well be articulating the consensus here.

 

[Hyperspace05]

Hmmm... I'm glad Ebert gives it 4 stars, but as a reviewer he has been going downhill for a while, with increasingly erratic reviews. He panned "Gladiator" (one of my fave's), and spent much of his review bitching about the effects not being good enough. And he never cared much for the LOTR films, while praising the first Potter films.

No matter.

The critic I trust the most, James Berardinelli, today hinted in his twitters that he is going to give Avatar a 4-star review (And he does not give them out easily), once the embargo has been fully lifted. His taste seems to match my own the best out of the 'major' critics.

 

[T'Baio]

In Ebert's review, he says at the end it took balls for Cameron to "proclaim himself the King of the World" at the Oscars.

This is one of the most annoying, amateurish gripes about Cameron's ego I've ever heard. I hate it then, and I hate it now.

Take note, people...Cameron's hero in Titanic proclaimed, from the bow of the great ship, that he was king of the world. He did so to convey how great he felt. And that's all Cameron was doing at the Oscar's, with a hint of irony because it came from his winning film.

People who complain about that just come off looking like morons.

 

[JacksonArcher]

In Ebert's review, he says at the end it took balls for Cameron to "proclaim himself the King of the World" at the Oscars.

This is one of the most annoying, amateurish gripes about Cameron's ego I've ever heard. I hate it then, and I hate it now.

Take note, people...Cameron's hero in Titanic proclaimed, from the bow of the great ship, that he was king of the world. He did so to convey how great he felt. And that's all Cameron was doing at the Oscar's, with a hint of irony because it came from his winning film.

People who complain about that just come off looking like morons.

Cameron, like a lot of great directors, has a bit of an ego. So does George Lucas, so does David Fincher, so does Bryan Singer, etc etc. That just comes with the terrority, in my opinion. It's not difficult to see that remark and say it was kinda ballsy and ego-centric. Maybe that wasn't Cameron's intent, but I can understand where Ebert was coming from.

I'm going to purchase my IMAX 3-D tickets probably either tonight or this weekend, once I've confirmed my guest(s). I'm really loving the score so far and my anticipation for this film -- which was practically non-existant just months ago -- has gradually and slowly build itself up over the past few weeks. Now I'm really, really looking forward to this.

 

[T'Baio]

Yeah, most directors have egos. Yeah, Cameron's is huge. No, that comment had nothing to do with it. I thought it was incredibly obvious he was, like the character in his film, just happy.

 

[Trekker4747]

In Ebert's review, he says at the end it took balls for Cameron to "proclaim himself the King of the World" at the Oscars.

This is one of the most annoying, amateurish gripes about Cameron's ego I've ever heard. I hate it then, and I hate it now.

Take note, people...Cameron's hero in Titanic proclaimed, from the bow of the great ship, that he was king of the world. He did so to convey how great he felt. And that's all Cameron was doing at the Oscar's, with a hint of irony because it came from his winning film.

People who complain about that just come off looking like morons.

I've never blasted Cameron too much for doing that, or even much understood the "hate" over him doing it. But I did see an argument against it once that made me nod, say "true" but then then counter it with a simple "he still won a great award for one hell of a movie."

What hurts Cameron's saying thaing, possilby, was that he said it moments after the solemn moment in honor of the 1500+ who died in the Titanic tragedy.

 

[T'Baio]

That may have been tasteless, sure.

I'm trying not to get too excited about this thing, but I'm really looking forward to Friday!

 

[USS Mariner]

Here's a neat new picture of Col Quaritch (Stephen Lang) in his AMP suit:

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a44/mirrored/hr_Avatar_42.jpg

Can you spot what is CG and what is not?

Uh, yeah. It's actually kind of obvious.

 

[Harvey]

Obvious that it's all CGI? Really?

 

[Kegg]

I definitely was surprised that Stephen Lang was CGI, and even moreso that I can't tell that he's CGI even now.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

It's very hard to tell that he's CGI, partly because he's obscured somewhat. But his expression and the way the lights hit his face look very authentic. Pretty impressive. I'm interested to see how it looks in motion.

 

[Trekker4747]

Cracked.com has a review up:

Avatar: Horribly written, way too long. Totally worth it.