James Cameron's Avatar

Quest, what I said was speculation, based on having seen two trailers. I've been avoiding spoilers about the movie myself, but the two probable endings were fairly obvious.

 

I went to a press showing today and what I saw was frankly amazing. James Cameron has created an incredibly beautiful movie and the Na'Vi look amazing. The story is ok and so is acting but what sticks with you is the visuals. The 3D makes the movie an incredibly immersive experiance and if you've got a chance, that is the format to see it in.

 

Sorry, my bad.

As the film has been officially released, I didn't think it would be classed as a spoiler anymore. Apologies to everyone once again.

 

I really want to strangle a kitten.

 

The wife and I are catching this one tomorrow night (along with another pair of friends) at the Navy Pier IMAX. Apparently, all of the Chicago IMAX screenings have been sold out for the last three weeks, now.

Also, Defamer folded its "Avatar Sucks" campaign that it's been running for months, finally conceding that Avatar Didn't Suck:

http://defamer.gawker.com/5427160/an-apology-avatar-amazingly-does-not-suck

 

I just got back from an IMAX 3D showing. I was prepared to be disappointed.

This film DOES NOT disappoint. Visually, it's the most spectacular film ever made. Bar none. Go home. Don't even both trying to justify any other movie in history as being in the same league as Avatar. When Revenge of the Sith came out, it was the best. When Star Trek came out, in my opinion, it was the best. Avatar blows them out of the water. The plot is perfectly serviceable, the acting good enough - especially Zoe Saldana and Sigourney Weaver.

Odd thing I noticed: Anton Yelchin is in Star Trek and Terminator: Salvation. Sam Worthington is in Terminator: Salvation and Avatar. Zoe Saldana is in Star Trek and Avatar. Probably just because it's 3:16am here, but I find this fascinating.

 

3:16

For God so loved the world, he gave it ... Avatar???

 

This film was beautiful. Absolutely beautiful. If the acting sucked, I really didn't care/notice because it was just so damn beautiful.

 

I tend to be somewhat jaded about special effects and CGI. I'll look at a scene, and because I know intellectually that it's CGI I find it hard to maintain suspension of disbelief. Looking back at Avatar, I think that my ability to keep disbelieving faded around the first hour or so. There's a scene at the end in a trailer where in retrospect, there was nothing that I disbelieved. It looked and felt real enough, the CGI elements had enough weight and solidity to them that there was no room for disbelief. This morning I'm shaking my head in something like awe over that accomplishment.


The plot has grown on me too.

 

What do you think now, in hindsight, of my accidental spoiler. I actually don't think it was that big, considering it was actually foreshadowed in the movie itself.

 

Has anyone seen this film in 2D? If so, is it still visually impressive? The CGI in the trailers looked fairly second rate to be honest.

 

Haven't seen it yet, but I'm looking at James Cameron's script for it...Parker Selfridge, the obnoxious corporate yuppie, originally had the first name of Carter. Sound familiar, anyone?

(if it isn't, that's the name of the obnoxious corporate yuppie from Aliens )

 

Saw the 2D version this afternoon and it's James Cameron's worst film by a mile. Definitely four stars for ambition and spots of execution, but the most important aspect, character and story, one and half star at maximum. It's just a lazy, unoriginal, cliched to the max story we've all seen. No amount of digital makeup can change that. Once you get past the look of this thing, it's hollow as hell...not to mention corny.

I find it interesting that Cameron spends well over 400 million dollars on this project and yet, the visual effects are only a slight step up from what Lucas did with Episode III on a 115 million dollar budget...and with less time too...4 years ago!

It is gorgeous but in a Pixar animated film sort of way. Cameron is very, very careful about how he implores the visual effects. When it's live action, it's 85% live action and 15% visual effects. On the flip side, it's 100% visual effects for the big chunk of the middle of the film. Of course, it is seamless and gorgeous in those sections but photorealistic, this film doesn't quite achieve(and I don't think that was the objective in the first place. It is Weta after all). Hardly does Cameron do a complete balance of the two and when he does, the seams show.

Overall, not the game changer. Not revolutionary or evolution. It's just another sci-fi film. And, some reviewers say this film is better than the original Star Wars film. It's not even better than the Special Edition of Episode IV.

 

Agreed, T2Q. There was not one single moment I was taken out of the film by the Uncanny Valley. That alone is one of the film's tremendous accomplishments.

 

Ditto Jumpman.

 

Saw this tonight. Overall I thought the plot was really generic and forgettable but at least it was pretty to look at. The few action scenes were decent and kept me from getting too bored. Wish Cameron had actually taken time to develop the human characters a bit more. Outside of the small group of scientists Jake was with they only gave the General any real characterization. IMO it wouldn't surprise me if most audiences forget Avatar in a few months after all the hype surrounding it has gone away. When the standard def DVD comes out I hope they don't cheat us out of a ton extras just to sell a few more Blu Ray copies since that's my favorite part of DVDs and I haven't been convinced to upgrade just yet.

 

Viewers taking this submission from the writerly perspective might consider this article.

 

So is this film actually worth a crap considering I don't give a hoot about what it looks like and will be seeing it in 2D? Is it all style and no substance?

 

I just watched this film on a regular cinema screen in 2D and I loved it! I would go again for style alone.