*** Official AVATAR Discussion Thread - Page 3

Chuck,

Well, yeah they were window dressing but that has more to do with the story than Lucas not actually interested in exploring the worlds he created.  Avatar is about Pandora.  None of the environments in the Star Wars films are the story.  You can't really knock Lucas for that.

I have a theory about Weta Digital and I think this film will prove me right about them compared to ILM.  It's just something I'm going to have to get use to.

And yes, Travis, Felucia was the other one.

I saw it today and loved it 9/10. However the music was not memorable to me. Maybe because I was too immersed in the 3D world, I don't know.

Could you share it please?

Cory and I had this very same debate in the old Avatar thread back in 2006 when WETA was announced as the major effects house doing Avatar, so if you root through that thread, I assume it is there.

I agree with his assessment (we'll see how I feel in 12 hours), but disagree with his conclusions.  From what I have seen, Cameron chose exactly the right house for the film he wanted to make.  And from all corners (including the less than positive reviews), Avatar is at least groundbreaking on a technical level.  No surprise there.  When has Cameron not pushed the tech to the next level?

Basically, Weta Digital goes for visually and artistically beautiful images rather than photorealism.  Not saying they don't achieve photorealism, but if it's more visually striking and artistically beautiful instead of photoreal, they'll gladly take that.

ILM's mantra is photorealism.  That's where the company finds the beauty in their work.  There has been nothing I've seen from Avatar yet that matches John Knoll's work on Davey Jones and the crew of the Flying Dutchmen.  Nothing.  Yet, the Na'vi are being praised as the next generation of CG characters.  I'm just not seeing it.  Maybe it has more to do with what I think visual effects should achieve in live action films...and I believe they should achieve a level of seamlessness and photorealism so you don't question what you see even if you subconsciously know it is CG.

I'm hoping that Avatar changes my mind about Weta Digital(and other areas hugely tomorrow) but based on clips and trailers, I just don't see it. 

WETA and ILM have a very healthy competition. They are really good for each other, and have been one-upping each other for the past decade really. Looks like WETA will once again nose ahead with Avatar...I am sure this will push ILM to make the next breakthrough. All this is great for movie buffs like us.

As I mentioned earlier, I hope I enjoy the story. I know the spectacle will blow me away.

1) Agreed regarding ILM and WETA.  ILM was all alone for some time, with occasion nudges from Digital Domain or Sony.  WETA provides them with an "equal", and a philosophically different one.  Good for everybody.

2) That is where I am regarding the film.  I hope that Cameron tells his well-worn story with verve and creativity.  I am not worried about the technical side.  Clearly, he still has "it" on that front.

Chris,

Well, Weta has been dominate this decade (undeserving a few years).  The Rings Trilogy.  Kong.  Now, Avatar.  ILM's got one with Dead Man's Chest.  Should've got number two with Transformers 2007(still can't figure that one out yet).

But, they are good for each other...

I think WETA deserved it every year they got it (the only year they weren't the clear choice was 2003).  And they'll clearly deserve it this year.

I agree that, in technical terms, Davey Jones hasn't been surpassed yet.  We'll see if Avatar does it tonight.

I wouldn't use the VFX Oscar as the standard of success, dominance or relevance.

Nick, I stand corrected. I knew they were still on good terms, but didn't realize they still shared scripts. Not surprising they still talk shop.

OTOH, I'm very happy Kathryn has a more, ah...sophisticated...sense of story and character than Big Jim. As much as I want to be transported by Avatar, and as stunning as it will be visually, I'm pretty sure it will not be as emotionally complex as...The Hurt Locker.

Delete

 I wouldn't use Oscar as a validation, period. The Visual FX awards do usually reward excellence, but that doesn't imply iminent superiority in that particualr year.

These are two great companies with outstanding craftsmen and artists in each. What's key for me is the vision of the filmmakers - how well do the FX serve the story?

I'm looking forward to writing my review, but I'm still processing.  My immediate emotions are somewhat muddled.  I waited for this movie for such a long time.

I find it hard to express my initial impressions, because the story itself relies on old conventions and cliches, but the visual storytelling side of the film is extraordinary.  The more I look back on it, the more I realize how tough I was being on it while watching.  And the more I really, really like it.

It is certainly flawed.  Every ounce of risk was taken on the apparatus and process of filmmaking.  The actors took risk, the direction took risk, and the seams between effects and every other element of filmmaking certainly took risks.  The story took no risk whatsoever, and that is a bit disappointing.  Many of the characters have very little character.  Only the main leads are anything more than perfunctory plot-movers.  I am certain this is intentional, to ground the audience in the familiar on the story side, to allow for the leap the film is asking them to make in the visual.  I still consider it a negative, but many won't.

The film is a staggering achievement, however.  The risks that were taken were conquered.  I will be very interested to see the process of making Avatar, soup to nuts.  I couldn't believe how beautiful it was.  Whatever it costs, it looks like it cost more.  Cameron still has his technical chops.

I'll discuss some of this in more detail in my review.  I want to sleep on it.  And I want to see it again.  I absolutely can't wait to see it again.

I was a big doubter from the beginning.  That has changed.  This was maybe one of the best movie-going experiences I've had in years.  The audience was so stunned about 30 minutes in (I watched in IMAX 3D) that the theater was silent.. not silent in a bad way, just everyone intently watching what was on the screen.  

I realize what is being said above, but I don't think that matters at all; I think most of the best fiction relies on a few central characters and other characters service them and move the plot.. I found the way in which the main storyline was handled was so authentic that despite the fact it was almost all CGI I assume, it sucked me in to the world of the characters.

Yes, there is some lifting of ideas from previous works, a kind of blend of a lot of science fiction thought (for those that have read a lot of Orson Scott Card, the "tree network" seemed wildly familiar to fans of "Xenocide" and "Children of the Mind").. but all of these base SciFi themes were built together in a way that established something itself new and really original.

It's hard to know where this is going, but judging by the pack of crying girls in front of us as the film ended, my gut tells me this film is going to reach a lot of audiences that normally aren't sci-fi fans. 

This is also one of the few films that I wasn't thinking "how great is this going to be in my home theater" because, to be honest, after watching in IMAX3d, I'm not sure how I'd ever get that experience out of a home theater.  And that's a rarity hollywood should look for.. the kind of film that once you see it once, you realize even on Blueray, or whatever equipment you have, it's going to be very difficult to get that feel..

Just a stunning achievement.  This goes down as my second favorite film of the year so far (second to "Up!"), but an incredible, incredible effort.

 Impressive visuals, but I think more than that, it was impressive that you can really tell they got the actor's performances to translate into the faces. It passed the CGI "kissing test", meaning two CGI characters making out, without the audience snickering (oh, Final Fantasy: Spirits Within) ... but only barely I think. It still is sorta weird seeing CGI characters in a "love scene". 

It's an odd juxtaposition of a film though because the effects and 3D are definitely a water mark in evolution, but the story is sometimes so much of retread of "Dances With Wolves" that it feels old hat at times. I mean seeing the Nav'i was almost like a reunion with the "Dances With Wolves" cast ... except now they're blue.

Still, the story is always coherent (ahem ... Star Trek and Transformers). Like "Titanic" there is a nice build-up to the third act (though it never quite builds to the same dizzying operatic pay-off). It definitely is still the "water cooler" movie of the year, the one movie have to see to stay current and Pandora is a fun place to experience. 

Love him or hate him, you can't deny Cameron puts it all up there on the screen, even though in many ways this is far from his best movie (effects aside). 

Well, while I didn't immediately love the film, I have tickets to a second showing this afternoon.  And I'm pretty jazzed about it.

I'm not certain the film is a game-changer, but it is a part of any argument and evolution.  The technical evolutions necessary for the film are pretty extraordinary.  Get used to hearing that word.

Regarding the story, I agree wholeheartedly with Pete.  Though I recognize the well-tread story and storytelling beats are intentional.  It is a comfort zone to accompany the visuals.  People act the way you expect them to act, because, well, you've seen movies in your life.  And the story is not bad, merely familiar.  Overly familiar.  It is solidly told.  Personally, I merely wish it was more nuanced or a bit more layered.  It is missing some nice elements from the script (regarding Pandora and the nature of the relationship) that would have made it feel a bit less generic.  But it is efficient and clean.

Holy shit, is it something to look at, though.

Chuck, did you see it in 3D?

I won't even bother making any attempt to see this in IMAX until some time next month, or even February.

I couldn't get into the IMAX to see "THE DARK KNIGHT" until mid-September, so I'll see it on a digital 3D screen for the time being.

I'm seeing it tomorrow morning at 9 AM in IMAX 3D, all the other time slots for today and tomorrow were sold out as of last night.

 Just wanted to share this video with you all. My music editor (and good friend) Dan Brock has been developing software over the last few years called Cue Time to address music editing issues and keeping track of all the changes that occur when scoring a film. His software has some unique features that sync databases to video and allow changes to be tracked quickly and accurately. He has been working with music editor Jim Henrikson and thus all of the James Horner scores for these last few years. Of course that means recently, the software was put to the test once again on Avatar.

The University of Arizona (where Dan and I once attended undergrad)...just did a little video story on Dan and his software. Dan is currently a production coordinator at the U of Arizona media arts department as well. Thought you all would like to see it. And composer James Horner even makes a rare appearance.

http://uanews.org/node/29152

Yes.  And I'll try to always see it that way theatrically, though I don't think it is necessary.

Cool. I can't wait to see it tomorrow night! Any new film from Cameron is huge...

Fantastic video, and I learned something new from it. Thanks for sharing this!

Easily Cameron's worse and best film rolled into one.  For me, no doubt, he gets a massive four stars for ambition and spots of execution but the rest of it, the most important parts(story and character), no more than one star.

Essentially, it's an animated film.  The best example I can give it is if Pixar decided to do a live action film and spent 5 years doing it and decided to not exaggerate their characters or the environment.

I find it very interesting that Cameron was very, very careful when choosing to blend live action with the CG.  For the most part, when it's live action, it's 85% live action with 15% CG in the background.  When it's CG, it's pretty much 100%.  The blending is very carefully chosen so you don't see the seams.

The first 25 minutes are disjointed as hell before it settles in.  Zoe Salanda is the best actor in the film but at least ten miles....I'm still trying to see why everyone is so high on Sam Worthington.  This film didn't help....The score was not particularly great at all.  Almost too corny, too predictable.

Overall, it's no where near the game-changer...nor revolutionary or evolutionary.  It's just a big, epic spectacle with nothing to hang your hat on.  It IS gorgeous, in an animated way...

***

I was 99% ceratin I would just wait for this on home video (as is the case for 99% of the films I'm interested in seeing, which is like 3% of the movies that come out every year), but the 3D angle is starting what appears to be an inevitable trip to the movies.


One of the reviews mentioned that Cameron "brightened" the picture for Avatar to compensate for the loss of light to the 3D glasses (I assume this is both a gamma and a saturation correction).  So I wonder if the "fatigue" from 3D glasses is not from eye-strain due to focusing on 3D images, but rather brain fatigue from processing a dimly lit picture.  Seems possible since Avatar is twice as long as Up and the lack of fatigue is noted in almost every review.

My showing gave a nice round of applause at the end of the film. 

I thought it was funny how much Grace's Avatar's looked like a blue cat's face.

Just caught it in IMAX 3d. Best summer blockbuster I ever saw in the winter. Incredible visuals. The glasses seemed to be annoying as they clamp on your head, but once I put the 'arms' outside my baseball cap it seemed to relieve the pressure and I never thought about them again I was totally invested in Pandora and saw the huge similarity of Dances with Wolves where I sided with the native Americans.. Agree 100% with everyone on Zoe. A+ job. But I also thought Sam worthington gave a great performance as well. I'll definitely be heading back to the theater to take this one on again. Big thumbs up for escapist fantasy.

I think it's going to be a while before I can really decide how I feel about the movie. I know I enjoyed watching it. It could have used another hour of material I'm sure.

I will say this; it doesn't matter how much I may have enjoyed it, I absolutely do NOT want Cameron spending another 10 years in Pandora, as he's hinted as a possibility. I do think the film needs a sequel, they've created an entire world and it deserves a more complex payoff, one that would expand on the enjoyment of this film. But... still.

I did come to the conclusion that 3D is evil (or it's just not for me), I've seen a few movies now, and was waiting to see if Avatar could change things, but I'll definitely be sticking with 2D from now on.

Let's see, what else... oh I was disappointed they cut out all the 'science' from the fiction. The script had all kinds of cool thought behind every little detail; the space travel, Pandora, the avatars. But in the movie they basically took a plane to a planet where the air is hard for us to breath, and using an avatar is like flipping a light switch. Honestly without all of the cool ideas behind it I think it ended up being more of a high-fantasy than sci-fi.

I saw Avatar 3D last night in a nicely filled theater. This is the first movie in years that I will likely go back and see again in theaters instead of waiting until Bluray (the last was Jurassic Park!). In my opinion, it is the most beautiful movie I have ever seen, and the most imaginative in a LONG time.