This is topic Just saw Avatar trailer in forum Ground Level at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=002255

---

Posted by Sally Ann Burgess (Member # 4746) on 08-20-2009, 07:29 AM:
 
Well it's already August 21 here!
Played it through, and have to say I'm impressed by the sheer scale of the movie, it looks very exciting......but I was a little underwhelmed by the blue Na'vi characters, they seemed a bit too cartoony....maybe I just need to see it in HD?
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 08-20-2009, 12:14 PM:
 
I just watched it myself (in HD ) and, as it was bound to be, didn't live up to the hype.

Then again, it was impossible that any movie lived up to the fanatic-hype generated from this movie by some on the internet.

Otherwise, it looks like an step above other CGI films like that Final Fantasy ones.

Not sure how it will go business wise.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-20-2009, 01:54 PM:
 
There's no way this movie isn't going to get deluged by horrible reviews, even if it's great. Also, there's no way it's going to gross anything near what Titanic did, so even if it's a $400 million blockbuster, the pundits will say it's a disappointment.
 

---

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 08-20-2009, 03:15 PM:
 
December 18?! Really? All day long on my birthday all I'm going to hear about is this movie??

[ 10-30-2009, 12:36 PM: Message edited by: Mike Olpin ]
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-20-2009, 03:22 PM:
 
I just saw the teaser.

Looks like a friggin' Star Wars movie with all of that CGI flying around. I am truly disappointed that CGI has not improved much over the last decade or so. Still looks incredibly fake and you can spot it a mile away. This should be called Star Wars Episode III.V

Julio, the Final Fantasy CGI movie is nearly 15 years old.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 08-20-2009, 03:47 PM:
 
Yeah, that's what I meant.

It barely looks like a single step above that, not like something so-revolutionary it was hyped to be.

As you said, it looked just like the next star wars episode.

It's a thumbs down from me so far.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 08-20-2009, 04:44 PM:
 
Anyone have a link to the HD trailer?
 

---

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 08-20-2009, 04:48 PM:
 
Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within is 8 years old actually, not 15.

Havent seent he trailer yet, honestly I'm not that hyped about it. One thing I will say though is sometimes CGI gets a bad rap. I'll admit many times it deserves it, but when you're looking at something thats obviously not real, like a big space scene/whatever, your brain 'knows' its not real and hence its pretty easy to spot 'bad' CGI. Just sayin'.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-20-2009, 06:50 PM:
 
Remember a little movie called "The Abyss?" That was another groundbreaking James Cameron movie that was going to change the world of movies because of its special effects. I liked it OK but it was not the game-changer everyone thought it would be and it was ... a disappointment.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 08-20-2009, 07:06 PM:
 
If anyone has difficulties finding the trailer, it's here in quicktime HD 1080p format (not working at the moment?) or here in french web low res (there is virtually no dialog, so it doesn't matter if you don't speak french).
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 08-20-2009, 07:24 PM:
 
That link is working now.

Mike, I've got a feeling this won't be the last time AVATAR is compared to THE ABYSS(mal).
 

---

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 08-21-2009, 12:01 AM:
 
At first I thought you guys were being your usual hypercritical, sarcastic, holier than thou selves.

I thought the visuals looked good until about 3/4 through the trailer. But then from that point it looked like a cartoon. If this was Cameron's intention, then fine, but even though there are some fine animated features, I'm not too interested in watching a cartoon, especially when the intent is that the creatures shown are supposed to be "real".

And it looks like a lot was borrowed from The Matrix, Hellboy and The Abyss (okay, so at least The Abyss was Cameron's), just to name a few.

So at least judging by this trailer, it looks likes crap. Hopefully it's better than the trailer indicates, but if not, this could be a Heaven's Gate sized fiasco.
 

---

Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 08-21-2009, 06:51 PM:
 
I watched the 3D trailer today (We are playing X games, which is bombing as expected). Anyways, I thought the special effects were good but not mind blowing.

Basically, this movie is a live action BATTLE FOR TERRA, which bombed last May. I think Fox will be disappointed on this one.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-21-2009, 07:06 PM:
 
Despite how it looks, I will still give it a chance as I feel Cameron has not yet made a bad movie. Granted, I haven't seen Piranha 2 The Spawning (anyone have a copy I could borrow?) but so far he hasn't let me down when it comes to entertainment value.
 

---

Posted by Joe Elliott (Member # 4006) on 08-21-2009, 07:48 PM:
 
How many kiddies will come to it wondering why no one had a stupid arrow tattooed on their head?
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 08-21-2009, 08:05 PM:
 

quote: Joe Redifer

---

Granted, I haven't seen Piranha 2 The Spawning (anyone have a copy I could borrow?)

---

I hear James Cameron has one. I ran the movie once...best leave it at that.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 08-21-2009, 09:43 PM:
 
I just found this shot comparison of the teaser trailer with the movie Delgo funny:

http://img.denihilation.com/delgovatar.html

Avatar looks like it could be quite crappy, although it pbbly would end up being ok-to-good.

But it did leave me wondering if, in the future, a REAL good movie is made that combines say 50% (realistic) animation with 50% non-animated stuff ... how would it be considered for Oscars?

I mean, could it be best movie or best animated movie? How about special FX's if it's 51% animation?

It draws an interesting question about the distinction of animated (say Beowulf) and non-animated (hmmm Transformers?) films in a future time when the line may blur so much as to make it almost impossible to classify.

We all know that Spiderman, Batman, Matrix, whatever had some shots where the main characters were animated but could pass for the real thing. Imagine now that a film can be made in the future where some characters are fully animated and some fully real (don't know, like Roger Rabbit or Space Jam but with better cartoons).

Is that an animated film? Is that a non-animated movie?
 

---

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 08-21-2009, 10:08 PM:
 
I'll have to watch the trailer in 3D but I just watched the online version and I wasn't impressed at all. Like Joe, I'm shocked that the CGI doesn't look any better than the fake crap that Lucas put on screen 10 years ago with the Star Wars prequels.

The textures are all wrong, the lighting is all wrong and there were a few times where it looked like the foreground characters had a completely different color palatte. Kind of like the bacground was shot with washed out colors and the foreground had sharp colors.

At the moment I'm not excited about this movie at all. And what's with the "From the Director of Titanic" line? Titanic was good but it did the insane business because every 13 - 17 year old girl in the country saw it 200 times. Couldn't they at least mention Terminator 2 also? I guess it's been so long since Cameron has done anything that they couldn't say "Directed by James Cameron". People must have already forgotten his name.

Imagine a Spielberg film being advertised as "From the Director of Schindler's List".......
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 08-22-2009, 09:54 PM:
 
I did see the AVATA trailer today in 3-D and it did not look too impressive. One thing that annoys me about this movie is the fact that it wil be partially animated with CGI much like BEOWOLF was. During the fifties, all 3-D movies were live action with the exception of one or two animated short subjects from Disney. Why can't it be like that today? Why does almost every 3-D film that has been released or coming out has to be animated? I would love to see a quality live action 3-D film like DIAL M FOR MURDER, KISS ME KATE or HONDO in either Real D or Dolby 3-D I think if INGLORIOUS BASTARDS was released in 3-D instead of 2-D last Friday, I think it would do very well and I would go to a theatre to see it rather than wait for the movie to come out on Blu-Ray.

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 08-22-2009, 10:25 PM:
 
Avatar will be, according to Cameron's statements, about 90% CGI. It will contain life-action inserts in only about 15% of the shots, but only about 10% will be mostly-real-life with a few CGI enhancements. I think he said that only 2 or 3 shots were 100% unadulterated real-life in the whole film. Some shots may look like they have real-life inserted elements, but they may be fully computer generated through motion capture.

In short: it'll be a cartoon. It was supposed to be a cartoon of such high quality that it almost looked real, but it seems it failed to even approach that high level of animation quality, not to mention other aspects like story (which sounds cheese), characters (add more cheese), set designs (only lacking pony rainbows), etc.

And about why they don't come out with more real-life 3D films if 3-D is "oh so good" and doubles/triples/quadruples the benefits ...

Hmmmm. Yeah, it makes you wonder if maybe people are not so inclined to sit through it with glasses for 2 hours after all on a regular basis.
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Althaus (Member # 5042) on 08-22-2009, 10:30 PM:
 
After watching the IMAX 3D footage, I would definitely be willing to sit thru 2.5 hrs of it.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 08-23-2009, 12:24 AM:
 
Was that real Imax they showed it in or just 2K digital fakeMax?

Not that it really matters, as the movie was shot in HD and rendered in 2K, but just curious.
 

---

Posted by Andy Bajew (Member # 5330) on 08-23-2009, 07:28 PM:
 
I didn't see anyone make mention of this, but am I seriously the only person who thinks this looks like World of Warcraft? I mean I only played for about 45 seconds until some spider killed me and I logged off and uninstalled the game, but a few of my friends play and I swear to Bob that it looks exactly like World of Warcraft...?

It looks like a great movie, but if I can't play the video game for 45 seconds, I don't know if I could sit through 46 seconds of the movie.
 

---

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 08-23-2009, 08:01 PM:
 
I don't get the hype. I don't understand why people have been excited about this movie for several years and the trailer certainly didn't overwhelm me.
 

---

Posted by Andrew Bangs (Member # 4938) on 08-24-2009, 12:03 PM:
 

quote: Joe Elliott

---

How many kiddies will come to it wondering why no one had a stupid arrow tattooed on their head?

---

Joe. I don't know what preview you watched but the kid I saw did have an arrow on his head mind you it was not solid in color but it was there. maybe it was the HD blurring the image.

All I can hope for in this is that they keep the same level of writing as they did with the animated series. It was one of the few animated series to come out in the last several years that had a good plot, character development, and action with several moral stories mixed in so the kids learned something as they watched. I have high hopes but tinsel town usually twists and contorts good stories till they are barely recognizable.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 08-24-2009, 01:28 PM:
 
Holy crap.

If even us here in this forum can get into the confusion between Cameron's Avatar and Shayamalan's Last Airbender .... I wonder if FOX should alter the CGI and just tatoo the arrow in front of the blue alien elfs just to play it safe ...


 

---

Posted by Andrew Bangs (Member # 4938) on 08-24-2009, 02:51 PM:
 
See now I was confused when you all were saying cameron... I had no Idea their was another avatar movie coming out. This is going to get sooooo confusing at the box office for our customers. YUCK!

Joe My apologies!
 

---

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 08-24-2009, 03:01 PM:
 
No no no. Believe ALL THE HYPE!!! Run out and buy at least three new digital units and equip them with 3D. Do it immediately!

Then file for Chapter 11 in 2010.
 

---

Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 08-24-2009, 03:03 PM:
 
The footage they showedbat Cine Expo was Real D XL Scope. Why do most think that the release will be different?
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-24-2009, 04:35 PM:
 
I just watched the trailer on the official Avatar site. It was completely underwhelming to me, but for the type of movie it is, I'd say it looks like it'll be good.

The amazing thing to me is, nowhere in the trailer does the term "3D" come up. It isn't even presented as a 'card' at the end. Thumbs-up to the producers for having enough confidence that people might come to this movie even without knowing it's in 3D.
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Althaus (Member # 5042) on 08-24-2009, 04:47 PM:
 

quote: Julio Roberto

---

Was that real Imax they showed it in or just 2K digital fakeMax?

---

RealMax, could hear the proj's running during a really annoying 10-15 secs of black at the beginning before 40-ft James Cameron started talking to us.
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 08-24-2009, 07:29 PM:
 
RealMax sounds too much like Real D ... let's just keep calling it IMAX eh? You could specify 15/70 if needed.
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Althaus (Member # 5042) on 08-24-2009, 07:54 PM:
 
I could just call it Awesomeness, but yeah I'm pretty sure it was IMAX 15/70
 

---

Posted by Andy Bajew (Member # 5330) on 08-24-2009, 08:15 PM:
 
Am I still the only one who thinks this looks like World of Warcraft..?
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Althaus (Member # 5042) on 08-24-2009, 08:29 PM:
 
Did u see it in IMAX? Because I can see how the small screen versions can be seen as warcraft-ish. But not the large format.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 08-24-2009, 10:35 PM:
 
Well ... at best, it would've been a DMR Imax blow up, as not a single frame of this movie was shot Imax 15/70.

What's more, most of the parts of this movie that are not pure CGI (which is just like 10%), weren't even shot in 2K but in plain old HD. Not that the difference in resolution between those formats of 1998x1080 vs 1920x1080 make a whole lot of difference. The rest, rendered 1998x1080 for digital 3D engagements. Which, on their majority, will show it at 4:2:2 10 bits ~4.5fl ... so just about the same resolution as 1080p HD (i.e. blue-ray) but blown up to much-much larger screen sizes.

Plus it's doubtful this movie will be released at all in Imax (as oppossed to fakeMax), as few theatres in the world (any?), specially four months from now, will be able to show a +2.5 hours 3D 15/70 film, unless perhaps they edit it down for those length restrictions.

And even if it does show at all in Imax, +95% of people worldwide will see it in 2D or regular Dobly/RealD/Master Image/XpanD 3D/Nuimage/Dual digital 3D. You know ... your usual 1998x1080 4:2:2 10 bits if it goes flat or 2048x858 4:2:2 10 bits if they release Scope in most cases. And hoping you hit a theatre with a triple-flash projector less than about a year old.

Getting it in 35mm won't be any better, as that resolution will suffer some loss when transfered to (analog) film and then replicated in one-or-several generations to make the print and it will be 2D only.

Sure all movies "look better" if they were shot/projected in (real) Imax. But that doesn't mean they should look like crap in HD, just that they should look a bit better in traditional Imax.

But movies are not made-or-break just on image looks alone. The bad ones will continue being bad. Perhaps a tad less bad, but not a whole lot of difference.

I have never seen what World of Warcraft looks like, but I have seen videogames that looked like what was shown in the teaser, except perhaps a bit less perfectly modelled/rendered.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 08-25-2009, 12:39 AM:
 

quote: Julio Roberto

---

as few theatres in the world (any?), specially four months from now, will be able to show a +2.5 hours 3D 15/70 film, unless perhaps they edit it down for those length restrictions.

---

quote: Julio Roberto

---

Plus it's doubtful this movie will be released at all in Imax (as oppossed to fakeMax), as few theatres in the world (any?), specially four months from now, will be able to show a +2.5 hours 3D 15/70 film

---

quote: Julio Roberto

---

not a single frame of this movie was shot Imax 15/70

---

Well, nothing is shot 15/70 ... that would be 15/65.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 08-25-2009, 08:23 AM:
 
Wasn't aware that so many Hollywood titles, even if only a handful a year, were still being released in traditional Imax. Specially the really long movies.

Anyone knows roughly how many venues around the world could, come December, play the film 70/15 or if it's slated for release in that format at all?

Just curious, since any advantage of having it printed in DMR'ed Imax is hardly any better than, say, dual-digital, i.e., anyway.

If anyone wants to take a peek at one of the scenes shown while it lasts in this Cammed clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5LyXiFUSbI&fmt=18

(Usual spoilers warnings apply)
 

---

Posted by Andy Bajew (Member # 5330) on 08-25-2009, 09:48 AM:
 

quote: Jonathan Althaus

---

Did u see it in IMAX?

---

quote: Jonathan Althaus

---

Did u see it in IMAX? Because I can see how the small screen versions can be seen as warcraft-ish. But not the large format.

---

quote: Julio Roberto

---

few theatres in the world (any?), specially four months from now, will be able to show a +2.5 hours 3D 15/70 film, unless perhaps they edit it down for those length restrictions.

---

Well, instead of editing it, they could put in an INTERMISSION just they way every 3D film in the 50s did. Problem solved.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 08-26-2009, 08:29 PM:
 


LOL

The original hi-res is here:

http://www.hollywoodpocket.com/avatar.jpg
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-26-2009, 10:57 PM:
 
LOLERCOASTER!
 

---

Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 08-26-2009, 11:23 PM:
 
I watched the trailer with no sound the first viewing... not impressed. Then I watched it with sound... still not impressed.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 08-28-2009, 12:44 AM:
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAPyipuT-Jg

More LOL

[Hitler hears about the Avatar day preview]
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Worthing (Member # 803) on 08-28-2009, 07:23 AM:
 
Another load of James Cameron

Another 2 1/2 hours out of my life I can not afford

I know why not get him to remake Titanic
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 09-02-2009, 05:22 AM:
 
Oh, boy.

I think the fun will never end.

I got this sent to me today "as is":

avatar teaser trailer with finished soundtrack
 

---

Posted by Dylan Houdeshell (Member # 5415) on 09-14-2009, 11:42 PM:
 
Yep, Im not too exited after watching the trailer, I dont know what it is, it just has this wierd vibe to it.
 

---

Posted by Anslem Rayburn (Member # 1267) on 09-15-2009, 07:31 AM:
 
I would be WAY more excited if a Thundercats movie were being released...
 

---

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 09-17-2009, 12:41 AM:
 

quote: Jonathan Worthing

---

Another 2 1/2 hours out of my life I can not afford

---

Its a good thing you don't have to watch it then if you don't want to.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 09-24-2009, 09:36 PM:
 
I guess the fun will never stop ...


 

---

Posted by Phil Blake (Member # 2012) on 09-26-2009, 06:12 AM:
 
it is not going to be Titanic revisited success wise, i just checked out 3d trailer , did very little for me and i wonder exactly just what audience it will play to. In our "village" very few i thinks.

New Moon will whip its butt hands down.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 09-26-2009, 02:58 PM:
 
He might have done better if he just released a 3D version of TITANIC....he who loveth 3D so much.
 

---

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 09-26-2009, 04:28 PM:
 
While I agree that the trailer isn't terribly compelling (and I don't like 3D), I have found 6 out of 7 James Cameron Films to be entertaining enough to watch at least twice, if not more.

I'm guardedly hopeful...
 

---

Posted by Karl Borowski (Member # 5424) on 09-26-2009, 05:45 PM:
 
While I really dislike fantasy, and digital acquisition for the most part, I have to admit, at least cinematographically, it looked pretty compelling.

Of course, it's easy to find two minutes worth of stunning imagery for a trailer, much harder to pack an entire full-length feature with them.

OT, but I am actually amazed at how films like "Valkyrie," so brazenly pack *all* of the stunning cinematography into the trailer, leaving not a single epic shot out for the movie.
 

---

Posted by Phil Blake (Member # 2012) on 09-27-2009, 10:10 PM:
 
while i have also enjoyed alot of Camerons past work I cant see what audience he is trying to play to with this, too bazaar for the younger ones , its got stay away written over it for the older ones and well the middle age don't go to cinema, it is certainly not going to have broad appeal therefore it will not take alot on our situation at a guess. I just hope there is more to the picture than the trailer puts out.
 

---

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 09-28-2009, 03:03 PM:
 
This one's going to be a polariser - either it will be huge and spin off cute blue action figures for months on end - or it'll fizz out PDQ and sink without a trace.

Personally,I have no more room on my shelf for more "action figgers" - Indiana Jones complete with cool whipping stance takes pride of place there.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-28-2009, 10:03 PM:
 
[Posted in wrong thread, sorry]
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 09-29-2009, 03:38 PM:
 
Posted wrong movie, sorry (or did I?)

This is the correct movie. Maybe.


 

---

Posted by Joe Elliott (Member # 4006) on 10-24-2009, 01:26 AM:
 
Ok, how about the new 3:30 trailer. Graphics look much better, and it explains the premise. Looks awesome. Unfortunately they aren't going to make it available online until oct 29th.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 10-24-2009, 08:28 AM:
 
New trailer is definitely leaps better than the teaser. Still, I have the feeling they did they old "use the best in the trailer" tactic in the sense that they made half the trailer from the first 15 minutes of the movie thus, making it look as hard as possible as "more real life, less CGI" than it pbbly is.

At least, this new trailer SHOULD intrigue the 15yo boys target ...
 

---

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 10-24-2009, 10:37 PM:
 
I thought the new trailer looked good, the colors were vibrent and they actually explain the plot so you know the the heck is going on. I will give this one a chance now more then I ever thought I would.

Still going to be a bomb money wise.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-25-2009, 02:15 AM:
 
Our film booker is calling this "the only sure thing" for Christmas this year. He's usually right....I'm just not feelin' it yet though.

I did outguess him last year though....he was recommending "Bedtime Stories" and I just thought "Marley and Me" sounded better, so went with that and kicked butt.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 10-25-2009, 03:41 AM:
 
It's a pity Bedtime Stories didn't do better though. For a kid's film...you could see much worse...for example: Marley And Me. Not for kids and we had tons of complaints about it.

Fox have told us the new trailers will be out this week for positioning Thursday. They are sending 3x the amount of loose trailers they normally do per location hoping to get it attached to nearly everything. When I've seen the trailer, I just might do that...certainly worked for Cameron's last picture.

We'll see...
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 10-25-2009, 10:55 AM:
 
It doesn't seem like this film will have much worthit competition during the xmas season, so it's bound to do well no-matter-what. How well, only time will tell.

Personally, I don't think it should do TOO good, but then again, I didn't think Transformers (1 or 2) or Ice Age 3 "deserved" to make anywhere NEARLY as much as they did ... Or Paranormal Activity, for that matter ...
 

---

Posted by Karl Borowski (Member # 5424) on 10-25-2009, 01:30 PM:
 
315 feet on the new trailer. Wow!
 

---

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 10-25-2009, 02:13 PM:
 
I would have to say Sherlock Holmes is going to be big on Christmas as well as Alvin and the Chipmunks sequel. The first Alvin did great, I would expect the same this year with it being released on Christmas day and being the only real kids movie out.
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 10-25-2009, 04:17 PM:
 
Isn't The Princess and the Frog a real kids movie?
 

---

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 10-25-2009, 08:35 PM:
 
I forgot about that one and I'm excited to see it. My bad.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 10-30-2009, 07:59 AM:
 
Like I thought, the footage in this featurette looks, once again, like pretty crappy CGI throughout.

So I guess they did this right. Invest 1000000% making sure the trailer looks as flawless as possible and as little CGI as possible to convince people this is awesome and then shoot out a "normal" CGI movie most of the time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geNv6FUK0HU&fmt=22

Oh well. It may be a half-decent CGI animated film, but doesn't look like my cup of tea.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-30-2009, 11:07 AM:
 
I still don't see why this is going to be so wonderful. How is it going to appeal to "all four quadrants" like any huge blockbuster needs to? After seeing 16 minutes of it at the convention, I just don't get it. WHAT am I missing?

quote: From the press kit

---

AVATAR delivers a fully immersive cinematic experience of a new kind, where the revolutionary technology invented to make the film, disappears into the emotion of the characters and the sweep of the story

---

quote:

---

quote: From the press kit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AVATAR delivers a fully immersive cinematic experience of a new kind, where the revolutionary technology invented to make the film, disappears into the emotion of the characters and the sweep of the story
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

Oh, now I understand.
 

---

Posted by Karl Borowski (Member # 5424) on 10-31-2009, 06:17 PM:
 
I didn't know that this "revolutionary technology" was invented solely for Avatar , but I do know that it resulted in two shots with clipped highlights just in the trailer!
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 11-07-2009, 01:39 PM:
 
Mildly interesting TV spot. Again, looks "good and bad" at the same time. Good as an animated movie. Bad as a "serious" movie.

Then again, all trailers are suppossed to look "good" and usually the movies are worse than the trailer promises on most-all films

Cameron Avatar TV spot

And we are back at heavily promoting the "3D-ness" of the thing. Oh well. I guess since they like 3D so much they'll make Avatar available in Technicolor 3D 35mm film system.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-07-2009, 05:54 PM:
 
We're playing the 3:30 trailer now. I agree it's way better than the teaser (including explaining the title) but it still doesn't look like a balls-to-the-wall blockbuster to me.

To this day not one person has asked "when is Avatar coming?" which they normally would be by this time. In contrast, people of all ages are asking when the new Alvin movie comes out.
 

---