James Cameron's Avatar

[Rushman14]

Here's a 4 minute featurette of the making of James Cameron's Avatar. There's alot of cool footage here not seen in the trailer. Looks awesome.

 

check it.

 

AVATAR FEATURETTE

[1-0-0-1-0-0-1]

I guess I have to compare this movie to the three Star Wars prequels in terms of the sheer amount of CGI-based landscapes and characters. Cameron, humble as usual , says this movie of his is unprecedented. Is it that much of an advance over what Lucas did, or is he just hyping the hell out of this (and blowing sunshine up his own ass)? Honestly, those avatar people look pretty CGI to me.

[Rushman14]

QUOTE (1-0-0-1-0-0-1 @ Nov 3 2009, 02:26 PM)

I guess I have to compare this movie to the three Star Wars prequels in terms of the sheer amount of CGI-based landscapes and characters. Cameron, humble as usual , says this movie of his is unprecedented. Is it that much of an advance over what Lucas did, or is he just hyping the hell out of this (and blowing sunshine up his own ass)? Honestly, those avatar people look pretty CGI to me.

It definitely looks CGI, but really good CGI. But Cameron blew when he said this was gonna be a "game changer". Some of the Navi facial expressions look pretty awesome, while other stuff looks kinda cartoony.

 

It should be a couple of hours of good eye candy though.

 

 

 

[workingcinderellaman]

QUOTE (Rushman14 @ Nov 3 2009, 03:46 PM)

Here's a 4 minute featurette of the making of James Cameron's Avatar. There's alot of cool footage here not seen in the trailer. Looks awesome. check it. AVATAR FEATURETTE

Love James Cameron! I will definatiely see this.

[1-0-0-1-0-0-1]

QUOTE (Rushman14 @ Nov 3 2009, 04:36 PM)

QUOTE (1-0-0-1-0-0-1 @ Nov 3 2009, 02:26 PM) I guess I have to compare this movie to the three Star Wars prequels in terms of the sheer amount of CGI-based landscapes and characters. Cameron, humble as usual  , says this movie of his is unprecedented. Is it that much of an advance over what Lucas did, or is he just hyping the hell out of this (and blowing sunshine up his own ass)? Honestly, those avatar people look pretty CGI to me. It definitely looks CGI, but really good CGI. But Cameron blew when he said this was gonna be a "game changer". Some of the Navi facial expressions look pretty awesome, while other stuff looks kinda cartoony.   It should be a couple of hours of good eye candy though. A couple of hours? Are you forgetting that this is James "Three Hour Minimum" Cameron we're talking about here?

[Jack Aubrey]

QUOTE (1-0-0-1-0-0-1 @ Nov 3 2009, 04:52 PM)

QUOTE (Rushman14 @ Nov 3 2009, 04:36 PM) QUOTE (1-0-0-1-0-0-1 @ Nov 3 2009, 02:26 PM) I guess I have to compare this movie to the three Star Wars prequels in terms of the sheer amount of CGI-based landscapes and characters. Cameron, humble as usual  , says this movie of his is unprecedented. Is it that much of an advance over what Lucas did, or is he just hyping the hell out of this (and blowing sunshine up his own ass)? Honestly, those avatar people look pretty CGI to me. It definitely looks CGI, but really good CGI. But Cameron blew when he said this was gonna be a "game changer". Some of the Navi facial expressions look pretty awesome, while other stuff looks kinda cartoony.   It should be a couple of hours of good eye candy though. A couple of hours? Are you forgetting that this is James "Three Hour Minimum" Cameron we're talking about here? Yeah, it's a three hour movie.   BTW, here's the link to the non-bootleg big-screenifiable (and small-screenifiable if you wann go that route [Cough]Tick[/Cough]) HD and SD versions of the new trailer: 'Avatar'.

[JimboGames]

I'll be seeing this one in the theater. Looks great.

[Andrew1]

I posted a thread similar to this in 'The Higher Level Static of Talk'. My mistake. Cartoony? This movie will be up for 'Best Picture'. Cameron is a visionary. We've seen 3 minutes of a three hour movie. Down play it all you want. Avatar is coming. I love James Cameron. He's my favorite director, AND he writes and directs all of his material. He didn't wait 12 years to produce a "dud". They told him 'Aliens' was career suicide. Give me a break. No studio in this economy is going to give someone 500 million dollars if they're not confident that it's money in the bank. I know its "your opinion" but this is not '2012' from that schlockmeister Roland Emmerich. I can't believe they still give that hack money to make movies. James Cameron, like the members of Rush, is a genius.

[Jack Aubrey]

QUOTE (Andrew1 @ Nov 14 2009, 12:14 AM)

I posted a thread similar to this in 'The Higher Level Static of Talk'. My mistake. Cartoony? This movie will be up for 'Best Picture'. Cameron is a visionary. We've seen 3 minutes of a three hour movie. Down play it all you want. Avatar is coming. I love James Cameron. He's my favorite director, AND he writes and directs all of his material. He didn't wait 12 years to produce a "dud". They told him 'Aliens' was career suicide. Give me a break. No studio in this economy is going to give someone 500 million dollars if they're not confident that it's money in the bank. I know its "your opinion" but this is not '2012' from that schlockmeister Roland Emmerich. I can't believe they still give that hack money to make movies. James Cameron, like the members of Rush, is a genius.

I like James Cameron a lot and The Abyss remains one of my all-time favorite movies. I think that the only reason people are saying that the fx look cartoony is because Cameron boasted that the fx would be cutting-edge and "blow us away". Whereas it's great to have that level of confidence in yourself and your fx crew, one should also beware of getting up on one's high horse since there's always at least on guy who wants to knock you off of it.

 

Edit: I also share your opinion of Emmerich and have compared him to Uwe Boll at least a couple of times.

 

QUOTE

I posted a thread similar to this in 'The Higher Level Static of Talk'. My mistake.

 

That's okay, bub. No one's perfect.

Edited November 14, 2009 by Jack Aubrey

[Andrew1]

QUOTE (Jack Aubrey @ Nov 14 2009, 08:04 AM)

QUOTE (Andrew1 @ Nov 14 2009, 12:14 AM) I posted a thread similar to this in 'The Higher Level Static of Talk'. My mistake. Cartoony? This movie will be up for 'Best Picture'. Cameron is a visionary. We've seen 3 minutes of a three hour movie. Down play it all you want. Avatar is coming. I love James Cameron. He's my favorite director, AND he writes and directs all of his material. He didn't wait 12 years to produce a "dud". They told him 'Aliens' was career suicide. Give me a break. No studio in this economy is going to give someone 500 million dollars if they're not confident that it's money in the bank. I know its "your opinion" but this is not '2012' from that schlockmeister Roland Emmerich. I can't believe they still give that hack money to make movies. James Cameron, like the members of Rush, is a genius. I like James Cameron a lot and The Abyss remains one of my all-time favorite movies. I think that the only reason people are saying that the fx look cartoony is because Cameron boasted that the fx would be cutting-edge and "blow us away". Whereas it's great to have that level of confidence in yourself and your fx crew, one should also beware of getting up on one's high horse since there's always at least on guy who wants to knock you off of it.   Edit: I also share your opinion of Emmerich and have compared him to Uwe Boll at least a couple of times.   QUOTE I posted a thread similar to this in 'The Higher Level Static of Talk'. My mistake.   That's okay, bub. No one's perfect. Dude! I never even noticed your insignias. Aliens, Blade-runner, and BTILC. Awesome. Where did you come across those? I got a laugh out of your Uwe Boll comparison too. That's great! The Abyss is one of my faves as well. It's too bad he had to cut so much out of the theatrical version or it would have done much better. I see your point about the FX. This movie is not intended to be seen on a 2D screen. I think a great deal of people don't realize that. I can't wait to see it.

[Jack Aubrey]

QUOTE (Andrew1 @ Nov 14 2009, 11:43 AM)

QUOTE (Jack Aubrey @ Nov 14 2009, 08:04 AM) QUOTE (Andrew1 @ Nov 14 2009, 12:14 AM) I posted a thread similar to this in 'The Higher Level Static of Talk'. My mistake. Cartoony? This movie will be up for 'Best Picture'. Cameron is a visionary. We've seen 3 minutes of a three hour movie. Down play it all you want. Avatar is coming. I love James Cameron. He's my favorite director, AND he writes and directs all of his material. He didn't wait 12 years to produce a "dud". They told him 'Aliens' was career suicide. Give me a break. No studio in this economy is going to give someone 500 million dollars if they're not confident that it's money in the bank. I know its "your opinion" but this is not '2012' from that schlockmeister Roland Emmerich. I can't believe they still give that hack money to make movies. James Cameron, like the members of Rush, is a genius. I like James Cameron a lot and The Abyss remains one of my all-time favorite movies. I think that the only reason people are saying that the fx look cartoony is because Cameron boasted that the fx would be cutting-edge and "blow us away". Whereas it's great to have that level of confidence in yourself and your fx crew, one should also beware of getting up on one's high horse since there's always at least on guy who wants to knock you off of it.   Edit: I also share your opinion of Emmerich and have compared him to Uwe Boll at least a couple of times.   QUOTE I posted a thread similar to this in 'The Higher Level Static of Talk'. My mistake.   That's okay, bub. No one's perfect. Dude! I never even noticed your insignias. Aliens, Blade-runner, and BTILC. Awesome. Where did you come across those? I got a laugh out of your Uwe Boll comparison too. That's great! The Abyss is one of my faves as well. It's too bad he had to cut so much out of the theatrical version or it would have done much better. I see your point about the FX. This movie is not intended to be seen on a 2D screen. I think a great deal of people don't realize that. I can't wait to see it. I found them on T-Shirt Bordello. I told my wife that I wanted them for Christmas. I'll let you know if I get 'em.

Edited November 14, 2009 by Jack Aubrey

[1-0-0-1-0-0-1]

QUOTE (Andrew1 @ Nov 14 2009, 12:14 AM)

I posted a thread similar to this in 'The Higher Level Static of Talk'. My mistake. Cartoony? This movie will be up for 'Best Picture'. Cameron is a visionary. We've seen 3 minutes of a three hour movie. Down play it all you want. Avatar is coming. I love James Cameron. He's my favorite director, AND he writes and directs all of his material. He didn't wait 12 years to produce a "dud". They told him 'Aliens' was career suicide. Give me a break. No studio in this economy is going to give someone 500 million dollars if they're not confident that it's money in the bank. I know its "your opinion" but this is not '2012' from that schlockmeister Roland Emmerich. I can't believe they still give that hack money to make movies. James Cameron, like the members of Rush, is a genius.

Steven Spielberg and Harrison Ford, not exactly hacks in the field of movie making, didn't wait 20 years to produce a dud, either. Yet the fourth "Indiana Jones" movie was precisely that.

 

James Cameron is not a hack, either. "Aliens" is one of the best suspense thrillers ever made. And no one else could have made "Titanic." On a technical level, that movie is perfect. Restaging the sinking of that ship was a monumentally difficult task, and he not only pulled it off, he nailed it. The second half of that movie was riveting.

 

That he also writes his own movies is impressive, but it's also his biggest shortcoming. He has good storytelling instincts, but his dialogue is hokey and ridden with cliches. And sadly, he's in love with his dialogue and doesn't know how to trim it down to make a leaner movie. It's why so many people have trouble getting through the first half of "Titanic." Aside from a few important story setups, that first 90 minutes is filled with cringe-worthy teen romance stuff that you'd expect to see in a Michael Bay movie. Once we see that iceberg, however, the movie takes off.

 

I see some of that cheesy dialogue in the "Avatar" trailer. And if I'm seeing it in the trailer, I'll bet the rest of the movie will have plenty of it.

 

On his next film, I think Cameron should come up with the story, then let someone else write the screenplay. I'd love to see what he could do with a lean script that had GOOD dialogue.

 

BTW Andrew1, don't take this post as me saying your opinions about Cameron and "Avatar" are wrong. I'm just offering another opinion. And of course you're right about Emmerich. He and Michael Bay should have their director ID cards revoked.

[Andrew1]

QUOTE (1-0-0-1-0-0-1 @ Nov 14 2009, 01:10 PM)

QUOTE (Andrew1 @ Nov 14 2009, 12:14 AM) I posted a thread similar to this in 'The Higher Level Static of Talk'. My mistake. Cartoony? This movie will be up for 'Best Picture'. Cameron is a visionary. We've seen 3 minutes of a three hour movie. Down play it all you want. Avatar is coming. I love James Cameron. He's my favorite director, AND he writes and directs all of his material. He didn't wait 12 years to produce a "dud". They told him 'Aliens' was career suicide. Give me a break. No studio in this economy is going to give someone 500 million dollars if they're not confident that it's money in the bank. I know its "your opinion" but this is not '2012' from that schlockmeister Roland Emmerich. I can't believe they still give that hack money to make movies. James Cameron, like the members of Rush, is a genius. Steven Spielberg and Harrison Ford, not exactly hacks in the field of movie making, didn't wait 20 years to produce a dud, either. Yet the fourth "Indiana Jones" movie was precisely that.   James Cameron is not a hack, either. "Aliens" is one of the best suspense thrillers ever made. And no one else could have made "Titanic." On a technical level, that movie is perfect. Restaging the sinking of that ship was a monumentally difficult task, and he not only pulled it off, he nailed it. The second half of that movie was riveting.   That he also writes his own movies is impressive, but it's also his biggest shortcoming. He has good storytelling instincts, but his dialogue is hokey and ridden with cliches. And sadly, he's in love with his dialogue and doesn't know how to trim it down to make a leaner movie. It's why so many people have trouble getting through the first half of "Titanic." Aside from a few important story setups, that first 90 minutes is filled with cringe-worthy teen romance stuff that you'd expect to see in a Michael Bay movie. Once we see that iceberg, however, the movie takes off.   I see some of that cheesy dialogue in the "Avatar" trailer. And if I'm seeing it in the trailer, I'll bet the rest of the movie will have plenty of it.   On his next film, I think Cameron should come up with the story, then let someone else write the screenplay. I'd love to see what he could do with a lean script that had GOOD dialogue.   BTW Andrew1, don't take this post as me saying your opinions about Cameron and "Avatar" are wrong. I'm just offering another opinion. And of course you're right about Emmerich. He and Michael Bay should have their director ID cards revoked. Indy 4? I couldn't agree with you more. A totally unnecessary movie. You should check out the South Park episode where Lucas and Spielberg rape Indy. A classic and right on the money.   Lucas and Spielberg have gotten soft in their old age. Tragic.     You couldn't be more right on about Cameron's dialogue. The Jack and Rose scenes during Titanic? I couldn't agree with you more. No offense taken here. You obviously know what's up. Thanks for commenting.

[hunter]

Cameron is a fine director, but I've got to agree with the boys from South Park here; Avatar looks like live action Smurfs to me. The CG looks standard not exceptional, but I'll wait for final judgment until it comes out.

[Andrew1]

QUOTE (hunter @ Nov 14 2009, 03:57 PM)

Cameron is a fine director, but I've got to agree with the boys from South Park here; Avatar looks like live action Smurfs to me. The CG looks standard not exceptional, but I'll wait for final judgment until it comes out.

I love South Park. But what the boys don't realize is that this movie is not intended to be viewed on a 2D screen. I think everyone should hold off on criticizing the FX until they see it the way it was intended. It does make me nervous that the creators from South Park said that. Those guys do their homework and they are always right on.

[-D-RocK-]

Is it true this film cost half a billion dollars to make?

 

 

 

If it is..........then that's just ridiculous.

[Andrew1]

QUOTE (-D-RocK- @ Nov 14 2009, 07:56 PM)

Is it true this film cost half a billion dollars to make? If it is..........then that's just ridiculous.

Yeah dude. $500 million. Mainly because of all the new technology developed for filming in 3D. This was expected. Cameron has already signed off some of his own personal profits to cover some expenses if the film doesn't meet certain expectations. He did the same with Titanic. When the production co. was giving him hell about being over budget and past schedule, he got pissed and finished the film's production out of his own pocket. Because of the success of Titanic, FOX pretty much wrote him a blank check and gave him full reins. $500 million is not really a huge stretch nowadays. Consider Transformers 2 had a price tag of roughly $250 million. I agree it sounds ridiculous but Cameron and FOX have covered their bases. Starting with a worldwide release a week before X-mas. It will be interesting to see how this pans out.

Edited November 15, 2009 by Andrew1

[Test4VitalSigns]

It'll be yet another CGI demonstration and not a true movie

 

 

I'm personally tired of all these CGI-dominated blockbuster flicks. Give me a good story with good acting and dialogue over this fake shit any day.

 

Indie movies rule.

[SiriusRushFan]

QUOTE (Test4VitalSigns @ Nov 14 2009, 09:43 PM)

It'll be yet another CGI demonstration and not a true movie      I'm personally tired of all these CGI-dominated blockbuster flicks.  Give me a good story with good acting and dialogue over this fake shit any day.  Indie  movies rule.

I have to agree to an extent myself. I'll put up with some CGI stuff in a movie, like when they needed to CG some of the Titanic in that movie, just because they had to, but when they start making movies with CGI taking up 50% of the damn movie, that's on the border of watching a high tech cartoon to me.

 

This movie may be ok for a 3-D CGI type movie, but it kinda reminds me of a high tech modern day Braveheart, except instead of the commoners of Scotland (Mel Gibson and his buddies) rising up against England, it's the commoners of Pandora (the Na'vi) rising up against the Marines.

[-D-RocK-]

QUOTE (Andrew1 @ Nov 14 2009, 07:31 PM)

QUOTE (-D-RocK- @ Nov 14 2009, 07:56 PM) Is it true this film cost half a billion dollars to make? If it is..........then that's just ridiculous. Yeah dude. $500 million. Mainly because of all the new technology developed for filming in 3D. This was expected. Cameron has already signed off some of his own personal profits to cover some expenses if the film doesn't meet certain expectations. He did the same with Titanic. When the production co. was giving him hell about being over budget and past schedule, he got pissed and finished the film's production out of his own pocket. Because of the success of Titanic, FOX pretty much wrote him a blank check and gave him full reins. $500 million is not really a huge stretch nowadays. Consider Transformers 2 had a price tag of roughly $250 million. I agree it sounds ridiculous but Cameron and FOX have covered their bases. Starting with a worldwide release a week before X-mas. It will be interesting to see how this pans out. Just think though, with $500 mill, one could make a thousand great movies.   All one would need is some clever writing, superb acting and some creative production.       Wow.........500 million dollars..........the insanity of it all!

[Rushman14]

I just found another great featurette on IGN

 

Avatar Featurette #2

[Ya_Big_Tree]

I'm going to see it this afternoon! I'll let you all know how it is when I get back!

 

[Rushman14]

saw it last night. It's a must see on the big screen. Pandora in 3D is amazing. The plot wasn't very original and some of the characters were underwritten, but overall I give it a solid B.

 

I also suspect the heavy handed pro-environment, anti-corporation message will not go over well with some people.

Edited December 18, 2009 by Rushman14

[Xanadoood]

QUOTE (Test4VitalSigns @ Nov 14 2009, 08:43 PM)

It'll be yet another CGI demonstration and not a true movie I'm personally tired of all these CGI-dominated blockbuster flicks. Give me a good story with good acting and dialogue over this fake shit any day. Indie movies rule.

[Ya_Big_Tree]

THIS IS WHAT A MOVIE IS SUPPOSED TO BE!

 

SEE THIS MOVIE IN THE THEATRE!!!

 

It's nice to finally see movies who actually put the dollars on the screen where you can see it instead of their pockets.

 

Absolutely Brilliant!!!