Author Topic: Avatar (Read 5735 times)

Dartful Dodger · « **on:** August 20, 2009, 01:58:08 pm »

...and no, this isn't about M. Night Shyamalan's The Last Airbender movie.

This movie Looks AWESOME!!!
Avatar

They are trying to keep a lid on this movie to add to the suspense/intrigue, so a French trailer was all I could find.

By the looks of the trailer they won't need any gimmicks to get me to see this.

shardian · « **Reply #1 on:** August 20, 2009, 03:32:26 pm »

I'll probably go see it, but I really don't think it looks all that special. I think the buzz is manufactured just from the fact it is so secretive and it is James Cameron.

shardian · « **Reply #2 on:** August 20, 2009, 03:32:49 pm »

Oh, and I saw a preview of Airbender. It looks pretty cool actually.

RayB · « **Reply #3 on:** August 20, 2009, 03:34:10 pm »

Hmm, its interesting. Bugs me he used a "hip buzzword" for the title, and the parts with the aliens look too CG compared to the earlier shots, but I'd definitely go see this!

massive88 · « **Reply #4 on:** August 20, 2009, 03:36:07 pm »

Quote from: RayB on August 20, 2009, 03:34:10 pm

Hmm, its interesting. Bugs me he used a "hip buzzword" for the title, and the parts with the aliens look too CG compared to the earlier shots, but I'd definitely go see this!

At E3 he said hes had the idea and name since the mid 80's, but never thought he could pull it off before with the special effects he would require.

Cameron also said he considered changing the name seeing how the word Avatar has evolved in the internet culture, but decided to keep it.

Dartful Dodger · « **Reply #5 on:** August 20, 2009, 06:48:35 pm »

Odd it seems the name Avatar is more fitting with today’s internet culture. From what I can gather a guy in a wheelchair gets his brain transferred to an alien's body so he can spy on the aliens, but the plan goes wrong when he falls for an alien chick, blah, blah, blah...

Aliens, dragons, Mechs, jets and marines beating the crud out of each other, the love story/social commentary is just padding to give me time to go pee and refill my slurpee.

I think it's in 3D too. I haven't seen a 3D movie since I was a kid. I know it's cheesy but I've been wanting to see one at the Imax, but every time I get motivated to go, the movie I wanted to see was no longer being shown in 3D.

I’ll have to force myself to see this one as soon as it comes out.

Ginsu Victim · « **Reply #6 on:** August 20, 2009, 07:41:53 pm »

This is James Cameron's masterpiece I've been going nuts waiting for? I hope it's better than what I just witnessed.

I don't like the look of the aliens. Pretty cartoony.

Of course, I'll reserve judgment until I've actually seen it, because I have NEVER been let down by Cameron (that's right, I even liked Titanic).

somunny · « **Reply #7 on:** August 20, 2009, 09:04:33 pm »

"Avatar" has been this project's title for several years, at least. And... it looks great.

Ginsu Victim · « **Reply #8 on:** August 20, 2009, 09:06:16 pm »

Yeah, he's had the title for a long time.

stace · « **Reply #9 on:** August 21, 2009, 01:47:15 am »

I read Cameron had special 3D hardware built for this movie. Apparently it should surpass all 3D movies to this point.

danny_galaga · « **Reply #10 on:** August 21, 2009, 03:41:43 am »

Quote from: RayB on August 20, 2009, 03:34:10 pm

Hmm, its interesting. Bugs me he used a "hip buzzword" for the title, and the parts with the aliens look too CG compared to the earlier shots, but I'd definitely go see this!

'Airbender' is a hip buzzword? Oh wait, i see...

protokatie · « **Reply #11 on:** August 21, 2009, 05:57:57 am »

Quote

the love story/social commentary is just padding to give me time to go pee and refill my slurpee.

That's why you get TWO slurpies! Once you have finished one of them, you have an empty container to "fill-up" and leave for the little puke zit face to clean up after the movie! Actually, to be honest, the only way to cover for the sound of peeing into a cup at the movies is to get an extra bucket of popcorn and not eat it. The popcorn mutes the sound of pee hitting a surface. (And no, I haven't done this, just wish I had on several occassions at the movies...)

As per the movie preview: Looks fake, but at the same time looks like it would be an enjoyable story, which is all I really care about when it comes to a movie (Like anyone here hates Army of Darkness simply because the effects looked like crap! Shop smart; shop S-Mart!)

EDIT: Maybe my new custom title should be "An extra bucket of popcorn at the movies is really just cinema diapers, but it really just Depends!"
*groans*

shardian · « **Reply #12 on:** August 21, 2009, 08:50:38 am »

Quote from: Dartful Dodger on August 20, 2009, 06:48:35 pm

I think it's in 3D too. I haven't seen a 3D movie since I was a kid. I know it's cheesy but I've been wanting to see one at the Imax, but every time I get motivated to go, the movie I wanted to see was no longer being shown in 3D.

In Journey to the Center of the earth, it was a gimmick. I had a headache after that because it was implemented so horribly.

In Coraline and Up, it added amazing depth. no headaches either.

ChadTower · « **Reply #13 on:** August 21, 2009, 09:16:45 am »

I'll agree with Up but less on Coraline. They tried to jump out of the screen quite a bit in Coraline and I just couldn't really see it.

I only saw Journey to the Center of the Earth at home so no 3D. I can see how it must have sucked, though, from what I remember of the cheesy 1955 style floating rocks and birds.

shardian · « **Reply #14 on:** August 21, 2009, 09:40:42 am »

Quote from: ChadTower on August 21, 2009, 09:16:45 am

I'll agree with Up but less on Coraline. They tried to jump out of the screen quite a bit in Coraline and I just couldn't really see it.

I only saw Journey to the Center of the Earth at home so no 3D. I can see how it must have sucked, though, from what I remember of the cheesy 1955 style floating rocks and birds.

There were a few cheesy 3D gimmicks in Coraline, but for the most part, the 3d was used to add overall depth. The garden scene was amazing.

Journey to... didn't any depth to the real actors it seemed. Just like they assigned them a flat value just for overall depth. I often checked this by lifting my glasses. The true 3d stuff was usually moving WAY too fast for it to register as more than a headache inducing blur ( bird, fish, mouthwash, etc).

When 3d is used in stationary or slow/moderate moving scenery, it is really good.

Ginsu Victim · « **Reply #15 on:** August 21, 2009, 09:42:32 am »

Yeah, Coraline was never gimmicky. There were scenes that jumped out because it WAS 3-D, but they weren't used in a tacky way. The 3-D was all about depth of field, which they did a great job with.

Up was also very reserved in their use of it. It was all about depth.

Both films did a great job of avoiding abuse of the format.

shardian · « **Reply #16 on:** August 21, 2009, 09:51:46 am »

Quote from: Ginsu Victim on August 21, 2009, 09:42:32 am

Yeah, Coraline was never gimmicky. There were scenes that jumped out because it WAS 3-D, but they weren't used in a tacky way. The 3-D was all about depth of field, which they did a great job with.

Up was also very reserved in their use of it. It was all about depth.

Both films did a great job of avoiding abuse of the format.

The one in Coraline that really jumped out at me was the introduction of the other-dad. He turned around and popped out 2 extender arms right at the camera. I thought it was cool, but it is still a 3D gimmick.
I'm biased though, because Muppets 3D and T2 3D are my favorite attractions at Disney World and Universal Studios, respectively.

Ginsu Victim · « **Reply #17 on:** August 21, 2009, 10:02:51 am »

The one I think about is the needle right at the beginning. I'd forgot about the arms.

Ginsu Victim · « **Reply #18 on:** August 21, 2009, 10:45:47 am »

Quote from: pinballjim on August 21, 2009, 10:35:02 am

the first 30 seconds I was all, "wow, this looks amazing" and by the end of it I was groaning.

Wow, Jim and I agree on something.

shardian · « **Reply #19 on:** August 21, 2009, 11:27:48 am »

James Cameron should know better than anyone - well done physical effects trump well done CGI effects every time.

Ginsu Victim · « **Reply #20 on:** August 21, 2009, 11:30:12 am »

He's great at mixing them, too, though. Look at T2.

shardian · « **Reply #21 on:** August 21, 2009, 11:37:55 am »

Quote from: Ginsu Victim on August 21, 2009, 11:30:12 am

He's great at mixing them, too, though. Look at T2.

I know. That's why I think he should have known better. The physical stuff was always way more awesome than the CG stuff.

Ginsu Victim · « **Reply #22 on:** August 21, 2009, 11:48:59 am »

I'm a fan of practical effects over CG every time.

shardian · « **Reply #23 on:** August 21, 2009, 11:54:33 am »

Quote from: Ginsu Victim on August 21, 2009, 11:48:59 am

I'm a fan of practical effects over CG every time.

Good example:
Jurassic park CGI is starting to look dated. The Jurassic Park practical stuff still looks awesome.

Another movie I always cite for practical effects is Labyrinth. The 'making of' feature shows how genious the effects you barely even notice were.

RayB · « **Reply #24 on:** August 22, 2009, 03:43:08 pm »

Put on your 3D glasses when the red dot appears!
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RdlL7TA_5s[/youtube]

Ummon · « **Reply #25 on:** August 22, 2009, 05:54:14 pm »

The whole thing is CGI.

protokatie · « **Reply #26 on:** August 22, 2009, 11:42:46 pm »

RayB, the funny thing was that the only part that showed any real good stereoscopics with my 3d Glasses was when that woman walks in front of them at the BBQ... (BTW I used Cyan/Red 3d glasses) Or was this just some sort of joke....

vertygo · « **Reply #27 on:** August 23, 2009, 02:05:49 am »

Everytime I read Avatar in conjunction with a movie, I hope it'll be for an (Origin Games) Ultima 4 movie adaptation..

Ginsu Victim · « **Reply #28 on:** August 23, 2009, 10:56:58 am »

Quote from: Ummon on August 22, 2009, 05:54:14 pm

The whole thing is CGI.

Then why did they build sets?

ChadTower · « **Reply #29 on:** August 23, 2009, 03:22:13 pm »

Quote from: shardian on August 21, 2009, 09:40:42 am

There were a few cheesy 3D gimmicks in Coraline, but for the most part, the 3d was used to add overall depth. The garden scene was amazing.

Every time the Russian guy was on screen they tried to pop his arms and legs out at you. Almost never worked.

Took the kids to the Imax to see the new Harry Potter. That was good, they added a lot of depth to the 3D part. The real win was the trailer for the Jim Carrey Scrooge movie coming up. There were some jaw dropping 3D effects in that preview, particularly when Scrooge's face was 40ft tall and he slowly leaned forward at us.

Dartful Dodger · « **Reply #30 on:** August 24, 2009, 01:57:15 pm »

Jim Carrey is still trying to make movies?

Just to make sure their isn't a hint of humor in the movie they should add Will Farrell and Chevy Chase to the cast.

shardian · « **Reply #31 on:** August 24, 2009, 01:59:48 pm »

Quote from: Dartful Dodger on August 24, 2009, 01:57:15 pm

Jim Carrey is still trying to make movies?

Just to make sure their isn't a hint of humor in the movie they should add Will Farrell and Chevy Chase to the cast.

Will Ferrell and Chevy Chase, yes they can suck the funny right out of anything now. Chevy Chase on Chuck was a no-brainer slam dunk...and he ---fouled up beyond all recognition--- it up royally! Seriously, that show even made Nicole Ritchie look good.

Jim Carrey on the other hand can still make decent stuff. Yes Man was great.

Dartful Dodger · « **Reply #32 on:** August 24, 2009, 02:12:08 pm »

Quote from: shardian on August 24, 2009, 01:59:48 pm

Jim Carrey on the other hand can still make decent stuff. Yes Man was great.

Yes Man was one of his recent movies. The last three Jim Carrey movies I've seen all stank. Liar Liar is on that list and Yes Man looks like a remake of it.

I'll add Yes Man to my Netflix list, I won't move it to the top of the list, so it'll have to wait until I've see the 80+ movies ahead of it and of course any new release or old movie that deserves to be pushed to the top of the list.

shardian · « **Reply #33 on:** August 24, 2009, 02:15:43 pm »

Quote from: Dartful Dodger on August 24, 2009, 02:12:08 pm

I'll add Yes Man to my Netflix list, I won't move it to the top of the list, so it'll have to wait until I've see the 80+ movies ahead of it and of course any new release or old movie that deserves to be pushed to the top of the list.

It's got Zooey Deschanel in it, and she is alluring as usual. There's just something about that girl...

ChadTower · « **Reply #34 on:** August 24, 2009, 02:22:57 pm »

Yes Man was definitely a half assed quarter as good remake of Liar Liar. It did suck but not because of Jim Carrey. He did what could be done with the material.

shardian · « **Reply #35 on:** August 24, 2009, 02:25:31 pm »

Quote from: ChadTower on August 24, 2009, 02:22:57 pm

Yes Man was definitely a half assed quarter as good remake of Liar Liar. It did suck but not because of Jim Carrey. He did what could be done with the material.

So you're saying Ms. Deschanel distracted me enough to think the movie was good?

Cmon, the 'do you need release' scene was worth the price of admission.

ChadTower · « **Reply #36 on:** August 24, 2009, 02:37:43 pm »

Must be a personal preference thing. I don't even remember her.

Dartful Dodger · « **Reply #37 on:** August 24, 2009, 03:27:22 pm »

Scripts/stories might be part of the reason I don't find Jim Carey movies funny, but Jim Carey is choosing to be in these movies. He's choosing movies that won't stereo type him as a funny guy. The problem is, he is a funny guy, so I end up being disappointed when I watch his newer films.

Will Farrell is a great side kick or cameo guy, but when he’s the lead, the movie is only funny for the first 5 minutes, then the character he plays becomes annoying.

This one is hard for me to say, because Fletch is my favorite comedy, but Chevy Chase was never funny. Saturday Night Live had great writers and Chevy got lucky and chose a string of movies that could have been just as hilarious if Steven Seagal played the leads.

Ginsu Victim · « **Reply #38 on:** August 24, 2009, 03:57:09 pm »

Jim Carey was great in Truman Show. I love that movie.

Hell, my wife refers to it as a horror movie, just because it freaks her out.

Ummon · « **Reply #39 on:** August 24, 2009, 06:27:13 pm »

Quote from: Ginsu Victim on August 23, 2009, 10:56:58 am

Quote from: Ummon on August 22, 2009, 05:54:14 pm
The whole thing is CGI.

Then why did they build sets?

Don know. Looked all animated to me. Maybe the live shots were animation super-imposed or 'brushed' ?

Ginsu Victim · « **Reply #40 on:** August 24, 2009, 06:31:06 pm »

according to IMDb:
The movie is 40% live action and 60% photo-realistic CGI. A lot of motion capture technology was used for the CGI scenes.

shardian · « **Reply #41 on:** August 25, 2009, 08:00:31 am »

It is not looking good for this movie. Even the fanboys from IGN are saying 'meh...'.

ChadTower · « **Reply #42 on:** August 25, 2009, 08:57:34 am »

Took the kids to the Imax friday to see the latest Harry Potter. The line was a huge mess because apparently they were showing a 15 minute Avatar preview before the movie that wasn't part of the admission. So they had two longass lines and nobody knew which was which. They filled the theater for Avatar preview then immediately booted those people out and let us in. Delayed the movie by a half hour.


Main	Restorations	Software	Audio/Jukebox/MP3	Everything Else	Buy/Sell/Trade
Project Announcements	Monitor/Video	GroovyMAME	Merit/JVL Touchscreen	Meet Up	Retail Vendors
Driving & Racing	Woodworking	Software Support Forums	Consoles	Project Arcade	Reviews
Automated Projects	Artwork	Frontend Support Forums	Pinball	Forum Discussion	Old Boards
Raspberry Pi & Dev Board	controls.dat	Linux	Miscellaneous Arcade	Wiki Discussion	Old Archives
Lightguns	Arcade1Up	Try the site in https mode		Site News


Unread posts \| New Replies \| Recent posts \| Rules \| Chatroom \| Wiki \| File Repository \| RSS \| Submit news

Author Topic: Avatar (Read 5735 times)

stace